Belonging & A New Different

"In 2020 and 2021 there has been much disruption. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a reframe emerged over and over again—“when we return to normal,” or “a new normal is emerging.” I would like to suggest that what disruption allows for is the possibility for?“a new different”—new ways of imagining and innovating, new ways of doing the work of Global Inclusion, Diversity, Belonging, Equity, Access, and Belonging—and redefining how organizations and leaders operationalize Belonging."

Abstract

The field of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) has witnessed an increasing emphasis on “Belonging,” which has and continues to influence the way practitioners, researchers, and theorists approach this work. This article aims to build upon the research of a number of scholars across disciplines and fields to reaffirm the importance of “Belonging” as a concept and institutional goal while addressing misconceptions that have led to an oversimplification in its definition and utilization. To do so, Dr. Lisa Coleman unpacks ways to operationalize “Belonging,” and in particular, ways to implement purposeful and directed strategies to produce transformational institutional change. Dr. Coleman provides a brief review and outline of DEI terminology and nomenclature, introducing Global Inclusion, Diversity, Belonging, Equity, and Access (Global IDBEA) as a more complete conceptual complex and action-based model for institutional change. The author integrates this model within a discussion of actionable change to transform ongoing systemic and systematic intersectional power relationships.?

In the context of diversity, equity, and inclusion work, Dr. Coleman argues that “Belonging” integrally includes contestation without expulsion or obliteration. Belonging involves leveraging the generative potential of inevitable conflicts as opposed to seeking ways to avoid them. Dr. Coleman goes on to suggest that organizations must embrace contestation to activate and leverage the assets of difference versus focusing on difference as a problem to be fixed or solved. This entails reframing engagement with historically marginalized groups and the predictable conflicts that arise when distinctive units, people, etc. come together. This type of Belonging will lead to greater innovation, unearth bonuses that may have otherwise been invisible, and much more. Finally, Dr. Coleman elaborates on how Belonging may be used as a critical component of achieving a type of “new different”—a counterproposal to the contemporary rhetoric around a “new normal." A “new different” focuses on that which is transformative, sustainable, equitable change as opposed to attempts to restore the status quo. A “new different” centers ever-increasing dynamic strength and agility to accelerate readiness for, and growth optimization of, the next and inevitable disruption.

Belonging

It seems like everyone is talking about “Belonging” and how to create spaces where individuals are welcome. I want to state from the outset that Global Inclusion, Diversity, Belonging, Equity, and Access (Global IDBEA) are essential ingredients in the same pie. Without the intersections and overlaps of these ingredients, there can never be a whole pie. This is relevant because often there are debates over nomenclature—that dance back and forth over global inclusion, diversity, belonging, equity, and access. These discussions are often centered on which part matters more. Again, without all of the ingredients, a pie cannot be made; similarly, one cannot address all of the organizational challenges and opportunities without all of the Global IDBEA ingredients. The changes in nomenclature and evolution of words related to diversity are certainly not over, and there may be more ingredients added over time; and, while words certainly matter, it is also important to underscore the actual practices within the language and how to operationalize the work.

