Author: Sherri Holmes

Discussions/Homework Week of 7/19

Response #1

In “Changing Organizational Culture from Embedded Bias to Equity and Inclusion”, author Cori Wong offers us a more nuanced look at diversity and inclusion. Although her motivation for writing the article appears to be to highlight interventions for creating gender equity in the workplace (with an eye on safety) Ms. Wong winds up introducing us to something more. She educates us on how an inclusive workplace culture requires awareness of privilege, marginalization and differences in experience.

The author notes that we must not ignore differences in others’ identities if we are to be truly equitable in an organization. Both identity and everyday experiences within that identity, characterizes how we interact with our environment, situations and other people. These identities and experiences even influence policies and systems within a workplace. According to Wong, “Identities based in race, gender, sexuality, class and ability (to name a few) and their intersections play a large role in how one might differently experience and navigate interpersonal dynamics, policies, practices and systems within an organization.” There is discussion of how people who are members of marginalized groups are often perceived in the workplace in the same manner they are perceived in our larger society. Conversely, members of groups deemed privileged in society are also perceived the same way in a workplace setting. Both groups experience their work lives based on who they are. Marginalized people are acutely aware of how every interaction they have with others could affect how they are perceived while privileged folks have the luxury of not thinking about overcoming obstacles and negative assumptions regarding their work or character, thus they do not feel excluded or othered as marginalized people do.

One of the most important takeaways from Ms. Wong’s article is that the steps to reaching equity for marginalized people in an organization requires different forms of accommodations and support specific to the individual group’s identity. There is an emphasis on equity as opposed to equality. She notes that all groups benefit when the most marginalized groups of people are acknowledged and supported.

Response #2

In Cori Wong’s article, “Changing Organizational Culture from Embedded Bias to Equity and Inclusion”, We see her connecting the parts of her article in the second paragraph under the Equity vs. Equality header. Here Wong provides us with a metaphor involving running shoes meant to demonstrate the difference between equity and equality. She uses several contrasting transitions identified in TSIS, such as when describing the inequity of everyone in the metaphor example receiving the same sized shoe. Wong states, “regardless of whether their feet are too big, small, flat or wide for the “standard” shoe, they are likely to experience blisters, pain or injury.” The author also tells us, “Despite these disadvantages, which result from assuming that everyone should be treated equally and get the same shoes, they are still expected to run and keep up with those who have been given appropriate-for-them footwear.” Furthermore, along with earlier use of “regardless” and “despite”, Wong uses the contrasting transition word “whereas” when stating “Whereas equality would give everyone the same shoe, an equity approach would recognize that fairness requires giving everyone shoes that fit their particular needs so that they have an equal opportunity to thrive and succeed.” The use of contrasting transition words helps to emphasize her argument that equity and equality are not one and the same. We also see that the author has utilized the TSIS technique of repeating key terms and phrases by using the words “equality,” “equity” and “equal” several times in the same passage. This use of repetition further assists with reminding us of the significant differences between the two concepts.

The highlight of my week was Sunday. My mother invented a holiday where she celebrates her sons-in-law by inviting us all to her house for food and games for the kids. The thing is, she usually asks the husbands to do yard work that’s too extensive for her. This year though, there was no yard work! All of my sisters, kids, nieces and nephews had a great time since this was the first time we’ve seen each other since the pandemic!

Discussions / Homework Week of 7/12

Response #1

I have used both the SU Library and Google. With Google I can type what is arguably a very narrow search criteria and still find reputable articles on the topic I am interested in. Whereas with the SU Library I need a little more finesse when searching. Despite that, I find that the ability to refine searches based on genre, ie. book, journal article, website, etc. is very helpful when using the library databases. I was able to find a scholarly article at the library site but did not find anything from within the last three months. When I googled using the same key words, I was able to find articles from late June 2021. I am pretty good at researching on Google so will probably find the majority of what I need there. Primarily because there has been more discussion about my topic (equity and inclusion for Black workers) in the last year due to the murder of George Floyd and ensuing worldwide protests.

Response #2

I am hoping to find articles on the best strategies for implementing meaningful and lasting equity and inclusion for Black workers. I would like to make sure first-hand accounts of Black workers’ experiences are included as well as works of scholars who study and come up with solutions to these issues. I would love to find cases about companies that have successfully tackled the issue of making their companies more inclusive for Black employees. I am thinking about including articles that provide context through data regarding the state of Black employment as a whole and the state of employment of Black professionals in particular. I may also provide background on how Black people’s status in America informs their status as employees. The scholarly articles I find will most likely come from the SU Library database and the primary sources will probably come from Google since I want the most up-to-date reflections from Black employees.

