What kind of leadership does it take to drive change towards equity and inclusion?

Leaders are often “visionaries” and “change makers” by definition. They have a vision for something that is different than currently exists, and they have the drive to make that vision a reality.

Not every leader is suited to driving change towards equity and inclusion however.

In fact, leaders who have learned how to successfully navigate toxic systems of oppression are often toxic themselves. Capitalism is designed to reward those who can produce at the expense of those doing the producing.

Who really benefits from that though? I don’t know about you, but billionaires on the whole don’t strike me as a group that are filled with love, joy and healing.

We’ve been thinking a lot on the CCI team about impact, and about the organizations that we work with that are most successful at driving change towards equity and inclusion.

And as much as I wish it weren’t true, a lot depends on leadership.

This is not a radical realization, I know. In fact, something we often hear from the most marginalized staff in an organization is that “if senior leadership doesn’t change, nothing will change.” The deep deep skepticism from staff who have not in fact seen change despite grand proclamations otherwise deeply resonates yet is also frustrating and painful because putting all hopes of change into the hands of leadership is a kind of abdicating of agency that we do not want to support, even as it is understandable.

We can only control ourselves, and so we talk a lot about how everyone in an organization can connect to their agency, identify and advocate for their needs where they can, even if only to themselves, and to know what they will do if their needs are not met. We do all have choices, even if not very good ones. We can decide what we can change, can’t change and won’t change. And we can center on our own voices and make sure our work is visible, again even if only to ourselves. We do not have to be complicit in our own gaslighting and oppression.

When it comes to change at an organizational level, however, for an organization that is still very hierarchical, a lot depends on leadership. I won’t say it all depends on leadership - I think staff can have more of an impact than they often realize and can push for change. However, especially without strong checks and balances in place for accountability to equity and inclusion, which is also often the case, leaders have the power to be anything from major catalysts… to major deterrents, despite their intentions.

We’re not even talking about leaders who are explicitly against equity and inclusion (spoiler alert: they aren’t hiring us!)

However, being for equity and inclusion isn’t enough.

It’s not just about an appetite or willingness to change, it’s also about an aptitude or ability to change.

It requires a shift from leadership as paternalism (assuming we know better than everyone else what is best for them) to leadership as inclusion (getting feedback from those impacted by our decisions and understanding that this will enable us to make better decisions that benefit us all).

Change in the direction of equity and inclusion means change so that staff have what they need in order to do their best, most impactful and most energizing work, in alignment with the organization’s mission.

Without equity and inclusion, your staff are likely overworked but underutilized.

Let that sink in for a minute.

What that means is that they are working at the limits of what their energy allows. The work is coming at a great cost and they exhausted and burned out. At the same time, their skills and talents are not being fully utilized - they could be having a much greater impact if they weren’t expending so much energy overcoming challenges and obstacles, many of which have systemic roots, exacerbated by their organizations.

One of the outcomes of oppression that I see is a devastating loss of potential at a global as well as organizational level.

So much talent gone to waste because of systemic marginalization. Such a loss for all of us. We say often that although we are not all impacted equally, we are all impacted by systems of oppression.

Where does this loss of potential come from?

A few years ago, I heard Dr. Joy DeGruy speak about Dr. Edwin Nichols and the “Philosophical Aspects of Cultural Difference” that suggests that this was driven by a scarcity mindset developed in Northern European countries during a time when there were only limited months in the year for planting and harvesting (as opposed to in warmer climates as elsewhere).

Only a few could and would survive. Someone else’s survival threatened your own. The highest value lay in the acquisition of objects.

This was the mindset upon which an economy based on slavery was built in the US: extract as much labor as possible from a captive workforce in service of the survival, success and increasingly accumulated wealth of a select few.

Slavery was the foundation and principle upon which the American brand of capitalism was built, and which lives on today in corporate and organizational culture.

A shift in culture towards equity and inclusion therefore requires a different kind of leadership.

Speaking for ourselves as DEI consultants, we have found that the organizations where we can have the most impact co-creating shifts in culture towards equity and inclusion have leaders who:

Are self-aware and reflective. They have done and continue to do work to recognize their triggers, pitfalls and patterns as well as the strengths and benefits of their personality type, background and socialization. They know this is ongoing, life long work and they are into it.
Are well-versed at identifying their own traumas and needs. They have an understanding of how to mitigate or solve for their traumas and needs without causing harm to others in the process. In addition, they can build on their healing, learning and growth by modeling and facilitating it for others.
They welcome feedback even if they don’t always like it. They know it will help them make better decisions. As a result, they can pause, listen, and manage their own defensiveness and other reactions in order to create space for feedback.
They accept rather than try to deny or control other perspectives. They empathize with, validate and value staff perspectives rather getting annoyed and frustrated and jumping in to change them. They understand that acceptance doesn’t mean endorsement - you don’t have to like or agree with other perspectives, but you have to be able to confront the truth of them, and change them by changing by changing your actions in order to create a different impact that is more in alignment with your intentions, not by convincing staff they are wrong in their experiences.
They are willing to take action, to experiment, to get things wrong, to admit to and learn from mistakes, to iterate and to keep learning. They are not entrenched in their way of doing things or in the status quo. They don’t take everything personally. They are not invested in having the moral high ground or in their status as a savior, expert or fixer. They want others to succeed and do their best, most impactful and most energizing work because they know that will lead to greater success for the organization.

We’ve talked before about lip service and paralysis often being rooted in the Characteristics of White Supremacy Culture, particularly power hoarding, fear of open conflict, right to comfort and defensiveness. We recently made a one page slide that we share here below as a helpful summary of the pitfalls as well as the way through to action and results.

Defensiveness is human, and we have found that leaders that actively work to mitigate their own defensiveness often have the most success in leading or at least getting out of the way of shifts towards equity and inclusion, for the benefit of all.

Banner photo by CHUTTERSNAP on Unsplash

What kind of leadership does it take to drive change towards equity and inclusion?

JOIN SELF-COACHING FOR DEI ADVOCATES