Strategic Leveraging of Diversity, Agility & Emotional Intelligence

AGILITY, EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE, AND DIVERSITY
Strategic Leveraging of Diversity, Agility and Emotional Intelligence
Christopher Lee Wright
1

Agility, Diversity, and Emotional Intelligence
Abstract
This paper discusses the business case for diversity, how emotional intelligence operates within
individuals and groups and the business case for EQ. The paper discusses how diversity, agility
and innovation result within organizations and can be predicted and established. It then
summarized the principles of diversity, EQ and agility inter-relate and reinforce each other to
produce innovation.
2

“The concept of diversity encompasses acceptance and respect. It means
understanding that each individual is unique, and recognizing our individual differences.
These can be along the dimensions of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, socio-
economic status, age, physical abilities, religious beliefs, political beliefs, or other
ideologies. It is the exploration of these differences in a safe, positive, and nurturing
environment. It is about understanding each other and moving beyond simple tolerance
to embracing and celebrating the rich dimensions of diversity contained within each
individual” (University of Oregon, Definition of Diversity, 2014).
The University of Oregon’s definition incorporates the moral, legal, business, and
theoretical aspects most businesses are trying to implement. Diversity provides the foundation
for creativity and innovation, but it also is a source of conflict and misunderstandings (Bassett-
Jones, 2005). One major challenge is helping white men understand the value of diversity and
helping white men not feeling like they are the enemy (Pine, 2002). Most white males can see
the disadvantages of minority groups, but they are far less likely to see the advantages they
posses in a hierarchy of society that has been based on one dominant groups unearned assets
(McInthos, 1988). Diversity is a societal value and when leveraged as a collection of complex
backgrounds, values, perspectives, experiences, etc. it can be a competitive advantage (Canas,
2011).
There are many aspects and perspectives to the business advantage of diversity. Some
aspects are cost savings associated with turnover, attraction of talent, marketing advantages,
creativity, and global relations. Workforce productivity increases from effectively dealing with
racial and gender negativity (Canas, 2011). Although the expectations for greater influence
3

among diverse ethic groups are anticipated, realization of efforts to take advantage of diverse
experiences, cultural awareness, and business alignments has yet to be shown by individual
businesses. Diversity has yet to be accurately defined outside of the typical recruitment,
promotional, and turnover rates (Hansen, 2003). It is possible that solid performing companies
with stronger recruiting capabilities may simply attract and retain a more diverse workforce
without the need to focus on specific diversity goals (Canas, 2000). Because developing line of
sight from diversity statistics to bottom line profits is difficult and expensive many companies do
not spend the resources to identify the relationship. “There is a connection between diversity and
financial success, but typical profit-and-loss systems don’t capture the benefits that diversity
creates (Canas, 2008, pg. 19). Just like the ambiguity surrounding the concept of sales, diversity
may never fully be understood as a direct line of sight to profit, but a conglomeration of facts,
figures, theory’s and approaches that appear to lift the entire organization. A basic argument is
that when associates feel recognized and valued because of their unique backgrounds and
perspectives they are more likely to engage is trusting activities like expressing their views and
assisting in creation of unique innovations through their multiple cultural identities with
religious, ethnic, sexual, etc. groups (Canas, 2008). Yet, defining exactly what race is has
proven to be very challenging.
How does one define race within the human categorical of DNA. Genetically, when
every race of people is evaluated on terms of DNA, the greatest variance between any two
people is 10 gene pairs in a pool of 30,000. That’s a genetic difference of .01%; not even close
to the most liberal significance established by any statistical analysis (Hubbard, 1994). The
reality from a statistical analysis is that the planet has one race, human. “It is the culturally
invented ideas and beliefs about differences that constitute the meaning of race” in the general
4

