In November 2025, we found ourselves wondering aloud about the cultural obsession with Wicked—specifically, the sight of Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande circulating across talk show stages, holding hands, their friendship treated as remarkable. We are not particular fans of the film franchise. But something in that dynamic—in the public hunger for evidence that a Black woman and a white woman could be genuinely close—kept pulling at us.

It was recognition.

We met twenty years ago as doctoral students, Black and white women drawn together by a shared experience of gravitating towards heavy racial truths in a way that often cost us in our workplaces. We developed the kind of friendship that required no performance, no translation—deep conversations about being othered, exhaustion, the particular loneliness of being visible in ways you never chose.

Then gravity happened. Not deliberately. Inevitably. Elder care, children, collapsed economies, collapsed marriages. A decade of dormancy.

And then, through alignment—of disappointments, vulnerabilities, defiance—we found each other again. Both carrying lived experience and rigorous credentials in racialized workplace trauma. Both asking: What does it actually take to show up authentically across the racial line when every institution is built to keep us apart?

The obsession with Erivo and Grande, aka Elphaba and Glinda, isn’t just about these two women. It’s about rarity. Black women and white women in genuine solidarity are remarkable enough to be consumed as content. Remarkable enough that the public cannot quite believe they’re real.

We write as co-authors and co-facilitators—one white, one Black—with different proximities to institutional power but aligned commitment to naming what authentic cross-racial solidarity requires. Our collaboration is itself evidence of the defiance this piece describes.

What the Numbers Tell Us

Friendship follows predictable patterns. Research shows that 81% of white women and 70% of Black women report that most of their close friends share their race. We gravitate toward homophily—sameness. It reduces friction.

Black women and white women are constructed as opposites, making friendship across race feel like a contradiction in terms. The racial binary, of course, is a grave myth. We do not for a moment want to make invisible the range and complexity of racial and cultural identities, but see an examination of Black/white professional friendships as a portal into what it takes for real cross-racial, cross-cultural connection in all of its messiness.

Deep friendships across social identities may not be the norm, but they exist. And increasingly, in today’s workplaces, they matter.

The stakes become clearer when you look at power. According to recent research on women in the workplace, white women advance to managerial positions at nearly twice the rate of Black women. They are more likely to be hired, promoted, believed, and protected. This disparity has roots in over 300 years of racialized labor extraction—from enslavement through domestic work to segregated professional positions. The machinery has changed. The fundamental extraction has not.

In workplaces today, Black women bring sophisticated analyses of power, institutional logic, and risk. They bring knowledge forged through necessity and intention. And then the extraction begins: diversity committees, mentoring women of color, educating white colleagues about racism, translating culture for decision-makers. Uncompensated labor. Unrecognized expertise. The infrastructure of “diversity work.”

But here is what happens when authentic friendship develops: the extraction stops being invisible. It becomes a site of reckoning.

What Changes When It’s Real

Authentic cross-racial friendship in workplace contexts that is not performative allyship requires:

First: Mutuality. Vulnerability has different meanings across different social identities. When a white woman shows vulnerability in professional spaces, she is often rewarded for her honesty, her humanity. When a Black woman shows vulnerability, she risks confirming suspicions that she’s not capable, not equipped, not ready to lead. For mutuality to exist, a white woman must understand this asymmetry, and be able to discern the disparate impact.

Second: Reciprocity. Friendship is an exchange—generative, not extractive. Power is not fixed; it is dynamic. We can resist the zero-sum mythology of traditional capitalist work models. In workplace relationships across race, reciprocity across racial difference threatens and weakens the baked-in power differentials that institutions depend on. Authentic friendship requires that both women consider what they are willing to give up and risk. Is the juice worth the squeeze?

Third: Named difference. Not false sameness, but explicit acknowledgment of how racialization has treated them differently. How the same institution has treated them differently. How their vulnerabilities, while both real, are not equivalent in terms of existential threat– impact on life, career, and generations to come.

Why Now

In the landscape of our upended economy, Black women are bearing the brunt of layoffs and long-term unemployment more than any other identity group in America. From this wreckage, Black women are leaving traditional workplaces behind to defy gravity and chart their own entrepreneurial paths at a higher rate than white women. One thread is consistent: they are tired of bearing the emotional and intellectual labor of extraction without reciprocity.

Organizations need to confront truths:

1. The protective bubble is not equally distributed. Glinda’s bubble—the permission to fail, learn, experiment, grow— is not available to Black women leaders. When we celebrate “diverse” leadership teams without examining whether women of color have access to the same safety, mentorship, and runway for failure that many white women take for granted, we are celebrating containment, not inclusion.
2. Leaders with racial privilege have still not stepped aside; they have only shifted positions. Stepping aside means more than creating a seat at the table. It means white women leaders being willing to follow, to be corrected, to amplify rather than explain, to advocate for Black women’s advancement even when it costs them visibility or influence. It means becoming the infrastructure, not the center.
3. Cross-racial friendship in your company is not necessarily evidence of organizational health– it may be evidence of individual courage. When Black and white women leaders develop authentic solidarity, they are often doing so against institutional gravity. That extra work should not be required in order for everyone to belong or succeed.

We are not perfect models. We are not here to preach. We are here to be the main characters of our story and to present a bold vision: to show that cross-racial friendship is possible, and that it matters for the workplace.

It matters because it suggests that the structures we have built are not inevitable. That we are capable of something other than separation and extraction. That when two people refuse the gravity that pulls them apart, they can experience something like freedom—and in experiencing it, offer that possibility to others. But solidarity is not a destination. It is not a competency to be acquired. It is a practice—daily, relentless, costly—of choosing to stay in relationship with someone different from yourself, especially when institutional forces require that you defy gravity to do so.

The post Defying Gravity: The Elphaba-Glinda Dynamic in Black-White Women’s Workplace Relationships appeared first on The Inclusion Solution.

Organizations and professionals rely on social media to connect, share information, and assess credibility. Many professionals spend over 2 hours a day on social media, with Gen Z spending upwards of 5 hours a day on social media (S&P Global Market Intelligence Kagan third-quarter 2025 US Consumer Insights survey).

Social media deeply shapes our daily activities and professional image. Platforms including LinkedIn, Instagram, TikTok, Threads, and X shape how people discover professionals and how coworkers, leaders, and recruiters view them. Even if we don’t post often, our professional reputation still exists online. With so much of our reputation now online, it’s important to consider: How do posts, likes, follows, and shares impact our career? Before posting, reposting, or liking content, many of us pause, reconsider our wording, or decide not to share at all, because colleagues, managers, and recruiters judge us based on what they see.