There has been an increasing emphasis on “belonging” emerging from several fields, much like the work on unconscious bias, and other related Global IDBEA work (Alexander, 2020; Boughey et al., 2020; Slee, 2019; Witney et al., 2019). Belonging within this context has most often been described as the ways in which organizational environments are created in which individuals feel welcomed and operate with a sense of responsibility and accountability for the well-being of one another. This work centers the feeling of belonging based in/on ideas of acceptance and acknowledgment. According to Roy Baumeister and Mark Leary, in their 1995 study, a sense of belonging develops under two conditions: frequent and positive contact with the same group or person (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). In the research of Henri Tajfel and John Turner on social identity theory, they asserted that group associations (i.e., family, sports teams, religious groups, etc.) provide a foundation for building self-esteem and self-worth (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Being engaged with groups often allows individuals to feel a sense of greater purpose in the larger world because of the attachments formed. These attachments are foundational to group membership and serve to fortify an individual’s sense of belonging due to the idea of secure attachment. If this attachment is disrupted or the individual is excluded, it is important to note that there are “real costs of exclusion. Social rejection, exclusion, and isolation have consequences,” including impacting individuals’ health (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). “Neuroscience studies have shown that similar areas” of the brain become activated when individuals feel physical pain as when they “experience the feeling of being excluded” by a trusted person or a group (Alexander, 2020, para.10; Mcleod, 2019). Building on the earlier work of Baumeister and Leary, Pragya Agarwal moves to operationalize components of belonging by emphasizing the need to engage heterogeneity, “not to ignore differences” but to normalize and be intentional about the discussions and engagement of difference (Agarwal, 2019). This nuanced definition focuses on how to work across and through differences, combined with a focus on the necessary actions taken to address the exclusion, trauma, or hostile environments to foster a sense of secure attachment. This framing highlights the complexities of working across difference and adversity with intentionality that also recognizes the systemic trauma of exclusion and the repair that is often needed.?

However, the concept of belonging that is commonly cited across sectors is a simplified definition of belonging that centers on a more superficial sense of homogeneous accord for cohesion and reconciliation without attention to truth about historical harms and the contestation needed to foster foundationally secure attachments. When contestation or difficult topics of conversations arise, in many organizations, this is often seen as disruptive to a sense of belonging (and/or community) that requires resolution toward homogeneity and accord; furthermore, within organizations, there has been a reframing of the idea of “safe spaces” that often fails to address the ways in which some communities or groups have never belonged and have never been “safe” (Ajayi-Hackworth, 2020). As Mellody Hobson correctly points out, organizations and leaders need to move away from safe spaces to "brave spaces" (Hobson, 2014).?

While the concept of belonging has emerged within Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Access (DEIA) work, so has the emphasis on employing design thinking models. One of the fundamental principles in design thinking is the importance of empathy. “‘Empathy’ is the first stage of the design thinking process... empathy is crucial to a human-centered design process such as design thinking, and empathy helps design thinkers to set aside [their] own assumptions about the world in order to gain insight into their users and their needs”(Dam & Siang, 2020). Engaging the design thinking process in operationalizing the practice of Belonging will need to highlight and leverage heterogeneity and debate because this is part of the work needed to create brave, inclusive organizational spaces. This process of Belonging will emphasize spaces/sites of reckoning versus underdeveloped and rudimentary sites of reconciliation where there has never been a reckoning with truth, and as a result, historical vulnerabilities of marginalization are often even further exploited (Desmond, 1995).

Before moving deeper into the discussion on Belonging within a Global IDBEA model (rather than solely DEI or DEI plus Access), it is important to review each of the Global IDBEA terms for clarity and to explicate the ways these concepts must be operationalized in a holistic, integrated, and articulated practice to realize transformation toward equity. Global Diversity usually equates to numbers and demographic representation, which alone do not create or foster Inclusion. Inclusion is the embeddedness of Diversity and Equity (i.e., equitable distribution of resources) and is directly related to Access (i.e., accessibility in terms of design and resources). Inclusion (as the embeddedness of Diversity and Equity) is realized within various specific global contexts at the institutional, local, regional, national, and international levels. Operationalizing, embedding, and measuring Global IDBEA must be built into, and constitutive of, spaces and organizations for pervasive institutional change and transformation to occur. Many DEI practitioners, researchers, and theorists would argue that any form of belonging cannot emerge without an emphasis on Global Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, and Access, and a focus on transformation in implementation and action strategies.

