With around five minutes to play in a recent Monday night National Football League game between the New York Giants and Atlanta Falcons, the Giants scored a touchdown, cutting the Falcons’ lead in half. Assuming that the Giants successfully kicked the extra point, the expected move in similar situations.

But the Giants chose to try a two-point conversion, a riskier option. This decision startled both the Westwood One radio announcers broadcasting the game and me. But my guide dog, christened The Football Player by those who trained him, was more interested in tussling with me for turf on my queen-sized bed.

The following morning, the ESPN Radio talking heads played a clip of the Giants’ football coach explaining that analytics — those complex statistical packages that use algorithms to churn out the best strategy in a given situation — told him that going for those two points was the better option. This ran counter to traditional wisdom, but it makes intuitive sense. For if the Giants had successfully made that two-point play, another touchdown plus an extra point would win the game, avoiding the perils of sudden death football. And if the two-point conversion had failed, they could try it again if they had scored that second touchdown, sending the game into overtime if successful.

But the two-point conversion failed, and the Giants lost.

In large part because the Falcons also went against common wisdom by choosing to try to kick a fifty-five yard field goal with around two minutes to play. If the attempt had failed, the Giants would have had great field position to go for that tying touchdown.

But the field goal try was good.

Each of us, especially those of us from underrepresented groups, go against common wisdom and cultural expectations to work towards a dream. Getting that degree. Marrying and starting a family. Using our strengths to nudge things in a better direction.

But it’s much harder to step out of our comfort zone without the support of others. Those football coaches would have been less likely to take risks without the encouragement of players and the owners who hired them.

Business thought leaders continue to trumpet statistics to show that diversity is good for the bottom line. In a recent Forbes article, for example, Dr. Pragya Agarwal cited a 2017 report from McKinsey & Company that states that organizations in the top twenty-five percent for gender diversity on their executive teams were twenty-one percent more likely to experience above-average profits (1). Yet despite these statistics (a simplified type of analytics), most diversity programs have fallen flat in large part because organization leaders and talented people from underrepresented groups don’t feel sufficiently supported to take those needed calculated risks.

These risks, while subtle, add up. Like those Westwood One radio announcers and me, many of us hold onto our ways due to ignorance and stubbornness. Talent scouts are less likely to connect with talent from underrepresented groups because they look in the wrong places. Members of underrepresented groups are likely to have fewer connections within the business world and therefore take job descriptions requirements more literally than those who are in the majority. Underrepresented group members tend to gain skills and experiences through less traditional paths and are more suspicious of authority figures, causing hiring managers to view their applications more warily. And those unconscious biases get in the way.

But solutions exist built on relationships. Relationships where success stories and best practices are shared and adapted for each organization’s unique culture. Mentoring and coaching relationships. Relationships where leaders use authority wisely and with soul.

Perhaps supported with technology. Leaders of sports teams are using artificial intelligence with varying degrees of success. More and more diversity leaders are using artificial intelligence to make job descriptions more gender-neutral while guarding against bias in hiring and promoting staff.

Perhaps this ever-evolving technology could support us in taking those calculated risks?

Or we could follow the example of The Football Player and tussle for every inch of turf.

(1) https://www.forbes.com/sites/pragyaagarwaleurope/2018/10/19/how-can-bias-during-interviews-affect-recruitment-in-your-organisation/#5672c40b1951