The Real Consequences of Social Media

We have seen how quickly someone’s interpretation of a post can lead to real consequences. In 2025, Washington Post journalist Karen Attiah posted on her personal social media about a high-profile political killing. From her perspective, her posts condemned violence, called out racial double standards, and demonstrated her responsibility as a journalist to do so. Her employer, The Washington Post, saw her comments as breaking company policy, so the company let her go. According to the Post’s policy, she had a responsibility to be a neutral journalist. This incident sparked discourse around how organizations assess personal perspectives when someone’s affiliation is public.

In another case, soon-to-be Teen Vogue editor Alexi McCammond faced professional fallout for tweets she wrote as a teenager that resurfaced years later while she was in the process of confirming her role as editor in chief. Even though she had already apologized, the renewed attention led to pushback inside Condé Nast, the global media parent company that owns Teen Vogue, and pressure from advertisers to rescind her offer as editor in chief. In the end, she left a job she hadn’t even started. This situation raised questions about how long digital content lasts and how people consider the whole context.

In 2020, Amy Cooper’s viral encounter in Central Park led to her immediate firing by Franklin Templeton after millions saw the video online. Here, social media didn’t just shape how people saw the event; it sped up the consequences.

These examples are different, but they highlight the same core issue: how people interpret online behavior can matter as much as the behavior itself.

Research on Social Media and the Employee Lifecycle

We are in new territory when it comes to managing talent and evaluating social media use. Since there are not many guidelines, our research looks at how social media affects decisions throughout the employee lifecycle. Early results show that even when organizations have social media policies, many employees do not know about them or do not understand how they work. This confusion leads to a hidden system of judgment. The same post might be seen as smart leadership, advocacy, a distraction, or even a risk, depending on who is looking at it and what they believe. People know they are being judged, but they often do not know how or why.

This is where fairness comes into play. How people interpret social media is not neutral. It depends on identity, culture, and ideas about professionalism. Because of this, similar posts can be judged very differently depending on someone’s race, gender, or background. What looks confident or smart to one person could seem inappropriate or risky for someone else. In the absence of clear rules, these differences lead to unfair outcomes and exacerbate existing inequities in judging credibility and leadership.

We audited social media policies across corporate, academic, and government sectors. Our research shows that organizations recognize the need and try to respond. However, without a shared approach, their actions are often inconsistent and reactive.

There is a pathway forward—moving from reaction to contextual clarity. Organizations should go beyond broad policies and clearly explain how their evaluations include the totality of social media use (e.g., what counts as impact, how context matters, and how to treat employees fairly). If they don’t, judgments will continue to rely on personal perspectives, which are often unfair.

If social media is already shaping careers, as our early research suggests, it should be managed with the same care and responsibility as any other part of the employee experience.

At this year’s Justice for All Summit, we’ll share new findings from our research and discuss practical ways organizations can navigate these changes with greater openness and equity. We invite you to join us, share your ideas, and help create clear and fair ways to evaluate social media. This will set honest standards for the future of work.

The post How Social Media Quietly Shapes Career Mobility appeared first on The Inclusion Solution.

When was the last time you made a bold, brave wish for your birthday? Do you even make wishes anymore? Do you remember what it was like to close your eyes really tight and blow out a candle, making a wish that only you could hold, and only you would know if it came true?

Well, it’s that time for Americans to make their wishes as the United States approaches its 250th birthday. This major milestone for democratic values worldwide comes at a time when an acronym like VUCA (volatility, uncertainty, complexity, ambiguity) does a great job summing up the world around us. The data paints an eerie picture—Americans are experiencing a greater decline in pride in their country, low levels of trust, and increasing dissatisfaction with how democracy is working.

And that’s just Americans across the board. Don’t get us started with our own generation! As members of Gen Z (well, one of us is a self-proclaimed Zillennial), we hear even worse stories about civic engagement and young people in this moment. As the most diverse youth generation in American history, Gen Z is also the most skeptical and least connected to our institutions and national story, with only 16% reporting that they are proud to live in the U.S.

But as members of this generation, we are here to tell you that there is hope. Through participation in Made By Us’ Youth250 Bureau, we have seen young people igniting hope and inspiring bold visions for an inclusive semiquincentennial that extends beyond celebration and commemoration to actively co-creating our future. From our Youth250 Declaration to Letters to America, we are telling a different story about what is possible when you #BringUsIn.

One way we can encourage intergenerational, collective imagination is through Wish Walls—ready-made, flexible, and non-partisan avenues to contribute to the 250th experience. By hosting Wish Walls, local communities can invite people to respond to one powerful question: “On our 250th, what’s your wish for America’s future?” To activate 250 Wish Walls across the nation, Made By Us has collected resources, compiled a map, and shared stories of how Americans of all ages have brought wishing to their commemorations. Some examples include a 28-foot-long Wish Wall at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History in D.C., a Wish Barn at Conner Prairie Museum in Fishers, IN, and a Wish Wall at the Arizona Cardinals Stadium in Glendale, AZ.

Consider bringing this innovative approach to your local community! Whether you frequent your local library, have your own small business, or enjoy spending time at your neighborhood park, there could be plenty of creative ways you might be able to host a Wish Wall. Start by checking out thecivicseason.com/wish-walls for tools, resources, and to put your Wish Wall on the map.

Would you rather make your wish virtually? Visit www.onour250th.org to share your digital wish for the future. Together, we may plant some of the boldest and bravest wishes to create a just and fair world. With our efforts, we can be the catalysts that make these wishes come true.

The post From Commemoration to Imagination: Wish Walls at U.S. 250th appeared first on The Inclusion Solution.

As a Brown man and the founder of a business that tackles racial and gender inequities, I’ve been having visceral reactions to the US government’s attacks on groups that have been historically marginalized, as well as to attacks on language that addresses inequities, lack of diversity, and exclusion—the attacks on DEI.

Since the presidential inauguration in January 2025, Trump has issued four executive orders aimed at crushing DEI initiatives across the federal government and private sector. Several states, including mine in Arizona, have passed anti-DEI measures.

For most of 2025, I was paralyzed. I didn’t know how to go forward. In a lot of ways, I still don’t. Part of my paralysis came from wondering what this moment meant for my business. Even though my business website content, in my opinion, did not scream DEI, it was obvious in the subtext. I may not have used the acronym DEI, but I did use words like equity, communities of color, racial discrimination, and more. And the name of my business, 4 Da Hood, was a dead giveaway.

But that’s only part of the story.

First off, changing the language on my website was a non-negotiable. I needed to stand on principle. So I had to figure out a way to invite people in – white folks, really – during a time when the government was actively pitting us, PoC (people of color) and white folks, against each other.

Then it hit me!

A 4 Da Hood program called Ascending Leaders in Color (ALC) was initially created to provide a healing space for PoC to (1) be authentically real, (2) reconnect with other leaders of color, and (3) reclaim every part of who they are as they rise in leadership. Some white friends of mine expressed a desire for learning, so I launched the first white cohort of ALC, which for them was a healing space to (1) reflect, (2) relearn, and (3) reemerge as stronger allies.

