Ayes (or I's) of Inclusion
To serve organizations effectively, everyone in or adjacent to the chief people office must adopt a more right-brained understanding of organizational life.
We're taking a break until January 10th, 2025, making space for reflection, connection, and renewal. While emergent inclusion never truly stops, sometimes we need to step back to move forward with greater clarity and purpose.
Thank you for being part of this transformative journey. Your engagement and willingness to navigate these important conversations continue to inspire and inform our collective work. See you in 2025.
Unlike many people, I believe positively about human resources, more recently named people and culture. I believe that as these offices transform, so will their respective organizations.
However, achieving this transformation requires a different perspective on organizational life, viewed through the lens of those within their respective people and culture departments (i.e., typically talent acquisition (TA), learning and development (L&D), generalists (partners), organizational development (OD), and in many cases diversity and inclusion (D&I)). One can argue whether DEI belongs within HR or exists as its own entity. I am not convinced that it works better or worse inside or outside the function—it’s context-dependent like everything is.
The essential mindset shift is one of integration. That is, thinking of HR departments as a whole, acting and engaging with the belief that their respective work is interdependent with their department, the people, and the organizations they serve.
I use the word integration because I observe many individuals in HR—be they in TA, L&D, OD, or those who consider themselves HR generalists/business partners—who often hold significant influence due to their direct work with line managers view their roles as disintegrated. DEI/DEIB/D&I (I often interchange these terms) is frequently part of that disintegration.
My firm, Inclusion Wins, reaches out to many HR professionals across various disciplines, particularly heads of people and culture and chief people officers (CPOs). Often, when we contact them the fact that our work and my personal brand includes the term 'DEI,' it is automatically compartmentalized.
Interestingly, many CPOs (most of whom are HR generalists, given the nature of their role) and their equivalents across larger enterprises say they want their D&I work to be seamlessly integrated with business processes. Yet they rarely require that this mindset be curated in organizational life with the requisite prioritization, even in their own departments.
Why is this? There could be several reasons. The CPO may not know how to achieve this integration. One might surmise that “this is what we need”—hire someone like me to provide a ten-step DEI plan and leave them to carry on.
That sounds reductionist, doesn't it? As if CPOs don't recognize that diversity management in practice is largely about managing tension and complexity.
Reconstructing DEI to make it more Accessible, Actionable, and Sustainable
DEI practitioners, who consider themselves experts, often reduce their work. In theory, they say DEI is for everyone. In practice and perception, however, it has become an idea with often diametrically opposed interpretations across organizations, including those working in the HR function. I imagine there are some HR professionals who don’t want anything to do with DEI not due to being personally opposed, but for self-protection purposes. DEI has a brand problem that didn’t start with a tech bro. It’s been the case for years, and the activities since the death of George Floyd have exacerbated the fragility of perception found in the three letters.
For some, the idea pertains to representation, social justice, and belonging. For others, it represents special consideration for "marginalized" groups by a majority group identity, sometimes perceived as an unfair advantage regardless of qualifications.
Rarely has a clear understanding been organically integrated into everyone's work in the HR office, nor the beliefs of everyone in the organization. When we contact someone in the people and culture suite, they frequently suggest we speak to their head of diversity, inclusion, and belonging, as "they are already working on their strategy."
When conducting outreach, we expect that some individuals will not be interested. This isn't a negative outcome. Engaging with those ready to collaborate with us and learn from everyone we can—even those we philosophically disagree with, is essential.
Our biggest challenge arises when we seek to learn with people before discussing our E.M.E.R.G.E.N.T. Inclusion framework or exploring other collaborative possibilities. If the belief persists that DEI is another department's responsibility, we miss opportunities for growth and learning.
This missed opportunity might stem from a curiosity deficit, overload, or simply not seeing the benefit of engaging with what appears to be familiar territory. I hypothesize that if an HR professional has a fixed idea about DEIB, the space to explore beyond that will remain limited unless they possess:
Extraordinary interest: Passion and motivation for change.
Built-in exploration time: Space to learn beyond their current paradigm.
Exceptional curiosity: Desire to go beyond the surface.
A directive to seek inclusion theories, practices, and frameworks that are:
Accessible to everyone
Unambiguously prioritized (Actionable)
Aligned with organizational values and purpose
Edgar Schein notes in his classic Organizational Culture and Leadership: "All group learning ultimately reflects someone's original beliefs and values, their sense of what ought to be, as distinct from what is. . .Whatever is proposed will only be perceived as what the most influential people want. Until the group has taken some joint action together and observed the outcome of that action, there is not yet a shared basis for determining whether what the most influential people want will turn out to be valid."
Many organizations have embarked on “diversity journeys”. Some employees have participated. A smaller percentage have found DEI initiatives helpful. Yet only a minuscule proportion of those who influence the organizational mind have integrated inclusion principles into their daily practices.
If culture is "the way things are done around here," inclusion remains neither implicitly nor explicitly integrated for most. There exists no unambiguously prioritized set of "theories-in-use" where inclusion has become fundamental to thriving people and generative organizational cultures.
Over the past three years, I have been exposed to Dr. Ian McGilchrist's brilliant work. I continue learning from his ideas in "The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World" and "The Matter with Things: Our Brains, Our Delusions, and the Unmaking of the World." One central concept is his description of brain hemispheres: the left brain tends to disintegrate things, categorizing and reducing information into compartments—a tendency reflected in organizational life and HR practices.
