Systems Are Failing

DEI may look like it is failing. I am hoping it will be reborn like a phoenix out of these flames.

Last year, I had a vague idea of DEI. When it surfaced in my neurodiversity conversations, I dove deeper. Starting with definitions.

Diversity is having a culture that values uniqueness: people of different backgrounds, cultures, genders, races, and abilities. Diversity is the mix of employee backgrounds, identities, and experiences that can enhance your organization.

Equity is about the how of our work. It focuses on equal outcomes for different groups of people. Equity recognizes that people may need different tools to get to equal outcomes. Giving folks what they need to reach success. Equity is output-focused while equality (treating everyone the same) is input-focused.

Inclusion means inviting diverse groups to take part in company life. Inclusion is the active practice of making sure that each individual is welcomed and drawn into conversations and decisions. If you don’t intentionally include, you unintentionally exclude. Inclusivity is the felt sense of love, safety, and belonging.

Also, some organizations add the word Belonging, which is the effort to help each individual feel accepted for who they are. Belonging is the deep, embodied feeling and experience of being valued, accepted, and celebrated for your unique qualities. Deep belonging through human connection. Model clear and specific feedback. Be mindful of concerns and check in on people’s needs.

In a recent CNN article, Kelly Baker, CHRO at Thrivent, made a case for how DEI programs “teach employees how to understand and bridge cultural differences in the workplace.” She called it a “business growth strategy.”

On the other side, I hear leaders say “That’s the way it’s always been done.”

Leaders have avoided speaking about navigating neurodiversity, and that avoidance left a vacuum filled by lawyers. And the litigious nature has led to neurodiversity being lumped into DEI.

The various divergent populations share being marginalized by the normative population. While efforts to support gender-based or raced-based bias at work look different from those that support neurodivergent employees, I keep finding similarities in approaches and mindsets.

Roleplay with me. You are a leader. An employee comes to you and tells you they received an ADHD diagnosis. Of course you know what ADD means.

Wrong. Many diagnostics refer to 3 types of ADHD (there are more, btw). Assuming you know what ADHD means to your employee is like a doctor prescribing medicine that is at least 67% likely to be the wrong medicine.

The workplace relies on several variables to determine if someone is disabled. If someone is wheelchair-bound, one can visible ascertain that they need certain adjustments relative to others. If someone has an invisible disability like a neurodivergence, many businesses rely on medical professionals to help ascertain if adjustments are warranted.

Many people with invisible disabilities are not aware of their diagnosis. For example, I was neurodivergent before I had a diagnosis, and I am not alone. Some would prefer to not receive a diagnosis because of the stigma, while others would like to but struggle the time and expense. And for those who do get that doctor’s note that they have a diagnosis, there’s an additional hurdle of disclosure. So many employees I speak to say that they’ve been in multiple workplaces where it was not safe for them to disclose.

Additionally, there are reasons to mistrust the diagnostic industrial complex. Firstly, the DSM is not set in stone. It continues to change for many reasons like changing societal norms and the inclusion of "comorbidities."

The second reason to mistrust the diagnostic industrial complex is that the diagnostic threshold creates the illusion of a pass-fail system. But it was arbitrary. In creating the first pass-fail threshold for autism, a graduate student named Victor Lauder studied thousands of patients based on the work of Leo Conner and Mildred Creek. He ranked 66 people from most dependent on support to least and drew the autism line at position number 35. When asked why, he explained “IT'S WHERE I THOUGHT IT SHOULD BE DRAWN.” While convenient to imagine a clear line between disabled and abled, the blurring can be blamed on a poorly designed system that is slowly improving.

The terms used in the DSM perpetuate bias and stigma with so much momentum that it may be hard to escape. Some people enjoy being a part of the “Aspie” identity group and the term continues to be used. Today, medical experts are pushing back on the term deficits, preferring differences. There is also a healthy debate about the use of the term disorder versus condition. The DSM VI will be an interesting read when it is released by the APA.

Inclusive without the DEI.

In my conversations with HR and business leaders, I've still find excitement in the neurodiversity conversion. HR leaders tell me that neuroinclusion offers a way to say you are inclusive without saying you are inclusive.

Neuroinclusion initiatives create inclusive work cultures for more employees. While this is not a comprehensive DEI approach, as we are not speaking about all social and ethnic diversity, we are shifting mindsets around privilege … neurotypical privilege.

Mattr is a community-led dating app currently only in the UK that was built with inclusivity in mind, and I’m hearing that it is creating a better user experience.

Because neuroinclusion impacts a large segment of the employee population, they are finding that creating practices geared towards including one cognitive trait often has the unintended benefit of helping other marginalized employees feel included.

Much like how cutting sidewalk curbs for wheelchairs also helped those who pushed strollers and delivery carts, designing products with clarity and flexibility is a win.

Design products for more people.

Design workplaces for more people.

Design cultures and workflows for more people.

Companies with flexible start and stop times for people with sensory sensitivities helps those with family or medical obligations.

Having honest conversations that there are differences in thinking styles increases empathy for all sorts of differences.

Understand their traits, not their diagnosis.

The medical language has a purpose. At work, it can be a conversation starter to a more helpful conversation about traits.

There are leaders on the fringes who recognized the old model doesn’t work and are thinking about a new way, one that breaks from strict medical definitions. In one of our roundtables, Regina Johnson, the CHRO at MarketCast shared her perspective on moving beyond medical diagnoses, “that employees should feel empowered to ask for the accommodations they need without jumping through hoops such as formal medical proof.”

It’s known as the social model. As Lyric Lark Rivera puts it, “While the Medical Model puts most (or all) blame and responsibility on NeuroDivergent People to fit in … the Social Model of Disability (in simple terms) suggests that disabilities arise from how society is organized.” As Dr. Amanda Kirby observed in the workplace, “despite wanting to operate a more social model, we still mainly operate a medical model to determine if support is given or not.”

While we still lack an agreed-upon language for traits, I believe we can build that shared language. If you manage more than 5 people, you likely have a neurodiverse team. And with 50% of students on IEPs and 53% of Gen Z identifying as neurodivergent, workplaces are in for a shock.

What will be the labels we use when the neurotypical group become the neurominority?

That’s what led to creating BrainTypes. To have a flourishing social model, shifting away from medical jargon necessitates consistent language around traits.

And if you have been on a call with me recently, you probably have seen me exploring new models on how to discuss traits at work.

Excited to share more with you all as we start to refine these models and frameworks.