What Positive Vision are you For?
There is more to organizational and everyday life than what is broken.
“Saying what you’re against isn’t a substitute for a positive vision of what you’re for. And since nature abhors a vacuum, in the absence of a positive vision from those who believe in a free society, demagogues fill the void and political extremes—whether from the right or the left—rise up.”
Garry Kasparov, Russian Chess Grand Master
Kasparov’s quote from his newly minted Substack, The Next Move, stood out to me.
He shined a light on a dynamic that has plagued society and without a doubt has been at the heart of the contention in the pro/anti DEI debate, if we can call it a debate.
So-called supporters and opponents (both of which could be bandwagon riders) have spent most of their on-line energy talking about what they are against.
Since the murder of George Floyd, supporters spent significant energy being against racism or anti-racism in the Kendi-esque How to be an Antiracist sense. Alternatively, they spent considerable time on other isms and phobias that they felt needed to be called out.
Conversely (or perhaps complementarily, as they are much closer to one another than they are willing to admit), those who are anti-DEI spend a lot of time talking about how they are against the “radical indoctrination” of children. Or that they are reticent or now completely opposed to anything resembling affirmative action. (I have expressed my reticence, too.) And much more.
Those who state they are all about meritocracy usually do not articulate its meaning. When they attempt to describe it, it sounds eerily like preferences disguised as merit-ish-ness, similar to why the satirical The Rise of Meritocracy was written and positioned as it was.
Among the most well-known avatars of DEI camps, most of their time is spent reinforcing the pros and cons of what they are against. It is rare to see them talk about possibility. There is a dearth of writing about the principles, paradigms, and pathways (the how) to make inclusion create helpful outcomes or prevent unhelpful ones.
Now, the argument for those against it would be to eradicate DEI. But as Chuck D from Public Enemy said, “Don’t believe the hype, it’s a sequel.”
The predominant voices against DEI are absolutely disinterested in DEI going away. Let me say that again, when you hear people in their anti-DEI rants screaming silliness like “DEI must DIE,” know that if their platform or agenda depends on being against DEI, having it disappear is not their desire.
Conversely, for pro-DEI ideologues, it is about keeping their version of how “the work” gets done alive. Again, the pros and cons have preferences—keeping DEI going in the way that creates the most significant individual benefit is too often the aim. “It’s a small, small world. . .”
How can we start talking more about what we are for? Whether that positive vision is about inclusion or something else worthwhile. My preference is for hearing responses to what do you want to create?; For whom?; Toward what goals?; and, With whom will you create it? Agreement is not necessary. I am willing to be influenced even by approaches I disagree with. Consider me a beacon for dissent.
I experiment with potentially helpful inputs to create positive outputs. For me, positive outputs revolve around thriving people and consistently creating “thick value” for organizational stakeholders. I create this with as many of the people who will be impacted by the inputs and outputs as possible.
Resistance to DEI
When we hosted our last live virtual event, “Elevating Your Inclusion Edge” (the next one is on May 13th, join us!), one colleague who attended said,
“The thing I was surprised by is how you were talking about something quite different to my expectation. That may be just because I am not in the loop on DEI. But it's good to know, potentially, that a different label would have helped me and maybe others understand better what your talk was going to be all about.”
Like most people, my colleague didn’t know what the last letter of the DEI acronym meant beyond perhaps a word meant to reinforce diversity, equity, or equality (often used in the UK).
Inclusion is often left behind due to the incomplete connotations and re-branding that supporters and detractors have maniacally repeated about representation and outcomes for people based on their physical characteristics or other preferences, the ‘D’ and ‘E’.
When done well, the practice of inclusion is much more. Most people willing to listen to possibilities beyond the rhetoric can understand it–even if they have doubts about DEI due to hearing negative anecdotes or believing that paradigms of civil rights and social justice advocacy are the main reason for making efforts in diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Below, I have included an excerpt from Reconstructing Inclusion that speaks to what I am for: doing stuff based on evidence that creates outcomes that help people learn better, grow more antifragile, and make extraordinary contributions to their organization’s mission.
Tell me what resonates with you about the excerpt. I hope it is helpful. Make it a great day! ✌🏼
“One of the most impactful interventions I ever did for teams was long- term team observation. This consisted of at least two people from my team sitting in on high-level decision-making meetings and coding the participation by type—inquiry, advocacy, acknowledgment, and a set of behaviors that we assembled from the literature and defined as best we could so that we would be looking for the same types of behaviors.
After observing these decision-making bodies (some of which operated as teams and others as a collection of individual functional subject matter experts), we would present the collected data to them with the intent of them seeing their behaviors. The feedback included observation data to build awareness of how they interacted with each other, as well as insights from those who came to present and have decisions made about their project. Obviously, our being present brought about some changes in behavior.
Nonetheless, we saw that, over time, the groups made decisions about how and why they needed to change their behaviors in meetings. Some even made changes in the process that made presenters feel more welcomed, confident, and able to disagree and debate, which power imbalances often prohibited.
Those teams were our clients. We listened to them and what they said they wanted. They originally wanted us to do training. We eventually did.
Yet, we didn’t just do a training, as most diversity training doesn’t work.
Instead, we observed what they did over time. Then, with the information we gathered, we created sessions that consisted of not only information delivery but also information exchange and co-creation. The disruption was self-generated and therefore actionable. While many of the groups changed their composition during the roughly two years that we observed and worked with these teams, we saw them implement process changes that created structures for what they wanted more of: bolder presentations by project leaders, faster decisions, and more open dialogue.
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! ✌🏿
