The Future of Work: Balancing AI Innovation with Humanity

As artificial intelligence (AI) continues to reshape the professional landscape, we find ourselves grappling with a pressing question: How can humanity preserve its essence and empathy in a world increasingly dominated by machine intelligence?

At the recent ‘Work in Progress’ conference, we came together as a diverse group of investors, organizational leaders, futurists, and corporate coaches to explore this challenge. Spanning a 20-year age range and representing experiences across three continents, we shared a collective familiarity with the U.S. professional environment, which grounded our discussion in a shared context.

Our task in this working group was to redefine the roles of leaders, managers, and individual contributors in workplaces increasingly influenced by AI. As our conversations deepened, an additional goal emerged: to imagine what these roles might look like in a more distant, AI-integrated future.

To anchor this exploration, we first established several foundational truths:

  1. Acknowledging Humanity’s Current Role
    To imagine humanity’s place in an AI-driven world, we first needed to reflect on its presence—or absence—in the workplace over the past three decades and today.
  2. Recognizing Literacy as a Double-Edged Sword
    We noted that 100 years ago, the global population was 2 billion, with a literacy rate of just 15%. Today, with nearly 7 billion people, literacy has risen to 85%. While education is a gateway to freedom, its potential to foster a more humane workplace depends on its ability to equip individuals with usable skills and nurture cultural flourishing.
  3. Balancing AI’s Promises and Threats
    AI presents both opportunities and risks. It can amplify educational access and workplace productivity, but it also challenges humanity’s role in fostering empathy, creativity, and cultural connectivity.
  4. Examining the Human Condition at Work
    With significant investments in learning and development (L&D), talent development, and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), we considered key elements that enhance or hinder individuals’ ability to learn and thrive in the workplace. These elements were categorized into seven dimensions:
    • Time: The availability or scarcity of it.
    • Agency: Individuals’ ability to influence outcomes.
    • Fulfillment: A sense of purpose and satisfaction.
    • Safety: Specifically, psychological safety.
    • Equality of Wellness: Access to resources that ensure well-being.
    • Visibility: The ability to be seen and heard authentically.
    • Elimination of Threats: Reducing barriers and hostilities.

Each participant rated humanity’s progress across these dimensions in three periods: before the internet, in 2024, and in a speculative future. This data, informed by the insights of ten diverse workplace experts, provides a nuanced view of how workplace experiences might evolve across three pivotal eras: “Before the Internet,” “The Recent Now,” and “An AI-Integrated Future.” Rather than offering definitive conclusions, these findings illuminate potential trajectories and areas of focus as we navigate an increasingly technology-driven landscape.

Balancing AI with Humanity Graph

Empowerment and Fulfillment

For these workplace experts, the perception of agency appears to have risen dramatically, moving from 43 in “Before the Internet” to 84 in “The Recent Now.” This rise suggests an increasing focus on individual autonomy and purpose in the workplace. However, the slight decline projected in the AI-integrated future (77) hints at lingering uncertainty around balancing human autonomy with technological intervention.

The pre-Internet workplace was described with words like “transactional,” “command + control,” “punch the clock,” “dehumanizing,” and “a lack of individual purpose.” These words paint a picture of a rigid and authoritative environment where work was often seen as a means to an end, marked by linear, serial processes and a lack of personal fulfillment.

In contrast, fulfillment shows a steady rise over time, peaking at 79 in the AI future. This suggests the possibility of work increasingly aligning with individuals’ aspirations and values, aided by systems designed to enhance meaningful engagement. The AI-integrated future is imagined as a period of “empowered potential,” “creativity,” “personal agency,” and “a world beyond scarcity.” Experts envision workplaces where humans have the “time and tools to be their fuller creative selves” and find fulfillment in a “harmonized” and “adaptive” environment.

