Daily headlines around the globe reflect the widespread desire to crack the code on diversity; inclusion and equity are now at the top of leadership agendas. While organizations tout their commitment to diversity and inclusion as a core to their mission and work, too many organizations are stuck in a single leadership archetype trap, leading to missed diversity gains and talent flight that compromise those agendas.
“Speak up more.” Early in my career, this is what I consistently wrote in performance reviews and, as an Asian woman, I struggled to do that. I’d rehearse words in my head, then try to find a respectful moment to interject — but having a tendency to wait too long between comments due to my cultural values, I usually missed my opportunity.
My parents were immigrants to the United States, and I was raised with traditional Japanese values: honoring elders, listening intently, displaying humility and not calling attention to myself. Those values served me well in school; I was seen as a “model student.” In the workplace, however, it seemed the traits that made me who I was now held me back — my quiet, reflective nature prevented me from being seen as a “leader.”
To be sure, there are certain things all leaders need to be able to do: articulate and advance a vision, engage and relate to the constituencies the organization aims to serve, ensure excellent execution and achievement of outcomes and more. This isn’t about changing expectations of the outcomes; it is about broadening how those outcomes are achieved.
Imagine a bullseye target with a yellow circle at the center with surrounding rings. The inner circle is the widely held notion of “leadership,” shaped heavily by white male Western leadership models that have dominated CEO and executive roles — assertive, verbally expressive in direct bullet-pointed fashion and inclined toward bold action and individual decision-making. Those who have natural tendencies that happen to align with the inner circle are seen as leaders, too.
Those in the next ring are “inner circle adjacent”; their natural style isn’t quite that of the widely held notion, but they are seen as “having potential.” With coaching, they can morph enough to be viewed as a leader.
And those whose styles happen to be in the outer rings? They are likely getting a mountain of feedback to help them become more like the inner circle, making them feel less valued and like they don’t fit in.
Instead of trying to get everyone to converge into such a narrow view of leadership, we can expand the leadership bullseye, internally and externally. Here’s how:
Evaluate the outcome over the approach. Consider how someone approaches the work, not in terms of how it is similar to how you would do it or if it fits with your vision of leadership, but whether they achieved the desired outcomes. Apply this approach in how job descriptions are written, promotions are decided and compensation is determined.
Perhaps their style of “leading from behind” enabled a successful change initiative. Maybe their ability to create psychologically safe environments surfaced more perspectives leading to stronger decision-making and impact. Keep the emphasis on the “what” while being open to the “how.”
Amplify what is unique. According to a 2018 New York Times article, there are more corporate CEOs named John than there are women CEOs in total. The current bullseye is too small. Find ways to amplify what is unique to the individual rather than pushing them to fit the mold.
When identifying potential successors, don’t limit considerations to who would be the best “fit”; branch out to who might add to or challenge the team the most. Use language that makes space for different approaches. Naming that you are an internal processor makes room for others. Recognizing team members for their unique insight or non-dominant approach sends powerful signals that there are different pathways to advancement.
Challenge the status quo in key processes. The default and status quo favor the dominant group, including how talent is assessed, how leadership opportunities are given and how feedback is shared. To achieve true returns on increasing diversity, go out of your way to make space for difference, demonstrate with behavior that multiple archetypes are valued and build checks into processes. At the end of talent reviews, how many times were “style,” “presence,” “experience” or “approach” concerns cited and toward whom?
Deepen knowledge about unconscious bias (or the similarity bias of how we tend to value people and traits more like us) and the double bind (a no-win situation for women leaders, particularly women of color, who are either seen as competent or likeable, but rarely both). We must change the ecosystem if we want to move the needle on diversity.
Start with yourself. Consider a self-audit: what type of feedback and to whom do you find yourself giving? How do the expectations you have for others that shape the feedback you give stem from your own mental image of what constitutes “leadership” and “presence”? Where do your notions of those concepts come from? How might you expand your views to tap into the broad range of talent on your teams to help you deliver the strongest outcomes?
When people don’t have to contort themselves to fit into a stylized notion of leadership, they bring forth valuable contributions you’d otherwise miss. Instead of wasting time and energy trying to be someone different, they focus on contributing work and ideas grounded in their unique power, creating competitive advantage and maximizing impact for organizations.
Now, instead of stressing about speaking up, I leverage my unique leadership capabilities to drive successful outcomes and lean into areas that make me uniquely who I am, grounded in my cultural values. I listen and make connections others might not see. I combine strategic thinking with an understanding of relationship dynamics to help us get from point A to point B.
We can each take action to show people that they can be successful, advance and held up as model leaders through a wide range of means, styles, backgrounds and orientations. Let’s remain clear on the end outcomes we are striving for — and open to how one achieves those.
A version of this op-ed was originally published on Devex on March 16, 2021.
About the Author
June Yoshinari Davis is currently the chief of staff and director of strategy for U.S. Programs at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. In her inclusion and diversity work at Cargill, she led efforts to embed best practices and processes into the organization spanning 150,000+ employees across 70+ countries. Follow her @juneyoshinarid1
