Belonging: Corporate Lingo or Meaningful Change?
Belonging: Corporate Lingo or Meaningful Change?
Here are two ideas from my book, Reconstructing Inclusion: Making DEI Accessible, Actionable, and Sustainable and other texts I leaned on in writing it. In addition, I’ve included one quote, a book recommendation, and a video or article that has inspired or influenced me and hopefully will resonate with you, too. (That’s ✌🏿+ 💡📚➕).
Page 1-2
"The notion of “belonging” has been among the more popular concepts of modern diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practice. Most of my colleagues view it in the Maslowian sense of the term. The psychologist’s “Hierarchy of Needs” theory articulates that once our essential physiological needs (i.e., water, food, shelter, sleep) and our safety and security needs (i.e., sense of safety from external threat, financial well-being) are met, humans need a sense of belongingness—the sense of intimacy, trust, giving and receiving affection, community, or being part of something greater than oneself. Current DEI thought sees the fulfillment of this need as “the key” to unlocking inclusion."
The idea of belonging isn’t restricted to an individual’s sense. In fact, it’s not at all oriented toward the “I” or “me” that’s often purported in psychology circles and the world of DEI.
Related post: Inclusion is a relational construct
In the Blackfoot (Siksika) Nation (by whom scholars say Maslow’s philosophy was strongly influenced), belonging is a collective notion—a communal “we” that leads community and self purposefully toward actualization.
An increasing number of DEI professionals have added the word “belonging” to their titles or department names. They often do so with monikers such as Director, Office of Inclusion and Belonging; Vice President of Diversity, Inclusion, Belonging, and Equity; and Chief Inclusion, Belonging, and Diversity Officer. These title changes are considered an evolution of the purpose of traditional offices of Diversity and Inclusion or Inclusion and Diversity."
These changes in terminology often seem to me like fool’s gold. They are shiny. They look great when we’re preaching about “the work.” Yet I feel we often miss the mark of determining how we “get there.” Why aren’t we there already? And where is “there”? Most organizations haven’t even arrived at what they initially sought out to do. So why add another thing to solve for?"
Related video: The Notion of Standpoint Epistemology
Page 2-3
"When I entered the DEI field, things seemed straightforward. I entered as a public health professional, an epidemiologist committed to health equity. From this lens, the scientific data, particularly around mortality and morbidity, were indisputable. Causes were being found, and other questions were emerging about social determinants of health. Any reasonable person looking at the statistics could say without argument that differences in health outcomes between rich and poor, and whites and most minorities, even after controlling for social-economic status, were real.
Upon moving deeper into what I call “corporate DEI” (to distinguish from my public health view), my perspective was broadened. As an entrepreneur, I saw the profitability potential of the DEI field. In 2002, when I started my job board platform, Diversity HealthWorks, we can estimate that $1 to $2 billion was spent annually in the industry. Companies were spending about $8 billion on diversity efforts in 2017, according to the consulting firm McKinsey & Company. Not bad. Now, some estimate that the number will reach USD 30 billion in the next 5-7 years.
As I learned the field’s contemporary lexicon, I realized that people don’t want to be “tolerated.” It’s not cool (anymore) to “manage diversity” because “diverse” people don’t want to be managed; they want to be led and to lead themselves. More importantly, they want to be included. Thus, we have increasingly put a greater weight on “inclusion.”
The Reconstructing Inclusion Podcast S1E3: Wokeness, Cancel Culture, and DEI
This focus didn’t last long. Practitioners, including myself, started turning toward unconscious bias and the reality that we all have it. Unconscious bias was immediately well received and has become a normalized part of the diversity, equity, and inclusion lexicon over the past two decades.
Ample resources are put into unconscious bias training and developing tools to mitigate bias in everything from job descriptions, hiring, succession planning, team selection, and meetings. Awareness has increased, and for some organizations, this greater awareness has lead to[some] structural and systems changes to mitigate bias.
For others, the educational efforts haven’t translated into tangible outcomes (increased representation, the perception of less discrimination, lowered micro-aggressions, etc.). So, the conclusion (wrongly and prematurely arrived at, in my opinion) has been that unconscious bias training doesn’t work.
Thus, belonging is a newer hot topic. Couple that with movements such as #MeToo and #BlackLivesMatter and the focus has narrowed to single identity–focused belongingness. What if our shift was cyclical and perhaps premature? What if we need to be focused on really getting our minds, arms, and hearts around the complexities of humanity rather than reducing ourselves to memes, movements, and hashtags?"
Related post: The problem with DEI is not the problem
💡A Quote
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”
― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
📚A Book
Leadership on the Line: Staying Alive through the Dangers of Leading, Ronald A. Heifetz and Marty Linsky
➕A Video
From Difference to Distance: Rethinking Diversity and Inclusion | Fred Falker | TEDxClayton
I hope this was helpful. . . Make it a great day! ✌🏿
In this episode of the ‘Reconstructing Inclusion’ podcast, we talk about the importance of listening for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), and how it can be practiced and improved upon both personally and professionally. Raquel Ark, the Founder of listening ALCHEMY, shares insights into her background, growing up between cultures, and how it shaped her understanding of different perspectives and listening. Raquel emphasizes the role of listening in high-stakes situations, the need for humility, and the impact of listening on building trust and effective communication.