The first article in a series is about Inclusion and Diversity in the Workplace. For the purpose of this paper, any underrepresented groups within an organisation will be referred to as “minorities”.
Nowadays many phrases are used to advocate for justice at the workplace. Organisations mostly have executives who oversee equity, engagement, culture, belonging, fairness among others but “diversity and inclusion” (D&I) seems to be overused. It nevertheless sounds outstanding; but what exactly does it mean? Are these ideas congruent with each other? Or do they overlap at some point or complete each other? The truth actually is that too many businesses make mistakes by assuming that diversity excludes inclusion or vice versa. This error can thus be considered dangerous. In fact, D&I should be regarded differently: two separate concepts as indicated in Gallup’s 2018 research titled “3 Requirements for a Diverse and Inclusive Culture.” These findings reveal that understanding there is a significant difference between diversity and inclusion forms the beginning of your path to creating an incredibly diverse and inclusive atmosphere,” concludes the report.
On surface level ‘’Diversity & Inclusion’’ may look like almost similar but they stand for completely different ideas in reality. For instance, diversity refers to ‘the entire range of human differences,’ as per Gallup 2018 study. Visible dimensions include age, gender, race/ethnicity and disability while invisible ones contain socio-economic status (SES), marital status and sexual orientation (SO). According to Lori George Billingsley who serves as Coca-Cola Company’s Chief Diversity Officer; diversity means “those things you see people differ from one another.” Basically speaking workplace diversity means creating a workplace which represents diverse people and backgrounds of individuals. We want our workplace to reflect the communities we serve,” says Joni Davis VP & Chief Diversity Officer Duke Energy Corporation
“Inclusion refers to the feeling of being home within one’s culture and in an environment. Respect, acceptance and encouragement levels for employees to participate fully in business can be measured. It is not always true that diversity means inclusion as emphasised in the essay “Diversity Doesn’t Stick Without Inclusion” written by Harvard Business Review. The paper has stated that “Some of the problem is that ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion’ are so often clustered together that they are assumed to mean the same thing. But they don’t. This could include appointing more people of colour or women into boards for instance, which could induce diversity but this does not necessarily change organisational culture or ensure complete respect and inclusion among these marginalised groups at all times.” Davis compares it as follows: “Inclusion focuses on who is actually in the game, while diversity refers to who is on the squad.”
Interesting observation by Johnny C. Taylor, Jr., CEO of the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) about how well D&I efforts are doing across different organisations. “The sad truth is that most companies have made strides towards increasing their diversity numbers. Most businesses today have turned into focusing on inclusive nature making D&I take a backseat.“ As a matter of fact, some companies now brand themselves with I&D instead of D&I just to show how much they value inclusivity compared to diversification (Taylor 35). These comments bring out what distinguishes one from another and highlights how wrong it would be if one thought the other was equivalent without applying any further thought into it; others may argue there aren't even any remotely subtle distinctions here and not recognising them can be an expensive error with significant financial consequences.
Many companies think they have done enough when they add a few women or minorities into their boardrooms or executive teams. Conversely, this way of doing things is naïve, stupid and very dangerous because there are real risks involved in overemphasising diversity while completely ignoring inclusion. The Harvard Business Review states that “Diversity means representation in the workplace. Without inclusion however, it shall be impossible to create the necessary linkages that attract a wide range of people into it, motivate them to participate as well as support innovation and economic growth (Gonzalez 47).
Examining some of the very real risks that businesses run when they attain diversity but not inclusion.
The most important thing for a team’s success as established by Google in their study was showing that psychological safety. According to their paper, "The five keys to a successful Google team," the people on the team are less important than how they work together, organise their projects and value each other’s contributions. Can we take risks on this team without feeling insecure or embarrassed? is a question used in the study to explain psychological safety. They tend to be highly functioning teams because they can discuss problems and ask questions freely without fear of ridicule or any negative consequences therefore fostering an environment of trust and mutual respect among members (Edmondson, 2019). For the purpose of fostering a climate of psychological safety, inclusion appears to be a crucial, if not essential, component. Can team members truly feel included and part of the team without first experiencing a sense of authentic belonging? It appears that the latter is a prerequisite for the former.
They frequently aren't aware that others may feel uncomfortable or excluded because "non minorities" typically benefit from a default sense of inclusion. Because it’s so simple for leadership to get complacent and believe it has made great strides when all it really did was making one tiny step towards greater diversity within its ranks.
It is basically believed by many companies today that diversity and inclusiveness are necessary not only due to moral obligation but also due to increased financial performance. Without systemic realisation about inclusiveness’ importance in relation invention and commercial outcomes may arguably remain very restricted. On such account, if there is diversity within an organisation but those individuals do not speak out against unfairness; they are never involved in decision-making processes; neither do they feel like part of group hence no imprvement in business performance is expected.
The unsettling fact is that inclusion without diversity may be seen as "tokenism," which can have a negative boomerang effect on even the most well-intentioned organisations. People from underrepresented communities who are promoted to senior leadership roles (or other sectors that previously lacked diversity) may feel like tokens once they realise that while they may be "on the team," they aren't actually "in the game." What does that mean in actuality? They might be in a leadership position but understand that they might not have the same power as their counterparts in the majority. Despite feeling physically involved, they nonetheless perceive themselves as outsiders. They may come to see that, despite the fact that leaders from underrepresented groups exist, the company culture has not changed to embrace and truly value those populations.
However, these new participants quickly resign as they become aware that they are just appendages in the board or leadership team of companies and often with more anger and bitterness than before. Therefore, the company is worse off by having a smaller talent pool of underrepresented minorities to reach out to improve its diversity profile and higher mountain to climb in order to fully integrate these underrepresented groups into organisational culture.
Essentially, diversity in such instances can be seen as a band-aid measure or quick fix for structural problems that have not been adequately addressed. “Inclusion is so much harder to build and measure because it’s a state of mind,” says Lori George Billingsley. In practice, however, some firms make the mistake of settling for mere ‘box ticking’ on diversity instead of investing heavily enough to achieve genuine inclusion. They do so at their own expense since this exploitative approach can worsen conflicts within organisations causing discontentment among many employees.
Nonetheless, inclusion requires more gradual processes while diversity needs immediate attention. Each demands diverse preparations, training, commitment level etc.