We've been discussing the roles that leaders play in promoting diversity within a group, an organization, an institution, one that has its own identity. And we've been talking about how important this transformation is to the group's adaptive capacity and long term sustainability. The reasons for pursuing diversity are terribly real, and they're pragmatic. The motivation to do so is also buttress by equally compelling motivations that are grounded in moral and philosophical arguments, and the legitimate right of individuals to find acceptance within the institutions that serve democratic or economic ends of a society. These are all powerful reasons for enhancing diversity within our institutions. And each of them, in their own way, introduces a similar tension with the goals of identity and inclusion. We explored this tension between diversity and inclusion in our last discussion. Let's now look at how these two values interface with a third, which is often placed alongside of them, equity. In approaching the issue of equity, leadership becomes even further grounded in those things that we typically associate with organizational structures and cultures. In contrast, with inclusion and diversity, where the concepts maybe well understood, but the measures we use to define the terms in context are often approximate to the goal. Equity is something that lends itself to a rather precise measurement, a more direct analysis of structures, cultures, policies and practices. And by extension, rules and laws within a societal context. There is an internal aspect to equity and an external aspect when viewed from an organizational perspective. Let me explain. Leadership and pursuit of greater equity depends on a process through which structures, policies, practices, and the measurable aspects of the culture that surrounds them that can be assessed and then changed. And in taking up this challenge, the leader must navigate within existing arrangements, which typically favor some individuals or groups over others. And, the leader must adjudicate this. To tie the equity imperative back to other values the leader is trying to sustain within the group, they would wisely seek to make these changes, these structural changes, by reminding others within the organization of the core values and the highest order commitments that define them. We say we are for this. Then we must do, that. And as this is going on, the leader is performing a balancing act. It is the leader's challenge to promote high expectations for equity for all group members and, especially, those currently disadvantaged. But to do so, without being toppled by the various structures and cultures, that currently and still hold power under existing arrangements. Is this easy? No, [LAUGH] not always, no. But look closely at the expectations of leadership that are described in the lower left hand corner of this slide. Leaders have a strategic obligation, a very practical interest in enhancing the collective influence. The relative stature of the organization within it's environment. Why? Because in an environment where the organization is growing, or at least is stable, the opportunities for greater internal equity are dramatically better. And because we presume that the mission and the core values of the organization that the leader represents are themselves, equitable, and just. The organization's success and stature create conditions for greater equity in the larger society. In fact, most of us believe this fervently about the work that we do in higher education within our democracy. If we do our work well, and more people benefit from it, our society will become more equitable, more just, and more authentically democratic. Isn't that what we believe? So, see it this way. A commitment to greater equity has both internal and external implications for leaders. The idea of positioning an institution for success in its external environment is quite often the exclusive focus of leadership development programs. How do you get your institution to succeed? It's important for all sorts of reasons and it has it's own challenges, but I want to focus, for now, on the internal context in which equity can be built. That is, within the organization. We know that groups, organizations, institutions are collective entities where different individuals come together to share an identity in some agreed upon purposes. As organizations become more diverse, they not only become more interesting and under the right conditions more capable in many different ways. They also quite frequently grow and they become increasingly complex. They're held together by many things, some which we observe and we can point out, and others less tangible, but no less real. We also know that, while everyone in this grid shares something in common, they each retain most of their own interest, their own prerogatives, even their own dreams. They bring their own talents and they retain, overwhelmingly, a sense of their own identities, both personal and professional. With the rise of institutions in the west dating as far back as the organization of the church and probably sooner. Something that's accelerated in the course of the assembly of armies, kingdoms, businesses, and eventually political structures. We know that social organizations are inherently hierarchical. Does this mean that they have to be so? Well, we know where we stand now and from childhood forward we build an expectation that there are people that are making decisions. And that they, presumably, have some basis for making them happen. Of late, we begun thinking in terms of organizations that are relatively flat by comparison and there are advantages to this arrangement, too, and we know them. There well studied. In fact, depending on how you look at an organization, it may well be that the hub and spokes model is a better depiction, or a social network model, or something that looks very much like random association. But flatness or networks don't guarantee equity. They may even discourage it. One of the very many reason we gravitated towards formality, bureaucracy, and even the dreaded word, hierarchy, is because we felt, or at least hoped, that it could somehow be tied to meritocracy, or fairness, or efficiency. One of these other values that we also prize and want to advance. We also find that as organizations become more decentralized, and as bonds become less formal, that movement towards genuine inclusion and progress toward diversity can be thwarted, not promoted. Can you see how those things might happen? You see people go their own ways. They find comfort in groups with which they identify. Technical skills accumulate in one part of the organization. And not only the sense of the whole, but an appreciation of its various parts can be jeopardized. So, here's the bottom line, while we increasingly use a concept, equity, diversity, and inclusion, EDI, to signal our commitment to a group of three related values. And while these are, obviously, and in many ways, connected both in concept and in vision, at the point of actualization, at the point at which leaders work, these values can be in real and in constant tension. Pulling toward one can have the effect of pulling away from another. And while this, in itself, is no reason to give up on our dream of accomplishment in each of these areas, it requires that we translate that dream into far more explicit language and action. You see, it requires that we recognize it, in fact, as representing three connected worthwhile values, the realization of which will require significant change and sophisticated leadership, and probably over many years. Before we leave the issue of equity, and certainly before we merely add it to an already difficult agenda for inclusion and diversity, let's reflect for a minute. Why is it important that this value, equity, be pursued in the context of the other two, even as we acknowledge the difficulty of doing three things at once? Reflect on what you know about changing organizational life. Why is achieving equity a challenge for complex organizations and institutions? How is it especially difficult in the context of colleges and universities? And then ask yourself, how are these tensions, tensions between equity, diversity and inclusion, felt within your institution, and across higher education? Even though we speak of them as a single thing, how are the tensions between them realized? And finally, how can you, as a leader, how can anyone committed to these values of equity, diversity and inclusion, respond to the challenges of their inherent tension, but their crucial interplay? We've explored the relationship between leadership and the work of leaders, and three core values that will define our higher educations institutions, indeed, our society over the course of our lifetimes. If nothing else, we've learned that the work of leadership is hard, and it is not always strictly intuitive. It may be dawning in you, that simply having good intentions, while helpful, is not enough to be effective as a leader. In the next sections of this course, we'll be introducing some tools that we found can be enormously helpful in taking up the challenges that leaders face. And right now, I like to offer you a quick introduction, as each of these tools will be explored in greater detail in the foregoing modules. I hope you find these tools useful, and begin to apply them in your own work, and into the conversations that we're about to have.
