A Streetcar Named Collaboration

While collaborations can easily become complex, multi-faceted associations between several organizations, in its simplest form, a collaboration begins as dyadic relationship between a non-profit organization and another non-profit organization, a for-profit company, or a government agency. Typically, this dyad includes two individuals representing their organization.

Much like A Streetcar Named Desire, the role each party plays in collaboration depends on their goals and perspectives. Blanche Dubois is ruled by her philosophy and often adjusts for harsh realities by misrepresenting them or ignoring them. Non-profit organizations often fail to marriage their philosophical goals with their collaboration goals and, in failing to frame their vision for the collaboration (UnitedWay Worldwide, 2008) with fundamental process factors of success (Sharma and Missey, 1998), non-profit organizations fail to sustain collaborations. Stanley Kowalski, on the other hand, is rooted in dichotomous truths and instinct. Government agencies and for-profit companies, particularly the latter, have dichotomous 'bottom lines' that not only measure their success, but are unflinchingly rigid and often dominate the collaboration.

Here, I examine one non-profit collaboration specifically, identify the role played (Blanche vs. Stanley), and examine the success of the collaboration.

La Alianza Hispana and the Boston Dept. of Social Services (Non-Profit and Gov't Agency)

After years of criticism for lacking cultural competency and an increasing caseload, the Boston Department of Social Services (DSS) approached La Alianza Hispanaa (La Alianza, for short) with a harsh proposal: Either lose all DSS funding (which constituted a significant percentage of La Alianza's income) or accept a substantial increase in funding to provide all child protection and case management services to Latino children in Boston (a service that La Alianza had never provided before) (Varley, 1996).

Here, DSS is clearly Stanley because their goal was measurably dichotomous and their approach was rigid. For DSS, success was getting La Alianza to accept the contract (dichotomous) and their approach disallowed collaboration and often shuttered communication (rigid).

La Alianza played Blanche because while they stuck to their overall philosophy of bettering life for the Latino community in Boston, they ignored the major fault with the collaboration, which was a lack of communication and a lack of negotiation. Some of their board members verbalized their concerns that the per case funding was insufficient to cover overhead and the role they played in the Latino community would be severely compromised, but they did very little to address the stark imbalance in power dynamics. Further, La Alizanza would have been agreeing to provide a service that they had no experience in providing. While some training would have been provided by DSS, La Alianza would ultimately be shifting toward mission creep in fear of losing their funding.

This collaboration was unsuccessful for several reasons. According to Mattesich and Monsey’s Collaboration: What Makes It Work, as cited by Sharma and Missey (1998), there are nineteen factors for successful collaborations spanning six categories. Of them, sixteen went unfulfilled. Yes, the sociopolitical environment corroborated the collaboration and was an opportunity for success. The Latino community in Boston was expanding and suffering due to the crack-cocaine epidemic, which both DSS and La Alianza recognized as a moment of intervention. However, the history between DSS and the La Alianza (and the Latino community at large) was strained with no sign of reversal, flexibility and adaptability were ostensibly disallowed, resources were insufficient, and communication was poor. Further, a namely due to the lack of communication and lack or flexibility, shared-decision making was absent and the vision for the collaboration was not shared between both parties, two keys of a successful collaboration identified by the National Civic League (UnitedWay Worldwide, 2008).

Other Types of Non-Profit Collaborations

As mentioned earlier, non-profit organizations also collaborate with for-profit companies and other non-profits, but the barriers to success are no different. When City Year partnered with Tiberland to provide apparel, both parties were somewhere between Blanche and Stanley. However, when Timberland’s bottom-line was at-risk (they saw slowed growth and declining profits), they abandoned the project because their measure of success did not include/measure value from the branding association – it only included profit. This collaboration would have been more successful if Timberland had expanded their measures of success to include multiple aspects along the value creation spectrum because the associational value was complementary for both parties, especially Timberland (Austin and Seitanidi as cited by Renz, 2016).

