What if the smoothest, most agreeable meeting
you had today was actually a complete failure?
I mean, that's a wild thought, right? Because
we usually love those meetings. Right. Think
about it. Everyone just nodded. No one stepped
on any toes. And you reached consensus in what,
10 minutes flat? And you walk out feeling like,
wow. We are incredibly efficient. Exactly. It
feels great. But according to the research we're
digging into today, that exact lack of friction
might actually be blinding your team to critical
missing information. Yeah, it completely flips
the script on what we consider a successful dynamic.
It really does. So welcome to the deep dive.
Our mission today is to unpack this really thought
-provoking talk by Laurie Nashirah Mackenzie.
It's called The Power of Our Collective, Reimagining
Inclusion. And for anyone who, you know, wants
to be well informed on team dynamics and organizational
behavior, But maybe without drowning in academic
papers, this is perfect. Yeah, we're going to
look closely at her arguments because she systematically
challenges all this conventional wisdom about
what a highly functioning group actually looks
like. It is a fascinating analysis because it
forces us to examine the foundational metrics
of success. I mean, we are trained to view harmony
as the ultimate indicator of a healthy environment.
Right. Like if everyone's smiling, we're doing
it right. Exactly. But Laurie's perspective proposes
that true inclusion is not about comfort at all.
In fact, she argues it's inherently designed
to be, well, somewhat difficult. And to understand
why she makes that argument, we kind of need
to look at the personal story she uses to ground
her whole thesis. Yeah, it's a really powerful
starting point. It is. So she describes being
just six years old, walking to the local library
with her mother, and it's just this perfectly
normal happy day. Right. Nothing out of the ordinary.
Yeah, but then this car drives by and it slows
down and the men inside lean out the window and
start making these like mocking fake Chinese
noises at her. It's a jarring illustration of
how certainly the external world can impose this
this narrative on you. Exactly. And the reaction
from her mother, who, by the way, Laurie describes
as a very gentle person, her reaction was immediate.
What did she do? Without missing a beat, her
mother gave those men the bird. Oh, wow. Yeah.
just flick them off right there on the street.
And for a six -year -old Lori, this crystallized
two huge things. Which were? First, that simply
based on physical appearance, you know, some
people just flat out refuse to see you for who
you are. And second, you always have the agency
to stand up against that discrimination. What's
fascinating here is how this childhood realization
scales into broader societal patterns. Yeah,
how so? Well, Lori points out that while she
learned this at six, many individuals, particularly
in the black community, encounter this reality
at a much younger age. Right. It's not always
a dramatic street encounter either. Exactly.
Or for others, the realization might happen in
a classroom, you know, like when a student enthusiastically
raises their hand and the teacher just systematically
ignores them in favor of other kids. Yeah, that
feeling of just being invisible. Right. And Laurie
uses these lived experiences of being unseen
or underestimated as a starting point for debunking
three specific myths about corporate inclusion.
OK, let's unpack this, because if the starting
point is acknowledging that these biases exist,
then Laurie's framework requires us to totally
rethink the end goal of bringing people together.
Which leads directly into the first major myth
she tackles, this idea that Inclusion equals
ease. Yeah, because we assume the goal is a room
full of people getting along perfectly. Right.
We think smooth sailing means we're doing great.
But to dismantle that myth... Laurie turns to
this landmark study by the late researcher Catherine
Phillips, who investigated jury deliberations.
Oh, juries. That's a super high stakes environment.
Highly pressured, very consequential decisions.
The setting is crucial here. And in the U .S.
legal system, the attorneys are the ones selecting
the jury, which means you can end up with vastly
different compositions. Exactly. Sometimes you
get a highly homogeneous jury where everyone
shares a similar background, and sometimes you
get a highly diverse jury. OK, so what did the
researchers actually do? Well, They wanted to
observe if the composition of the jury fundamentally
changed the mechanics of how they deliberated.
