belonging

The illusion of inclusion

Many organisations believe they have created an inclusive culture because people appear to fit in, but fitting in and belonging are not the same thing. One of the principles of Social Learning Theory is that we learn by observing others. We watch how people behave, who gets rewarded, who gets promoted, who is listened to, and who remains silent. Long before an organisation's values influence us, its behaviours do.

If the people we learn from have adapted to unhealthy environments, perhaps by avoiding conflict, hiding parts of themselves, or remaining silent to stay safe, those behaviours can become normalised. We inherit them without ever questioning whether they serve us or the organisation as these are adaptive behaviours. They may have helped people survive in a particular environment, but survival is not the same as flourishing. I think this is where the illusion of inclusion begins.

““Until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life and you will call it fate.””
— Carl Jung

Words change perspectives

Language evolves, and few words illustrate that better than "woke." Originally, woke simply meant being awake to injustice, particularly racial injustice. One of the earliest recorded uses appeared in 1938, when the blues musician Huddie Ledbetter, aka Lead Belly, advised young Black Americans to "stay woke" in his song about the Scottsboro Boys. His message was straightforward: remain alert to discrimination, injustice, and the realities of the world around you.

Over time, the meaning of the word expanded to include awareness of broader social inequalities. More recently, however, woke has become a highly contested political label. For some, it still represents awareness and social responsibility. For others, it has become a catch-all term used to criticise ideas or initiatives relating to race, gender, diversity, or inclusion, and often without a clear or consistent definition. I think this shift tells us something important as words are powerful because they shape how we understand the world. When the meaning of a word changes, so does the conversation surrounding it.

You can reframe everything

Many organisations have been conditioned to look for sameness: the "ideal" employee, the "right" way to think, or the "best fit." History repeatedly reminds us that progress rarely comes from people who think exactly like everyone else. Some historians and psychologists have suggested that figures such as Isaac Newton displayed characteristics that today might be associated with neurodivergence. Others point to Adam Smith, whose lifestyle and habits did not always conform to the social expectations of his time. Whether these interpretations are accurate is almost beside the point. The common thread is this: many of the people who have disproportionately shaped our world were anything but conventional.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb makes a related observation throughout his work, particularly in his book, The Black Swan. Systems that optimise for the average often become less resilient and less innovative than those that embrace variation, adaptability, and different ways of thinking. I think one of the most powerful leadership skills is the ability to reframe what we see.

““Human diversity is not a flaw in the system. It is one of the reasons the system evolves.””
— Burrellism

Brighter days

Discipline, preparation, and hard work are not punishments, I think they are investments in the future you want to create. The habits required for success often produce rewards long before the final goal is achieved. They build confidence, strengthen character, and expand your opportunities. Success is not only measured by the outcome, but also by the person you become in the process as the work itself is part of the reward.

Rethinking inclusion

Inclusion extends far beyond recruitment as it requires leaders to examine which behaviours are rewarded, whose voices carry influence, who receives informal sponsorship, and whether success depends on fitting an existing mould rather than contributing new perspectives. Culture is shaped by the behaviours we recognise, reward, and promote. And if we continue to reward only one form of cultural capital, we should not be surprised when many talented people conclude that belonging comes at the cost of authenticity. I think true inclusion begins when organisations stop asking people to fit the culture and start asking how the culture itself can evolve.

Measuring inclusion

An organisation may recruit people from different backgrounds and celebrate diversity externally, while continuing to reward only one way of thinking, communicating, leading, or succeeding internally. People are invited into the building, but they are still expected to adapt to norms that were never designed with them in mind. The result is a subtle and an important contradiction. We tell people they belong, yet we continue to evaluate success through a narrow set of expectations that reflect the existing culture rather than embracing the diversity we claim to value. I think this is not simply a question of fairness, it’s also a leadership challenge. If organisations genuinely want the benefits associated with diversity, for example, better decision-making, greater innovation, and stronger problem-solving, then they must create environments where different perspectives can be expressed without requiring people to leave part of themselves at the door.

Beyond performative inclusion

When organisations speak about inclusion, the conversation often focuses on representation, for example: How many women are in leadership? How many people from underrepresented backgrounds have been recruited? How diverse does the organisation appear? These are important questions, but they rarely tell the whole story. I think an equally important question is this: Who succeeds once they are inside the organisation, and why?

There are many ways to interpret why organisations continue to struggle with genuine inclusion. Some point to financial incentives, and others highlight the value of accessing diverse perspectives while leaving existing power structures untouched. Some describe this as performative inclusion or inclusivity-washing, where the language of inclusion advances more quickly than the culture itself. What do you think?

Inviting people into the conversation

Most of us see ourselves as fair-minded people, and in many cases we are. Yet human beings naturally identify more easily with some people than others. I may feel warmth towards you, for example, while unconsciously questioning your competence or credibility. These subtle biases can influence our decisions even when our intentions are positive. It is also important to recognise that not all biases operate in the same way. Individual prejudice exists, and some biases are reinforced by organisational systems, cultural norms, and historical patterns. The distinction matters because the challenge is often larger than any one individual's beliefs or behaviours.

One of the reasons I think there is so much resistance to diversity and inclusion work is that people often feel they are being told they need to be fixed. Most people do not respond positively to that message. Diversity fatigue can emerge when the conversation is framed around blame, correction, or moral judgment rather than shared benefit and collective progress. Instead, I think we need to invite people into the conversation. We need to engage those in majority or dominant groups as active participants rather than positioning them as part of the problem. The evidence is compelling: diverse teams tend to produce stronger innovation, better problem-solving, and more robust decision-making. These outcomes benefit everyone, not just specific groups.

