This article is written by Peter Mousaferiadis. Peter has had an extensive career working in the cultural & creative industries. He has had a career as a conductor, creative director and producer and is considered a thought leader in culture as a driver of progress, social cohesion, and innovation. In 2002, he founded the internationally recognised organisation Cultural Infusion, which builds global harmony through intercultural action within education, Information and Communication Technology (ICT) & the arts. Peter is a winner of numerous international awards and in 2021 was a winner of the Global Business and Interfaith Peace Award. His flagship product, Diversity Atlas, a data-driven tool for measuring and understanding diversity in organisations is now being used by organisations throughout the world.

The problem: Diversity Equity and Inclusion strategies are being described as broken, and failing to achieve their goals. The principal reason is that individuals continue to feel excluded, othered and not counted because of the limited data sets and demographic categories accepted by their organisations, which discount large swathes of the population by simply not recognising their existence.

Why it matters: Inclusive data sets ensure that a nuanced approach is able to inform a range of intervention strategies by identifying where equity lies and doesn’t lie within an organisation. Deep insights are able to then inform increased retention of staff and greater representation.

The solution: A data driven, intersectional approach that ensures no one is left out.

By the fast-moving standards of the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) world, where jargon comes and goes so quickly it is hard to keep track, intersectionality is one of the most stable and useful terms. Broadly defined, intersectionality refers to the layers of personal information that make up an individual’s identity. Factors such as cultural background, gender, sexuality, religion, appearance and class, among other characteristics, intersect with one another. Intersectionality, defined slightly differently, takes a holistic “all of who I am” approach to identity, in other words, it allows us to take a multifactorial analysis of every employee.

Intersectionality emerged as a critique to the essentialism inherent in the dominant liberal white feminism of the 1970s. Coined by African-American legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw in 1989, intersectionality refers to the multiplicity of subordinate social categories that overlap and compound to produce multiple layers of oppression and discrimination.

Equality is treating all people as though they have the same needs and resources; equity is responding to people’s actual needs according to their resources.

For example, we can talk about gender representation, but the lived experience of a 50-year-old Aboriginal woman living in rural Australia is likely to differ greatly from the experience of a 25-year-old Anglo-Australian woman living in a city. Although both individuals identify as women, there is a great deal more information we need to understand each one’s circumstances so we can move beyond discussions of equality towards equity. Equality is treating all people as though they have the same needs and resources; equity is responding to people’s actual needs according to their resources.

Where a great deal of the work done in the DEI field falls down is an overfocus on single traits. We focus on gender parities without considering what other factors may lead to marginalisation and disenfranchisement–significant factors, such as age, cultural background, education level, and, especially in Australia, the divide between rural and metropolitan Australians, the latter of whom have greater opportunities for education and healthcare.

Further to this, we know that Indigenous Australians have significant disadvantages even as opposed to recent migrants and especially against ‘white’ Australians. These relate to incarceration levels, health and education outcomes, as well as the lived experience of discrimination faced by those who identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. Living in a rural area, we know it is likely that these factors may be exacerbated by lack of infrastructure and local services. Age is another factor:ageism can refer to discrimination against younger or older individuals, which may present itself differently according to which, but is no less significant for either group.

What if the younger woman has a physical disability that impairs movement? Consider how profoundly that characteristic, ‘mobility impairment’, impacts day to day lived experience. While it is unlawful to discriminate on a person based on disability, there is still a lack of accessibility in modern infrastructure which is significantly problematic.

From these examples of the intersection of single characteristics, we can see that looking at “gender” parity, for instance, is simply not enough to address systemic issues of disadvantage. I have written before about the term CALD (culturally and linguistically diverse) being both too broad and too narrow to be useful. Socio-economic data is interesting and useful only insofar as we look into other, intersecting points of identity that shed light on the distribution and propensity of poverty in various sections of the population.

Often, the problem that organisations face is the question of integrity when it comes to their approach to diversity. The key to transcending ‘compliance thinking’ is understanding. This is why, in 2019, following six years of research and development, my team at Cultural Infusion launched our data-driven platform Diversity Atlas, which provides a holistic picture of the cultural and demographic diversity within an organisation, while also capturing intersectionality and mutuality. Diversity Atlas enables organisational leaders to “lead inclusively” by tailoring DEI strategies and practices to the individuals it represents. Even if it’s just one person, knowing of their identity may pay big dividends and lead to that person feeling happy and appreciated.

Many of the DEI strategies–across public and private sectors–focus on one element of identity, rather than taking this intersectional, holistic approach. It isn’t enough. Adopting a “one size fits all” approach to diversity means that management practices work out differently for different groups. When we make diversity our “mission” we become focused on numerical outcomes: diversity training, mentoring programs and networking can showcase “good” performance while still leaving behind individuals.

Our goal is inclusion, ensuring that organisations make their workplaces spaces where people feel like they belong and can bring their whole selves instead of abandoning their difference at the door and pretending it doesn’t exist. Ignoring difference is toxic, dangerous and potentially destructive–respecting and celebrating it fosters participation, is life-enhancing and generative.

When we know who is present in the room and recognise who is facing multiple systemic barriers to equality, we can behave in the inclusive ways that are necessary for healthy, well-functioning workplaces in which no one is left behind and everyone is seen, appreciated and feels safe.

👋 You can create a post like this one! Share your thoughts with a community of public servants. Learn more

(Image Credit: Unsplash)