PDF Summary:DEI Deconstructed, by Lily Zheng

Is your organization struggling to achieve a diverse, equitable, and inclusive environment? In DEI Deconstructed, strategist and consultant Lily Zheng presents a pragmatic, results-oriented approach to DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) that focuses on measurable outcomes rather than just good intentions. Using research-backed insights and real-world case studies, Zheng challenges conventional wisdom about DEI initiatives and provides a framework to help organizations make lasting improvements.

In our guide, we’ll explore what DEI means and highlight issues with current approaches. We’ll also look at how identity and power play into DEI concepts, and we’ll explore how individual members of an organization can take part in advancing DEI initiatives. Finally, we’ll explain how organizations can implement DEI on a larger scale, depending on the level of trust that members have in their organizations. In our commentary, we’ll add research to support Zheng’s ideas, plus tips for how to put them into practice.

(continued)...

When denying identity failed to yield positive results, additional strategies such as multiculturalism arose. Multiculturalism celebrates marginalized identities but often implicitly criticizes privileged ones. This, again, resulted in backlash and complaints about the lack of celebration for privileged identities. These effects can be seen today in the “anti-woke” movement (in which White supremacists frame wokeness as an attack on whiteness) and men’s rights activism. Zheng argues that the problem with these backlash movements isn’t that they celebrate privileged identities, but rather that they deliberately intertwine these celebrations with fascistic and violent ideology.

(Shortform note: Research shows that people from privileged groups often resist diversity efforts like multiculturalism because they believe that the inequities they’re targeting have already been resolved. Thus, they believe that ongoing efforts are no longer fixing existing injustices but are instead creating new injustices and marginalizing privileged groups. This creates a sense of victimhood, which experts suggest is essential to fascist movements. Fascists frame increasing equity for marginalized groups as increasing oppression of privileged groups and a dismantling of the dominant social hierarchy. In doing so, they exploit privileged groups’ fears to promote the idea that peace depends upon violently defeating those who are different.)

An Alternative View of Identity

As an alternative, Zheng presents a new framework for understanding identity: as something that’s neither positive nor negative that helps us understand each other and the world. Every identity aids this understanding, but no single identity gives us a complete understanding. Thus, every single person, regardless of their identity, has a role to play in creating positive change and shaping a better world for everyone.

(Shortform note: Many people may find it challenging to view their identity in neutral terms instead of as a positive. Social identity theory explains how people often define themselves by the social groups they belong to. Doing so provides a sense of belonging and purpose, and it can increase self-esteem and self-understanding. However, it can also lead to things like stereotyping and prejudice, and it may partially explain why privileged groups sometimes take celebrations of other identities as attacks on their own. This balance of benefits and drawbacks to social identity may support Zheng’s recommendation to frame identity as neutral—not because it has neither positive nor negative qualities, but because it has both.)

Whereas other DEI approaches tend to focus on specific, individual issues like eliminating bias, bigotry, or prejudice, the intended outcome of Zheng’s framework is more general: to prevent harm. This includes deliberate harm such as violence and accidental harm such as inadvertently misgendering someone. Importantly, Zheng focuses on harm on the systemic level, such as laws, societal norms and practices, and organizational structures that privilege certain groups over others. These systemic issues include laws that disproportionately target poor populations, objectifying jokes and catcalling, or attempts to limit interaction between advantaged and disadvantaged groups in a workplace.

Zheng argues that to achieve a positive outcome, each person has an obligation to actively protect and improve the parts of their organization where they have influence or authority. For example, though we tend to think that only marginalized groups have expertise on identity, Zheng argues that all people are experts on their group identities (whether disadvantaged or privileged) and therefore have insights into how identity functions in their organization—insights that can guide solutions for reducing harm.

Levels of Oppression

To better understand Zheng’s distinction between individual actions or beliefs and systemic harm, it may help to examine how other experts frame different levels of harm and oppression.

