Where Diversity Training Goes Wrong, Part II: Underdeveloped Theories of How People Learn & Change
Black and white photo of a person’s silhouette overlaid with graphic drawing of a brain by Gerd Altman
In my essay Where “Diversity Training” Goes Wrong: 10 Essential Questions to Ask Before Engaging in Social Justice & DEI Work, I outlined important elements of DEI training that organizations and schools should consider. The ninth question on the list asks: “How does this training fit within your theory of change?” My interactions with organizational and school leaders since then have made it clear that there is a need to more fully explain the importance of “theory of change” in DEI and social justice work.
When I use the term “theory of change” I am referring to core ideas about what moves people to care about, develop knowledge and skill around, and take action for social justice. Whenever I think about this issue I am reminded of Episode 13 of the “Seeing White” podcast from Scene on Radio, which follows two people participating in a mandatory workshop in which the trainer does an exercise about the history of racism in our country. One employee, a white man, is interviewed after the session. His comments reveal that he literally had not processed what the trainer was saying. Instead, he doubled down on his previously held beliefs about race and misinterpreted the intended message.
Why does DEI and social justice training so often fail to have an impact on participants? And how might organizations and those leading work on diversity, equity, inclusion and social justice ensure our efforts are more effective? I have found that often the people making decisions about equity plans, hiring consultants, forming equity teams, or even leading workshops themselves have not given much thought to how humans actually learn new things and put that new learning into practice. As I wrote in Part I, “too often we observe organizations approach this work like throwing spaghetti against the wall to see what sticks,” without any broader theory of why they are doing what they are doing or how it is supposed to add up to positive change. Beyond organizational leaders, many DEI consultants haven’t given much thought to why they think their particular approach will be effective, while others promote approaches rooted in flawed theories that are not aligned with what research and experience tell us about how people learn and change.
This failure to work from an effective theory of change often leads to DEI work not being particularly impactful, and at worst contributes to more harm. While in some instances the leaders involved aren’t fully committed to change — they’re simply doing the work to check a box — most people we come across really would like to see improvement in their schools and organizations. This essay is for them.
The Challenge of Changing Deep-Seated Beliefs and Behaviors
The big challenge when it comes to DEI work is that we are often trying to help participants interrupt a lifetime of mis- and missing information, usually within institutions with entrenched cultures that are not aligned with justice. I sometimes say trying to get people and institutions to change for justice is like trying to get a person to convert to a new religion. What would it take for you to convert to a faith different from the one you currently practice? Would someone mandating you visit their place of worship move you? Would someone lecturing you about their faith book if you weren’t already interested in learning about it make you want to learn more? Would someone suggesting that you can no longer live the life you’ve been living make you want to join them? My guess is the answer is no, and yet this is too often how we approach DEI work — we force people to come, lecture them, make them feel bad for not caring more or doing better, then feel frustrated when they aren’t “converted” to the work of social justice.
Moreover, leaders, decision-makers, and consultants often have unrealistic expectations when it comes to the results of DEI and social justice efforts. For reasons I have not exactly figured out, many people seem to believe that DEI work somehow operates differently from other kinds of learning and change. Despite the overwhelming majority of Americans going to school for at least 13 years, 54% of us cannot read above a 6th grade reading level; yet we somehow believe a DEI workshop here or there will give 100% of participants the knowledge, skill, and ability to take action for justice. If we are truly committed to making the world a more equitable and just place we need to both recalibrate our assumptions about what outcomes we can reasonably expect of even the best efforts and focus on what we know about how humans learn and change behavior so that we can apply this knowledge to social justice.
What do we know about how people learn new things — especially adults?
Here are some key things we know from research about how humans learn, which will likely resonate with your own experience as a learner. Each section is concluded by an example of how we at Justice Leaders Collaborative (JLC) have tried to align our practice with our theory.
1. Our brains tend to reject information that doesn’t fit with what we already believe.
Human brains produce “confirmation bias,” meaning we are more likely to believe information that confirms what we already believe to be true–things that already align with our worldview. This happens without our conscious awareness because our brains do not like the feeling of “cognitive dissonance” — of holding two beliefs that contradict each other.