And what did they find? The initial data point
they found seems on the surface like an argument
against diversity. The diverse juries actually
took significantly longer to deliberate than
the homogenous ones. Wait, really? Because if
an organization is purely optimizing for speed
and efficiency, taking longer sounds like a structural
flaw. It does. But taking longer isn't a flaw
if the output is better. Ah. So what did they
find when they looked at the actual quality of
the decisions? They found that taking longer
was actually a feature of the diverse group,
not a bug. They evaluated whether the juries
made factual errors when reviewing the evidence.
And the data showed that the diverse juries made
significantly fewer mistakes. But, and this is
the key part, the underlying mechanism is what
makes this study so important. What were they
doing differently? The diverse juries were uniquely
capable of noticing missing information. For
example, they'd examine the records and realize,
hey, the documentation states there were three
eyewitnesses to this event. But we've only been
provided testimony from two of them. Where is
the third? Oh, wow. And the homogenous juries
just missed that. Routinely. They were moving
quickly and comfortably, so they routinely failed
to catch that missing data. I have to push back
on the mechanics of that, though. Like, is it
possible the diverse jury just happened to possess
different external knowledge. What do you mean?
Like, did they just know the neighborhood better
or understand a specific cultural context that
gave them, you know, inside information about
the crime? No, and that is the most critical
takeaway from Catherine Phillips's research.
The diverse juries did not possess secret inside
knowledge about the case. Then why were they
so much sharper? The underlying mechanism that
improved their performance was simply the presence
of dissent. Dissent. Just disagreeing. Yeah.
Think about it. When you're sitting in a room
with people who share your background, your brain
relies on cognitive shorthand. You assume a baseline
consensus which allows you to coast. Right. You
just sort of nod along. Exactly. But when you're
in a room with people who are demonstrably different
from you and they start asking questions, it
introduces cognitive friction. It wakes you up.
Literally. Hearing dissent from someone with
a different perspective forces your brain to
wake up and reevaluate the evidence more rigorously.
It makes me think about physical training. Like,
if you go to the gym and lift a weight that offers
absolutely zero resistance, your muscles aren't
actually getting stronger. Right. You're just
panting and going through the motions. Yeah.
You're just wasting time. Laurie's argument suggests
that inclusion isn't about creating a smooth
ride. It's about introducing constructive friction.
The resistance is what builds the intellectual
muscle of the group. That is a highly accurate
way to conceptualize the cognitive science behind
it. Growth and rigorous analysis happen in the
space of discomfort. So, according to the framework
presented in the talk, how do organizations mechanically
apply this? Laurie suggests two actionable shifts.
The first is altering meeting norms. You know,
norms are just the habitual unspoken rules of
engagement. Like letting a meeting just naturally
rush toward a comfortable consensus. Exactly.
Instead of doing that, Leaders must explicitly
design a norm that mandates dissent. Meaning
you literally have to ask for the friction. Yes.
Before finalizing any major decision, the person
running the meeting should ask, can anyone provide
one solid, evidence -based reason why we should
not move forward with this? Oh, that's smart.
By formalizing the question, you completely remove
the social penalty for disagreeing. You make
it part of the job. And the second shift involves
mindful listening. What does the data say about
that? Well, Laurie cites organizational research
demonstrating that in a standard group of eight
people, just three of those individuals will
dominate 67 % of the speaking time. Which honestly
isn't surprising to anyone who has ever worked
in a corporate environment, right? The loudest
voices naturally expand to fill the available
space. Absolutely. But the question is how to
mechanically dismantle that dynamic. According
to Laurie, inclusion means fundamentally redefining
how we measure participation. It's not about
rewarding the people who are simply the quickest
to speak. Because quick doesn't always mean correct.
Right. It requires the meeting facilitator to
actively manage the airtime, deliberately making
space for the quieter voices. Because those are
often the voices holding the positive dissent
that will ultimately make the final decision
more robust. Okay, so if we accept the premise
that cognitive friction and dissenting voices
make a team demonstrably smarter. If they're
the key to finding that missing third eyewitness,
why are those specific voices so frequently filtered
out before they even get a seat at the table?