Herein lies the challenge.

Members of the dominant group consistently claim that dividing groups by race or ethnicity is segregation. Yet having distinct groups helps mitigate harm on both sides. As Reverend angel Kyodo williams said, “People who have always been entitled to space have no idea what it’s like to have never been entitled to space.” It doesn’t matter to these folks that two-and-a-half centuries of oppression have resulted in generational trauma. But here’s an interesting thing: While one group carries the weight of navigating spaces that weren’t designed for them, many members of the other group carry the guilt and shame of how they built their generational wealth. Genocide. Stolen land. Systems and laws that were specifically created to favor them.

And herein lies opportunity.

Ascending Leaders in Color uses restorative circle practices to have hard conversations. Every meeting is framed. Every meeting has shared group agreements. Every meeting leads with curiosity.

So what exactly is a restorative circle?

Restorative circles, rooted in Indigenous practices, have held communities together for thousands of years. Restorative circles have built community, resolved conflict, and healed harm through love and empathy. They are grounded in the belief that the path forward runs through each other, not around each other.

The circle shape itself is intentional. In a circle, everyone is equal. There is no head. There is no hierarchy. Every voice is held, heard, and valued. And everyone is accountable to the shared agreements.

Restorative circles create what I call a protected space. Not a safe or brave space, because I cannot guarantee either. But a protected space means we show up with honesty, we sit with discomfort, and we trust that the circle holds us even when the conversation gets hard. Especially when the conversation gets hard.

I’ve been using restorative circle practices for years because they work. They hold us accountable to each other, even in discomfort. They interrupt the urge to fix, defend, or deflect. And when that happens, something magical occurs. People connect, differences are celebrated, and collective action begins.

Therein lies the power of restorative circles.

Most other strategies can’t say the same. Many focus on managing people rather than honoring them. It’s not a coincidence that restorative skills are community-connected. Policies aren’t. Restorative circles are fundamentally people-centered. It’s about being curious about the person sitting across from you. Especially when their experience is nothing like yours.

What makes a thousand-year-old practice innovative?

Well, for one, since it’s been around for thousands of years, it’s not some trend. Two, it’s relatively simple. It doesn’t require a complicated framework. The main ingredients are convo framing, group agreements, and genuine curiosity. And three, it treats every person in the circle with respect, care, love, and value. The community-centered approach strips away hierarchy, opening the door to authentic dialogue. Restorative circles teach us how to connect on a human level. And it’s in connection where transformation thrives. The attacks on DEI initiatives continue, but they have not killed the work. They just remind me that the work actually flourishes in the circle. Restorative circle practices may be old, but they are the most innovative community-building tool in your toolbox right now. Yet it’s being underused. Learn it. Learn it well. Then use it. Change can begin with you. And me. And our circle. We got this.

The post How Curiosity, Connection, and Care Build Community appeared first on The Inclusion Solution.

Most leaders don’t have an inclusion problem. They have a thinking problem. We default to familiar questions, familiar strategies, and familiar solutions and then wonder why the work stalls.

Years ago, when I was teaching graduate business courses, one of the required readings was Six Thinking Hats by Edward de Bono. One idea from that book has stayed with me is that thinking is a skill. And like any skill, it can become limited. De Bono challenged us to move beyond analyzing “what is” and spend more time imagining “what can be.” That distinction matters more than ever right now, especially in how we approach inclusion.

Because what if many of our inclusion strategies stall not from lack of effort, but from the limits of how we think? What if the real leadership move isn’t adding more initiatives but flipping the script entirely?

The Problem with Familiar Thinking

Most inclusion efforts begin with good intentions and familiar frames:

• How do we support underrepresented groups?
• How do we increase belonging?
• How do we improve engagement scores?

These are important questions. But they’re also predictable. And predictable thinking rarely produces radical change. One way to break this predictable thinking is to aggressively challenge our assumptions and explore new possibilities. That’s where Opposite Thinking comes in.

The Power of Opposite Thinking

Opposite thinking, sometimes called reverse thinking, is a technique that challenges assumptions by exploring the “what ifs” behind the barriers we face. It forces leaders to examine the default frames that shape decisions and often reveals possibilities that conventional thinking overlooks.

In practice, Opposite Thinking pushes leaders to ask different questions.

Where Cultural Intelligence Comes In

This is where Cultural Intelligence becomes essential. It’s simplest definition is the capability to lead or function effectively in multicultural situations.

Opposite Thinking requires more than intellectual curiosity. It requires cultural humility and the ability to recognize when our assumptions are shaped by our own cultural lenses and the discipline to question them. Cultural Intelligence helps leaders do exactly that.

It strengthens our capacity to:

• Notice the invisible norms that feel “neutral” but advantage some and exclude others.
• Stay engaged when perspectives challenge our default ways of thinking.
• Adapt our leadership behaviors in ways that expand access, not unintentionally restrict it.

Without Cultural Intelligence, Opposite Thinking risks staying theoretical. With it, leaders are better equipped to translate new insights into different decisions, behaviors, and systems.

In many ways, Cultural Intelligence is what allows leaders to move from simply asking better questions to actually leading differently because of the answers.

Try This with Your Team

At your next leadership meeting, take one inclusion goal and flip it.

Pause and allow for discomfort to surface. Then watch what happens when the conversation shifts.

Protecting the Work, Not Just Defending It

In challenging times, it’s easy to fall into a defensive posture of explaining, justifying, or scaling back the work. But there’s a difference between defending inclusion and protecting it. Defending reacts to pressure. Protecting strengthens the foundation.

Protecting the work means:

• Clarifying what actually drives impact.
• Letting go of performative activity.
• Building systems that can withstand scrutiny, not avoid it.

And this is where Opposite Thinking becomes essential. Because it helps leaders move beyond surface-level solutions and focus on the deeper patterns shaping outcomes.

Why this Matters Now

In a climate of scrutiny, leaders often default to caution. They soften language. They narrow ambition. Opposite thinking is not about provocation for its own sake. It is about surfacing invisible defaults before they secretly calcify into policy.

Inclusion is about removing what narrows access. It’s about building leadership muscles that can tolerate discomfort long enough to reimagine the norm. Disciplined inclusion doesn’t simply add new practices. It reexamines old ones.

One way to adopt a protecting posture is by challenging assumptions and exploring new possibilities. Putting Opposite Thinking into practice can help us do this and keep the inclusion work moving forward in impactful and sustainable ways. The leaders who will move this work forward won’t be the ones with the most initiatives. They’ll be the ones willing to challenge the assumptions everyone else is still operating on.

