Diversity, Equity, Inclusion: A Breakdown

A highly trending descriptor for organizations today is “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion,” (DEI) intended to portray the organization as progressive, tolerant, and a force committed to supporting driving equality in society.

At face value DEI sounds reasonable…even noble. The challenge lies in how we define and apply these terms. Because a Statesman is knowledgeable, value-driven and diplomatic, it seems a blog post on the matter is relevant.

In the context of DEI, diversity is simply the intentional practice or quality of including or involving people from a range of backgrounds, whether related to gender, race, ethnicity, generation, etc. Good leaders encourage the exchange of ideas to accomplish a goal, and value varying perspectives as a means of covering as many avenues for success as possible. This requires both the freedom for people to be themselves and collaboration, hallmarks of a healthy organization, which in turn endenders success. Some of the greatest accomplishments have been achieved through people with differences coming together with a similar goal or purpose. A Statesman encourages and knows how to manage such collaboration.

Regarding equity in the context of DEI, it’s important first to differentiate it from equality. In essence, equality is to provide each individual or group of people with the same resources or opportunities, while equity recognizes that each person or group of people lives with different circumstances and therefore allocates the resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome; or, as Dr. Naheed Dosani states, “Equality is giving everyone a shoe, equity is giving everyone a shoe that fits.” In an organizational sense, it is to be more specific in developing others–referred to as “differentiated learning” in academic environments–where objectives are reached through various means. A Statesman values and seeks expertise in such development.

As for inclusion in the DEI context, it’s simply an intentional invitation, like a Statesman making room at the table in a cigar lounge, to enable the collaboration and development of people to achieve personal and professional success. This requires not only the courage to extend the invitation but also a willingness to listen to and engage with the invited guest. More specifically, such inclusion tends to focus on underrepresented people who historically have not been invited to the table.

Yet there are challenges with DEI. For example, there is the “blame instinct” in which people create a metanarrative that points to a single cause for a complex issue. In his book Factfulness, Hans Rosling explains the blame instinct:

“Look for causes, not villains. When something goes wrong don’t look for an individual or a group to blame. Accept that bad things can happen without anyone intending them to. Instead spend your energy on understanding the multiple interacting causes, or system, that created the situation.”

Too often today people create, prop up, and then attack “bogeymen” rather than deal with issues methodically and rationally, using such mantras as, “If you disagree with me you hate me!” or, “The mere fact that you want to research whether systemic racism exists makes you a racist!” Oversimplified and sweeping generalizations like these disable DEI and the ability to collaborate with and encourage the development of others. This is not the Statesman way.

In addition to being aware of and concerned about resolving real world injustice, a Statesman values objectivity, seeking to be well-informed in order to offer substantive and constructive viewpoints. We encourage diversity and create new opportunities that allow people to be themselves. When we allow people to freely be who they are (within the boundaries of ethical and moral standards), we create an inclusive and non-judgemental atmosphere in which people from all backgrounds can thrive and contribute to the success of others.

With respect to “equity,” is it realistic to say that all outcomes must be equal? Or conversely, can we say that if all outcomes are not equal it must stem form some form of discrimination or injustice? Is the NBA racist because 74.2% of its players are black? Are we to toss the U.S. Constitution and subsequent form of government (which enables us freely to address DEI matters) because the majority of our Founding Fathers were white? Marxism is all about equal outcomes. How’s that working out? Again, a Statesman is aware of and concerned about matters of injustice, yet is equally dedicated to a system that provides the freedom to address these matters without creating more division and injustice.

So what’s the point?

A Statesman values themselves and others. They are energized by the pursuit of ideas, accomplishments, and creating opportunities for others to experience success–knowing very well that failure can oftentimes be the best teacher. They believe it’s possible for people to find success even when challenges arise, but do not subscribe to the ideology that all outcomes must be equal. It was the entrepreneurial spirit of our Founding Fathers, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Jr., and others that allow us to even have this “conversation” with the hope that the society we leave behind will be better than we found it.

We must ask ourselves: Which kind of society do we want to leave behind?

One that rewards greatness, or empowers incompetence? But there, in that politically correct and overprotective mother-like society, all hope of innovation and greatness will be stripped away.

Equal opportunity will never lead to equal outcomes, and that is okay.