That is the big question. And it leads us straight
into Laurie's second myth. This widespread belief
that professionalism is a purely empirical objective
standard. Oh, this is a deeply entrenched concept
in corporate culture. Organizations operate on
the assumption that their standards for evaluating
talent and work product are completely neutral
and merit based. Right. And Laurie shares this
fascinating study about evaluating legal briefs
that completely dismantles that assumption. Oh,
the legal brief study is incredible. It really
is. So the researchers created a single standardized
legal brief. allegedly written by a third -year
law associate. Crucially, they intentionally
seeded this document with a specific number of
errors. Like what kind of errors? Typographical
mistakes, factual inaccuracies, and logical flaws.
Just a real mix. They then sent this exact same
brief to multiple law partners for evaluation.
The methodology here is brilliant because they
isolated a single variable. Exactly. Half of
the law partners received the brief with a cover
letter, subtly implying the author was a white
associate. And the other half? The other half
received the identical brief, but the cover letter
implied the author was an African -American associate.
Now, if I am playing devil's advocate here, I
have to ask how bias can possibly alter the evaluation
of a standardized document. Right, because a
typo is an empirical fact. A legal error either
exists on the page or it doesn't. Shouldn't the
work product just stand on its own objective
merit? If we connect this to the bigger picture
we see why it doesn't. If human beings operated
like algorithms, yes. But human psychology relies
heavily on heuristics, you know, mental shortcuts.
Ah, so confirmation bias comes into play. Exactly.
Preconceived notions don't just change our final
opinion. They dictate the actual level of scrutiny
we apply to a task. Wait, so they actually graded
them differently? Yes. The study found that the
partners who believed they were reading a brief
written by an African -American associate found
significantly more of the exact same intentionally
planted errors. because they unconsciously expected
a lower quality of work, so their brains actively
hunted for flaws. Bingo. Consequently, they scored
the exact same documents significantly lower
than the partners who believed a white associate
had written it. So the bias acts as a... literal
magnifying glass. Yeah, the expectation of a
flaw structurally alters how the evaluator reads
the document. That's terrifying, honestly. If
our definition of professionalism is that susceptible
to unconscious bias, what does Laurie propose
as a solution for evaluating talent? Her argument
is that organizations must aggressively interrogate
the vague gatekeeping terminology they use during
performance reviews and hiring. Oh, think about
how often talent is evaluated using phrases like
executive presence or gravitas. Right. Someone
gets passed over for a promotion because leadership
claims they just lack executive presence. But
like, what does that actually mean on a measurable
level? Laurie argues that often these terms are
simply coded language. It really just means this
person does not look, speak or act like the leaders
we have historically promoted. It's just a mirror
for the status quo. Exactly. To counter this,
she suggests organizations need to shift toward
what psychologist Carol Dweck calls a growth
mindset. Let's unpack the mechanics of that,
because growth mindset is a term that gets thrown
around a lot in corporate seminars. But how does
it specifically apply to dismantling biased professionalism?
Well, in traditional hiring, organizations often
operate with a fixed mindset, meaning they look
for a finished product. They just look at the
endpoint, like, did this candidate attend a prestigious
university? Do they possess a specific, polished
communication style? Right. A growth mindset,
however, operates on the belief that skills and
capabilities are dynamic. When evaluating a candidate,
you don't just look at their current coordinates,
you evaluate their trajectory. So it's about
the journey. Yes. Laurie argues that evaluators
need to ask, what specific systemic barriers
did this individual have to overcome simply to
get to this interview chair? Wow, that completely
changes the framing. It does. When you value
the resilience, the adaptability, and the distance
traveled, you stop allowing narrow, subjective
definitions of professionalism to blind you to
a highly capable talent. That makes perfect sense.
