How to address systemic DEI issues through the lens of belonging

According to a McKinsey Health Institute report released in the second quarter of this year, about a third of employees in organizations worldwide are at risk of burnout, and toxic behavior in the workplace is the leading cause.

The issue of toxic behavior in law firms, tax and accounting firms, and corporations is a concern for Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) advocates and other professionals, as it means that about a third of employees in these organizations suffer from a lack of inclusion and belonging.

However, some believe that the current DEI paradigm, with its top-down approach and priority to individuals with a single underrepresented identity, will not adequately address this type of systemic exclusion, while others prefer an integrated strategy of all three components with a stronger focus believe in belonging.

Issues with the current way DEI is designed

Stephanie Felder, Director of Professional Development and Diversity at Groom Law, is a proponent of the combined approach. “I don’t think it’s as black and white as the need to focus on diversity rather than belonging,” Felder says. “Both are important, but until you level the playing field and eliminate the exclusionary practices, processes and systems in your organization, you can’t really build diversity or inclusion.”

Helen May, Director of Belonging@Work, is one of those calling for an overhaul in how we assess and address issues of belonging and inclusion based on human experience. Organizations and human resources evolved into a “bureaucratic dilution of the human element, including diversity and inclusion” in the years leading up to the pandemic, she explains, adding that the current DEI paradigm leads to greater division due to the prevalence of attitude and achievement Goals and too much focus on “othering” large groups of people.

Focusing on a single underrepresented identity makes many white men feel different even if people with underrepresented identities already feel different in the current environment. Furthermore, the current DEI approach does not adequately address the intersectional needs of individuals with more than one underrepresented identity.

Another challenge related to the current DEI paradigm is that it is mainly driven from the top down rather than from the bottom up through the organization. Approached primarily from a top-down perspective, the root causes of feelings of exclusion are hard to identify, May says. Because a lack of belonging usually reflects exclusive behaviors by individuals from both majority and minority groups it’s difficult to pinpoint exactly where within management the root causes of the problems are, she argues.

Pursue inclusion through a dedicated lens

May advocates a revised approach to inclusion through the lens of belonging and well-being, using people-centric issues as a starting point. These questions include:

• • • What will make people do their best?
    • What will make everyone create the psychological security they need?
    • What protects well-being and promotes a sense of belonging?

Working through the lens of belonging by default is intersectional because it’s human-centric, she explains. “We live in a very intersectional world, and that discourages people with other identities from participating, despite many efforts in the current DEI paradigm to invite ‘allies’.”

Using the belongingness and inclusion lens, small networking groups are created within the company or organization as a safe space for people to have discussions focused on people empowering themselves and others. Curiosity is used to explore the unique qualities and experiences of individuals as a way of being within the organization and community that has a responsibility to protect the well-being of all, regardless of who they are or what demographic group they belong to .

How to implement an affiliation strategy

Using belonging and wellbeing as the foundational context, May says organizations should start with a future vision of culture that defines a framework to attract the right talent at board level. Once the board is in place, it should again focus on identifying individuals who exhibit these cultural framework attributes as part of the board’s succession plan. The board also needs to work with prospective board members to outline how employees can be empowered based on activities and behaviors. Existing systems of promotion and performance appraisal are left alone.

To demonstrate the positive results of this approach, May describes how this process turned a client into an employee-run company with a four-day work week and unlimited paid time off because it asked employees what they wanted. The next board members have become a hub of the community rather than being seen above and directing below.

She says a key part of the solution is for first-line and middle management to appoint someone to ask the following questions “until it becomes a habit to ensure inclusion is built into every process, including performance evaluation , promotion, hiring, training, and onboarding system.” These questions include:

• • • Who have we forgotten to think of while making this decision?
    • Who could we have disadvantaged with the measure we have just decided?
    • Is there anyone else we should ask about this decision who might be able to give us an alternative perspective?

The result allows law firms, tax and accounting firms, and corporations to build their culture through behavior and habit, as people skew their decisions in the right way by default, without it having to be a formal process.