One of the reasons my research centers on Transformation, specifically within the context of South Africa, is because transformation is dynamic, intentional, and aspirational in its emphasis. Essential to the concept of Transformation is the importance of engaging across differences and the insistence on reckoning with deeply rooted power differentials and engaging with tough contestation, which can lead to that which is new, innovative, and (ideally) transformational (Lamson, 2013). I am also deeply interested in the conceptual idea of Possibility, and the way in which the United Arab Emirates (UAE) created the new office entitled The Ministry of Possibility (United Arab Emirates Ministry of Possibility, n.d.). Drawing in and from global and multidimensional differences and various types of heterogeneous concepts is crucial to leveraging very difficult and disruptive conflicts that, when reframed with intention and curation, have the possibility of leading communities to new, different, innovative, and yet-to-be imagined ways of advancing global equity and so much more.

These understandings of Transformation and Possibility are critical to the foundations of Equity and Inclusion because of their explicit focus on power, as well as their employment of data analytics to create action-based strategies that address national, cultural, and embedded systems of power that have systematically created inequities. These concepts push toward this acknowledgment, underscoring the need to create efforts that are new, innovative, and yet-to-be imagined. To unearth, and to redo that which is deeply interwoven and embedded into systemic and systematic practices (such as the dismantling of systems of apartheid and its aftermath), there has to be a continual, intentional engagement with the impact of power relations that have resulted in institutional oppression and dispossession, combined simultaneously with a focus on what organizations and leaders can learn from those who have been historically marginalized and systematically excluded. To imagine what is possible in a site where numerous cultures and communities who do not agree are coming together, and to imagine what might be possible with collective and intentional engagement of that difference, is to engage the possibilities of difference.?

Within the Academy and other institutions across sectors (e.g., corporate, governmental, etc.), the historical patterns have and continue to lead to disparate practices including but not limited to those related to: selection, retention, and promotion; learning, leadership, mentorship, and sponsorship opportunities; grants, research, and development practices; and C-Suite and board opportunities. These inequitable practices result in disparities across all aspects of life, including in health, economics, education, etc; so, there is significant work that must be done on research, innovation, and leadership across fields and disciplines.

While this article highlights some of the vestiges of power, the primary focus is to unpack ways Belonging, as one component of the Global IDBEA whole pie, might be operationalized to reckon with disparate access, inequities, and structures of power, and to engage the transformational possibility of contestation. In other words, Belonging might be utilized to practically address persistent power differentials and structural disparities that contribute to the reasons some groups have access to resources—to more power—and some do not (i.e., some belong and some do not.) Belonging, as framed herein, must emphasize the co-creation and contestation that are necessary to build innovative, transformative, and transdisciplinary possibilities and spaces.

A New Different

In 2020 and 2021 there has been much disruption. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a reframe emerged over and over again—“when we return to normal,” or “a new normal is emerging.” I would like to suggest that what disruption allows for is the possibility for “a new different”—new ways of imagining and innovating, new ways of doing the work of Global Inclusion, Diversity, Belonging, Equity, and Access (Global IDBEA)—and redefining defining how organizations and leaders operationalize Belonging.?

Additionally, to address power and historical and contemporary inequities, organizations and leaders must move away from the idea of safety (often cited as “psychological safety”) (Edmonson, 1999), and away from “safe spaces” (Ajayi-Hackworth, 2020) and toward “brave spaces” (Hobson, 2014). Creating “brave spaces” recognizes the degree to which members of historically disenfranchised groups have often not had the privilege to access “psychologically safe spaces” and instead have often been compelled—due to power differentials and despite fear of all types of retribution—to be brave and participate in spaces, regardless of lack of safety and discomfort. In fact, many have had to navigate leadership, peers, and structures that are actively psychologically hostile spaces and have been set up to explicitly exclude members of historically marginalized groups. This is a reminder that organizations and leaders must have nuanced approaches that take into account specific histories of how power has been amassed, distributed, and conferred. Specific attention is also necessary to understand how, within organizational practice, safety is deployed to comfort some groups under the cloak of so-called belonging while simultaneously often causing harm and discomfort for historically marginalized groups. Organizations and leaders must recognize how historically marginalized groups have had to embrace contestation, even when they have not been psychologically safe; this is one example of moving away from safe spaces to operationalizing brave spaces.?

