Book Review:

The Power of Difference

The book regularly emphasises the need for such safety for divergent views to exist and be encouraged. As Fanshawe says, ‘safe spaces don’t offer safety from disagreement, they offer safety for disagreement’

Fanshawe offers 4 key criteria for changing minds: for the individual to change, they must 1) be convinced by the underlying principle (for example that it delivers fairness); 2) that it benefits society (ie relates to something beyond individual or group self interest); 3) know and care about someone affected adversely by the current situation (ie have an emotional connection); and 4) be reassured that they are not going to lose out personally. This seems to me to be an appropriate but challenging list…

Too many organisations adopt and publish virtuous principles, without putting them into practice. Fanshawe calls this ‘virtue signalling’: saying the right thing, but doing very little

In an especially moving and inspiring part of the book the author tells the story of Jo and Patrick: Jo lost her father in the Brighton Hotel bombing; Patrick planted the bomb. Eventually, through Jo’s hard work and persistence, the two met, and had a conversation followed by further conversations. The purpose, for Jo, was to seek some understanding; as she says “(My father’s death) changed my life forever, and I’m still dealing with (those feelings). But what do I do with those feelings, that’s where the choice is. Do I harness those feelings and transform them and bring them into a different kind of future. And the answer is, yes, I do”. And so, to the meetings. And having met several times, here’s Patrick’s response: “I’ve never come across someone so open and with such dignity. I had to confront that I’m sitting with someone whose father I killed. There’s no hiding behind politics or rehearsed arguments. At the moment we met we were communicating as two human beings”

Referring to the same conversation, Fanshawe records that in a 90 minute conversation, the word ‘hear’ was said 30 times – representing a willingness to hear each other, to include each other.

If a company introduces a new policy, regulation, procedure, code of practice – a new norm – what will the effect of this be on a diverse workforce? What if some disagree – for whatever reason? Does work – legitimately – set conditions that have to be supported, even if they challenge other, equally legitimate, personal or group norms? Alternatively, how much time and attention should be given by an organisation to develop these areas of corporate unity and governance so they take on board the full diversity of its workforce? This leads to a discussion of passive and covering behaviour: passive behaviour: not declaring any objection; covering: declaring an objection but attempting to conform.  

The common plea to ‘bring your whole self to work’ may be difficult, if an organisational requirement challenges an individual or group norm or value. And if being authentic means they object, or refuse to comply, their reality is that there could be serious consequences…

This ties back to psychological safety; for people to be open and honest, there needs to be trust. And trust requires psychological safety

Diversity often generates creativity, innovation and insight: in one example, managers commented that working with ADHD team members improved communication across the whole team; and in another example, deciding to recruit FOR diversity significantly created greater team effectiveness