Manifesting The Core Performance Principles™
Manifesting The Core Performance Principles™
Should we focus on shared values and common humanity, or should we double down on addressing systemic inequalities?
What does it mean to create an approach to diversity, equity, and inclusion that is accessible to everyone, unambiguously prioritized, and aligned with organizational purpose?
In our E.M.E.R.G.E.N.T. Inclusion System™, we refer to this set of skills as the Core Performance Principles™. I first started talking about this and subtitle of my book, Reconstructing Inclusion: Making DEI Accessible, Actionable, and Sustainable, reflects why access for all, unambiguously prioritized actions, and alignment with your organizational why or purpose are critical to your organization creating thriving people and impact including but not exclusively.
I want to focus on the accessible aspect because it has been a recurring theme in much of what I have making sense of with my clients over the past year.
What do I mean by that?
I am an American. My firm, Inclusion Wins, is based in Switzerland, where I live with my family. We do work globally.
The reason I share my Americanness, beyond feeling more American than I ever have in life, is that the current tenor in the U.S. regarding DEI has been at the forefront of the global DEI conversation.
I don't necessarily view this as good or bad; it simply is. As American practitioners, we must take accountability for any resistance to the current tensions and fault of DEI. We cannot merely shirk responsibility for it or make the “other” who occurs in opposition the enemy.
Labeling or treating the resistance to DEI as an affront to one’s identity or a threat to “the work” is, at best, short-sided. At worst, such responses do the opposite of their intention—rather than creating greater understanding, the flighty responses that I have seen make DEI practitioners (as a group) appear whiny and fragile.
Automatically labeling criticism, along with those who oppose DEI as wrong and all that agree with you as right (or more like righteous), reflects a fragile state of mind and being.
Without regular exposure to moderate to heavy winds over time, trees cannot develop the root system fortitude to withstand heavy winds, and as a result, they topple over.
Without being stimulated by criticism, first by incisively looking into the mirror ourselves and later by others, our foundational fortitude will be underdeveloped, and our response to it will reflect that underdevelopment.
A New York Times article by Nicholas Confessore about the University of Michigan's DEI work caught my attention recently. It is one of the most thorough analyses of an academic DEI program I have ever read, reflecting many other DEI programs across academia and organizations. It is worthwhile for everyone to read.
Confessore highlighted that the University of Michigan invested significantly in its DEI efforts but did not achieve the desired levels of representation, particularly among African Americans. They also failed to create what is often deemed essential: safe spaces for everyone.
While representation of group identities historically underrepresented in organizational life is often seen as the ultimate goal of many DEI programs, pursuing it as an organization’s primary goal has left many organizations and institutions missing the mark.
Before the Supreme Court of the United States’ decision on Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard which made race-based admissions policies illegal, elite colleges and universities would admit underrepresented minority students who often had parents who were alumni, had influential social networks, or significant amounts of privilege and thus preparation that didn’t require positive action for admission.
The University of Michigan’s Vice-Provost of DEI published a rebuttal to the New York Times article. Her framing in response to the thoughtful, well-researched piece by Mr. Confessore signaled, at least to me, that she is prone to topple, like a tree without fortified roots.
While she articulated that criticism is helpful to deepening the work, she made no mention of what was helpful in the article, the fact that Confessore had also written a past piece on anti-DEI rhetoric that was also well-researched.
Her response was defensive, reactive (vs. responsive), lacking reflexiveness, and full of ad hominem rhetoric. .. fragile.
Too many DEI practitioners have failed to adhere to our core performance principles of accessible, actionable, and aligned.
When I speak of ‘accessible,’ I mean creating the conditions, beginning with the future in mind, for everyone to thrive within the programming, interventions, approach, and strategy for DEI.
This leads me to a question:
Have we focused solely on a particular group because we believe they are the most marginalized or because they genuinely are?
The notion of centering the most marginalized is short-term and reactionary, and it rarely fulfills the original aspirational intent of those who adopt this tactic or rhetoric. Honestly, the term most marginalized is a bit misleading. People working in high-paying (or relatively high-paying) jobs would have a hard time convincing someone in Western Pennsylvania working for a relatively low hourly wage that they are part of the “marginalized group.”
I imagine some practitioners reading this will start to defend the “center the most marginalized” ideology. These same folks might want to “hold while people accountable” and make this part of their mission.
Author and Professor Shelby Steele says, “My feeling is that the biggest mistake Black American has ever made is trying to keep White people on the hook.”
I would add that many people have made a living doing just that. Moving away from it would be a confounding shift for those folks. As Upton Sinclair said, “It is hard to get a man to understand something that his paycheck depends on him not understanding.”
While I agree that attention should be given to the truly most marginalized, it is not solely determined by appearance, skin color, sexual orientation, or gender.
Of course, I acknowledge the horrific history of slavery, but many descendants of American slavery are thriving today. I consider myself one of them. I live in Switzerland, I am Black, and I have been privileged due to the sacrifices made by those who came before me.
Where do we stand now, and where do we want to go?
The DEI conversation about making DEI accessible to everyone is currently tense. With the upcoming U.S. election, many are concerned about Project 2025, which outlines potential negative impacts on the country and DEI initiatives.