We cannot “all just get along” as though we live and operate in a vacuum devoid of power matrices. Of course, while this sentiment is what many often want and resonates with the historic question posed by Rodney King in 1992 after the police had beaten him within inches of his life, the problem with the mobilization of these concepts of “safety” or homogeneity as consensus is that the very real power differentials are flattened out and scrubbed of any systemic and systematic redress of the historically rooted, contemporary impacts, which then often results in perpetuation and intensification of disparities.?

During times of disruption such as the flu pandemic, HIV/AIDS pandemic in the 1980s and 1990s, economic downturns, real estate crises, and the recent COVID-19 pandemic, deeply rooted social inequities and injustices are often exacerbated globally, drawing attention to ongoing and systemic patterns of exclusion including, but not limited to, racism, xenophobia, cissexism, heterosexism, sexism, and ableism. These trenchant and ongoing disparities continue to spark the urgent need for global actions that are new and different (than before).?

As organizations consider shifting global landscapes and demography, the rise of Generations Z and C (Catherine, 2021), widespread and sustained social protests, local disruption in the workplace, the unprecedented hiring of BIPOC individuals, issues of sustainability, and the future of work, there is a unique urgency for institutions to move from compliance to innovation, from the atomistic tactics to the transformational, and from the stagnate to the dynamic and agile—from DEI rhetoric to Global IDBEA action—toward a new different.?

This new different will entail building brave, sustainable spaces; creating learning cultures and embedding growth mindsets for collaboration; moving toward transparency about mistakes and evolution to allow for the “goodish” (Chugh, 2018) to emerge; and, leveraging and maximizing the assets and “bonuses” (Page, 2019) that are derived from rigorous Global IDBEA engagement for greater innovation.

And, while many state that this is a crucial time to reconsider foundational concepts of DEI work, I would also argue that while nomenclature changes (and this is certainly true globally) much of the work has not. The most effective work continues to focus on how to shift power structures and address related practices that oppress some and not others; to learn from the mistakes of the past to create new opportunities now and in the future; to address and dismantle systems and patterns that support -isms and -phobias (and related exclusions) across the globe; and to reimagine and innovate new paradigms for a new different—new practices and new ways of being that build on the foundational work of early DEI. This approach to Global IDBEA work emphasizes intersectional and integrated learnings within the DEIA field, and also marks Belonging as a heterogeneous and integrative generative state that is integral to the whole pie while simultaneously underscoring conceptual complexities and models necessary for transformative action.

Unpacking and Expanding Definitions

Global Inclusion, Diversity, Belonging, Equity, and Access (Global IDBEA) are five ingredients of the same pie and are built out of a history of affirmative action, multiculturalism, pluralism, etc. (refer to Figure 2). Many are familiar with Vernā Myers and her TED Talk, during which she describes these parts through a dance analogy (Myers, 2014). Part of what Myers says in the TED Talk is that “Diversity is being invited to the party. Inclusion is being asked to dance.?” (The Vernā Myers Company, n.d.). I like to draw on Myers' dance metaphor with this example: I went to single-gender schools, and for those of you who did not attend such schools, there are events called “mixers.” What happens is that the schools bring students of different gender identities from different schools together in a room to dance (for my introverted self it was a horrible little thing). In my experience, the students clustered by gender—not “mixing” socially at all. To make matters even worse, there were further divisions across other groups such as the "geeks" and "nerds" (lovingly written), the "jocks" and "the artists," and so on. So there was diversity in the room, right, but nobody was interacting with one another. At this point, Myers would argue that Inclusion would only occur if the students actually began to engage with each other and ask someone to dance. Here, I will build on Vernā Myers’ analogy to emphasize the essential role of Equity toward realizing the goals and full potential of Global IDBEA work. Continuing the dance metaphor, someone, the DJ, really likes salsa, so four hours of salsa have been played consecutively. Then someone comes along and says, “can we play some reggae?” Pulling from this example, Equity is recognizing historical patterns and responding by creating equitable solutions and systems in terms of representation and access to resources (in this instance, music to enjoy).?

