Unlearning, DEI Nots and Knots
A reporter recently sent me a few very well-thought-out questions. I answer a few of them here.
Note: I am using the terminology “DEI” because it is most well-recognized despite most people knowing little about it in depth. My main focus is, as this Substack and my book are entitled, Reconstructing Inclusion.
Your book proposes a more sustainable and humanity-centered framework. What do you believe needs to be unlearned first in order for inclusion to truly work?
What DEI is not (at least in my experience) and what needs to be unlearned go hand-in-hand.
Unlearning starts with individuals and organizations recognizing that what DEI has been branded as is, at best, incomplete and, at worst, harmful. Let’s talk about a couple of things that inform us of what DEI is not. The following “nots” are what have organizations working to navigate the current environment tied up in knots.
DEI is not antiracism. The “antiracism” most people know is not the framing that started with abolitionists and anti-slavery movements in the UK and USA in the 18th and 19th centuries. Then, it persisted in the form of the Civil Rights movement, led by Martin Luther King, Jr., and continued with affirmative action policies enacted in the 1960s-1980s.
The current antiracism rhetoric has become an ideological stance based on the work of Ibram X. Kendi, who became very well-known in 2020 after Floyd.
The racist-antiracist binary of Kendi, along with the timing of Floyd’s televised death at the hands of a cop, has flattened the discourse about DEI. This results from a perfect storm of people reaching for something to hang onto (anything, and the book was convenient), under-experienced practitioners entering the space, and some veterans short-sightedly seeing an opportunity to tip the scales toward racial justice (with an upside of profit to boot).
All of the above actors followed the Kendian path without considering the long-term tradeoffs of their proposed “solutions,” which had little to no historical evidence of efficacy–just hope.
Hope is beautiful. It is not a strategy.
DEI is not a reductionist focus on group identities. There have been too many “solutions” rooted in characterizing what group identity category one is ascribed to rather than people getting to know who the “so-called other” is.
This focus on what category people are in vs. who they are, opened up a lane for anti-DEI bad-faith actors to find every instance and anecdote of poor practice they could and leverage it for political gain.
That brings us to what needs to be unlearned.
Are we maximixing the potential of diversity in our organizations?
Unlearn the list of topics that have become kindling for the anti-DEI fire. Along with the Kendi binary, these include the worst stories about trans rights, White Fragility, critical race theory, “social justice,” hiring unqualified non-white guys (i.e., “DEI Hires”), affirmative action (which is not illegal, but according to the new rhetoric, you wouldn’t know it).
The above paragraph is how DEI is often dumbly defined. If people have been practicing DEI in a manner that supports bad practices, they must stop.
Most people practicing this way are doing so because:
1) Their toolkit is limited to paradigms that adhere to DEI being about some group identities, not all human complexity (humanity);
2) A desire for rightness in the name of justice (even though rightness has never transformed anything); and,
3) Finding fault in the “so-called other” rather than creating the conditions for everyone to thrive and make their best contributions to the organizational mission.
The list could be longer, but until the above are unlearned, it will be hard for organizations to get on with making inclusion the superpower it can be when people build the skills and capabilities to make it reflect “the way we do things around here” (aka organizational culture). Most organizations will stay stuck like stubborn knots if they do not unlearn the practices that created them.
You often describe inclusion as an ongoing, relational process. What are some of organizations' most common missteps when approaching DEI, and how can they shift their mindset?
Inclusion is a relational construct, indeed. That means that the focus and skills needed to make inclusion “the way we do things around here” is about the capacity to build relationships that enable people to co-create the conditions for each other to thrive. To do the above requires clarity about one's paradigms, principles, and pathways in order to practice inclusion in all of its transformational potential.
Paradigms are the fundamental ideas and basic assumptions about what inclusion is and does. This includes the limitations of old paradigms, the intentional exploration of new ones, and adopting those that can create the desired organizational conditions for people and mission to flourish.
The principles on which one builds one's approach are paramount. They serve as reference points that can translate into common requirements for human communities to shape their futures together.