Discussion / Homework 7/5

Response #1

After reviewing everyone’s contributions to our shared knowledge of diversity and organizational culture, a couple of things stood out. I found Joanna’s post on Is it safe to bring myself to work? Understanding LGBTQ experiences of workplace dignity to be quite compelling. I was moved by the personal experiences she quoted from members of the LGBTQIA+ community. I particularly identified with a quote from the gay college professor who described his process for applying for jobs and where he applied. I am a Black woman who has gone through the same checklist when looking for a job location, a place to live or a place to vacation. I think it’s imperative that our group do further exploration on the intersection of race, gender, gender identity, sexual preference, disability and socioeconomic status.

I have also determined that one very hot topic that we haven’t touched on is how Critical Race Theory plays a role in understanding how to address diversity in organizational culture. Julia’s post on the lack of diversity among business school faculty shed some light on why learning about the theory is important. In the article, Reproducing Inequity: the Role of Race in the Business School Faculty Search, Professors Grier and Poole deemed it was crucial to understand why there is a lack of diversity in faculty and used Critical Race Theory as a guide to figure it out.

Another post I found to be illuminating was Kathleen’s. She brought to my attention something I had never considered. Healthcare workers and organizations can be biased against people with disabilities. It never crossed my mind that those who are much more frequently around people who are differently abled than the general population, could be biased. I thought the video clip included in the post, Bridging the Gap: Improving Healthcare Access for People with Disabilities wonderfully captured the struggles people with disabilities endure when seeking healthcare. Although this problem is narrowly confined to healthcare organizations and practitioners, there is still an overarching issue of equity and how to instill it in any workplace.

In many ways I am already immersed in the examination of diversity and organizational culture due to my union and DEI committee roles at work. Despite that, I am more clearly seeing a thread that goes through a variety of issues. Namely, you cannot separate diversity from equity or inclusion. You must aim for all three.

Response #3

Ian Bogost, author of the article, The Problem with Diversity in Computing utilizes a number of techniques for transitioning between paragraphs. After telling readers a tale about a woman with a broken ankle at the airport in the first paragraph, he fills us in on why the woman is relevant to the article in the second paragraph. Here Bogost lets us know that Amy Webb is both a professor and author of The Big Nine: How the Tech Titans and Their Thinking Machines Could Warp Humanity. Bogost establishes that Ms. Webb is knowledgeable about tech and based on the title of her book, takes issue with the tech industry. Although he doesn’t expressly say so, Bogost then begins to build a case for how tech at the airport discriminates against women by simply quoting Webb about her experience, “I’m looking at the screen,” she says of the image that appeared from her scan, “and my cast, head, and breasts were big blocks of yellow.” Next, the author further solidifies his argument by stating, “While waiting for the ensuing pat-down, she watched a couple of other women go through. Same thing: blocks of yellow across their breasts.”

Bogost then seamlessly goes into the third paragraph where he says, “It was because of underwire bras, she later learned, which the system sometimes can’t distinguish from potential weapons. She’s had other problems with the machines, too, including that her mop of thick, curly hair sometimes confuses them.” Later the author adds his own personal anecdote about the topic, “(My colleague Hannah Giorgis, who also has a lot of curly hair, confirms that she, too, suffers a cranial pat-down every time she goes to the airport.)”. Without saying it directly, Bogost has illustrated to the reader that women are being singled out as potential threats simply due to their physical differences and therefore discriminated against.

Bogost’s Rhetorical Moves

It is very likely that those who read the title of Ian Bogost’s article, The Problem with Diversity in Computing, are not expecting it to open with the following paragraph:

“When Amy Webb broke her ankle, she was forced to hobble around on a walking boot. That inconvenience spawned others: among them, she couldn’t pass through the metal detector at airport TSA PreCheck lines any longer. Instead, she had to use the backscatter machines that produce X-ray images of passengers.”

Bogost’s first rhetorical move gets the better of the reader’s curiosity by making them wonder “what does this have to do with diversity in computing?” Their interest has been piqued and they are now invested in reading more.

