Making Space for Nothing
Holding Spaces are places of contradiction; they are artfully crafted spaces of gracious, elegant, and purposeful emptiness. This emptiness does not represent a failure in structure, instead, this emptiness, nothingness, spaciousness is exactly what a holding space needs to be. It is a place where nothing happens…yet. Holding spaces are the pregnant pauses in a sentence. They exist as small refuges of stillness in the midst of the many storms that businesses and organizations often face.
It is rare to find Holding Spaces since their mere existence often makes us uncomfortable. For most of us, success and a job-well-done implies the creation of work or a final product. We have been conditioned by our current culture to be doers and tinkerers. So much so, that doing nothing can often be a place of anxiety for a lot of us. The current climate of our organizations, businesses, and management practices is virtually the opposite of what holding spaces need to be. In today’s world of “just-in-time logistics” (Lai & Cheng, 2016) (Lai et al., 2003), the idea of Holding Spaces sounds anathema to the way we should conduct business. Nevertheless, this nothingness does not represent a failure in structure or systems, instead emptiness, nothingness, and spaciousness is exactly what a holding space needs to be for it is in it where true potential resides. We live in a time and a society that is in desperate need of new, revolutionary, life-altering ideas. However, ideas need space to come into being, to grow, to be worried about, and to mature. Holding Spaces are exactly that. They are the moments we build in our schedules, and in our company culture, to simply breathe, exist, and reflect. Interestingly, when open spaces such as these are created, we often find that they also become the perfect containers for our anxiety and worries about how our ideas could grow and impact our plans and organizations. When we are confronted with nothing, whatever it is we fear and worry about will inevitably surface. These moments of intense anxiety can be one of the biggest gifts available to us by holding spaces because they make obvious that which was hidden before. By seeing what is underneath the current, we are able to deal with it and avoid inadvertently bringing it with us into the next phase of the organization.
When we look at the current labor climate it becomes quickly obvious that many workers are tired and struggling to find fulfillment in their jobs. According the Pew Research, about 49% of workers are not satisfied with their jobs (Horowitz & Parker, 2023). Much of our current time and culture asks us to be something, to bring, take, or produce something. Our current spaces are often spaces that extract energy and creativity from their workers—and they do so without regard to how newer ideas are generated and cultivated. What happens then is that the presence of work becomes out of balance with the rest of the employee’s life. There is no reciprocity, there is no interdependence; work is the place that takes more from its workers than it pours into them. Holding Spaces require of us the opposite. They require we make space for nothingness so that true creativity and potential can flourish. Holding Spaces require we make space for nothingness so that rest can happen. Holding Spaces make room for rejuvenation not as something we do on nights and weekends, but as an essential part of what creative work conditions require (Takeuchi et al., 2011). Holding spaces, as refuges from a culture that insists on extracting as much from its workers are they are willing to give, becomes one of the few moments of sanity in what otherwise seems like such an insane world (Wheatley, 2023). However, creating these spaces takes courage. For the casual observer, it might even look like not much is happening when we think of Holding Spaces. But when we consider what is required for new ideas to come about, we realize that the only way to form a new community, create new norms, and work together as a cohesive unit is to quite literally open up space for these new groups to exist. Holding Spaces are the fertile ground for innovative ideas to be formed and grow into revolutionary solutions to our world’s many problems. They are the places where we can bring our worry and anxiety so we can begin to envision a new and different reality.
The problem with so many of our current ways of learning, researching, working, or governing is that new ideas and solutions are in desperate need of emptiness and spaciousness to grow. We have groups of people who are coming together without making space for something unique to be created; they come with their own agenda, their own insecurities, their ego-centric needs and aspirations. These types of groups or systems try their best to squeeze their way into existence—but they fail. They fail because there was never enough space for them to be rooted and to grow. Ego-centered workspaces suffocate creativity and possibility out of our organizations. They are certainly able to produce results and come up with ideas, but because those ideas stem from a place of anxiety and dysregulation, instead of hope and concern for the whole, their solutions inevitably fail. This failure happens either because of the lack of proper structure to support the idea, or it fails because very often these solutions are not addressing the real issues at hand.