While we discuss the employee life cycle as a pathway to understanding every candidate and employee's needs, the reality is that it often reduces to what a company can extract from each hire. Most accept this implicit contract. Yet such relationships require constant evolution of practices and awareness of their interconnectedness.
Typically, only one or two individuals shuffle the deck regarding practices implemented across HR departments. The chief people officer divides responsibilities among organizational development, DEIB, and other functions like learning and development, compensation, and benefits.
This disintegration often cascades downward. We could find natural integration based on McGilchrist's insights about the right brain. The right brain perceives connections, addressing the essential aspects of relationships, mutual care, and our interdependent existence—resisting artificial categorization.
To serve organizations effectively, everyone in or adjacent to the chief people office must adopt a more right-brained understanding of organizational life. This shift requires several other "I's" that factor into such a belief system.
Those in HR-related roles must take specific actions to make inclusion normative. I define inclusion (primarily) as creating conditions for everyone to thrive while generating organizational value beyond profit and loss.
What should HR professionals do consistently to prevent DEI disintegration? First, they must immerse themselves in diversity, equity, and inclusion concepts in new ways. Recent immersion has focused on racial equity and social justice, while earlier discussions centered on gender dynamics and representation. The past four years have seen amplified reactions to perceived shaming around racial equity misunderstandings.
We haven't adequately made approaches to inclusion accessible to everyone or prioritized them in alignment with organizational purpose. This stems from the disintegration dynamics of focusing on specific group identities, which often creates further separation rather than interconnection.
True immersion requires exploring ideas beyond social justice and historical healing. It means melding these concepts into an organization that is adaptive and committed to ongoing development for future fitness. Organizations seeking long-term success must develop:
Grit
Agency
Robust critical thinking frameworks
Experimentation mindset à la the Innovator’s DNA
Prospection
A CEO might tell their organization:
"To be successful here, there is no go-it-alone strategy. We contribute to each other and learn with one another. This involves fostering caring, openness, safety, and trust. Our results—both financial and cultural—are rewarded through this lens. Success requires building skills and capabilities that make inclusion normative."
Inclusion-normative skills include:
Exploring context through prioritizing contact, connection, and community
Cultivating curiosity to identify cognitive gaps
Understanding our biases' function and underlying beliefs
Making beliefs explicit to build upon and transcend them as needed
Focusing on what works while experimenting with new approaches
Balancing attention between challenges and opportunities
Navigating differences and similarities requires curiosity, perspective-taking, and adaptability. New worldviews may emerge that challenge our cultural upbringing or values. We must reflect on our thinking and avoid monoculture. Immersion is continuous, persistent, and ever-evolving—not an exercise in consensus or convincing others to adopt our viewpoint. Instead, it's a synthesis of possibilities born from our unique perspectives when we remain open to such potential.
Personal Example: I am currently learning High German (Hochdeutsch) while living in a household that speaks three other languages and a German dialect: English, French, Spanish, and Swiss German. This immersion enriches me, but I recognize the need to seek learning opportunities beyond my household. Immersion in language, culture, music, and art all contribute to my understanding. Similarly, immersion in traditional and emerging DEI concepts will foster cultures where inclusion becomes normative and integrated into daily business practices—though not without necessary disruption.
Another critical area is instigation. Historically, HR hasn't been seen as an instigator, but I believe they should be the most voracious learners—challenging the status quo, inspiring colleagues, and asking unexplored questions. HR professionals must invest in people's interests, building trust through genuine attention to individual and group needs, active listening, and sharing insights with influential stakeholders.
HR is at its best when helping individuals grow. Rather than following old performance review wisdom or falling into Peter Principle traps, those in the function should support growth and contribution. While some individuals may temporarily miss performance marks, their potential to improve doesn't diminish if previously demonstrated.
There will always be a weak link in organizational life. The challenge is to strengthen that link. Following Liebig's law of the minimum, elevating the weak link allows all boats to rise together. Understanding people's interests means helping them achieve individual goals while contributing to organizational success.
Interdependence forms another crucial foundational element of an Inclusion System. Consider the difference between a river and a puddle company, an example from Arie de Geus. A puddle depends on specific conditions—too much sun, and it disappears. Puddle companies focus on immediate results without valuing long-term viability. Rivers, however, thrive through interdependence. They rely on their sources and sustain fish, plants, and communities around them. This ecosystem mirrors organizational life, as the COVID-19 pandemic clearly demonstrated.
The Center for Creative Leadership offers an insightful perspective on their infinite loop concept: "Best beliefs drive best practices drive best beliefs. Like an infinity loop, beliefs and practices are mutual and interdependent. They should reinforce one another for success."
HR should seek out best practices, emerging not just from external sources but from an instigative mindset that anticipates needs and fosters care, openness, safety, and trust. By creating connections rather than separation, focusing on desired outcomes, and building capacities for perspective-taking and contextual understanding, HR can prevent monoculture and enable organizational evolution.
With this mindset, we cultivate an ever-evolving belief system, adapting to societal needs and the individuals who join our organizations. HR has a tremendous opportunity to make inclusion normative in organizational life. By intentionally curating principles of inclusion—integration, immersion, instigation, interdependence, and understanding interests—we create the conditions for people and organizations to thrive. Few investments in organizational life will yield greater returns.
I hope this was helpful. . . Make it a great day! ✌🏿
