Taking the True Storytelling’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI 2.0) Journey

Please read this first: True Storytelling Institute’s Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion DEI 2.0 Module Overview and after reading this essay, please read Visual Language of True Storytelling for DEI 2.0 Tools: The Enron Dramaturgy Case

Journey to DEI 2.0

True Storytelling Module

Diverse business people team connected grasping hands holding each other wrists in circle, loyalty help in teamwork concept, professional trust power support unity solidarity, close up top view above

Schedule a free consultation

True Storytelling’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI 2.0) Module

Some books worth your time:

  1. White Fragility by Robin Diangelo 2018
  2. How Capitalism Underdeveloped Black America by Manning Marable 1983
  3. The Black Underclass by Douglas G. Glasgow 1980
  4. Orientalism by Edward Said 1978

Please read: Oswick, Cliff. (2011). The social construction of diversity, equality, and inclusion. Equality, inequalities, and diversity: Contemporary challenges and strategies. British Journal of Management, 25(1), pp. 23- 39.  Click Here for article PDF. It presents a history of ways diversity, equity, and inclusion became successive discourses to treat the problem of workplace discrimination. For example, diversity was the successor to affirmative action (AA) which management believed had run its course and needed to be replaced with managing diversity. Then diversity was believed to run its course and was displaced by equality and equity discourse. Now all these discourses are being supplanted by ‘inclusion’ as the solution to problems of discrimination. In sum, diversity replaces affirmative action, and gets blended into equity, which becomes bundled into inclusion. It is the nesting fractal, one tucked neatly inside the other, like Russian dolls, without understanding their differences. It is five decades of DEI 1.0 that have keeps the systems of inequity, and exclusion in place with a growing gap between wealthy and working folks. By tackling system changes we can go beyond the DEI 1.0 identity narrative do’s and don’t of micro aggression in compliance training. Here’s a secret: As it turns out McKinsey is right (Read the report), the DEI 2.0 practices and processes actually bring about increase corporate performance and better profit outcomes, while providing safer conditions for workers. In DEI 2.0 we do this through dialogical storytelling conversations. We do it through ODC 2.0 to bring about DEI 2.0 What are the Dialogisms of Conversational Storytelling in ODC 2.0 Module?

Here are some of my own intellectual, theoretical and practical observations:

Diangelo (2018: 101, in White Fragility, bracketed addition, mine) says, “Reasons that the facilitators of these [DEI] courses and trainees may not directly name the dynamics and beneficiaries of of racism range from the lack of a valid analysis of racism by white facilitators personal and economic survival strategies for facilitators of color, and pressure from management to keep the content comfortable and palatable for whites.”

When DEI courses do address racism and privileging of whites, “common white responses include anger, withdrawal, emotional incapacitation, guilt, argumentation, and cognitive dissonance (all of which reinforce the pressure on facilitators to avoid directly addressing racism… all these responses constitute white fragility” (p. 101).  The problem we face in True Storytelling DEI 2.0 is for many whites, it is the first time they go into conversations directly addressing white privilege. In becoming diversity train
ers, our own internalized white superiority, our socialization, our facilitation approach all becomes discussable. In multi-racial storytelling conversations, whites begin to receive feedback about the racist impact of privilege that challenges the narrative of “white racial innocence” Diangelo (2018:  104).

Deconstructing the Deny the Plot, 55% of white Americans believe they are discriminated against and deny white privileges.
Deconstruction of the Other Side of the Story: “Despite its ubiquity, white supremacy is also unnamed and denied by most whites” (p. 108).

Glasgow’s book summarizes the 1966 ‘Watts Festival.’ It was held August 1965, one year after the Watts rebellion. Glasgow’s point is the Festival was a combined alliance of local businesses, service organizations, neighbors, and the youth-underclass of Watts.  30,000 people attended.  What Glasgow brings out is ways in which dialogues across socioeconomic divisions within the Black Community took place. It is these conversational true storytelling dialogues that is the point of Festival gatherings.

Who are the participants in Watts Black Community conversational storytelling dialogues?