References

de Bono, Edward (1999). Six Thinking Hats. Little, Brown, and Company.

Upton, Sandra (2023). Make It Last: A Roadmap and Practical Strategies for How to Do DEI Work. Embolden Media Group.

The post Flip The Script: Using Opposite Thinking to Radically Reimagine Inclusion appeared first on The Inclusion Solution.

If you are human, you are biased. This is one of the most foundational truths of the human experience and is so core to our message that it’s what we titled the very first chapter of the new edition of Everyday Bias. While it’s no mystery that biases come up in the way we interact societally and interpersonally, there is a notion that has not been explored nearly as broadly in the cultural narrative, or at least not as quickly as its relevance is pervading our everyday lives, which is that if your systems are built by humans, they are biased too. With social (and anti-social) technologies becoming the rule in daily life instead of the exception, it is of the utmost importance to explore the ways that human biases, especially confirmation bias, drive the way that we relate to technology and how we use it to shape our lives. In this piece, we will focus on our relationships with social media and artificial intelligence (specifically, large language models like ChatGPT and Claude). 

Social media can be an incredible resource for planning gatherings, keeping up with friends, and watching your relatives’ lives unfold in a beautiful way that historically was impossible. It can also be used for finding work, helping spread messages of hope, asking for help with anything from moving to medical support, and keeping up to date on world events and politics. Platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn have revolutionized the way we maintain relationships. The challenge is, we are so easily enraptured by clickbait and sensationalist articles that we rarely get what we are seeking from these sources. How often do any of us find ourselves chatting about something, or looking up something, or seemingly even just thinking about something, and then seeing it pop up on our social media feed? How many times have you mentioned a product you may be considering buying with your phone or Alexa nearby and seen it moments later appear in your newsfeed? This can happen with anything that you are talking about too. Discussing cinematic animation with a friend? Your phone will probably suggest you go check out the new Pixar movie! Interested in when Sagrada Familia will complete construction? You’ll probably also be interested in the leak going around about the new Sagrada Familia Lego set! This is happening constantly in our virtual ecosystem, and it’s so pervasive that most of us don’t even notice. 

While seeing posts and ads for Legos is a rather harmless byproduct of targeted advertising, it helpfully illustrates the way that social media orients towards creating its own sense of confirmation bias. The algorithm would like for you to look at more things that it thinks you want to see, which fits in quite nicely with our own inherent confirmation bias. In fact, the more you speak about, click in alignment with, or even slow down your scrolling to consume specific pieces of information around political ideologies, the more those ideologies will be reflected in what is put in front of you. It will start as targeted ads, but slowly, if you really pay attention, you’ll start to see that the only friends online that you see anything from are the ones who agree with you. Now, we’re not saying that the notion of showing people what they want to see is inherently sinister by any measure. For example, Amazon, the world’s largest online retailer, offers somewhere between 350 and 600 million unique products (finding exact numbers for this is challenging, but you get the point). It would be impossible for us to sort through everything in the marketplace, so it is very much advantageous to Amazon to offer what it thinks you will like. The same is true of social media platforms. They want your attention and are orienting towards getting it. The real problem? They are succeeding. 

As we said above, humans and the systems they build are inherently biased. In both cases, it’s what keeps us alive. What gets us into trouble is when we acclimate to that bias because it is easy, or worse, desirable. Take the example of political ideologies on social media. If you would prefer to believe that those who think differently than you are profoundly and foundationally bad, then your Facebook feed will likely help with that quite a bit! It gets easy for us to forget that people on the other side are human too. It doesn’t matter what side it is, as long as it’s us vs. them. The challenge is that the ease of leaning into these biases has given us an easy out when it comes to civil discourse and respectful conversation with people who disagree with us. The amplification of our viewpoints in the digital sphere helps people at every marker on the political spectrum more easily write off and dismiss those who might have, in the past, been willing to sit and talk face-to-face. When we add AI into the equation, the influence of the bias increases tenfold. 

There was a funny thing that happened while we were writing the book. We had written a piece on sycophancy as a negative bias influence from AI and shared it with ChatGPT, just to see what would happen. The response from the bot was that the narrative around AI sycophancy was the strongest argument, and arguably the emotional core, of the whole chapter. In other words, the AI sycophantically praised the critique of its own excessive agreeability! This is where the conversation gets stickier, because we’re facing down arguably the most significant technological advancement in the history of humankind, that is, itself, accelerating the pace of its own development exponentially. AI is no longer a looming ideological threat that will someday cause dramatic change to our world. It is here; the change has already begun. So how do we stay human in the face of it? 

As we’ve said, and will say again, if you are human, you are biased. This will not change! But the more intention and attention we bring to illuminating our own biases, the better we can get at taking a breath, or even just a second, to see where we are being driven by old stories and ideas that no longer belong in our current contexts. The path forward is not a hopeless one, and there are steps we can take to reduce the negative impacts that biases have on our personal and societal relationships.

First, we must abandon the assumption of neutrality. Neither human judgment nor technological systems are inherently objective. Humans derive our biases from our survival instincts. We are often biased against bears because if we are not discerning of them, they may kill us. Even if we are as discerning as humanly possible, there will still be biases in our technology. We need to treat technology as an extension of our humanity. 

Next, we must recognize that bias is not just an individual issue but a systems issue. It is embedded in data, algorithms, processes, and cultures…and it is a function of “the way we do things around here.” When we build and code our future, we are doing so on the foundation of our past. We must keep our eye on how that foundation speaks to old biases and ideas that no longer serve us or the world around us. Third, move beyond awareness to design. The most effective way to manage bias is not to rely on individual willpower but to create structures that support better decisions. We cannot do this alone, and in a moment in our world where social technologies make it easier than ever to have broad reaching relationships that lack depth, we need to build reliable structures within which we can actively hold one another accountable to grow.

Finally, invest in belonging. In a fragmented and polarized world, the ability to create environments of trust and connection is not only a moral responsibility—it is a competitive advantage. It is said that when one has more, one should not build higher walls but instead build a longer table. The narratives pervading the world around us seem to be calling for higher walls, but we firmly believe that now, more than ever, we must invite and share, not reject and alienate.

The post Built by Humans: Why Our Bias Now Runs the Machines appeared first on The Inclusion Solution.

There is a great deal of discussion about diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) as organizational goals. We build task forces, publish reports, and hire Chief Diversity Officers. We measure representation in leadership pipelines and celebrate when the numbers improve. And then we watch those same leaders burn out and leave.

This is the DEI conversation we are not having.

The Gap Between the Goal and the Experience

Women of Color represent some of the most mission-driven, innovative, and effective leaders in our organizations. They are also leaving at disproportionate rates, not because they lack resilience, skill, or commitment, but because the systems around them were never designed to sustain their leadership.

