Diversity: When Comfort Leaks Ignorance

As we prepare to conduct our first conversations with various groups in the Pacific Northwest, I have been observing the behaviour of Forest Service employees in other regions and in other programs. I have recently noticed some dynamics and I am curious about the underlying structures in our system which produce these behavioural outcomes.

A group of middle managers were together for the third session of a six month leadership development course. They had been face to face together for three one-week sessions and felt a strong sense of rapport. During a discussion about the ladder of inference, the group explored the assumption that "all the good jobs in the agency are wired," meaning that a number of hiring officials had engaged in pre-selection.

During the course of the conversation, meant to illustrate the power of making assumptions, the group circled around to a cultural belief that there are diversity quotas and that sometimes the most skilled candidate is overlooked in favor of what's referred to as "the diversity candidate." There are really two interesting dynamics which became apparent to me as I observed the discussion.

First, the group's comments demonstrate a shared belief that there is a difference between the most skilled candidate and the diversity candidate. This implies that collectively we don't believe that the most diverse individual may also be the most skilled individual. When I frame it thus, the logical mind rejects the thought. Of course there are highly skilled individuals in every race! Therefore, I submit that the individuals in the room were not cognizant that their behaviour demonstrated an illogical prejudice.

Second, of the nearly 40 people in the room, all were caucasian but one. It seemed as if those individuals contributing to the group conversation had no awareness that there was a person of color in the room who may have felt discomfort. (Unlike the others, this man may have noticed the assumption which was exposed in my first point.) Maybe they felt so comfortable together that they did not view the man of color as anything apart from themselves? In fact, that idea by itself is beautiful - why should a group of friends view the one man as anything different from how they view themselves?

The two notions together create an interesting tension in our cultural beliefs (writen in a perspective which may represent the majority of our employees): the people with whom I am friendly are just like me, but the people with whom I must compete for employment are different and less skilled.

As I probe the possibilities in this thought experiement, it occurs to me that employment satisfies our most basic needs for food and shelter. Food and shelter are fundamental to our ability to survive. Competition for a job, then, is very closely assosciated with competition for survival. We could say that these two drives are parallel.

So, then, if the drive to compete for employment is parallel to the drive to compete for survival, then is it possible that while under the influence of these tandem drives, an individual may experience amygdala hijacking? This question deserves a whole new blog post. But for now, this is certainly something on which to chew.

Transforming the National Recreation Program

I'm in Salt Lake City attending a meeting on Sustainable Recreation in the US Forest Service. A small group of members of the Recreation program at the national, regional, and forest levels of the organization have crafted a National Recreation Strategy to replace an outdated strategy (I think the last strategy was crafted in 1988). The small group has worked for 2 years and is very excited to share the work with a larger group.

There's much passion and energy for this strategy because it's centered on principles of Sustainability and Community Engagement through Recreation and Tourism (CERT). There are a number of specific goals and objectives, but to say it in a nutshell... It's all about the Forest Service engaging with communities to have meaningful dialogue around how together to create balanced and long term health for people, profits, and the planet.

I've been providing some consultation and facilitation to the smaller group and today was the first day of a very complex meeting in which we shared the National Recreation Strategy, Sustainable Recreation, and CERT with a wide group of employees from around the country. We had about 20 people in the room, about 10 people on the telephone, and another 20 people on a video conference. It was trying and complex to mix the media, but absolutely necessary for a sustainability conversation to include low carbon methods for connecting.

I feel the day was a resounding success. We wrapped up the phone and video portion about 1.5 hours before the end of the day so that those of us who were present in the room (here in Salt Lake City) could process everything and begin to wrap our heads around things like...

1. What does sustainable recreation look like?
2. How might our lives be different when we've fully embraced the new National Recreation Strategy?
3. How are we going to share this experience with our leaders and our employees when we get home?
4. How can we foster transformation rather than paying lip service to a plan which is quickly shelved?

I'm ever so grateful to have not been the facilitator of the meeting. Lyn Wiltzes (sp?) from Seattle was the facilitator and did a remarkable job.

I'm feeling very jazzed. I feel like I'm in the right place at the right time and part of something BIG. Something with Purpose and Meaning. I feel this frequently at Forest Service meetings, which is probably why I fall in love with the Forest Service all over again every time I meet new employees or see a new and magnificent landscape. I'm so grateful to be a part of this organization and I'm grateful to have had all the amazing experiences I've had the past 9 years.

Hopefully I'll have time and energy to capture my reactions to day 2 of the meeting. I have the feeling that of all the things in which I've participated, this one is worth capturing for posterity.

Physics of Leadership

Obama has been President for a month and I already notice a big difference in my own behaviors, attitudes, and opinions. As a federal employee, ultimately I work for Obama (though there are many layers of hierarchy between us). Part of it is that his vision and attitudes resonate with my own sense of values and purpose.

From the standpoint of understanding effective leadership, I feel as if he is a force field of some kind and that I am entraining to the frequency of that force field. My experience of President Bush was more of dissonance. The difference in my experience, however, does not provide empirical evidence that one leader is more effective than the other.

This leads me to consider how important it is for people to agree with their leader. My guess is that I could feel a sort of gravity and the pull to "get in step" with a leader whom I respected, even if I didn't agree with him/her. I'm not sure though. I'll have to think about this some more.

What is it about Obama that strikes such deep hope and trust in me? Why do I become teary eyed every time I see his face? Why do I feel willing to follow him to the ends of the earth? I'm not at all sure.

The force field which I experience him as is no doubt being reinforced and amplified by the 76% of the American population who currently approve of him. Those of us who are filled with hope and are actively appreciating him and praying for him are likely increasing the energy with which he draws upon and projects back to us.

And if you believe modern physics -- time is non-linear -- then perhaps one source of my hope and deep resonance stems from remembering what a resounding success he has already been. Perhaps some of the energy around him comes from countless future generations celebrating his leadership and our victory over major economic, social, and environmental collapse. Maybe...