Why we shouldn’t be talking about inclusion
Part one in a series of stories that explore inclusion as a fundamental leadership skill for the future of work.
Helen Babb Delia, development partner at FORWARD — The RMIT Centre for Future Skills and Workforce Transformation — writing with director Peter Thomas, in collaboration with RMIT FORWARD Industry Fellows Khayshie Tilak Ramesh, Deanna Pantin Parrish and May Samali and with development partners Pete Cohen, Inder Singh, Kate Spencer, Sally McNamara, Daniel Bluzer-Fry, Soolin Barclay and Courtney Guilliatt.
When Alex was starting their career in financial services and technology, the term ‘inclusion’ didn’t come up often. As they rose through the ranks and became a manager, they’d be offered some training on core management skills like prioritisation, quantifying value and workforce management. Other times, they focused on skills like communication, relationship-building, motivating, influencing and coaching. Recently, Alex feels like the expectations of leaders have changed a lot, and words like ‘vulnerability’, ‘empathy’, and ‘inclusion’ come up much more often than in the past.
For Morgan, who is somewhere between a Millennial and Gen Z, it’s pretty clear when a leader approaches leadership based on the way things have worked before, not how society operates now. Morgan finds that most leaders are trying to do a good job, but might not know — or believe — that things are changing. They make comments that show they aren’t aware of their biases (such as ‘everyone loves a good happy hour’ or ‘flexible working is for parents’), don’t invite contributions from team members, or invite them on a surface level (‘I’ve been in this business a long time, I know how to do this’) or are unaware of systems that may privilege some groups over others (‘if you try hard enough you can do anything’ and ‘being talented and applying yourself leads to promotion, it’s as simple as that’). Morgan cares about having a positive impact on society, reads about and notices the way people have been historically excluded from society, and is finding that something is missing in the ‘leadership’ conversation at work.
In many organisations — and in some parts of popular culture — the conversation about inclusion and leadership are seen as separate things.
Workplaces have leadership programs, workstreams, leadership training, and teams and employ leadership consultants. In the same organisations, separately, there are diversity, equity and inclusion teams, workstreams, training and a range of diversity, equity, and inclusion belonging consultants.
In many workplaces, ‘inclusive leadership’ is often offered as a bonus module to existing leaders, as opposed to being seen as a core skill of leadership itself.
We’re yet to hear about an MBA, business school or higher education leadership course that integrates principles of inclusive leadership or diversity, equity and inclusion throughout the course as a lens or foundational principle, as opposed to a stand-alone topic.
And a search for the best-selling books on business management and leadership on Amazon in October 2022 is interesting in that none of these books has an emphasis on inclusive practices (nor appears to represent a diverse authorship group when it comes to gender, race, or nationality). From Amazon.com.au (AU):
- Discipline is Destiny, Ryan Holiday
- How to Win Friends and Influence People, Dale Carnegie
- The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, Stephen Covey.
- (However, in Australia, Number four was: Not Now, Not Ever: Then Years on from the Misogyny Speech by Julia Gillard).
Australian online retailer Booktopia’s list is slightly different, featuring Ryan Holiday as well as Brené Brown and Takako Hirata in their top 3.
From Amazon.com (US):
- How to Win Friends and Influence People, Dale Carnegie
- Discipline is Destiny, Ryan Holiday
- Never Split the Difference, Chris Voss
It’s not scientific evidence, but it might pay to consider that what people read shapes their views about what leadership is.
At RMIT FORWARD, we are exploring the idea that separating leadership from inclusive leadership is a mistake.
Our belief is that to treat the concepts as separate, or to view inclusive leadership as somehow optional, does not reflect modern reality. This is that workplaces are becoming more diverse, and that modern leadership — by which we mean leadership that is effective in the world as it is, and in the world as it will be — should be centred on skills and practises that support diverse, equitable and inclusive work environments. Inclusion skills are a must-have, we argue, not a nice-to-have.
Qualities that inclusive leaders possess (see below, ‘What is inclusive leadership?’) such as strong social skills, modelling and valuing inclusion, being adaptive and innovative, collaborative and having high standards of accountability are essential qualities for all leaders.
