A couple of days ago I was delighted to see an article by one of the most notable leaders of Chicago’s entrepreneurial tech ecosystem with a title indicating that he was going to try to tackle the thorny issue of diversity in startup and tech life. Since I work with startups and focus on bringing diversified strengths to bear on an organization, I was eager to dig in. But, just a mere two sentences in, it was clear that I was in for a horribly myopic expression of self-promotion and privilege that missed the point entirely.
Effectively, the case made in the article was that “diversity” is a term that requires redefinition to include diversity of talents and workplace experiences. This then led the author to point out how the “incubator” he runs benefits from having within it a group that trains to-be-entrepreneurs who bring with them a wide range of previous experiences. The point in all this is that thanks to this entrepreneurial training center located within, the “incubator” is now, somehow, freed from the shackles of not being “diverse” enough.
To be sure, no company can be successful without a variety of strengths and abilities. As part of the very model that I leverage in my consultancy, the keystone is identifying and leveraging the strengths of the individuals that make up the organization. So, to this, I have no argument. Where things get very bad very quickly is when this form of diversity in talents is used as a proxy, or worse yet, as a replacement, for real diversity as the author of the article contends.
If it is unclear to you how diversity of talents is a suitable replacement for real diversity, then you’re in good company.
First and foremost, the very contention that diversity needs to be expanded to include more interpretations is one dripping with privilege. That such a claim is made by a wealthy, powerful, white male with a penchant for self-promotion puts it squarely in the “oh damn… not this again…” camp.
(Allow me a quick aside to acknowledge that I recognize that both the author and I, if we were to be walking down the street, are likely to be perceived as similarly privileged white males. To explain the differences leads to a much longer discussion around deconstructing “Whiteness”, but that is beyond the scope of this article.)
Trying to redefine diversity from the top down, belittles the very struggle of it. There are no marches for diversity of talent in the workplace. Gender, race, sexual identity, ability, and religion are just a few of the countless examples of real diversity issues and struggles for parity in the workplace. The idea that instead of any of these we should expand our definition of diversity and focus, as startups, on finding people with different work backgrounds is, at best, willful ignorance, and at worst, horribly dangerous bigotry.
Second, to try to redefine diversity to fit one’s own interpretation is not only the very antithesis to diversity, but is often a shell game to distract from the current state of woeful diversity - that too is the case here. The “incubator” in question is painfully white, largely male, backed by an army of wealthy white male investors, all looking to benefit financially on the backs of younger, more nimble and hungry, white males. In all, it is about as diverse as a 50’s country club. Moreover, to wrestle with this very issue of diversity, the author's “incubator” had intended to include a “FemTech” portion to its latest expansion late last year. To nobody’s surprise, the “FemTech” portion of the expansion still hasn’t happened. While a select few have held leadership to task on this issue, it has mostly blown over because, again, those who would/could/should do anything about it are largely wealthy white males who never really cared much in the first place. Or, as a one Twitter response to the article put it: “Easily the most disingenuous thing I've read about #diversity in tech.”
So, what are we left with? A wealthy white male leader of a largely privileged white male “incubator” in an entrepreneurial ecosystem, here in Chicago, still very much looking to find its way. But “insights” like this do nothing to further our advancement, and in fact do a great deal to hold us back. If, as a community, we are to expand beyond such myopia, we need to find a shared voice, a manner of operating, that finds what value our community’s has-beens and also-rans really bring, rather than defaulting to making them expert leaders and yielding to them the limelight. Until such time, two quick bits of advice for any other over-privileged wealthy white males considering future articles on redefining diversity in tech: 1) tread VERY carefully as you are almost certainly just setting yourself up to look like an ass and 2) if you haven’t yet been able to walk your talk and actually LIVE in a diverse way, then, at the very least, before you publish your musings, PLEASE have an actual “diverse” person review it, by which, of course, I mean diverse by race, gender, ability, or countless other well-accepted definitions of diversity and not “diverse” by occupational background.
---------------------
Tomer Yogev is "Chief Synergist" at TandemSpring. He has launched or co-launched over a dozen companies, participated in multiple multi-million dollar acquisitions, consulted to over 100 companies from raw startups to Fortune 100s, and is a noted expert author and speaker on entrepreneurship as well as small business and technology issues.
.jpg)