The research is clear. Women of Color in executive and leadership roles experience burnout at significantly higher rates than their white counterparts.[1] They carry what scholar Amado Padilla termed cultural taxation, which is the unspoken expectation to represent, educate, and advocate for their entire communities while doing their primary jobs.[2] They navigate racialized expectations that question their competence, police their emotions, and challenge their authority in rooms where it should never be in question.[3] They absorb invisible emotional labor that their colleagues are rarely asked to carry.

True DEI is not just about getting diverse leaders in the room. It is about building systems that allow them to stay and to lead from their full power, not from survival mode.

From Surviving to Rising: The RISE UP™ Method

At the Justice for All Summit, my presentation will introduce the RISE UP™ Method, a liberatory leadership framework I developed based on 30 years in higher education, including my experience as a community college president. Rooted in the scholarship of Paulo Freire’s liberatory pedagogy,[4] Kimberlé Crenshaw’s intersectionality framework[5], and Gloria Anzaldúa’s concept of conocimiento[6], it is a framework born from lived experience, grounded in research, and designed specifically for Women of Color navigating complex institutions.

Each pillar is both a personal practice and a systemic reframe.

Reclaim. Before Women of Color leaders can lead others, they must reclaim what institutions have quietly taken — their voice, their cultural identity, their ways of knowing. DEI efforts that do not actively affirm these as organizational assets are incomplete. As Anzaldúa reminds us, conocimiento is the deep knowing rooted in lived experience and is not a liability to be managed but a source of transformational power.[6]

Ignite. Courage is not the absence of fear. It is moving forward in its presence. Organizations that want courageous leadership must create conditions where Women of Color are not penalized for taking bold action, speaking difficult truths, or leading differently.

Sustain. This is the pillar DEI strategies most often miss. Sustainable leadership requires sustainable conditions. Rest, boundaries, and well-being are not soft perks; they are structural necessities. Audre Lorde’s foundational assertion that self-care is “an act of political warfare” remains as urgent today as when she wrote it in 1988.[7]

Excavate. Systemic change requires self-awareness at every level. For leaders, excavation means examining the internalized messages that institutions have embedded. This is what Freire called the “banking model” of education extended into leadership: the belief that you must earn belonging, that conflict means failure, that rest is a reward rather than a right.^[4]

Uplift. No leader rises alone. DEI that centers community, mentorship, sponsorship, and collective care is what we in the Filipino culture call bayanihan,which builds the relational infrastructure that sustains leadership over time. This aligns with what researchers Chin and Trimble have identified as collectivist leadership models that produce stronger outcomes in organizational contexts.[8]

Progress. In the RISE UP™ Method, progress is not a ladder. It is alignment moving closer to your most authentic, courageous, liberated self while bringing others with you. Organizations that redefine success this way create cultures where leaders of color do not just survive, they transform.

What This Means for Your Organization

If you are leading a DEI initiative, managing a team, or building a workplace culture, I want to offer you this reframe: The retention crisis among Women of Color leaders is not a pipeline problem. It is a conditions problem.

The question is not how do we recruit more “diverse” leaders? The question is what are we doing to ensure the leaders of color we have have the runway to lead courageously, sustainably, and on their own terms?

That exhaustion Women of Color leaders are carrying is not a personal failing. It is a systemic signal. Research by Guthrie and Jenkins on equity-minded leadership confirms that organizations that fail to address structural conditions, not just representation, consistently reproduce the same inequities they claim to be solving.[9]

The Invitation

Courageous leadership for changing times does not begin with a strategy deck or a diversity dashboard. It begins with this question: Are the conditions in your organization worthy of the Women of Color leaders we say we want to keep?

If the answer is not yet, then the RISE UP™ Method offers a place to start.

Endnotes

[1] Catalyst. (2022). Women of Color in the Workplace. Catalyst.org. Research consistently documents higher burnout rates and lower retention among Women of Color in leadership roles compared to white women and men across demographic groups.

[2] Padilla, A. M. (1994). Ethnic minority scholars, research, and mentoring: Current and future issues. Educational Researcher, 23(4), 24–27. Padilla introduced the concept of “cultural taxation” to describe the disproportionate service burden placed on faculty and leaders of color.

[3] Wingfield, A. H. (2010). Are some emotions marked ‘whites only’? Racialized feeling rules in professional workplaces. Social Problems, 57(2), 251–268. Wingfield’s work examines how emotional expression is racialized in professional settings, creating unequal expectations for leaders of color.

[4] Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Herder and Herder. Freire’s liberatory pedagogy and critique of the banking model of education inform the Excavate pillar and the broader liberatory framework of the RISE UP™ Method.

[5] Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 139–167. Crenshaw’s intersectionality framework is foundational to understanding the compounded systemic conditions Women of Color navigate in leadership.

[6] Anzaldúa, G. (2002). Now let us shift…the path of conocimiento…inner work, public acts. In G. Anzaldúa & A. Keating (Eds.), This bridge we call home: Radical visions for transformation (pp. 540–578). Routledge. Anzaldúa’s concept of conocimiento — transformative knowledge rooted in lived experience — informs the Reclaim pillar.

[7] Lorde, A. (1988). A Burst of Light: Essays. Firebrand Books. Lorde’s assertion that self-care is an act of political warfare grounds the Sustain pillar’s framing of rest as structural necessity, not personal indulgence.

[8] Chin, J. L., & Trimble, J. E. (2015). Diversity and Leadership. SAGE Publications. Chin and Trimble examine collectivist and culturally grounded leadership models, supporting the Uplift pillar’s emphasis on community-centered leadership practice.

[9] Guthrie, K. L., & Jenkins, D. M. (2018). The Role of Leadership Educators: Transforming Learning. Information Age Publishing. Guthrie and Jenkins document how equity-minded leadership development must address structural conditions, not representation alone, to produce lasting organizational change.

The post Why DEI Starts with the Leaders You Keep Burning Out appeared first on The Inclusion Solution.

Many of us who have been working to expand inclusion are asking a version of the same question: How do we continue, given the current pushback?

The question is understandable. In many contexts, efforts that once felt supported now feel questioned or constrained. Conversations that once felt necessary and workable now feel contested. Even within ourselves, there may be hesitation, doubt, or a sense of being pulled in different directions.

It is tempting to interpret these experiences as signs that something has gone wrong. But there is another way to understand them: What we are encountering is not only resistance to inclusion. It is also the activation of the tensions that have always been part of inclusion work. As inclusion work moves from principles to practice, these tensions become more visible and consequential.

Inclusion Practice Requires Working Paradoxical Tensions

Inclusion requires us to hold together goals and values that can feel as if they do not fully align.