public (Smedley & Smedley, 2005, p. 20). One of the great irony’s pertaining to racism is that
blacks, having the greatest variance in genetic disposition, are considered by most groups to be
genetically homogenous; equally ironic is that the genetic differences between blacks and all
other groups is less than the differences between blacks and blacks (Ossorio & Duster, 2005).
What really separates each individual is the ethnic group they derive from.
The ethnic group individuals associate themselves with represents many different
traditions, customs and practices. All of these are experienced through music, history, food,
literature and languages (Lott, 2010). These differences bring unique perspectives and
backgrounds that can be harnessed to create unique lenses and biases toward problem solving
and identify unique associations within and between information. Perhaps, these differences in
ethnicity are what the concept of diversity should spring from, and carried within that definition
appears to be the hope of creativity and innovation. Business is seeking to capitalize on those
differences to create greater stakeholder value, but the moral and ethical implications of diversity
carry much greater value to society than bottom line profits of corporations. “Moral leadership is
about leading an organization or people to accomplish an explicitly moral purpose” (Hanson,
2006, p. 292). If learning theory is correct when it states that all behavior is learned, it is
reasonable to believe that differentiation on the basis of race, religion, gender, and sexual
orientation can be viewed from an alternative lens and relearned on the basis of equality.
Designations from powerful political and ideological branches of society are typically
constituted in order to maintain an unequal distribution or access to resources (Lott, 2010).
“Racism is about the unequal distribution of economic wealth and political power . . . supported
by numerous institutional practices and . . . traditions (Lott, 2010, p. 24). The human mind can
adapt to almost any environment and circumstance (Zimbardo, 2005). Therefore, all that is
5

needed to institute an awareness and solution for institutional and social prejudice is learning and
institutional awareness of how biases are created, employed, rationalized, and institutionalized.
Individuals in power will justify their own self-interests, so it’s become important that power is
both diversified and enveloped within a scope of collaborative decision-making (Keltner, 2006).
New values must be both legitimized in the eyes of people, and congruent with the individual
moral values each carries within their own mind-set (Keltner, 2006). With the vast number of
cultures in the world, and the complexity of having each individual defined by multiple cultural
identifications, the perspectives, backgrounds, and mind-sets available to perceive problems is
unlimited. Diversity’s business case rests on the premise that unique and different perspectives
will result in creativity when harnessed correctly by leaders (Robinson, 1997).
What is Emotional Intelligence
Almost all successful executives have one character trait that’s common among them,
they have high emotional intelligence (Goleman, 1998). Leading change requires personal
commitment, resilience, constant motivation, effective management of personal emotions, the
ability to manager others emotions, and self-discipline (Wicks, 2014). Notice that two aspects of
effective change management leaders derive from the same skill set, emotional intelligence.
There are two specific skills required of managers for effective emotional intelligence
management. The first is personal management. It is made up of three competencies, the ability
to be self-aware of ones emotions, the ability to self-regulate ones emotions, and the ability to
self-motivate. The second is social management, or the ability to manage social relationships,
and it is composed of two competencies. First, is empathy; the ability empathize is being able to
consider the thoughts and feelings of others within the context and complexity of making
decisions (Goleman, 1998). Lastly, is the competency of social skills. Social skills are not just
6

about being nice or admirable. Social skills are about being cordial and friendly with the
purpose of moving people into a certain direction (Goleman, 1998). Emotional awareness,
regulation, and motivation are needed tools in change management (Kogan, 2014). However,
change management has many aspects to it, and no one has discovered a change management
theory or practice that will work in every situation (Schaffer, 1998).
Change requires people to identify with competing commitments, competing values,
and emotional paradoxes that can be simply embarrassing or overwhelming to deal with (Kegan
and Lahey, 2001). Emotional intelligence is necessary in the complex emotional arena of change
and innovation. When one thinks of the value added to either sustained or disruptive innovation
for company profit and loss statements and the connection between group adhesion and
individual commitment for developing creativity, engagement and inclusion, emotional
intelligence is seen as a significant contribution (Druskat and Wolff, 2001). One standard
deviation from the norm of performance is 19 to 48% of total output on a standard bell curve.
Moving one standard deviation is worth 48 to 120% increase in productivity, and emotional and
cognitive performance is the greatest predictor of superior performance in productivity (Spencer,
2001). Amazingly though, increasing an employee’s level of skill competency through training
actually decreased business activity and results. Further, cognitive training does not explain the
variance between average to superior performance even though 20% of variables, in most
studies, are associated with cognitive skills. In two sample studies with branch managers, 80%
of revenue generation was associated with Emotional Intelligence Competencies (EIC) (Spencer,
2001). Emotional intelligence in employees carries the bulk of productivity improvement
possibilities, and leaders who are high in emotional intelligence can maximize the productivity of
skill competencies of workers for high returns on labor costs. The value-added of individual and
7

