Inclusion - the conundrum of workplace diversity

It is fascinating that people in organisations are speaking ever so passionately about workplace diversity yet the vocabulary they are using reveals an act of real soft-pedaling on the issue, if not contradiction of efforts by the very people and practitioners.

If you have been reading the material on workplace diversity you may have come across some startling vocabulary being used. Words like INCLUSION are commonplace. This word, in the context of workplace diversity is, in my view, inappropriate. Some of the people who are diversity practitioners are using terms like I&D in reference to Diversity and Inclusion.

In one of the commissions I was participating in at a Diversity Conference in September there were colleagues who kept using the word “inclusion”. I posed a question: Isn't the concept of "inclusion" an indication of our poor grasp of what workplace diversity is about? Are we supposed to be “including” those whom have until now been excluded or are we supposed to consciously and boldly push down the walls of stereotyping, discrimination and exclusion, to create a new workplace? This left me and a certain lady debating head on. Let me qualify the question.

I was brainwashed inside a Human Resources Management class. It was impressed on us that to include is to “assimilate” marginalized persons; it is the opposite of “valuing” diversity. The rationale behind the existence of workplace diversity is that we are coming from a deeply prejudicial and discriminatory society at many levels. We are talking about workplace diversity today because we want to move away from this ugly past.

It is therefore no surprise that the text book and the case studies in the exam paper were used to drum into our minds an understanding that the moment we say we are valuing Diversity, we go for a clean slate. We tap into our spiritual faculties and become change agents (not passive employees) who open up to a new way of living, of thinking and of doing work. We open, not just the doors of work, but ourselves too, for all people of diverse profiles to work with us; to influence us and to contribute to the success of the organisation. Importantly, we do so to ensure that the socio-economic status of those against whom we used our prejudices, and of their families, improves in order to create thriving societies.

In that spirit, therefore, we do not stamp the authority of our “normal selves” as template against which the “other” persons must conform to and be “included” into. Doing so is tantamount to assimilating the marginalized persons into the mainstream group. It is the opposite of valuing Diversity. When we place the element of valuing and embracing diversity, we throw away the templates of our “normal selves;” we open ourselves to a new world where we experience life at work alongside all persons who make up our diverse society; the people who have something important to contribute. ‘I am not different from you; I am different like you,’ says Stanley Bongwe (founder of Diversity Institute.)

I was rattled by the conferrers who speak about workplace diversity as if organisations are including marginalized persons. To me it meant that those “inclusive” organisations are actually doing the marginalized persons a favour. We should not “include” marginalized persons into our sick, disparaging, intolerant, stereotypical, narrow ways we call workplaces. We should open ourselves to new workplaces.

What everybody is agreeing on - also backed by the research on the subject - is that embracing diversity contributes to better market insights, improved productivity, better innovation, improved decision-making and problem-solving. Therefore, we should “go after” the talent of diverse persons. We should not merely “include” them because Employment Equity legislation commands us to do so but because it makes moral and business sense to do so; because it helps us to grow as spiritual (not to be confused with religious) beings.

www.moroloconsultants.co.za