In Part one of this series of stories, we’ll explore the fundamental ideas through which we can better understand leadership, diversity, equity and inclusion and that inclusion is a core skill under the umbrella skill of leadership.
Where are we now?
We thought it may be helpful to start with some explanations.
These terms might be relatively new to some audiences but are important to understand for this discussion. Definitions of terms such as diversity, equity and inclusion can also change depending on the person, organisation or events happening in the world. Often organisations will craft their own definitions of these terms, which can lead to blurred lines between these terms.
What is leadership?
As FORWARD Development Partner, Courtney Guilliatt writes in Leaders are not born. They’re made:
The definition of ‘good leadership’ evolves over time and reflects the prevailing contemporary political, social and cultural norms. The qualities of celebrated leaders of the past don’t reflect the traits, skills, behaviours, or attitudes of successful leaders today.
Some of these modern qualities include being resilient, empathetic, having strong social skills, modelling and valuing inclusion, being adaptive and innovative, collaborative, skilled in story-telling, creative and holding high standards of accountability and transparency.
And, of course, there is a difference between management and leadership.
Management skills — such as the ability to delegate, give and receive feedback — are very different to leadership skills. And people who are defacto leaders may not have formal authority or management roles but may still be extremely influential: we need only to think about examples of teenage change-makers such as Greta Thunberg, Mohamad Al Jounde and Natasha Mwansa, who started making change without formal leadership titles to show that titles are not always needed for someone to be a leader.
What is diversity?
The Diversity Council of Australia’s definition of diversity is:
Diversity refers to the mix of people in an organisation — that is, all the differences between people in how they identify in relation to their:
SOCIAL IDENTITY e.g., Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander background, age, caring responsibilities, cultural background, disability status, gender, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, and socio-economic background.
PROFESSIONAL IDENTITY e.g., profession, education, work experiences, organisational level, functional area, division/ department, and location.
These aspects come together in a unique way for each individual and shape the way they view and perceive their world and workplace — as well as how others view and treat them
This definition is relatively broad, and another approach is to look at prioritising attributes and interventions that can promote equity. Not taking these priority areas into account can perpetuate systemic disadvantages. American practitioner Aiko Bethea prefers to define diversity in terms of “diversity that matters…that makes a difference in terms of disparities.”
Legally protected classes such as race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, national origin, mental health, different abilities, and the LGBIQA+ communities are different from diversity that is not connected to protected classes, such as the year someone graduated from an exclusive University. In Australia, discrimination can be against the law if it’s based on a person’s age, disability, race (including colour, national or ethnic origin or immigrant status), sex, pregnancy, marital or relationship status, family responsibilities or breastfeeding, or sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
What is equity?
Equity is a term often used in conjunction with diversity and inclusion.
It speaks to addressing the historical inequality, discrimination or exclusion of people who have not been historically included in society.
Equity is different to equality, or ‘same treatment’. It demands that treatment and interventions are specific and responsive to the lived experiences and oppressions someone may have experienced. Equitable interventions are an important vehicle for achieving equality.
At work, this may look like acknowledging and addressing the unequal starting place that some groups start from. It can look like creating practices, processes or structures to counter-balance this historic inequality, discrimination or exclusion.
For example, a study of hiring processes found that candidates with ‘white-sounding’ names’ (Greg or Emily) were 50% more likely to receive a callback than candidates with common African American-sounding names (Lakisha and Jamal). Another study showed that a ‘get two in the pool’ approach may be a tool to change the status quo in hiring. The study (focusing women or minority candidates) showed that when there was only one woman or minority candidate in a pool of four, their odds of being hired were statistically zero. By broadening the candidate pool from one candidate that challenged the status quo to two, decision makers were more likely to consider and/or hire a woman or minority candidate.
This disparity can be addressed by more equitable hiring practices. One example being explored is open hiring, a process that doesn’t require a resume or an interview, but rather asks that candidates meet job-related requirements.
