Written by: Sophie Warwick
When we work with clients, I’m often asked, “how do I bring someone on board who is new to the Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) discussion?” EDI is a journey, and organizations are typically comprised of folks who are at different points on that journey. The clash in foundational education and lived experience can sometimes lead to comments that seem insensitive or unproductive. They may not come from a place of ill intent, but instead from a lack of understanding. I do want to note that I’m not referring to overt discrimination which needs to be addressed directly and urgently with support from HR. Instead, I’m referencing situations that may include a reluctance to invest in EDI initiatives, lack of awareness of biases, or limited understanding of systemic barriers and systems of oppression.
So how do we then foster accessible and inclusive conversations that encourage open dialogue, and ultimately lead to a constructive and progressive resolution? I’m sharing some common objections we hear regarding EDI initiatives and how to lead productive discussions that encourage allyship and recognition of the value of EDI.
Equality, Equity, and True Inclusion
A common fear is that providing support for members of equity-denied groups comes at the expense of those with other identities. Understanding the distinction between Equality, Equity, and True Inclusion demonstrates that existing system barriers reduce access to opportunities for members of certain groups. Providing tailored support corrects the impact of those barriers creating an equal playing field. It does not disproportionately advantage members of underrepresented groups.
Equality. Each individual is provided the same support to access the opportunity. Equality ignores the barriers members of equity-denied groups may experience trying to access opportunities.
Equity. Each individual is provided tailored support to access the opportunity. Equity acknowledges the barriers members of equity-denied groups may experience trying to access opportunities.
True Inclusion. The barriers of oppression are removed and no unique support is required to access the same opportunities. Note this is very difficult to achieve in practice at an organizational level as these barriers would continue to persist in the industry more broadly.
Understand Personal Biases
I often hear the comment, “I don’t see gender.” At its core, this can seem like a supportive comment suggesting that someone is not influenced by gender bias in their decision making. I do believe the intent with this statement is typically positive. However, what it may actually communicate is that by not seeing gender, an individual is also not seeing the systems of oppression experienced by different genders. Therefore, inadvertently the comment is saying, “we have had access to the same opportunities and that has not been influenced by our genders.”
It’s not that some of us are biased and others aren’t. We are all biased. When there is uniformity within a group, these biases compliment each other aggravating the impact bias has on our decision-making. By encouraging all team members to complete the Harvard Implicit Association test, individuals can build a better understanding of their personal biases. When we understand them, we are better equipped to challenge them, leading to more objective decisions.
My learning? I learned that I have a strong association with men and STEM careers… This is incredibly ironic as I’ve spent my entire career advocating for women in the STEM field. However, by completing this test, I am more able to catch myself when these biases impair my decision making.
The Meritocracy Myth
If I had a dollar for every time I heard, “we just want to hire the best person for the role.” It’s not that I disagree with the sentiment, but that how we define the “best person for the role” is inherently biased. Meritocracy is a system where people are moved into positions of success or influence based on their demonstrated abilities and merit. The intention is positive, but it does not take into consideration biases that may limit objectivity in those decisions. As reported in the book Invisible Women: Data Bias in a World Designed for Men, "A belief in your own personal objectivity, makes you less objective. Men who believe that they are objective in hiring decisions are more likely to hire a male applicant than an identically described female applicant."
Ironically, the very belief in meritocracy leads to less meritocratic decisions. In order to hire the “best person for the role,” we need to introduce objective practices into our evaluations to ensure our decisions are not impacted by bias. These can include, but are not limited to:
Standardizing interview questions
Conducting all interviews with a diverse panel of a minimum of 3 people
Completing independent evaluations before sharing with other panelists
Waiting 24 hours after completing an initial evaluation before making formal recommendations
A strong EDI strategy isn't a one-size-fits-all approach. That's why we develop customized strategies to address your organization’s specific challenges and propel you forward in your EDI journey. If you are looking for support in building an EDI Action Plan in your workplace, you can email us at contact@thethoughtfulco.net or schedule a free introductory call here.