Whether or not Trump is elected, the agenda for Project 2025 will persist and continue to be pushed, and in a way, it has been in motion to some degree for decades. Some of that persistence could be seen as responsible for the inevitable overturning of Affirmative Action–which, if one had paid attention, was destined to be. The overturning of Roe v. Wade on abortion rights has been part of the conservative agenda for as long as I can remember.
The political landscape will undoubtedly shift chaotically if Trump assumes office and implements these changes. The next presidential candidate will face backlash if these changes harm the American people, especially in the midterms. It is possible that Congress could flip, resulting in a Democratic majority in both the Senate and House.
Nothing is permanent in politics.
I am not overly concerned about Project 2025 or the potential for a totalitarian shift in the U.S. I do not believe there is a significant swath of bad actors actively seeking to undermine those DEI practitioners and social justice “warriors” often labeled as the most marginalized, that is, typically Black individuals and others with darker skin tones.
With that, I want to talk about one more thing that I went back to recently as I work with quite a few government entities:
It’s a topic likely on some U.S. DEI practitioners’ minds. The Executive Order on Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping, issued by President Trump in September 2020.
Its content left many DEI professionals in a frenzy, which perplexes me. (And, I work with federal government clients.) It sparked strong reactions, perhaps because it came from Trump rather than what it says.
The executive order restricted certain DEI practices, particularly training. It prohibited federal contractors and grant recipients from conducting DEI training that included concepts deemed divisive, such as the idea that the U.S. is fundamentally racist or sexist or that individuals are inherently racist or sexist based on their race or sex.
Critics argued that these restrictions would hinder meaningful conversations about systemic racism and implicit bias, silencing “marginalized” voices and neglecting discussions on white privilege and institutional discrimination, which are central to many DEI programs, especially post-George Floyd.
Audra Bohannon, a mentor and hero of mine in the DEI space, noted on a podcast I saw on Zach Nunn’s Living Corporate Podcast that the focus on “equity” between the ‘D’ and the ‘I’ has been relatively new since 2020.
I continued her thought (in my head) that the focus on equity and how it has been framed has, at least, significantly contributed to the conditions for the type of pushback we are seeing.
Equity is not possible without inclusion—without inclusion, there is no equity. Equity follows inclusion. Equity starts upstream—inclusion is the stream.
While equity is essential, it can be problematic when weaponizing (usually in good-but-blinkered faith) identities against others. Critics of Trump's order were deeply concerned that it would negatively impact a variety of frameworks related to equity (predominantly racial), on which many practitioners have based their entire practice.
Further, the order targeted critical race theory (CRT), which examines how race and racism intersect with various aspects of society, including law, culture, and power. The Trump administration viewed CRT as promoting racial division. I agree with this perspective.
A couple of decades ago, I read authors steeped in CRT and found their writing insightful. Later, I questioned whether CRT fosters conditions for everyone to thrive in organizational life. Now, I would respond “no” if asked.
Many DEI educators believe CRT is necessary for creating equitable solutions. Still, I argue that we should discuss it not as an absolute truth but as a framework to consider like any other, but to first ask:
Does it facilitate the conditions we desire or unintentionally create barriers to understanding and connection across our differences and similarities? Is it accessible to everyone?
The executive order also addressed the employee grievance process and the enforcement of laws against discrimination. It directed the Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs to enforce compliance and establish a mechanism for employees to report training that violated the order. The intention of this seemed to be to create some accountability, flipping a typical DEI approach to policing language and racism.
Some aspects of the order aligned with DEI principles, such as emphasizing the importance of treating individuals equally regardless of race or gender and ensuring equal opportunity in the workplace. Most people agree that DEI efforts should be grounded in equal opportunity and fairness, avoiding unfair stereotypes or scapegoating.
The order rejected the notion that individuals should be judged or blamed for societal issues based on race or gender. It aimed to prevent training that suggests certain groups were inherently responsible for societal problems. This principle is fundamental to DEI, as (most) practitioners agree that diversity, inclusion, and equity education should avoid creating an environment where any group feels blamed or attacked.
Lastly, the order encouraged objectivity in DEI training, promoting shared values like teamwork and respect rather than emphasizing guilt or blame for historical injustices. While meritocracy is flawed, and I discuss the flaws in my work and writing, I believe in merit and that certain skills and capabilities are must-have requirements (along with people’s potential). And hiring someone who doesn’t possess the minimum skills to get a job done harms all involved.
Resistance to DEI
In summary, the September 2020 executive order is one litmus test for accessible in the E.M.E.R.G.E.N.T. Inclusion System™ Core Performance Principles: accessible, actionable, and aligned.
Reactions to the order stemmed largely from its association with Trump rather than its content. I encourage everyone to revisit the executive order.
To be clear, I am not advocating for Trump; I do not believe he is suited to be president. Similarly, Kamala Harris is not my ideal candidate. Both will require strong advisors as the world faces significant challenges that America, given our standing, will hover in the center of.
The executive order highlights a broader debate about approaching diversity and inclusion in the workplace.
Should we focus on shared values and common humanity or openly address systemic inequalities in organizational life?
The answer is both. We must address historical and systemic challenges (focusing on the systems, not the symptoms alone) while cultivating principles and practices that make DEI accessible to everyone. This is about "we, the people," not about dividing we into "us" and "them." That means always #ChooseHumanity.
I hope this was helpful. . . Make it a great day! ✌🏿
