A Point of View: What about our employees who voted for President Trump?

“What about our employees who voted for President Trump?”  

Believe it or not, this is a question we get often as we engage with clients on designing learning experiences in support of their inclusion, equity, and diversity efforts. This question usually comes from a place of concern that the content may be too “progressive,” or perhaps challenging—that the concepts around diversity, equity, and inclusion might push individuals into a point of discomfort that challenges them in ways that perhaps they did not expect. Given, our current social and political climate, one might agree that this is certainly a relevant question. As organizations strive to create environments where employees can bring their “whole” and best selves to work, political ideology is certainly a dimension of diversity to consider.  

This post does not seek to invalidate the rationale behind such questions, but rather challenge ourselves—as DEI leaders, practitioners, and advocates for inclusion—around what that question could potentially signal, and how, depending on one’s response, it could potentially stifle or sanitize strides towards equity and inclusion.  

A concept I believe worth revisiting in the context of this discussion is what it means to “Decenter the Dominant Narrative.” We’ve written about this extensively in The Inclusion Solution—particularly as we’ve been more intentional about mapping the intersection between diversity & inclusion and social justice work.  

By definition, “decenter” means to displace or remove from the center… from a central position, a primary or central focus or role. Simply put, decentering is a shift in focus. Moreover, the act of decentering is deliberate. Decentering is usually in service of something—meaning, it is happening for a reason. Some definitions include the word “replace,” which also suggests when something is decentered, something else then becomes the central focus.  

So, if that is how we define decenter—what do we mean by “the dominant narrative?” By definition, “dominant” means most important, powerful, or influential. When we use dominant in the context of understanding identity, we are typically referring to dominant groups—groups that have traditionally held social power, and as a result, experience privilege, advantages, and access not experienced by other (marginalized or subordinated) groups. Being part of a dominant group or part of dominant groups in society (white, male, cisgendered, Christian, heterosexual, socioeconomically advantaged or all of the above) influences one’s experience in the world, in our country, and even in the workplace.  

The work around equity—that is the process by which we achieve equality, fairness, and inclusion that takes into account structural, systemic, and historical barriers—ultimately seeks to address that power imbalance, reconcile disparities in outcomes and experiences, and ultimately decenter the dominant narrative. The work around equity recognizes that the “status quo” is as it is and will remain as it is, if we continue to center the experiences, feelings and outcomes of those who have traditionally been deemed most important, powerful, and influential (dominant). That said, the work around equity begs us to consider two options in all we do—perpetuate the status quo or disrupt the status quo… center the dominant narrative or decenter the dominant narrative. I would venture to say that contrary to other nuances involved in this work, this one is pretty “cut and dry,” either/or. I do recognize that some might disagree.  

So, back to the question at hand—What about our employees who voted for President Trump?  

To which I might respond:  

• What about employees who experience the organization’s culture as perpetually exclusive?  
• What about the employees who must cover significant aspects of their identity in order to assimilate into the organization’s culture?  
• What about the turnover rates that suggest Black and Latinx employees are leaving the organization at significantly higher rates than their counterparts?
• What about the hire data that suggests bias and racism still influence who is deemed “top” talent?
• What about the Asian employees and women who continue to hit the perpetual glass and bamboo ceilings as they seek to rise into leadership roles?
• What about the experiences of those who are most marginalized, who experience the compounding effects of inequity and oppression as individuals (micro-aggressions, discrimination, bias, etc.) —but are also acutely aware of and experience the trauma associated with structural, cultural –isms (that influence criminal justice, employment, poverty, education systems, etc.) all because of who they are and the group of which they belong?  

From my point of view, this is what decentering the dominant narrative sounds like. It means less of –what does this mean for me (as someone in a place of privilege)? And more of—what does this mean for others, who have experienced marginalization in ways that I have not? It means asking questions like—Who has historically been centered, affirmed, and prioritized in our culture? Who has not and how do we move them to the center to drive our equity and inclusion efforts? It means being deliberate about shifting the focus from fear of ostracizing or agitating the fragility of white leaders to ensuring people of color feel seen, heard, and supported in the conceptualization of learning experiences and DEI programming.  

This is what the work around equity requires—and now more than ever, the work needs us.