Traps and Trade-Offs in DEI, Part II
Traps and Trade-Offs in DEI, Part II
In Part I of this piece, I talked about my almost five-year-old son (Kai) and his imagination.
“Daddy, don't step on those. It's a trap!” He warned while we walked home from playing at the park. He made it into a game. So, I played along for about 50 meters until a text from his mother inquiring about our evening plans. As I responded quickly, I looked down at my phone as she was on a short break from her course. And Kai said, “Daddy, Stop!” very loudly with “stop” pronounced in German. (The words are very close, but the tone is much different when you hear them in German vs. English.) “You go into the trap!”
Kai’s game made me think about those of us committed to DEI (i.e., people like myself who work in the space) and the traps we find ourselves in. Who wants to be trapped? None of us do, but that doesn’t prevent it from happening.
The first three that I shared in Part I included the following:
Trap #1: Reductionism. Some people would disagree with me, but reductionism goes in many directions. Most of them, by definition, fall into the incomplete category, and others are harmful.
Too many people who call themselves DEI experts tend to reduce DEI to grievance and seemingly intractable problems, "central problematics—those generic, recurrent, never resolved and never completely resolvable issues—that shape the work of the sociologist."
Trap #2: Failure to Seek out Disconfirmation (Confirmation Bias)
The second trap is a need for the ability to seek out disconfirmation. On the flip side of the coin, it's confirmation bias. When doing this work and seeing a problem in organizational life, we often look for what we want to find. And when we look for what we want to find, we unironically find it.
The problem is that if you don't seek out the things that are contrary to it, you put yourself in the trap of thinking that what you're solving for is complete.
Trap #3 Creating the dynamics of us and them:
In a field where our primary work is to mitigate the notion of separateness, we have, in too many instances, doubled down on behaviors that reinforce or reignite segregation.
Some of you who have read my book, Reconstructing Inclusion, know that I have a chapter called “Rooting (for) Them (Out).” The premise of the chapter is that I don't believe there's a “Them.”
Now, I've said this before. I'll repeat it. Some actors are acting in bad faith, but I don't fundamentally believe that there is this “other.”
I am firm that the interdependent nature of humanity, which my work centers, says you can't have an “other” and think that the so-called other is your enemy when, in fact, they are by nature connected to you.
Now, I will continue with Trap #3, along with two other traps to be mindful of:
So, how do we avoid Us vs. Them dynamics?
First, we must eradicate the notion of some other, some “them,” some group that is out to get you collectively based on their identity.
There might be some cases where certain people in small groups are interested in being the counter to you, to be the counterpoint to your action point. Yes, you'll have to deal with the consequences of that and be very strategic about how you address it.
However, lumping all those folks into a category is categorically wrong, dangerous, incomplete, and ultimately unhelpful. I've seen it, and some of you would agree that it causes more harm than good.
Second, get closer to those you have less affinity with. We are wired to engage with people like ourselves. When we see sameness, there is a gravitational pull toward those we feel align with an identity dimension that reflects how we see ourselves.
To avoid the trap of sameness, we must be interested in people different from ourselves. And while physical appearance is one dimension of difference, what might be more important is to engage with people who are ideologically or philosophically different.
Third, but not in an exhaustive sense, elevate your perspective-taking capabilities. The first two approaches can assist with this. And most important is that when you have an input about someone or something, you can develop the habit of transcending a lone hypothesis about someone’s thinking, intentions, or actions.
Related post: The difference between ‘illness’ and ‘wellness’ is ‘I’ versus ‘We’
I am not saying that a person's impact isn’t important. I am aware that impact is the measure that matters most for many in the DEI space. And, without developing one’s perspective-taking adequately, impact can easily connote fault. And in too many cases, the fault of the “other.”
Blame placing and making wrong do not an inclusive culture make. Learning to generate multiple hypotheses and consider that a personal, immediate conclusion about something doesn’t make it accurate, but rather one of many possibilities. All parties involved in a problem or impasse contribute to it, to varying degrees, in one way or another.
The only notion of “Us and Them” you want to consider is their use as descriptive pronouns. I will also add teams in a competition. Such artificial separation for mental or physical enrichment or entertainment (as a team member or support) makes life fun and a bit richer as a winner or loser of the competition.
Trap #4: Being uncurious. Curiosity is one of our biggest superpowers, but DEI practitioners frequently need to be more curious about possibilities for how and why to practice in a manner beyond that which we are anchored. That doesn't make such thinking and what you are curious about meritless.
It's just that when one is not broadly curious in a space as complicated as humans and human communities, it does the practice, the practitioner, and particularly those who you are working on behalf of a disservice. It sets up a dynamic that says, “This is the way,” like the Mandalorians of Star Wars lore.
As the Mandalorians discovered, the Mandalorian way is good for Mandalorians, but not always. Thus, many Mandalorians found that the way was getting in the way of relating to others or obtaining what they wanted.