For DEI and social justice work this means that people who already believe there is injustice in the world are more likely to be open to information about how that injustice manifests at their workplace or in their lives while people who do not believe injustice exists are unlikely to take much away from a DEI training–even a great one. As in the “Seeing White” example, it is literally more difficult for people in the latter group to “hear” the content because the human mind struggles to integrate new information that is too dissonant or uncomfortable. Facts are not enough to overcome confirmation bias. As one of the podcast hosts, Chenjerai Kumanyika, reflects about the participant who did not learn from the workshop, “That’s somebody who…refuses to acknowledge [racism] because they have some sense…that…coming to grips with this means I’m going to have to change the world I’m comfortable with” — which is no small ask!
Research tells us that there is very little chance of moving people toward justice if they are not open to changing and growing. For DEI work to be successful, participants generally need to be self-reflective, intellectually curious, growth oriented, and willing to challenge their own worldview. Too many organizations devote significant resources to trying to change the most resistant people in their organization, which is unlikely to be effective or worthwhile.
Confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance also mean that people making decisions about and leading DEI work themselves may not have accurate instincts about how effective a particular experience will be for others. For example, sometimes leaders who are already committed to social justice bring in speakers who they feel very effectively “speak truth to power” but who don’t end up connecting with the audience. It is likely that the decision-maker found the speaker compelling because the person validated perspectives they already held or said exactly what they wish they could say. The problem is that people newer to this work may be turned off by the exact same presentation!
One of the challenges of leading DEI efforts is putting yourself in the shoes of your participants, the people you are trying to move, and asking what they would be most receptive to, not what you think is most moving. Where are they coming from? What do they need? What are they capable of processing? What would they be inspired by? What’s holding them back?
Because we know our brains tend to reject information that doesn’t fit with what we already believe, we advertise our JLC workshops as specifically for people interested in and willing to “challenge their worldview and previously held assumptions.” While this cannot fully address confirmation bias, it at least gives participants a heads up about what is being asked of them. Within sessions, we continue to remind participants that it is natural and expected to experience cognitive dissonance and provide journaling and discussion activities to help them reflect on this process.
2. Readiness, interest, and choice matter for learning.
Think of a time you learned something you were excited about, interested in, and chose–perhaps a hobby you love. Now compare that to a time you were forced to learn something you were not interested in. Research confirms that virtually everyone finds the learning process more engaging and effective when learning something related to their own choice, interest, goals, and intrinsic motivation. And while you may have learned some aspects of the thing you were forced to learn, you are less likely to retain that knowledge over the course of your life, less likely to spend your free time delving deeply into the subject matter, less likely to bring it up in discussions with friends and family, and less likely to change your behavior as a result of that learning. This is true for all learning, including learning for justice!
The people who are most likely to change themselves and their practice when it comes to DEI are the people who want to change and who are making the choice to engage. This doesn’t mean you can’t encourage people to participate or do one-on-one outreach to recruit people who are not the most eager, but it does mean that as with point #1, forced learning about diversity, equity, inclusion and social justice simply doesn’t work unless and until people develop a willingness to change.
Despite this, there are times when organizations mandate learning for legitimate reasons, such as ideas about fairness of workload or having leaders model the organization’s commitment to change. But decision-makers should be clear that this is a systems decision, rather than one with any real potential of changing those specific individuals. Moreover, they should be clear about the risks of such an approach–that the most resistant, least ready people ultimately disrupt the work and make it less safe for people who are willing to participate authentically. In extreme cases, these individuals can poison the larger DEI effort or even shut it down completely. In contrast, had they not been forced to participate they likely would have ignored what was happening until it was too late to stop the momentum within the organization.
It’s important to note that making the active decision to learn a new thing does not stop your brain from seeking to confirm what you already believe. Choice is not a wholesale solution for confirmation bias. But choice–which indicates an openness to change– is necessary to have any hope of moving beyond the biases you already hold.
Because we know that readiness, interest, and choice matter for learning, JLC encourages the schools and organizations we contract with to use optional participation models. We also encourage our clients and participants not to be distracted by those who are unwilling to attend, but to focus on giving as much support as possible to the people who want to do the work.
