UNCORRECTEDPROOF

Although great strides have been made in the arenas of education and athletics, the evolution of Title IX has also been polarizing and highly criticized by both conservatives and liberals. Democrats and Republicans have gone back and forth on policy, with President Obama’s Department of Education issuing guidance to extend Title IX to sexual harassment policies and transgender students, and President Trump reversing such policies.

The issue at hand here is the evolution, the change of the law, to extend outside of the area of education and to shift to athletics, then beyond. The historic impact of Title IX is undeniable, but the question remains: is it relevant and necessary for the world in which we live today, with companies and their leaders enforcing balance, diversity, and equity in the workplace?

Title IX is at the greatest peril with the changing rules in athletics, in which colleges and universities are being forced to cut revenue-generating sports to fund other sports that are not financially sustainable. It is difficult to create an equitable university sports program when the football division, which drives the revenue for many athletic departments, must equalize the number of the scholarships it provides (eighty-five maximum) to its football players (men) while opening scholarships in other sports for the same number of women. Although there may be demand by the student athlete, the funding mechanisms—namely, demand from outside influences such as fans, television audiences, and donor bases—may not be enough to keep the sport alive. Universities must then consider how to drive funding and opportunities to women’s sports in order to address this equity issue from its root causes. Future collegiate models may very well dictate the future of this historically important legislation.

Cancel Culture

The term “cancel culture” arguably originated as a 1980s slang term in black communities as a reference to breaking up with someone. Since then, the term has evolved substantially and today, is applied in broad terms to show the velocity with which someone or something can fall out of favor. Canceled public figures can suffer reputational damage, lose their job or income, or be bullied relentlessly online and by members of the media who want to make a point or accelerate a provocative agenda. People continue to debate usage of the term, arguing about what it really means and how we should hold people accountable for past transgressions and present comments and actions taken out of context without becoming extreme.

In 2020, scientists at Pew Research polled Americans to share their viewpoints on the term, including what it means and how they feel about it. The survey results were split, particularly along political lines. They found that 58% of US adults believe calling people out publicly on social media is more likely to hold them accountable, whereas 38% say it is more likely to punish those who don’t deserve it. Democrats have a greater likelihood of believing that calling people out on social media for sharing offensive content is a way to hold them accountable (75% of Democrats vs. 39% of Republicans). Fifty-six percent of Republicans think “canceling” generally punishes people who don’t deserve it, compared to 22% of Democrats.

When Pew Research coded the data further to explore patterns among the results, they found that about 17% of participants who believed that calling people out on social media holds them accountable regard it as a teaching moment that supports people’s ability to learn from their mistakes and do better in the future. For respondents who say calling out others is an unfair punishment, a similar percentage (18%) believe it’s because viewers can miss the context of a person’s social media post or lack knowledge about the poster’s intentions before confronting them.

The friction surrounding this set of actions can be ferocious, resulting in hasty judgment and punishment, and sparking discussion over whether canceling someone can authentically stem from a desire to hold others accountable. Because of the highly politicized world in which we live, I believe cancel culture has too often morphed into a weapon for the extremes. It inhibits psychological safety and impedes important and necessary dialogue from a fear of labeling and erasure. It is often accompanied by a level of self-righteousness, and as such cedes power to the loudest and often most judgmental voices. Taken to extremes, cancel culture can resemble a police state where nobody knows the rules, which enforcers morph to fit the changing needs of any individual or group on a whim. This anxiety creates a very challenging work dynamic that limits and even discourages the connectedness that companies need and their employees crave. Further, it helps to exacerbate the Great Disconnect, which is fueled by the lack of authenticity and the threat of being ostracized at work or, worse, at home, in the community.

DEI and Belonging

As we process today’s imperatives, DEI is accepted as today’s standard. It is revered. It is mandated. It is measured. And, it can be effective. However, when considered in the structural composition of how organizations work and thrive, DEI is stifled by limited ability and insufficient effort.

At many companies, DEI policies, programs, personnel, and efforts are completely ineffective. They have become an internal wedge that divides the power bases, many of which are high performers. Instead of DEI’s intended purpose of increasing diversity, equity, and inclusion, sometimes it does the opposite by pushing out the existing power base with little conversation about or regard for its historic value and continuing contributions.

