Can we rescue DEI from its trap (the label)?
Dr Leandro Herrero
Chief Organization Architect & CEO of The Chalfont Project, leading global transformations with Viral Change?. Psychiatrist blending behavioral science with practical leadership and culture change. Author & Speaker.
Most of the problems and challenges in organizations, together with most of the solutions, are behavioural in nature. It’s about what people do, not about what they are thinking of doing, or just thinking.?People, however, naturally focus more on processes and systems because this is what is usually at the forefront of the corporate citizen’s mind, in their day to day life. That relegates behaviours into the ‘consequence’ basket, what happens after, a bit of an afterthought. ?But the problem is that behaviours create cultures, not the other way around. They are the input, not the output, not the day after, but Patient Zero. It’s where it all starts (what are the behaviours we need for A?), not the endpoints (declare X, Y, Z and you’ll get these behaviours).
If you think of most of the themes currently on the table of the organization these days, they all are behavioural, and yet, the attention is somewhere else. Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) is a good example.
It focuses a lot on ‘the function’, which not surprisingly automatically requires a ‘Head Of’. ?Then, on what needs to be changed structurally (e.g. more representation of minority groups). And finally, on the associated communication and training. There is usually not a lot of behavioural granularities here.
But if there is not habitual diversity of thinking and of ideas in the behavioural DNA of the company (which would mean that we value diversity per se, at a very granular level, foundational, not as an application), other applied ‘diversities’ (gender for example) could just become a quota to reach, a target, and, in the process, ?possibly killing all the beauty of the never exploited primary diversity.
Some DEI warriors don’t like this thinking and tend to dismiss it as ‘general diversity’, not the real diversity which for them is mostly a question of quotas. There is no question that creating the conditions for diversity (providing seats at the table, seeking different experiences, transcultural, for example) is fundamental. But this cannot simply become management by ratios for the purpose of ticking some boxes.
For example, you can obtain a great deal of sustained diversity by having, say, 30% of your people this afternoon asking the questions: Is there a different way to solve this? Who else needs to know about this? Who needs to be involved? Or by always bringing 3 options to a decision, at least one of them unconventional. And this is not the whole list. We do this in our Viral Change? programmes with great success. It may sound simplistic, but it is very powerful at scale, across an organization.
When this kind of primary diversity is widespread and entrenched as a habit, any other ‘particular diversity’ will already be finding a good home. Unfortunately, this is not the standard way. It’s easier to look at ratios and quotas and showcase them.
The re-presentations (as psychiatrist Iain McGilchrist would put it) have taken over the presence. He often jokes about the question ‘how does one become a Buddhist?’ Easy – some people say – sit on the floor, cross your legs, wear orange, and close your eyes. My analogy is, have a Function, call it Diversity and showcase some people from minority groups in the leadership team.
By the way, there is little logic in grouping D, E and I into a construct called DEI. Even from a financial performance perspective, it makes little sense, as the superb professor of Finance at the London Business School, Alex Edmans, has demonstrated.
Mirror arguments can easily be made in areas such as ESG (another construct), Health and Wellbeing, Psychological Safety or even the whole ‘Future of Work discussion’, where the hybrid/non hybrid/remote/office ‘debate’ has taken over the airtime. The latter being the wrong end of the stick: workplaces are in cultures; cultures are not in a workplace – we have mistaken the content for the container. Debating the number of days in the office is like debating the number of commas in a Shakespeare play.
So, what about training? For example, DEI training.
Again, this is another ‘easy default’ that tricks us into adopting a relatively easy way to implement a ‘solution’. Training has more than a legitimate place in corporate development, serving well awareness and skilling. Unfortunately, it has limited power in cultures. These are largely un-trainable and shaped by the day-to-day (behavioural) interactions of people mostly following unwritten rules and social copying what is around them.?
Sending bankers to a business school for a course on ethics, to become more ethical- a real example in the UK after the ‘banking problems’ - is either a commendable good intention of extraordinary naivety, or a bad joke.
The fact that people may ‘get’ the intellectual and rational side of something, does not mean that they will change behaviours. Rationally, people agree that smoking is bad, driving when under the influence of alcohol is bad, and ditto for not wearing a seat belt. If awareness and safety training were enough, most of these and other problems would have been eradicated ages ago.?When compliance leaves the room, the real culture shows up.
Similarly, the success of so called Bias Training, is largely underwhelming, not because it’s wrong in itself but because people wrongly expect behavioural change from a bunch of lectures or presentations only. The emphasis is on the only. We attribute powers to training that it does not have in the behavioural arena.
Behavioural change at scale (and you would have thought that DEI advocates would want that, not just the awareness and enlightenment of a small part of the company) can only be achieved by a bottom-up ‘social movement’ that equally touches the Board and the front line. ?That needs to be orchestrated carefully. Training is then a good comrade in arms. The combination of a top-down communication push-system and a bottom-up behavioural pull one is fantastic. I have described this in Homo Imitans as the World I and World II working together and it’s at the core of our Viral Change? methodology
The tragedy of DEI is that it may progressively die of terminal corporatization. A recent, ‘epidemic-like’ round of dismissals, of (relatively recently appointed) Chief Diversity Officers has been described in the US. People often report that ‘it was mission impossible’, a monumental task that was naively addressed by creating a corporate function.
All that is corporatized, eventually melts in the air, or in the pages of an Annual Report.
