About ten years ago, I chose DEI as my subject for a grad school research project. As I pored over journal essays, research studies, text book chapters, and magazine articles, I saw the same themes you've mentioned repeated consistently: DEI has to be a core value, not a program, if lasting change is to occur and organizations that accomplish lasting change see tangible benefits in employee retention and performance. Most of the solutions offered were either adjustments to the content of various programs, or to the implementation of these programs, and all of them relied on organizational leaders to fundamentally change themselves and their priorities.
What I did not see then, nor since, is discussion of fundamentally changing organizational structures in order to accomplish DEI goals. Hierarchy is structurally incompatible with diversity. The fewer people with substantial power/authority/autonomy there are in an organization, the more inclusion becomes an exclusionary process.
Anyone who has commuted in a large metro area, or who has encountered a long backup because of highway construction will understand what I mean. You cannot add more cars to a lane of traffic without the cars already there letting them get in front. It's hard enough to get people to slow down for the brief moment required to make room for another car, how much more naturally resistant will people be to a perceived slowdown of their career goals?
Programs, efforts, DEI departments, are all essentially efforts at convincing people that slowing down briefly to make room for another car will ultimately result in everyone moving forward faster. That's true, but it's nowhere nearly as effective as *adding more lanes to the road*. Flattening organizational structures needs to be a central part of the DEI conversation.
There are two obvious benefits to an approach to DEI that revolves around adding seats to the table rather than changing up the demographics of who is at the table:
1. It addresses the fear of replacement.
2. It achieves the organizationally practical, effective advantage of diversity: collaboration.
The research on the benefits of diversity is pretty clear - when people's contributions are appreciated their performance improves and when organizational decisions are made based on input from multiple perspectives their performance improves. Adding seats to the table shows that you value the input of a broader range of people and it puts more voices into the decision making process. One person is not diversity, no matter what demographic check boxes they fill.
Does it seem to you that if 36 percent and 25 percent, respectively— of ethnically and gender-diverse companies financially outperform organizations of average diversity in their industry, then this means shifting the playing field to the shareholders? Of course, the shareholders' meetings generally reflect the views of a particular culture, which is not particularly inclusive, nor interested in more money when getting it conflicts with culture. So - it's necessary to move the playing field back to a place where people who think for the good of the whole have some power. Where is that playing field?
thank you for these wise and kind words, as always.
i like this a lot:
"Seeing Mark Cuban go to bat for D.E.I. has been deeply validating for the movement. While billionaires like Elon Musk and Bill Ackman hyperventilate about inclusion work being a form of reverse racism, Cuban has soberly yet forcefully reminded people that seeking out talent that’s traditionally undervalued, or underrepresented, is a competitive advantage, and that reducing employee stress related to belonging has a positive impact on productivity."
and this:
"In many ways, this feels like the Empire Strikes Back moment in the D.E.I. story."
and this:
“I’m not here to take anything from you. I’m here to build something with you that neither of us could do if we insisted on seeing the world as me versus you. It’s better to see the world as us, as we.”
About ten years ago, I chose DEI as my subject for a grad school research project. As I pored over journal essays, research studies, text book chapters, and magazine articles, I saw the same themes you've mentioned repeated consistently: DEI has to be a core value, not a program, if lasting change is to occur and organizations that accomplish lasting change see tangible benefits in employee retention and performance. Most of the solutions offered were either adjustments to the content of various programs, or to the implementation of these programs, and all of them relied on organizational leaders to fundamentally change themselves and their priorities.
What I did not see then, nor since, is discussion of fundamentally changing organizational structures in order to accomplish DEI goals. Hierarchy is structurally incompatible with diversity. The fewer people with substantial power/authority/autonomy there are in an organization, the more inclusion becomes an exclusionary process.
Anyone who has commuted in a large metro area, or who has encountered a long backup because of highway construction will understand what I mean. You cannot add more cars to a lane of traffic without the cars already there letting them get in front. It's hard enough to get people to slow down for the brief moment required to make room for another car, how much more naturally resistant will people be to a perceived slowdown of their career goals?
Programs, efforts, DEI departments, are all essentially efforts at convincing people that slowing down briefly to make room for another car will ultimately result in everyone moving forward faster. That's true, but it's nowhere nearly as effective as *adding more lanes to the road*. Flattening organizational structures needs to be a central part of the DEI conversation.
There are two obvious benefits to an approach to DEI that revolves around adding seats to the table rather than changing up the demographics of who is at the table:
1. It addresses the fear of replacement.
2. It achieves the organizationally practical, effective advantage of diversity: collaboration.
The research on the benefits of diversity is pretty clear - when people's contributions are appreciated their performance improves and when organizational decisions are made based on input from multiple perspectives their performance improves. Adding seats to the table shows that you value the input of a broader range of people and it puts more voices into the decision making process. One person is not diversity, no matter what demographic check boxes they fill.
Does it seem to you that if 36 percent and 25 percent, respectively— of ethnically and gender-diverse companies financially outperform organizations of average diversity in their industry, then this means shifting the playing field to the shareholders? Of course, the shareholders' meetings generally reflect the views of a particular culture, which is not particularly inclusive, nor interested in more money when getting it conflicts with culture. So - it's necessary to move the playing field back to a place where people who think for the good of the whole have some power. Where is that playing field?
dear baratunde,
thank you for these wise and kind words, as always.
i like this a lot:
"Seeing Mark Cuban go to bat for D.E.I. has been deeply validating for the movement. While billionaires like Elon Musk and Bill Ackman hyperventilate about inclusion work being a form of reverse racism, Cuban has soberly yet forcefully reminded people that seeking out talent that’s traditionally undervalued, or underrepresented, is a competitive advantage, and that reducing employee stress related to belonging has a positive impact on productivity."
and this:
"In many ways, this feels like the Empire Strikes Back moment in the D.E.I. story."
and this:
“I’m not here to take anything from you. I’m here to build something with you that neither of us could do if we insisted on seeing the world as me versus you. It’s better to see the world as us, as we.”
also all the rest of it (everyone, read it all!)
love
myq