Dead Metaphors and Counterfeit Conversations
-by David Robinson
The reality of diversity in
the workplace is complex. It requires metaphors capable of grasping complexity,
expanding perspectives, and facilitating a meaningful dialogue across
difference. By unwittingly
“literalizing” their metaphors, HR professionals hinder their capacity to grasp
and address the multifarious nature of diversity. Without the capacity to
engage with multiple perspectives that comes with metaphor, their only recourse
is to default to well-worn cycles of legislating behavior, thereby perpetuating
the notion that diversity is a problem to be “solved.”
Business identifies itself
through what it believes to be quantifiable, objective data. The “bottom line”
is a favorite and oft used expression (and a metaphor). It is not surprising
then, that HR professionals, working within a context that greatly values the
reduction of information, are stymied when confronted with a complexity like
diversity. Business demands that issues
be reduced to prose, which condemns HR professionals to perpetually seek ways
to address the “bottom line” of diversity. When “seeking the bottom line of
diversity” refers only to “what is the pay-off?” or “what will it cost?” the
metaphor (bottom line) is being used literally and no longer functions as a
metaphor. It is in effect, dead.
The parade of literal
business cases made to address the literal “bottom line of diversity” indicates
that the metaphor has lost its referential power. A living metaphor connotes;
it is the poetry that reaches for understanding beyond the ability of language
to grasp. A dead metaphor denotes; at best it describes. It is prose. When
taken literally, a metaphor (bottom line) has no power to illuminate; the
subject (diversity) is reduced, the interpretive possibilities neutered and the
complexities denied. In fact, the inert metaphor holds the subject (diversity)
captive reducing its access to quantitative statements, dollars and cents.
“Stir Fry,” “Mosaic,” “Jelly Bean Jar,” and “Tossed Salad,” are among the
plethora of “different-things–in-a-single-container” comparisons used to describe
but incapable of illuminating diversity.
A living metaphor
facilitates a more significant and revealing engagement with diversity. It does
more than describe. It affords HR professionals the capacity to deal with the
complexity of diversity in a useful way. For instance, Robert Fritz teaches that behavior, like water, will
always follow the path of least resistance, a path determined by the structure
of the land. How might diversity interventions transform if the focus shifted
from regulating behavior to engaging with the underlying structure of the
land? How might diversity become
meaningful if it was no longer seen as a container-of-different-things (a
“silo”) but instead was understood as an action, “how we do what we do?” These
perceptual changes are possible within a living metaphor in which the “essence”
or the “ends” or the “heart” or the “fundamental nature” of diversity become
relevant.
Dead metaphors are
supported by two concepts: split intentions and counterfeit conversations.
A split intention happens
when actions taken do not support the stated intentions. For instance, when an
organization sincerely includes diversity in its statement of core values but
does little to address its recruiting and hiring practices, systems of
promotions, compensation, etc., it has effectively split its intention. A split intention is often invested in the
appearance of an action and not the action itself. When diversity is encased in
a dead metaphor, HR professionals have no choice but to split their intentions
in order to make their initiatives appear impactful.
Counterfeit conversations
result from the continued, persistent use of a dead metaphor as if it were
still alive. The metaphors we use frame the choices we see; when a metaphor no
longer refers to an illumination, it becomes concrete and obfuscates
absurdities. In this instance, when we take seriously the metaphor of the
“bottom line of diversity,” it appears that the unsolvable might be solved. The
organization, invested in the concrete nature of its metaphor, is within its
rights to demand that expenditures en route to solving the unsolvable be
justified. HR professionals with the task of “solving” diversity while staying
under budget have no other recourse but to talk around the issue and pretend that
a mountain of data, lists of statistics, 10 best tools or a host of
interventions and conferences will actually result in the “solving” of the
problem. It is a vicious circle.
It is a trick of language
that deludes us into grasping for diversity like it is an object, a thing, jellybeans in a jar. The word “diversity” is, after all, a noun.
It is only through another trick of language, a living metaphor, that we will
able to reach beyond the limits of our language and encounter the many complex
forces, the poetry that we reduce to the prose “diversity.”
-David Robinson is co-founder of The Circle Project, providing unique, experiential training about diversity and inclusion issues and culture change. www.thecircleproject.com; 828-280-5766 (East Coast office) or 206-853-8289.
Recent Comments