Some experts describe four levels of oppression:

• Individual, which refers to individuals’ beliefs and behaviors and includes things like prejudice and implicit bias

• Organizational, which refers to the formal and informal rules and norms of organizations

• Institutional, which refers to the interplay of different organizations forming a collective social sector

• Systemic, which refers to collections of organizations and institutions constituting a still larger realm of society

To illustrate this, consider sexism in higher education: On an individual level, a professor may believe that women are less capable than men and treat them differently. Male students may contribute to this with objectifying jokes or catcalling. At the organizational level, the university may use biased admission criteria that leads to fewer female students being accepted. At the institutional level, this can lead to underrepresentation of women in academia as a whole. Finally, at the systemic level, it can lead to marginalization and injustice for women across society, as higher education can be an important means to upward social mobility.

Other experts identify four slightly different levels of oppression:

• Personal, which refers to internalized beliefs about one’s own identity

• Interpersonal, which refers to the expression of beliefs and behaviors between individuals

• Institutional, which corresponds to both the organization and institutional levels described in the previous framework

• Structural, which corresponds to the systemic level described in the previous framework

To add personal oppression to our previous example, a female student might underestimate her own abilities or those of other female students because of internalized sexist beliefs.

In all of these frameworks (including Zheng’s), mistreatment at any level can reinforce or manifest as mistreatment at other levels, which is likely why Zheng argues for focusing on systemic mistreatment as a means of reducing mistreatment on the individual level. The systemic focus may also reduce the sense of blame that can come with other DEI programs’ focus on individual issues while still maintaining that individuals are responsible for improving the areas of the organization where they have influence.

These discussions about identity raise another question: What ability does an individual have to influence their organization? This brings us to Zheng’s discussion of power.

The Role of Power

Zheng explains that many individuals feel powerless to enact any change in their organizations. However, they point out that everyone has power in one form or another. They identify six types of power:

• Formal power: being in an official position that confers influence
• Reward power: being able to compensate others
• Coercive power: being able to punish others
• Expert power: having greater expertise than others
• Informational power: having more information than others
• Referent power: being able to influence others through charisma

Everyone can exercise at least one of these types of power to some extent, and some people have access to multiple types of power.

For example, a senior leader in a company has formal power, as their position confers the ability to ask others to do something. They may also have reward power if they have influence over pay or bonuses, and coercive power if they have any disciplinary authority or influence over firing decisions. Those without formal power can still exercise reward and coercive power—for instance, by rewarding others with praise or punishing organizations by drawing negative public attention to them. Expert power includes having greater skill in a particular area, but it can also refer to the unique expertise each person has by virtue of their identity, as described earlier.

Understanding these different forms of power is essential for creating change in organizations. However, different people will need to use different types of power to advance a DEI movement depending on what role they’re playing, as we’ll see next.

Types and Styles of Power

The types of power Zheng describes were identified by social psychologists John French and Bertram Raven in the 1950s and ’60s. Some divide this list into two categories: soft and hard. Formal, reward, and coercive power can be seen as “hard” styles that apply external influence, while expert, informational, and referent power are “soft” styles that use intrinsic motivation. Research suggests that the use of hard styles by supervisors leads employees to feel controlled and less motivated, whereas supervisors’ use of soft power correlates to greater motivation. However, this research only refers to how supervisors use their power, though as Zheng notes, everyone in an organization has access to some form of power.

Some scholars have extended French and Raven’s list to include additional types:

• Network power, which comes from your personal or professional connections

• Centrality power, which comes from being visible or holding a position in which you’re involved in many processes of your organization

• Framing power, which comes from your ability to use language to influence others’ perceptions of ideas or issues

• Agenda power, which comes from being able to influence what actions your organization does or doesn’t take—as opposed to formal power, which is essentially the authority to tell others what to do

We’ll refer back to these additional types as we continue to discuss power in the next section.

Additionally, some experts argue that certain types of power are more valuable than others in effecting the change you want to see in your organization. For example, they suggest that expert power is the most useful (especially when combined with humility) because it represents something you have that others want. In contrast, they argue that coercive power is very risky and works best when it’s used as a warning for what might happen rather than when it’s used liberally to punish others.

