Don't Ever Ignore Bias (DEIB): The Very Predictable and Virtually Inevitable Fate of Most Corporate DEI Programs Part 2

How Did So Many of Us Not See DEI's Backlash Coming?

When I resigned from my full time pastoral role almost 3 years ago, friends encouraged me to apply for a well-paying diversity-related position with a local organization. On paper, it seemed like a natural fit. My experience in bridging differences, diversity recruiting, and facilitation, combined with my diverse personal background, made me seem like an ideal candidate. I even knew people on the selection team who would be potential colleagues. Yet, as my 90-day resignation period dwindled with no clear next steps and no new cash flow, I still couldn’t bring myself to apply.

As I explained to a friend, my reasoning for not applying was that, from the role description and context, I could see it was doomed to fail. Having seen similar scenarios play out, I wasn’t willing to set myself up for failure, be a part of disappointing the people in the organization who had high hopes for such a role, or endure the inevitable backlash for doing the job they hired me to do. The friend countered by suggesting that I approach the role as a "money grab," taking the job for financial stability while anticipating the eventual severance payout. But that felt inconsistent with my values, faith, and integrity—not to mention the principles organizations like this claimed to uphold. The way I see it is that even if they didn't seem equipped to fulfill what they were promising, I still couldn't go into the role with the intent of using them even if it seemed like that was what they were planning to do to whoever they hired. Well, it turned out that my take on the role's fate was prescient; the job was eliminated relatively quickly. I was left with validation but no money to show for it. Such is life.

My confidence that this role wouldn't survive, however, was not because of any psychic ability on my part. It was experience. You see, a year earlier, I had consulted on creating a diversity role for another organization. Despite being asked for my input in part because I am Black (just being honest), the leader dismissed my warnings that the position was set up to fail. One thing they didn't like was that I advised them to structure the role differently and include a severance package to mitigate the inevitable fallout the person they hired could expect. I basically explained that when you hire someone to facilitate change, status quo warriors will get upset and they will be tempted to give up. A reasonable severance would serve both the person they hired as well as them because it will encourage them to give the changes time to stick before letting the person go. But, my concerns were ignored, and a year later, the person hired was fired without proper severance, leading to scandal and the leader’s forced retirement. The outcome played out exactly as I had predicted.

From my angle, these experiences highlight a pervasive pattern in human systems; the inability to predict and prevent failure in initiatives that require relational capacity building. Despite millennia of data showing the consequences of neglecting relational infrastructure, organizations continue to make the same mistakes. Those are only two examples of countless others you can read about online. You'd think that by now, someone would come up with a predictive algorithm that would prevent so called leaders from making these kinds of decisions.

Unfortunately, an algorithm is functionally only as good as its dataset and the mathematical models they use to describe the relationship between features (conditions and variables) and outcomes. And because these mathematical models have a linearity bias, the decision trees that use branching structures to make predictions cannot accurately predict what humans will do in situations that require building greater relational capacity even with multiple millennia of data that shows that we seem to do the same thing over and over again. The failure of most companies to successfully graft DEI into their relational infrastructure should have been the easiest thing in the world to predict. But, for some reason in every room I was in, I was the only one who could see it coming--even when there were other Black people and people of color in the room. The question is why was I able to predict the outcome when a whole room of well meaning folks couldn't see the forest for the trees?

Can You Read Your Own Emotions?

Arguably the world's greatest investor, Warren Buffet said, "Forecasts may tell you a great deal about the forecaster; they tell you nothing about the future." What some people don't know about him is that Buffet has very strong opinions about the role of emotions in creating predictive models. In fact, he's gone so far as to say "If you cannot control your emotions, you cannot control your money." So to be trusted with the amount of money he has without the scandals we normally see with people in his kind of position, he must have quite the command over his emotions and been able to reasonably predict how emotional volatility impacts systems. And, as such I can only imagine that he too would have been able to predict the failure of most DEI initiatives because he understands that human emotions are non-linear and in order to build relational capacity, you have to make room for disorder--at least initially.

This isn't to say that volatile emotions are the primary cause of DEI's failures in many organizations. Though on the surface it can be seen that way. Rather, what I am suggesting is that because those making the decisions did not account for the non-linearity of emotions--theirs and others--in their personal predictive models, they couldn't see that the roles they were creating were doomed to fail before they even started. Furthermore, when these roles were created, they were done so from a place of emotional reactivity. That alone doomed their efficacy. And if we ever studied any of the ancient wisdom that teaches what makes for success and what makes for failure, we would know that. But sadly, too many of us can't or won't listen and/or learn because of the primary human survival instinct that trumps every bit of logic that could help us create better predictive models--the mechanism known as denial.