In Australia, The Body Shop lists the questions that will be asked on their website, including if a candidate can work for 8 hours and lift up to 11kgs. The Body Shop says that this is an intervention focused on equity and inclusion, and the approach includes partnering with local charities that can connect candidates who have traditionally faced barriers to employment, and offering them skills training and extra support.
Equity recognises that rules and norms of an organisation can create patterns of harm to minoritised groups that are often invisible to individuals of majority identities. Everything from how an organization is designed, to the legal structures under which an organization is governed, often has bias baked in. Therefore, it’s not enough to look only at the individuals within an organisation, but also at the rules, policies, processes, language, norms, and culture that support an institution.
What is inclusion?
A diverse workforce alone does not make an organisation inclusive.
It’s through inclusion that organisations can enable the diversity of their workforces to reach their full potential. According to the Diversity Council of Australia, inclusion:
Refers to getting the mix of people in an organisation to work together to improve performance and wellbeing. Inclusion in a workplace is achieved when a diversity of people (e.g., ages, cultural backgrounds, genders, perspectives) feel that they are:
Respected for who they are and able to be themselves;
Connected to their colleagues and feel they belong;
Contributing their perspectives and talents to the workplace; and
Progressing in their career at work (i.e. have equal access to opportunities and resources). It is only through inclusion that organisations can make the most out of diversity.
A well-known analogy by DEI expert Verna Myers is that ‘diversity is being invited to the party, inclusion is being asked to dance’; Bethea says that inclusion is when diverse voices are heard, respected and valued, even if they differ from the norm. What this looks like in the world is What I say matters. The perspective that I bring matters, my lived experience matters.
Diversity without inclusion can mean that individuals holding historically marginalised identities may not be adequately supported or included. Cultures that are not inclusive, or even hostile, can produce unfavourable outcomes such as high attrition rates, toxic workplace culture, a lack of physical and/or psychological safety, and reduced productivity. RMIT FORWARD Industry Fellow May Samali highlights the impact of this lack of inclusion in the technology sector in The Australian.
Inclusion can be hard to measure, as it often requires subjective and qualitative answers. Diversity can be easier to measure as it can be quantified as demographics.
Belonging
Belonging at work is a newer concept that addresses our fundamental human need to feel accepted.
It’s becoming more common to see belonging being taken seriously by organisations who are concerned with diversity, equity and inclusion and the employee experience. Deloitte noted that “belonging can lead to a 56% increase in job performance, a 50% reduction in turnover risk, a 167% increase in employer net promoter score, 2X more employee raises, 18X more employee promotions, and a 75% decrease in sick days.”
Their analysis says that creating a sense of belonging requires three mutually reinforcing attributes:
- Comfort. Individuals feel comfortable at work, are treated fairly and are respected by colleagues and leaders: I am valued for who I am, my background and my beliefs. I can bring my authentic self to work.
- Connection. Individuals feel they have meaningful relationships with co-workers. The Deloitte definition includes ‘and are connected to the organisations’ goals’ here as well, which arguably can be two very separate things: I provide support and am supported by my workplace community and I am a part of something larger than myself.
- Contribution. Individuals feel they contribute to meaningful outcomes, understanding how their strengths help to achieve common goals: I (we) add value by bringing unique skills and strengths to meaningfully contribute to shared purpose and goals.
From our work with organisations, we’ve also noticed some additional indicators of belonging that are meaningful to employees. These include:
- Safe to challenge the norm. Individuals feel they can challenge group-think with different ideas, have these views be valued, and continue to be respected, acknowledged and rise in the company if they wish: I know I can disagree, or bring an alternative view, about a task and it will be taken seriously and not be negative consequences for me as a person.
- Safe to have boundaries and say no. Individuals can safely say no to requests, actions and activities without fear of repercussions: There’s a team get-together, and I have a conflict with a personal appointment that I’m going to instead, I know that won’t be seen as a bad thing.
