July 2021

How will Australian business leaders respond to the Federal Government’s drive for innovation?  How will they help to adapt the economy from one based on resources to one that generates and exploits new ideas, processes and technologies?

Innovation in the modern economy is viewed as a business imperative by almost all. The extent and continuity of idea generation and implementation has become both a source and a measure of competitive advantage. Almost half the executives in a survey by PWC (2014) regarded innovation as a ‘competitive necessity’ and according to Bain’s research, amongst 450 company executives worldwide in 2013 companies in the top quartile for innovation achieved a significantly higher growth rate than other companies.

Much innovation in the modern world is the result of team effort rather than individual inspiration, hence not surprisingly the key to sustained innovation is the creation of a framework for effective collaboration. This collaborative framework requires focus on two streams; firstly, on the systems which are designed to cultivate innovation and secondly on the mental readiness of employees within the organisation to undertake innovation.

With regard to the systemic element, a recent article in Harvard Business Review (‘You need an Innovation Strategy’, June 2015) points out that many corporate attempts to mobilise their organisation to be sustainably innovative have failed. This is because more often than not, measures to advance innovation are designed or implemented haphazardly. What is required, is “a commitment to a set of coherent and reinforcing policies and behaviours aimed at achieving a specific competitive goal”.

With regard to the second prerequisite for sustained innovation, this refers to the appropriate mental readiness of an employee to venture into unchartered innovative territory. The fact of the matter is that when an individual employee is mentally primed for innovation this can actually be scientifically observed. Work in the field by neuroscientist, Janet Crawford et al shows that the prefrontal cortex area of the brain is where innovative thought has its genesis. Neuroscientists can observe electrical changes in the brain reflecting feelings of being either secure or being threatened. Where an individual feels threatened the tendency is to retreat into habitual responses and avoid any element of risk, but where he or she feels secure then the individual will be prepared to venture into new experimental territory.

Symmetra’ whilst delivering workshops on Leveraging Diversity of Thought for Innovation with large numbers of leaders across the Asia-Pacific region has researched  whether individuals are mentally primed for innovation. Our research reveals three critical cultural factors that contribute to that readiness- these are the existence of an entrepreneurial frame, psychological safety and inclusion in the culture of the organisation.

Our focus in this article is on embedding sufficient psychological safety- what are the necessary cognitive or behavioural elements? Creative and innovative outcomes in the workplace arise from a complex interaction between the individual and others at various levels of the organisation. If these interactions lead to feelings of well-being, high self-esteem and motivation, the individual will become more inclined to stretch him-or herself, to expend  discretionary effort and to become creative or innovative.

Extensive research has established that when employees perceive that they are psychologically safe they become more engaged with their actual role and inspired to extend their imagination to activities outside their prescribed role.

Amy Edmonson, probably the best known researcher on psychological safety has written: “Psychological safety describes perceptions of the consequences of taking interpersonal risks in a particular context. It facilitates the willing contribution of ideas and actions to a shared enterprise”.

Ultimately it is the direct manager or supervisor of an employee whose actions will have a major impact on creating or undermining feelings of psychological safety. Amy lists eight leadership behaviours which, if present, will create a climate of psychological safety; namely; being accessible and approachable, acknowledging the limits of your current knowledge, being willing to display fallibility, inviting participation, highlighting failures as learning opportunities, using direct language, setting boundaries, and  holding people accountable for transgressions.

Symmetra has gauged the existing level of psychological safety in a range of Australian and Asia Pacific organisations over the course of 2015 by auditing the experiences of 1,264   middle and senior managers who were participating in the Leveraging Diversity of Thought for Innovation  workshops. These leaders are working in the professional service, financial, property, legal, research and resources sectors.

The graph below shows the current reality : namely that as few as just over a third (37%) of these leaders consider there to be sufficient levels  of psychological safety in their teams to encourage challenging each other and the status quo. In many of these organisations there is an actual overt commitment to establishing a speak up culture , but the data indicates they have not been successful in embedding such a culture. What this reflects is a huge opportunity cost for such organisations who have worked so  hard to attract and retain the best intellectual capital but are not creating sufficient psychological safety to allow that  diversity of thought  expression.

To lay the appropriate foundations for sustained innovation, there is a clear need for leaders to build their skills to embed psychological safety, to cultivate a culture where everyone feels safe to question, challenge, take reasonable risks and not be punished for failure. This is a fundamental prerequisite for maximising innovation and achieving the outcomes needed for Australia to meet the Federal Government’s call for innovation.

How does an organization know if it’s D&I program will provide a good return on investment? And how best to determine the right point of entry?

A panel of 97 D & I experts from across the globe (of which Heather Price, CEO of Symmetra is one) have reached agreement on what makes for success in Global Diversity and Inclusion Benchmarks: Standards for Organizations Around the World (GDIB)

The 2016 edition, released globally today, provides updated standards, keeping pace with present-day, real world matters. Driven by the two ultimate goals of diversity and inclusion — improving organizational performance while also creating a better world — GDIB is research-based and practical.