We see examples of this type of failure every time a new non-profit is formed in our cities to address social issues such as homelessness, hunger, and substance abuse in our communities without taking enough time to fully understand how those communities got there in the first place. They often fail to recognize and work with the organizations that are already embedded in the community and who are doing thoughtful and intentional work. Instead of seeing the issue for what it really is: an “us” issue; they see it as a “them” issue. Sometimes these new, well-intended, nonprofits see people experiencing homelessness as an issue separate from them and the rest of the housed community. The proof is in the fact that a new entity was created to address the issue as if the solution that has been lacking all along is yet another nonprofit. This egocentric way of seeing and solving issues will inevitably end up in the same place that all the rest of the same nonprofits have ended up in, stuck. Their intention is good, and their idea is good, but their execution and the psychology of their execution stems from an “us vs them” frame of mind, not an interconnected and interdependent ecosystem in which all of us are responsible for the issue at hand (Senge, 2006).
The only way forward to address some of these incredibly complex issues in our society and our businesses is to start by making space for nothing to happen first. As counterintuitive as this sounds, systems theory thinking would tell us that we should not move forward until we have made space for the whole of the “problem” and the system to be considered, observed, and sat with. Scharmer refers to this stage as the seeing, sensing, presencing, and co-creating stage (2009). Seeing refers to the moment in our appreciation of the system in which we suspend judgment over what is in front of us and allow ourselves to see the issue anew and from different angles. This is the time when we get to see as observers. Sensing brings back the observer into the conversation and we no longer act as just observers, instead we get to be observers and subjects who are interpreting the input in front of us. This is the moment when we silence our voice of judgment and connect with our sense of wonder. This is a place of possibility and dialogue between our minds and our hearts. Next, we have presencing, which Scharmer uses as a way to blend in sensing and presence. In this stage, we are not only able to sense, connect, and deeply understand what is going on, but we can also make use of our own selves as avenues to occupy the future that is about to come about. Lastly, we have co-creating which is the phase when we begin actually building this new future. In this stage, we begin to prototype new ideas and build the infrastructure needed to make our dreams a reality (2019).
Even though our world seems to be increasingly stuck and seemingly running out of ideas to address our society’s most pressing issues, Holding Spaces and learning organizations provide a different alternative. Using Scharmer’s Theory U, we can see how holding spaces can be a place of refuge and they provide an alternative to the current status quo.
Holding space begins by recognizing that these spaces are rooted in collectivism. We are not going to “great man” our way out of our current issues. Although it is tempting to believe that a strong, smart, capable, and charismatic leader is going to rise up in this time and lead us into our new future, the truth is that these issues are way too large for any one person to lead us there (Wheatley & Frieze, 2011). That is why holding spaces are open invitations for all members of the community to come and be; exist not as followers of a great leader, but as fully empowered agents of change who can own their actions, ideas, and their thoughts. Holding Spaces are not social movements enamored with a charismatic visionary leader who seems to have all the answers. No, Holding Spaces place all of their hope in the idea that individual members are equally responsible and accountable for the whole as much as any individual leader could be. Just as Scharmer’s presencing stage requires the group to be connected to each other and dependent on everyone present to embody a new emerging future, holding spaces are the perfect container for this work to be done. When we learn to see our communities, organizations, and businesses as interconnected systems where the only way forward is rooted in we-ness as opposed to ego-ness, then we finally begin to take our first step to find the level of solutions that are as complex and layered as the issues they are trying to address.
Secondly, holding spaces, are environments safe enough that we can let go of our insecurities and work from the understanding that we (the workers and community members) are enough to get the job done. Holding spaces are profoundly optimistic about the potential and capacity for good that is present in groups of people who come together to solve problems. Scharmer refers to this phase as the co-creating phase. He argues that this phase exists to create safe spaces where the group can try on new ideas and build an alternative future (2019). Holding Spaces believe that our collective capacity to make sense of our environments, and to fix whatever needs fixing, is bigger than what any one person could do. For this to be the case, however, we must endeavor to create a level of psychological safety in our holding spaces that allows everyone to bring their full selves to the collective (Forsyth, 2018, p. 362). This is where we can present ourselves, in the entirety and totality of who we are, to the collective and we know that we will be accepted. When this level of inclusion and this sense of belonging exists in a group, then we have made room for the collective wisdom to flourish. This does not mean that everything or everyone will be right all the time, but it is a commitment that the full inclusion of all members is the number one priority of the space, not the “rightness” or exactitude of their ideas.