A non-profit collaboration with another non-profit faces the same challenges, particularly when vision and philosophy aren’t shared as those flexible definitions fuel non-profit work. In the collaboration between the Seattle Art Museum (SAM) and Low-Income Housing, the vision for funding allocation, political capital, and implementation was not shared between each party and the underlying philosophies clashed, resulting in an inability to communicate to the public the value added through the collaboration.

Conclusion

Overall, collaborations are neither sustainable nor successful when either party takes on an extreme role like Blanche or Stanley. So, avoid the dramatics, communicate, and collaborate in the decision-making. And make a checklist!

Valuing People as People

“Diversity” has many definitions: some include differences in gender, race/ethnicity, age; others cover differences in attitudes, perspectives, and backgrounds; still others generalize to “all the ways in which we differ” (Robinson, 2). My favorite defines “diversity” not just as a result, but as a process, a way of thinking: diversity is “valuing, respecting, and appreciating the differences that make people unique” (McNett, 1). This definition transcends viewing traits, characteristics, perspectives or values to suggest valuing people as unique people.

As the world continues to grow ever more interconnected, embracing this view of diversity becomes increasingly important. Many feel diversity in the workplace is “just the right thing to do” or that “discrimination is wrong” (McNett; Thomas). In my mind, it’s not just right, it’s the only thing to do–view and value people as people.

The benefits of diversity in an organization transcend these ethical considerations. Studies show a more diverse workforce benefits an organization’s effectiveness (Thomas). A diverse workforce can increase an organizations capacity for learning, creativity, flexibility, and ultimately growth (Thomas). These benefits extend to increasing an organization’s ability to rapidly adjust to ever-changing communities (Thomas).

Some leaders encourage diverse groups to blend in or value diversity only for the increased knowledge an employee has about his/her identity group (Thomas). However, in order to realize the benefits of diversity, organizations and their leaders need to shift from defining diversity as membership in this or that identity group. In fact, pursuing diversity initiatives with this mindset may actually backfire, heightening tensions among employees and hindering performance (Thomas).

Instead, leaders must consider diversity to include valuing the varied perspectives and approaches that unique people bring (Thomas). A diverse workforce contributes diverse perspectives to reconsider how and why organizations design processes, reach goals, and communicate ideas; in other words, diversity provides fresh and meaningful approaches (Thomas).

However, leaders cannot be passive observers, expecting diversity to fall in their laps. A leader must also ensure the organization has a clear and understood mission which helps guide discussions about changes, centering around goals (Thomas). A leader and organization must recognize barriers to application processes that may inhibit diversity in who applies to an organization. Leaders can also encourage employees to self-reflect. Increasing self-awareness can be a powerful step towards valuing diversity, in recognizing your own strengths and assets, but also in understanding how your actions affect others or might be perceived by others.

To position an organization that participates in such thinking requires working to create a culture that supports and values diversity, including creating a culture that (Thomas):

o   has high standards of performance for everyone.

o   stimulates personal development.

o   encourages openness.

o   makes workers feel valued.

o   promotes exchange of ideas/ welcomes constructive challenges.

Ultimately, diversity integration requires a long-term commitment that embraces learning and valuing diverse perspectives and views (Robinson). Doing so can have positive benefits like increased employee buy-in and engagement (Thomas). More importantly, it can help an organization leverage the diverse talent pool to impact both short-term and long-term performance and help improve the organization’s impact.

Sources:

McNett, Jeanne. “Diversity in the Workplace: Ethics, Pragmatism, or Some of Both?” Understanding and Managing Diversity. Prentice Hall.

Robinson, Gail, Dechant, Kathleen. “Building a Business for Diversity”. Understanding and Managing Diversity. Prentice Hall.

Sowell, Thomas. “A World View of Cultural Diversity”. Understanding and Managing Diversity. Prentice Hall.

Thomas, David A., Ely, Robin J. “Making Differences Matter: A New Paradigm for Managing Diversity”. Understanding and Managing Diversity. Prentice Hall.

