Why inclusion seldom achieve its aims.

Alongside diversity and equity, inclusion is oft cited as the third cornerstone of frameworks intended to ensure that all people can participate in an environment, whether at work or in society.

While diversity, having a mix of people of differing characteristics, beliefs, and backgrounds, and equity, to even out unfairness and disparities, make sense, inclusion is an oddity. The intent is well founded, yet here is why it often goes wrong.

Inclusion requires there to be a majority group to which one or more people are being included. Such inclusion is commonly sponsored by a member of that majority group who advocates for the individual or minority group. The majority group then determines to include that person or minority.

The variances that occur are down to subjective bias of the individuals in the majority group, and any enforcement such as legislation. These both impact the outcome of the day-to-day.

A fundamental flaw is that anything the majority group decides to do going forward is still determined by the rules they have always applied, with the minority being an afterthought if there is an additional consideration to be made. Often the majority will go ahead anyway, while sometimes they will alter their decision to make room for the minority, often with a marginal compromise.

Whether it is a new kid in the playground who has mobility issues, consideration of beliefs in the workplace, flexibility from historic corporate rules, the approach becomes the same: Apply what was there and then try and adjust it. This makes it easy for people to hold to the old ways, excuse different methods as too difficult or expensive, or forget about the minority altogether.

However, by agreeing to include the minority group, the majority group can declare itself as inclusive and supportive.

The situation is then further complicated when multiple minority groups are present, and people find they are a member of multiple groups. Individual identities are pushed, pulled, and trodden on. The inclusion is accounted one at a time with little conflict resolution, unless it is with the majority.

The result is that differences are considered after the fact, with people pushed to declare their differences to remain included, leading to further separation from the embedded majority, apart from the day of declaration of support. Awareness days anyone?

So, what would the correct approach look like? What should we call it if not inclusion? Perhaps 'Unity'?

Well let us start with some basic thoughts:

• If we truly have diversity and equity, is anything more needed?

• People are all different so let us stop using stereotypes to define rules.

• Rather than try to think of all the problems first, let us work towards what we are trying to allow.

Examples:

“Everyone must have cameras on in a meeting to ensure participation” is a dictate based on the assumption that everyone engages better when they can see others, or that the controller only believes that people participate if they can be seen. The thinking should be “How does each person engage best to achieve the outcome?” This is inquisitive.

Taken that a meeting is to achieve sharing of information, open discussion, and/or agreed decisions, then consider how these can be achieved flexibly:

• Clear expectations of the purpose i.e., what do we want to achieve as an outcome? Input of ideas, decisions, debate etc.

• How will people receive information (text/image, audio, sign, lip reading etc.)?

• How people give information/input (written, spoken, sign etc.)?

• Does it have to be real-time, or can people engage at their own pace? Is it possible to allow follow-up input?

• Have expectations been given for each participant - specific questions coming their way, any pre-reading or investigation required to inform the meeting. Describe the structure of the meeting.

Forget how it was done before, and suddenly we are discussing how best to collaborate, and working better at understanding the team dynamic while doing it.

For any activity, we are so embedded in the way things have always been done, that we forget to challenge the premise that defined it initially, and the reasoning, if any, that existed.

In my current situation the biggest example I see is during recruitment. Text like the following appear with some roles. No other change to how recruitment used to be done. No other text informing applicants of the process.

• “We are a disability confident Employer”. A self-declarant statement.

• “Tell us if you need any adjustments for the interview process”. Pushes the onus onto the participant to consider what they have to declare, often in contravention to legislation.

The first tells you the organisation has signed up to the government scheme in the UK. The second tells you they have missed the point. They haven’t changed their existing process in any way to open it out, and they do not describe their process for an applicant to know whether adjustments are required.

It is great to see that at least some organisations are on point. They provide the full recruitment process, what will happen at each interview/stage, where it will be and how it will be conducted. This removes all uncertainty and provides an insight into how the organisation will behave moving forward.  It does still use limited means for a person to demonstrate their abilities. Remember, the recruitment process is two-sided.

Real-world examples are all around us. Consider this: Events, awards, roles etc in IT used to be defined in a gender-neutral way, except women never managed to be recognised or achieve senior roles. Now events specifically call out women in IT. If you ask, it is said that men can come along too. The exact reverse of what used to be said by men to women. The behaviours of the majority have been picked up by the minority. Is this now one group, or still two?

We can do better.

Consider any activity in your organisation; do you feel that it is open to all?