Everyone wants to be treated as an individual, that much I know. I don't think anyone has ever gone through an automated telephone system and wished, after being asked to press one for cinema times followed by pressing the wrong button and not being able to get back to the original menu, that more things in life were that one-size-fits-all style of communication.
Nobody likes to be mass communicated to, or to feel like one of a number, it makes you feel meaningless and unimportant. Generalisations and assumptions have the same affect.
Conversely, people don't like being singled out. People don't mind being treated differently because they are clever, but hate being treated differently because they are blonde. Now I realise that being singled out for a negative reason is never going to go down well, but what I struggle with is how do you treat everyone as an individual, but equally?
Perhaps it is because of my experiences and my background, but the idea of celebrating and using people's differences is one that has always been ingrained in me. Studying the IB every aspect of the course has to relate to culture, whether that was the culture of a foreign country, an artist or your own peers.
But there's so much more to it than simply people's differences. I found a quote from Ernest Istook, former Republican member of the US house of Representatives, about America, but I think the principle holds strong for any society or organisation:
America's strength is not our diversity; our strength is our ability to unite people of different backgrounds around common principles.
If you've ever worked in a team that just seems to work, that's slick, progresses well and is fun
to work in, you'll know that it it only really happens when everybody is working to their strengths and everybody has different strengths. It is so important to learn from those around you. It makes my mind boggle that every person you meet has had such different experiences to you, knows completely different things to you, different opinions. In that team where people work so well together you went through a process together; you slowly built on an idea, each drawing from your own lives, shaping the idea, eventually creating something that no one of you would ever have come up with on your own.
Around the side of the £2 coins is inscribed "standing on the shoulders of giants", which was apparently said by Sir Isaac Newton, but I think it was a Latin saying originally, sums up this idea that with others you can reach new heights (I know that was a bit cheesy). It is also an album from Oasis.
Everybody makes judgements, there's not a lot you can do about that, without these "mental short cuts" the brain wouldn't be able to think as quickly, remember as much or function as well, but it is definitely beneficial to be aware of our own judgements, think about why we make those assumptions and about what they are founded on. The other day I got on the bus at Heathrow and the only other person on the bus was this old Asian guy, with his shoes off, his feet up on the seat, running prayer beads through his hand. He grinned at me like a Cheshire cat and said hello. He looked like a slightly creepy, modern day Buddha.
I remember consciously disputing whether or not to respond to him, I had just finished work and was tired. But I said hello and started chatting to him. It turned out that he had a flat that he needed to rent out (cheaply) in the area that I was looking for a flat to rent.
Had I gone with my initial decision I would never have had that opportunity.
Now I’m sure all of you reading this in the UK are hoping beyond hope that I don’t try and fit in some crass reference to the Coalition government to try and make a point about working together- but I am going to anyway.
I'm not saying that this new government is going to work better than any other we’ve had in the last 30 years, but I do think that it is favourable to have a larger pool of resources and policies to draw from. Ignoring the politics of the situation, if you can, this government can now create almost any policy and they can make it because it is right for Britain at this moment in time; not because it fits their agenda or what they should be doing for their party.
It is an opportunity to battle out ideas and pick the best part of each idea to form something, with any luck, better than either of the original ideas and together they can achieve more.
Steve Richards, of the Independent, reckons that one of the keys things that keeps this government progressing is that this situation means that the minority must fight for his life simply to stay afloat which, in turn, means that the majority has to step up his game to keep ahead.
That's not to say that when you throw a load of random people together you will get success, of course there will be issues. It is quite possible that you'll have a few people with opposing views who are absolutely adamant that they are correct, pulling the group in conflicting directions. Not only that, but in terms of diversity it can be taken too far, becoming a box-ticking, political correctness exercise. What each person wants to get out of a situation will depend on their life experiences and terminal values. How they act in a group will be a culmination of many factors in their life, including the culture they come from and Geert Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions, such as power index (how likely someone is to speak up if they think their boss/superior is wrong), uncertainty avoidance index (how likely someone is take/avoid risks) and individualism vs collectivism. I've gone into much more detail in my other blog, click here to view.
When you get this "melting pot" situation it is important to make the most of the people and resources that you have available by making sure everyone has their time to be heard and understood. With any evolution of an idea having others input is vital. This is why I was particularly impressed with Cisco's new More Together initiative.
More Together is all about making people aware of their everyday behaviours and how they affect those around them to get the best out of your peers- do the same people always speak in meetings? is this because they are the most qualified to answer the questions raised in the meeting? or is it because they shout the loudest?
Which brings me back to my original question, which I still haven't answered and would be pleased to hear your opinion on the subject, how do you treat everyone as an individual, but equally?
Diversity: the art of thinking independently together-Malcolm Forbes