leader emotional intelligence can be magnified when groups function with high levels of
emotional intelligence as well.
Diverse perspectives and knowledge integrated into a solid decision-making matrix
produce innovation and improved decisions (Lawler, 1998). Effective teams can increase the
speed of integration and effective decision-making when they are cooperative and collaborative
(Druskat and Wolff, 2001). When teams are able to take functional expertise and integrate that
knowledge and experience through idea sharing and collaborative efforts the results can be
dynamic, but how does a group achieve the advantages of cooperation and collaboration
associated with high emotional intelligence? Achieving high levels of group emotional
intelligence can be very difficult, but it is based on the same simple pattern of how individual
emotional intelligence is achieved.
Group emotional intelligence is defined as “the ability of a group to generate a shared
set of norms that manage the emotional process in a way that builds trust, group identity, and
group efficacy” (Druskat and Wolff, 2001). Two aspects are important in group emotional
intelligence, culture and emotional awareness. Groups must establish norms for emotional
awareness and regulation. Leaders and group members must have a clear baseline of what
emotional behavior is acceptable for emotional intelligence to flourish. Emotional intelligent
behavior builds trust, efficacy and identity within groups (Druskat and Wolff, 2001). Creating
those collective beliefs is a process, and that process requires active participation from every
group member. One member who may be overzealous or domineering can significantly affect
the group’s behaviors and effectiveness. There are two norms that must be established in order
for the group to function properly emotionally, perspective taking and interpersonal
understanding. Perspective taking is understanding another member’s point of view. The four
8

aspects to fully realize perspective taking are understanding of the speaker’s identity or position,
confidence in the speakers’ ability to conceptualize problems, the perceived speaker’s agenda,
and the speakers knowledge base. When members perceive these four aspects as altruistic, each
member will feel comfortable with predicting each other’s behavior in a positive light and will
understand how to cope with tense discussions or disagreements during communication sessions
(Druskat and Wolff, 2001). Once the norming takes place, or standards are established for
displays of emotion in communication, members will feel comfortable with expressing
themselves. They will feel a sense of control and have the opportunity of expressing themselves
through the uniqueness of their individualities (Druskat and Wolff, 2001). The establishment of
norms and awareness allows for a caring orientation to be established. The caring orientation
doesn’t necessarily mean personal caring, but established processes and expectations for
validating, affirming, and respecting one another. When these aspects of group emotional
intelligence are in place, individual members are able to align their thoughts and feelings within
the needs, wants, and expectations of the group. Individual members’ cognitive awareness of
expectations and norms, along with group emotional balance and trust, decrease dissonance
while accurately defining the context for disagreements and lively discussions. Let it be
understood that highly emotionally intelligent groups are creating norms and standards not to
stave off conflict or disagreements with an eventual outcome of group think. They are
establishing a firm awareness within each member of how to regulate emotions within the
dynamic of group tolerances. Disagreements and significant ideological differences are possible
within groups that prize acceptance of expressions without the fear of strong emotions that can
appear as personally injurious. The pressure within the group is not to conform to group
thinking, but to address differences within a standard of emotional awareness and regulation.
9

Emotionally intelligent groups are not trying to “bolster morale at the expense of critical
thinking” (Janis, 1971, pg. 220). When critical thinking can occur because of safe environments
being attained, innovation and creativity can take root (Lencioni, 1998).
Principles of Agility & Innovation
Agility and innovation are complex behaviors displayed by both organizations and
individuals. Innovation is usually studied and researched as an organizational competency, but
organizations are made up of individuals, and individuals perform the work of the organization.
There are several factors that contribute to innovative, creative, and agile organizations.
Innovation can be considered in at least three aspects. The first aspect is as job performance
metrics. The second is how employee attributes contribute to innovation. The third is how
organizations contribute to innovation (Jex and Britt, 2014). Let’s first discuss how job
performance leads to innovation.
Most innovation derives from new products and services, but innovation can also spring
from creative idea’s for new processes and organizational structures (Jex, 2014). These are
seldom reflected rigorously in most literature. There are four specific groups of research relating
to job performance. The first is identifying how employees develop creative ideas and
innovations. The second is how innovations infiltrate an organization and comes to be part of its
normal operations. The third is focused on understanding how organizations decide upon what
innovations will be followed up on and implemented. The fourth is how organizations and
individuals facilitate with one another to make internal habits, alignments, networks, etc. to
sustain and encourage innovation (Damanpour, 1991). Employee creativity is a large part of
innovation within organizations and individual creativity should be both developed through
training and recruited into the organization (Jex, 2014). Companies that prize creativity and
10

