Diversity and inclusion: Beyond diversity washing and D&I missionaries

There should be a consensus that, over time, D&I management becomes unnecessary because diversity and inclusion have become a natural culture. There would be no diversity washing; everyone has developed empathy for difference, and those who repeatedly feel like a minority in everyday social life no longer feel that way in the workplace.

 

We present another deep-dive from our friend and contributor Kuno Roth.

Making D&I accommodations to go beyond diversity washing

This improvement in workplace empathy does not mean that “everyone can empathise with everyone else’s situation all the time”, but rather — using the example of a wheelchair user — the following:

People on foot do not always have to imagine how people in wheelchairs might feel in certain situations. However, all staff are sensitive to the special needs of this group and organisations can include wheelchair users in infrastructure planning as a matter of course. On the other hand, wheelchair users understand that not everyone is thinking about them all the time. They should not be inhibited, or need to go to great lengths, to point out a particular difficulty.

And if we now take “wheelchair” as a metaphor for any kind of restriction, this would correspond to the culture in question, that includes “wheelchair situations” from both sides as a matter of course and without fuss.

There is no NGO that has not written on its flag — or in its staff rules — that its working environment should be inclusive and highly diverse.

“Diversity and Inclusion” (D&I) refers to organisational frameworks that promote “the fair treatment and full participation of all people”, especially employees (groups) “who have historically been underrepresented or discriminated against because of their identity or disability”. Diversity refers to the existence of differences within an organisation, for example in terms of colour, language, physical disability, level of education, age and gender. Inclusion refers to the goal of an organisational culture in which “all employees feel that their voice is heard” and that they have a sense of belonging (quoted from Wikipedia).

Of course, that ideal is still a long way off in many places. This is because, amongst other things, studies show that ‘diversity washing’ is widespread. Similar to ‘greenwashing’, many organisations are only pretending. So says diversity researcher Johanna Degen in an interview. Her research in German companies, for example, shows that diversity management is often just a figurehead because it is necessary for legal protection.

In reality, Diversity Managers usually have no power and are unable to tackle structural discrimination. It is particularly worth noting that when asked if they would contact the Diversity Manager if they had experienced discrimination, those who had experienced discrimination said that the Diversity Manager would not be able to help them. However, this does not speak against diversity management or suggest diversity washing, but only against the prevailing practice, Degen continues [1].

Expanding the concept of diversity without diversity washing

Diversity is often limited to simple criteria such as skin colour, gender, language, religion etc. But there are other diversities. I think we need to broaden our understanding of diversity. However, these other aspects are usually more complex and therefore more difficult to handle. For example, when it comes to differences in political views, values in dealing with one another or social aspects.

• Where and how do you define the limits for exclusion?
• Can you imagine a right-wing party member working for Greenpeace? Not really. There seems to be a limit based on values.
  But how do you define a value and enforce it?
  And could this lead to discrimination?
• Can a standard be discriminatory because it excludes diversity per se?
• How do you bring together a commitment to democracy and social co-determination when you yourself are organised hierarchically?

Heterogeneity and homogeneity

In the broader sense of diversity, heterogeneity is a particular aspect that relates to character traits and neurodiversity. It presents us with the dilemma that although we know that being different in character helps us to recognise entrenched patterns and blind spots, at the same time it can also be alienating: You tend to feel drawn to your peers (but it keeps you in your comfort zone).

In other words, the question arises: How much homogeneity do you need for your well-being when working together? How much heterogeneity is tolerable and fruitful? How can you become more flexible if necessary?

An exciting challenge

Actually sounds exciting, but it is challenging. Just imagine questions such as:

• How many extroverted members does a team need or can it tolerate, respectively?
• What to do with a team in which everyone is introverted?
• Who does what and how to include personality diversity and, if necessary, recruit specifically beforehand?

If we were to follow the widely used “5-factor model of personality” (The Big 5), four other factors would be added in addition to “extraversion”, including conscientiousness, which often varies greatly among team members from “well organised” to “careless in order”. What mix would be good here? And does it need to be managed at all, or does it organise itself well? [2]

Schultz von Thun tool: Square of values

Whatever the case, one crucial point is that heterogeneity and homogeneity are not contradictory. Rather, they are polarities (in a continuum) that are mutually dependent and complementary, like light and darkness: One cannot exist without the other, an “as well as”. The art is to find the balance. The value square model developed by communication psychologist Friedemann Schultz von Thun, for example, is suitable for this. (See an explanation of the “square of values” model using an example in the box below).

According to him, conflicts arise when the balance between two interdependent values is upset because one value is given too much attention and thus mutates into the shady side, for example when the value of ‘thrift’ becomes ‘avarice’ (see box).

Taking steps towards lived diversity

In the case of heterogeneity and homogeneity, they are in balance when they have the right amount of fertilising differences and ‘home-giving similarity’. Of course, it is difficult to determine which is the right amount. It is easier to see the imbalance, i.e. when too much heterogeneity leads to a sense of alienation. Or when too much homogeneity has led to a bubble and thus to uniformity of thought.

The extreme case is mission, which in principle wants a “forced homogeneity” (“everyone must see it the way I do”), and “forced heterogeneity” on the other hand, when aspects of diversity are morally demanded as a priority and imposed on others. Such a missionary tendency is too much of a good thing. And it seems to me to be quite widespread in movements and NGOs, often leading to internal conflicts — which is an indicator of an imbalance.

According to Schultz von Thun, one can get out of this “underground of imbalance” by striving for development along the diagonal: Those who tend towards a mission regarding one aspect of diversity could learn to respect that others need a certain homogeneity or want to tolerate it for practical reasons. On the other hand, those who only feel comfortable in a bubble of like-minded people could try to open up to other views and characters. This doesn’t just happen. It requires group-psychological or organisational-cultural measures, such as team-building or training [3], to create sensitivity to discrimination and unconscious prejudices.

Conclusion — beyond diversity washing and D&I missionaries

Especially those who are very committed are often trapped in the tunnel of their own thing and can react oversensitively, if someone sees ‘it’ differently. Although hypersensitivity is usually understandable, it is difficult to deal with. A child previously burned by discrimination not only shies away from fire, but quickly sees it burning brightly at the slightest spark. This is called a trigger. What is actually a good thing, is being sensitive to discrimination and working to end it, can turn into a fighting attitude without being necessary. And anyone who attacks others triggers defence, counter-attack or defiance.

In addition to diversity washing, diversity mission can therefore also be a problem. In any case, it seems to me that ‘too much of a good thing’ is often a dilemma for committed people. Those who want to eliminate injustices in the world often tend to be dogmatic, which means that the fight for inclusion can take on exclusive features.

PS: In this context, it is interesting because it is paradoxical: what may be oversensitivity in individual cases is, when it occurs more frequently, an indicator of social development towards improvement. This phenomenon is known as the Tocqueville paradox. It states that the reduction of a previously suppressed injustice simultaneously increases sensitivity to it, because it has come to the surface and is now being reduced.

 

Literature