  1. Unskilled poor youth
  2. Unskilled poor adults
  3. Mothers of Watts families
  4. Skilled unemployed adults
  5. Moderate wage earners
  6. Middle income professionals & technicians (many are ambivalent)
  7. Low income Watts workers
  8. Upper-class Black intellectuals
  9. Elderly
  10. Religious leaders
  11. Political leaders.

What the above suggested, is a similar break out for white socioeconomic conditions that keep the white community indecisiveness.  Then it may be that a breakout to discuss how to overcome divisiveness is appropriate.

Marable’s book is the history of Being of racist violence in late capitalism from the Civil Rights Movement to 1983.  What is striking and shocking about the book, is if you applied the same observations about institutional racism in capitalism, its structural racism (aka systemic racism) being embedded in organizations of society to 2021, there is no difference. In both time periods Affirmative Action had been denigrated and tossed into polarity. In both time periods, white Americans have no economic incentive to tolerate People of Color (PoC). IN both time period there is an increase in hate groups in America. In both time periods there is racial violence, and in the last presidency a swing toward fascism and authoritarianism.

The usual narrative is the individualized racism is to blame, instead of deconstructing system racism. DEI 1.0 suppresses conversational storytelling dialogues about system racism. Instead the discussions in both time periods area bout racial bias of a few bad apples.  Corporations project an image if multiracial sophistication, while engaging in political economies of low wage jobs sent overseas.  In both time periods the coercive apparatus of the state’s police turns paramilitary, and people take to the streets to protests string of shootings of PoC.  One difference is the level of wealth concentration is current situation is decreasing the living standards of middle class whites as well as middle class PoC.

Marable’s socioeconomic analysis is about ways capitalism has one crisis after another, which then results in vicious posture towards health care, welfare, job training, education access, and social service programs.  s, increase black unemployment, and is accompanied by attenuated freedom of speech and assemble as military industrial complex extracts greater portion of national budget for war and surveillance material purchases. This increases both covert and over repression, increases ethnocentrism, and system racism gets more entrenched.  We life in a climate o fear, with a regression in civil rights, increased incarceration, etc.

DEI 2.0 is based in True Storytelling Principles that enact System Changes to the Status Quo.

Without changes in the System-processes DEI 1.0 is perfectly designed to keep the status quo in place. Here is the overall big picture view of the principles informing our processes and tools for system change. All four heart-processes point to BEING.

“No one can forget Being, since there has never been a modern world, or, by the same token, metaphysics. We have always remained pre-Socratic, pre-Cartesian, pre-Kantian, pre-Nietzschean. No radical revolution can separate us from these pasts, so there is no need for reactionary counterrevolutions to lead us back to what has never been abandoned” (Latour, 1993: 67).

VERTICAL AXIS of 4 Hearts: Synchronic spaces outside time. Synchronic is without time, it is often without place. It is the timeless layering of levels of spaces, of the One Space into which the Many are put into in the division of our labor in hierarchies. The One space Grand Narrative of command and control hierarchy fits All. The possiblity of Diversity, of Equity, of Inclusion spaces of all the beings is limited when the status quo runs the game called Modern, and declares that Modern has arrived to deliver its Enlightenment and Liberation Promises.

Latour, Bruno. (1991/1993). We have Never Been Modern. French 1991 La Decouverte. Translated into English 1993 by Catherine Porter.  Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard university Press. Accessed May 9 2021 at https://monoskop.org/images/e/e4/Latour_Bruno_We_Have_Never_Been_Modern.pdf 

What if DEI 1.0 keeps failing to deliver its Emancipatory Potential because We Westerners Have Never Been Modern?

Latour (1991/1993: 10) asks “And what if we had never been modern?”  Answer: A comparative anthropology that can contrast DEI 1.0 and DEI 2.0 becomes possible. Modern ‘grand narrative’ of DEI 1.0 declares a break with the regular passage of historical time, a victory over the vanquished Marxism and Socialism, that delivers on its Enlightenment promise of diversity, equality and inclusion: DEI. In simple terms it is a progress myth, that instrumental reason, individualism, and technological entrepreneurship will always save the day.

