DEI Noise vs. Signal
The people I want to interact and be in dialogue with in order to elevate our work, often do engage, while many I wish to connect with most likely never will.
Over the past year, I have focused on tuning into a crisper signal, recognizing the need to reduce the noise related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), particularly on my social media feeds.
As a result, I temporarily unfollowed multiple people. I did not disconnect from them; I remain interested in them as individuals. Occasionally, I will even cyberstalk some of them to sample their current thinking. I am rarely surprised by their shifts if they’ve made any. And, with few exceptions, much of what they shared before my unfollowing was so far askance from my beliefs about creating conditions for people to thrive and for organizations to generate value beyond their profit and loss statements. After selective timeline drive-bys post-unfollowing, little has changed.
The result of my quiet quitting noise has created a much more heterodox feed across all of the social platforms that I engage with.
In search for signal in my daily listening to content, I have historically been more of an audiobook than podcast bloke (in addition to music which I prefer above all). Since I listen to podcasts infrequently, I’ve turned to podcasts in adjacent areas like organizational design and competency across the HR/OD focus areas like the HR Podcast hosted by Dr. Dieter Veldsman, Chief HR Scientist at AIHR.
I rarely read DEI-related books these days. When I do, I rely on Dr. Jonathan Ashong-Lamptey’s reviews. When I do, I read older books or new and revised books by authors I have been reading for years. These include the work of Dr. R. Roosevelt Thomas, Michael Hyter, Fred Miller, Judith Katz, David Livermore, and a smattering of others.
I have purchased quite a few DEI-related books. I read one or two of them and skimmed the others. Again, my goal is signal, and most of these books had signals that were not sent in a manner that allowed me to register them as such.
Even with my temporary unfollows, I occasionally have a post from a relatively well-known LinkedIn DEI Influencer, usually a repost. Recently, my timeline included a repost of a very popular DEI influencer. One of the most recognized figures in the United States, followed by many worldwide who place significant weight on their work.
While their work is thorough, it does not resonate with me philosophically or ideologically. I unfollowed them on LinkedIn, too. It might be mutual. They’ve never interacted with my content by comment or reaction.
The Authority Series by Dr. Jonathan Ashong-Lamptey | feat. Amri B. Johnson
My unfollowing action was a build-up to the decision to unfollow this influencer and others with a similar point of view. I checked for signal once more before I stopped following them. Still, I found in reviewing their posts (which are long-form in LinkedIn terms–they use all characters allowed) that their refrains felt redundant and noisy, not in alignment with the heterodox affect I seek.
To clarify the signals related to DEI over the past year—I ceased following the most popular DEI figures, particularly those heavily focused or reflecting the most popular figures on anti-racism and social justice issues, such as Ibram X. Kendi and Robin DiAngelo.
For what it’s worth, many people follow the flawed logic or ideology of the above writers. Their popularity has brought many DEI critics to single them out. Recently, I encountered an academic article that zeroed in on the two of them, connoting that their point of view is similar to a large percentage of DEI-related education.
Such articles are noise to me, but I occasionally engage with their writers to, at minimum, make the point that Kendi and DiAngelo are not anymore a representative of DEI than I am or any single racialized person is of their visible group identity.
Back to the report. Occasionally, someone reposts something contrary to the direction I think the space needs. Most of the time, I ignore it and/or unfollow the person who reposted it. This time, I decided to comment.
Many popular DEI-related posts, at least regarding likes and comments, are generally aimed at an audience already enrolled in a particular point of view. Any contrarian views are often 1) vehemently pushed back on without openness; 2) politely dismissed (with a hint of condescension); or, 3) ignored as heretical.
To me, such popular posts are noisy. They pull people in the direction that suits their already established preferences and reinforce a rhetorical stance that resists any and all disconfirmational data. There is no willingness to be influenced by the so-called other.
As I have mentioned previously being willing to be influenced by differing perspectives is one way I view inclusion. Instead, there is a strong resistance to any information or individual that does not align with their expectations.
I understand such resistance. In the past, I have resisted rhetoric contrary to my worldview. Conversely, for lack of a better term, I have been placed in a ‘DEI box’, where my contrary views are passively resisted through what sometimes feels like deliberate non-engagement. I could be completely wrong; it might just be that the algorithm isn’t pulling up my posts or comments at times, but it is what it is. A select few of the people I want to interact and be in dialogue with in order to elevate our work often engage, while many I wish to connect with may never will. Yes, I occasionally feel a bit sad about this–it doesn’t last long. (Shout out to the Simmons Institute for Inclusive Leadership for their work on “functional semi-consciousness” for optimizing personal and professional growth).