As you will find throughout this book, once the momentum is to push to the extremes, the middle shuts down and ceases effective participation in any given initiative or action. The disregard of DEI programs for the middle’s voice comes from using it to meet an agenda, instead of understanding the middle and addressing diversity, equity, and inclusion as realistic, business-positive imperatives. Rather than pushing to extremes, efforts to bring people into the center of the discussion and the desired outcome is what begins to create belonging.

When a power base arises from a singular or limited issue, like DEI efforts, it rarely creates the preferable longer-term change and sustainable adoption. Unfortunately for the leader, velocity can take an issue too far, too fast, without effectively integrating or embedding it in the organization’s culture. Leaders can only establish belonging when they engage the entire organization, which ensures that there isa space for all—or at least all who want to be part of important ongoing societal evolution.

We see this often when DEI coordinators are hired or DEI committees created at historically white institutions. For example, Shawna Jackson was hired as chief diversity officer at a large state institution. Under tremendous scrutiny, she turned into the power; challenged the traditions and structures that had been constructed to constrain progress; and transformed her community with her vision, generosity, and leadership.

Shawna was hired because of her qualifications, organizational fit, and vision. The organization was working through various complex social and racial issues internally, in the community, and within its broader constituency. They invested significantly in community engagement outreach and wanted long-term systemic change—not the often popular, showy quick fix. This effort toward diversity was a core component of their strategic plan, and they worked hard to find the right person to meet their goals.

Despite her impeccable academic and work pedigree, Shawna faced immediate backlash from various organizational power structures, both for her gender (she was the first woman in this position following four successive male leaders) as well as her leadership style of approaching change in a less aggressive or confrontational manner. Her first ninety days were a brutal reminder of the harsh realities of fitting in a new environment—even for a respected leader. She was prepared for opposition from the traditional white male power base, but instead, found the black male power base to be more vocal and resistant to being led by a black woman.

Shawna’s early days were dominated by behind-the-scenes gossip, personal questioning, and open attacks. Her distinguished and brave exterior encased a vulnerable, thoughtful leader—two vital characteristics for which she was hired. Through her unflappable commitment to lasting change through a clear vision, a defined plan, and financial support, she has made significant headway by dismantling existing power structures in a steady manner. Still, the bruising fights at the start of her tenure from people she thought would be allies left her questioning what new structures needed to be established to support continued, meaningful progress.

Shawna defined her leadership as one of broader inclusion, not simply activism, as was the style of her predecessors. She established herself as leading in order to effect change, not to be known as the loudest or most aggressive voice. Activism was a well-worn effort in the position she now occupied, one that had had limited progress. By contrast, her preferred approach was to build a wider base and invite people in. This approach was better aligned with the organization’s vision of leadership and paved the way for powerful groups to become more engaged, ultimately fulfilling her intention to expand the department’s power base.

By inviting people in, Shawna worked to engage the moveable middle, even with extremists noisily demanding attention for their dissenting point of view. She realized that the only way forward was not to concede her beliefs or doubt her place in the process, but instead to go directly into the historic power base—surprisingly, not the power base she anticipated—rather than the activist powerbase.

Shawna won over the middle by building a platform to serve the disenfranchised as well as everyone in the organization. It immediately changed the external perception of her function. She openly laid out what her department believed and did not believe was their responsibility. She shared her past and present passion for this work. Then she presented an initial approach to how she would develop the strategy and craft an intentional culture for the department. Shawna asked for every voice to be counted and heard through interviews, surveys, and assessments of people’s hopes and dreams for the department.

The results were powerful. The survey scores and interviews demonstrated a palpable divide between long-term middle managers and Shawna’s new leadership. She was undeterred. She worked to create a space where people were invited to talk, listen, adopt new understandings, and be part of a new vision. She was able to use their information and differences to convert them to accept her vision. They chose to trust and follow her. Shawna’s message was that belonging includes everyone and that this should be evident in every aspect of the organization. People were invited in who had never previously been asked to share their perspective or to join in creating a new reality that would include all. Shawna brought power and voice to people previously pushed out of the conversation. As a result, she has transformed her organization and community with her vision, generosity, and leadership. She turned into the power and transformed it to something that could be redistributed to her people.