Diversity is Good for Business

            Astute business leaders are already considering that the changing face of the nation also represents the changing face of business. They understand that to thrive both domestically and globally, being multicultural is essential. In focusing on the domestic front, consider for example, that:

·       The biggest demographic change in the United States is the rise of the majority-minority; 92% of U.S. population growth is attributed to ethnic groups, while the growth in the working-age population will be as much as 83 percent (Loehr, 2015).

·       By 2020, minorities are projected to make up 40 percent of the civilian labor force (Loehr, 2015).

            While ethnic diversity is unquestionably an essential component of a diversified workforce, “creating a work environment that values diversity is not as simple as hiring individuals with a range of skin tones and language skills” (Na, 2015). Instead, by diversity we mean “valuing, respecting, and appreciating the differences (such as age, culture, education, ethnicity, experience, gender, race, religion, and sexual orientation, among others) that make people unique” (McNett, 2005).

Benefits of Diversity

            One benefit of diversity is that organizations that recognize its importance will be able to compete more effectively for qualified individuals, enhancing their very survival. Indeed, companies that are leading the way in embracing diversity already have come to understand that “when you have a homogeneous company, it can be very difficult to get diverse candidates to even apply” (Gaudiano and Hunt, 2017).

            The imperative to rework human resources strategies with diversity in mind, further stems from the growing recognition that “only in an environment of diverse perspectives, human experiences, and thinking styles can the conversations that generate the insight and new ideas required for innovation be sparked” (Na, 2015). That is, “diverse work groups often have more and better ideas because of broader backgrounds and experiences” (Kokemuller, 2017).

            Moreover, “workplaces in which employees represent the basic makeup of the community population are typically better received by customers and the public (Kokemuller, 2017). The same holds true for companies working with global markets, as ethnic and cultural diversity often provides them with a better understanding of their global customers.

Managing Diversity

            There is no single approach to working with diversity. “It is not only how a company defines diversity, but what it does with the experiences of being a diverse organization, that delivers on the promise” (Thomas and Ely, 1996). Foremost to improved outcomes is the need to obtain top management support and integrate diversity into all company functions. Beyond these initial steps, the best strategies for working with diversity are (Wentling, 1997):

• training and education programs
• organizational policies that mandate fairness and equity for all employees
• mentoring programs for minority employees
• more systematic career guidance and planning programs
• performance appraisal systems that are non-discriminatory
• outreach programs, such as internship programs, scholarships, targeting recruitment in the community, and lectures at schools.

            Importantly, all forms of training should include awareness-building, skill development, application, and support (Wentling, 1997). Creating a corporate culture that supports diversity is especially important, as the “potential benefits of training will not be likely to occur unless trainees return to a supportive environment for applying what they have learned” (Wentling, 1997).

           Company leaders who are cultivating diversity in their workplace clearly understand the benefits, including improved employee recruitment, innovation, and connectedness with diverse consumer groups.  However, because of the growing diversity in our society, the ability of U.S. companies to leverage the incredible resource that those who are ‘different’ can offer is becoming ever more urgent.

 References

Gaudiano, P and Hunt, E.  (2017, April 10). The Top Eight Excuses that Inhibit Workplace Diversity. Forbes.  Retrieved from: https://www.forbes.com/sites/gaudianohunt/2017/04/10/the-top-eight-excuses-that-inhibit-workplace-diversity/#43cfedc24899

Kokemuller, N. (2017). What is Diversity and How Does It Impact Work?  Chron. Retrieved from: http://smallbusiness.chron.com/diversity-impact-work-15985.html

Loehr, A. (2015, April 22) These Four Workplace Trends Will Change Your Organization: Are You Ready? [Web log post]. Retrieved from: http://www.anneloehr.com/2015/04/22/four-workplace-trends/

McNett, J. (2005) Diversity in The Workplace: Ethics, Pragmatism, Or Some of Both? Understanding and managing diversity: readings, cases, and exercises. - Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson Prentice Hall