Equality and Visibility as Emerging Priorities

The data suggests a notable upward trend in Equality of Wellness and Visibility, with both metrics growing substantially from their pre-Internet baselines (33 and 34, respectively) to over 70 in the AI future. This may point to a growing recognition of fairness, inclusivity, and transparency as critical drivers of healthier and more equitable workplaces.

The pre-Internet era’s emphasis on “static knowledge written by homogenous experts” and “binary, authoritative systems” contrasts sharply with the “searching for creative alignment,” “greater autonomy,” and “remembering humanity” that characterize the recent now. Yet, challenges such as “unequal access,” “overload,” and “generational differences” remind us that progress remains uneven.

In the AI future, experts envision workplaces marked by “decentralized ownership,” “greater purpose beyond work,” and “humanized systems.” Such changes imply the potential for workplaces to transcend structural inequalities and focus on cultivating “flexibility, choice, and impactful contributions.”

Challenges in Psychological Safety and Threat Mitigation

While Psychological Safety has grown from “Before the Internet” (46) to “The Recent Now” (66), its projected stabilization at 65 in the AI future suggests potential barriers to further improvement. This may reflect the complexities of fostering emotional well-being in increasingly digitized and augmented environments.

The pre-Internet workplace, described as “authoritative and firm” with a “lack of individual purpose,” offered limited support for psychological safety. The recent now, while more “collaborative” and “flexible,” also carries challenges such as “frustration,” “burnout,” and “overwhelmed information flows.”

The AI-integrated future, imagined as “peaceful,” “constant learning opportunities,” and “adaptive,” offers the possibility of greater psychological support but also raises questions about the human-technology dynamic.

Meanwhile, the Elimination of Threats metric remains relatively unchanged across the three periods (46, 48, 47). This suggests enduring challenges in addressing perceived or systemic risks, even as workplaces evolve.

A Changing Relationship with Time

The perception of Time undergoes a profound shift, with the metric rising from 58 in “Before the Internet” to 77 in the AI-integrated future. This evolution reflects how technology might transform notions of productivity and work-life integration.

In the pre-Internet era, time was often “linear,” “serial,” and “analog,” reinforcing rigid and dehumanizing structures. By “The Recent Now,” the group describes a world that is “constantly connected,” “digitized,” and “global,” yet often leaves individuals feeling “overwhelmed” and “burned out.”

The AI future is imagined as a time when workplaces enable “more time and less work,” fostering “seamless experiences” and providing individuals the space to “harvest creativity” and pursue “greater purpose beyond work.”

A Vision for the AI-Integrated Workplace

These expert perspectives highlight possibilities for an AI-driven future. While advancements in agency, fulfillment, equality, and visibility suggest a promising trajectory, the plateauing of psychological safety and stagnation in threat elimination underscore areas requiring intentional focus.

Rather than presenting a utopian vision, these insights invite reflection on the nuanced interplay between technological progress and human well-being. As workplaces evolve, leaders are encouraged to design systems that enhance not only productivity and fairness but also intangible elements like trust, safety, and emotional resilience.

Tomorrow’s Roles: Preparing Leadership and Teams for an AI-Integrated Future

As workplaces evolve toward an AI-integrated future, the roles of leaders at every level must adapt to meet the demands of this new era. The insights from workplace experts suggest a future where decentralization, creativity, equity, and human empowerment become central pillars of success. For C-Suite executives, venture capitalists (VCs), and board members, this means redefining their responsibilities to align with emerging priorities like psychological safety, adaptability, and the seamless integration of human and AI capabilities.

The following outlines essential additions to their job descriptions, ensuring leadership not only navigates but thrives in this transformative future and that managers and teams can play their harmonious role herein. These changes reflect the need for a more human-centric approach, balancing technological innovation with purpose, inclusivity, and well-being.