We want people to feel a sense of full belonging, and we want them to be able to express what makes them different. We want to create safety, and we want people to stretch, take risks, and engage across difference, which can be uncomfortable and challenging. We want clear norms, and we want openness to change.

These are not simply tradeoffs, nor are they just differences in people’s preferences or perspectives. They are examples of inclusion paradoxes: situations in which elements that appear to be in opposition are in fact interdependent and necessary parts of a larger whole. Inclusion depends on both, even as they pull in different directions (Ferdman, 2017).

This is important because it means that tensions in inclusion work are not only about disagreement between people. Even when we share a commitment to inclusion, we may find ourselves advocating for different, equally valid aspects of what inclusion requires that pull us in different directions in practice.

In my work, I have described three core paradoxes that show up repeatedly in inclusion efforts:

• The paradox of belonging and distinctiveness reflects that inclusion involves both being fully a part of the collective and being recognized as a unique individual or group member. Emphasizing belonging supports cohesion, alignment, mutual adaptation, and shared identity. Emphasizing distinctiveness supports authenticity, voice, and the expression of difference. Inclusion requires both. Yet in practice, actions that strengthen one can sometimes constrain the other. For example, efforts to build alignment and “fit” may unintentionally silence difference, while strong emphasis on individuality may make it harder to sustain a shared sense of “us.”
• The paradox of boundaries and openness reflects that inclusion involves both defining who “we” are and remaining open to who we might become. Boundaries, norms, and shared expectations make participation meaningful, provide coherence, and help sustain inclusion through clarity about what is expected. At the same time, inclusion requires that these boundaries be permeable and revisable, so that new members, perspectives, and ways of being can shape the collective. This creates ongoing tension around membership: who belongs, how inclusion is defined, and who has a voice in redefining it. Efforts to expand membership or to change norms can feel like necessary evolution to some and like a loss of identity or standards to others.
• The paradox of safety and discomfort reflects that inclusion involves both creating conditions where people can participate without fear of exclusion or harm and engaging the challenge, risk, and disruption that come with encountering difference. Safety supports engagement and trust. Discomfort often accompanies learning, growth, and the questioning of established assumptions. Inclusion does not eliminate discomfort; it often redistributes it and makes it more visible. The challenge is not to choose one over the other, but to create conditions where both can be engaged productively (Ferdman, 2016).

These paradoxes are not problems to be solved. They are ongoing dynamics that must be navigated. Overemphasizing either pole tends to undermine inclusion itself. Inclusion depends on engaging both sides in a dynamic, evolving balance (Ferdman, 2014; 2017).

When pushback arises, it often reflects these tensions becoming more visible and more contested. What appears as resistance may be an effort to protect one aspect of inclusion that feels threatened by another. In this sense, pushback is not simply opposition to inclusion; it can also be a manifestation of different understandings of what inclusion requires.

Seen this way, pushback is not simply an obstacle. It is often a signal that the work has reached a deeper level.

The Paradox Lens: A Way to Stay Engaged

If these tensions are inherent to inclusion, then the challenge is not to eliminate them, but to work with them more skillfully.

This is where a paradox lens becomes useful. Rather than asking “Which side is right?” the paradox lens asks, “What is each side trying to protect, and how do we engage both?”

This shift can be stabilizing, especially in moments of uncertainty. It allows us to recognize our own ambivalence not as weakness, but as part of the work. It helps us avoid overcorrecting toward one pole, whether that is doubling down rigidly or stepping back entirely.

It also expands our options. Instead of reacting, we can begin to respond more intentionally.

This capacity to work across tensions is not only central to inclusion; it is a core leadership capability (Ferdman, 2021).

Working Across Individual Action and System Conditions

Another tension that becomes particularly salient in times like this is the relationship between individual action and system change.

Inclusion is created in everyday moments. It shows up in how we listen, how we respond, how we make decisions, and whose voices are included. These are individual and relational acts, and they matter.

At the same time, these moments are shaped by systems. Norms, structures, and incentives signal what is expected, what is supported, and what carries risk. Inclusion is not only an individual experience; it is also embedded in organizational practices and systems (Ferdman, 2014).

This creates another paradox. Acting in inclusive ways can feel constrained when systems do not support those actions. And efforts to change systems can feel disconnected when they are not reflected in everyday behavior.

Here again, the tension is not between right and wrong approaches, but between interdependent elements of inclusion that must be addressed together. Individual action without supportive systems can be fragile. System change without individual engagement and behavior can be hollow.

The two are not alternatives. They co-exist and influence each other. Continuing the work requires attending to both.

Options for Staying the Course

If we take these paradoxes seriously, continuing the work does not mean pushing harder in one direction. It means becoming more skillful in how we engage the tensions.

A few practices can help:

Name the tension. Rather than framing situations as problems to solve, articulate the competing values at play. For example, in a team discussion where someone raises a controversial perspective, a leader might pause and say, “I want to make sure this remains a space where people feel respected, and also one where we can engage difficult ideas. Let’s slow this down and work both.” Naming both sides can shift the conversation from reacting to engaging.

Ask what each side is protecting. Resistance often reflects something meaningful. It may be a concern about fairness, identity, effectiveness, or belonging. For instance, in a group revisiting its norms, some members may want to open participation more broadly, while others worry about losing what has defined the group. Asking, “What do we want to preserve about who we are, and how might we expand who gets to belong?” can surface what each side is trying to protect and open a more productive path forward.

Notice where you or the system is overemphasizing one side. Overemphasizing one pole can create unintended consequences. Too much focus on comfort can limit learning. Too much focus on change can create instability or disengagement. Consider a new team member who brings a different perspective that challenges established ways of working. The team may feel pressure to quickly align, emphasizing belonging, while unintentionally constraining distinctiveness. Pausing to consider what might be lost by pushing too quickly in either direction can help rebalance the work.

Look for small both/and moves. Rather than trying to resolve the tension, ask what next step could honor both sides, even partially. For example, an individual may want to raise a concern but hesitate because similar issues have been dismissed in the past. A leader might respond by creating a structured moment for input while also committing to follow-up, addressing both the immediate voice and the broader system signal about whether speaking up leads to action.

These are not techniques to eliminate difficulty. They are ways of staying in the work without becoming stuck or polarized.

Continuing the Work

In times of pushback, it can be tempting to simplify, to retreat, or to wait for conditions to improve. Yet these moments can also be understood as invitations to deepen our practice.

Inclusion work has always involved navigating tensions. What is different now is that those tensions are more visible, more contested, and more consequential.

Staying the course does not mean holding on more tightly to a fixed approach. It means developing the capacity to work within complexity, to remain engaged across difference, and to act in ways that are both grounded and adaptive.

The paradox lens does not remove the difficulty. It helps us understand it and expands our options for moving forward.

If you find yourself pulled in different directions, that may not be a sign that you are off track. It may be a sign that you are engaging the work as it actually is.

