At some point in the past, I volunteered at a local conference, and the organizers intended to meet the diversity quota. However, they limited their inclusive practices to primary characteristics, such as race (D. Kerry Palmer, 2020). Meanwhile, personal preferences in managing individual tasks were entirely ignored. As a result, I did not feel that I belonged to the community due to the management styles imposed on us.
The organizers were not interested in listening to our input, which alienated me personally. At the same time, I was not the only one with such thoughts, as other volunteers were also dissatisfied with the leadership styles. I recall an African American girl complaining about the diversity quota being an administrative nuance to the organizers. They were not really committed to involving everyone properly, as their major concern was diversity on paper as opposed to genuinely inclusive leadership.
The diversity model described by Dr. Rosser-Mims refers to the variety of differences in people’s characteristics and behaviors that are combined in a single environment. An important part of her definition is that it is not exclusive to race or other physical indications of being different. Instead, a diverse environment is an environment that allows for a “full range of ways people can identify themselves” (D. Kerry Palmer, 2020, 3:53). These ways are represented by four layers – primary, secondary, organizational, and personal.
Primary attributes refer to the most defining characteristics of a person – race, gender, age, physicality, and sexuality. Secondary characteristics include less evident details, such as social status, education, and others. Organizational attributes specify the role of the person in a group. Finally, personal factors are the most general, encompassing items, such as communication, preferences, values, and those similar to them. Most of the social attention is drawn to the primary attributes, even though each layer is important.
Diversity is not the same as inclusive leadership, which has five distinct principles. The first principle is the equality basis behind all decisions. The second one is bravery and authenticity of conversations with followers. The third principle is the practice of inclusive meetings with diverse subordinates. The fourth one is fairness in assignments and promotions of lower-ranking people. The final principle is comprehensive bonding and celebrating, which involve every member of a group.
The traits of an inclusive leader are also strictly pre-defined. First, such leaders are cognizant, which is expressed via awareness of individual biases. Second, curiosity signifies the willingness to listen to the input of different people. Third, inclusive leaders have cultural intelligence, which refers to the absence of a universal cultural frame. Fourth, they focus on collaboration, which is achieved through the involvement of every person. Fifth, such leaders express commitment to inclusion, which is exercised regardless of the circumstances. The final trait is the courage that allows them to have unpleasant yet necessary conversations with followers.
The difference between gender intelligence and stereotyping in leadership and communication is that the former is the ability to understand and gain knowledge about sex-related differences. Meanwhile, stereotypes are intellectual shortcuts that simplify gender complexities. Subsequently, a leader with high gender intelligence limits the effect of blind spots and biases in communication, while a less cognizant leader relies on gender stereotypes when interacting with followers (D. Kerry Palmer, 2020, 8:40). In my opinion, the brains of men and women are different precisely due to the habit of relying on simplified stereotypes concerning each other. Overall, gender awareness is a relatively new phenomenon, while stereotypes are deeply ingrained in genetics.
Reference
D. Kerry Palmer. (2020). Dr. Dionne Rosser-Mims [Video]. YouTube.