Diversity Fatigue

We are exhausting our organizations with the continuous refocus on efforts on levels of diversity. Money, time and, most importantly, emotional and mental energy of managers and employees go into these efforts. Are they working? Do we see a change?

Well, We Have Lots of Layers

Unfortunately, we aren’t seeing the change within organizations that we hoped for with inclusion programs. Another approach is needed: neuroinclusion. By embracing an individual’s cognitive profile, or neurodivergence, we can see the individual holistically instead of only parts of them. We are the whole of all our identities – color, race, socioeconomic upbringing, education, sexuality and cognitive makeup. You cannot remove one piece of an individual’s identity and only address this part. Sadly, many of our diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging efforts are not considering this. For true diversity in organizations, we must embrace all the diversities within one individual – each layer. For equity, we must provide personalized management, adjustments and tools to allow individuals to do their best work. We must train our managers to be person-centered and manage individuals to achieve workplace equity, inclusion and belonging.

Diversity Fatigue

Organizations experience “diversity fatigue” from all stakeholders when the focus is on addressing one layer of diversity at a time. Diversity fatigue occurs when we exhaust the emotional availability for change, empathy, time and budgets. Nothing is done at 100%. Change is not sticking. Our focus wavers as we wait for the direction of our efforts to swiftly change again when societal attention shifts to the new “flavor of the month.” What if one approach embraced multiple layers? What if team members felt an immediate increase in their workplace belonging and inclusion?

Using Neuroinclusion as a Compass

Neuroinclusion has risen from the increased focus on neurodivergence (autism, ADHD, dyslexia, learning differences, to name a few) established through Autism at Work programs and the Neurodiversity social movement. Defining neuroinclusion is essential to understanding how it can address all the layers of diversity. To begin, I adopt Lily Zheng’s definition of inclusion: “Inclusion is the achievement of an environment that all stakeholders, especially underserved and marginalized populations, trust to be respectful and accountable. Inclusion is achieved through actions that explicitly counter present-day and historical inequalities and meet the unique needs of all populations” [1]. When we place the “neuro” in front of inclusion, we focus on how an individual’s layers of diversity and lived experiences from these diversities make up how we process and see the world. It also puts the person at the center of how they work, learn and communicate.

Practicality and Situational Requirements

As an organizational and consulting psychologist focusing on neuroinclusion, my organization has quickly identified our work centers around line managers having the support and confidence to meet employees where they are by having various tools to manage different needs and scenarios. Because of each employee’s depth of diversity and workplace needs, we acknowledge that one size does not fit all and there is no playbook for including neurodivergent talent. Instead, constant conversations are used to discuss and identify scenarios in the client’s physical environment, culture, individual jobs, knowledge and skill gaps potentially creating barriers to workplace success. Short and contextual toolbox talks were quickly produced to educate and provide resources and, most importantly, prevent problems from becoming performance issues.

As we continued with conversations and toolbox talks, we began to hear how much these tools were helping the participants manage all team members. As we progressed, it became apparent that the tools and approaches allowed managers to provide person-centered strategies for all team members. Even more importantly, the team members expressed increased feelings of job independence, empowerment, and contribution to the organization.

Positive organization processes and culture change continued to become apparent in our work. Instead of only helping with neuroinclusion, we were helping with all inclusion. Our clients experienced increased feelings of belonging from team members and felt embraced just as they were.

Making Systemic Sustainable Change

Person-centered management enhances the employment experience and puts the individual front and center. It is equitable to all. Equity is often misunderstood. Equity is giving people what they need to level the playing field. It’s creating customized solutions based on the individual’s unique needs that allow them to do their best work and thrive. However, we need to create spaces of psychological safety while giving managers and employees the knowledge and tools to create equitable experiences.

Psychological safety is a term used to “describe people’s perception of the consequences of taking interpersonal risks in a particular context such as a workplace” [2]. When psychological safety is high, team members feel comfortable advocating for themselves. When this is combined with essential tools, the whole team thrives. For example, communication is one of the most essential activities of work. Train your team on using clear and concise communication. Make it a norm to ask clarifying questions and check assumptions. These communication changes create internal tools and organizational norms to ask everyone, “How do you work best?” and holistically react to the response.

Regarding the employment experience, you must begin with the job description. Unfortunately, our job descriptions usually contain many education and skill requirements that are cut and pasted. Suppose we are more intentional about implementing job analysis and creating clear and concise job descriptions that do not exclude people by listing unrealistic and unnecessary requirements. In that case, we begin the employment experience with clear skill expectations. Well-written job descriptions set the tone for your organization and allow everyone to understand what is required to feel safe and empowered.

Second, we must communicate using different mediums and allow individuals to digest and process information. Too often, we expect individuals to  immediately respond to requests within interactions, only providing the information in one format. But we all learn and process differently. For example, let’s reshape how we run meetings. Always provide agendas and materials before meetings with enough time for individuals to digest the materials how they work best. Do they need to do some research to address the question or task? Does the individual prefer to print materials and make annotations? How about team members who learn best through audio? They may prepare using a screen reader to “hear” the materials. On the agenda, set what type of meeting it will be – informational or decision-making. Ensure all participants understand what is expected of them during the meeting. Assign a dedicated note-taker who circulates the decisions made and tasks assigned to all participants. These steps to inclusive meetings allow everyone to bring their best selves and show their best work to their team. They feel empowered by the team and are allowed to shine.

Lastly, frequent check-ins are critical. Do not let things fester. Always ask clarifying questions. Explain what you infer from comments, feedback or instructions to ensure understanding is the same. These are just some initial steps your organization can take to create a person-centered, equitable organization that builds feelings of inclusion and belonging. These changes do not add to diversity fatigue. They provide actionable solutions that benefit all – regardless of their layers of diversity.

References

1. Zheng, Lily, 2023, “DEI deconstructed: Your no-nonsense guide to doing the work and doing it right,” Berrett-Koehler Publishers: Oakland, CA.
2. Edmondson, A. C. & Lei, Z., 2014, “Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct,” Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 23-43.