‘Open’ and ‘Inclusive’: how we get both wrong
(and not know it, but kind of sense it, and do it anyway) (Part 2 of 2)
We’d be hard-pressed these days to find a company or an organization that isn’t using the words ‘open’ and ‘inclusive’ to describe some aspect of their work, their culture or their approach. Sometimes it’s used without a lot to back it up — aspirationally, fashionably perhaps. And I think this rush to be current has left many confused about what ‘open’ is and what it means to be ‘inclusive.’
And fair enough… these aren’t toggle-able — you aren’t either open or else you’re closed, and similarly you aren’t inclusive or else you exclude. This is yet another instance that is simply not black and white — another false binary. There is no (negative/positive) test for determining if something is open or inclusive. To get a sense of these two qualities you have to dive into the details of the person or the organization: their biases, their practices, their methods, etc.
And so, often, these two qualities are relegated to the land of the soft: those things that are not quantifiable, appear fuzzy and are often not respected as real or necessary. How many organizations are considering learning skills and playfulness when hiring?
So, we look for hallmarks that give us a glimpse into both: diversity of staff, diversity of managers, how easy it is to find a Code of Conduct or a Community Participation Guide (like Mozilla), and an ever-changing list of indicators of openness and inclusion.
The thing is, we can all see — sometimes pretty clearly — from the outside. I want to paint the picture of 3 possible scenarios that are sniff-able from the outside:
1. Framework
In this first scenario when we are confronted by a situation that is particularly messy we turn to a framework for understanding it and for dealing with it:
- the rule of law
- the rules of the game
- the mores of the culture
- the mores of the institution
It’s the easy way to know what to do — the framework tells us — we go straight to action and we do what has been dictated, what has been done before, what is tried and true. We follow instructions.
Ex. That’s the way we’ve always done it
We have a policy that states we can’t do that
That would upset A, B, or C and we can’t do that
NMP principle — not my problem — above my pay grade, etc.
HR has a policy that tells us what we should do — this is their domain — we’ll defer to them
THIS IS NOT OFTEN ASSOCIATED WITH INNOVATION OR CULTURE CHANGE
Token
When we don’t have a framework we look for a way to SOLVE the problem — if there isn’t a woman, we bring in a woman. If there isn’t a person of colour or an indigenous person, we bring one in. We’re always one step behind, but we’re responsive!
In the quick recovery scenario, we run the risk of
- tokenization
- superficially dealing with a complex issue
- not being respectful to nuance
- marginalizing — exactly what we are aiming to avoid
- unintended consequences (slippery slope arguments, etc.)
When we immediately try to solve, we miss opportunities for more deep engagement and understanding. This often means we aren’t able to address the root causes, and get stalled out at a potentially superficial level.
Ex. We have a person of colour on our board now
We have a diversity day/month/t-shirt/sticker
We have a diversity checklist we have to go through on all projects, this is how we show our commitment
We did an afternoon of training around biases, we’re good
We have a fact sheet for different disabilities that all employees are required to read
From the perspective of the marginalized person in an environment like this the question becomes: am I a token or do they respect my mind/ideas/work/perspective?
THIS IS NOT OFTEN ASSOCIATED WITH INNOVATION OR LASTING CULTURE CHANGE — This is also often easily sniffed out and is transparent to outsiders. It tends to stick out like a sore thumb.
Depth/Breadth
When we don’t stop at the answers/rules/laws and we acknowledge the superficiality of subbing in the missing puzzle piece (token), then we have an opportunity to create dialogue/respectful disagreement/sharing of diverse ideas — we have an opportunity to change culture and to be innovative — to lead and show others how it can be done productively.
In this scenario, it’s important to remember that
- representation matters
- language matters
- framing the issue matters (vulnerability, truth-telling, honesty, apology)
- setting the expectations for outcomes matters (goals, success, failures)
- participation matters
- it is unlikely that everyone will be happy — conflict can be productive
Ex. Microsoft’s hiring program that actively recruits people with disabilities and a specific program for hiring people who self-identify as autistic; a CEO whose children live with disabilities and who is vocal about the importance of inclusive design and accessibility; a CAO who has spearheaded many DEI initiatives and grown others and is a woman living with a disability. Making inclusion a priority at the company — showing that in their product releases and in their culture. Microsoft’s disability inclusion journey: https://sway.office.com/ZIetX05BXMPoBLHk
National Geographic speaking about the way they’ve portrayed race. For Decades, Our Coverage Was Racist. To Rise Above Our Past, We Must Acknowledge It.
MEC (the REI of the North) sending an email to all members saying they are going to change the photos they use that currently over-represent white people in the outdoors. The Outdoor is for Everyone.
If you’re looking for these examples, you’re also often looking for moments of failure— of something controversial.
Continuum
These three scenarios do not convey a linear progression — some organizations start at depth/breadth and remain there through hard work, actively nurturing a healthy culture while making clear their ongoing commitment to DEI. Some merely start there. Each of these scenarios shows some level of awareness of the problem, and a different approach to the opportunity. What I am hoping to show here is that openness and inclusion are not immeasurable. They can be sniffed, seen, documented, practiced, lost, and gained.
The Wokeness Scale
There are ways to show a continuum of openness and inclusion within various contexts. And I find this helpful for explanatory purposes. I call it the ‘wokeness scale,’ fully aware and wary of the use of the term. It is provocative, and I find it helpful in beginning to uncover otherwise difficult points in conversations. It can apply to any domain. Following are a few scales that are meant to begin dialogue — they are not meant to be fixed artifacts, rubrics, or scales that are taken without critique, editing, reshaping, etc.