Pathways include mechanisms of practice—ways to embody certain skills and capabilities to sustain and constantly fortify your people and culture. These are ever-evolving and should result in learning, iterating, and, at times, discarding that which is deemed not getting desired results (at least not right now, so stopping doesn’t mean permanently discarding).
Belonging is central in your work. What does it look like in real life inside an organization — beyond policies or training?
I assign belonging as “affective.” It is a feeling, and I hope everyone can experience it because humans and our brains are social organs, and we need it.
And, I think what might be an aim, at least equally if not more importantly, is “mattering.”
Mattering is about meaning, significance, and value. It comes through mastery, a growth mindset, grit, adaptability, and agency. All of these can be cultivated and developed on the job. These are sets of skills people desire and want to be acknowledged for, and they are given tasks that constantly allow them to be deepened. Mattering outpaces belonging. Having both is optimal.
People knowing that they matter is a more durable pathway toward their thriving.
How do you interpret the current DEI backlash? What would you say to someone who believes DEI has “gone too far”?
Most people think DEI is limited to what I outlined above as dumbly designed and, in some cases, dumbly practiced approaches to what I often label as so-called DEI. That means people who are supporters and detractors both have this limited view.
The backlash is ongoing, not new. The reasons are many, but in part, it is because some people who called themselves DEI or anti-racism practitioners engaged in practices that were not designed to work. They may not have recognized the tradeoffs to these adverse inputs, but here we are.
Conversely, most of the biggest and most well-known opponents of so-called DEI need to persist in finding as many negative stories as they can to confirm their narratives about bad, “illegal DEI” (as President Trump’s staff worded his Executive Order #14173).
It has nothing and everything to do with DEI per se. DEI is the 2024 version of the “basket of deplorables” statement from Hillary Clinton in the 2016 U.S. election cycle.
It serves an expedient political purpose, a distinct and useful counter-narrative.
The irony is that many influencers who have become famous because of being anti-DEI would lose their relevance and platform if DEI went away.
Well-known anti-DEI influencers would not be known or significantly less known using “popular influencer rankings” (I just made this up; maybe there is such a thing; I'm not sure).
Their incomplete, politically motivated narratives and counter-branding of DEI–keeping it alive—keep them relevant.
You talk about inclusive ecosystems rather than just inclusive leadership. What distinguishes an inclusive system from individual good intentions?
I define leadership by Peter Senge’s definition:
“Leadership is the capacity of a human community to shape its future.”
People in organizations shape one another and the organizational cultures they inhabit. That means it is an interdependent effort. Just like an ecosystem is interdependent, so is an inclusion system. Interdependence is a core principle of an inclusion system.
If interdependence is non-negotiable in organizational life, then leadership must be inclusive to fulfill an organization's aspirations in a sustainable way.
What advice would you give to HR and DEI professionals who feel disillusioned or exhausted from pushing for change in environments that seem resistant?
Tennis legend Billie Jean King and later Doc Rivers, a former NBA basketball player and currently a coach, said, “Pressure is a privilege.”
If the work of inclusion, or so-called ‘DEI’, is to reach its highest potential, it needs to adapt and improve under pressure, stressors, and heightened stakes. If it improves under adversity, it is antifragile.
All who might feel disillusioned can choose to see this as an opportunity to evolve or an insurmountable obstacle. I promise it is not insurmountable unless we choose it to be.
If we choose to evolve and fortify so that our practice and the organizations we practice with can go beyond resilience, we can make antifragility the choice.
#ChooseHumanity – All of the alternatives are meaningless...
Ready to transform inclusion from concept to action to being a cultural superpower?
When inclusion becomes "the way we do things around here," it transforms from initiative to being a key part of organizational identity.
Want to be part of this transformation? Join our free Emergent Inclusion Framework virtual event. Whether you're a skeptic or champion, your voice matters in this conversation.
I hope to see you there! Tell a friend 😊
I hope this was helpful. . . Make it a great day! ✌🏿
This perspective is insightful. Emphasizing interdependence in inclusion not only highlights our collective responsibility but also the shared benefits of fostering a supportive, thriving organizational culture.