innovation hire associates with varied skills, experiences, backgrounds, and interests (Harggon
and Sutton, 2000).
When looking for talent, one question that always comes up is whether there are
identifiable predictors for creative and innovative recruits. Creativity is associated with task-
relevant and creative-relevant skills, and individual task motivation (Amabile, 1983). Creativity,
it is thought, stems from general mental ability, formal education, tutoring, and self-teaching
(Jex, 2014). Creativity is, therefore, made of up many different skills that combine in multiple
ways and display a diorama of convergent approaches to problem solving. Creative individuals
step out of their mind-sets and consider opposing and multiple perspectives. They allow
themselves to spend large amounts of concentrated time on problems, and are willing to put
down those problems when they reach roadblocks. Further, they have an ability to abandon
unproductive approaches and continue on with applying new ideas in attempting to solve
problems (Jex, 2014). First impressions and interpretations of problems are filled with biased
perspectives and those biased views can changed through concentrated efforts to discover new
data (Knoblich, 2000). Creative individuals also have great ability to concentrate on problems
for long periods (Jex, 2014). They also have goals that are oriented toward learning rather than
toward performance (Lu, Lin, and Leung, 2012). Even though scientists have struggled to find a
clear personality specific to creativity, they have found many personality traits that are
consistently identified within creative people. They all have self-discipline, can delay
gratification, have high levels of perseverance, think independently, resist conformity in
thoughts, and do not depend on social approval for recognition (Jex, 2014). They feel high needs
for autonomy and variety. They also have high needs to see themselves as innovators who create
value for their jobs and organizations. When these individuals feel a connection with their job so
11

deeply that it is an extension of themselves, and offers connections with people they work with,
they begin to develop high levels of innovation (Jex, 2014). Organizations can both encourage
these employee’s and set up their organization as primers for innovation and creativity to
maximize the strengths of these employees.
The best way to sustain and create innovation is to hire creative people, but an
organization needs to be able to sustain that creative and innovate environment. Organizations
can provide training which encourages people to think in unique and unfamiliar ways, they can
inspire creativity through pushing individuals to complete tasks because of personal desires to
achieve and understand, they can encourage employees by identifying and removing both
internal and external constraints, and lastly, they can ensure employees are in jobs they genuinely
enjoy (Peters and O’Connor, 1988). Other research identifies five factors in the environment that
encourage creativity in employees. Those factors are, encouraging creativity, autonomy and
freedom, resource availability through removal of barriers, pressure associated with high
challenging standards and lower workloads, and lastly, lessening of obstacles like conflict
(Amabile and Conti, 1999). These are all predictors of organizational climate characteristics that
influence innovative and creative thinking, but they are not the definitive theory on innovation
and agility. A meta-analysis conducted by Dr. Damanpour in 1999 is the most comprehensive
study every conducted on creativity and innovation and the factors that predict them.
Damanpour concluded that there are two types of innovation, administrative and technical.
Technical innovator is the greatest predictor of organizational innovative environments. Four
factors predict technically innovative organizations according to Dr. Damanpour, technical
expertise of employees, high levels of specialization within the organization, high levels of
external communications, and functional differentiation. High levels of technical expertise allow
12

