Change the Structure of the Land
In today’s opening general session, I mentioned a concept that holds a lot of meaning for the diversity work I do. Because the panel format allowed for only brief mentions of concepts such as this—and because a good number of people asked me about it afterwards—I’ll say a bit more about it here:
We know for a fact that water follows the structure of the land. If you go to any valley and look at the way a river winds through it, you’ll see that the water must follow that structure.
Behavior, like water, follows the structure of the land. So while we spend millions of dollars in this country on diversity training, the vast majority of that work is focused on behavior, not the structure of the land.
So while I can make a group aware of diversity issues and provide them with some tools for navigating difference, once I put them back into an organization whose structure hasn’t changed, it won’t take long for that behavior to start following the structure of the land again.
The real work of diversity is to look at that structure of the land. That’s the work of second-order change. That’s the work of dissembling power inside organizations. That—for most people in the dominant culture—is fearful work.
As Paul Watzlawick so brilliantly tells us in his book, Change, there is a difference between first-order and second-order change. First-order change is what I hear in most conferences and most conversations about diversity in associations. We will just tweak things, make some adjustments, create a “program.” With first-order change, the system itself remains unchanged. Over time, it will self-correct and go back to where it was before.
Second-order change transforms the system. So if you are an association leader looking at diversity at your institution, you should ask yourself, "Is this a first-order change that I'm putting into place, or is it something that is going to go deeper?"
Dean Ornish, author and founder of the Preventive Medicine Research Institute, does a lot of work with heart patients and how they change their lives to become healthier. We all think that change has to happen incrementally: "I could lose 20 pounds, if I just drink one more glass of water per day." But Ornish says that huge, massive change is the way to do it, because if you just start eating better in small incremental ways, you are not going to get the immediate health benefits that will keep you on the right path. So, whether as human beings or as institutions, we should make sweeping changes. We should make them big and systemic. We should change the structure of the land and risk our significance.
A lot of discussion this morning centered on the business case for doing this work. I think it’s the wrong discussion. I think focusing on the business case ad infinitum is a deflection from doing the work itself. I think that if association executives don’t step up to this challenge, their organizations will become irrelevant and they will die. There's your 30 second business case. I don’t believe the innovation required for growth and health can come from homogeneity any longer.
-patti digh
| | Permalink |
Comments
Patti, I would just ask what you think about the fact that that the force of flowing water can also change the structure of the land, but it takes much longer. Planting a field one mile from a river, hoping it will bend your way is not nearly as effective as digging a channel to that river. It's really a nice metaphor I'm turning over in my mind.
Posted by: Betsy Boyd-Flynn | August 18, 2008 2:15 AM
Betsy - I so appreciate your comment. Indeed, water does--over much time--change the structure of the land. What I see happening, though (and what Nadira spoke to this morning) is that the new workforce of the future won't stick around for that glacial pace of change...
Posted by: patti digh | August 18, 2008 3:16 AM
I have been dependent on the kindness of others to learn about this general session - was only in SD for the ethics cmte. meeting - and I must say what I've read from a number of sources has been disappointing. About the issue: I concur, Patti - the business case has not been the case that has mattered - we tried that (in MPI, PCMA, ASAE and elsewhere) for many years and the structure of the land never changed. (Witness the vol. breakfast on Sat. and the 3 people on the podium who looked like every ASAE meeting I've ever attended.)
The workforce of now AND the future lives in a diverse world and they know it. You're right, Patti - they won't stick around. The message to associations is .. well, obvious: if we want associations to be around, we better fix this.
Posted by: Joan Eisenstodt | August 18, 2008 4:37 PM
It was clear to me that the strength of that panel resided on the left side of the stage with Patti as anchor. I was disappointed that a Q&A session wasn't held - I think that the session opened the door for authentic discussion and a good Q&A would have strengthened that.
We need to stop talking about diversity as a quantitative issue and instead focus on it as a qualitative issue. The richness that diversity brings to our lives is incredibly valuable. Future generations are going to demand that, regardless of the business case. Some of us already do.
Patti really should have led one of the Thought Leader sessions. I hope she does next year. Bravo.
Posted by: Kristi Donovan | August 18, 2008 8:32 PM