Holding Spaces revere the unlimited potential groups of people have to effect change in their schools, neighborhoods, and businesses. They believe that they can create new systems and organizations to solve the world’s most pressing problems. Holding Spaces consider the space in between us so sacred that they do not want anything to get in the way. That’s why to be a learning organization means that we are willing to center “nothingness” as a way forward. It means that as a holding space, we are going to place our energy in nothingness so that our attention follows this energy (Scharmer, 2009). Holdings Spaces pay attention to the space that is being created for the untold stories, the not-yet-invented solution, and the yet-to-be-formed groups that will arise from the seeming nothingness before us. Holding Spaces focus their attention on the world of possibilities made evident by the collective and the intentionality to make space for something new, something different. Instead of quickly jumping to “solving the issue” and acting out of ego-centric nature to solve problems, holding spaces focus their attention on the whole, and by doing this they avoid getting sucked back into the same broken feedback loop that leads nowhere.
In a world that is industrializing its way into extinction, nothingness, spaciousness, and intentional emptiness might be the best hope we have for the future. In a society that insists on quick solutions, and cheap fixes, and that is continuously in search of the next knight in shining armor that will come to rid us of all our problems, Holding Spaces offer a completely different solution. A solution where there is no hope outside of “us.” There is no solution except for our willingness and capacity to make space for nothing.
References
Forsyth, D. R. (2018). Group Dynamics. Cengage Learning. https://books.google.com/books?id=vg9EDwAAQBAJ
Horowitz, J., & Parker, K. (2023). How Americans View Their Jobs.
Lai, C. L., Lee, W. B., & Ip, W. H. (2003). A study of system dynamics in just-in-time logistics. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 138(1), 265-269. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-0136(03)00083-9
Lai, K.-h., & Cheng, T. E. (2016). Just-in-time logistics. Routledge.
Scharmer, C. O. (2009). Theory U: Learning from the future as it emerges. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Senge, P. (2006). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Random House Books.
Takeuchi, H., Taki, Y., Hashizume, H., Sassa, Y., Nagase, T., Nouchi, R., & Kawashima, R. (2011). Cerebral Blood Flow during Rest Associates with General Intelligence and Creativity. PLOS ONE, 6(9), e25532. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025532
Wheatley, M., & Frieze, D. (2011). Leadership in the age of complexity: From hero to host. Resurgence Magazine, 264(January/February), 14-17.
Wheatley, M. J. (2023). Who do we choose to be?: Facing reality, claiming leadership, restoring sanity. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
DEI 3.0: A New Way of Thinking about DEI in Our Organizations
Although DEI initiatives, divisions, and chief diversity officers have become common names for many contemporary companies and organizations, there is still a long way left in our organizational DEI journey. Genuine, system-wide efforts to integrate DEI work into our organizations remain the exception—not the norm. Creating system-wide DEI change is hard because it threatens the status quo and forces companies to make substantive changes that require a full realignment of the organization. This level of change is often the hardest for organizations. What is easier instead, is the addition of DEI offices and add-ons to HR divisions who would be in charge of DEI change but doing it from afar. Unfortunately, this type of intervention is not always the best or most effective in creating the expressed level of change. What is needed instead is not just a cherry on top type of change, but a systems-level intervention that accounts for the ways organizations change and groups interact to create a more cohesive, fundamental, and effective DEI intervention strategy.
As can be expected, implementing transformational change at this level will inevitably come with its own set of critics and detractors. Williams writes, “Diversity champions need to appreciate that the most ambitious diversity efforts, while often offering the best means of moving the diversity agenda forward, inevitably rock the board” (2013, p. 191). Transformational change takes courage. Deep-level change in an organization is not easy. Nonetheless, this type of change is what is needed to ensure the long-term viability of our projects and institutions. To understand how to make this deep-rooted change possible, we are going to explore the different phases of DEI work over the last few decades, and we will build on core principles of organizational change and development that will make a new phase of DEI work possible for our current times.