Additions to Job Descriptions for C-Suite Executives, VCs, and Board Members in an AI-Integrated Future

For the C-Suite

  1. CEO (Chief Executive Officer)
    • Champion decentralized decision-making and empower cross-functional collaboration between human and AI teams.
    • Foster a culture of continual learning, adaptability, and creativity within the organization.
    • Lead efforts to align corporate vision with broader societal goals, such as equity, sustainability, and well-being.
    • Ensure transparency in AI implementation and its alignment with ethical standards.
  2. CFO (Chief Financial Officer)
    • Integrate long-term, purpose-driven metrics into financial planning, focusing on sustainability, equity, and impact.
    • Leverage AI to optimize resource allocation while considering human energy and well-being.
    • Analyze the financial implications of transitioning to more flexible work structures, such as reduced hours or creative sabbaticals.
  3. COO (Chief Operating Officer)
    • Orchestrate adaptive workflows where human and robotic agents collaborate seamlessly.
    • Ensure operational strategies prioritize psychological safety, inclusion, and fulfillment.
    • Implement systems to measure and enhance team member alignment with organizational purpose.
  4. CHRO (Chief Human Resources Officer)
    • Prioritize emotional intelligence and psychological safety as key components of leadership development.
    • Develop programs to support human creativity, flexibility, and well-being, leveraging AI for personalized career pathways.
    • Address systemic inequities by implementing tools and policies that create a level playing field for all employees.
  5. CMO (Chief Marketing Officer)
    • Emphasize the integration of storytelling and humanized branding in AI-driven campaigns.
    • Advocate for transparency in AI usage to build trust with consumers and stakeholders.
    • Focus on aligning brand identity with societal values, emphasizing empowerment, purpose, and inclusivity.
  6. CIO/CTO (Chief Information/Technology Officer)
    • Lead ethical AI innovation, ensuring systems augment human potential rather than replace it.
    • Design technology systems to support decentralized ownership and adaptive collaboration.
    • Monitor AI systems for unintended biases and align their outputs with organizational values.

For Venture Capitalists (VCs)

  • Evaluate startups based on their ability to harmonize AI advancements with human empowerment and societal impact.
  • Advocate for funding models that prioritize creativity, well-being, and sustainability over pure scalability.
  • Mentor founders on the importance of psychological safety and equitable practices in building resilient organizations.

For Board Members

  • Ensure strategic oversight prioritizes long-term societal impact alongside shareholder returns.
  • Act as stewards of ethical AI deployment, holding organizations accountable for transparency and fairness.
  • Provide governance that supports flexibility and creativity in the workforce, aligning with evolving values of the AI era.
  • Promote alignment between organizational purpose and global challenges, encouraging a higher purpose beyond profit.

For Managers

  • Enable Purpose-Driven Work: Act as a guide to help individuals align their roles with their personal aspirations and the broader organizational mission.
  • Promote Collaborative Leadership: Shift from directive management to coaching and facilitation, empowering teams to co-create solutions in collaboration with AI systems.
  • Leverage AI for Personalized Support: Use AI to identify team members’ needs, skill gaps, and career development opportunities, offering tailored growth pathways.
  • Balance Workload and Well-Being: Advocate for flexible schedules, creative sabbaticals, and AI-enabled efficiencies to help reduce burnout and enhance fulfillment.

For Individual Contributors

  • Embrace Lifelong Learning: Commit to continual skill development, especially in areas where human creativity, emotional intelligence, and decision-making complement AI capabilities.
  • Cultivate Creativity and Innovation: Harness AI tools to unlock new ways of thinking, problem-solving, and generating impactful ideas.
  • Adapt to Hybrid Collaboration: Learn to work seamlessly with AI agents, understanding their capabilities and leveraging them to enhance productivity and outcomes.
  • Prioritize Purpose and Impact: Seek roles and projects that align with personal values, leveraging AI to achieve greater meaning and influence in your work.
  • Advocate for Equity and Inclusion: Actively contribute to creating an environment that is fair, inclusive, and supportive of diverse perspectives and talents.