Intersectionality
Intersectionality is becoming more commonly used in connection to diversity, equity and inclusion. It describes how certain aspects of who you are will increase your access to the good things or your exposure to the bad things in life. Good things could be access to safety, jobs and opportunity, and bad things could be discrimination or marginalisation. It can be helpful to think of intersectionality as a lens or tool that situations can be viewed through, or refer to a tool like the wheel of power and privilege to recognise where power is held.
The term was first coined by law professor Kimberlé Crenshaw as a way to explain the specific oppression experienced by a group who had multiple intersecting identities as women and African Americans. The African American women in question were denied the ability to bring a case against General Motors alleging both race and sex discrimination. According to the court, bringing this type of case did not fit within the traditional system where sex discrimination and race discrimination did not overlap.
Since the coining of this term, intersectionality has been extended to include other aspects of diversity (e.g. socio-economic status, ability, sexual orientation).
Note: We have not included an exploration of ‘justice’ in this piece. Many experts, especially in the U.S., affirm that any actions that do not address justice will fall short of inclusion goals. We intend to address this further in an upcoming piece.
So what does this have to do with future skills, workforce transformation and the future of work?
As you may have read in our other stories on Medium, we tend not to take a conventional approach to the ‘future of work’ agenda — trying to make predictions that often turn out to be inaccurate.
Instead, we are focused on the realities of change in workforces, both now and in the future. One reality is this. As the 2021 census data showed, Australia is becoming a more diverse country:
- For the first time ever, more than 50% of residents were born overseas or have an immigrant parent;
- Millennials are overtaking Boomers as the largest generational group in Australia;
- According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the ‘average Australian’ is a woman aged 30–39 years, living in a family couple with children (among other attributes). Note: Questions on sexual orientation were not included in the census.
- The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population is growing, up by 25.2% since 2016
For Morgan, the census data wasn’t too surprising. It reflected what they saw and experienced as they went about life online and in-person, from education, to work and with family and friends. When Morgan started full-time work, they started to question if this reality was being fully recognised there.
So what is inclusive leadership?
According to Dr. Juliet Bourke and Dr. Andrea Titus, formerly of Deloitte, inclusive leaders share six signature traits:
Visible commitment: Authentic commitment to diversity, challenging the status quo, holding others accountable, and make diversity and inclusion a personal priority.
Humility: Modest about capabilities, admit mistakes and create space for others to contribute
Awareness of bias: They show awareness of personal blind spots, as well as flaws in the system, and work hard to ensure a meritocracy.
Curiosity about others: They demonstrate an open mindset and deep curiosity about others, listen without judgement, and understand those around them.
Cultural intelligence: They are attentive to others’ cultures and adapt as required.
Effective collaboration: They empower others, pay attention to diversity of thinking and psychological safety, and focus on team cohesion.
Reflecting on these characteristics and those explained in the definition of leadership at the start of this story, there’s a lot of overlap. Qualities such as empathy and strong social skills, modelling and valuing inclusion, being adaptive and innovative, collaborative and having high standards of accountability are essential qualities for all leaders.
This is why we believe separating leadership and inclusive leadership is a mistake.
A true future-of-work approach to leadership should focus energy on continuing to teach, reinforce and support these skills to encompass inclusion skills within leadership.
But why have leadership and inclusive leadership skills been seen as separate?
The study of, training in and research into, leadership arguably started in the late nineteenth century when leadership was elevated to a both a calling and to an object of scientific study. Much of what we read about leadership is a reflection of these early roots.
But the world is very different now.
Recognition of the need to protect historically marginalised groups of people only started in the early 20th century: for example, in Australia women’s suffrage (1902), internationally with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1940s), the civil rights movement in the USA (1940s). The term ‘diversity’ was only introduced in global business circles in 1990 in Harvard Business Review, in ‘From Affirmative Action to Affirming Diversity’ by R. Roosevelt Thomas.
Leadership that is inclusive may look different for different groups of people, who experience different dimensions of diversity and have intersecting identities. This may explain why a lot of teaching relating to leadership and inclusion is about principles and skills, rather than rote-learning particular phrases.