Many of us don't think about it this way, because we are too busy actively being in denial. But, denial, as a defense mechanism, is a psychological strategy almost every person you will ever meet uses to avoid confronting uncomfortable truths or realities. It can manifest as outright rejection of facts, selective memory, or rationalizing behaviors that allow individuals or groups to maintain their worldview or some semblance of emotional stability. In communities, denial often serves as a way to insulate members from perceived threats or from having to address systemic inequities or injustices that might challenge their identity or sense of belonging.

For example, communities might create narratives or practices that exclude their "ontological other"--"outsiders" for short--to mitigate perceived risks, whether those risks are economic, cultural, or social or even a real risk at all. These exclusionary strategies can be seen in various forms, such as restrictive housing covenants, social segregation, or the perpetuation of myths about "outsiders." While these practices often aim to maintain safety or cohesion, they can also perpetuate harm and alienation, making it difficult for communities to grow in understanding or inclusion. To be in denial about this and other resistances to expanding relational capacity can be likened to And too many of us let our shadows lead the relational charge in our lives.

No one can deny that denial makes it easier for individuals avoid the stress of acknowledging uncomfortable truths or feelings, thereby shielding them from anxiety and pain. I'm just joking. People can definitely deny denial's functions because THAT'S WHAT WE DO!!! And this is something that resourced people can do with reasonable ease--whether those resources are material, social, physical, or psychological. However, as a person becomes more aware of their vulnerability—whether due to a crisis or an undeniable reality such as getting older—denial becomes harder to sustain. This is because increasing proximity to vulnerability forces the mind to confront what it can no longer ignore, breaking down the mental barriers that denial provides.

When vulnerability feels distant or hypothetical, denial functions effectively, allowing individuals to temporarily delay discomfort. But as awareness intensifies, denial collapses, often leading to a shift toward other coping mechanisms like acceptance or action. This paradox highlights how denial--the very mechanism designed to protect us--fades when we are most exposed, creating an opportunity for deeper growth and transformation. But, not everyone sees this as an opportunity. In fact, how most of us tend experience this increased awareness can better be described as existential threat or doom. And as a comedian, I have to say that it is hilarious once you get past the destruction that will inevitably be left in the wake of every vulnerability denier.

Yeah, I know destruction might sound a little hyperbolic. But, just look at history and you will see a trail of proof that humans do not do well with building relational capacity. Typically we,--and by we, I mean not my people--have to wipe out enough people or have the capacity to do so to not feel threatened before we can even begin to consider that the other side may have something to offer. Just consider that some scholars suggest that up to 15 million people died as a direct result of the conflicts brought about by the Protestant Reformation within the CHRISTIAN CHURCH!!! Why? Because of the very human allergy to new ideas and other ways of thinking triggered by a hyper-active defense mechanism, that is rooted in the original and ultimate denial--the fact that everyone ever will be dead at some point. That's where all of this begins.

It is almost poetic that many people's fear that they will D-I-E is at the heart of why DEI programs cannot succeed in many of our current systems. But, this is 100 percent a fact. And it doesn't matter what we try to rename these initiatives, they will all fail as long as people live under the false belief that there is only so much pie and that the more people that you invite over for dessert, the less pie there is for them. Because at the end of the day, that's what this is all about--people in denial that they are afraid to D-I-E if someone else gets some P-I-E. In other words, zero sum thinking--the pinnacle of denial and a perpetual bias generator. But the reality is that there is plenty of PIE. There's just poor distribution and disempowered people who do not see themselves as worthy of receiving without going through the permission structures of those who seem to be in charge. Sadly denial has distorted the vision of so many of us that can't see how much more pie there is even if one was thrown in our face.

In part three, I am going to try to bring this home by going the extra mile in explaining how we got so stuck with our blinders on. If you're someone who values understanding your or other people's core motivations, you may want to check that piece out. In the meantime, check out my companion booklet for a talk I gave recently entitled, Zero Some (and the myth of not enough). In this, go a little deeper into how we get into this "not enough" trap and some ways we can see beyond it into a world ripe with opportunity. And as always, you know where to find me here on Linkedin. In the coming months, I will be increasing my creative output on other platforms with the intention of building community with people who are interested building greater relational capacity and creating solutions for some of the challenges we face in the modern age of disconnection. If this sounds like something that interests you, please reach out to me here.