Far Beyond Tomorrow: Futurist Roles for a Changing World

A recurring theme in the conversation was the evolution of leadership models. One participant proposed moving away from rigid hierarchies:

“What if leadership itself shifts from this hierarchical structure into this infinity model of leadership where things are done, and the person who’s leading does it based on whoever has the most expertise in that area?”

This vision of leadership emphasizes adaptability, with leaders transitioning fluidly between roles to support collective expertise. Such a system could foster collaboration and inclusivity while dismantling traditional power dynamics.

The rapid pace of technological change demands new professional roles to address emerging needs. Suggestions included:

  • Regeneration Specialists: Focused on reciprocity, ensuring organizations give back to the ecosystems and communities they impact.
  • Nervous System Regulators: Addressing the overwhelm caused by constant change and fostering holistic well-being in business.
  • Chief Potential Officers: Helping individuals and organizations embrace their full creative potential by moving past scarcity-driven mindsets.

“We’re going to need to help people shake off the way we’ve always worked and move into our full creative selves,” one contributor emphasized.

The Role of Research and Real-Time Analysis

In a rapidly shifting environment, research and analysis will play a pivotal role in interpreting trends and mitigating risks. As one participant noted:

“There’s going to be a lot of trial and error, and researchers need to make sense of what’s happening. Real-time analysis becomes something totally different.”

To remain effective, these roles must bridge the gap between idealistic visions and actionable insights, ensuring that data-driven decisions align with both ethical principles and practical business needs.

Ethical Guardrails and Global Collaboration

As AI becomes increasingly integrated into decision-making, the potential for dehumanization is a concern. One participant posed the critical question:

“Who is advocating for humans? Who’s going to stem the tide from an integration that destroys the human element?”

This led to discussions about roles like a “Protector of Humans,” tasked with safeguarding human dignity, ethical considerations, and societal balance. Another participant added, “Do we program AI to protect humans at all costs?”

The ethical challenges posed by AI development cannot be overstated. As one participant put it:

“Just because we can do something doesn’t mean we should. And even if we should, it doesn’t mean we should do it right now.”

Discussions highlighted the need for international standards and ethical governance to guide AI’s evolution responsibly. However, nationalism and competing interests may hinder such collaborative efforts.

Education and Creativity as Cornerstones

A shift toward a more human-centered future also requires rethinking education. A participant suggested:

“We need educators who can help bridge the gap between technological advancements and human understanding. Designers of education will be critical.”

This aligns with the call to nurture human creativity, distinguishing authentic human expression from synthetic creations.

Conclusion: A Protopian Vision

Amid the challenges, there’s a hopeful vision of a “protopian” future—a world where progress is incremental and grounded in reciprocity and shared humanity. As one participant concluded:

“For organizations to thrive, they must evolve to play a role in the kindness and regeneration of resources, shaping a society rooted in compassion.”

The future of work is not just about adapting to AI but about redefining what it means to be human in an interconnected, technologically advanced world. By fostering ethical leadership, embracing new roles, and prioritizing human creativity, we can navigate this transformation with purpose and resilience.

Is America Polarized or Just Majority Fascist? 

This article has two aims: To engage in the question of whether America is not polarized, but just majority fundamentalist, and to establish new goals for a category that goes beyond leftism or liberalism, which I am calling ‘the new minority’. We will also cover the role of empathy and what empathy needs to be effective in both paradigms

Is America Polarized or Just Majority Fundamentalist? 

This article has two aims: To engage in the question of whether America is not polarized, but just majority fundamentalist, and to establish new goals for a category that goes beyond leftism or liberalism, which I am calling ‘the new minority’. We will also cover the role of empathy and what empathy needs to be effective in both paradigms

How we can make radical change, without changing the radicals

A theoretically revolutionary take on how to approach organizational DEI, called ‘Two In The Room’

We are at a time of history when we are told that to move forward, we must bring the two most extreme edges together, pulling them towards the middle through dialogue.

That when dialogue meets in the middle, and the ends of the political spectrum listen to each other, depolarization will occur.

