Collaboration means aligning agendas and looking past the “moral argument”…
Twice in the last two months I’ve been on the receiving end of the same question; one I suspect that could equally be described as “unconscious bias” or “everyday racism” depending on your politics.
Both times the question came from a trustee, informally over coffee during a Board retreat in which diversity, or more accurately the lack of it, had been discussed. And both times the quietly voiced misgiving was a variation on the old chestnut about whether it meant someone who was slightly less qualified but black should be recruited over someone slightly more qualified but white.
Both questions invoked race, but they could equally have been about any characteristic or marginalised group, because the subtext of the question is pervasive: if there’s a conflict between performance and diversity, which one should take precedence?
In my experience, the framing of any question in this way usually indicates the person has already made up their mind, and yes, banging the moral drum might make them feel chastened, or misunderstood, even cancelled, but will make no difference whatsoever to their beliefs – that’s not how people work.
Exposing assumptions can raise awareness and sometimes prompt people to rethink. For example, that assuming any disparity in qualifications would be in favour of the white candidate probably says something about prejudice.
Or pointing out that you only appoint after an interview, and you generally only interview people who are qualified, so invariably that final balance is about who we believe in most, who we like most, who seems to match our values and with whom we will feel most comfortable, which takes us straight to biases and prejudice.
But even if that gets someone to stop resisting, it rarely results in them actively helping, and worse than that, it gives a credence to the question it doesn’t deserve, because ultimately the premise of the question is a false dichotomy.
This is a common way of looking at the world – as one of trade-offs. It could just as easily be the trade-off between corporate profit and social responsibility, or fundraising versus ethics, or productivity versus employee wellbeing. None of these are really trade-offs. In each case the latter is an enabler of the former. One supports the other.
As I explained to those two trustees, both of whose organisations had not only noted, but had highlighted in their respective strategies, their difficulty accessing “hard to reach communities”, communities which, unsurprisingly, were represented in neither their teams nor their volunteers.
There was quite clearly no way they could achieve their aims unless they became far more representative of the communities they wanted to engage with, and even if that meant bringing people in and training them up so they’re as qualified as you could ever possibly want, clearly that would be a small price to pay.
It was this observation that hit the mark – not by dismantling their prejudice (that probably won’t happen until they see it for themselves) but by consciously aligning the need to actively pursue diversity with their own desire to achieve their expansion agenda.
Aligning agendas is an essential skill for communicators and influencers, and therefore for charities across the board. It has to be part of our armoury: to be able to help people understand that you cannot achieve A unless you work with us to address B; or at the very least, if together we can address B, you will be much more likely to achieve A.
Yesterday, “the morally right thing to do” would have been for the chancellor to have listened to the 1400 charity signatories calling for an uplift in grants and contracts for public services. Instead, the government predictably chose to spend the money on its own agenda, on what it says will drive the economy, or perhaps what it believes might get more voters’ or donors’ support.
This is perfect example of banging an absolutely justifiable moral drum and having absolutely no effect on the intended audience, because we haven’t explicitly and directly aligned it with that audience’s own agenda.
Folks, we need to stop “being disappointed” and start learning from this.
Whether this is about the importance of diversity in charities and their corporate partners, or the fundamental need to invest in public health and wellbeing if we want to drive national productivity, aligning agendas will always be more powerful than pushing a moral cause.