“Belonging is an action. It is an empathetic movement toward that which is different and integrates the process of learning to engage in debate for accelerated innovation and possibility.”

Returning again to Myers’ dance metaphor to go beyond Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and unpack Belonging—let’s say I go to the dance, and I hate the music being played. I hate the dance itself. I hate everything about it; so I complain, and once I do, I am kicked out of the dance (or marginalized). I am told to wait on my idea and that I have made others feel “unsafe” with my assertions. I would say this is not Belonging. Belonging is an action. It is an empathetic movement toward that which is different and integrates the process of learning to engage in debate for accelerated innovation and possibility. So, once again, back to the dance metaphor—alternatively after having expressed my discontent, Belonging-in-action could have been the organizers, leaders, and others embracing the critique and the protest and using them to learn, to co-create, pivot, and perhaps even form a new band to create intersectional music. New dances might be created, new innovative sounds introduced, new groups formed, and so many additional possibilities. In this model, disagreement leads to innovation by leveraging the bonuses that might have otherwise been invisible unless unearthed through contestation. To operationalize Belonging, organizations might insist that contestation is part of the foundation and process, as opposed to something that is a problem to be fixed or solved. Organizations would then be transparent about the need for divergent ideas, co-creation, and ways of thinking that challenge leaders to be more resilient, sustainable, and future-ready.

“Belonging must involve embracing, respecting, and leveraging the generative potential of conflict as an asset to help transform organizations and practices with lenses toward equitable, co-created, inclusive, and diverse spaces.”

Belonging in this model is not only an outgrowth of Inclusion, it is also integrally linked to Equity, where heterogeneous, divergent, and sometimes contested perspectives are valued and engaged. Organizationally, Belonging will be linked to a continual, dynamic, and empathetic learning cycle that is generative, innovative, imaginative, sustainable, and measurable. Global IDBEA represents an integration of research demonstrating the roles of Global IDBEA components as central to innovation and ingenuity. Institutions and societies are synergistically and exponentially stronger as they escalate the degrees to which they are experimental, nimble, agile, equitable, diverse, inclusive, and accessible (Page, 2019). In exploration and innovation, the debate of conflicting ideas is expected. Conflict is part of the transformative process, and Belonging must involve embracing, respecting, and leveraging the generative potential of conflict as an asset to help transform organizations and practices with lenses toward equitable, co-created, inclusive, and diverse spaces. If organizations are truly to operationalize Belonging rigorously, then they will need to practice how to productively engage contestation and design thinking and use the critiques as learning opportunities for new processes in their leadership and management efforts. Examples of successfully springboarding from contestation are evident in analyzing organizational approaches across sectors, including in Information Technology (IT) where contestation and new ways of thinking are constantly at play and leveraged.?

Embracing Conflict/Contestation

The inclusive leadership paradigm offered by Deloitte focuses on six key traits: courage, commitment, collaboration, curiosity, cultural intelligence, and cognizance (Deloitte Insights, 2016). As many leaders know, there are many more “C’s” that might be added such as compassion and critical thinking. To expand the work on Belonging, a "C" that might be added is Contestation.?

Contestation is often managed poorly in organizations. Cultivating diverse teams and managing them is not simple. When people who do not think alike are brought together, there will be that which is contested and debated. There will likely be disagreement and conflict, however greater innovation is also likely to emerge (Bourgeois et al., 1997; Jayne & Dipoye, 2004). Within homogeneity, there is a type of simplification that tends toward agreement more quickly, which is often not innovative and most often reproduces and maintains the status quo. In applying design thinking to science, art, and in all types of laboratories, innovation occurs as a result of multiple perspectives; imaginative hypotheses; and replication, iteration, and learning from the mistakes, tensions, conflicts, and process of experimentation. In other words, in this context:

“BELONGING = CONTESTATION WITHOUT EXPULSION or OBLITERATION.”