My intention is far from discouraging the tackling of the reality of diversity, equity and inclusion (or any other set of cultural drivers, which I am happy to group in trios if you wish – what about Performance, Engagement, Belonging?), but I am making a plea to take them seriously by being very critical about the ’labelled solutions’. ?Those solutions for me are behavioural in their roots and therefore require a behavioural-cultural approach. Corporate is very good at wrongly providing structural solutions (a new Function) to behavioural problems and is applying the same medicine to the recently acquired DEI. No surprises here.
领英推荐
Using the lenses I use, I can tell you that DEI can be rescued from its hijack to truly realize the value of diversity of thinking, of ideas, of inputs, of participation, and equal treatment and involvement of people. The Viral Change? mobilizing platform provides the scaffolding to address the culture goals in an incredibly powerful way. It’s behavioural DEI, powered by Viral Change?. Just a conversation away if you wish. Reach out to [email protected].
Some final remarks in the form of recommendations:
1.???Don’t address DEI in isolation, as a distinct entity of some sort. Blend it with broader culture change and evolution. Otherwise, the organization becomes a playground of competition between acronyms and their meaning. Many people who quote ESG have no clue what the letters mean. The more you label, the less you get it.
2.???Go down to the granular side (behavioural) as much as you can. What is diversity? How do you recognise it in terms of what people do, not a label in the management structure. Translate into behaviours. (Hints: Opening the door to somebody is a behaviour; being courteous is not. Diversity as a mindset means nothing since it would mean different things to people).
3.???Don’t rely on training only. Intellectual understanding, even emotional reaction to it, do not always trigger new behaviours.
4.???Above all, don’t use the victimhood card. It never helps real victims. The DEI world is saturated by it.
5.???If you care about diversity, have the courage to say that it starts with ideas, opinions, points of views, cultures, experiences. And, even more courageous, to say that it is intrinsically good as a value. ‘Employee engagement’ has killed the intrinsic value of work. It has been presented as a utility to deliver performance. What if ‘engagement’ (with your own work, with others, with a collective effort in the organization) were good in itself, regardless of how much performance ‘you get’?
Diversity of the human condition, and in our business organizations, based on the intrinsic value of the dignity of work, is too important to leave it in the hands of any label.
The ultimate goal of a DEI corporate function should be to become irrelevant as fast as possible.
If you are broadly in agreement with the principles of this article, and if you care about the behavioural and foundational aspects underneath diversity, but feel that the conversation has been hijacked, forward this article around your network. You can rescue DEI from its hijackers.
Dr Leandro Herrero
Culture Change at The Chalfont Project
AI Marketing Strategist | Specializing in LinkedIn Growth and Passive Income Systems | Creator of Money Makers Hub
1 年Fantastic share! I've been thinking along the same lines. Keep the insights coming!
Board advisor and executive coach | Stakeholder Engagement | Corporate culture, brand and reputation | Savvy. Canny. Gutsy | safeplacestowork.com salientksa.com
1 年The unintended consequence of corporatization. Do organisations believe they are inclusive by appointing a Head of DEI? Values-driven because they paint meaningless words on the office walls? Engaging because they conduct an annual employee engagement survey? Responsible because they provide ESG training? These actions not only promote victimhood, they create victims. The poor "Heads of" who pay to turn up to functional conferences and create mutual support groups with their peer warriors, all desperate for validation, looking for "best practice". But help is at hand, the preying consultants and trade associations with their snake-oil solutions and pay-to-play awards schemes. Seeking out the poorer quarters where these ragged people go. Looking for the places only they would know. All lies and jest, still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. Lie-la-lie.
Director
1 年Thought provoking
Reputation management | Employee Wellbeing | Employee voice champion
1 年I LOVE this article! Thank you for so clearly articulating such ever present issues. I focused on DEI for a recent MA research report and found big disconnects between what senior leaders think constitutes DEI and what frontline employees think. As I’m sure you’d suspect, for leaders it was about systems and processes - training on DEI hiring, internal awareness campaigns, headcount data in ESG reports etc. Through discussions with employees about their ‘experiences’ it became clear that for them it was all about behaviours - having a sense of autonomy, control, having a voice (in contribution & challenge terms, not just feedback) and feeling heard. These kind of employer / employee disconnects show up time and again on anything to do with employee health and happiness at work - aka, wellbeing, DEI, engagement, experience, psychological safety, ESG…and countless other labels that all seem to boil down to the same thing (and big consultancies are forever adding to this complex melting pot - I see ‘human sustainability’ now being seen as ‘the next big thing’!). After years in reputation management, I had a gut feel about all this but the MA gave it a whole load of substance. But I couldn’t articulate it half as well as you have ??
Co-founder, The EX Space | Employee experience & internal communication agitator | FIIC | FCIPR | MSc | Brand owner, Lost Years Rum | Ex-EY
1 年Oh I do like this article Dr Leandro Herrero ?? Provocative as always but right on so many levels. And this line is epic: "Debating the number of days in the office is like debating the number of commas in a Shakespeare play." ?? DEI, ESG, employee engagement, employee experience - these are all hugely important pursuits which live and die in the everyday behaviours of leaders, managers and employees. I do think there is value in having someone champion and bang the drum for such 'themes' (though that doesn't necessarily mean it requires a 'head of' or 'director'), but I tend to agree that 'corporatizing' them can be counter productive. You do not need a function, head of, label, campaign or training to spark and embed real behaviour change (though sometimes they can help if the right things are also happening...). I agree the default solution to these challenges - and so many others - in the business world is to try to 'fix' - processes, systems, structures - and to rationalise your way out of the problem, rather than focusing down on those micro behaviours, emotions and consistent peer-to-peer influence and reinforcement. A great post and a timely challenge to everyone who is trying to make the world of work a better place.