What is True? We have never been truly modern. Go Beneath the individualism of DEI 1.0 identity narratives, the first duality self-deconstructs. The First Duality is the strange relation of the BENEATH Heart and the BEYOND Heart which true Storytelling deconstructs in DEI 2.0:

The First Duality that True Storytelling addresses is the dichotomy of Humans Culture identity narrative of the Self (individualism) declaring itself superior to the “We” and the “Eco” of Nonhumans Nature. This individualism rationality inhabits the BENEATH in the discourse of instrumental and technical reason since the Enlightenment. Human bodies are hybrid networks of 37.2 trillion living cells networking with trillions upon trillions of cells in soil, water, and atmosphere. We are nature and survive in our care of sustaining Nature’s existence.

“Century after century, colonial empire after colonial empire, the poor
premodern collectives were accused of making a horrible mishmash of
things and humans, of objects and signs, while their accusers finally
separated them totally – to remix them at once on a scale unknown until
now …. As the moderns also extended this Great Divide in time after
extending it in space, they felt themselves absolutely free to give up
following the ridiculous constraints of their past which required them to
take into account the delicate web of relations between things and
people” (Latour, 1993: 39).

HORIZONTAL AXIS of 4 Hearts: Diachronic is path of Becoming inside time and outside the spaces.

The First Duality is Cut Off From the Second Duality The second duality has to do with the Before Heart and the Bets on the Future Heart. It is the relation of deep understanding of the epochs of gender and racial history events and the anticipations made in prospective Bets on the Future of generations of modernity versions of DEI 1.0 making promises, not delivering system changes.

So long as we fall into these two duality traps separately, we will have never been modern. The hypothesis: It is because we fail to become conscious of how these two dualities have always been doing their thing in the previous historical period, and set up the next generation. It is the second duality that makes the first one possible, that lack of generation improvements, the increasing gap between wealthy folks and everyone else, and the increasing gab between business activities of exploitation and planetary capacities.

Boje presentations at Canterbury University
Source: Boje (2019: lxiv) Storytelling in the Global Age: There is No Planet B

About Time we looked at the Two Great Divides First the divide between Humans and Nature. Second, the divide between epochs of history and the generations of our future. DEI 1.0 does not deconstruct either divide. It’s perfectly designed training to sustain the shallow and superficial history of Grand BEFORE. DEI 2.0 takes on both grand divides. DEI 2.0 means deconstructing shallow histories we open space for True Storytelling Circles to listen to and understand how DEI is under the thumb of instrumental and technical reason. It was Horkheimer and Adorno’s Frankfurt School that after the holocaust of WWII decided that something was wrong with the Enlightenment Narrative declared by Modernity:

Horkheimer, Max; Adorno, Theodor. (1947). Dialectic of Enlightenment (Click Here for pdf of their ground breaking book).

The Frankfurt School began a critique of instrumental and technical reasons because the the individualism of the self that took place in the Enlightenment, the continued colonization and genocide of the Indigenous Peoples, and the modern day slavery practices meant we have never been Modern, as Latour declares. The experiences of True Storytelling in a field of regimes of truth, the punctuality of clock-time, and the forgetting of history combine to bring the Modern into question.

“Finally, if we have never been modern – at least in the way criticism tells the story – the tortuous relations that we have maintained with the other nature-cultures would also be transformed” (Latour, 1993: 11).

People of Color (PoC) understand the nihilistic character of Modernity, the substitution of shallow for authentic history, and the implications of identity narratives of individualism, when collective history connected to Nature is so much more grounded. Dare we discuss exploitation by banks doing payday loan schemes, businesses with glass ceilings, factories relocated to developing countries, and the domination of Nature (ecocide & large-scale famine) consequences of the Enlightenment than augmented by neoliberal West? 

In DEI 2.0 we deconstruct at the level of root causes of systems staying just as they have always been for centuries, in the ways Modernity-Enlightenment ordering of the work results in the abyss of the Bystander, what Mikhail Bakhtin (1991) calls the failure to enact moral answerability. Bystander answerability takes no action, and just accepts the role of the empathetic spectator who does absolutely nothing. The bystander spectator easily lapses into forgetting the epoch narratives of histories, and accepts the shallow Beginning-Middle-End (BME) linear plot.

Push and Pull Forces of the Synchronic Processes The substantive process is about going BENEATH the blame the scapegoat game of Individualism and to go BEYOND to the diverse plurality of micro-processes of Wild Nature with a sustainable modern of we- and eco-centric instead of fake moderns of ego- and corporate-centric status quo substitutes.