The GDIB describes what is necessary to do D&I work well. Effective D&I work is achievable when it is strategic, tied to the mission and goals of the organization, led with competence and care, and implemented in a sustainable manner. The GDIB’s 266 benchmarks encompass fourteen categories with five progression levels: from Inactive to Best Practice.

“This is a tool we have offered to many of our clients as added value as it is excellent in providing a systemic framework for D & I work. Rather than getting caught up in multiple initiatives which are fashionable in time, a client can use this to benchmark their strengths and weaknesses, inform their priorities and track their progress. Having participated as an expert panelist since 2006 in  producing  many editions , collaborating with D & I experts across the globe to  reach consensus on what these benchmarks should measure, and tracking how these have needed to  change over the last decade, has been  an inspiring journey” says Heather Price.

“With the support of the Japanese government and recent legislation on requiring companies to disclose gender targets and female advancement plans, this action for transparency is a great time for the 2016 GDIB Launch,” remarks Expert Panelist Janelle Sasaki, executive director of diversity & inclusion services, Ernst & Young Advisory Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan. “We customized the GDIB for cultural, localized meanings.  When diversity and inclusion was first introduced in Japan several years ago, it was seen as a western concept. In fact, there is not a Japanese character for the word ‘inclusion.’ The benchmarks accurately guided us when we broke ‘inclusion’ down into traits and other descriptive statements,”

Nene Molefi, managing director of Mandate Molefi, Johannesburg, South Africa, emphasizes the GDIB’s applicability to her varying clientele sectors in oil, mining, manufacturing, construction, financial services, and academic institutions. “The GDIB offers a unique opportunity to leverage diversity and promote inclusion at multiple levels and multiple arenas. The practical steps and incremental nature of the GDIB provides a clear sense of where you are and where you want to be,” Molefi, also an Expert Panelist, states.

Please contact Symmetra if you wish to find out more about the GDIB and get access to this tool which is provided free of charge

Symmetra has been delivering unconscious bias training to leaders across the globe over the past 6 years which has included working with many large corporations in the USA, some of whom have become outstanding exemplars of workplace diversity and inclusion.

On my most recent working journey this month in the USA I have found it  challenging and disappointing, to say the least, to find myself operating in an environment where the political debate around matters of race, gender and sexual orientation have become increasingly shrill and fraught with enmity. Expressions of racial, ethnic and religious bias and stereotyping are being openly expressed in the public arena raising an issue of stark dissonance between those corporations striving for fairer and more progressive workplaces on the one hand, and the background of harsh racially-charged discourse in the public domain on the other.

Where America has for the last 50 years been upheld as the benchmark on embedding democratic values into the society at large and its institutions, it has now paradoxically become acceptable in some quarters to give explicit voice to attitudes of bigotry and prejudice, often done in the name of casting aside unnecessary and burdensome political correctness. The repeated appeals to racial and ethnic solidarity which have become a hallmark of the current election campaign in the USA are a stark reminder that the task of reducing and overcoming biases and prejudice is a continuing battle.

Working with a progressive financial services company in several locations in the USA over the month of June I became involved in deep conversation on many occasions with outstanding corporate leaders who are truly intent on attracting and retaining diverse talent, “to fish from the full pond, so to speak”, so as to optimise their business performance. In a society where it is predicted that in less than 10 years, 75% of the workforce will be Millennials, of whom 44% currently belong to  a racial and ethnic minority (hence there will be no racial majority group in the USA by 2050) and where women  between the ages of 25 and 34 are currently 20% more likely than men to be college educated, this is surely a business imperative.

However all forward thinking business leaders are  now paradoxically faced with a potential President and his supporters who do not disguise their hostility towards women, Mexicans and persons with disability. Fortunately this overt bias, rather than undermining the efforts of those who are assiduously striving for diverse and inclusive workplaces,  is admirably underlining for them how fundamental it is that they remain on course and even redouble their efforts

America is now presented with a populist leader willing to exploit racial and other fears in an explicit and unapologetic way which is certainly something which the country has not experienced for many decades.

As an ex-South African who has witnessed first-hand the devastating impact of deep seated racial  bias on millions and on the economy at large, I can only hope that the American dream that all men (and women) are created equal will ultimately prevail. Surely the thousands of leaders in big business, who subscribe to responsible and ethical business values will leverage their power to ensure that the years of constructive and painstaking building of a more inclusive society and more equitable workplace will not be lost.

This current paradox is disturbingly too reminiscent for me of  what it was like when I worked with big corporations in South Africa in the early 1990s, who were subscribers to the Sullivan principles (which happened to be American!) intent on responsible business and upholding democratic values whilst operating in an Apartheid society which stood for the very opposite. Whilst I can understand and appreciate that some Americans perceive  that their livelihoods and culture may be at risk, I do hope a progressive mindset will prevail which upholds that collaboration, in spite of our differences, will always be of greater benefit than isolationism and antagonism.