‘Headquarter Myopia’ and Why Diversity Sans Inclusion is a Top Derailer

Not long ago, Diversity went from being ‘the right thing to do’ to ‘a business imperative’. This happened mainly due to two reasons.

Firstly, traditional catchment segments no longer offered employers any real flexibility and choice in matters of workforce planning. They had to open up to gender, educational and intellectual diversity. This widened the catchment pool while introducing more competition in any local labor market.

Secondly, globalizing organizations had to assimilate talent from international markets in a significant manner as they expanded sales and operations beyond the shores of their home country. The gates to racial, ethnic and cultural diversity flung open as organizations, particularly those in the knowledge economy, learnt to capitalize on unique perspectives and use Diversity as a competitive advantage to add value or trust.

However, leveraging Diversity is easier said than done.

The generalized statistical representation of Diversity in an organization can be highly misleading unless there is data to show that the corporate leadership and functions are at least half as diverse as the bottom three layers of the organization.

The generalized statistical representation of Diversity in an organization can be highly misleading unless there is data to show that the corporate leadership and functions are at least half as diverse as the bottom three layers of the organization.

Further, there is no advantage with statistical Diversity alone unless it is corroborated by real evidence of Inclusion.

For example, the need to employ a sizeable sales force in China may exist for any global corporation today. But do the employees and leaders in China secure a share of voice and representation that is proportional to their numerical strength in the organization? The same applies to countries like India, UAE, Japan, Brazil or South Africa. Most of these are either key markets or talent hubs. However, they may lie at the far periphery of corporate discourse and at the wrong end of the decision making apparatus. As a consequence, regional outposts develop their own local identities.

Corporate headquarters, while rightfully serving their domiciled country and shareholders, must be more Inclusive if they choose to retain global ambitions. When consuming markets become producing markets, emotional affiliations will determine workforce and consumer choices.

Symptoms of Headquarter Myopia include, but are not limited to - overwhelming domination of global communication channels and content, access advantage in leadership forums, poor socialization or culture-testing of large programs and complete centralization of planning. Another test is asking if the headquarter environment is conducive to the survivability and advancement of non-homogenous groups with different belief systems, mannerisms and orientation. Corporate headquarters, while rightfully serving their domiciled country and shareholders, must be more Inclusive if they choose to retain global ambitions. When consuming markets become producing markets, emotional affiliations will determine workforce and consumer choices.

This work is original and all copyright is held by the author