The Synchronic and the Diachronic criss cross in BEING.

7 Principles
True Storytelling Book (Key Symbols)
7 Antenarrative Processes
Antenarratives are pre-constitutive processes out of which narratives and stories are created
7 Tools to transform DEI 1.0 to DEI 2.0
Boje (2001) Narrative Methods for Communication book
Note: Chapter 1 eight deconstruction steps open each of these tools in the Chapters indicated below:
1.True 1. BENEATH Single Loop process: assessment – Where your organization is now in its DEI?Tool 1: Duality Search of Grand Narratives (chapter 2)
2.Already There 2. BEFORE What is the deeper history of your DEI?Tool 2: Reinterpret Hierarchy with Microstoria Histories (chapter 3)
3.Plot 3. BETS ON FUTURE – How to align DEI in the strategic planning? Choosing among plotsTool 3: Deny the Plots (chapter 7)
4.Timing 4. BEING in Here and Now – Developing DEI in all spaces & times of ODC 2.0 by Closing the Double Loops of LearningTool 4: Other Side of the Stories by Mapping Themes (chapter 8)
5.Helping 5. BECOMING – of Double Loop of continuous process improvement of DEI systems
Tool 5: Find the Exception with Dynamic Story Networking Maps (chapter 4) with ICEND (Interactive, Communicative, Experiential, Networking Developing
6.Staging 6. BETWEEN – How do you visually communicate the DEI 2.0 to Stakeholders? Preparing for Triple LoopTool 6: Trace Between the Lines with Intertextuality (chapter 5)
7.Reflect 7. BEYOND – How your organization systems can continue an embodied process of reflection that attunes to ethics and aligns DEI 2.0 to ODC 2.0?
Tool 7: Final Resituation Path (& Rebel Voices) with Root Cause Analysis (chapter 6) to enact Triple Loop in embodied Reflection, aligning DEI 2.0 with We-centric and Eco-centric
7 Principles, 7 Antenarrative Processes, and 7 Tools of Deconstruction

Deconstructing Spectacle with Carnival in order to Reconstruct Festival

The Tools deconstruct Spectacles of DEI 1.0, take the path of Carnival in the Theatre of Organizations so we can turn towards the potential of Festival. Here is list of 8 steps of deconstruction:

  1. Duality Search – What is true about discrimination in the Grand Narratives? (lots of microaggressions are tolerated)
  2. Reinterpret Hierarchy – What is already there in the history of Microstoria groups? (Little Wow Moments of resistance)
  3. Deny the Plot of Grand Narratives – What are the plots within plots in the plot cycle? (i.e., cycle of prestory, emplotment, aftermath).
  4. Other Side of the Story – What is the timing & essence of Truth in the spacetimemattering? (Hint: Freedom in the open regions).
  5. Find the Exception – How can you help stories along in the becoming of DEI 2.0?
  6. Trace Between the Lines – How to stage the communications to the intertextuality (Intersectionality)?
  7. Rebel Voices – REFLECTION: Next steps; Whose voices do you invite to the table?
  8. Find the Resituation Path – REFLECTION: How to reconstruct the deconstructions to resolve Root Causes of Discriminations?

What is True? Diversity, equity (or equality), and inclusion (DEI 1.0) is not the same as DEI 2.0.  We therefore being with Principle 1 (What is True?) in a process of Going Beneath the concepts and labels of DEI to get to the pre-conceptions, and the differences between management saying a narrative in discourse (talk, stories, narratives, reports), and actual behavioral practices.

BLENDING TOGETHER DIFFERENT CONCEPTS OF D, E, and I can Cover Up a Lot of Problems that are not getting solved

D, E, and I (DEI) 1.0 is a fashionable organization and management discourse of anti-discrimination that do not actually ended the ongoing patterns of discrimination practices in many organizations. However, with the passage in the US of Taft-Hartley Act, the role of carnival of resistance ceased to be an option. In the world of individualism, of separation, and prohibitions of workers appealing to consumers, and the so-called ‘Right To Work’ states laws, unions in the USA faded away. Differences in D,E, and I discourses get blended into a monologic DIE 1.0 that erases the important differences of ongoing resistance practices, behaviors, and attitudes in the system of organizing, developing, and changing. It is hanging on to a pattern that needs changing. In the TINA Narrative (There Is No Alternative Narrative), differences of D, E, and I are blended into one monologic narrative we call DEI 1.0.