Individual Roles in Creating Change

Zheng emphasizes that proper DEI work needs everyone to come together to create meaningful change in an organization. This requires an understanding not only of power, but also of the specific roles each individual can play in working toward this change. Zheng describes seven such roles, all of which must be filled in order for a movement to be effective: the advocate, the educator, the organizer, the strategist, the backer, the builder, and the reformer. If any of these roles goes unfilled, the movement will fail.

(Shortform note: Research suggests that when everyone understands their role and the responsibilities that come with it, teams are more productive and face fewer conflicts. Teams also perform better when the route to accomplishing their objective isn’t set in stone, so framing your movement as one that will require some creative thinking can further enhance your movement’s success.)

To illustrate these roles, we’ll use the example of a company that’s beginning a movement to improve equity for disabled people in their organization. The company has a history of discriminating against disabled people in their hiring practices and has often failed to properly accommodate their disabled employees.

Advocates

According to Zheng, advocates are the people who vocally draw attention to inequity and demand change. They bring in people who weren’t previously aware of the issue and want to change it, and they also compel those who’ve been disregarding the issue to participate in a movement. They help convey the importance of issues of inequity and galvanize movements that have slowed or fallen by the wayside. Referent power is particularly important for advocates, as their charisma is necessary for getting people on board with difficult or uncomfortable topics. They’re essential for catalyzing movements early on in the process.

(Shortform note: Research supports the idea that a movement begins with advocates. While many assume that the first step in movements is a specific plan or call for change, they actually begin from an emotional foundation: a recognition that the way things currently are is unfair and unacceptable, which is what advocates draw attention to. Looking back to the four additional types of power described above (network power, centrality power, framing power, and agenda power), we can infer that advocates would also need to tap into framing power, as they must be able to communicate the issue at hand in a way that moves people emotionally.)

Using our example of improving equity for disabled people, advocates in this situation will identify the company’s problems and call attention to them, making sure others are aware of its discriminatory hiring practices and lack of disability accommodations. Advocates will be essential for spreading awareness and demanding the company do better.

(Shortform note: While Zheng doesn’t outline specific measures advocates should take, other experts offer some practical steps. To spread awareness, advocates can use social media or other online platforms and resources to share information. Because emotion is what galvanizes people into action, it can be especially effective to use stories from real life to illustrate the problem you’re trying to address. It also helps to frame the issue in a way that others will find meaningful, reinforcing the importance of framing power for advocates.)

Educators

Zheng explains that educators are the people who inform others of the importance of an issue, providing needed insights and knowledge that allow people to take part in a movement from a place of understanding rather than out of misconceptions. Whereas advocates draw attention to the importance of an issue, educators use their expert power to provide the understanding needed to comprehend the nature of the issue and reach across the aisle to those who disagree. Educators are necessary for nourishing movements in the early stages and keeping them strong over time.

Returning to our example, educators in this situation will help inform people at all levels about the inequity the advocates have identified—they may point to a disproportionately small number of disabled employees and leaders to illustrate the discriminatory hiring practices. Educators with personal experience of inequities can be especially effective, as they can explain why, for example, a lack of wheelchair access or overly stringent working hours have made their jobs and those of others more difficult.

(Shortform note: In addition to having expert power, educators may benefit from having centrality power; if people already view an educator as an important resource for the organization’s processes and operations, they may be more likely to seek out that person for information about the DEI movement. However, while personal experience of inequities can make for especially knowledgeable educators, it can be draining to constantly have to share difficult or traumatizing experiences. Avoid overburdening marginalized individuals or expecting every member of a minority group to be an educator, and if you’re a marginalized person acting as an educator, be sure to practice self-care to avoid burning out.)

