top of page

NYT Gets it all wrong on Belonging Article

Part of why I added the language "Repair" in my DEI Consulting Framework-The Recipe for (DEI) Transformation-and wove it throughout my consulting approach, was that as a trained public policy practitioner, as an ICF-Certified coach, and as someone that's worked to advance equity for that last 24 years, I have seen that there are people in our communities and our workplaces that have been undervalued, #underrecognized and excluded because of who they are.


It's why we can't ignore identity and as we do DEI work.


It's also why the work to create spaces where everyone has the opportunity to be valued, supported, and included has always been about doing reality checks and recalibrating. To figure out where investments are needed so that we can create spaces where everyone can thrive.


In that vision I just laid out, I don't paint a picture of good humans and bad humans. Who must thrive less so that the extra thriving can be spread to those who've historically been denied that share of thriving. There was no divisiveness. There was no zero-sum.


And this is one of the dozens of things that are in my craw (southern speak: on my nerves) about the May 13th New York Times article that just came out on #belonging. (link below)


This article is an example of a dominant culture practice to focus on terminology instead of substance. Ex: Let's call it #belonging now instead of #inclusion because that will stop division, or, let's move away from diversity, that will help us build bridges... {reader: will it?]


Here's the reality: Our workplaces are, measurably, not working for many people.


That means people with socially advantaged identities (men, white people, non disabled folks),

AND

it's not working for people with socially marginalized/excluded identities (BIPOC, disabled folks, gender expansive folks, etc)


And not having THAT conversation is precluding us from having a workplace where people experience equity, inclusion and BELONGING.


Simply changing a term, or raising our hands with eyes closed in a questionable activity won't do what the data shows *actually* gets us there--policy changes, systems changes, and bias interruption strategies to change conditions that preclude thriving.


It doesn't matter what acronyms we use or what we call it.


Systematically and structurally, work as we know it isn't working for people. It's making us sick. It's why the Surgeon Generally issued an ENTIRE framework on this in October 2022 that has largely been ignored.


I have so many things to say about the NYT piece: It's got me very fired up, clearly.


Have you read it? What are your thoughts?


Sadly there is a paywall. But it's linked here just in case.


#DEI #DEIB #Belonging or #inclusion #realitycheck #languagematters Why Some Companies Are Saying ‘Diversity and Belonging’ Instead of ‘Diversity and Inclusion’

The changing terminology reflects new thinking among some consultants, who say traditional D.E.I. strategies haven’t worked out as planned.


https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/13/business/diversity-equity-inclusion-belonging.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&fbclid=IwAR1din0AhlYkQ7pgI2RpT6X32KPKtLx2Qa-RqguEgoq4jccKSx3rYMe7Abw

12 views

Related Posts

See All
bottom of page