The True Storytelling Principles and Tools, are aimed at changing the systems at a Process Level.

Tool 1: Duality Search of Grand Narratives Tool (chapter 2).

It is away to GO BENEATH, find the dualities in the many Grand Narratives. By doing listening tours to all parts of the organization, using Talking Stick or Nominal Group Techniques, it is possible to go beneath the rhetoric and get acquainted with what is happening in each room of the Tamara-Land (buildings with many rooms in which minority talent exists, and can be discovered).   Pre-CONCEPTIONS

DEI 2.0, on the other hand, is defined here, as actually doing ODC 2.0 process and system work necessary to break free of the oppositional discursive patterns (us versus them) in the workplace, so the debate (& polarities) moves on to actual and true anti-discrimination behaviors and practices solutions respecting differences in equity, diversity, and inclusion discourses. For example, equal opportunities initiatives have been distinguished from diversity management strategies (Kandola, 1994; Kandola, Fullerton and Ahmed, 1995; Liff, 1997 & 1999; Liff & Wajcman, 1996). Concepts of inclusion and diversity have been delineated as quite different (Bendick, Egan and Lanier, 2010; Shore et al., 2011; Roberson, 2006).

Bendick, M., M.L. Egan, L. Lanier (2010). ‘The business case for diversity and the perverse practice of matching employees to customers’, Personnel Review, 39, pp. 468-486.

Kandola, R. and J. Fullerton (1994). Managing the Mosaic: Diversity in Action, London: IPD.

Kandola, R., J. Fullerton and Y. Ahmed (1995). ‘Managing diversity: Succeeding where equal opportunities has failed’, Equal Opportunities Review, 59, pp. 31-36.

Liff, S. (1997). ‘Two routes to managing diversity: individual differences or social group characteristics’, Employee Relations, 19, pp. 11-26.

Liff, S. (1999). ‘Diversity and equal opportunities: Room for a constructive compromise?’, Human Resource Management Journal, 9, pp. 65-75. 34.

Liff, S. and J. Wajcman (1996). ‘“Sameness” and “difference” revisited: which way forward for equal opportunity initiatives?’, Journal of Management Studies, 33, pp. 79-94.

Robinson, G. and K. Dechant (1997). ‘Building a business case for diversity’, Academy of Management Executive, 11, 3, pp. 45-56.

Shore, L.M., B. Chung, M. Dean, K. Ehrhart, D. Jung, A. Randel and G. Singh (2009). ‘Diversity in organizations: Where are we now and where are we going?’ Human Resource Management Review, 19, pp. 117-133.

Breakout Questions: Can DEI be seen as being interconnected and complimentary discourses, or are they more accurately, independent, and competing discourses?  If DEI are competing discourses, what are the underlying (root cause) differences between them?

Debrief: If D, E, and I constitute substantively different discourses (i.e., meaningful employment initiatives) or just superficially different discourses (i.e., rhetorically based management fashion Beginning-Middle, End [BME] linear, monological narratives) and consider the implications for future anti-discrimination initiatives.

Tool 2: Reinterpret Hierarchy with Microstoria Histories (chapter 3)

GOING INTO THE BEFORE PROCES TO HISTORY Principle 2: What is Already There? In the BEFORE of Histories, there are Microstoria histories of people who did resist the Grand Narratives, those discriminations.

Some History: The three antidiscrimination discourses of D, E, and I form a fractal pattern of recurring behaviors and attitudes which is a historical pattern of blending D, E, and I into one, in successive management fashions.  Diversity began in 1960s in the US, but it peaked in 1993, in practitioner journals, then was eclipsed by discussions of equity (& equality), and by the 2010, became fixated on inclusion (Oswick, 2011). 