Through the following figures, I offer guidelines, context, and tools that are interlocked with transformation and help embed a strategy of Belonging within organizations and institutions:

Figure 1. Guidelines for Advancing Belonging

Solicit Information about the Organization (both the good and the bad)–Examples: Put out a suggestion box. Find opportunities within challenges.

Create Organization/Institution-wide Practice and Climate of Transparency, and Communication–Example: Make feedback transparent (both positive and non-positive). Acknowledge both mistakes and areas for improvement. Post follow-ups in response to feedback received (e.g., via the suggestion box) on relevant sites including social media, if necessary.?

Underscore Belonging, Leverage Assets, and Internal Entrepreneurship–Examples: Create co-learning teams to address opportunities, suggestions, and gaps to strengthen successes and learn from weaknesses to improve outcomes. Create incentives and rewards for short, medium, and long-term goals.?

Implement with Design Thinking Underscoring Innovation–Examples: Utilize and put into practice learnings gained across individuals and teams. Develop pilots, focus groups, testing and adjustment strategies, and put them into action–iterate and adjust as necessary; focus on agility and nimbleness; conduct asset modeling measurement and data analysis; and implement best practices.

Figure 2. A Very Brief & Selected History of Global IDBEA in the United States

1790–1924: Citizen Defined–Naturalization Acts. Ongoing Legal Doctrine. Eugenics. Waves of Immigration. Reconstruction. Exclusion Acts and Bar Zones. Wars. Prohibition. Abolition.?Women’s Movements.

1924–1956: Nation Building–Industrialization Acceleration,.Education and Labor Market Development. Wars. GI Bill (Brodkin, 1997).

1956–1970s:?Era of Compliance, Advocacy, and Activism–Civil Rights, Women’s Rights, Gay Rights, and Sexual Revolution. Groundwork Laid for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Historical Representation. Office of Equal Opportunity.

1980s–2000s: Era of Celebration–US Multiculturalism and Pluralism. Spokes and Wheels of Diversity. ADA.

2000s–Present: Era of Disciplinary Maturation–Global Inclusion, Diversity, Belonging, Equity, and Access (Global IDBEA) plus Justice. Expanded Nomenclature.

Figure 3. Belonging: Quick Pulse Self-Assessment

Reflection Questions for Leaders and Organizations

• How does your organization handle dissension and conflict–overall and at various levels?
• How are new ideas that do not fit into the “status quo” leveraged, or not, across the organization?
• What are organizational leaders’ capacity, managerial adaptability, and resilience?
• Is information clearly disseminated across the organization or not? How are employees given feedback about how contributions are valued or not? Who receives the feedback and who might not?
• What organizational cultural norms (fit) are open and transparent? Which norms and expectations are more subtle? How are these norms and expectations communicated or not, and to whom??
• How are problems handled and assets leveraged?
• What is the “mistake culture” and learning stance of the organization? In other words, how are mistakes treated when they are non-catastrophic? How do leaders, managers, and peers respond?
• What structures are in place to harness learning and intrapreneurship (i.e., internal entrepreneurship)?

Organizational & Leadership Self-Rating Scale

• Growth Mindset vs. Fixed Mindset (Dweck, 2008)
• Learning and Development Stance vs. Quiescent
• Future Ready (i.e., succession planning, trans-generational co-learning opportunities, etc.) versus Leadership Gaps
• Nimble/Agile versus Stagnate
• Asset Model versus Deficit Approach
• Attuned to Innovation versus Status Quo
• Collaborative versus Siloed

This Global IDBEA model emphasizes organizational communication, contestation, mistakes, learning cultures, agility, co-creation, entrepreneurship, and innovation. This emphasis is important for accountability measures, concrete follow-ups, engagement of all employees, and actually taking suggestions and putting them into practice to leverage the bonuses that already exist and are readily available (Page, 2019). Through this lens, mistakes would be valued as part of the process to embrace the “goodish” (Chugh, 2021) as part of the learning process. Contestation would be folded into the talent development, leadership, and innovation processes. These types of organizational structures would shift Global IDBEA from Human Resources (HR) → to the C-Suite; from Student Affairs areas → to the President/Vice-Chancellor; from the reactive → to proactive and generative; from crisis management →?to innovation, possibility, transformation, sustainability, and future-readiness.

By drawing on design thinking models and applying agile adaptive leadership skills for co-creating highly effective diverse teams, leaders are able to leverage and rely on the expertise of their team members and colleagues to manage conflicting ideas and peoples. In other words, leaders would practice how to allow for and manage contestation without the disintegration of the entire team or business (Sheryl & Sinclair, 2020). Sustainable Belonging and transformative innovation are born from a growth mindset and learning stance (again, empathy is the first phase in design thinking). Even when it is difficult, this dynamic process constantly integrates conflictual ideas through co-creation and collaboration to hone agility; builds democratized knowledge production; and, deepens the breadth and scope of innovation through iteration and testing within and led by diverse groups. An adaptive, resilient leader will embrace, operationalize, and leverage heterogeneity and diversity in moments of disruption to both anticipate and navigate future disruptions, the future of work, and much more (Mahtani, 2021)—to move toward a new different.

Conclusion

Returning one final time to Myers’ dance metaphor, let’s again say one goes to the dance and hates the music being played, hates the dance, hates everything about it, and so they complain. Within an actualized Global IDBEA framework, once that complaint is made—rather than forms of exclusion, such as silence and passive or active disavowal, and rather than expulsion or obliteration of membership—the complaining individual is proactively asked for their input. They are allowed to bring in others who have been impacted because of the choice of music, food, etc. Individuals then hash it out to make decisions and prioritize what music, what food, what… how…who...when… where…, etc. It is NOT easy, but this is the growth zone of learning, dynamics, increased agility, and generative ideas for innovation (to follow the “mixer” dance analogy—new forms of social gatherings, new soundscapes, new musical genres imagined, perhaps). In these spaces of transformational Belonging, there will be focus groups to gather and incorporate suggestions; there will be new musical designs and much more; and all will be allowed to come and participate as their authentic selves—to go through the doors, elevators, come in from the roof, windows, etc. and to arrive and dance in many different ways. Belonging embeds contestation with collaboration, empathy, and co-creation at its foundation, as opposed to reactively adding it?in at the end of the dance.

“Belonging underscores contestation without expulsion or obliteration and engages collective contestation to move toward a strategically collaborative, sustainable, and transformational new different.”

Inclusive, adaptive, and resilient leadership remains crucial for leaders to leverage and be ready and accountable for the unanticipated, and inevitable future disruptions. This type of process prioritizes opportunities to create new possibilities where Belonging is focused on the assets that might be generated through debate when truly diverse perspectives and positionalities come together (Gallegos, 2013). Belonging will thus focus on engaging the disagreements and the critiques; employing design thinking and heterogeneity; disaggregating and rearticulating equitable power relationships; and, utilizing the different to move toward transformative and intersectional co-creation and to build practices, policies, etc. that reflect the nuances and variances of multifaceted, global diverse communities. Belonging underscores contestation without expulsion or obliteration and engages collective contestation to move toward a strategically collaborative, sustainable, and transformational new different.

