Do you have true inclusion in your team or is it assimilation?

We use the word inclusion in a very loose way to cover a wide range of topics - if a person feels connected, it's inclusion. If they feel like their ideas are heard, it's inclusion. But it's very possible for inclusion in an organisation to meet one of these aspects and not the other. For example, take a team where people are very strongly bonded; they know each other well as individuals and there is a lot of warmth. However, there is also an implicit acceptance that they will not challenge each other and so even if one person has a differing point of view, they will stay silent just so that the sense of connection is not threatened. Would you call that inclusion?

The framework that is being described below is a nuanced way to look at inclusion. It's based on the optimal distinctiveness model of Marilynn Brewer (1991), a social psychologist. According to this model, we derive our social identity from a fundamental tension between two social needs. On the one hand, there is our need to belong and then there is the countervailing need to be unique.

People seek to be part of a group to avoid the separateness, the vulnerability, or judgment that may come from being very different. Research shows that human beings feel uncomfortable and at a disadvantage when in situations where they feel different or like an outsider. At the same time, when we are too similar to the people around us, there is no basis for defining who we are and that can make us uncomfortable as well. Being just a number in a large, undefined group of people is as difficult as standing apart from the group.

For us to operate at our best, both these seemingly contrasting needs must be met. Now given that we have two axes (belonging and uniqueness), a 2X2 framework cannot be far behind.