Reclaiming Inclusion: Advancing Equity Without Saying ‘Diversity

 Introduction:

In today’s climate, even the word “diversity” has become politically charged. In some sectors, using it openly may result in backlash—or even legal consequences. But inclusion isn’t optional. Organizations still need to harness the full spectrum of human potential to thrive, adapt, and solve complex problems. Inclusion is about ensuring people can contribute without being excluded, sabotaged, or harassed. And that remains vital, regardless of what we call it.

---

1. Inclusion Is the Goal—Not the Word

The pushback against DEI often centers on terminology. But let’s be clear: we don’t need a word to keep doing the work. Inclusion means making sure everyone—regardless of background, identity, or lived experience—can contribute meaningfully. If the word “diversity” becomes a political lightning rod, we can use other framing—like representation, belonging, psychological safety, or inclusive leadership—without losing the essence.

Tip: Reframe your goals around “effective team participation,” “broadening access,” or “removing participation barriers.”

---

2. The Real Threat to Inclusion? Sabotage and Harassment

The biggest threats to inclusion don’t come from regulations—they come from inside. Passive-aggressive saboteurs, workplace bullies, and gatekeepers can quietly undo inclusive efforts. They withhold information, sideline new hires, or harass people into quitting—all without ever breaking an official policy.

Inclusion fails not when we stop using the word, but when we let toxic behaviors fester.

Organizations need strategies rooted in behavioral psychology to recognize and stop these patterns. It’s not about training people to “be nice”—it’s about changing the reinforcement systems that allow bullying and exclusion to persist so that bullies can't exclude people from the work group anymore. 

---

3. Why Inclusion Still Pays Off

Inclusive teams don’t just feel better—they perform better. Research shows that when people from different backgrounds are truly allowed to collaborate, they identify risks faster, innovate more, and solve problems more effectively. But that only happens when team members feel safe speaking up—and that means rooting out behaviors that silence or sideline differing viewpoints.

If you’re hiring for talent, you need to protect that talent from saboteurs.

---

4. How to Protect Your Inclusion Initiatives in a Politicized World

You can protect inclusion efforts without waving a DEI banner:

• Embed it into leadership values: Talk about fairness, safety, and performance, not identity politics.

• Use data, not slogans: Focus on participation metrics, attrition rates, and engagement scores.

• Train your managers in behavioral techniques: Give them tools to shut down sabotage and ensure new ideas aren’t ignored or punished.

• Make inclusion a performance issue: If someone is undermining a team member’s ability to contribute, it’s a leadership failure—not a personality clash.

---

5. Next Steps: Train for Real Inclusion

Stopping harassment and sabotage requires more than good intentions—it takes skills. My courses are designed to teach exactly that, using proven behavioral psychology techniques to:

• Stop variably reinforced harassment

• Create reinforcement systems that protect inclusion

• Identify and neutralize saboteurs of inclusive culture

Whether you call it “diversity,” “belonging,” or “collaborative team culture,” the goal is the same: make sure everyone is included and no one on your team is being sabotaged.

Learn how to stop harassment using behavioral psychology →https://humanistlearning.com/programsoffered/#bullying
Learn how to safeguard your inclusion initiatives →https://humanistlearning.com/safeguarding-diversity-and-inclusion-unmasking-saboteurs/

Group Decision Making - Inclusion and Psychological Safety

Are there ways for companies to improve their group decision-making? Here are some practical tips on how to plan/implement best practices as well as psychological elements that should be taken into account.

I teach humanistic leadership, behavioral science techniques and have over 30 years in executive leadership.

1^st - Good decision making. “Good” is a moral value judgement. You have to define what good means to the group.  What is a good outcome?  Only then you can look at your options and weigh them against the ideal.  This step – helps eliminate a lot of conflict in group decision making. Often what happens is different people have different ideas of what good means. When you get everyone into agreement on what a “good” result is – you can more easily gain consensus. 

Let me give you an example. I used to work in the tower industry. What constituted a “good” tower to maintenance – was a tower that was in good shape and didn’t need much work.  What constituted a “good” tower to marketing was a tower in a good location for their customers.  What constituted a “good” tower to accounting – was a tower that was generating more cash flow then debt.  Until you get all 3 stakeholder groups into agreement on what a “good” tower is – there will be squabbling.  And yes – this is a real example from my past – it was finally agreed upon that if we were generating more cash flow then debt – then costs to upgrade the tower were irrelevant as we were already net positive.  If there was less cash flow than debt – then we needed to consider whether there was any marketing growth at this location and how much maintenance costs we would have to put in to get that growth. Consensus through integration of all concerns– made all the other decisions easier. We grew to be a half billion-dollar company.