Next, the author introduces us to Ms. Webb’s background where we find out “Webb, who is a professor at New York University and the author of The Big Nine: How the Tech Titans and Their Thinking Machines Could Warp Humanity, took the inconvenience as a firsthand opportunity to watch how this technology, which uses computational methods to mark possible risks on the body, really works.”

Now we are starting to get the picture! Amy Webb has some expertise on how people are affected by technology and uses this knowledge to enlighten us on how technology can be discriminatory at the airport. “I’m looking at the screen,” she says of the image that appeared from her scan, “and my cast, head, and breasts were big blocks of yellow.” “It was because of underwire bras, she later learned, which the system sometimes can’t distinguish from potential weapons.” Here, the author’s rhetorical move is to use Webb’s authority on the subject matter to help the reader buy into whatever he writes next.

Although Bogost doesn’t explicitly say so, we realize he probably agrees with Webb’s sentiment about technology because he utilizes a third rhetorical move where he states, “Webb’s experience is among the more innocuous consequences of computer systems that don’t anticipate all the types of people who might use them.” He also cites a fact that “Computers have started issuing prison sentences, for example.” to further point out how things have just gone too far.

Later, the author employs the “twist it” move in TSIS, where he agrees with Webb’s initial assessment that “someone like me wasn’t in the room” when the system at the airport was being developed. Yet his evidence supports a contrary position. The author opines “For years, companies and educators in the tech sector have framed diversity as a “pipeline” problem.” “We’ve had this obsession with STEM education,” he quotes Webb as saying. “It’s reached fever pitch, manifested in these programs where every kid has to learn to code.” Then Bogost further quotes Webb stating “If everyone is focused on the nuts and bolts of making software quickly at scale, where will they learn to design it with equity and care? “Critical thinking is what the computers won’t be able to do,” she said.”

Finally, Bogost illustrates to us that solutions are more complex than we thought, and, in the end, it may not be about gender, ethnic or racial diversity, but about an exclusive computing education and culture that discriminates against us all. The author writes “Anyone who falls outside of that core group of interests are not being represented,” Webb said. If she’s right, then the problem with computing isn’t just that it doesn’t represent a diverse public’s needs. Instead, the problem with computing is computing.” This last rhetorical move implements a TSIS template for agreeing on one view and challenging another; if X is right that___, then the problem is___.

Fancy that. Even a professional journalist has made use of a template!

Expanding the Canon

Algorithm-Driven Hiring Tools: Innovative Recruitment or Expedited Disability Discrimination?  by Lydia X. Z. Brown, Ridhi Shetty and Michelle Richardson, presents us with a compelling report on the consequences AI based assessments have on employment of the disabled. Many of us revel in all the latest advancements in technology. We think the more tech, the better. Brown, et al., however, immediately set about clearing up any misperceptions we may have had about the neutrality and fairness of artificial intelligence-based hiring tests. We are treated to an informative and eye-opening breakdown of all the different types of tools and tests currently being used for hiring. Although it is not expressly noted by Brown, who is autistic and an expert on disability rights and algorithmic fairness, it is clear neurodivergent employment candidates have a high potential for being discriminated against via these tests. The authors also make certain to share with us that many employers do not realize how biased these tests can be. Hence, Brown, et al., spend a great deal of time pointing out the numerous ways an employer could be held liable for discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)1. As such, this report proves to be a valuable resource for self-advocates and employers alike. It is important to note that it was prepared by the Center for Democracy, an advocacy group who focuses on equity in civic technology and digital privacy/data among other things.

More than anything else, this paper is an exercise in both empowerment and how to be an anti-ableist in the hiring process. It educates us on the use of personality tests, face and voice recognition and resume screening for patterns. The authors remind us that algorithms are created by people and people have bias. Hence there are biased algorithms. We are provided with shocking statistics such as,

“76% of companies with more than 100 employees use personality tests.”

“An estimated 33% of businesses use some form of artificial intelligence in hiring and other HR practices.”

“The employment rate for people with disabilities is about 37%, compared to 79% for people without disabilities.”

The authors inform us that many software developers market hiring assessment software to employers that not only measure a potential employee’s proficiency at the job, but other skills like cognitive ability (abstract thinking), motivation and personality. It seems that developers don’t factor in ADA regulations, such as using criteria that have the effect of discrimination, into their software and employers don’t ask them to.  As Brown, et al educate us, this is problematic because some skills might not even be relevant to the job being applied for and knock a person with autism or even depression out of the running. We learn that candidates are ultimately chosen, not by a human, but by a machine. Machines ignore nuances and context and lack empathy. Just as the articles we read in class helped enlighten us on what unconscious bias and inclusion are, Brown, et al., are resolute in persuading us that the abilities many of us take for granted, like good eye contact, could make us blind to how people with disabilities (folks with autism in this case) are forced to maneuver the employment landscape.

