When Rapid7 really started focusing on its Diversity, Equity and Inclusion efforts last year, I spent a lot of time exploring how other companies had approached this work. I learned many were supportive of affinity groups and were committing much time, energy and financial support to them. In theory, I think it’s a wonderful thing to gather people together who share a common interest. However, it also raised a big flag to me: it struck me as counterintuitive to focus on creating groups that are the opposite of inclusive by singling out people who share a common denominator of the very thing we are trying to be inclusive of. If the goal of inclusion efforts is to break down boundaries and create a healthy cross-pollination of ideas and respect for all, this will ultimately come from a broad set of connections, relationships, and interactions.
This is not intended at all to be a rant on affinity groups, though it is a cautionary tale to all leaders and employees who are trying to make strides in their own diversity mindsets and efforts. Consider this: when we encourage people to partner up with others just like themselves, qualified by labels like “gay” or “Latino” or “woman,” I think we are missing the point. Instead, I challenge that we should be finding ways to bring people together based on their skills, interests, etc. Of course, we can find comfort and inspiration when we spent time with those like ourselves, but if the goal of inclusion is to truly create an environment of acceptance and understanding, the division between these groups can actually make things worse.
When my ancestors came over on the boat from Italy to Ellis Island, they behaved as do many immigrants; they found their “tribe.” They settled in an area where there were other Italian immigrants, and together they bonded over food, culture, etc. as a means of building community and a safe support mechanism. Totally normal behavior right? When we feel threatened, we retreat to groups of people that create that safety net for us.
This Tribal thinking might have made sense as a form of survival and safety, but in the workplace, there are other approaches we can take to create the connections and relationships we so crave. Radical approach? Refocus on the mission of eviscerating the very prejudices and biases that are at the core of this struggle in the first place, and move towards groups centered on building true inclusion. Why? While affinity groups are often incredibly well-intentioned they often drift to a dynamic of “people like me” and result in furthering the “us vs. them” mentality we are all trying so hard to break down.
As an alternative, I’m suggesting that instead of building alliances around a particular qualifier, companies aid and support opportunities where people can break down boundaries and make real connections. I’m not suggesting people who share common qualifiers shouldn’t connect and provide support to one another. I am, however, suggesting we re-examine groups so that they really focus on true “affinities” Perhaps instead of a “women’s network,” we focus our energies on gathering people who love spin class. Or people passionate about music. Or AI. Or whatever. The point is, instead of building groups defined by race or orientation, we will focus our energies on true affinities that will bring people closer together, rather than further separate them. When we behave like this, we deepen our ability to truly break down barriers, cross-pollinate ideas, and ultimately make our places of work more collaborative and innovative through the diversity of mindset coming together.
Pro-Tip: Check out tools like CultureHQ that help to make this shift easy, non-threatening and fun.
Christina Luconi is Chief People Officer for Rapid7. Follow her on Twitter: @peopleinnovator.