Organizers

Organizers are the people who identify and capitalize on opportunities for advancing a movement, writes Zheng. They’re skilled at forming action plans and coordinating groups to carry them out. They use referent power, along with empathy and conscientiousness, to connect people (especially backers, which we’ll explain later) in ways that help those people best use their own power. Organizers are particularly necessary as movements begin making key decisions about what changes they’re going to demand.

In our example, organizers who have become aware and educated about the organization’s inequitable treatment of disabled people can begin identifying specific areas that require change—such as increased accessibility to the building, more flexible working hours, and nondiscriminatory hiring—while forming coalitions to tackle these issues.

(Shortform note: Organizers may also be more effective if they can wield agenda power, network power, or both. Those with network power can be especially effective at coordinating groups, as they likely already have connections with people with many different skillsets. Those with agenda power can make sure the organization prioritizes and follows through on groups’ plans.)

Strategists

Zheng explains that strategists are the people who adopt a wide-ranging view of a movement and help coordinate people and plans on a grander scale than the organizers. They maintain a focus on the purpose and logistics of a movement with an awareness of all the different players, and they use this knowledge to devise the most potent strategies. They’re essential in the early stages of a movement where they help identify the best path forward, and also during organizing, as they can continue to analyze strategy to make sure the movement is following the best methods.

Using our example, strategists will take their understanding of the issue and what needs to be changed and form specific ideas about how to make these changes, giving direction to the coalitions formed by the organizers. They might determine that the best way to address discriminatory practices and lack of accommodation is to get the company’s leadership on their side so they can change higher-level decision-making on these problems. They may find that it would be most effective to tackle each issue individually, and they may decide that anti-discrimination training should be given not just to those in charge of hiring, but to new hires and existing employees to form a more unified movement.

(Shortform note: While Zheng doesn’t specify which type of power is most useful to strategists, we can infer that they’ll need informational power, capitalizing on the knowledge gained from their broad perspective to keep everyone on track. They may also benefit from centrality power, as being highly visible in their organization can make it easier to keep a bird’s-eye view on all the movement’s parts.)

Backers

According to Zheng, backers are the people who get behind a movement once it’s gained momentum. They help push a movement with marginal support past the turning point to become one that effects concrete changes. These are people with formal power who use their positions in organizations and society to cement movements in the public eye. (Shortform note: Backers may be especially effective when they can also wield agenda power to determine what actions the organization will take.)

Though backers are often slow to get on board in the early stages, Zheng says their participation is key during the middle and later stages of movements to which they lend power and validity. They’re also essential after movements have been carried out, as they help enshrine them in history.

In our example, backers who come to understand the importance and urgency of the issue, and who’ve been given clear ideas of how to proceed, can throw their support behind the movement and give it the teeth it needs to succeed. They may authorize important decisions, like approving initiatives for construction to make the building more accessible or mandating that hiring practices should be changed to be more inclusive.

(Shortform note: Research into social movements has identified four stages of a movement: In the preliminary stage, people become aware of the issue; in the coalescence stage, people come together to address the issue; in the institutionalization stage, the movement becomes established and no longer relies on grassroots support; and in the decline stage, the movement falls out of the general view. Backers are crucial for the transition from coalescence to the institutionalization stage, which is the point that determines whether a movement will succeed or fail.)

Builders

Zheng explains that builders are the people who devise new systems to replace the old ones. They take the conceptual objectives of the movement and turn them into concrete realities. Zheng implies that builders use expert and informational power to do this, and their role becomes key at the end of movements when it comes time to put the now-approved ideas into practice. This role differs from the strategist in that while strategists focus on coordinating people and groups, builders work to create specific plans.

(Shortform note: Builders might also benefit from wielding framing power, as they’ll need to present and frame the plans they’ve formulated in a way that people can understand and get enthusiastic about implementing. Additionally, agenda power can help them make sure their plans are being put into practice rather than being delayed or sidelined.)

Using our example, builders—with the support of backers—can begin designing new procedures to put the movement’s ideas into practice. They may formulate plans for physical changes to the building, establish new workflows that allow for remote work or more flexible hours, or redesign the hiring process to exclude discriminatory practices like unnecessary physical requirements.