In reality, we haven’t seen that happen. In fact, we see it only polarizes us further.

But what about the middle that already exists? Those who, in their hearts, want inclusion and belonging for all. They just don’t know how to make it happen.

Our diversity, equity, and inclusion leaders have done everything they could to give the middle that knowledge, through facts, statistics, and exercises.

But when we asked more than 100 DEI directors in organizations across the country what their biggest challenge is, we consistently hear that after all of those trainings, they’re not seeing people apply that knowledge in their teams and communities.

And so by looking at our nation’s complicated strategy in defeating racism, speaking with the brightest researchers on bias, and the science of emotions, we came up with a clear starting point for change. This starting point is actionable, can change lives, and can be represented in one powerful easy to remember phrase:

TWO IN THE ROOM. Specifically, two people in every room who are comfortable and willing to speak up for the rights of others.

Two in the Room is the basis for our theory of change — we can make radical change without needing to change the radicals.

What is the foundation of a great team?

We live in a world of teams — our community groups, our families, our classrooms. Our corporations and organizations are made up of teams. We may think we know what makes a team great. But do we?

Google wondered the same thing. In 2015, the company conducted a study of their 150 teams known as “Project Aristotle.” Rather than similar educational backgrounds or interests, or the perfect blend of introverts and extroverts, it was the rituals and unspoken rules that bonded the team members hold valuable, i.e. “how the team worked together.” Google’s research revealed that the most important element of a successful team was psychological safety. As defined by Harvard Business School Professor Amy C. Edmondson in her book The Fearless Organization, psychological safety is “a belief that one will not be punished or humiliated for speaking up with ideas, questions, concerns, or mistakes.” Team members can have ideas and take the risks that often lead to innovation, and do so while staying part of the whole.

That foundation of psychological safety leads to healthy dependability and a sense of purpose and self-determination, the clarity necessary to achieve key point indicators, a sense of purpose, higher job satisfaction, employee retention, higher boosts in productivity and revenue.

Here’s the catch: We do not believe that you can have a psychologically safe team that does not feel inclusive. You’ve likely already experienced this: You’re in a planning meeting with colleagues, and someone on the team makes a sexist comment. If this is met with awkward silence, sharing ideas becomes less comfortable. If someone tries to manage the conversation because you’re out of time, people will start showing up less consistently. If someone sides with everyone because they think that it’s empathetic to avoid conflict — because they lack the point of view to see how a sexist comment reflects the systemic bias embedded in our organizational cultures — this will also destroy psychological safety. Without inclusivity, the loss of psychological safety results in the loss of dependability, impact, and ultimately, success.

Where are our teams today?

We are not a country of binaries, such as racists and non-racist, sexists and non-sexist. Instead, we’re all somewhere on a spectrum of bias about particular issues and identities. At one end of the spectrum are the advocates, already outspoken against bias. At the other end, there are explicitly biased people who think the world is a meritocracy, and say everyone has a fair chance it’s just about what you put into it. In the very large middle, there are three groups:

  • almost allies, those who lack the experiences and thus, the exposure to apply the DEI tools they’ve been given,
  • those who are quite biased though less explicitly so, and
  • those who mean well and may recognize their biases but have no idea how to change.

Imagine that each of these groups are represented by five people in a room at work, and perhaps you’re one of them. Our tendency is to focus energy and attention on Person A, “The Problem,” because they can create the most outrage, as well as the most paperwork for human resources departments. Because implicit bias is both historical and environmental, the chances of moving Person A towards the inclusive end of the spectrum is difficult. A 2019 study published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that “residents of counties more dependent on slave labor in 1860 display greater implicit bias measured up to 156 years later.”

Bias can be viewed as a wave in a football stadium. If a section of the stadium across from you begins the wave, it’s more likely that you’ll stand up if those around you stand up as well. Implicit bias is much the same, according to Heidi A. Vuletich (Indiana University Bloomington) and B. Keith Payne (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill): “Implicit bias is a social phenomenon that passes through individuals like ‘the wave’ passes through fans in a stadium. Rather than a property of individuals, it may more properly be considered a property of social contexts.”

