If Inclusion-Then. . .
If Inclusion-Then. . .
I founded my company, Inclusion Wins, on the notion that unambiguously prioritized inclusion consistently creates the conditions for everyone to contribute their best to the organizational raison d'être.
In terms of an ‘If-then’ statement—
IF inclusion is understood and manifested as any action creating the conditions for thriving people and organizational life, THEN, everyone benefits.
Many definitions of inclusion are inconsistent with the framing above. They are more about organizational actors feeling like they are “being asked to dance.”
Sticking with the framing of the phrase above made famous by former Netflix VP of Inclusion Strategy, Vernā Myers, “Diversity is being invited to the party. Inclusion is being asked to dance,” the assumption in the DEI work of many organizations is that employees aren’t being asked to dance even after being invited to the party (hired).
Some employees get asked to dance disproportionately. Others seriously like to get their groove on and feel they are getting asked less than they would like.
I can imagine another category of folks that, once invited, dance like no one is watching (or everyone is watching, and they give zero Fs and dance anyway). Those people are more of the people you want from an organizational perspective. They are rare. They usually get the party going for everyone (culturally speaking).
In an organizational network, they would be considered central nodes or knowledge brokers. They seek out and share information and make connections in ways only selected others can across different organizational domains and people.
Having people who metaphorically dance freely and create the conditions for more people to do so (which could also be considered agency) is paramount for DEI to be instrumental (vs. supplemental or platitudinal).
Inclusion connotes action (like dancing together) for many DEI practitioners and their workplaces. Action is not simply activity but the unambiguous prioritization of actions that create the conditions for people to thrive and contribute their best to the organizational mission.
However, such actions are too often framed to be for specific groups.
The so-called “most marginalized” receive the lion's share of attention.
Yes, this could be the most significant need for a firm during a particular time.
And, when something is connoted as “for” one group, some people interpret this as it is “for them” and not for people “like me.”
Even if it is actually “of” a specific group like the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), which mainly consists of African Americans, it was founded with whites. And some of its most significant achievements (despite flaws cited by critics) happened in solidarity.
While the catchment area of groups considered part of the diversity mix (and frequently deemed as “most marginalized”) in organizations has expanded, the notion of who is the most marginalized has remained focused on reduced categories like gender and race.
(Sidenote: If you can question your marginalization, you probably aren’t the most marginalized, regardless of your personal experiences with racism, sexism, transphobia, etc. Those who are the most marginalized don’t have the time and energy to ask such a question. It wouldn’t occur to most of them. They are living in the experience with few prospects of relief. And, if by some circumstance they asked themselves such a question, their thinking is likely to be like fish asking themselves. “What is water?” never having been without it.)
We know diversity extends from what we are born with and inherited from our families to what we’ve learned experientially (inherent and acquired, with and without intention). Yet, for most DEI-passionate folks, we stay stuck on identity as a limited set of immutable characteristics. Why?
In some cases, it is simply a preference. Their lived experience leads them to focus on what could create better experiences and outcomes for people they consider like themselves. They want to solve the problems most relevant to themselves—what they think are the most salient issues.
For other people, they don’t consider identity formation and how it morphs. While our identity is formed most acutely during adolescence, work experiences, marital and family relationships, social networks, political orientation, personal evolution, and religious/spiritual revelation are also significant in identity and identity change (particularly beyond adolescence).
In the world of DEI, the idea that a particular attribute of one’s identity reduces them and how they are to a category is perhaps the most problematic and limiting issue faced. I believe it is the biggest reason for the pushback that DEI is facing.
We can shift this notion. But it is clear it will stay the same with new stance-taking and new forays into othering. It can change only with greater exploration of nuance (a crucial role of the astute DEI practitioner or skilled operator in an inclusion system), perspective-taking, and making inclusion win for everyone.
When Inclusion Wins, Everyone Wins.
I hope this was helpful. . . Make it a great day! ✌🏿
In the latest episode of the ‘Reconstructing Inclusion’ podcast, we talk about the complexities of DEI outcomes and challenge DEI practitioners to explore a broader, more inclusive approach that engages all individuals in fostering change and reflect on their “skin in the game”. The important question remains: how can we make DEI accessible, actionable, and sustainable for everyone, irrespective of role or expertise?