3. Relationships matter for learning.
There are many ways relationships matter for learning. First, we know that we learn best from people we like, feel a connection to, or can see ourselves in. Consider receiving a suggestion that you pursue therapy for a particular challenge you’re facing in your life. Who could say this to you that you would be most compelled to listen to? Someone you consider an ally and confidant whom you feel has your best interest at heart? Or someone you perceive to be continually critical of you and your life?
We know social identities (race, gender, class, etc.) can pave the way for relationship building and connection. So, as discussed in the first essay in this series, multiracial co-facilitation teams are always best practice for DEI work. Engaging participants in affinity groups for reflection and processing is also a useful tool (see #3 & #4 of Part I). And having facilitators and leaders who understand your specific context or are from the local community is always preferable to people from outside the community.
Second, while we are often most comfortable learning from people “like us,” building relationships across difference and learning to consider the viewpoints of others is an invaluable means of interrupting bias, stereotypes, and misinformation. While having opportunities to build relationships across identities is not always possible in DEI work (as participants often come from homogenous backgrounds), multiracial facilitation teams guarantee that participants will have at least some opportunity to learn from people different from themselves.
Third, we learn best when we connect with others on a similar journey. Whenever I get interested in a new topic, one of the first things I do is search to find out where other people interested in the same topic are hanging out and engaging in dialogue. Engaging with others on the journey is both a pedagogical technique rooted in the values of participatory education (in contrast with “banking models” of education) which encourages active, engaged, collaborative learning and a method of helping people find connections with others who can support them beyond official training sessions. Community building is especially important for participants who are not already in relationship with others committed to justice. Often, our participants’ families, friends, and even spouses and children are not advocates for diversity and justice. People are not going to reject their friend groups, places of worship, families, and neighbors without being able to connect with a robust alternative community they can be part of, even if they intellectually care about diversity and justice.
The role of relationships in learning means that small group work where people engage in discussion, dialogue, and community building is almost always more successful than large group lectures or virtual modules with limited participation. It also means that ongoing work where you get to build a relationship over time is better than a one off opportunity.
Just as good relationships facilitate learning, bad ones can hinder it. Sometimes DEI work is not effective because participants have toxic relationships with each other or problematic relationships with a particular facilitator–perhaps as a result of racism or other forms of bias, or perhaps not. As we sometimes say when we encounter organizations without cultures of trust, “They need a ropes course before they can do any DEI work!”
Because we know that relationships matter for learning, JLC primarily works in groups under 30 to allow participants to have a chance to get to know each other (although we sometimes do large introductory or primer sessions), we always do introductions, community building, and closing activities, and we frequently utilize breakout groups (constructed in ways that reduce the potential for harm). For some clients we facilitate monthly Justice League meetings to help them foster an ongoing community of practitioners committed to justice where people can check in and find inspiration and support. We encourage participants to find accountability partners and exchange contact information. And we offer workshops and support to organizations on Building and Sustaining Equity Teams and Justice Squads.
We always use multiracial co-facilitation teams with multiracial groups, both to model constructive cross-racial communication and to provide potential “role models” for participants to connect with. We recently met with a group of educators, many of whom we have been working with for years, and someone said “coming here today feels like coming home.” This is the kind of community we should be actively trying to foster in doing the work of justice, even as we provide some tough love and accountability for people to continually work to improve themselves and their practice.
4. Emotions and learning are connected.
How you feel when you are learning matters for how much you learn in a few different ways. First, we know that deep feelings can move people to change. For example, having a very intense experience in a country very different from your own or watching a powerful documentary about a new idea can help shift your worldview. But while strong emotions — such as sadness, anger, inspiration, or hope — can bring people to the work of justice, emotional appeals alone are not enough to sustain it, nor do they necessarily promote self-reflection, deeper learning, or change in practice. How many of you have watched a documentary, felt deeply affected in the moment, perhaps even cried, and then gone on about your life without changing anything? Or learned about an issue of injustice and gotten stuck in feelings of pity? Impassioned testimonials, documentaries that bring people to tears, or moving experiential exercises are not, in and of themselves, levers for sustained learning and change.
