One of the areas CreatorOfCulture.com has been pondering for some time are the concepts of “fitting into the group” and “strong, unconditional inclusive approach to all people”. These could be looked at as two ends of the spectrum that may work towards creating performing, sustaining, empathetic, type cultures. Numerous examples in the competitive sports and military fields push towards finding, recruiting, and on-boarding individuals that “fit the program”. Those people just fit in to an established culture with certain expectations. There are many other examples of organizations that include and onboard individuals who may not fit the program per se but are included regardless for who they are as people. Given these two opposite approaches, is one approach better than the other? Does it have to be an “all or nothing” approach? CreatorOfCulture.com seeks to explore the strengths and weaknesses of both approaches. We offer a perspective that both methods can exist simultaneously as hybrid that predicts to produce great results with whatever effort pursued.
With respect to the concept of “fitting into the group”. How many times have you heard that phrase in your life, or career? This concept starts at a very young age with making new friends. Take for example a pair of kids meet and become friends with one another. They hit it off for so many reasons like having shared interests, knowing one another from some other activity, having instant chemistry when first meeting, parents are friends, and so many more. When the pod of two grows, other kids may be “brought in” for the same particular reasons. These kids have chemistry, same interests, and they have something that starts to bond them together like school, sports, or some activity (video game – think Minecraft and Roblox). They all fit into the group nicely with some bumps in the road only now and then.
Fitting into groups starts very young age as mentioned above. Doesn’t every parent hope their child falls into the right crowd? There are hundreds of articles written and studies conducted to demonstrate that human beings are tribal by nature. We have a sense of belonging to various interpersonal groups baked into our genes. Being a part of those groups betters our chances of safety and prosperity. Established groups tend to attract similar type people with similar mindsets on whatever is bringing them together.
In our article, titled “It must be about the team. How cultures can prevent losing track of this ultimate concept!”, we analyze Oklahoma Sooner’s Head Softball Coach, Patti Gasso’s commentary as it relates to generational performance. In other words, she was asked what was the “tipping point” for her that led her to believe that year after year her team would be able to compete on highest stage consistently. Her response that her staff, “…Works really, really hard recruiting. Recruiting not only good athletes, but you have to get athletes that fit your program.” Let’s unpack this comment a bit. Coach Gasso and her staff are actively seeking out student athletes nationwide that fit her program. They are the designers/architects of this baseline culture. There is an expectation that the individuals they recruit share the same characteristics, mindset, approach, mental tool set towards the sport of softball, towards the university, and towards each other. Likely that during their recruiting process they are not only scouting for physical skills, but also having personal interactions (to the extent that they can while being in NCAA compliance). Likely they spoke to references that know the player deeply, researching how the player is off the field, and more. Should the player have the physical tools but miss the mark on the areas that fit into Gasso’s program, they will surely be passed up on. Is that practice hindering inclusion as we know of it today? Are they missing out on various player perspectives and approaches?
Another item to note is that her current student athletes mainly hail from Oklahoma, Arizona, and California. Is there something about the student athletes from those natural cultures in the geographical areas (as compared to the rest of the nation) mentioned that match more of what Patti Gasso and her staff have designed? Or is it just coincidence?
Let’s look at another example. Think of all the different type of clubs or groups you know of that require sponsorship of a current member to join. Think country clubs, social groups, sporting clubs, gangs, recreational clubs, biking groups, weightlifting groups, anti-establishment groups, etc. The clubs or groups exist for a various purpose and typically attract the same kind of people, with the same type of thoughts and feelings towards the reason for joining. These groups exist both for something negative, or positive. Although these groups provide purpose for the members and probably perform their function successfully often, does this not contradict the concept of inclusion as we know it today?
With respect to the opposite, where organizations (think private sector employers or government agencies) are deliberate in setting up environments to encourage full inclusion of people from all different backgrounds, natural cultures, and mindsets. The theory (combined with data and plenty of examples), is that diverse backgrounds of people who are included within the group produce quality outcomes in the long run. Diverse perspectives are needed to see things from different angles, and people who are included feel safe, appreciated, while performing consistently. Given that this approach is a complete 180* from forming groups or clubs that seek out very similar people and mindsets, why do you think it works?
Let’s look at an organization that made “inclusion” part of its marketing campaign and ultimate philosophy leading to franchises being set up nationwide. Have you heard that slogan, “the judgement free zone”? How could you not if you watched TV at all! Planet Fitness originated in the early to mid 1990’s with a goal to cater towards the everyday person/customer of all backgrounds, shapes, sizes, ages, financial situations, and genders who all may view exercising a little differently. They do not cater to a particular customer like bodybuilders or super-avid fitness enthusiasts who look a certain way or approach exercising all the same.
All throughout their facilities are other slogans with inclusionary statements. Wherever you look, the customer feels welcomed. Although Planet Fitness has received criticism for doing just the opposite by alienating/excluding certain types of weight lifters from joining, they for the most part market themselves and operate as very welcoming. Planet Fitness currently has over 2,000 franchise locations throughout the US and Internationally. Their stock price has grown steadily since inclusion on the New York Stock Exchange and is now expanding locations internationally. It is safe to say that Planet Fitness is considered a successful with a culture based on inclusion, no judgement, and diversity. It is what works well for them.
Let’s look at another example. Sodexo is part of a global, Fortune 500 company with a presence in 72 countries. Sodexo is a leading provider of integrated food, facilities management and other services that enhance organizational performance, contribute to local communities and improve quality of life for millions of customers in corporate, education, healthcare, senior living, sports and leisure, government and other environments daily. The company employs 160,000 people at 13,000 sites in all 50 U.S. states and Canada, and indirectly supports tens of thousands of additional jobs through its annual purchases of $19 billion in goods and services from small to large businesses[1].
Sodexo makes diversity and inclusion of people a valued approach to their strategy and culture. In fact, they state it is a “cornerstone”. Sodexo has received many D&I awards and ranks extremely high in business D&I rankings. Since 2000, Sodexo’s stock price has steadily grown multiple times over. Sodexo has several thousand contracts and continues to grow.
We have demonstrated that success can happen by both methods: 1.) attracting and recruiting similar type of people who already fit into the group, and 2) attracting and recruiting diverse type of people and work to include them into the group. Is there one method that works better than the other? What are the strengths and weaknesses of each? Does it have to be an all or nothing approach? Can the culture of a group or organization blend both of these together? Is that hard to accomplish?
As we mentioned in the opening paragraph of this article, these are all questions and examples to trigger additional thought and conversation. Let’s ask the same question again? Is one approach better than the other? What do you think?
[1] https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/sodexo-named-to-highest-level-of-diversity-best-practices-inclusion-index-301114978.html