for understanding of problems and facilitate the organizations ability to implement solutions.
High levels of specialization allow for more employees to approach problems from a wider array
of expertise, and encourage cross-pollination of ideas and views. High levels of external
communication allows for employees to fertilize ideas with industry experts in an unbiased and
objective environment and to bring the best critical evaluations back to the organization for
further contemplation and scrutiny. Finally, functional differentiation allows for groups of
experts, in specific area’s of expertise, to bounce idea’s off of each other and find the best idea’s
possible through the lens of group involvement (Damanpour, 1999). All of these predictors are
only effective when leaders create the environment where employee activities and motivations
are encouraged (Jex, 2014).
How do organizations use Diversity, EQ, Agility and Innovation
Diversity, emotional intelligence, agility and innovation leading to effective change
management is extremely complex. Leaders mistakenly believe that rational plans will meet
every contingency, funnel all energies into execution, and are stumped when plans and theory
do not meet the practical needs of situations (Smith, 2014). However, when one views the
benefits of a diversity business model that encourages open dialogue, collaboration of
experience, and contemplation of the uniqueness of culture as an enhancers for innovation, the
idea feels meritorious; even if, it can’t be proven. Diversity enhances multiple perspectives and
pushes back against personal, corporate, social, political, and cultural biases. Emotionally
intelligent leaders can enhance communication, encourage effective collaboration, set norms for
productive interchanges, and build trust within the expectations of meaningful outcomes. Those
same leaders’ capabilities and skills can be enhanced when they are combined within an
organization that is primed for creativity. Predictors of organizational creativity enhance
13

innovation and can help leaders identify climates capable of encouraging and sustaining
innovative and creative products and services. Truly, there are many variables to agility,
diversity, and emotional intelligence, but they are all within the scope of positive outcomes.
When used together they can reinforce and multiply each unique advantage each competency
brings to innovation and creativity.
14

Reference
Basset-Jones, Migel (2005). The Paradox of Diversity Management, Creativity, and Innovation.
Creativity and Innovation Management 14, No. 2. Pg. 169-175.
Canas, Kathryn A. and Sondak, Harris (2011). Opportunities and Challenges of Workplace
Diversity – Theory, Cases and Exercises. Upper Saddle River, NJ. Prentice Hall.
Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational Innovation: A Meta-analysis of Effects of Determinants
and Moderators. Academy of Management Journal, vol. 34, 555-590.
Druskat, V.U. (1996). Team-level Competencies in Superior Self-Managing Teams. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Cincinnati, OH.
Hansen, F. (2003). Diversity’s business case doesn’t add up. Workforce, 82(4), 28-32.
Hubbard, R (1994). Race and Sex as Biological Categories. In Challenging Racism and Sexism.
New York, NY. Feminist Press.
Jex, Steven M. and Britt, Thomas W. (2014). Organizational Psychology – A Scientist-
Practitioner Approach. Hoboken, NJ. Wiley and Sons Publishing.
Knoblich, Gunther; Ohlsson, Stellan; and Raney, Gary E. (2001). An Eye Movement Study of
Insight Problem Solving. Memory and Cognition (2001), 29 (7), pg.’s 1000-1009.
Kuczynski, S. (1999). If diversity, then higher profits? Companies that have successful diversity
programs seem to have higher returns. But which came first?. HR Magazine, 44(13).
Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team: A leadership fable. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Lott, Bernice (2010). Multiculturalism and Diversity – A Social Psychological Perspective.
Oxford, UK. Wiley-Blackwell Publishing.
McIntosh, P. (1992). White privilege. Creation Spirituality, 33-35.
15

Pine, Jordan (2002). White Men Can Be Diversity Leaders, Too.
http://www.DiversityInc.com/members/3657.cfm.
Robinson, G., & Dechant, K. (1997). Building a business case for diversity. The Academy of
Management Executive, 11(3), 21-31.
Smedley, A., and Smedly, B.D. (2005). Race as Biology is Fiction, Racism as a Social Problem
is Real. American Psychology, 60, pg. 16-26.
Smith, Richard; King, David; Sidhu, Ranjit; and Skelsey, Dan (2014). The Effective Change
Manager’s Handbook – Essential Guidance to the Change Management Body of
Knowledge. Philadelpha, PA. Kogan Page LLC.
University of Oregon. Diversity Quote:
http://www.uni.edu/accreditation/sites/default/files/Definitions%20of%20Diversity
%20(various% 20institutions)_0.doc
16

Strategic Leveraging of Diversity, Agility & Emotional Intelligence

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Strategic Leveraging of Diversity, Agility & Emotional Intelligence

Similar to Strategic Leveraging of Diversity, Agility & Emotional Intelligence (20)

Strategic Leveraging of Diversity, Agility & Emotional Intelligence