References

Ferdman, B. M. (2014). The practice of inclusion in diverse organizations: Toward a systemic and inclusive framework. In B. M. Ferdman & B. R. Deane (Eds.), Diversity at work: The practice of inclusion (pp. 3–54). Jossey-Bass.

Ferdman, B. M. (2016). If I’m comfortable does that mean I’m included? And if I’m included, will I now be comfortable? In L. M. Roberts, L. P. Wooten, & M. N. Davidson (Eds.), Positive organizing in a global society: Understanding and engaging differences for capacity-building and inclusion (pp. 65–70). Routledge.

Ferdman, B. M. (2017). Paradoxes of inclusion: Understanding and managing the tensions of diversity and multiculturalism. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 53(2), 235–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886317702608

Ferdman, B. M. (2018). In Trump’s shadow: Questioning and testing the boundaries of inclusion. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 37(1), 96–107. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-09-2017-0177 Ferdman, B. M. (2021). Inclusive leadership: The fulcrum of inclusion. In B. M. Ferdman, J. Prime, & R. E. Riggio (Eds.), Inclusive leadership: Transforming diverse lives, workplaces, and societies (pp. 3–24). Routledge.

The post Staying the Course: Navigating the Tensions of Inclusion in a Time of Pushback appeared first on The Inclusion Solution.

The intersection of artificial intelligence, workplace wellness, and DEI is a governance and leadership challenge for senior HR leaders. The infrastructure, from how people are hired and evaluated to how their health, workload, and even emotions are monitored, presents challenges not seen before. As organizations adopt these AI tools, leaders face a pivotal question: will AI deepen inequities and burnout, or will it become a lever for healthier, more inclusive workplaces that perform better over the long term?

AI now sits at the heart of many HR and workplace systems, powering recruitment platforms, performance management tools, employee listening systems, and digital wellness apps. While these technologies promise efficiency and insight, they touch sensitive domains: health data, psychological states, career progression, and day‑to‑day autonomy.

That means AI adoption is no longer just an IT decision. It’s a strategic choice that directly shapes workplace wellness and DEI. When AI is implemented without attention to DEI and well‑being, it can hard‑code bias, enable harmful surveillance, and erode trust. When designed thoughtfully, with diverse perspectives and strong governance, the same tools can help detect burnout earlier, personalize support, and create more equitable employee experiences at scale.

The opportunity: AI as a tool for workplace wellness

Used intentionally, AI can be a powerful ally for employee health and well‑being.

• Personalized wellness programs. AI can analyze participation data, preferences, and risk factors to tailor wellness offerings, matching people with programs they are more likely to use and benefit from. This personalization can increase engagement and improve outcomes, especially in areas like physical activity, nutrition, and stress management.
• Accessible mental health support. AI‑driven chatbots such as Woebot and Wysa are increasingly embedded in workplace wellness programs, providing 24/7 psycho‑educational support and triage.[i] These tools can lower access barriers, particularly for employees who face stigma or logistical constraints in seeking traditional care.
• Workload insights and burnout detection. Predictive analytics can track hours worked, communication loads, missed breaks, and shifts in performance or sentiment to flag employees at risk of burnout before crises emerge. Studies show AI‑based burnout detection can achieve high accuracy, enabling proactive interventions that reduce turnover and health costs.[ii]^{, [iii]}
• Smarter workplace and schedule design. AI can optimize staffing levels, shift patterns, and meeting schedules to reduce overload and improve recovery time. Some tools even schedule micro-breaks or dynamically adjust workloads based on fatigue signals, creating more sustainable work rhythms.
• Targeted organizational interventions. By aggregating anonymized data, AI can identify hotspots where particular teams, roles, or demographic groups are experiencing stress, exclusion, or low engagement, informing systemic fixes rather than one‑off wellness campaigns.

The common thread is that AI can surface patterns no human could reliably see in time, turning raw data into actionable insight for leaders who want to build healthier systems, not just offer perks.

The risk: bias, surveillance, and inequity

The same capabilities that make AI powerful for wellness also make it risky when misused or poorly designed.

• Reinforcing existing bias. If historical HR data reflects biased decisions, with fewer promotions for certain groups, harsher performance ratings, or inequitable access to development. Models trained on that data can perpetuate and even amplify those patterns, presenting them as “objective.” This can lock underrepresented employees into a cycle of disadvantage across hiring, ratings, pay, and advancement.
• Intrusive monitoring and loss of trust. AI systems that continuously monitor keystrokes, communications, or biometrics in the name of productivity or wellness can quickly feel like surveillance. When employees do not understand what is being collected, how it will be used, or whether it will affect evaluation or job security, anxiety rises, and well‑being suffers.
• Unequal distribution of benefits. Wellness AI tools may be more accessible to certain groups, for example, employees with flexible schedules, higher digital literacy, or private workspaces, leaving others behind. If interventions are not designed with diverse needs in mind (language, disability, caregiving responsibilities, cultural attitudes toward mental health), benefits can skew toward already advantaged populations.
• Quality and safety concerns. Many AI health and wellness tools have not been rigorously evaluated for their impact on actual health outcomes or behavior change. Overreliance on untested tools can give leaders false reassurance while failing to address underlying drivers of stress and inequity.​

Ultimately, wellness technologies that feel coercive or unfair will undermine exactly what they claim to support: psychological safety, belonging, and trust.

The role of DEI in responsible AI

As the opportunities and risks of AI in the workplace become clearer, one thing is certain: how these systems are designed and governed will determine whether they advance equity or deepen existing gaps. This is where DEI becomes essential. DEI is not a separate workstream from AI. It is a core design requirement for any system that touches people.

• Diverse, multidisciplinary teams. When teams building or selecting AI tools include people from different backgrounds, functions, and lived experiences, they are more likely to spot harmful assumptions, missing data, or unintended consequences. Including employee resource group (ERG) representatives or front‑line employees in pilots can surface issues early.
• Inclusive data practices. Responsible AI requires scrutinizing training and input data for representativeness and historical bias, then actively correcting for those issues. That may mean de‑weighting or excluding biased historical decisions, augmenting underrepresented groups’ data, or adding fairness constraints to models.
• Equity‑focused outcome measures. It is not enough to track overall performance gains or wellness improvements; leaders must monitor outcomes by demographic group, role, and location to ensure benefits are equitably distributed. This is where DEI analytics and wellness analytics intersect.
• Ethical governance. Clear governance structures with ethics committees, review boards, or cross‑functional councils help ensure AI initiatives are evaluated not just on ROI, but also on their alignment with organizational values and human rights principles. DEI leaders should have a formal voice in these forums, not just be consulted after the fact.

By embedding DEI principles in AI development and procurement, organizations can steer away from “tech‑driven” and toward truly human‑centered transformation.