Skills Artificial Intelligence evaluates on hiring assessment tests.
Figure 1 Screen capture from info.recruitics.com

The authors offer us insight into how the intersection of people’s disability, race and socioeconomic status leads to hiring discrimination. This is something our class might want to further explore. What if a job seeker is applying for a low-wage warehouse job or looking to flip burgers? Why should a personality test matter? What if you are not white or male? Will the test indicate that you won’t thrive socially in a work environment dissimilar to your own social network because the software was developed by white men?  

As mentioned earlier, Brown, an autistic person who also possesses intersecting identities, is a champion for equity in hiring. They appeared in HBO Max’s documentary2 “Persona: The Dark Truth Behind Personality Tests”  where they elaborated on the devastating effects of digital hiring assessments on neurodivergent people and other marginalized groups. Not only will disabled readers see that Brown, is like them and advocating for them, but the authors hope to appeal to our ability to empathize with people unlike ourselves. Brown, et al., also “walk the walk” by providing a plain english version of their report and offering solutions (like using disabled software developers) based on Civil Rights Principles for Hiring Assessment Technologies3

Some may say the report itself is biased. But is it bias if you’re telling the truth?

Footnotes

Source:

https://cdt.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Full-Text-Algorithm-driven-Hiring-Tools-Innovative-Recruitment-or-Expedited-Disability-Discrimination.pdf

  1. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(6) (2018); 29C.F.R. § 1630.10(a) (2019). Three other ADA provisions similarly prohibit disparate impact of people with disabilities. These prohibit (1) limiting, segregating, and classifying an applicant or employee in a way that adversely affects their opportunities or status because of their disability; (2) contractual or other relationships that have the effect of disability discrimination (a simple agency theory of liability); and (3) utilizing standards, criteria, or methods of administration that have the effect of disability discrimination. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(1)-(3) (2018), 29 C.F.R. § 1630.5-.7(2019).
  2. HBO Max, Persona the Dark Truth Behind Personality Tests  Persona | Official Trailer | HBO Max – YouTube   
  3. See Leadership Conference on Civil & Human Rights, Civil Rights Principles for Hiring Assessment Technologies (Jul. 2020), https://civilrights.org/resource/civil-rights-principles-for-hiring-assessment-technologies/.

Expanding the Canon Draft

Algorithm-Driven Hiring Tools: Innovative Recruitment or Expedited Disability Discrimination?  by Lydia X. Z. Brown, Ridhi Shetty and Michelle Richardson, presents us with a compelling report on the consequences AI based assessments have on employment of the disabled. Many of us revel in all the latest advancements in technology. We think the more tech, the better. Brown, et al., however, immediately set about clearing up any misperceptions we may have had about the neutrality and fairness of artificial intelligence-based hiring tests. We are treated to an informative and eye-opening breakdown of all the different types of tools and tests currently being used for hiring. Although it is not expressly noted by Brown, who is autistic and an expert on disability rights and algorithmic fairness, it is clear neurodivergent employment candidates have a high potential for being discriminated against via these tests. The authors also make certain to share with us that many employers do not realize how biased these tests can be. Hence, Brown, et al., spend a great deal of time pointing out the numerous ways an employer could be held liable for discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)1. As such, this report proves to be a valuable resource for self-advocates and employers alike. Although, it is important to note that it was prepared by the Center for Democracy, an advocacy group who focuses on equity in civic technology and digital privacy/data among other things.

More than anything else, this paper is an exercise in both empowerment and how to be an anti-ableist in the hiring process. It educates us on the use of personality tests, face and voice recognition and resume screening for patterns. The authors remind us that algorithms are created by people and people have bias, hence there are biased algorithms. We are provided with shocking statistics such as,

“76% of companies with more than 100 employees use personality tests.”

“An estimated 33% of businesses use some form of artificial intelligence in hiring and other HR practices.”

“The employment rate for people with disabilities is about 37%, compared to 79% for people without disabilities.”

Screen capture from info.recruitics.com

We learn that candidates are ultimately chosen, not by a human, but by a machine. Machines ignore nuances and context and lack empathy. Just as the articles we read in class helped enlighten us on what unconscious bias and inclusion are, Brown, et al., are resolute in persuading us that the abilities many of us take for granted, like good eye contact, could make us blind to how disabled people (autistic in this case) are forced to maneuver the employment landscape.

The authors offer us insight into how the intersection of people’s disability, race and socioeconomic status leads to hiring discrimination. This is something our class might want to further explore. As mentioned earlier, Brown, an autistic person who also possesses intersecting identities, is a champion for equity in hiring. They appeared in HBO Max’s documentary2 “Persona: The Dark Truth Behind Personality Tests”  where they elaborated on the devastating effects of digital hiring assessments on neurodivergent people and other marginalized groups. Not only will disabled readers see that Brown, is like them and advocating for them, but the authors hope to appeal to our ability to empathize with people unlike ourselves. Brown, et al., also “walk the walk” by providing a plain english version of their report and offering solutions (like using disabled software developers) based on Civil Rights Principles for Hiring Assessment Technologies3

Some may say the report itself is biased. But is it bias if you’re telling the truth?

Footnotes

Source:

https://cdt.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Full-Text-Algorithm-driven-Hiring-Tools-Innovative-Recruitment-or-Expedited-Disability-Discrimination.pdf

  1. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(6) (2018); 29C.F.R. § 1630.10(a) (2019). Three other ADA provisions similarly prohibit disparate impact of people with disabilities. These prohibit (1) limiting, segregating, and classifying an applicant or employee in a way that adversely affects their opportunities or status because of their disability; (2) contractual or other relationships that have the effect of disability discrimination (a simple agency theory of liability); and (3) utilizing standards, criteria, or methods of administration that have the effect of disability discrimination. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(1)-(3) (2018), 29 C.F.R. § 1630.5-.7(2019).
  2. HBO Max, Persona the Dark Truth Behind Personality Tests  Persona | Official Trailer | HBO Max – YouTube   
  3. See Leadership Conference on Civil & Human Rights, Civil Rights Principles for Hiring Assessment Technologies (Jul. 2020), https://civilrights.org/resource/civil-rights-principles-for-hiring-assessment-technologies/.

Discussions/Homework Week of 6/28

Response #1

The style of Margaret Heffernan’s TED Talk, The Human Skills We Need in an Unpredictable World, was quite compelling. Ms. Heffernan, an entrepreneur, CEO, writer and keynote speaker, immediately grabbed our attention by sharing case studies that presented examples of things the audience likely would predict had happened, then surprised us by showing that we were wrong.

Heffernan led us through the telling of multiple stories with unexpected endings primarily because every case involved humans versus technology. Our presenter’s voice possessed a cadence that kept her audience’s attention and she engaged us by asking a question then answering it. She used descriptive words like “robust”, “inefficient” and “preparedness” repeatedly to drive home her point. Heffernan was able to captivate her audience by discussing things that mattered to them, like the value of humans over algorithms.

Once she drew in her audience, Heffernan shared some philosophies that are important to her like how outsourcing to machines displaces people in low-income jobs or how technology leads us to not connect with people different from ourselves and have less compassion for others. In the end, she proved to us that humans are uniquely cut out for unpredictability and all its wonder.

Response #3

Margaret Heffernan, entrepreneur, CEO, writer and keynote speaker, is an innovator. She started out by looking at what made women-owned businesses different from others. Now she examines the intersection of business, technology, society and family.

During her TED Talk, “The Human Skills We Need in an Unpredictable World” we find that Heffernan’s views align quite well with many of the issues we’ve been studying in class. She understands that nothing is in a vacuum and that all things are connected. Ms. Heffernan spends a lot of time examining how the impact of one action can have a domino effect on multiple, seemingly unrelated, things. This is an important point as shown in “Key D&I Concepts” where Kaplan and Donovan illustrate how executive Kim unknowingly causes negative impacts on several of her employees through seemingly innocent acts. Similar to Austin and Pisano’s Neurodiversity as a Competitive Advantage, Heffernan’s TED Talk also speaks to the problematic nature of algorithms resulting in disconnection from and dispassion for others unlike ourselves. In an attempt to be efficient in hiring by using algorithms, many companies miss out on surprisingly beneficial relationships with atypical job candidates. As Ms. Heffernan put it, “We are attempting to force-fit a standardized model of a predictable reality onto a world that is infinitely surprising”. While we delve deeper into our work on Diversity and Inclusion, I hope we learn to do away with force-fitting standardized models on people and embrace everyone’s differences.

