Detangling Ineffective DEI Approaches
Detangling Ineffective DEI Approaches
Why Is It So Challenging?
Teaching an old dog new tricks is tough, but teaching it to guide a young dog away from ineffective tricks is even more challenging. This analogy applies to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts.
Regardless of age, many DEI practitioners (let’s call them “old dogs”) have focused heavily, if not entirely, on racial equity. While racial equality of opportunity is what most societies and companies aspire to, focusing solely on (any) single group identity as the heart of your DEI efforts often leads to quickly muted success, especially after the initial reactionary energy directed toward a highly visible event prompts temporary action providing a momentary salve.
Long-term DEI work requires reflexive assessment to ensure desired results. A recent scan of social justice and racial equity efforts over the past four years shows limited success. Many individuals struggle to move beyond identity-focused approaches due to blind spots. They may see it as a trade-off for rectifying past wrongs, but this perspective can limit broader organizational progress.
Shifting Focus: From Identity-Reductive to Systems-Oriented
While aiming to create more allies at senior levels, some focus on pushing the organization toward hiring individuals with a shared group identity. However, this approach is not consistently effective (if at all) or sustainable. For many who push this tactic, there is a belief that hiring more people with influence will lead to better treatment and opportunities for them and others with similar lumping. Lumping seems more manageable for many organizations.
In a way, the representation push in organizations, whether on behalf of historically less represented groups by gender, race, or other characteristics, is an attempt to elevate allyship at more senior levels. It is quite an affective approach.
It might produce positive feelings but doesn’t necessarily lead to the desired outcomes. At least not for long. So, it feels good–until it doesn’t to those hired have their skills and abilities questioned or those observing the hiring of “those people,” skeptical of qualifications of those brought in as the push for “more diversity” is touted organization-wide.
In an anonymous poll, one of my clients had a few people ask, in so many words, “How much diversity is too much?” There is a belief (an erroneous one, but not wholly inaccurate) that “diversity” or the DEI in practice means the pursuit of a single goal: get more [fill in the group identity].
A systems-oriented approach to DEI is accessible to everyone, unambiguously prioritized, and aligned with organizational purpose. This means that systems are designed to create the conditions for everyone to thrive. This is not a guarantee; everyone has to contribute to creating said conditions. By setting expectations via systems, the probability of building an approach to DEI and a culture where inclusion is normative is significantly higher than when the approach centers on or around particular group identities categorically deemed “marginalized.”
A deeper look on perpetuating victimhood
Effective Allyship is not Affective
I mentioned allyship above because the perception of allyship where DEI is concerned is too often connoted as a group of people helping another in an assumed context of power asymmetry. Thus, my allyship hypothesis about why representation (beyond ease of measurement and holdovers from affirmative action) has been the focus of many firm’s DEI approaches revolves around the thinking that having more people from underrepresented groups in positions of influence would help more junior employees from the
Holding the belief that allyship about the so-called other is hard to shift when one’s predominant paradigm as a practitioner is righting the past wrongs on behalf of group identities.
True allyship requires an incessant commitment to creating conditions for everyone to thrive, regardless of identity. Allies don’t act out of a sense of shame, guilt, paternalism, infantilization, or the belief that a particular group needs their help.
Rather, you aim to cultivate more robust community connections when acting as an earnest ally. You guide, positively nudge, and shape systems that enable individual potential to be fully realized. You are a stalwart for well-being and thriving, inspiring people at all levels to hold this mindset as a reflection of the organizational mind.
Redefining allyship means considering the thriving of all identities and recognizing that helping others benefits the organization and oneself. Both old and new practitioners must move beyond the idea that allyship is about “Them” helping “Us” or those with more power being charitable to the less privileged. Only allyship efforts rooted in a belief that all help and support are mutually beneficial and meant to enhance or reinforce individual agency are worthwhile endeavors.
Prioritizing Systems Over Symptoms
Focusing on systems rather than symptoms is crucial. Problems often reflect patterns affecting multiple people, not just those from racialized groups. Practitioners must step back, learn reflexively, and see beyond current situations. Systems thinking and interdependence are key to building inclusive organizations.
DEI conversations should not be confined to fixing past wrongs. They must address systems and reconstruct them to create conditions for everyone to thrive. Adaptability is essential to integrate solutions into organizational thinking and engagement, recognizing interdependence and co-creation.
To harness the transformational potential of inclusion, organizations must shift from identity-by-identity approaches to focusing on systems. This shift requires understanding that everything is co-created and interdependent. Practitioners, whether old or new, must evolve to meet today's needs.
Partnering for Comprehensive Data
We collaborate with Diversity Atlas, founded by Peter Mousaferiadis, which offers the most comprehensive identity database ever created. This tool avoids using race as a construct, focusing instead on a broader range of identities. Organizations can better understand demographic dynamics beyond single identities by collecting data on human multidimensionality. Demographics are destiny. To measure them insufficiently indeed makes long-term DEI impact destined for the mediocre. Yet, this remains the acceptable norm.
Consider taking the Diversity Atlas survey and asking, "Do you feel you are getting what you need to thrive and contribute your best to the organization?" This approach provides a more accurate evaluation, identifying systemic issues and factors beyond skin color that may hinder contributions. Rather than reducing individuals and their challenges being attributed only to their racialization, we can see if the issues go beyond a single variable (which they almost always do).
By embracing comprehensive data analysis, organizations can uncover dynamics that provide a clearer picture of their workforce, leading to more effective DEI strategies.
In too many instances, DEI efforts are constructionally stuck in the mud. If we look closely at “the mud” (i.e., single-identity or issue-focused, reductionist conclusions about causes for organizational “diversity problems” and grossly asymmetrical allyship schemes, to name a few), however, it is not too deep.
We can somewhat seamlessly get unstuck. That is, if one is willing to see DEI beyond approaches that have self-regulated practitioners toward narrow impact and a limited ideological stance blinding possibilities.
Getting unstuck, like learning new tricks, starts with being willing to be influenced by ideas and approaches beyond fixed notions. It continues through developing and asking an elevated set of questions, embracing heterodoxy, clarity about organizational interdependence, and coherence with core performance principles of being accessible for all, unambiguously prioritized, and aligned with organizational purpose.
I hope this was helpful. . . Make it a great day! ✌🏿