A framework for responsible implementation

Business and HR leaders need a practical roadmap for adopting AI‑driven wellness and HR technologies responsibly. The framework below highlights key domains and sample actions.

A few implementation basics for leaders:

• Start with narrow, high‑value pilots (for example, burnout risk detection in a willing business unit or department) and co‑design them with employees.
• Communicate early and often, framing AI as a tool to support people, not replace or police them.
• Pair any monitoring capability with tangible benefits, such as additional rest time, workload redistribution, or manager coaching, so employees see value, not just scrutiny.

Real-world examples: better or worse, by design

Concrete scenarios illustrate how the same AI capability can either improve or harm wellness and inclusion.

• Burnout analytics in a global firm. A large software company using AI to monitor sprint workloads and after‑hours communication, which then reduced engineer turnover by 18 percent.[iv] In a different design, the same signals could be used to flag the employee as “at risk” and quietly exclude them from stretch assignments or promotions, deepening stigma and stress.
• AI‑powered performance management at IBM. IBM’s use of AI for continuous feedback has been linked to higher productivity and employee satisfaction when it supports coaching and development.[v] If such a system were deployed with opaque scoring, limited recourse, and no bias monitoring, it could entrench biased ratings and widen performance gaps between demographic groups.
• Wellness chatbots in a hybrid workforce. Organizations have been integrating AI mental health chatbots into benefits offerings to provide on‑demand support and signpost services.[vi] Without strong privacy safeguards and clear separation from performance data, employees may fear that disclosures will affect evaluations, leading to underuse by those who might benefit most.
• AI in hiring. AI-based resume screening and video interview analysis can reduce time-to-hire and help identify non-obvious candidates based on skills and potential.[vii] But if trained on historical hiring data from a non‑diverse workforce, such tools can systematically down‑rank candidates from underrepresented groups, even as they appear “neutral” on the surface.

In each case, the difference between benefit and harm lies in governance, transparency, and the degree to which DEI, workplace wellness, and HR leaders shape the design.

The future of human‑centered workplaces

As AI diffuses across the employee lifecycle, organizations that align technology adoption with human‑centered values will have a strategic edge. Research links well‑designed wellness programs to higher engagement and returns on mental health investments, especially when combined with social connection and inclusive practices.

In the talent market, candidates increasingly scrutinize how employers use data and automation, not just what tools they have. Companies that can credibly demonstrate responsible AI practices, equitable outcomes, and genuine care for well‑being will be better positioned to attract and retain diverse talent. Over time, this reinforces a virtuous cycle: inclusive AI governance produces fairer tools, which build trust, which in turn makes employees more willing to share data that improves the system for everyone.

AI will not, on its own, make workplaces more humane or more extractive. It is a force multiplier for whatever values and structures are already in place. For business leaders, HR executives, and wellness professionals, the task is to ensure that AI strengthens health, dignity, and opportunity by embedding DEI, ethics, and well‑being at every stage of design and deployment. That means moving beyond compliance checklists to a deeper stance: treating employees as partners in innovation, not just data points to be optimized. Organizations that take this path will not only reduce risk; they will build resilient, high‑trust cultures where both people and performance can thrive in an AI‑enabled future.

References

[i] Saha K., Why Workplace Wellbeing AI Needs a New Ethics of Consent, The Fulcrum, Jan 6, 2026.

[ii] Rana R, Higgins N, Stedman T, March S, Gucciardi DF, Barua PD, Joshi R. Passive AI Detection of Stress and Burnout Among Frontline Workers. Nurs Rep. 2025 Oct 22;15(11):373. doi: 10.3390/nursrep15110373. PMID: 41295797; PMCID: PMC12655262.

[iii] Liu C, Chuang YC, Qin L, Ren L, Chien CW, Tung TH. Machine-learning-based model for analysing and accurately predicting factors related to burnout in healthcare workers. BMJ Public Health. 2025 Sep 4;3(2):e000777. doi: 10.1136/bmjph-2023-000777. PMID: 40922936; PMCID: PMC12414203.

[iv] Nova, C. Predictive Burnout Forecasting: AI That Sees Stress Before It Strikes, Wellbeing Navigator, Aug 27, 2025.

[v] Santos, J., How AI in HR Examples are Reshaping Employee Feedback and Performance Management, AI HR Institute, Dec 6, 2025.

[vi] Thibodeau, P., AI Deployed as Employee Burnout Detection Tool, TechTarget, Feb 17, 2021.

[vii] Baravik, M., Top 7 AI in HR Examples & Use Cases to Improve Your Workflows, Clear Company, Aug 12, 2025.

The post From Force Multiplier to Force for Good: Responsible AI in Health, Equity, and the Workplace appeared first on The Inclusion Solution.

This year, it feels like we’re buried under ten feet of snow. Each day, the news delivers another storm—political drama, societal upheaval, economic uncertainty, and the biting cold of hatred—piling on until it’s hard to breathe, let alone keep up. We try to stop doom‑scrolling, to step away from the endless cycle of headlines, but the stress lingers. It hangs heavy, taxing our brains even when we look away.

The next crisis always feels just around the corner. Ignorance isn’t bliss; instead, it adds to the storm, because our communities need us to be engaged, even when it comes at a cost. The question becomes how to remain aware without becoming overwhelmed.

Art offers a way forward. It casts warmth into that shadow and helps us dig out of the snow. Research has long shown that creative practices support stress relief and cognitive processing. When we draw, paint, sing, or create, we form new neural pathways that help us process information, integrate experiences, and make meaning amid chaos.

Iṣẹ́ Onà Zen Tangles offer one such pathway. Rooted in the equatorial warmth and strength of West African artistic traditions, they invite both expression and decompression. Through shapes, symmetry, line, and color, we engage the brain at a subconscious level, creating new pathways and shifting how we think and feel.

Think of the brain as a superhighway battered by a relentless storm. Not all of us have access to a vehicle built to blaze new trails through that weather—those often come in the form of therapy, financial flexibility, or restorative vacations. Most of us are navigating with a small sedan, powered by grit, creativity, and determination, simply trying to make it through. As a result, we tend to default to the familiar, well‑plowed routes—paths that feel safer and easier, but often lead us right back to stress.

Art allows us to press new tracks into the snow—slower, less convenient paths, but ones that lead toward healthier outcomes. You don’t need to be a professional artist. You only need to show up. On April 29–30, join Inclusion Arts Group’s Threads of Healing: Iṣẹ́ Onà Zen Tangles and the Power of Empathy presentation at The Winters Group Justice for All Summit, as we explore West African art as a tool for processing the world we’re living in and creating healthier neural pathways together.

The post Threads of Healing: The Power of Empathy Through Art appeared first on The Inclusion Solution.