Unintended Consequences

I hear stories daily from leaders who care deeply about doing right but struggle to live up to the goals set by those to whom they report, including their boards. Do they take shortcuts and create a window-dressing solution for the quick fix, or do they take a hit to their own stated performance criteria by working toward the longer-term solution? It is an ongoing dilemma that reveals the incongruity between what leaders are asked to do and tasked to do. They are often asked to solve a problem more systemically, but their incentive packages coerce them to go for the swifter, more visible fix. I find great conflict in the pull to promote a quick fix that will appease the extremes and the loudest voices. And I often see how committed leaders want to address the root of the issues but feel strong pressure to quiet the chaos.

Take the leader of a hiring committee. He and his diversely composed committee were tasked with reviewing who should be recommended for partner at the firm. They undertook a thorough review based on preestablished and rigorous data-driven metrics and performance criteria—the same for each person. Four candidates met the scrutiny of the defined metrics and were recommended by the hiring committee. Yet, the CEO, whose bonus structure and that of his leadership team depended on diversity gains, directed the head of the committee to change the scoring and elevate one of the women not selected in the original recommendations to be among the top four candidates.

The committee leader replied that the woman not only was not in the top seven of the eight candidates based on the data and her prior performance; she also had a series of documented behavioral issues the past year that were inconsistent with the company’s stated policies. The CEO responded, “Add her, period.” The selected candidate didn’t earn this hire—it was given, at a cost to her, her future employees, and the committee who knew better. It did the opposite of creating belonging; it started a division within the inner ranks of the company, including the employees whom she had previously managed. But, in the end, the CEO got his bonus for promoting diversity.

Unfortunately, he pushed for this hire without examining the systems in place that would create a baseline culture of belonging. It’s not about promoting the one; it’s about figuring out how to uplift the many. The board and the CEO put structures in place for themselves (like the diversity accountability metric) but not for the people they intended to support. Instead, they should have asked themselves the following questions:

• Why does this group lack diversity in the first place?

• How can we ensure that women and racial/ethnic minorities in our organization are getting the right opportunities to ensure they can ascend into leadership positions?

• Who are we attracting, and how can we expand our pool of candidates in the future?

The outcome focus is better served when all elements of the attraction–selection–attrition pipeline address the systemic issues and shared biases that prevent qualified diverse candidates from being considered for and ascending to leadership roles.

Organizations contain many power structures. Some are helpful but many produce unintended consequnces. These can be as innocuous as the wrong hiring process or a performance system that fails to provide honest, sometimes uncomfortable feedback. Research shows that lack of such feedback is a growing concern for female and minority employees: without it, they remain at a disadvantage versus those receiving more direct feedback. Other power structures include a culture that does not embrace belonging. And some of the easier-to-fix structures include the misaligned incentives that plague not only the leader but also leadership across the organization. Without alignment on what really matters, midlevel managers and employees may perpetuate the status quo by keeping in place what they have experienced and what has historically worked for them. As leaders, we must become more aware that the difference is the exceptions that are made.Exceptions become long-term power structures themselves that will eat away at the performance framework if left unaddressed.

The power structure that is DEI will remain at the forefront of organizational initiatives and efforts for decades. The question is, how can leaders depoliticize these efforts and implement them more effectively? Simple: by turning into the power mindset. Leaders must challenge the current status quo by first separating and then recalibrating the sequencing and placement of belonging in the diversity, equity, and inclusion ecosystem. Each aspect of DEI has its own importance. Yet, when organizations aggregate all three, they risk diminishing the importance of each and taking less-targeted pathways to accomplish them—especially when the performance metrics are geared to measuring the mingled whole. It may be a nuance, but it is an important one. Better to move belonging to the front of the conversation and the leader’s expectations. Belonging envelops the entirety of the desired outcome, of which diversity, equity, and inclusion are parts. For an organization to achieve its people-focused goals, belonging must be perched atop as a depoliticized framework that builds commonality, unity, and community.

We cannot belong or create belonging for others if we are unwilling to do what is uncomfortable by turning into the power. That turn, that willingness to face obstacles in our direct path, that confidence to speak up, that courage to ask the real question, that ability to recognize the necessity of challenge, and the readiness to do it—this is the power that belongs to each of us. This is where our commitment to belonging begins: not by ignoring or circumventing power but turning directly into it.