One of my favorite things about gardening is the astonishing diversity of nature. Tradescant the Elder, especially, devoted much of his life to bringing new species of plants and trees to England, from all over the known world, and to cultivating new varieties from existing species. Tradescent felt that finding new specimens was a way to acknowledge the glory of the creator (in an era when nearly everyone looked for a way to connect their work to their religious beliefs), but he also knew intuitively that introducing new versions of things was a way to strengthen the whole: bringing the possibility of increased hardiness, better quality produce, or simply more beauty.
Then tonight I read a fun, true post here on Forbes by Meghan Biro, talking about the importance of diversity in leadership teams. Biro reflects on a new book, Think Like Zuck, by Ekatarina Walters, that focuses on how Mark Zuckerberg's leadership style has driven facebook's success. Biro focuses especially on Zuckerberg's creation of a diverse leadership team, and uses as an example his partnership with Sheryl Sandberg. Biro includes a quote from Walters' book that I really liked (it actually made me want to read the book, even though I have mixed feelings about Zuckerberg):
She had a completely different style from his. I think their differences are what make the Zuckerberg-Sandberg duo such an extraordinary team. They complement each other very well. What Mark lacks in experience, Sheryl brings to the table in abundance. When he doesn’t feel like stepping into the limelight, she steps in for him masterfully. The difference in age, as well as gender, contributes various perspectives and capabilities.
I especially like that Walters focuses on many aspects of diversity in this example - when we think about workplace or leadership diversity, it's easy to think only of ethnicity or gender. But differences in age, experience, culture, nationality, and personal style can be equally important and useful.
I also liked it because - and this is where it connects back to my gardening metaphor - she's not talking about diversity as a moral imperative (which, by the way, I think it is - I'm a big fan of the level playing field as a moral goal), but rather as a business driver. Walters - and Biro - are both saying that just as variety creates a more robust, productive and interesting garden, human diversity creates a more robust, productive and interesting workplace.
So, why do leaders so often choose people just like themselves in nearly every particular? I was just talking about this with a client today. In his company, the CEO, who is planning on retiring within the next few years, is grooming two possible successors - both of whom are remarkably similar to him. Except for the fact that they're younger than he, they really are clone-like: upper-middle-class, traditionally educated white males; US-born and raised; heterosexual family men; fairly conservative politically. Even their personal style is quite similar to his: they are both linear, logical thinkers, emotionally reserved and more focused on task than relationship. It would have been difficult for him to have chosen two heirs apparent more like himself.
Two possible explanations for this preference for homogeneity occur to me. The first is that it's not a conscious choice. Perhaps leaders who build teams of mini-me employees don't even think about it: they just make an automatic and unconscious assumption that "my kind of people are the right kind of people." It's a disturbing explanation, but plausible: such unexamined beliefs are, after all, the basis for most deeply-rooted prejudice.
The second explanation is that it is a conscious choice, one made for safety and continuity: that is, "I like the way I run things, and I'm pretty sure either of these guys will continue running things the way I run them."
In the company I refer to above, I fear that either of the possible successors will indeed lead very much like the current CEO is leading, and that those in the organization who aren't like them will continue to be marginalized; that the potential benefits of diversity of all kinds won't be realized. The company may continue to do OK - but it seems unlikely to me that they will become stronger and more resilient, that they'll be able to innovate to meet the demands of today's continuously evolving business environment.
The solution in both cases: as a leader, consistently question your assumptions about people. Bring your selection mechanisms to your conscious awareness. Before you hire someone, or choose someone as your successor or your second in command, ask yourself why they appeal to you. And if the answer is some version of, "he/she just feels right to me," or "he/she is the kind of person I feel most comfortable with," really question that. Ask yourself whether stepping outside of your comfort zone to hire someone who doesn't feel/act/operate/look like you could bring necessary freshness or balance, different perspectives or experience, the opportunity to understand a different part of your customer base, fresh ideas that you wouldn't have considered.
The best leaders I know regularly break out of their own patterns in hiring and promoting, and as a result they build vital, vibrant teams and companies that are better equipped to respond to a changing world. It works much better, and - as an added benefit - it's a lot less boring.
_________________
Check out Erika Andersen’s latest book, Leading So People Will Follow, and discover how to be a followable leader. Booklist called it “a book to read more than once and to consult many times.”
Want to know what Erika and her colleagues at Proteus do? Find out here.