2^nd – Involving ALL stakeholders. It is very easy to make decisions alone. In fact – there is a reason why many people do this. Getting consensus among people with different ideas of what “good” is – is hard.  But it’s a mistake.  You don’t know what you don’t know and not knowing things leads to poor decisions. Bringing in all the stakeholders (from lowest to highest paid) helps ensure that everyone is on board with the plan. It also helps ensure that you aren’t blind to major issues. Diversity is good for decision making.

3^rd – Dealing with diversity problems in decision making. Having a discussion on what is “good” with a diverse group of people is often quite difficult. We all have blind spots.  We think our opinion is the most important opinion. Sorting all that out – takes humility, patience and dignity.  Dignity is an interesting word. You have to act with dignity yourself and give dignity to people you disagree with.  Most people aren’t really capable of this – or rather – they don’t have a lot of practice – acting with dignity and giving dignity to others. But it’s key to sorting out differences and helping a diverse group – become cohesive – while allowing space for all those diverse opinions.

So … how do you do this? Pragmatically? 

By acknowledging dignity violations. Everyone has been hurt at some point. Some  - more than others.  People coming from marginalized backgrounds (whether it’s gender, race, disability, poverty – or whatever), probably have felt like their dignity has been violated more than others.   Creating space for and acknowledging those violations – helps people feel heard. Helps them feel like their dignity is being acknowledged and helps them move past the past violations so that they can work collaboratively in the present. 

This really does work. But to do it – you first have to acknowledge your own feelings of hurt. Understand that you are in charge of your own dignity. No one has the ability to take it from you. You either act with dignity or you don’t. Claim your dignity. Then – help others claim theirs. Then – the first conversation about what constitutes a “good” outcome – becomes much easier.

Let me know if you have any questions.  In the meantime, if you want to learn more - I have a variety of professional development courses that can help you learn these skills for yourself. 

https://humanistlearning.com/category/businesscourses/professionaldevelopment/ 

The danger of psychological warfare - intelligence isnt' a defense

Americans are being subjected to psychological warfare and most have no clue what exactly is happening and why it matters.

I have heard very smart people equate the problem with intelligence, only stupid people fall for fake news. As an expert in behavioral conditioning - let's just put that idea to bed. INTELLIGENCE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEHAVIORAL CONDITIONING!

This isn't about who is smart and who isn't. And it's not even a partisan issue - despite most people wanting it to be.

Behavioral conditioning - can make you hum dixie when you hear a specific bird whistle. And you won't even know why that song is suddenly in your head. It just will be. You won't even know when or how you were conditioned to think of that song when you get that specific stimulus. In fact, you won't even know that you were conditioned, you may not think anything is odd at all. THAT is the power of behavioral conditioning!

Most people have zero knowledge that they are being conditioned/manipulated and even ones who are - still have their behavior changed - because - behavioral conditioning does not require the consent of the target!

Behavioral conditioning can make you think certain thoughts. It can make you NOT think certain thoughts and trigger certain other thoughts whenever certain stimulus is brought up. It's at the heart of cult behavior and resistance to outside information. It's why republicans "what about" - every time they are told a republican has behaved badly.

EVERYONE is being conditioned by their conditions at all times. Most of this is benign and a result of natural consequences. But it can also be done malignantly by bad actors. Think of adults who groom children for sex, or people who end up in abusive relationships they can't get out of because their partner is abusing them - not just physically - but psychologically. People who have this happen - don't consent to this happening. They don't even know it's happened. They think their thoughts are their own and that they are being totally rational even if they aren't.

And again, everyone is susceptible. EVERYONE! We are all susceptible because we are all human and all wired the same way.

Can this be resisted?
Yes - but only with great effort and with awareness of a) how it's being done and b) with counter measures to resist the conditioning. And even then - it's super hard to resist this sort of conditioning. And THAT is what Russians have been doing to us. It's called - psychological warfare for a REASON!

The techniques that can help you train a bully to stop - can also convince people to join a cult - or vote a certain way. The reason I teach what I do - even though I know it can be used for evil - is because - it's already being used for evil and our only chance of protecting ourselves - is to understand how it's happening and to take control of the dynamic.

