Roosevelt Thomas’ Legacy

In 1994, I took on the challenge of introducing the concept of diversity in business to my bank’s leadership.  Banks were coming under fire for their apparent discriminatory lending practices, and were struggling to figure out how to make the necessary changes in a way that honored the business strategy.

Enter Dr. R. Roosevelt Thomas, whose books still sit on my shelf, and I refer to them yet today.  Dr. Thomas passed away earlier this month at a very young age, and with the exception of a small article in “Diversity Executive” which made its way to LinkedIn, I couldn’t find any other information.  So I thought I would pay tribute here to an individual who influenced my path through the broader  discipline of human resources by heightening my personal sensitivity to the importance of diversity of thought.

Dr. Thomas linked diversity to business, plain and simple.  Of course, diversity at that point tended to be focused on race and gender, but his bottom line was that having a diverse group of employees that were similar to the diversity in the customer base was good business practice.  The organization could make better business decisions because they were thinking like the customer.

At that time, we were still focused on “sensitivity” – recognizing that everyone had a different history, experience and perspective, and that was okay.  To prepare for the diversity assignment in 1994, I attended a week long workshop that was part of IBM’s corporate-wide diversity program.  The first few days were uncomfortable, dragging what had typically gone unsaid into the open.  By the end of the week, the diverse group had embraced me even though I was an outsider, as we shared experiences and learned about each other.  I will never forget a statement that one of the African American men made during a facilitated discussion.  He said that when he was teaching his teenaged son to drive, he had one additional teaching point that he had to make.  He told his son that if he were ever stopped by a policeman, he needed to make sure that he kept his hands on the wheel in plain sight, otherwise the police would assume he was going for a weapon, and might shoot.  He said that he learned this lesson the hard way when a friend’s son encountered just such a situation.

That was certainly an eye-opener to me, and was the first time I realized that everyone wasn’t like me, didn’t have the same experiences or context.  It painted a bold picture of a world I had never imagined, and pushed the concept of “different” to a whole new level in my mind.

Roosevelt Thomas helped redefine the word “different.”  Instead of different being, well, different….it was actually an advantage that provided an edge to business.  Thinking differently, sparked by different perspective and experiences, created innovation and alignment.

Diversity today has grown exponentially, as our world shrinks and  cultures intermingle.  My son, preparing to go to the middle east, had the opportunity to learn from Afghani instructors about the culture that he would encounter.  Something as simple as giving feedback without appropriate respect could be offensive to a middle easterner.  That was a wake-up call to my son to take a hard look at his style of giving feedback, because the consequences of doing it wrong could be devastating.

While Dr. Thomas paved the way for diversity to come into the board room, we still have a long way to go.  Today, diversity has little to do with race or gender as it did in the early 1990s, and much more to do with understanding differences that can occur even in homogenous groups, and respecting and honoring what those difference can do to the collective whole.   In fact, I have found in my work as an HR professionals that conflict more often occurs because of hidden “differences” and the role of engaging in dialogue to identify the differences becomes a critical competency for HR professionals.

Without Dr. Thomas’ foresight, vision and ability to translate “softer” issues into business language, we might not be nearly as far along.  His writing continues to have a presence on my “Must Read” list for HR professionals hoping to grow in their profession.

RIP Dr. Thomas.

Photo from Diversity Executive

Who’s Teaching Whom?

A father sits at the side of his son’s bed while his son stares off into space.  The father tells his son, “There were so many things I wanted to teach you.  I always thought that was how it was supposed to be; that’s what being a father was.  Me teaching you.  Now it turns out, it’s you teaching me. And I want you to know that I’m okay with that.  I understand now.”

This closes the second episode of the television show “Touch,” a show about the complexity of the world; how seemingly unconnected events and people connect in ways we never understand.  The son is autistic and eleven years old.  The father is a widower, whose wife died in the twin towers on 911.  The son has never spoken a word, but writes numbers over and over and over.  In the first episode (which by the way is breathtaking) we learn that the numbers actually portend a linkage of events happening in the universe that the son’s unusual mind can understand.  He just can’t explain it but he sees what is going to happen.

By accident, his father sees the thread of events that his son initiated through a simple number, and suddenly understands that he is his son’s voice.    In the second episode, the father stumbles through his attempt to follow the son’s messages, and the conclusion is beyond words.

Besides the fact that I had cold chills as I was watching the conclusion unfold, I was struck by the statement about the expectation that the father is the teacher, and the child is the student.  True there are lessons that a parent must convey…important lessons that set the foundation for a life well-lived (or not).  But how extraordinary is it when the parent and child learn together….when they are both open to what the other is saying.

The analogy to the relationship between leader and employee doesn’t go unnoticed here; it is powerful.  How many leaders enter the relationship thinking that they are (or should be) the expert, bestowing knowledge and wisdom on their employees?  Could it possibly be that the employee may have something of value from which the leader can learn?

