Most of my readers know that I’m a product of the 1960’s – entering the workforce in 1973. Affirmative action was in full swing then and intended to provide equal opportunities for members of minority groups and women in education and employment. Coming out of the Civil Rights Movement, President Kennedy was the first to use the term “affirmative action” in a 1961 Executive Order that established the Equal Employment and Opportunity Commission. Quotas were implemented then and have been hotly debated and litigated from the very beginning. It continues now, 57 years later, evidenced by the current lawsuit involving Harvard University’s quota on Asian-American student admissions and the State of California’s recent legislation establishing a quota for the number of women on boards of publicly traded companies.

I’ve always been on the fence about quotas. My experience is that they addressed symptoms rather than root causes. Let me explain what I mean. First, quotas increased the underrepresented population, solving one problem, but they caused another by narrowing the pool of candidates to choose from, effectively limiting the process of talent development in organizations. A leader’s job is to develop all employees to achieve their fullest potential, not some at the expense of others.

Second, quotas often lead to feelings of resentment and marginalization from the groups of employees who fall out of the targeted zone. Take myself as an example. My race and gender put me center stage as either a culprit or beneficiary of unjust or prejudicial treatment. Although my recognition and understanding of gender-and raced-based discrimination heightened throughout my career, I didn’t feel that I was particularly blessed with advantaged treatment. I say that at the risk of sounding unaware and I’m not suggesting that anyone should shed a tear for me. It’s just that getting ahead for me was a constant battle – requiring enormous sacrifices in my personal and family life. Long working hours, difficult bosses, many setbacks, and the advancement of others who I felt less worthy than me were struggles that I dealt with constantly. In addition, I felt that my Italian-American heritage was a hindrance, particularly as the popular and successful film series, The Godfather, was launched as I started my working career. The films portrayed my ethnicity as criminal, ignorant, and un-American. In hindsight, I question if the success I achieved was worth the pressure and costs that I endured. Surely, I’m not alone with this thought among the ageing survivors of the war called “achieving career success.”

With that in mind, it was with considerable frustration that I read the key findings of the Women in the Workplace 2018 report (released in October) – the result of a joint, multiyear survey by LeanIn.Org and McKinsey & Co. Despite nearly 60 years of focus, women continue to be underrepresented at every level in the workplace. It’s even worse for women of color. There has been clear progress over the years, but the authors believe it has stalled. The report cites that there are 79 women for every 100 men promoted to manager.

Currently, men hold 62% of manager positions, while women hold 38%. Surely that’s better than 60 years ago, but is it enough? The authors of the report think not and recommend more affirmative action. I believe that neither the issue nor the solution is named properly, e.g., in my mind 38% being less than 62% does not adequately define the problem.

During the past summer, Patty Beach and her husband, Roger Toennis, spent a weekend at my lake house in Alaska. Patty runs a consulting company called LeadershipSmarts. Around the campfire one evening they explained Patty’s lifetime passion in developing the concept of Versatility. As the last ember of the campfire lost its glow, I felt like I’d been knocked on the head by the holy grail.

Patty and Roger have co-opted the word Versatility to describe humans and human systems that value and intentionally leverage masculine and feminine strengths. These strengths (also called energy) are collectively referred to as archetypes and exist independent of gender. Examples of masculine archetypes include competitiveness, assertiveness and rationality, compared to feminine archetypes of patience, consideration and compassion. Both men and women have masculine and feminine archetypal strengths. However, we oftentimes unconsciously value one way of being over the other. Patty and Roger believe that most business environments reward masculine strengths and under appreciate feminine strengths, but the bias varies depending on the dominant cultural archetype in an organization. That is, even organizations with good gender diversity can end up with a dominant culture that is either too masculine or too feminine. In such organizations, this bias can inadvertently shut down (and out) employees based on their archetypal energy, regardless of their gender.

The concept of balanced masculine and feminine energy is not new. Ancient Chinese Taoist philosophy emphasizes that a balance of Yin (Feminine) and Yang (Masculine) energy is key to success and harmony. Nearly 100 years ago Swiss psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, Carl Jung, described the Anima as the feminine dimension of the male psyche, and Animus as the masculine dimension of the female psyche. Jung believed that these hidden dimensions of our selves exist in our subconsciousness as sources of repressed energy. Jung theorized that accepting these repressed parts of our selves is a path to psychological health and wellbeing.

Given today’s more inclusive societal norms and the related needs and expectations of leadership, creating a Versatile work culture is a strategy I can buy into. A Versatile organization (leader) is one that (who) values feminine and masculine strengths and seeks to leverage them as positive sources of power and energy. The point being that women can be equally rational and competitive as men, and men can be equally inclusive and compassionate as women. The challenge is that men and women can feel pressured to suppress their masculine or feminine strengths in order to conform to the dominant culture in an organization. Moreover, we often judge those that do not fit the cultural norm for their gender. For more information see versatilityfactor.com.

Here are a couple of examples to illustrate the point. I’m not a guy’s guy. I’m goal oriented and driven to achieve but I’m not competitive. I’d rather nurture someone than compete with them. I’m extremely courageous in action and decision-making but I’m mindful of risks – I’ve never been skydiving, mountain climbing, or ziplining. I play golf for enjoyment, and the conversation that occurs among friends, not to keep score or beat anyone else’s. I’d rather pound a nail through my finger than spend a Sunday afternoon watching a football game on television. I often wonder how I succeeded for 30 years in the oil & gas industry, one that had an extremely dominant masculine culture. I must have suppressed my feminine energy in order to fit into that culture. Sadly, my employers lost the benefits my positive feminine attributes could have brought to the table, and my act of “fitting in” reinforced and perpetuated the “macho” bias that existed in the industry.

The pervasiveness of our unconscious archetypal energy bias was made even more poignant for me during the October 2018 congressional testimony of Christine Blasey Ford and Bret Kavanaugh regarding her allegations of sexual harassment. My wife and I watched the entire eight-hour hearing. Christine testified first and after she finished, we agreed that she was believable. I commented, “He’s going down.” When Bret finished his testimony, we looked at each other astonished, agreeing that he also was believable. It’s noteworthy that each demonstrated behaviors during their testimony that were archetypal for their gender. Some journalists suggested that each had been coached extensively. She appeared, frightened, fragile, emotional, and vulnerable; and she needed the support of an attorney on each side of her. He was angry, confrontational, defiant, evidentiary, self-supported, but also emotional and vulnerable. Interestingly, if their behaviors were reversed, neither would have been seen as credible. The implicit and unconscious biases that my wife and I (and most people who watched the testimony) have about expected behavior of women and men influenced our interpretation of what had occurred in front of us. It’s frightening to think about how pervasive and potentially misleading these biases can be.

All of this has been a catharsis for me and has provided an alternative to quotas in an effort to create a workplace where neither gender is disenfranchised. By creating a Versatile culture where a full expression of masculine and feminine energy is not only tolerated but encouraged, we will make strides towards the truly inclusive and equitable workplace we all seek. It requires focused training and clear boundaries from management so that employees come to understand how masculine and feminine ways of operating contribute to not only equity but also the productivity of an organization, even in industries dominated by one gender.

I believe that Versatility may finally be “The Key” that will solve the root cause of gender discrimination in the workplace in a manner that benefits employees and business outcomes. In support, I have added Versatility to the recommended behaviors in the Applied Leadership model. This addition expands the model to the following nine leadership behaviors: