You’ve committed to DEI, now what?
By: Kori Ricketts, Mekka Smith
Tags: Culture, Change Management, Equity, Diversity And Inclusion, Leadership

In the summer of 2020, footage of George Floyd’s murder while in police custody went viral during the COVID-19 pandemic. Much of America was at home, and many organizations interpreted the tragedy as a catalyst to take symbolic and public steps toward recognizing racial inequities in America and, by extension, at work. The wave of increased solidarity resulted in an uptick in the need to deepen social justice awareness through the creation of equity roles and policies that will ensure organizations are meeting the moment.

As equity practitioners, we questioned what it would take for equity principles to live permanently in organizations, rather than being superimposed as a response to tragedy. We asked ourselves, “What are the enabling conditions to ensure that equity work is truly sustained?” In this article, we answer that question through the research and construction of the ACTT (Accountability, Community, Training, Transparency) Model. The ACTT Model is designed for leaders working in organizations with, at minimum, a stated commitment to equity. It guides leaders to focus their energy as they move organizations from a solidarity stage to a sustaining one. The model is most useful for organizational leadership starting their equity journey, who have a professed desire for change, but are unsure of what that means and where to go next.

Many education organizations, such as schools, districts, and education-serving nonprofits, are working to live up to their stated missions and values by engaging in internally-focused diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and antiracism work. The problem is DEI work is often not implemented in a manner that is sustainable. We define sustainability as radical ownership of DEI practices threaded throughout all levels of an organization, such that it is embedded in the culture, i.e. “the way we do things.” When we envision equity work, we are referring to the matrix of personal reflection, interpersonal engagement, and organizational analysis that takes into account practices that will lead an organization to become more diverse, equitable, inclusive, and antiracist. We believe that DEI implementation as a culture change strategy, based on the research of Cynthia Coburn, Ronald Heifetz and John Kotter, must be urgent and impactful. This is generally difficult in any industry, but especially in one as people-focused as education.

To develop the ACTT Model, we conducted research interviews with leaders across a spectrum of educational organizations — charter management organizations serving 15,000+ students, traditional urban school districts serving up to 5,000 students, and single site schools serving a few hundred students. We also spoke with DEI consultants, senior state and district leaders, education non-profit executives, and former teachers. In exchange for their candor, we promised leaders anonymity as they still work for their respective organizations. They shared rich stories of navigating misalignment and tension as each organization struggles to define successful DEI implementation for themselves within the education space. Their experiences further confirm that this type of data is not yet widely collected, further underlining the need for a model that is applicable across organization and industry.

Our respondents were in various stages of their equity work, including some who started post-George Floyd and others who were multiple years into their strategic plans. Regardless of size, geographical location, or exposure to the work (first year, or beyond) the trends were unanimous — all establishments faced the same problem: diversity, equity, and inclusion was not fully embedded into organizational culture.

To start, senior leadership must believe that focusing on DEI practices — not as an attempt to stay relevant, but as vital to running a successful organization — is urgent and important. Our research is clear that without backing from leadership, DEI work does not reach the needed breadth or depth within an organization to bring about effective change.

Leaders legitimize the importance of DEI and are the gatekeepers to implementation. We balance this truth with the reality that too few education organizations transition from naming equity as a priority to successfully acting on it.

For many education organizations, operating through an equity or DEI lens is awkward and new. It requires leaders to conduct an honest excavation of how their personal (in)actions impact organizational culture. It demands that decision-makers invest significant resources to aid the change process. It insists on envisioning and working toward a different future.

Our research indicates that education leaders tend to choose a set of trending decisions in an attempt to move from initiating equity work to sustaining it. Four of the most common choices are hiring an equity lead (Chief Equity Officer), placing equity work under the Human Resources Team, leading equity work exclusively from the executive suite, and moving forward without facing history. On face value, these may be logical moves that bridge from initiation to implementation. However, in many cases, such as the experiences of our respondents, such decisions happen in isolation as “the fix” and thus result in confusion, stalled progress, and inaction. We describe the opportunities and challenges of these decisions and propose how to approach DEI work so it actually leads to sustainability.

The ACTT Model: A Path Toward Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Sustainability

ACTT Model: Developed by Kori Ricketts and Mekka Smith

Our solution is to provide organizations seeking DEI support with a framework outlining the overarching elements for successfully operating through a DEI lens. We find that many organizations are learning bits and pieces of what works through trial and error, and since leading for equity is often unfamiliar, they are moving forward blindly without a comprehensive plan. We aim to provide clear guidance so organizations know broadly what it takes to move from initiation to and through implementation.

We propose four elements that are critical for equity to persist in an organization: accountability, community, training and transparency. What makes the ACTT Model effective is the application of all the elements simultaneously, instead of in silos. The ACTT Model is designed with practitioners in mind focusing on functionality and ease of use.

Accountability is both personal and organizational. Personal accountability starts with leadership and means each person in the organization takes ownership as an agent of change. This commitment must also be diffused throughout the organization. Organizational accountability refers to the committed resources and goals that will fuel the work’s progress.

Hiring a Chief Equity Officer (or similar position) is an example of a symbolic move toward accountability. It signals that equity is an organizational priority and will share air space in conversations about financial health, operations, people leadership and development. If the Chief Equity Officer commands the power to operate unencumbered to champion equity work throughout the organization, then they have a high probability of success. The trap of only hiring a Chief Equity Officer lies in the temptation of assuming the weight of the title will carry the work.

If the equity leader does not have the authority or credibility to name necessary shifts and initiate meaningful change that translates into clear progress, then the organization simply gains another employee on the org chart. A symbolic role sans substance will enjoy a short honeymoon period, after which reality sets in and staff will sniff out the incongruence of an equity leader who maintains the status quo. This is a shaky situation that positions leadership as disingenuous. It will deplete trust in the organization, and dampen hopes for genuine equity change.

Before rushing to create an equity leader job description, we suggest that organizations grapple with these questions:

How will current leadership practices shift in response to equity commitments?

What could equity leadership look like at multiple levels of this organization?

How are we allocating resources to demonstrate commitment to DEI across the organization?

Creating an equity leadership role is a sign of organizational investment; however, not setting up the leader for success is itself an equity issue. They need real authority in the strategic planning process, a team to distribute the work, and ongoing professional development. When organizational leaders demonstrate accountability, they take ownership of their personal and organizational responsibility to ensure that equity leadership is shared instead of siloed. True sustainability is achieved when all leaders in the organization see DEI as a part of their work.

Community refers to a group of thought leaders who are the engine of the work — they are a coalition of members collectively tasked with keeping the train on the tracks. They bring perspectives from various vantage points throughout the organization and share information outwardly. The community is the hub of thought leadership for all the DEI work.

Explicit commitment from the top is critical for facilitating forward movement on equity priorities. However, when conversation and ownership of the equity work is contained to only one level of an organization, it loses relevance. The top-down leadership trap takes two forms. The first is when senior leaders constrain goal ownership to their ranks. While it is tempting to situate equity fully under executive leadership for legitimization purposes, if leadership has a spotty track record of furthering important initiatives, or if they have a history of (intentionally or not) promoting racist policies, then complete ownership of equity work lands somewhere between laughable and dangerous. When people in authoritative roles are the only ones responsible for envisioning and implementing equity work, they are by definition not representing the full staff and are not locating the work to people most affected by their decisions.

The second trap is when leaders fully abdicate their participatory role in DEI and delegate all of the power and work to a coalition that does not include leadership. When senior leadership takes a hands-off approach, it signals to other leaders in the organization that DEI operates outside of organizational priorities and creates the space for DEI to compete with, instead of drive, stated priorities. Mid-level leaders, for example, must make the decision to focus their teams on organizational priorities led by senior leadership or DEI priorities led by a guiding coalition, and this separation casts the work of the coalition as optional or initiative-worthy, rather than anchoring work that impacts all staff. Mid-level leaders obfuscate the work and the power of the coalition is seen in opposition to the mission instead of driving the mission.

Leaders must adopt the mindset that equity work is everyone’s business. Here are some questions for leaders to plan for community involvement:

Which perspectives are represented in a broad and diverse coalition, and yet, which are missing?

How will various members share their perspectives if they are not part of a select few?

What is the current and ideal state of the messages leadership sends about the importance of the equity work?

Strong equity leadership engages a community of thought leaders from various aspects of an organization to provide insight into implementation work and garners the support and resource allocation from senior leadership.

Training is the intentional development of skill and will for the organization, led by experts in the field. Though experts may be within the organization, it is a best practice that initial work be conducted by external partners so that everyone can benefit from adopting a learning stance. At times, training is eschewed in favor of placing equity work under an established department to ensure it “has a home” and will continue beyond a few facilitated sessions.

HR is often a logical choice to house equity work because it is a gateway for new team members through the recruiting and hiring process. The HR team has the power to link equity to performance competencies, evaluations, and pay structure. For equity work to thrive in this department, an organization needs an HR team leader whose mandate is to honestly report data, model internal changes, and closely support other departments to reflect and adjust their practices.

The trap of placing DEI under a department like Human Resources rests on the implicit assumption that equity imperatives will trickle down through people policies. A number of realities may hamper intended progress. First, very rarely do we find that HR leaders receive ongoing equity training to understand what they should do with this responsibility. As a result, their team is not fully equipped with the knowledge, skills, or mindsets to lead organizational change. Relatedly, it is important to examine how equity is absorbed into a department like HR. If there is no discernible change in how the HR team operates, for instance, by starting to probe for missing perspectives in decision-making conversations, then the department itself perpetuates a culture that lacks key DEI principles. It is unrealistic to expect a department that is not learning and changing to turn around and lead meaningful equity changes across an organization.

We offer these questions to leaders grappling with the implications of training:

What does our ideal DEI partnership look like?

What are our training goals?

Who on our staff do we want involved in training?

How will we ensure ongoing training and facilitation for staff?

Leadership must make a long-term investment in people by providing external facilitation and ensuring training is an explicit imperative for all staff.

Transparency is the vehicle in which to build credibility through a historical reckoning and clear, consistent communication. An essential element of committing to equity work is unearthing and reviewing organizational data that illuminate the problem. Relevant data includes student achievement results, staff culture surveys, performance reviews, and interpersonal observations. Placing this information in the hands of many can be a humbling and scary experience for leaders.

Our respondents shared the power of transparency as a lever for credibility. Staff appreciate when leaders are honest about why progress needs to happen. Leaders tend to be comfortable sharing recent organizational data, yet leapfrog over personal ownership for the current cultural state. If pursuing equity is a priority and the leadership remains stable, then leadership is responsible for why equity has not yet happened. Discussing data in absence of senior leader responsibility is telling an incomplete story. Data sharing should be accompanied by framing, context, and ownership of results. Organizations fall into the transparency trap when they forge ahead with declarations of future plans and fail to share the organizational history of past mistakes and harm.

As leaders take the brave steps toward transparency, here are some guiding questions to consider:

What are the risks and advantages to sharing our data internally?

What are the multiple avenues through which we will communicate our learning and progress?

How have we previously caused harm that needs to be publicly addressed?

Transparency builds credibility. When leaders share clear and consistent communication of the evolution of equity work, they open a space for honest dialogue about how to move forward as a learning organization.

We see ample energy spent on initiating conversations and making declarations of solidarity and change. We also see a lot of uncertainty with what sustainability looks like. Some organizations fall prey to thinking naming the issue or speaking more forcefully about their intentions to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion will organically open up the solution box. Starting equity work without a clear understanding of how to continue it is like placing a bandage on a cancerous sore. An effective treatment plan includes having a clear-eyed understanding of the problem, committing self and resources to drive results, and engaging a team of supporters and experts to rely on for guidance and support.

Accountability, community, training, and transparency create a powerful combination to redesign organizational culture. As organizations embark on the hard work of transforming into more equitable places for their staff, students, and community at-large, they should prepare to not simply state their renewed priorities, but also to confidently ACTT.