So let's follow the logical progression of Laurie's
framework here. An organization adopts this growth
mindset. They successfully bypass their own biases
and bring these diverse, dissenting voices into
the room. Now they get them in the door. But
how does the organization actually support them
once they're there? Which brings us to the third
myth. The more is better trap. Ah, yes. This
is the assumption that the most effective way
to foster inclusion is through broad overarching
diversity initiatives. It's basically the default
setting for many large organizations. The instinct
is to cast the widest net possible, creating
massive generalized programs under the assumption
that, you know, a rising tide lifts all boats.
Here's where it gets really interesting, though.
Laurie points out that relying on massive data
sets creates dangerous blind spots. What kind
of data is she looking at? She cites a Google
technical workforce report to illustrate this.
According to the data she highlights, less than
half a percent of Google's technical workforce
are Black women and less than one percent are
Latinx women. Those are tiny percentages. Exactly.
If an organization looks at those microscopic
numbers and decides the solution is to group
them into a massive generalized women's employee
resource group simply because more is better,
they are entirely ignoring the highly specific
realities those individuals face. Right. Because
when you aggregate data at that scale, the unique
experiences of the extreme minority are completely
washed out by the majority within that same demographic
group. It's like using a giant paint roller to
touch up a really highly detailed portrait. That's
a great analogy. Yeah, sure, you cover a lot
of canvas quickly, but you completely obliterate
the fine details. It's like a hospital deciding
to prescribe a broad spectrum antibiotic. to
every single patient in the building just to
save time. Right. Sure, it might accidentally
cure a few people with generic infections, but
it completely ignores the highly specific, sometimes
critical diagnoses of the individual patients.
The broad approach actually becomes a form of
medical or, in this case, corporate neglect.
That is a very precise way to understand the
mechanism of failure here. And to prove why the
broad spectrum approach fails, Laurie brings
in research conducted by Anita Rattan and Carol
Dweck at the London Business School. Okay, what
did they look at? They surveyed over 400 African
-American employees across various organizations.
And what did the data reveal? The data revealed
that 67 % of these employees reported spending
a portion of their workday actively dealing with
racial comments. 67 %? That is wild. And the
research makes clear these were not just subtle
misunderstandings. They included overt stereotypes,
assumptions of laziness, racial slurs, and baseless
references to criminality. Which means these
employees are essentially working a second shift.
Exactly. They are expending massive amounts of
cognitive and emotional energy navigating hostility
while simultaneously just trying to perform their
actual job duties. And that emotional labor is
exactly what drives turnover. However, the study
also identified a mechanical lever for improvement.
What was it? They found that when organizational
leaders actively and specifically addressed those
incidents, when they didn't just release a generic
statement about corporate values, but explicitly
tackle the specific racial bias occurring in
their teams, the retention rates for those marginalized
employees increased. Let's explore the why behind
that data point. Why does addressing the specific
comment directly move the needle on retention?
Psychologically, it restores a sense of psychological
safety and validates the employee's lived reality.
It makes them feel seen. Exactly. When leadership
acknowledges a specific harm, it shifts the burden
of managing that toxic environment off the individual
employee. and places it onto the organization
where it belongs. So what's the actionable takeaway
Lori extracts from this research? She says organizations
must radically shift their feedback mechanisms.
Instead of relying solely on massive, anonymous,
company -wide surveys that round out the margins,
leadership must conduct specific focus groups
and targeted one -on -one interviews. They have
to ask the difficult questions to understand
the daily frictions experienced by the less than
1%. And according to Lori, They have to be prepared
to confront some very ugly realities that emerge
from those targeted conversations. Like what?
It means addressing the fact that a black software
engineer might be asked to clear away dishes
in the corporate cafeteria. Or that Latinx women
in senior roles are continually asked if they
are part of the cleaning staff. Wow. You definitely
cannot fix highly specific stereotyping like
that with a generic empowerment seminar. No,
you can't. Laurie's proposed solution to this
is engaging with initiatives like the IM movement.
What is that? This is a structured exercise utilized
in organizational psychology, where individuals
are encouraged to articulate their multifaceted
identities to their colleagues. How does that
actually work in practice? Like, what is the
mechanism of the I Am exercise? In a facilitated
setting, employees share statements that embrace
their full complexity. For example, someone might
say, I am a mother, I am a senior developer,
I am Latina, I am a marathon runner. Oh, I see.
The psychological mechanism at play here is cognitive
disruption. By forcing colleagues to see the
intersectional complex reality of an individual,
you break the brain's reliance on flat, one -dimensional
stereotypes. It demands that the organization
see the employee for their authentic complexity,
rather than just flattening them to fit comfortably
into a broad demographic category. It requires
a tremendous amount of intentionality to design
a culture that way. Which really brings us to
the ultimate question underlying this entire
deep dive. What is the point? Yeah, why do all
this work? Why should an organization or an individual
voluntarily endure the friction of dissent, the
discomfort of interrogating their own biases,
and the hard work of addressing these specific
painful realities? It's a lot to ask. It is.
And to answer that, Laurie closes her talk by
stepping away from the corporate data and sharing
a deeply moving historical account about her
great grandfather and his brother. It serves
as a powerful anchor for her entire thesis, reminding
the audience of the historical stakes of inclusion
and exclusion. Yeah. She explains that during
World War II, despite being naturalized American
citizens who had built their lives in the United
States, her great grandfather and his brother
were sent to Japanese -American internment camps.
Which is just a profound example of a systemic
refusal to see individuals for who they truly
are. Exactly. The government systematically stripped
them of their rights, their property, and their
dignity. entirely based on their heritage. But
the story doesn't end there, does it? No. Laurie
explains that after the war, when they were finally
released, they did not retreat into isolation.
Instead, they made the deliberate choice to build
a Buddhist temple in San Jose, California. They
chose to construct a physical and spiritual sanctuary?
Yes. They wanted to create a community gathering
place. A space where people who had been violently
excluded could come together, pool their collective
strength, and systematically rebuild their lives.
That's incredible. And that temple is still standing
and operating today. This raises an important
question, which Lori poses as a final synthesis
for her audience. What temple are you building?
I love that framing. Her argument is that the
true silver lining of living through fractured,
often divisive times, is the opportunity it presents.
We have a rare historical chance to build a much
bolder, more rigorous vision of inclusion. A
place where people aren't just tolerated. Right.
We can construct workplaces and institutions
where the unique complex value of every single
individual is deeply known and utilized. But
as we have learned today, building that temple
requires every piece of the collective. It requires
the friction of differing opinions, the discipline
of a growth mindset, and the willingness to look
closely at the fine details rather than panting
over them with broad strokes. It is definitely
not easy, but the things that are built to last
never are. So true. Before we wrap up, I want
to leave you with a final lingering thought to
mull over. Okay, let's hear it. We spent our
time today analyzing the idea that dissent, differing
perspectives, and constructive friction are the
fundamental mechanisms that make a group smarter.
It is the friction that helps us spot the missing
information, like that elusive third eyewitness
in the jury study. Right, the cognitive resistance
is the prerequisite for rigorous thinking. Exactly.
But if that premise is true... How might the
algorithms and AI feeds we interact with every
single day be affecting us? Oh, that's a brilliant
point. Right. We are increasingly relying on
tools that are mathematically designed to optimize
for our comfort, agree with our preferences,
and seamlessly feed us consensus. They literally
engineer the friction out of our lives. Yes.
So could the absolute lack of friction in our
digital diets be accidentally blinding us to
the most important missing information in our
own lives? It is a critical question about how
we manage our own intellectual environments.
Thank you for exploring these complex dynamics
with us today. It has been a privilege to share
this analysis with you. Keep asking the hard
questions and we'll see you next time.