When I encounter resistance, I try to approach it with curiosity. I ask myself: What could I do differently to invite this person into the conversation? And more importantly, what might I be doing that is contributing to their resistance? As the goal is not to win an argument, the goal is to create an environment where more people want to participate, contribute, and be part of the solution. That is how meaningful and sustainable change happens.

It affects us all

Do you place a higher value on familiarity than experience when assessing someone's potential for success?

Human beings naturally gravitate towards people who think, communicate, and behave in ways that feel familiar. That sense of comfort can create an unconscious preference for those who are most like us. What is interesting is how often we rationalise these preferences. We tell ourselves that someone is a "better fit," that they are easier to work with, or that they align more closely with the culture. These explanations may sound logical, but they can sometimes mask an underlying bias towards familiarity.

This has important implications for equality and inclusion because affinity bias is not limited to any one group. Men and women alike can be drawn towards people who feel familiar and can unintentionally overlook talent, potential, and capability in those who are different from themselves. I think the challenge for leaders is to distinguish between what feels comfortable and what creates value as the two are not always the same. Diverse teams often outperform homogeneous ones precisely because they bring different experiences, perspectives, and ways of thinking to the table. The question is not who you naturally click with, the real question is whether you are making decisions based on familiarity or on capability.

Inclusion is reflected in behaviour

The work of inclusion begins when leaders move beyond assumption and start paying attention to the experiences that are often invisible to them. It is visible in who gets opportunities, who feels psychologically safe to contribute, whose perspectives are valued, and whether people can succeed without suppressing important parts of their identity. Organisations that focus only on diversity metrics without addressing inclusion risk creating environments where representation exists, but belonging does not.

BCCD at Womenomics

Inclusion is often misunderstood because, unlike diversity, it is not always visible. Diversity is about representation, what we can see and measure. Inclusion is about experience, how people feel, whether they are heard, respected, valued, and able to participate fully. I think diversity is often the outcome organisations seek, while inclusion is the behaviour and environment that make those outcomes possible.

Inequality is visible

If you are operating in an organisation where people are treated differently, the signals are visible. Retention rates vary, performance outcomes are inconsistent, and patterns begin to emerge across groups. This is not incidental, it is an indication of inequality and will be reflected in the outcomes people experience within the organisation.

When these disparities exist, they come at a cost. Individuals are less likely to perform at their full potential, and their sense of belonging is weakened. Over time, this leads to disengagement and, ultimately, attrition. For leaders and HR professionals, the question is not whether inequality exists, but whether it is being recognised, understood, and addressed with intention.

Guidance and protection

My work centres on identifying underrepresented talent and supporting organisations to design systems that work for all talent. I did not benefit from diversity programmes. I progressed in my career despite encountering both overt and subtle bias in professional environments. This perspective is shaped by lived experience and decades of strategic work in organisational inclusion. Therefore, when I speak about diversity initiatives, I do so from both professional expertise and personal insight.

Celebrating differences

In my experience, organisations stall when inclusion feels risky or undefined. Progress accelerates when leaders commit first, assess where they truly are, and ground the work in a shared reflection on why belonging matters now. Starting there allows the conversation to move beyond permission and into purpose, creating a strong bridge into the DOQ framework and sustainable change.

Time out

As I have grown older, I have become less concerned with the opinions of others. Too many people today are living their lives through the expectations, judgments, and projections of those around them. We see individuals performing versions of themselves rather than showing up authentically, often amplified by virtue signalling and curated identities on social media.

When I worked in the lifestyle industry, I used to tell my children that my role was to sell and market the dream to clients, not to live inside it myself. That distinction mattered. It taught me the importance of discernment and of separating external narratives from personal truth. Why should I allow myself to be shaped by the opinions of people around the world who do not know me, yet feel entitled to dictate how I should live my life?

Alfa Munk

Copenhagen is a wonderful city because of the incredible people who live here. However, loneliness and social division are increasing, and the connections that hold communities together are under pressure. Our sense of social cohesion is being tested in new ways. When people have fewer opportunities to meet, mix, and understand one another, it becomes harder to build trust across different backgrounds. Community spaces can play a vital role in addressing this by providing places to come together, share experiences, and seek advice and support. For many years, community centres were at the heart of neighbourhoods across Copenhagen, and I want to help restore that sense of belonging and shared purpose.

Impossible standards

All data is, by definition, historical. It tells us what has already happened, not what will happen next. When it comes to DEIB, there is often an expectation of an impossible standard of proof: that we can demonstrate with absolute certainty and predictability that an initiative will succeed before the work even begins. This expectation ignores the reality that cultural change cannot be measured or guaranteed in advance in the same way as financial investments. The question leaders need to ask is this: What happens when DEIB is treated as discretionary and easily replaced by short-term financial considerations? What is the long-term cost to trust, belonging, innovation, and organisational resilience?

The matrix diagram

c/o Kogulan Kugathasan on LinkedIn

What can we do at the strategy phase to make sure we have a solid foothold to implement?

I simply think we need to create the conditions for people to succeed as this begins long before implementation. At the strategy phase, ensure that individuals are adequately supported, trained, and empowered to build the next generation of what the organisation needs. Too often leaders fail to resource their teams, and when progress stalls they decide that DEIB is the issue rather than recognising the gaps in structure, support, and commitment.

A strong strategy phase should also include:
- Clear ownership and accountability so that responsibility does not disappear into the organisation.
- Defined success measures that connect to business outcomes, not abstract ideals.
- Alignment with existing organisational priorities so DEIB is not treated as an add-on.
- A realistic assessment of capability and capacity, including whether leaders themselves are prepared for the behavioural shifts required.
- Time-bound commitments supported by budget, tools, and ongoing development.

When these foundations are in place, implementation becomes a natural extension of a strategy that leaders genuinely stand behind rather than a task delegated without support.