Na, Y. (2015, June 30). Diversity in the workplace, no longer optional.  Flamingo.  Retrieved from: http://flamingogroup.com/diversity-in-the-workplace-no-longer-optional

Thomas, D.A. and Ely, R. (1996, September-October). Making Difference Matter: A New Paradigm for Managing Diversity. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from: https://hbr.org/1996/09/making-differences-matter-a-new-paradigm-for-managing-diversity

Wentling, R. (1997, Summer). Diversity Initiatives in the Workplace: Work in Progress at the University of Illinois. CenterWork Volume 8, Number 2. Retrieved from http://ncrve.berkeley.edu/CW82/Diversity.html

Strength in Differences

As the world becomes smaller through increased communication and exchanges across borders society’s demographics are rapidly changing, becoming more diverse. As Sowell points out, “the entire history of the human race…has been marked by transfers of cultural advances from one group to another…” (Sowell pg. 27). We should care about these changing demographics because they impact parts of our everyday life, from what we wear to what we eat, to the music we listen to, and, perhaps most importantly, these changes influence who it is that we interact with daily.

One notable place that diversity is becoming increasingly important is in the workplace. Studies indicate that embracing diversity in the workplace is proving to be business savvy, allowing companies to try new ideas and break into new consumer markets. Thomas and Ely posit that although diversity paradigms used in the workplace are meant to be inclusive, they can actually be limiting. For example, the discrimination and fairness paradigm focuses on treating everyone the same so as to assert that differences in gender, race, age, etc. are not important. However, this stifles the creativity that arises from diversity (Thomas and Ely pg. 214). The access and legitimacy paradigm focuses on the idea that diversity helps gain access to different markets by hiring members of those markets for example hiring Hispanic workers to offer customer service to Hispanic customers. However, it is argued that this approach pigeonholes certain people into certain roles without really understanding how diversity can be integrated throughout the company (Thomas and Ely pg. 217).

Thomas and Ely bring attention to the emerging paradigm of diversity in the workplace, which focuses on integration not simply adoption. This approach targets the internalization of differences to foster learning and growth from diversity (pg. 220).

Diversity needs to be thought of in a holistic way, not just regarding how someone looks or where they come from. Diversity in the work place can “challenge basic assumptions about an organization’s functions, strategies, operations, practices, and procedures.” (Thomas and Ely pg. 212). In order for companies to shift from one of the limiting paradigms to the emerging one, they offer 8 steps for leaders (Thomas and Ely pg. 221):

1. Value variety of opinion and insight

2. Understand that different perspectives bring new opportunities and challenges

3. Have high performance standards for everyone

4. Create opportunities for personal development

5. Organization must encourage openness

6. Organization must make workers feel valued

7. Clear and understood organization mission

8. Structure must promote exchange of ideas and feedback

As a leader, it is important to check yourself on your own biases and to be sure that you are not inadvertently creating a culture based upon them (Thomas and Ely pg. 226). Diversity brings differences into the workplace that may create new challenges. As such, it is important for leaders to make sure that groups have a facilitator to mitigate disagreements. Leaders should also undergo communication and conflict-resolution training (Robinson and Dechant pg. 234). Leaders must foster a culture which values, celebrates, and respects diversity of people but also ideas.

As Sowell illustrates, cultural competition is what challenges us to evolve as humans (Sowell pg. 30) and integrating diversity into the workplace and elsewhere in our lives may be challenging, but also enriching.

References:

Robinson, Gail and Kathleen Dechant. "Understanding and Managing Diversity: Building a Business Case for Diversity." Pearson: Prentice Hall. Third Edition.

Sowell, Thomas. "Understanding and Managing Diversity: A World View of Cultural Diversity." Pearson: Prentice Hall. Third Edition.

Thomas, David A. and Robin J. Ely. "Understanding and Managing Diversity: Making Differences Matter: A New Paradigm for Managing Diversity." Pearson: Prentice Hall. Third Edition.