“DEI [1.0] is a corporate litigation shield meant to protect those in power from the people over whom they wield it. The industry arose in the early ’60s to avoid inaction John F. Kennedy outlined at the beginning of the decade. In Executive Order 10925, Kennedy told government contractors to “take affirmative action to ensure” that employees be treated fairly irrespective of their race, religion, or nationality. Shortly after, the Civil Rights Act became law following a series of bloodstained boycotts and marches. Legal policies trapped DEI [1.0] in the fear of legal repercussions and made corporations eager to avoid splashy lawsuits” [Bracketed additions, ours, CLICK HERE TO READ ARTICLE].

Another word for crossroads is choice.

The transformation of Diversity to Equity, then to Inclusion was stimulated in management discussions in practitioner journals by the release of Workforce 2000 report (Johnston and Packer, 1987). It predicted massive demographic change requiring organizations to rethink their hiring strategies to survive. Rather than rethinking them, the rhetoric changed, and the practices remained the same: “In establishing distinctiveness, the rhetoric of diversity management in the practitioner-oriented literature began to ignore civil rights/social justice arguments” (Oswick, 2011).

In the US, all Equal Opportunity/AA initiatives were conflated to be ‘quotas or preferential selection of one gender, age, disability, ethnicity, racial, and nationality group over another. Organizations had little or not appetite for direct interventions in their systems. As Oswick (2011) puts it:

“EO/AA (equal opportunities/affirmative action) is portrayed as old, tired, failing and reliant on regulation imposed by the government, while MD (managing diversity) is new, fresh and full of potential, with an emphasis on responsible self-regulation of organizations guided by the free market.”

Sustaining discrimination by differentiating people is a way for Single Loop organizations to keep securing economic gains by externalizing the costs onto society. It also has Hidden Costs (decreased human potential, loss of competitive position to organizations making better use of human potential, to engage unfolding markets).

One major concern was the startling prediction that by 2000 only 15% of new entrants to the US workforce would be US-born, white males. Bureau of Labor Statistics later proved the Workforce 2000 prospective sensemaking (Principle 3, BETS ON THE FUTURE) to be wrong because they were based on a conceptual misunderstanding (back to the BENEATH, Principle 1, What is True?). According to Oswick’s (2011) study, “the professional management literature picked up that (largely erroneous) threat and made it into a full-blown crisis with rhetoric that justified and necessitated a major change in management style” (See Edelman, Fuller and Mara-Drita, 2001, p 1614.).

DEI 1.0, therefore management and Human Resource departments began enlisting external consultants to articulate an appropriate narrative response to meet the needs of the Workforce 2000 report’s, forecasted demographic and competitive challenge, while ignoring the Bureau of Labor Statistics counter-forecasts.

Johnston, W. and A. Packer (1987). Workforce 2000. Indianapolis, IN: Hudson Institute.

If the blending together of D,E, and I is a historical pattern of covering over discrimination with rhetoric (i.e., TINA narrative), is a deeper history diversity is blended into equality, and more recently, diversity and equality are treated as inclusion?

Breakout Question: What is the historical trend of D, E, and I being blended-together as one discourse covering over essential differences?

Debrief: The ongoing discrimination practices go unchecked and remained unchanged systemic process of Single Loop, for long periods of history. The history of DEI discourse includes a linear-narrative that Affirmative Action (AA) had definitely succeeded in securing this talent pool of women, ethnic, and racial minorities entering into organizations employment. An alternative narrative (plot) is that management and leadership in all kinds of organizations (public, private, NGO) continued to explicitly distance diversity from mandated Affirmative Action (AA) programs.

With ongoing True Storytelling Circle sessions, we have ground rules for effective active listening to other’s stories, their experiences in the organization, the dualities of discrimination self-deconstruct, and reconstruction begins.  See Study Guides available on TrueStorytelling.blog:

Tool 3: Deny the Plots (chapter 7)

If this plot (AA  Diversity  Equity  Inclusion Plot Line) is true, then minority talent has not been actually organizing, developing, changing the underlying system preventing minority talent and potential to progress up the hierarchy. Can there be empowerment as inclusion: (Prasad, 2001; Shore et al, 2011).

Prasad, A. (2001). ‘Understanding workplace empowerment as inclusion. A historical investigation of the discourse of difference in the United States’, The Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 37, pp.51-69.