As Deanna Parrish, RMIT FORWARD Fellow and Harvard Law School faculty where she teaches about conflict resolution, negotiation, and difficult conversations, says: “at their core, these skills are about active listening. Being open enough to hear people–not just listen to them–and demonstrate your understanding by adapting your behaviours in response.”
Putting these skills and principles into practice is more complex than simply following a checklist. This approach is an iterative process: it takes time, practice, and mistakes in order to grow.
Talking about diversity, equity and inclusion often highlights areas where diversity, equity and inclusion do not exist or current efforts are coming up short.
Identifying an imbalance of power can be very challenging for people in a less powerful group and bring up feelings of anger, frustration and desperation. And for people who are part of communities that are not historically marginalised, it can be challenging to acknowledge this imbalance. It may make clear the privileges that certain groups are afforded in society not because of merit, but because they fit within dominant groups.
As Robin Diangelo explains in her book White Fragility, white people must “face the first challenge: naming our race”. DiAngelo says:
“In fact, when we try to talk openly and honestly about race, white fragility quickly emerges as we are so often met with silence, defensiveness, argumentation, certitude and other forms of pushback. These are not natural responses; they are social forced that prevent us from attaining the racial knowledge we need to engage more productively, and they function powerfully to hold the racial hierarchy in place”.
Privilege itself is not inherently negative. Privilege is connected to, or equal to, having proximity to power. We don’t need to feel bad about having privilege, but instead, feel responsible to use our proximity to power ethically. Unethical and sometimes ignorant use of privilege and power is what can be damaging.*
As contributors to this piece, we have all benefited from privilege in different ways, from the privilege of growing up in harmonious family homes, varying levels of economic advantage, experiencing overall good health rather than major chronic illness or living with disability, or living without the fear of separation from our families as many First Nations communities have felt. We have also benefited from people using their privilege in our favour, for example, by introducing us to important stakeholders, suggesting us for jobs or contributing to our progress through scholarships.
Conversations about privilege can be uncomfortable as it may mean people who have benefited from privilege may need to acknowledge that privilege.
This can be seen to be in direct opposition to our western-centric ideologies of individualism and meritocracy, and personal experiences of hard work, challenge and resilience. Benefiting from privilege and personal qualities and experiences can exist at the same time, but it can feel uncomfortable to verbalise, especially when it comes to work.
Deanna says that naming and owning your contributions to an unequal power dynamic may be uncomfortable, but is a necessary step for leaders to promote dialogue across diverse groups: “Name it to tame it. Acknowledging a power imbalance–and your contributions to it–can go a long way to opening up a discussion where everyone feels like they can have a voice.”
She goes on to say that encouraging others to speak up is a core skill of inclusive leadership. “In the end, people want the opportunity to be heard. Not just listened to, but heard. At their best, inclusive leaders create the conditions where that is possible.”
*A great many other writers and thinkers have shared about privilege, Ibram X. Kendi and Ijeoma Oluo are two prominent examples.
In a time of change and upheaval, separating leadership and inclusion may become less and less relevant for future-facing workplaces. In Part one of this series of stories, we have talked about why inclusion is a fundamental skill for the future of work.
We see this series as iterative.
Depending on the feedback we get, the next instalments of this series may consider some of the opportunities and challenges of separating these terms, how this may apply to specific industries and markers of progress.
You might like to listen to an interview with two of the co-authors as part of FORWARD’s SkillsCast podcast.
The authors would like to thank Dr. Juliet Bourke for her assistance.
FORWARD is the RMIT Centre for Future Skills and Workforce Transformation.
Our role is to build an innovative learning ecosystem at scale, create new collaborative applied research and invent next-generation skills solutions that will catalyse workforce development in the future-oriented industries crucial to Victoria’s economic renewal.
We lead collaborative applied research on future skills and workforce transformation from within RMIT’s College of Vocational Education, building and scaling the evidence and practice base to support Victorian workforce planning and delivery and acting as a test lab for future skills to develop and pilot new approaches to skills training and education through digital transformation and pedagogical innovation.
We leverage RMIT’s multi-sector advantage to translate research insights into identifying workforce requirements and the co-design of practice-based approaches with industry.