So, on the dark side of their ways of being, some of the Mandalorians, being great fighters, went out and started conquering people or being bounty hunters. It worked out for some of them, but it didn't end up well for most of them who made such a decision. The Mandalorians, by and large, ended up in a relatively diminished state of existence.
On the flip side, there were other Mandalorians that practiced benevolence. The compassion of the Mandalorians, combined with their warrior stance, resulted in some good being done in the universe.
They might have taken on a stance of neutrality without helping others being their prime objective, yet they changed for the sake of their group. They also, secondarily, altered their traditions for the sake of humanity.
They became curious about what else they could do beyond their way. It wasn't necessarily because they started out wanting to, but they did, and the results were extraordinary for many “a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away.”
We also have to consider that lacking curiosity means one is unwilling to be influenced by the so-called other. As I spend too much time on LinkedIn, it is clear (at least to me) that many people on the platform have a fixed way of being in the DEI space.
That means that their narrative is one narrative. Their brand is one brand. And in perpetuating said narrative and brand, any shifting almost seems like a threat to their identity–to who they fundamentally have claimed themselves to be in the world.
As we know our identities shift and morph. We choose in a way. Now, I'll get some argument about this. The pushback will be that we can’t choose our visible identities. They are ascriptive. I partially agree. And, ascription doesn’t require one to subscribe. At least not to the meanings often connoted to something like racialization.
Professor Subrena Smith, a Jamaican philosopher, clarifies this in her philosophy and stance as a race abolitionist. Dr. Smith says that race can be ascribed to her, but she doesn’t have to subscribe to it. Thus, she is a Jamaican but doesn’t claim the “Black” identity by choice.
We choose our identities. And we can choose in a way that says, I've evolved beyond that particular fixed notion or stance of what X, Y, or Z is. We can shift our identities and perspectives, but we have to be willing to be influenced by those with whom we disagree. When we do so, when we are open to such influenced, not necessarily completely changed, but influenced to have a perspective outside of the one we’re strongly attached to, we're all the better for it.
Related post: DEI practices are still stuck on race and gender
Trap #5: Separateness. This particular trap, in part, refers to what I said about us-and-them dynamics above. In Reconstructing Inclusion, I say there's no go-it-alone strategy. “In the quest for inclusive and equitable organizations and communities where their stakeholders exist, we all win, or we all lose, as we are all part of the superset that is humanity."
We can't do this by ourselves (In this case, “We” is a universal one). Trap #5 can be reinforced with a little history snippet, as we move into the last week of Black History Month in the USA (the leap year stretches it out a bit).
One of the things that has been critical in race relations in the United States and the relational dynamics between many communities is that there have been differences in perspective, ideology, and appearance. And that the tensions related to similarities and differences (especially between in-groups and out-groups) have been overcome through more significant interaction.
When people with acknowledged differences come together with a shared objective; if they are clear that this shared objective benefits all involved (and beyond) and have a willingness to invest significant amounts of time toward achieving the shared goal–along with institutional/organizational support, these conditions are reflective of intergroup contact theory.
Intergroup contact theory, or contact hypothesis, is the science that directly informed the desegregation of public schools in the United States—and indirectly, it shifted Plessy v. Ferguson, making the notion of separate but equal in the United States unconstitutional.
If anyone (even with noble intentions) suggests a form of separation to create more diverse, equitable, and inclusive workplaces or societies, consider them underinformed, confused, delusional, or, at worst, intentionally engaged in the sabotage of the stated objective.
The five traps above are not the only ones we might face in our efforts to foster mindsets that result in inclusive human communities. One’s lack of curiosity, reductionism, separation, failure to seek out disconfirming evidence, and, in any capacity, fostering us versus them dynamics are traps that are hard to see if you have already fallen deeply into them. The deeper you go, the bigger the blind spot.
The way I avoid them is to check myself constantly. I continuously read and listen to people I theoretically disagree with. I'm curious about people who have a different perspective than mine. Frequently, it is a very highly opposed perception. One that I might vehemently disagree with at first pass. One that I might even think is, might I say it, racist.
But I don't see those saying such things and making such claims as separate. I don't see anyone regardless of their actions or words, as being outside of the human condition. I stay mindful not to fall into the trap of thinking that I am beyond any mindset that finds its way to my eyes, ears, or other sensibilities.
I avoid getting into a stance of possessing some special moral authority due to choosing to engage organizations and the public in my work, which is called DEI by some. Never can I look down upon anyone when their behavior occurs as X, Y, or Zed-ist or ism. To do so is a trap. Watch out for them.
If you need some assistance in avoiding them, call me. . .I'll ask Kai if he can help point them out to you. 😉
I hope this was helpful. . . Make it a great day! ✌🏿
In this episode of the ‘Reconstructing Inclusion’ podcast, I interview Laura Smith, a celebrated organizational researcher and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) strategist. Laura shares her journey from Detroit to Europe, her encounters with distinct cultures, and the notion of work in different countries. She highlights the significance of DEI in startup and scale-up companies, discussing a data-driven approach to understanding employee safety, company culture, and readiness to respond.