Shore, L.M., A.E. Randel, B.G. Chung, M.A. Dean, K.H. Ehrhart and G. Singh, G. (2011). ‘Inclusion and diversity in work groups: a review and model for future research’, Journal of Management, 37, pp.1262-1289

In this linear sequence narrative: “They tend to argue that while diversity is concerned with recognizing the value of differences within the workforce and managing them for commercial advantage, inclusion is concerned with the processes that incorporate differences into business practices and thereby help to realize the value” (Oswick, 2011).

This shift away from diversity to inclusion, might, be the self-similar pattern, the recurring fractal of the earlier shift from EO/AA to diversity to inclusion, in order to hang on to the old hierarchical system. Evans (2006,p26) describes this happening in the UK:

“We talk much more about inclusion now, which is a dynamic… It is not about visible or non-visible traits of characteristics such as race or gender, sexuality or disability, which can all be stereotyped. It is about celebrating difference as an asset, since everyone is unique, and recognizing that everyone can make a contribution” (as cited in Oswick, 2011).

In short, what if its still the same Single Loop fractality by a different name? The consequence is talent pools of minorities are not being used to make organizations competitive with those organizations that develop Double and Triple Loop system competencies. We looked at the history of Single Looping from Affirmative Action (AA) to Diversity, let’s look at Looping from Diversity to Equity.  Diversity differences began to be problematized in practitioner journals, management texts, and organizational behavior texts. Managing diversity was downplayed and valuing differences took center stage for management solution (& organizational leader’s solutions, & their strategic-HR departments, & their hired consultants) turned to ‘Equity’ as the fashionable solution.

In short, non-change, non-development, and non-intervention approaches to consulting which did everything but deal with the underlying socio-economic root causes of discrimination, and barriers to entry and rising up the system hierarchy became the new managerial fashion narrative. In other words, understating the counter-narrative socioeconomic explanations. Bottom line: organizations and minority talent caught in Single Looping, so minority talent kept being under-utilized, and those organizations eroded their competitive position.

Tool 4: Other Side of the Stories by Mapping Themes (chapter 8)

This is the tool that connects the process of Becoming of the Little Wow Moments

Principe 4: Timing, and the PROCESS OF BEING in Space, in Time, in Mattering (SpaceTimeMattering). This principle, and process involves actual Moving the System from DEI 1.0 Single Looping to Double Looping DEI 2.0. This is done by Embodied Restorying.

Breakout Question: Is the shift from pseudo-DEI 1.0 to an actual DEI 2.0 possible.

Debrief: Chavez and Weisinger (2008), argue it is possible to rethink diversity and inclusion as overlapping concepts.

Chavez, C.I. and J.Y. Weisinger (2008). ‘Beyond diversity training: a social infusion for cultural inclusion’, Human Resource Management, 47, pp. 331-350. (Click for PDF on Academia service).

The inclusion fashoin shifts emphasis from managing diversity to ‘managing for diversity’ (Oswick, 20110. That would make DIO 2.0 ‘a proactive, ongoing strategy that creates a culture within which people appreciate and can capitalize on individual differences – regardless of changing legal, demographic and economic conditions’ (Chavez and Weisinger, 2008,p337).

This graphic depicts the publication of the three topics in practitioner journals (Oswick, 2011).

Source: Cliff Oswick (2011)

At this point is is Double Loop and open system for responding to shifts in the environment. At the same time it is something to build upon. What we suggest is the open system has stalled, and its retrospective-prospective sensemaking has short-circuited. We use a process or embodied restorying to jump start it. What has to be assessed in the diagnosis of the open system: had inclusion become just one more backlash against equality, and diversity, and any sort of EO/AA?

Tool 4 Going back in time to recover Little Wow Moments of exception in the past history of the organization.

In this phase of DEI 2.0 We do 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, to get to 6, the Restory.

We work on system organizing, developing, and changing (ODC 2.0) to actually-unleash human potential. We do this through a process of embodied restorying, that begins with Double Loop, and continues to be implementing the Third Loop, so Triple Loop working effectively.

Tool 5: Find the Exception with Dynamic Story Networking Maps (chapter 4) with ICEND (Interactive, Communicative, Experiential, Networking Developing

Principle 5: Helping stories along, is the second PROCESS OF BECOMING in both the Before-Heart of a system and the Bets-Heart. The Double loop of retrospective-prospective sensemaking does a restorying process in which ‘Little Wow Moments’(LWMs) of exception to discrimination and Single Looping in the past get connected to (Kairos) Opportune Moments of prospective sensemaking in the future. We help clients gather LWMs from their past history, and then facilitate the construction of RESTORY (the new story that gets to be a future enactment).And this changes the underlying Chronos (temporalizing) narrative. Next, we get to Staging, the new story in a publicize phase.

Tool 5 is a Back to the Future, To Connect the gathered basket of Little Wow Moments to the unfolding Opportune Moments Enacting the choices of DEI 2.0 futures that matter. This is a continuation of the Restorying Process.  

Tool 6: Trace Between the Lines with Intertextuality (chapter 5)

Tool 6 takes us on a journey between the four hearts.

The BETWEEN PROCESS, Going BETWEEN the Hearts of the System, with Principle 6: Staging by a visual storyboarding to communicate the ‘New Story’ in the Embodied Restorying Process, completing it with a Publicize to all stakeholders in a coherent, visual communication in all directions

Tool 6 Visual Staging Storyboarding  focus coherent communication

We are going to communicate to all the stakeholders in the Festival Theater. 7. BEYOND – How your organization systems can continue an embodied process of reflection that attunes to ethics and aligns DEI 2.0 to ODC 2.0?

Festival Theater

“Beyond the often-violent spectacle theatre of so-called “free market” capitalism and the failed alternative of “state-bureaucracy” spectacle, and the accompanying violent protest of carnivalesque street theatre, there is another path we have explored in the previous chapter, festivalism. The festivalism I have in mind would be a more conscious capitalism.”

Tool 7: Final Resituation Path (& Rebel Voices) with Root Cause Analysis (chapter 6) to enact Triple Loop in embodied Reflection, aligning DEI 2.0 with We-centric and the Eco-centric

BEYOND PROCESS with Principle 7: Embodied Reflection. Result: We get a partnering of DEI 2.0 that unleashes human potential for True Performance of True Storytelling.

TOOL 7 The Field Tool to enact Triple Loop in embodied Reflection,  aligning DEI 2.0 with ecoogica business modeling

What does community mean to you> We are part of many communities BEYOND gener, race, age, ethnicity. We are part of families, academic interests, geographical places, spiritual and religious traitions, dietary practices, and of course Mother Nature. We are nature, not just in nature. Can we change the old business model of exploiting everything, into one that has ecological and human potential.

Suggested References for Ecological Shift in Business Modeling that has Human Potential

Boje, David M.; Jorgensen, Kenneth Mølbjerg. (2020). A ‘storytelling science’ approach making the eco-business modeling turn. Journal of Business Modeling, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 8-25. Click here for pre-press pdfPlease Click here for final print version PDF

Boje, David M.; Rana, Mohammad B. (2020). Defining a Sustainably-Driven Business Modeling Strategy with a ‘Storytelling Science’ Approach. Chapter to appear in Markovic, S., Sancha, C. and Lindgreen, A. (Eds.), Handbook of Sustainability-driven Business Strategies in Practice, Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. Click here for pre-press pdf.

Mogens Sparre and Boje, David M. (2020). Utilizing Participative Action Research With Storytelling Interventions to Create Sustainability in Danish Farming. To appear in Organizational Development Journal. Click here for pre-press pdf.

Jørgensen, Kenneth Mølbjerg; Boje, David M. Storytelling Sustainability in Problem-Based
Learning. Chapter to appear. Click here for pre-press pdf.

Rosile, Grace Ann; Boje, David M; Herder Richard A.; Sanchez, Mabel. (2021). The Coalition of Immokalee Workers Uses Ensemble Storytelling Processes to Overcome Enslavement in Corporate Supply Chains. Business and Society. Business & Society, Vol. 60(2) 376–414. Click here fore pre-press pdf.

FOLLOW UP, And we go back to Principle 1 Going Beneath into the processes, structures, and fractal patterns to keep the organizing, developing, and changing unfolding Triple Loop

Contact David Boje to update this blog post

mail@example.com

Thank you for visiting

%d bloggers like this: