Generally, when one thinks of legal work environments, one doesn’t think of a nest of nurturing personalities where one feels safe to share feelings and reveal one’s vulnerabilities. The stereotype is that of an aggressive group of professionals, each jockeying to show his dominance in the group. That dynamic may benefit the individual who dominates to the top of the ego pile, but it isn’t good for the group or the organization as a whole. Does an organization benefit when groups fall prey to the indulgences of individual egos? More importantly, what is the secret ingredient that makes a team effective?
Google examined what makes a group successful. Is it having the smartest people? The most ambitious people? The most efficient? No. Google found the most effective groups are the ones where “members listen to one another and show sensitivity to feelings and needs.” Building on the concept of sensitivity, another element of successful teams is psychological safety. What is psychological safety in a professional context? It includes listening to your colleagues, being polite and respectful to your colleagues, sharing resources; or as kindergartners are taught: playing well with others. Other factors also go into successful team dynamics, like setting forth clear goals, leaders who demonstrate strong emotional control; criticism is constructive, and relatively minimum, and enthusiasm is abundant. But psychological safety is paramount to predicting team success.
Google’s findings demonstrate why a commitment to diversity is important. The New York Times article did not make this connection, but I will. In 2016, most organizations have some sort of formal program for diverse hiring practices, but a commitment to diversity goes beyond hiring practices. A commitment to diversity means that team leaders create the psychological safety that allows all team members to be heard. The stereotype of an aggressive, loud, attention-consuming lawyer is not what creates effective teams. In fact, that stereotype is only good, if at all, for a specific type of person. Women are punished professionally for being too aggressive. Likewise, people of color don’t benefit from behaving aggressively either.
Stand With Survivors: Legal Tools To Make A Real Difference This DVAM
Enhance your legal skills to advocate for survivors of intimate partner violence.
When we talk about diversity, many arguments against diversity tend to be along the lines of, “do good work and let the work speak for itself.” That position works only if people work in their own separate silos and the work is evaluated blindly on its merits. That isn’t how the world works. The real world requires people to work together in teams, to accomplish goals in a group, and retain and develop talent. In the past, the person who spoke the loudest and monopolized the team’s attention may have benefited as an individual by being noticed. That dynamic is not beneficial to the organization and will eventually be discouraged as the benefits of teams where all inputs are appreciated become more apparent. The more diverse a team, the more diverse the contributions, which increases the likelihood of creative and innovative solutions.
The benefits of a real commitment to diversity have been known for years, but diversity is more than just decoration to conceal the institutional exclusion of others. That institutional exclusion can be overt, literal exclusion of others, or simply be the result of a failure to facilitate the sort of team dynamics where all members feel secure enough to contribute. As Google has discovered, when all team members feel like they can contribute, and that those contributions will be appreciated, the team succeeds and the organization reaps the benefit of a team that is greater than the sum of its parts.
Celeste Harrison Forst has practiced in small and mid-sized firms and is now in-house at a large manufacturing and technology company where she receives daily hugs from her colleagues. You can reach Celeste directly at [email protected].