Second, while negative emotions like anger or guilt–the feeling that our choices are not aligning with who we want to be–are sometimes a motivator for change, feeling shame is not. Brené Brown defines shame as “the intensely painful feeling or experience of believing that …something we’ve experienced, done, or failed to do makes us unworthy of connection.” If DEI and social justice work is done in such a way that people are shamed, they are unlikely to be open to learning more. This doesn’t mean that facilitators shouldn’t push participants and hold them accountable for the ways they have harmed others, but the line between accountability and shaming is thinner than we sometimes realize. This is especially challenging in our current moment. As we continue dealing with a global pandemic and a polarized country, many people being asked to participate in DEI work are already stretched very thin and may be more discouraged by negative emotions than they would have been previously.
In my experience, when people who chose to be in the room learn the truth of the history and ongoing reality of injustice in our country they feel quite enough pain, rage, grief, and maybe guilt, to want to do something. They do not need the facilitators to double down on their inadequacy or shortcomings. If there is a sense that these sorts of techniques are necessary to generate change, chances are they did not want to be there in the first place (see #1 & #2).
Moreover, when people feel unseen, unheard, frustrated, or shamed it is not just a hindrance to their personal learning, it can also lead to more widespread disruptive blowback that threatens the broader effort. Ultimately, it is important that participants feel that facilitators and leaders are on their side, that we want them to do better, and that we believe they are capable of doing better. And it is important that participants experience positive emotions about learning new things and discovering new sides of themselves, and feel hopeful about the possibilities of embracing diversity and justice if we want them to commit to these efforts. Finally, it should be noted that some participants will only be able to move forward with diversity and social justice efforts if they are doing so alongside therapeutic support where they can do their own healing work to address painful emotions and past experiences.
Because we know emotions and learning are connected, JLC works to facilitate in compassionate ways that make clear that while we will challenge and push participants, our work is ultimately about hope–we are trying to communicate our faith that they can do better with the goal of helping them believe they can change! We try to set an inclusive tone by using guidelines to ground our work–the first of which is “work to connect your heart and your head.” We review our guidelines each session and ask people to reflect on them throughout our work. And we use a combination of moving videos, experiential exercises, reflective journaling, lecturing, and collaborative work so that people can tap into their feelings.
In addition, because we almost always co-facilitate, we always have a partner to check in with about how we interacted with participants, about whether or not our tone was effective, and about how we responded to questions. This doesn’t mean we always get it right, but it does mean we have someone to process with who can hold us accountable as facilitators. We, too, are growing and learning as we facilitate (that’s one of our guidelines: “we are all teachers & learners”).
5. Intentional learning should have clear goals and be rooted in real content that is appropriately scaffolded to meet people where they are.
In my recent essay “What Students Should Be Learning About Race and Other Identities: K-12 Standards for Justice” I wrote about how many schools fail to appropriately scaffold learning about Ruby Bridges, the brave 6-year-old who single-handedly integrated her all-white elementary school. Many schools we work with present this content to kindergarten students who don’t know what race is, who don’t understand the history of how Black people have been treated in this country, who don’t know what segregation is, and who have no way of making sense of why their classrooms and neighborhoods are likely racially homogenous despite adults telling them that segregation is “over.”
Too often when it comes to justice issues, we assume we can teach people calculus who haven’t yet learned to count. We tend to be overly optimistic about what adults “should” know about how injustice operates in our country and remain in denial about where participants are actually starting when it comes to their own knowledge and awareness. We think educators can teach for racial justice when they do not understand race or racism and think organizations can put just policies into practice when they do not understand injustice! In my experience, most adults, even those with advanced degrees, do not have the information or skill (let alone conviction) necessary to take action for justice. Our DEI and social justice efforts cannot only be rooted in emotional appeals and calls to action, they must also give people the information they’ve been missing in a way they can make sense of.
For example, one of the biggest reasons people resist the idea that they benefit from privilege is that they don’t understand what privilege is, they don’t understand the history of injustice and discrimination in our country based on social identities, or what social identities are and how they are different from personal identities, or that injustice happens at institutional and cultural levels (rather than just through individual biases and interpersonal interactions). In my experience, once people better understand this content and context, they are able to consider how they can take responsibility for the systems we’ve all inherited, which also allows them to channel feelings of guilt, grief, or rage (see #4) into positive changes toward justice. In contrast, if we simply say “check your privilege” without providing deeper content or thinking about what participants need to know to make sense of such a concept, participants often struggle.