Algorithm-Driven Hiring Tools: Innovative Recruitment or Expedited Disability Discrimination?

Algorithm-Driven Hiring Tools: Innovative Recruitment or Expedited Disability Discrimination? By Lydia X. Z. Brown, Ridhi Shetty and Michelle Richardson, presents us with a compelling report on the consequences AI based assessments have on employment of the disabled. Many of us revel in all the latest advancements in technology. We think the more tech, the better. Brown, et al., however, immediately set about clearing up any misconceptions we may have had about the neutrality and fairness of artificial intelligence-based hiring tests. We are treated to an informative and eye-opening breakdown of all the different types of tools and tests currently being used for hiring. Although it is not expressly noted by Brown, who is autistic and an expert on disability rights and algorithmic fairness, it is clear neurodivergent employment candidates have a high potential for being discriminated against via these tests. The authors also make certain to share with us that many employers do not realize how biased these tests can be. Hence, Brown, et al., spend a great deal of time pointing out the numerous ways an employer could be held liable for discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). As such, this report proves to be a valuable resource for self-advocates and employers alike.

Source:

https://cdt.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Full-Text-Algorithm-driven-Hiring-Tools-Innovative-Recruitment-or-Expedited-Disability-Discrimination.pdf

Discussion Questions Week of 6/21

Response# 1

As I read Robert Austin and Gary Pisano’s article, Neurodiversity as a Competitive Advantage, I was immediately reminded of HBO Max’s documentary “Persona: The Dark Truth Behind Personality Tests”. While viewing the film, I was utterly appalled when I learned how personality tests are used as a screening tool for employment, which unfairly discriminates against neurodivergent and other disabled people.  I think this is a topic in need of further exploration in the D&I arena. I have googled several articles and posts and discovered there is a field of study called Psychometrics meant to measure skills, attitudes and personality traits.  I think it will be helpful if I can find an article by a person in that field who disagrees with using personality tests as an employment screen.  So far, I have a report on algorithms and disability discrimination. Next, I will check out the SU library where I’ll look for any journals related to disability and Human Resources, as well as any on Psychometry.

Response #2

Although “Understanding D&I Concepts” from The Inclusion Dividend: Why Investing in Diversity & Inclusion Pays Off by Mark Kaplan and Mason Donovan offers us an incredibly insightful and detailed dissection of the meaning and implementation of crucial D&I concepts, the authors fail to mention real world examples of best practices for handling bias. Whereas Robert Austin and Gary Pisano’s Neurodiversity as a Competitive Advantage gives us a robust report on how to recognize discriminatory practices against the neurodivergent, as well as detailed plans from existing businesses on D&I implementation. As exhibited in Austin and Pisano’s piece, they have convincingly demonstrated to us that the reported strategies work, based on listed companies’ willingness to implement them.

As you can see above, I have utilized 2 theys and have tried to remain somewhat neutral in what my beliefs are. With that said, I still employed the use of descriptive and emphatic verbs to help get the point across that real world examples are important when recommending strategies for workplace improvement.

Kaplan And Donovan Summary

To some, unpacking the nuances of how to implement Diversity and Inclusion in everyday workplace interactions may seem like a daunting task. In the article The Inclusion Dividend: Why Investing in Diversity & Inclusion Pays Off by Mark Kaplan and Mason Donovan, we find a helpful and insightful exploration of four inclusion concepts and examples of how to apply them at work. The authors’ analysis includes discussion on intent and impact, unconscious bias, insider-outsider dynamics and levels of systems.

Kaplan and Donovan employ a clever technique to immediately engage readers. They tell a relatable story about female executive, Kim’s day at work. Throughout the piece, the authors point to her interactions with co-workers as “case studies” on how not to manage common workplace scenarios vis-a-vis the lens of inclusion. The authors provide a thoughtful, yet no-nonsense approach in breaking down the actions that led to the executive’s missteps, as well as what alternative measures, through implementation of the four concepts, would have been better.

Those that are new to D & I often focus on the benefits of diversity in an organization but not how important the role inclusion plays. The Inclusion Dividend: Why Investing in Diversity & Inclusion Pays Off reminds us that how we manage the impact of our biases is a vital skill that must be learned and developed.