If you're fairly active on LinkedIn, you'll see a full spectrum of ideas and beliefs around DEI initiatives- their purpose, who benefits, who doesn't and everything in between. In the fight to be right, we may all be overlooking the insidious, yet hidden, reasons behind the debate.
I'm totally ready for the dissent on this one, so please share your thoughts in the comments below. I also realize this may feel like a reach, but just stay with me.
Here's the thing: we've been at this struggle for a while now. Perhaps some superficial progress has been made, but (especially here in America) things still look very much the same if you look beneath the surface.
Applying the model of theories-in-use (which is intended to explain organizational behavior), I will add my own spin to connect the principles associated with theories-in-use and human behavior to see if we can get closer to the real issue we're having organizationally and globally around diversity and inclusion.
Theories-in-Use
Here's an excerpt from the book Overcoming Organizational Defenses (Argyris, 1990) that will help set the tone for the rest of this article:
"Human beings have programs in their heads about how to be in control, especially when they face embarrassment or threat, two conditions that could lead them to get out of control. These programs exist in the human mind in two very different ways. The first way is the set of beliefs and values people hold about how to manage their lives. The second way is the actual rules they use to manage their beliefs. The first is called espoused theories of action, the second their theories-in-use."
Theories-in-use are the drivers behind the undercover workplace. Anything will be said or done to avoid perceived embarrassment, discomfort, or loss of control. One main feature of theories-in-use is the use of what's called designed lying (Argyris,1990) which is used to cover up behaviors and actions people take part in to cover up the fact that they are trying to maintain control and avoid embarrassment. What I imply from this is that it is not okay for others to know that these are your intentions (this isn't explicitly stated in the book though).
At first thought, you may want to compare this concept with unconscious bias. The ideas presented in the book do support theories-in-use being unconscious programs, which produce skilled incompetence- the repeated behaving in ways counter to espoused theories of action (a person’s values). Arguing this point can be a separate article, but I will say that I believe the intent to maintain control is not unconscious, and this idea of difference being threatening or that control must be maintained to avoid some perceived threats is really at the heart of the issue we have of the undercover workplace, and of the failure of DEIJ efforts over the years.
DEIJ efforts tend to be ways to enact theories-in -use, to design and participate in behaviors that save face, but do not actually address the issues of maintained control over marginalized groups. They do not address the inherent beliefs that control must be maintained, and embarrassment must be avoided. They do not address this need to control others for the purpose of one’s own comfort. They do not address the tendency for designed lying and its place in the “keeping up appearances” and supporting the existence of the undercover workplace.
The Power of Labelling
In order to keep the undercover workplace functioning in a way that maintains comfort and control for the group in power, an equally automatic system (to theories-in-use) needs to be in place. By labelling anything outside of the established norms (established for comfort and avoidance as described above) as bad or undesirable, you effectively control the behavior of others who will naturally seek to achieve some form of acceptance or belonging into the power group. Labelling keeps people operating in their theories-in-use, to avoid the embarrassment associated with being labelled something undesirable.
This is how marginalized groups unwittingly (or not?) uphold systems of their own oppression within high-control systems, such as organizations. This will be another article in the future, but worth thinking about here. Consider how your own fears of embarrassment or even punishment prevent you from rocking the boat too much or behaving in more radical ways that support the espoused values of DEIJ initiatives.
What To Do
DEI efforts are efforts in psychological and behavioral change. Attempting to approach it in any other way is superficial and will keep us spinning in the cycles we've been in for decades. Equal pay and opportunity are needs especially in this modern economy, but to introduce marginalized people into positions and environments not equipped to help them thrive introduces additional trauma and issues and does not solve the main problem.
Current DEIJ programs do not take into account the training needed for leaders to focus on emotional management so that their beliefs and actions do not negatively impact their staff. Teaching employees how to see each other as human, how to work together creatively, and how to address their internal conflicts and biases is central to bringing our theories-in-use closer in alignment with our espoused values (which are currently woefully misaligned).
These ideas are different, perhaps radical, but for lasting change to occur, radical thinking and action is necessary.
But, what are your thoughts? I look forward to reading your comments!
Hi! I'm Nicole, an organizational consultant and personal coach, who is passionate about inspiring the changes our society needs for all to thrive. Using lessons learned from my own experiences and challenges, I hope to help people within organizations by creating mentally, socially, and emotionally healthy workplaces for all. Check out the other resources on this site for more ways to do just that!
Comments