We should approach DEI and social justice work as we approach any good teaching and learning: develop clear goals and objectives that are aligned with the content, use engaging pedagogical approaches that include diverse perspectives, and empower people to take action for justice. We should move from lower-risk to higher-risk activities and content. And we should move from the personal to the institutional level–helping participants first understand their own identities before asking them to make sense of larger systems of inequality and injustice.
Because we know that intentional learning should have clear goals and be rooted in real content that is appropriately scaffolded to meet people where they are, JLC uses a curriculum framework that we call “A RIDE” that pushes us to align our goals and objectives with who our participants are and what they already know and can do, include relevant social justice content, use interesting pedagogical approaches, include diverse perspectives, and empower participants to take action in their lives and work. We ask participants to do additional homework (reading, podcasts, videos, etc.) because we know true transformation will take much more learning than we can provide in our time together. We also spend significant time asking participants to reflect on who they are, where they come from, and how they’ve been socialized to encourage ongoing growth. We don’t start with the most controversial or difficult content but instead move participants through learning in a way that we feel is logical while also being developmentally and psychologically appropriate and aligned with where most people are actually starting, not where we wish they were starting. Our goal is to jumpstart participants’ interest and commitment so that they continue learning after our time with them by consuming books, shows, podcasts, etc. that help them live into their values (see The LIST: Social Justice Resources for Deepening Your Knowledge and Getting Out of Your Silos, which we continually update).
6. Knowing something isn’t the same as doing something–and people need practice to change behavior.
How many of us know we should get a good amount of sleep at night but still stay up late reading or watching TV? Or know there are foods that don’t make us feel great, but eat them anyway? Knowing a thing is not the same as doing a thing. Many people learn the language of diversity, equity, and inclusion but continue to do their jobs and live their lives in the exact same ways as they did before they had this knowledge. In order for new knowledge to lead to change in behavior we must have clarity about what behaviors we need to change, we must understand what is possible to change within our spheres of influence and control, we must have opportunities to try it out, we must have people we can ask questions of when we get confused, and we must get to try again. So often we treat DEI work as though we can simply sit through a lecture or exercise (or series of them) and then change our practice without any practical application, without any follow up, and without ongoing support. But just as a lecture about calculus probably won’t teach you calculus if you don’t have the opportunity to practice, a lecture about the importance of diversity probably won’t make you more just in your practice.
Because we know that knowing something isn’t the same as doing something and people need practice to change behavior, JLC has developed three Justice Assessment and Transformation Tools (JATTs)–one for P-12 educators (EJATT), one for higher education (HEJATT), and one for organizations more generally (OJATT). We offer training and coaching to support the implementation and use of these tools; offer an ever-growing list of specific practice courses for people who have done our initial Core Course, such as Interrupting Bias & Bigotry: Skill Practice, Socially Just Celebrations & Holidays, Building & Sustaining Equity Teams, A RIDE: Lesson Planning for Social Justice, and more; write publicly available articles and essays; we design tools such as our Just Books Tracking Tool and our K-12 Standards for Justice; and we engage participants in practice-oriented homework such as interviews, observations, data reviews, and other activities that encourage them to move outside of their comfort zone. In short, we try to provide an ever-growing roadmap for people to identify where they are, where they are going, and how they can get there.
7. Learning takes time, happens over time, and is not linear.
Just as learning a new language, hobby, or approach to life happens over time, so does learning for justice. You can’t cram change. One of our sayings at JLC is that developing a social justice consciousness and changing one’s practice is “lifelong work for passionate people,” because we know that it’s not something you can just “get” and do with fidelity in a week, a year, ten years — maybe not even in a lifetime.
When one of the “Seeing White” podcast hosts, John Biewen, was asked to reflect on his own experience in the history of racism workshop covering information he already knew intellectually, he said: “I think there are lots of things in our culture, when you’re white, that are reassuring us over and over again that the country is basically noble, that the country basically means well. And I guess my experience is having to learn over and over again, you know, the lesson that that’s kind of a dream.” He is right! Learning for justice is continuous work. It’s what Jay Smooth describes as “brushing your teeth”–something you must do every day, multiple times a day, rather than tonsil removal–something you do just once.