Any of my online courses on how to stop bullying (and yes - some are free), will teach you how this works. https://humanistlearning.com/category/bullyingharassment/

People who have gotten my book - The Bully Vaccine have told me that it's helped them recognize these dynamics as they play out in their lives and help them change those dynamics and resist the conditioning they have experienced. https://humanistlearning.com/the-bully-vaccine-book/

It's critical we learn how to defend ourselves. Learn more - and be part of the solution. 

Middle managers - are important

Recently - the center for evidence based management published a research review on the importance of middle managers in the productivity of a team.

https://www.cebma.org/wp-content/uploads/REA-Middle-Managers.pdf

Findings:

1) The roles and practices of line- and middle managers have a substantial impact on a wide range of organizational outcomes (Level A, ++)
2) Middle managers have a demonstrated impact on employee support for learning and change. Basically – they have the ability to help you succeed – or they can kill your initiative – whatever it is.
3) Middle managers should be involved in strategy development - Several studies suggest that middle managers’ involvement in strategy development has a positive impact on strategy implementation and, consequently, organizational capabilities

Middle Manager's biggest areas of impact:

1) Social Cohesion - A high level of social cohesion among team members creates a psychologically safe environment in which team members feel free to explore new ways of doing things (Hülsheger, Anderson, & Salgado, 2009).
2) Support and Reciprocity: The construct of perceived supervisory support stems from the norm of reciprocity, that is, when people treat others as they would like to be treated, repaying kindness with kindness and retaliating against those who inflict harm (Brunell et al., 2013; Gouldner, 1960). Put differently, when a manager helps his or her employees in times of need or recognizes them for extra effort, these employees tend to act in a way of value to the manager (such as meeting goals and objectives) and the organization as a whole (Edmondson, 2013; Eisenberger, 1986)
3) Team Empowerment - Psychological empowerment is also positively related to work performance. It is assumed that psychological empowerment enhances performance by increasing 1) the amount of information and control workers have over their work; 2) the level of work-related knowledge, skills, and abilities of employees; and 3) the motivation employees have to achieve organizational goals (Seibert, 2011).
4) Psychological Safety - If group members feel psychologically safe, they will, 1) be more willing to ask for help, admit an error, seek feedback, etc. and those actions, 2) foster learning in the group which, 3) improves their performance.
5) Group Goal setting - A large number of high-quality studies consistently demonstrate that specific, difficult goals yield higher performance than nonspecific (“do-your best”) goals, and specific difficult goals yield higher performance than specific easy goals. Several studies suggest that setting goals at the group level may yield higher performance than individual goals (Kleingeld, 2011).

Conclusion – Middle managers either create a sense of psychological safety or they don’t.  Psychological safety is positively correlated to improved performance and so – should be a focus of efforts and training for middle managers. Also – include them in strategy and decision making sessions.

Psychological Safety and Team Dynamics

Last February - I was in India - discussing why bullying/harassment is bad for decision making and therefore bad for business.  Turns out I am not the only one looking into this connection.

Google has been studying what makes for effective teams. This is what they found.
https://amp.businessinsider.com/google-spent-years-studying-effective-teams-this-is-what-they-found-2018-1

For those of you who don't want to click through and read the article - the answer is psychological safety. The best performing teams are teams where members feel safe. This in turn means they feel safe to share their thoughts - and advocate for what they think will be a more effective solution. 

No safety - no real discussion. No real discussion - the solution chosen is based on who is dominant, not who is right.

This is exactly what I was discussing in India and the case I keep making for adopting humanistic management.

If people are socially excluded – decision making suffers.   Psychological safety is another way of saying -  making sure everyone is included.  Exclusion of one person leads to stress to the others who fear – I may be next.  It has a dampening effect on dissent and makes rational dissent very difficult – and again – that’s bad for problem solving.

The challenge – how to create that?

We can hire people for compatible traits – conscientiousness, openness etc. We can also work to help protect those who are excluded.  the good news is that we can also use science.  Science can teach us how to get rid of unwanted behaviors and how to encourage the ones you do.

If you have bad outcomes despite good intentions, it's probably because your organization has perverse incentives - meaning you are accidentally rewarding the behavior you don't want and punishing the behavior you do.  It happens all the time.  The solution is often to flip things upside down and really consider how your rewards and responses are being used and to consciously change the dynamic by changing what you reward.

I have several courses and training programs that will help you do that over at. https://humanistlearning.com/