The problem with any kind of resistance to contrasting or conflicting views, in this regard, is that it contradicts what DEI supporters and practitioners should be skilled in managing the tensions and complexities of difference and similarity, part of the definition of “diversity” as articulated by Dr. R. Roosevelt Thomas.
Returning to my thoughts on the post from this influencer, the author explicitly states that DEI work is about stamping out discrimination, mentioning this multiple times concerning hiring, developing, and compensating talent, as well as workplace practices more broadly. Each component of DEI is tied to anti-discrimination in their definitions.
They describe diversity work as stamping out discrimination in the hiring and recruitment process. Equity work is defined as anti-discrimination work aimed at ending pay discrimination, bias, and favoritism. Inclusion work is framed around eliminating discriminatory workplace environments and replacing them with respectful norms.
When discussing what workplaces will continue to need, even if the acronym DEI becomes politically unviable, the author asserts that workplaces still need to fight discrimination. This is the overall theme of their post. The post positions anti-discrimination not just as one aspect of DEI, but as fundamental to its purpose, presenting it as a practical necessity for running an effective workplace rather than a political or ideological stance.
I argue that the entire post reflects an ideological stance because it does not consider, and in fact dismisses, anyone perceived as attacking or opposing DEI as right-wing individuals who are ideologically motivated. While this characterization is partially accurate, it is grossly incomplete.
Some individuals do not necessarily hold an orthodox stance against DEI; they believe that some practices and the way DEI has been communicated—specifically, the premise of eliminating racism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia, etc.—is the sole reason for its existence. Historically, they may have some validity, but again, it is very much incomplete.
Referring back to Dr. R. Roosevelt Thomas, some paradigms align more closely with our current needs and focus rather than merely reacting to situations that arise, often in the United States, serving as a cacophonous clarion call for the world. While clarion for some and noise (at least to a degree) for many, it often appeals to those already having affinity with or believing in that particular paradigm without considering others.
The problem with framing everything around anti-discrimination, which we can also call social justice or rectifying past wrongs from the 1960s civil rights movement, is twofold:
First, it is almost entirely based on the singular paradigm of righting past wrongs, which Dr. Thomas would categorize as the social justice civil rights paradigm.
Second, it is deficit-based. While it is essential to recognize and consider deficits, if we focus solely on what we do not want, we will find it. Let me repeat that: if we look for what we do not want, we will find it.
To me, this is noise. Conversely, if we seek the signal of what we do want, the likelihood of discovering and understanding mechanisms for desired outcomes in organizational life is much higher. While the legal necessities of anti-discrimination are things every organization must be aware of, the mechanisms to address cases of disparate treatment are, at best, bureaucratized to the extent that any resolution is coupled with trade-offs that, while legally justified, can become untenable for both the company and the impacted employee.
For example, what a lawyer might consider a most spurious case of discrimination can be costly. Some estimates suggest that the successful defense of a single case can amount to up to $80,000 in time and fees, with the average time spent per case being approximately 275 days—almost a year.
Even if an employee achieves a successful outcome, meaning their case is recognized as discrimination, and they receive some form of remuneration, the psychological and sometimes the physical impact can be far more damaging than the resulting payout.
I am not suggesting that people should not pursue their payouts or file these claims, but to believe that they are a solution is simply misguided. As Richard Cohen, a lawyer specializing in discrimination, states, preventing problems is much cheaper—”penny wise”—than fighting a lawsuit, which is “pound foolish.” To prevent the issues we do not want, we must focus on the skills and capabilities that create the conditions for what we want. Then, we build systems that get us closer to the outcomes we seek, incessantly adapting our approaches to shifting contexts.
As the influencer states in the concluding points of their post, which I agree with, “workplaces still need worker support, career growth, learning and development, and wellness.” Absolutely!
However, these aspects should be considered not at the point of a problem but to create organizations where people thrive and where the organization can generate extraordinary value and be fit for the future.
What is clear is that too many so-called DEI experts have focused on and sought out DEI problems to solve, such as discrimination. Over the past several years, this predominant focus has not resulted in problems being solved; instead, it has created a different problem—a trade-off, if you will. Those engaged in this work must acknowledge the reality and recognize where we have missed the mark as practitioners and supporters of DEI.
As the esteemed Dr. Thomas Sowell states, “There are no solutions—there are only trade-offs.” We aim for the best trade-off possible. Much of our work in recent years has not produced the best trade-offs; instead, it has created a wave of what we now refer to as resistance or pushback. I hope we can transition from this resistance to a willingness to be influenced by the so-called other, even if their ideological stance opposes ours. This is the only way to navigate that tension.
Pointing fingers, labeling others as wrong, or calling them right-wing will not help. It does the opposite, and we have witnessed that unfold. The need to reconstruct inclusion has never been more transparent.
I hope this was helpful. . . Make it a great day! ✌🏿