Moreover, just as you have to make time to actually practice if you want to become a great saxophone player, you have to put time into becoming a socially just practitioner. If an individual is unwilling to put significant time and effort into social justice work, they are unlikely to change even with the best PD on the market. Again, this means they must have some (intrinsic) motivation to do this work, that there needs to be significant time dedicated within an organization with lots of ongoing support, and that feeling part of a community of like-minded people also committing time and effort will be helpful. This is another important reason why choice matters — because it’s going to take a lot of emotional labor and effort outside of any official workshop or training session to actually do this well, and you need individuals willing to put in that effort.
Finally, we know that even with this level of commitment, change is not guaranteed or linear. Just as people forget grammatical rules of new languages they’re learning (or maybe even of languages they’ve spoken their entire lives), changing for diversity and social justice takes continuous learning, practice, mistakes, more learning, more practice, and more mistakes. This is especially true because the work of justice is ever-evolving. Terms that were popular and “politically correct” 20 year ago are now considered out of date. Even the most knowledgeable, skilled, committed person will have to keep up with the ongoing changes of our society to be aligned with justice. There is no one-time training or workshop that will mean you’re “done,” and there has to be room for participants to try something, mess up, and try again.
Because we know that learning takes time, happens over time, and that change is not linear, JLC schedules courses and other offerings over multiple weeks and months (and even years) to help people sustain momentum for change. We offer an ever growing list of trainings and workshops that combine new learning and action so that people can continue this work with us over many years if they choose; host closed social media groups; respond to emails (and even text messages and phone calls); and offer monthly virtual meetups so that people can sustain the work, sustain the community, and ask us questions as they put their new learning into practice.
The Importance of Staying Focused and Realistic Expectations
In sum, it is almost impossible to learn new information that contradicts your worldview if you are not interested in learning it. People do not learn well when they are mandated, when they don’t have positive relationships with the people they are learning from or with, when they feel shame, when there isn’t a vision of what they should actually do that’s within their control, when they don’t have a chance to practice, and when they don’t have the capacity–time, willingness, or emotional bandwidth–to put in the work necessary to learn and change.
This is hard! But people can change, and we know we are more likely to be successful when we are part of supportive communities that push us to engage in a cycle of learning, doing, and reflecting — often called praxis in the tradition of popular education.
Our work at Justice Leaders Collaborative is just one example of how DEI and social justice work can be intentionally aligned with a theory of how people change. But it doesn’t mean that we are universally successful or that everyone we work with learns and changes. Actually creating offerings aligned with what we know about how people learn and change is a pretty difficult thing to do and we are always seeking to improve our practice in this area. And even with our best efforts, success is not guaranteed, because DEI and social justice work is trying to undo centuries of inequality; lifetimes of obliviousness; deeply held feelings, beliefs, and biases; intractable institutions; and long established cultures–we’re trying to move a mountain!
Moreover, in any social justice effort humans are involved! And every individual brings their own personalities, assumptions, perspectives, histories, experiences, prior knowledge, worldviews, and needs to this effort. No single approach or facilitator is a fit for every individual or organization with potential to commit to justice (hint: another great reason for co-facilitation teams!). But by working to align our DEI and social justice work with our theory of how people learn and change to the best of our ability, we are hoping to develop approaches that maximize our chances of long-term, sustained, change with as many people as possible in order to create a more just world. Any DEI consultant you hire should be working to do the same.
Shayla Reese Griffin is the co-founder of Justice Leaders Collaborative and the author of the forthcoming children’s book An Introduction to Race for Kids Who Want to Change the World (and Grownups Too!) illustrated by Christina O.; two adult books, Those Kids, Our Schools: Race and Reform in an American High School and Race Dialogues: A Facilitator’s Guide to Tackling the Elephant in the Classroom; three Justice Assessment & Transformation Tools for k-12 schools (the EJATT, now available for purchase), organizations (the OJATT), and institutions of higher education (the HEJATT); and lots of medium essays. She is a mother of 3 and coincidentally tends to get her best ideas around 3am.