Then, what do we do next? We look all the way to the left, and say ‘help us solve our problem’ to the DEI groups, and to the ERG’s. Now we’re all aware of the problematic nature of asking the most victimized and marginalized to solve an organization’s problem.

In a study of nearly 600 finalists for university teaching positions, if there was only one woman in the candidate pool, she had no chance of being hired. If there were two or more women in the candidate pool, “the status quo changed, resulting in a woman…becoming the favored candidate.”. Being the only woman in a pool of finalists highlights how different she is from the norm, which makes hiring her a risky choice.

Likewise, when Person E speaks up, it highlights a deviation from the status quo. It takes that second person in the room — Person D — speaking up as well, thereby making Person E’s viewpoint more viable, and shifting the environment. Because bias is environmental, Person C may not yet be ready to speak up, but will want to learn the tools to address his/her biases. As the environment shifts further, Person B may start to recognize his/her biases, and Person A may become less vocal. By helping those in the middle of the spectrum walk in the shoes of others and gain the exposure to apply their knowledge, Person B will become Person C, Person C will become Person D, and even Person A may change their viewpoints because they realize their environment no longer finds it acceptable.

How we create radical change, shifting our teams by focusing on the middle.
Animation by Kinga Ernt

Who is this second person?

How do we find those almost allies — those second people in every room — wanting to become advocates?

Well, on one hand, we know who they are, because many of them have stepped up and said, we want to do more for Black Lives Matter. Many have gone to their ERG’s or their marginalized peers and again, said, ‘tell me what to do to not be racist, sexist, gender non-affirming, ableist, and so on. And so the good news is, the second person is making themselves more visible.

If they are less visible that 20% percent of your organization, not including outspoken advocates, then notice who shows up for voluntary trainings, workshops, or discussions involving race, gender, or sexual orientation.

But this survey shows us how this second person in the room is making up a very significant 1/5th of our organizations, and is not being activated to support DEI efforts effectively.. In this study, Payscale asked 27,000 people in the workforce, two questions. The first question was, in most workplaces, do men and women have equal opportunities? Yes I agree, or no I strongly disagree. The second question was in my workplace, do men and women have equal opportunities?

One in five said, NO, women do not have equal opportunities in most workplaces and NO, also not where I work. These people get it. They get that bias exists, and they also see it environmentally, and are likely the first person in the room, already an outspoken advocate. Three in five people said, Yeah, women have equal opportunities in most workplaces, and YES, also where I work. These people don’t get it. They don’t necessarily even feel or understand the bias existing on national level, and so they’re harder and much more effort to help directly.

The final one in five said, NO, women do not have equal opportunities in most workplaces. But YES, they DO have equal opportunities here, where I work. These folks understand that bias exists; they get the concept, but they lack the point of view to see it environmentally.

But if we can get this second in five to see locally, what they believe nationally, and stand next to the advocate. Then at the next planning meeting, a sexist comment will be met with someone speaking up to say, “I found that remark to be sexist.” Rather than try to manage the conversation, the second person in the room will jump in with, “You know, that bothered me as well. With the few minutes we have left, let’s talk about it as a team.”

That is a team that actually builds their safety and belonging. And a country of teams creating two in the room, comfortable and willing to speak up for the rights of others bends the moral arc of our professional environments.

Conclusion

Two in the Room — How DEI Leaders Can Create Radical Change without Changing the Radicals

Seven steps to revolutionizing your viewpoint on DEI:

1.) Acknowledge that your success is based on a foundation of psychological safety within your teams.

2.) Realize that psychological safety depends on inclusivity.

3.) Your teams are on a spectrum. We’re all aware of the outspoken advocates and the explicit racists, but within the middle, there are the “almost allies,” vital to really moving the culture to be inclusive, yet very difficult to identify. This is because they are hungry to help and armed with facts and information, but are missing the exposure to difference to apply their knowledge. The get it conceptually, but not emotionally, so the culture doesn’t shift.