(Shortform note: In an event on LinkedIn, Zheng expands on their explanation of builders, noting that a movement without builders will have nothing to offer but unfulfilled promises, as there’s no one with the ability and knowledge to actually make the movement a reality. This damages the trust in an organization—and trust, as we’ll see in the next section, is vital to a movement’s success.)

Reformers

According to Zheng, reformers are the people who carry out and refine the new systems introduced by the builders. They use their formal power to integrate new systems into the organization and to use the organization’s existing structure to enhance those systems.

Returning to our example, reformers implement and maintain the new systems established by the builders. They can ensure, for example, that the construction projects to improve building accessibility are carried out instead of sidelined. They can retool existing workflows to accommodate new ones and take part in incorporating the new hiring practices into the company’s current processes.

(Shortform note: Agenda power may be especially important for reformers, as they must be able to make decisions about where the organization is directing its resources—and since a movement without reformers may have to start all over again (which is wasteful), this role is also essential to conserving resources. An organization without reformers may become trapped in a cycle of trying to create change but failing to sustain it, but one with effective reformers may create a virtuous cycle in which meaningful change is implemented and maintained while still leaving resources for positive change in other areas.)

While each of these roles is essential to a successful DEI movement, there’s still one more crucial ingredient: trust.

How to Make It Work: Trust

There’s no one-size-fits-all practice for achieving DEI. Rather, Zheng explains that the process for carrying out effective DEI work in an organization depends on the level of trust in that organization. Trust refers to how much faith everyone involved in an organization has that the organization will follow through on its word. When employees share their experiences or participate in organizational initiatives, they’re spending trust, just like spending money. An organization can nurture and replenish that trust by treating its members with understanding, appreciation, and respect. However, if an organization retaliates against employees for sharing their experiences or fails to reward hard work, that trust dissipates.

(Shortform note: The reason organizational trust is so essential in doing good DEI work may be because it provides a sense of psychological safety. Psychological safety is the degree to which people feel it’s safe to take interpersonal risks such as communicating openly with each other, expressing ideas and concerns, and inviting feedback. Research shows that teams perform better when there’s a high degree of psychological safety, whereas a lack of psychological safety hinders learning at both the individual and the organizational level. Experts note that implementing and measuring DEI work requires both learning and honest feedback, so organizations should work to foster psychological safety as part of their trust-building efforts.)

Zheng provides advice for how to approach DEI work in three types of environments: high-trust, medium-trust, and low-trust.

High-Trust Organizations

Zheng explains that in high-trust environments, members of an organization rarely challenge decisions from leadership and readily back them. They provide feedback without fear and aren’t impatient with change, as they feel confident that leadership is doing what they can for the good of all members. (This is important because most impactful initiatives take months or years to produce the desired outcomes.) A high-trust organization’s past behavior assures members that its leadership’s decisions tend to be good. In these environments, formal power can effectively drive change, and because there’s already implicit trust, the key roles will be backers, strategists, builders, and reformers.

This makes DEI initiatives relatively easy to implement, as they face little pushback when introduced. Leaders in these environments should prepare the organization for the changes ahead, making sure everyone understands their role. They should gauge the current situation using data from surveys and personnel files, as well as feedback from employees. They should also present the initiative as a story about what needs to be changed, as this will make it more compelling and persuasive than mere data and statistics. They should then cautiously test potential interventions rather than implementing them haphazardly. Finally, they should celebrate successes and repeat what processes prove successful.

Medium-Trust Organizations

Zheng explains that in medium-trust environments, members have limited faith that the organization and leadership will follow through on their word. They don’t view change as impossible, but they approach every initiative with some suspicion and have less patience with slow rates of change. In these environments, it’s easy for people with less formal power to feel like they have no way of holding decision-makers accountable, so striking an equal balance between all seven movement roles is essential.

