belonging

What is it that we all value?

I think we value having a sense of belonging, for example, we want to feel seen, valued, nurtured and supported. I haven't met anyone who doesn't want to feel that they matter. Now think about this through the lens of intersectionality. Think about how different aspects of our identity can determine whether we are welcomed into certain spaces, how we are treated once we are there, and whether we feel that we truly belong. And this is where inclusion becomes a question of membership.
- Who decides who gets to belong?
- Who makes the rules?
- Who decides who is allowed into the space, and who isn't?

Perhaps the more important question is: how do we reject these ideas and these forms of exclusion? I think it starts within our own sphere of influence. We each have the ability to either support the systems, behaviours and assumptions that exclude people or challenge them. Inclusion isn't simply about opening the door, it's about asking ourselves who gets invited in, who gets to stay, and whether they are genuinely made to feel that they belong.

““The softer the advice is given, the harder it lands.””
— Unknown

How do we see human beings?

Look across class, gender, race, sexuality, religion and all the other dimensions of our identities. Historically, many of these differences have been used to exclude individuals from certain spaces. So when we talk about inclusive spaces, and when we talk about equality, what are people really asking for? At a fundamental level, I think people are asking to be seen. And sometimes that starts with the simplest things: asking someone how their day has been. How we greet someone. Taking a genuine interest in the person in front of us. Moving away from the purely transactional way in which we can sometimes engage with one another.

““They know the price of everything and the value of nothing.””
— Oscar Wilde

Don't make assumptions

DEIB is about creating equal opportunity for all, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, religious beliefs, disability, neurodivergent characteristics, etc. It is about trying to create a more level playing field and addressing the barriers that may prevent equally qualified people from having the same opportunities. The idea that a job description and application process somehow would not apply to you because of the colour of your skin is both ridiculous and deeply offensive. Let’s ask a more fundamental question: do you genuinely believe that every person currently in a leadership position across the world was the best candidate for the job?

I think the most uncomfortable part is this: if you do not count it, you do not understand the problem. If you do not ask the questions, you cannot know whether there is a problem. You need the data. You need to understand who is applying, who is being shortlisted, who is being hired, who is being promoted, and who is leaving. Only then can you begin to identify patterns and understand whether there is an issue that needs to be addressed. And, let’s be honest: if there were no inequalities, barriers or disparities to address, there would be far less need for DEIB initiatives in the first place.

Contact me via email if you, your team or your organisation are interested in DEIB workshop facilitator, a keynote speaker or implementation of your existing inclusion systems and procedures.

Authenticity is not for sale

The belonging issue is not a lack of ideas; it is a lack of implementation. If we want to move beyond performative inclusion, we need to stop measuring success by how inclusive our posters look and start measuring it by how actively we are dismantling the practices and structures that create exclusion. This requires a fundamental shift from consultation to co-creation, where those most affected are not simply invited into the room to provide input, but are given meaningful influence and decision-making power. It means properly resourcing inclusion rather than treating it as an additional initiative and designing accessibility and flexibility into systems from the outset rather than retrofitting adjustments after barriers or harm have already occurred. It also requires us to critically examine the norms we have come to accept as neutral: what we define as professionalism, productivity, appropriate behaviour, or even leadership. Because sometimes the barrier is not the individual who struggles to fit into the system; the barrier is the system itself and the norms we have built around it.

Authenticity is not for sale

I think inclusion requires more than representation. We tell an employee or stakeholder that they are welcome, but only if they are willing to adapt themselves to look, speak, and behave like the dominant group. When belonging comes with conditions, individuals are often forced to mask their needs, suppress aspects of their identity, or change who they are simply to navigate and survive the environment.

Competence keeps doors open

Pierre Bourdieu's concept of habitus becomes particularly useful when trying to understand why some people are welcomed into organisations but not fully accepted, why certain leadership styles are rewarded over others, and why "cultural fit" so often outweighs diversity of thought. Habitus refers to the deeply ingrained ways of being, speaking, acting, relating, and perceiving that individuals carry with them, shaped by their histories, cultures, and social positions. It influences how we communicate, how we build relationships, what we consider to be "professional," how we approach authority, and even what we believe is appropriate behaviour in the workplace.

When individuals from marginalised or non-dominant backgrounds enter professional spaces, they do not simply bring new ideas; they bring different ways of doing. They may challenge assumptions, communicate differently, build trust in different ways, or solve problems from perspectives that fall outside the organisational norm. Unfortunately, it is often this "doing" that is resisted. Organisations frequently celebrate diversity in principle while expecting conformity in practice. I think difference is only truly welcomed when it does not require the dominant culture to adapt. What do you think?

A seat at the table

Inclusion opens the door.
Belonging gives you a seat at the conversation.
Psychological safety gives you the confidence to speak.
Being seen allows you to show up authentically.
Being valued means your voice helps shape what happens next.

Conversations we avoid

Sometimes people comply with the culture, but they do not necessarily feel that they belong. They contribute what feels safe rather than what they genuinely think. Over time, organisations lose diversity of thought, not because talented people are absent, but because they have learned that authenticity carries risk. As leaders, we have a responsibility to create environments where people do not have to earn their dignity. I think every individual deserves to be treated with integrity and respect. And every person brings experiences, strengths, and perspectives that deserve to be heard.

One of the most powerful moments in coaching is when someone realises they no longer need to hide. I have found that the same is true in organisations. The conversations we avoid, the assumptions we never question, and the experiences people feel unable to share often become the greatest barriers to trust, learning, and inclusion. Maybe the opposite of inclusion is not exclusion, perhaps it’s the feeling that you have to hide part of yourself in order to belong.

African Women's Day

Today is African Women’s Day 🤎
African women have had pivotal leadership roles in political and economic sectors without receiving critical acclaim since forever.

““In Africa..., the woman’s ‘place’ was not only with her family; she often ruled nations with unquestionable authority. Many African women were great militarists, and on occasion led their armies in battle. The Africans had produced a civilisation where men were secure enough to let women advance as far as their talent, royal lineage and prerogatives would take them.” ”
— Dr John Henrik Clarke

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.