6 minute read
Vive la Difference!
The critical need for diversity
by Scott Paine Florida League of Cities
Many folks of a certain age, if we were to hear “Vive la difference!” (especially with a French accent), would immediately think of an intimate relationship between a man and a woman. While it is difficult to track down the origin of the expression, it has been in circulation for decades. Sometimes it is played for laughs. Sometimes it can be received as dismissive and insulting, a flippant rejection of arguments for gender equity.
I ask that we set aside any association of the phrase with romance or chauvinism and that we expand it, quite appropriately, to its broadest possible application.
Difference is what drives so much of the human experience. Contrasts fuel our seemingly ingrained tendency to group and categorize. Hard/soft, rough/smooth, hot/cold … these differences help us describe and distinguish objects and conditions in our environment.
I’m watching this human penchant developing in real time in my 5-year-old granddaughter. A few months back, she fell in love with dinosaurs; she wants to be a paleontologist when she grows up. (She also explains how people will pay her every time she finds a new dinosaur, and that’s how she’ll take care of her children.)
By now, she has a couple of dozen plastic dinosaurs of various types and sizes. She organizes and sorts them in a variety of ways: plant eaters and meat eaters, those that stand on two legs, those that stand on four and those that don’t have legs at all. She also sorts them by “mommies” and “babies” (mostly based on the relative size of the toys). I’m sure there are more sorting criteria to come.
How boring it would be if all 24 dinosaurs were the same type, same shape, same color and same size!
Categorization is both very human and invariably problematic. When we categorize, we oversimplify and sometimes exaggerate differences. The flame is hot, the ice cube cold, but between fire and ice are many objects less hot and less cold that, being human, we still seek to categorize. So we add degrees of hot and cold (warm, cool), ultimately creating a system by which we measure temperature by degrees. Still, when asked to say what it feels like outdoors, we are more likely to grab at a broadly descriptive word like “warm” rather than report the height of the mercury in the thermometer. This situation can lead to arguments about how it feels since each of us applies the categories somewhat differently.
Many of us live for the differences. The first really cold day of winter. The first spring morning with a hint of warmth. These differences delight and energize us. One difference leads to another. That hint of winter prompts us to pull on a sweater or grab an extra cup of tea. The hint of spring gets us planning for our flower bed or taking a long stroll.
Others of us prefer our routines, our patterned ways of living. But even for those of us who thrive on a regular schedule, the schedule itself programs differences into our lives. There is a time to sleep, a time to eat, a time to labor. If each day’s pattern is consistent and we consider that consistency good, it is in part because each day has its variety, routine differences built into our structured lives.
I write all that to offer a justification for proclaiming “Vive la difference.” Without difference, we would not have life or at least not one worth living.
The same is true of associations, organizations, communities, corporations … even nations.
– Khalil Smith (Fall 2020). How diversity defeats groupthink. Rotman Management Magazine. University of Toronto.
People often choose to associate with certain others precisely because they are similar in certain important respects. A common interest in birdwatching or baseball draws people into clubs and associations where their common interests can be explored and celebrated. Even so, our delight in associating with people like us would be diminished if each one of us had seen the same roster of birds or remembered the same baseball stats. The joy of hearing a story about the walk-off homer with two outs can be reinforced by having seen it, too. However, it is further enriched by something we remember that the storyteller does not, something we add from our different perspectives to make the story more complete.
As it turns out, the mere presence of someone perceived as an outsider changes the behaviour of the group, improving the thinking of those in the majority even when divergent viewpoints aren’t even expressed. ”
Vive la difference.
What we’ve learned from research in a variety of fields is that difference is not only pleasurable in many cases but also functional.
– Albert Camus
We all recognize the importance of a diverse set of skills on a baseball team. Home-run hitters tend to be less reliable in the small ball game. Outstanding left-handed pitchers usually don’t pitch right-handed as well. A fabulous shortstop probably won’t do as well in center field and vice versa.
What is true of baseball teams is true of workplace teams, too. There’s the obvious need for a range of skill sets (brainstorming, planning, organizing, directing, designing, constructing, supply-chain management, packaging, logistics ...), but there’s also a less-appreciated need for diverse perspectives. Anything designed for “everyone” is, in practice, designed for no one. Our tastes and needs are different in our personal lives; our requirements different in business. Understanding the different ways in which we sort ourselves by taste, interest and practical requirements allows businesses to design products tailored to those differences, enhancing sales and customer satisfaction.
What is true of recreation and production is true of communication and public leadership. Even our smallest cities are not homogenous. If the political leadership of a municipality has much in common with each other and little in common with certain segments of the community – whether residents, business owners or visitors – we risk failing to recognize what those segments need and want. The resulting dissatisfaction may become obvious or may, because we lack contact with differences, remain hidden until it manifests in trends of population loss, business closures … or worse.
Some will say that they prefer leadership teams that have much in common. Life is easier, decisions made more quickly and more readily supported. Meetings, too, can be much shorter (and who loves a long meeting?).
All of that is true.
But what is also true is that the risk of “groupthink” is greater. We quickly tumble to a consensus on the idea that springs from our shared wellhead. It sounds good to all of us, so it must be good.
And it may be … for us. That’s just an insufficient standard for making good public policy.
Some differences, when they breed persistent antagonism, are destructive. Most differences are, at times, disruptive. They compel us to stop and consider new perspectives, to contemplate rejecting familiar habits and beliefs in favor of a richer vision.
But learning to live with some disruption – with openness to being challenged by a different experience, a different point of view – is central to understanding the richness of human experience. It also is essential to good governance.
So the next time we hear from residents, business owners or visitors who chastise us for having missed something obvious to them, instead of adopting a defensive posture, we might do well to say:
Vive la difference!
And celebrate the opportunity to be better than we were.
Scott C. Paine, Ph.D., is director of leadership development and education for FLC University. He previously worked at the University of Tampa as associate professor of communication and government and served for eight years on Tampa’s City Council. He can be contacted at spaine@flcities.com. Go to drscottpaine.com to read Scott Paine's regular blog.