Bibliography

• Alexander, Na Shai. A Point of View: Why Belonging is #UpNext for Diversity and Inclusion. (2020, January 22). Retrieved from https://www.theinclusionsolution.me/a-point-of-view-why-belonging-is-upnext-for-diversity-and-inclusion/
• Agarwal, D. P. (2019, August 27). Belonging In The Workplace: A New Approach to Diversity And Inclusivity. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/pragyaagarwaleurope/2019/08/26/belonging-in-the-workplace-a-new-approach-to-diversity-and-inclusivity/#7bf197717a66
• Ajayi-Hackworth, Femina. The Buzz: Psychological Safety and Race Discussions. (2020, October 08). Retrieved from https://www.theinclusionsolution.me/the-buzz-psychological-safety-and-race-discussions
• Ballenger, Sheryl, and Norah Sinclair. Inclusive Design Thinking- Model for Inclusive Course Development. (2020). Retrieved from
• https://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter234/ballenger_sinclair234.html
• Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497-529. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
• Brodkin-Sacks, K. (1997). The GI Bill: Whites Only Need Apply. Critical White Studies: Looking Behind the Mirror (310-313). Temple University Press.?
• Chugh, D. (2018). The person you mean to be: How good people fight bias. New York, US-NY: HarperBusiness.
• Dam, R. F., & Siang, T. Y. (n.d.). Design Thinking: Getting Started with Empathy. Retrieved from https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/design-thinking-getting-started-with-empathy
• Dweck, C. S. (2008). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success:. Ballantine Books.
• Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350. doi:10.2307/2666999?
• Eisenhardt, K. M., Kahwajy, J. L., & Bourgeois, L. J. (1997). Conflict and Strategic Choice: How Top Management Teams Disagree. California Management Review, 39(2), 42-62. doi:10.2307/41165886
• Gallegos, P. V. (2014). The Work of Inclusive Leadership. Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion, 177-202. doi:10.1002/9781118764282.ch6
• Hobson, M. (2014). Color blind or color brave? Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/mellody_hobson_color_blind_or_color_brave
• Jayne, M. E., & Dipboye, R. L. (2004). Leveraging diversity to improve business performance: Research findings and recommendations for organizations. Human Resource Management, 43(4), 409-424. doi:10.1002/hrm.20033
• Johnson, W., Al., D. K., & Daimler, M. (2019, December 16). The Value of Belonging at Work. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2019/12/the-value-of-belonging-at-work
• Lamson, Melissa (2013). Transformation and Reconciliation in South Africa. Retrieved from https://diversityjournal.com/10795-transformation-and-reconciliation-in-south-africa/
• Mahtani, M. (2021, May 31). Don't just go back to 'normal,' post-pandemic life can be much better than that. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/30/health/better-than-normal-wellness/index.html
• Mcleod, S. (1970, January 01). Social Identity Theory. Retrieved from https://www.simplypsychology.org/social-identity-theory.html
• Myers, V. (2014). How to overcome our biases? Walk boldly toward them. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/verna_myers_how_to_overcome_our_biases_walk_boldly_toward_them
• Page, S. E. (2019). The diversity bonus: How great teams pay off in the knowledge economy. Princeton University Press.
• Shoichet, Catherine E. (2021, March 11). Meet Gen C, the Covid Generation. CNN, Cable News Network. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/11/us/covid-generation-gen-c/index.html
• Slee, R. (2019). Belonging in an age of exclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 23(9), 909-922. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1602366
• Steinfeld, E., & Maisel, J. (2012, April 10). Universal Design: Creating Inclusive Environments. Retrieved from https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Universal Design: Creating Inclusive Environments-p-9780470399132
• Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (2001). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In M. A. Hogg & D. Abrams (Eds.), Intergroup relations: Essential readings (pp. 94–109). Psychology Press.
• Teresa Boughey, et al. (2020, July 24). Diversity Is Important, but Belonging Is What Unites the Workplace. Training Industry. Retrieved from https://trainingindustry.com/articles/diversity-equity-and-inclusion/diversity-is-important-but-belonging-is-what-unites-the-workplace/
• The six signature traits of inclusive leadership. (2016, April 14). Deloitte Retrieved from https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/topics/talent/six-signature-traits-of-inclusive-leadership.html..html
• The Vernā Myers Company (n.d.). Retrieved from https://learning.vernamyers.com/pages/about-vern-myers
• Tutu, D. (2019, February 4). Truth and Reconciliation Commission, South Africa. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Truth-and-Reconciliation-Commission-South-Africa
• United Arab Emirates Ministry of Possibilities, Building New Government Systems for theFuture. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://mop.gov.ae/

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?