More diversity in the cultural workplace? 'They are not there' does not exist. The ball is now in employers' court: look outside your own box and show guts. #LinC

When I write a job posting in the cultural sector, I receive wonderful letters. Candidates are usually graduates in an arts-related subject from a college or university and have internships or work experience at cultural institutions of repute. They are usually female, white and have completed their studies with good grades.

Still, I struggle with a problem.

I live and work in The Hague. 54% of the population is of non-Dutch origin, about 50% of the inhabitants are male. How do I achieve a heterogeneous team that reflects the city? Sometimes I think a quota would be the best solution. Let's say, a male/female quota. Or a quota of 'where are your roots'. Or a quota 'at least 50% of the team speaks Arabic/ Hindi/ Turkish/ Berber/ Chinese/ Thai/ Somali/ Bahasa Indonesia/ Egyptian at B2 level in addition to Dutch'. Or.

Whenever I discuss this issue with colleagues, at least one always suggests: you have to choose the most suitable candidate. The one who best fits the job description, the one with the right papers, the right studies, the intended necessary networks. So simply: choose the best.

The best candidate

However, I doubt that the best candidate is also the most suitable one. What we in the cultural sector consider the best is always coloured by our view of life and work. The existing idea of the best is about a certain level of knowledge, an intended way of working, a certain network, an intended way of communicating and of talking.

The sector likes to choose candidates with manners that suit it, that are familiar and therefore familiar. A standard most colleagues in the cultural sector have grown up with from family and high school experience, a standard we have learnt within our arts education and then in our work environment. So far, the sector has not chosen unfamiliar paths, uncomfortable paths or ways of working that it considers ineffective in its human resources policy.

The demand for quality

This is explicable. The cultural sector is under pressure, the obvious appreciation of art is declining and available resources are minimal. There is an incessant call for quality; for the Council for Culture, for instance, quality is central when assessing grant applications. So we keep choosing familiar candidates because we are under pressure to deliver quality. Only: pressure and quality do not relate well; and what do we actually mean by quality?

What I mainly experience is that we understand quality to be something that is risk-averse. Quality is something we can predict, schedule, calculate. In short: something that cannot go wrong. We want the best quality by our standards in employees, and in today's mindset not go along with involving outsiders. They represent an uncertain factor, an unassessable risk of harm, especially if key positions are involved.

Are those good people not there, or do we not see them?

Besides avoiding risk, a common argument for sticking to a homogeneous team is: "they are not there". Candidates with the right quality and a non-originally Dutch background are missing. Indeed, migrant children often choose traditionally safe courses such as law, medicine, economics and business administration rather than culture courses. Courses in arts and culture seem too insecure to be chosen as future prospects and investments.

But when exactly does the dream of getting involved in arts and culture arise? At the age of 18? When you have just finished high school? When you look around at what your friends are doing? When your parents are pressuring you to choose a study you can actually earn money from? In your 30s, when you realise that you will really have to keep up your work for a very long time, and you start thinking about where your heart really lies? Even though there may be relatively few candidates via the traditional education route, that does not mean they cannot transfer from other sectors.

Missing frame of reference

My father said to me in 1991: 'Child, go work at a bank. And study Chinese. That's what you should do. Then a golden future will smile on you.' He was right. I could have done. Wasn't writing this article now. I chose a different challenge. And when I went through detours like - yes I'm going to use this deleted word anyway - like immigrant entered a Dutch School of Arts, I felt the gap. I was a late bloomer as well as an outsider. I hadn't watched the films you were supposed to watch, I hadn't taken the preparatory courses you should have been on, I didn't know the celebrities, those songs meant nothing to me, I hadn't seen the performances.

Moreover, my language was not perfect, I had an accent that clearly marked me as a foreigner, and I did not understand the jokes. Difficult for those around me, that different thinking and that missing frame of reference. And, of course, also prompted the formation of my own identity: I was different and that made me special, I thought.

Step by step

Other compatriots mostly sought each other out, familiar, safe and feeling shared memories in common. I wanted to belong to my new compatriots and accepted any help offered along the way. I learned, by doing. Step by step. I grabbed every opportunity that came along. Sometimes tried to explain to people that it is quite difficult to find your way in another country, to understand the way people communicate. People assumed that I would adapt and could therefore run with the others. Dealing with those barriers, bluffing and constantly trying to improve myself, getting by even when I was on my own, continuing to learn, that's what I kept from that time.

Nothing came naturally. I was driven by a strong 'I want'. Looking back now, this has freerunning shaped me. These experiences, and my being different, actually help me solve bigger issues.

The threshold is your teacher

The outsiders, 'the others', have long been ready to take the necessary steps. It is precisely their perseverance that sets them apart. Darvin Edwards, from the independent island of Saint Lucia, former high jumper, said in the documentary London's most luxurious Hotel the following: 'I come from an environment where you have to perform constantly. Without obstacles, you can't perform anything. I love obstacles. Bring it on. I learn from them.'

This embrace of barriers will be one of the keys to overcoming the major obstacles that the cultural sector has faced and so far failed to respond to. So how can a cultural employer muster the courage to actually incorporate this expertise of hurdlers, high jumpers and freerunners into its organisation?

Choose the high jumper

What does an employer need to get out of its comfort zone to step in and take on what he feels is a risk? I would start with some benchmarks. Suppose education does not matter, but a certain level of thinking does. Professor Paul Boselie confirmed during a recent lecture: an intelligence test is the best measure to predict how someone will perform against others. 'If you don't want to use an intelligence test, you can also use an integrity test, also a very good predictor,' Boselie said.

As an employer, I want people who are capable of absorbing new learning, who can think outside the box, who can draw parallels from their field with the content of the new working environment. A CV with the 'appropriate' education no longer matters, references are uninteresting. The employer is then genuinely open to the other person.

Look them up

If a cultural employer really wants to break new ground, it requires a great curiosity about the other, courage to deviate from one's colleagues and perseverance to maintain the new direction. Birgit Sziller of consultancy firm HRD Hamburg is clear: it is precisely heterogeneous teams that are capable of excellent performance.

By developing deep understanding of each other, the great benefit of diversity emerges. The creative process thrives on different perspectives and experiences. People listen to each other, thereby developing more prototypes and finding unusual solutions. Blind spots are reduced, as one falls less into routines. And intercultural competences, the most important for this 21st century, are promoted: employees are better able to deal with differences and can therefore stay active more easily, ambiguity and the feeling of not-knowing are better tolerated.

Fun

With these advantages in mind, it will be a pleasure for cultural organisations to assemble diverse teams. The search for those candidates who were hitherto out of sight will help re-energise and energise the organisation. Are they not there? 'The others' are there. And they are badly needed to make the cultural sector more connected to society.

Where can you find them? Go where the target group is, on social media, at events and also in your own network. If necessary, go into the neighbourhoods. Go looking for them. Think like a marketer, make sure they apply to you. If you don't, you will miss this wonderful target group and the great opportunity that lies ahead for the cultural sector. The ball is now in the employers' court: look outside your own box and show guts.