4.) If this is the group that will shift the middle, and shifting the middle will shift the culture, then we need to stop focusing on the explicitly biased people because they have history and environment working against them and are an inefficient use of our efforts. Since environment is a major determinant of bias, they will shift more easily once the middle shifts.

5.) Shifting the middle — and thereby shifting the moral arc of the environment — is all about that almost ally: the second person in the room. The second person in the room understands that bias exists, but lacks the point of view to see it in their own environment.

6.) Getting the second person in the room to become comfortable and willing to speak up for the rights of others is like tapping a finger in the middle of a still lake, and causing a ripple effect that will create ongoing waves of real measurable impact.

7.) Almost allies already think about bias. They need to feel and personalize bias to shift.
By having these almost allies walk in the shoes of others, we give them the emotional catalysts and exposure to people who are different than them.

You will create the missing link between their motivation to support marginalized groups and the relatability to marginalized groups necessary to really stand up for them. You will create two people in every room, comfortable and willing to speak up for the rights of others, which will soon become, three of five, four of five, and eventually, your whole organization. Two in the room is what you need to be investing in, catalyzing, and measuring.

And that is how you create radical change.

Edited by Deb Fiscella, May 2021

The Unseen Challenge of DEI: Inclusion vs the Ticking Clock

There is a huge invisible challenge facing DEI today. That challenge may best be described as Inclusion vs. the Ticking Clock

We know from over 300 one-on-one conversations with DEI directors all over the country that while teams are learning the facts of DEI, they’re not applying the knowledge to create an inclusive environment. What accounts for this?

Attached to this question is a huge Ticking Clock: We need to act sooner than we might think. To quote the poet Prageeta Sharma:

“Americans have an expiration date on race the way they do for grief. At some point, they expect you to get over it.”

As an industry, we’ve been signaling to our teams that improvements in organizational diversity and equity can make up for a lack of improvement in inclusion. In order to take advantage of the momentum of the last two years, leaders need to own up to this. We’re using the word “strategy” to kick the problem down the road. It’s time we picked it up before the country stops paying attention.

Every week, I talk with multiple chief diversity officers (CDOs) at Fortune 500 companies. Recently, I was speaking with a savvy and diligent executive who summed up the above-mentioned problem brilliantly.

She had spent the last few months making phone calls to CDOs at other major organizations, asking how they were measuring inclusion – and coming up short with every phone call. The answer again and again was: “we don’t know how.” This echoed what I’ve been hearing from nearly all of the 300 leaders in DEI I’ve spoken with nationwide. 

According to a Harvard Business Review article from 2012, current DEI training and outcome measurements fail to consider the factors required to create a truly diverse workplace.

The article states: “A study of 829 companies over 31 years showed that diversity training had ‘no positive effects in the average workplace.’ Millions of dollars a year were spent on the training resulting in, well, nothing. Attitudes — and the diversity of the organizations — remained the same.”

Not much has changed since then.

Even in laboratory environments where DEI interventions are conducted as carefully as possible, a recent meta-analysis reviewing 418 such experiments concluded that “much research effort is theoretically and empirically ill-suited to provide actionable, evidence-based recommendations for reducing prejudice.”

The methods we’ve been relying on simply aren’t working in practice.

Since the conversation around diversity outcomes is mostly taking place within businesses and organizations, DEI professionals are creating policies aimed at producing key performance indicators (KPIs) that they can show to the leadership. Typically, this looks like metrics around the number of diverse hires or how effectively the pay gap is closing.

Unfortunately, these data points simply aren’t sufficient.

They don’t speak to the underlying emotions at the core of a diverse workforce: a sense of belonging, willingness to collaborate, or how likely an employee is to stay at the company. As such, inclusion is not moving forward because DEI, as an industry, lacks the ability to generate and communicate the results of its programs in terms of inclusion and belonging.

