Organisations often claim to value diverse perspectives, yet those perspectives are welcomed only as long as they conform to existing norms. When they challenge established patterns of communication, hierarchy, pace, or decision-making, they are frequently labelled as confrontational, difficult, or disruptive. Through the lens of Pierre Bourdieu's concept of cultural capital, this is unsurprising. The same behaviours that are rewarded in those who already embody the dominant culture are often penalised in those whose ways of speaking, leading, or contributing fall outside it. I think what is framed as innovation in one person becomes disruption in another, not because the behaviour differs, but because the social value attached to the person expressing it does.
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?
Understanding cultural capital
One perspective that I find particularly useful comes from the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu and his concept of cultural capital. Bourdieu argued that society is not a level playing field. Instead, we operate within different social and professional "fields", each with its own unwritten rules. Success is influenced not only by competence but also by possessing the forms of knowledge, behaviour, communication style, educational background, and social networks that a particular environment values. In other words, cultural capital functions as a type of currency.
I think that in many organisations, success depends on understanding rules that are rarely written down. Knowing how to communicate with senior leaders, when to challenge an idea, how visible to make your achievements, or which behaviours are rewarded can become just as important as technical expertise. The challenge is that these expectations often feel natural to those who already possess the dominant form of cultural capital. For everyone else, they remain invisible and this is where performative inclusion often reveals itself.