There are several tiers to this concept.
The first tier is about how we speak about diversity not being common or universal, even within the same industry. You’ll see DEI, DEIB, DEIBA, D&I, and more.
That tier is not necessarily surprising: acronyms allow us to easily form in-groups and out-groups around what we know and have access to. As we find our tribe within work, we become more comfortable. It also allows for easy recall. We can chunk information and reduce brain strain.
The problem there, though: Every time we introduce a new word or concept, we need a relatively-accepted definition of that term, and we need to figure out how it fits into the model and interacts with the other terms in the model. There is virtually universal acceptance on what “CAGR” means as an acronym: a compound annual growth rate. An executive may not look at “DEIBA” and see the same clarity.
A second tier: diversity and inclusion discussions are deeply tied to cultural norms, but cultural norms obviously vary in Chile and Beijing and New York City. You cannot “one-size-fits-all” diversity discussions because the concept is experienced at the intersection of generations of culture, belief, and assumption.
A third tier: so much of diversity in the past 15 months has felt performative in nature, i.e. a corporate Instagram post juxtaposed with a lily-white Board of Directors group shot. The conversation feels muddled in part because we don’t conclusively know what corporations are supposed to do. We expect a lot from them because they pay us and we spend hours of our weeks on their projects, but we seem unclear on their exact role, and what accountabilities they have to social justice issues.
What we need is something that can cut across language/definitions, cultural barriers, and help us contextualize a company’s role in DEI more.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to What Is Even Happening? to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.