This issue is not insurmountable, especially when you consider that dozens of tools exist to measure emotional interconnectedness. So what is the roadblock? Why are we having trouble keeping pace? 

Some organizations simply don’t have the bandwidth for anything more than checking the boxes of legal policies and hiring practices. The more nuanced elements of inclusion seem too difficult to apply to the business, so they retreat to more measurable outcomes, such as more diverse teams or reductions in the pay gap.

The problem is, these metrics don’t reflect the reality of those in the workforce.

After Dr. Timnit Gebru’s termination from Google, employees described, in their letter to management, how more diverse hiring cannot erase the discomfort of feeling like they do not belong. Similarly, while efforts to close the pay gap are a positive step forward, if someone feels ostracized from their peers, they won’t be happy or successful in that environment.

As James Clear, author of Atomic Habits, notes:

“just because you can measure something doesn’t mean it’s the most important thing. And just because you can’t measure something doesn’t mean it’s not important at all.”

Inclusion is not the vague and unchartable space we think it is. 

There is a lack of understanding around the ability to quantify “softer” measurables, such as empathy and emotions. The DEI community is in a position to tell their organizations that it is quite possible to measure inclusion – they just might not know how to yet.

This missing understanding stems from a lack of interdisciplinary collaboration between DEI strategists and social scientists (eg. neuroscientists and psychologists) who measure emotions and empathy. This collaboration requires investments in academic consultants that go beyond two or three sessions. I would argue that for every three DEI hires in a company, there ought to be one social science position created to support HR and DEI consultants in measuring inclusive mindsets. It’s what many social scientists have dedicated their lives to.

At Empathable, we’ve found that one of the most vital elements of our engagements is the application of an empathy-based measurement framework. This is because empathy is highly learnable – much more than we think. As empathy researcher Jamil Zaki emphasizes, empathy is a muscle that we learn to train, not a skill we’re born with. That means it helps to: 

  • Build consistent habits that foster inclusive mindsets; 
  • Apply quantifiables. These might include self-reported measures and sociometric questions, such as “How likely would you be to take Colleague X out to lunch?” This method was suggested to us by renowned psychologist Sarah Gaither, to measure the growth of in-grouping.

When considering how to quantify changes in empathy, the challenge isn’t finding a system of measurements. It’s having knowledgeable experts who can help you choose and apply the right measurements for a given context. For example, there are many different questionnaire frameworks to measure empathy. According to the Stanford School of Philosophy, these questionnaires highlight various forms of empathy and how it’s understood. The popular Hogan questionnaire focuses on mentally understanding someone else’s emotions:

No alt text provided for this image

With the right minds at the table, such measures could be applied to reimagine the content, frequency, and measurements involved in DEI training. Ultimately, over time, this would lead to an improvement in team performance. 

In a DEI context, where progress and buy-in can feel nearly impossible, tools like this become all the more important. Tying these inclusion measures to business outcomes is the next step, and we’re working on this vigorously.

It’s clear to us that this outcome is possible, and the Ticking Clock confirms its urgency. 

When we deepen the sense of belonging in a group, employees will be inclined to stay at an organization longer. According to research from the University of British Columbia, people who report feeling isolated from their workplace show a stronger intention to quit and lower commitment to the job. By improving a sense of belonging, there will be concrete, visible progress in diversity and equity, and the subsequent organizational improvement in not only retention but also revenue. 

At Empathable, our team uses psychology, neuroscience, and the outer limits of artistic design to create interactive spaces within which to learn. These experiences are designed to promote empathy across perceived “differences,” including socially-constructed divisions such as gender, race, and age. The immersive process helps participants to contextualize their inner biases to the people around them, which increases inclusion.

Schedule a Demo to learn how to invite empathy into your organization.

Special thanks to Anushri Kumar, Savannah Johnson, Deb Fiscella, and David Kessel for their support in writing this article.