New research looks at diversity in humanitarian leadership

CANBERRA — Is a lack of diversity at the leadership level stymying the humanitarian sector’s ability to address sexual harassment and exploitation? It is a question the Humanitarian Advisory Group, with the support of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, is aiming to answer. A new discussion paper, launched on August 1, marks the beginning of two years of research into humanitarian leadership and the impact of diversity in decision making with the aim to build an evidence base for why diversity matters. Kate Sutton, director of the Humanitarian Advisory Group, spoke with Devex about the need for the research and the impact it hopes to create. The conversation has been edited for length and clarity. What have been the drivers for this research into diversity in humanitarian leadership? The driver in many respects, is the fact that a number of reports have been questioning the effectiveness of humanitarian leadership. A lot of that has been looked at broadly in terms of working with communities and ensuring we are more localized — which is incredibly important. What a lot of reports are saying is that the leadership we currently have is not adequate to address these challenges. So if leadership isn’t currently addressing the challenges, what needs to change to make that more effective? In our framing paper, we ask how the private sector addresses it. When they realize leadership is failing or if they have an issue with leadership, what do they do to try and make it work? For me, I am fascinated by what we can learn and whether there are new ways of looking at our leadership structures and leadership teams. But the other momentum for this research is the risk component. On the back of the wave of issues in the sector around sexual abuse and exploitation, there has been a real call for understanding how organizations can manage risk better. We need to look at our leadership teams and see how fit for purpose they are, and whether or not diversity is one of those aspects that actually manages risk better. Are there any areas in particular in which humanitarian leadership appears to be failing? There have been a number of different areas that have been highlighted in various reports. One is efficiency and whether we are using resources in the most efficient way possible. The other potential area of leadership that needs to be strengthened is around the focus of humanitarian spending. It appears that where the media goes or focuses is where money is spent — but that does not necessarily support humanitarian need best. It requires enormous leadership to make those types of shifts. How do you currently rate the humanitarian sector on diversity? I think when it works, it probably works by accident. There have been some intentional programs around increasing women in leadership in the sector, and the idea of diversity of thinking that comes down to background and different ways for people to solve problems, and having different people at the table when there are really tricky issues. I don’t think there has been any intentional analysis around that in the sector, or thinking about that in the sector. Looking at some of the reports that have come out on decision making, we’re not getting it right yet. I would definitely say there is room to strengthen it. In some organizations, a new leader will bring across a management team that is familiar to them — “jobs for mates.” Do you see this in humanitarian leadership and how important is it to break this mentality? That whole idea of people like us permeates through loads of sectors — particularly in the humanitarian sector. Because we are in stressful situations already, there seems to be the desire to surround yourself with people you have worked with before, that you know how they work, and can predict what they are going to say. And quite often they are going to agree with you. Deloitte has a term called a “similarity bias” — we like working with people who are similar to us. It’s easier. It is more difficult working with people who have different ideas and challenge us. It has to be a proactive choice that leaders want to do — they have to put in the time and effort to achieve it. One of the really interesting pieces for in the research we conducted is the stuff around decision making. If you bring together diverse teams it can sometimes take you longer to reach a decision. But the decision itself is always better — it is more evidence-based and actually created better outcomes. The humanitarian sector often seems to be rushed for sign off on a decision rather than taking an intentional decision-making process that brings in different voices. What are examples of best practice within an organization to encourage diversity — and not just get a tick-in-the-box for diversity on paper? One of the things I learned was that you only start looking at diversity once you know you have the right elements in the room. There have been early experiments in the private sector where put two women, two people from Asia, two from Africa, two from Europe, and someone with a disability together, and assumed they would get the best solutions. But it was a catastrophic failure. First, you have to start with people who have the technical skills and capabilities to do the job, and then you start thinking about diversity. That’s a really important point. There were also examples of women being put in very senior leadership positions but the climate or environment of the business was not inclusive enough to allow them success. You can’t just recruit diverse people, even if they have the required skill set, without the right environment to support them. You can have all the right people in the room, but if you don’t give them floor time and ability to be able to contribute to a discussion then you are not going to get the benefits of diversity. And, if you are not going to listen intentionally to their contribution and have that influence your decision making, then that is not going to work either. “If you bring together diverse teams it can sometimes take you longer to reach a decision. But the decision itself is always better — it is more evidence-based and actually created better outcomes.” --— Kate Sutton, director of the Humanitarian Advisory Group What will be involved in the research the Humanitarian Advisory Group will conduct over the next two years? We’re going to work on the methodology over the next few months. But what we are going to do is look at different leadership teams and try to measure how diverse they are in different humanitarian organizations. We will be looking at the level of diversity within the leadership teams and then at the perceptions of their organizations around the level of inclusion, but also the level of risk-taking and effectiveness of decision making. We will be trying to look for a positive or negative correlation between factors of effectiveness and the diversity of inclusion within different organizations. What I am hoping to do is look at diverse leadership success stories and work out how they have managed to achieve diversity in strong organizational performance, and unpacking some of those practices so it does move into a positive contribution and positive examples and impacts. How are you progressing in getting humanitarian organizations to be part of this research? It has been really easy in getting organizations interested in the research — but we haven’t yet got an organization that is firmly committed to it. That’s the next step for us. We’d love to hear from any organization that would want to be involved, but our focus is likely to be Asia as our field research manager is based there. I would be keen for organizations more broadly to get in touch if they want more information tools and support to be directly involved in the research. The more humanitarian organizations that are keen to be involved will really help in building the evidence base to support better leadership and effectiveness of the sector.