To do good DEI work in medium-trust environments, leaders must first commit to accountability, defining the goal for everyone involved so it will be clear if progress is being made. Because there’s less faith in leadership in these organizations, they should create additional groups—like DEI councils—led by people in non-leadership positions to keep leaders accountable. And, importantly, the organization should make sure these groups have power over the decisions being made. Finally, leaders should focus on minor successes before tackling larger systemic changes, as this helps build trust incrementally. Once organizational trust has been shored up, it’s easier to approach larger issues through the steps outlined above.

How to Persuade an Organization to Change

In addition to the practical advice Zheng gives for high- and medium-trust environments, research suggests that persuasion is a key skill for leaders trying to implement change (such as DEI work) in their organizations. Experts recommend a four-part strategy for persuasively preparing an organization for change and carrying it out:

First, leaders need to prime employees for the upcoming changes, cultivating a mindset of challenging the status quo and embracing new ideas. This could include highlighting the benefits of implementing changes, as well as explaining the negative consequences of continuing with the current state of affairs (for example, the potential for the organization to fail). This stage may be especially important in medium-trust environments, where there will be greater initial skepticism and resistance to new initiatives.

Second, leaders must frame changes in a way that helps everyone understand the plans without misinterpreting them. This can include affirming the organization’s core values, explicitly outlining the details of the plan so people know what to expect, and responding to or anticipating criticisms or objections. In high-trust environments, affirming the organization’s values can be especially effective for getting members on board, as these represent a common ground that employees already feel committed to. In medium-trust environments, leaders may want to pay special attention to explaining timelines and metrics so employees know how long they’ll have to wait to see change, and how they’ll know that it’s working.

Third, leaders must closely monitor and manage the emotional responses people have as change is being implemented. Change is difficult and can lead to dejection, discouragement, and complacency. Leaders need to keep an eye on employees’ moods and uplift them through optimistic but realistic messaging, recognizing their accomplishments and contributions, and welcoming ongoing feedback. Regardless of the level of trust, this step is especially important when the change being implemented involves significant sacrifices from the people involved.

Finally, leaders must work hard to keep the organization from regressing after change has been implemented. It’s easy to slip back into bad habits when old problems crop up, so leaders must create ample opportunities for employees to practice their new, good habits. Leaders should also model these habits and help coach employees as they’re practicing them. In medium-trust environments, it may help to recruit people in non-leadership positions to assist with modeling and coaching, as employees may still feel suspicious of the organization’s leaders.

Low-Trust Organizations

In low-trust environments, the organization’s past behavior leads members to approach every new decision with suspicion and pessimism by default, explains Zheng. Members refuse to participate in decisions and don’t view DEI initiatives as anything but bad-faith attempts to improve the organization’s reputation. The organization’s past has shown that it rarely has the members’ best interests at heart and that attempts at change almost always fail. In these environments, advocates, educators, and organizers play a key role in driving change.

Doing DEI work in low-trust environments presents the greatest challenge and requires a fundamentally different approach from the other two scenarios. Any attempts at change will fail until the organization builds enough trust to become a medium-trust environment. Zheng advises letting change emerge from the bottom, with those holding the least formal power making the first move. Leaders must respond to grassroots movements by sincerely apologizing, acknowledging where they’ve failed, and redistributing power so that grassroots movements can create change. If they can’t or won’t do this, any movement will fail.

Reducing the Risks of Leadership Roles

Cultivating change from the bottom up presents a unique challenge because, as research shows, people are often loath to take on leadership roles because of the risks involved. They worry that becoming a leader may damage their relationships with other employees, cause others to view them negatively, or lead others to blame them for failures. Therefore, fostering psychological safety can be especially vital for prompting those without formal power to form grassroots movements. To make leadership less risky, organizations should make sure disagreements remain professional and work-focused while finding ways for people to experiment with leadership roles on low-stakes projects or issues.

Some members, such as newer employees or people from marginalized groups, may be especially risk-averse as they face additional challenges in the workplace. Organizations should consider which employees might be more sensitive to risks and take special care to offer them leadership opportunities, invite their input, and draw attention to their accomplishments and skills.