Noel Tichy, former Director of Crotonville for GE Leadership Development and author of “The Cycle of Leadership” makes a compelling case for 360 degree learning – which he calls “the virtuous teaching cycle.”   It is a “virtuous cycle”, opposite from a vicious cycle….the virtuous cycle spirals positively and upward rather than negatively and downward.  In the virtuous teaching cycle, hierarchy is reduced and learning is interactive.    Everyone is both a teacher and a learner.

How can we apply this to our leadership roles?  Remember the old adage “when the student is ready the teacher will appear?”  Perhaps the more ready and open we are to learning, the more the profound lessons will come our way.

I think it is worth a try.  How about you?

Back to Basics?

I was talking with a colleague yesterday, and he made a statement that I found new and interesting.  He said that many of our professions (banking to name one) have shifted focus to the point where practitioners are focused (and trained) more in sales than in the basics of their profession (underwriting to name one).

I’d never thought of it like that before, but what he said makes sense.  Having spent a fair amount of time in banking during the emergence of technology, I saw many of the jobs that had been accomplished by a person, become automated.  Consumer lending is a good example.  In the past a banker used knowledge and skill to make a lending decision.  Today the banker collects the personal and financial information from the potential customer, and feeds it into an algorithm which decides whether or not the potential customer will get the loan.  The decision making is simplified, leaving the organization to focus on finding customers.  The banker could conceivably get away without really understanding the basics of the underwriting standards, if he/she is a good sales person.

I saw this also in retail, where buyers used to make decisions based upon their own cultivated knowledge of the customer, but as technology emerged, the decision making gave way to another algorithm.  Buyers became somewhat superfluous, particularly at the local level.

And don’t get me started on our educational system, where young people are no longer taught cursive writing because technology makes that skill obsolete (or so I’m told).  Or they cannot calculate a long division problem without a calculator or computer.

Mind you, I have no beef with technology – I am a self-professed geek.  In the world of business, technology equals business intelligence – something no one can afford to be without in today’s market.

But skimming the surface of the world of business without focusing on some of the very basic tenets that have proven true seems very foolish to me.

As an executive with responsibility for selecting vendors, I have been overrun with cold, warm and hot calls telling me all of the things a product can do for me.  Quite frankly, the sales people are VERY good at what they do; it is easy to get excited about being able to have concise, simple dashboards of performance metrics on your computer as you boot it up each morning.  Ah, but the devil is in the details….the basics of what you are trying to accomplish.   Are the performance metrics already in place?  Have they been validated as to actually improving performance?  Are the numbers credible?  How many internal systems need to feed the dashboards, and do they have compatible data?  If the data from the feeding systems is not compatible, what downstream processes must change in order for the data to feed properly?  How long will it take and how much will it cost to accomplish this?  The answer to that question could grow your expense exponentially.  Or not, but shouldn’t you know?

Years ago when we bought our first personal computer (okay, yes, before Windows…oy vey) I learned MS-DOS.  While I was never a whiz, I knew enough to understand how a computer stores and retrieves information.   As new technology came about, I could function easily because I knew the basics, and if something went awry, I could usually diagnose and fix.  Others knew how to point and click, but would lose files because they didn’t understand the basics.

So what is my point?  This isn’t the first time I’ve talked about looking for the easy way out.  I ranted about why I dislike business books in February, concluding that as easy as the solution sounds in a book, it just is never that easy.  Same with skimming the surface of the research, knowledge, history and experience that arrived at the simple solution proffered in the book, or by the vendor.   It just is never that easy.

What to do?  I think that it is time we went back to basics.  Organizations are people intensive, and there is nothing done in an organization that doesn’t require people.  Even automated processes and robotic systems require human brain power to make them effective.    How do you go back to basics in a world that is so complicated that it is almost overwhelming?

My thoughts…

  • Ask good questions.  Ask your employees if the process is working as well as it could.  I would be willing to bet they have answers.  So often, leaders feel that they have to have the answers, but truly all they need is good questions.
  • Listen.   Open your mind to what others are saying.  Get rid of the filters through which you hear.  The fact that you REALLY want the technology system that the vendor is selling is a filter that dissuades you from asking good questions.  When you ask the questions, listen with an open mind.
  • Learn. Research today is both easy and hard.  It is easy because there is so much data.  It is hard because there is so much data.   Look for fundamental data in several places, and then give yourself the gift of time to reflect on what you learned, and on the various perspective you sought out.  You cannot afford not to take time to reflect.
  • Plan and evaluate.  Use what you learned to make a plan with solid goals and time-frames.  Put the plan into place.  Review it with rigor and discipline to see if it is working.  Tweak as necessary.

Perhaps I am being naive, but I think it all boils down to this.  It has been, and continues to be my premise that the answer to the most troubling and critical questions reside with the people of the organization, not in a book, or a vendor or a consultant.  Going back to basics means letting go of the concept of “easy” and get to the real work of organizations – communication, collaboration, innovation, action and evaluation.