When we think of the current status of DEI change models we see present in our organizations, we find that most organizations fit one of two models:
DEI 1.0
The first model, which we are calling DEI 1.0, includes those organizations that have realized that their internal demographic numbers are not matching either their goals or the communities they serve. Many of these organizations started feeling the social pressures from their demographic contexts or the pressure from their clients to become more diverse, and they recognized that adding racial, gender, LGBT, etc. diversity to their ranks was an important next step. This phase of DEI change also coincides with what Williams (2013) calls The Affirmative Action and The Equity Model. Although Affirmative Action as a federal policy was more prevalent in the ‘70s and ‘80s, we see its effects on companies that remain in the 1.0 phase of DEI change even to this day. You can observe this when organizations decide to add a person of color to the office pamphlets or posters, or when boards decide to invite a woman to join the board of directors. DEI 1.0 is characterized by a desire to look diverse, to check the box for diversity, but not make any meaningful, systematic change that would address the reasons why people of color, women, and other underrepresented identities have been disenfranchised in the decision-making process.
DEI 2.0
DEI 2.0 is the natural evolution of the next DEI phase that is built upon the efforts seen in the previous phase. Once companies and organizations began increasing the number of people with different identities than the majority, they also began to realize that organizations had to do something to address the newly emerging needs and concerns of these new members in their organizations. It is interesting to note, however, that instead of asking, how do we change our company to adapt to this new reality? The companies and organizations instead began the process of creating offices, departments, and whole divisions to steer the work of DEI within the company. Williams (2013) refers to this phase of DEI work as the Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity Model. The job of these new diversity officers is to manage the issues and concerns related to the diversity present (or lack thereof) in the organization. Sometimes that looks like lunches, parties, or cultural celebrations, and at other times it looks like statements of solidarity or commitments to actions. It certainly incorporates practices from DEI 1.0 like ensuring that company materials have a representative sample of different races, genders, abilities, religions, etc. in externally facing company materials and advertising. It can also look like creating dashboards that keep track of the number of employees of color, or the percentage of employees who are veterans or disabled.
The epitome of this phase can be seen in the Summer and Fall of 2020 when companies and organizations began reacting to the wave of social unrest and protests led by the Black Lives Matter movement as a response to the death of George Floyd. By this point, all major companies, essentially all major colleges and universities, and most large organizations in the country created a DEI office or officer who would be in charge of diversity, equity, and inclusion work. Unfortunately, after about a decade of being in this phase…not much has changed. In fact, in many respects, things have gotten worse.
A distinct attribute of DEI 2.0 is that this is also the phase where much of the conflict around DEI inside organizations begins to arise. One of the reasons for that can be identified with the help of social research that would explain why members of the majority group begin to reject some of the advances in DEI work in the organization. Psychological and social researchers have found that groups can feel threatened the same way that individuals can feel threatened by other individuals. One of the types of threat identified in research is categorization threat (Branscombe et al., 1999). Categorization threat occurs when members of a group are assigned stereotypical group characteristics that paint all members of their group with the same characteristics. Individuals normally expect to be judged by their own merits and accomplishments, so when whole group characteristics are placed on an individual, they “are likely to feel that they are victims of prejudice in the sense that they are being prejudiced in terms of category membership rather than being seen as a unique individual” (Branscombe et al., 1999, p. 37).
Although we might be tempted to think of this categorization threat as being something experienced by women and people of color exclusively, the reality is that in a workforce that has almost exclusively been comprised of males, whites, or in some cases white males, the presence of an increasing number of women and people of color can suddenly become large enough that these new groups begin to form groups of their own. Because these groups are birthed into the ecosystem of the organization, they need to account for how they are occupying space, resources, and attention from the organization as a whole. Although members of the majority group previously did not see themselves as white, or male, they simply saw themselves as good workers or worthy of their positions, the presence of employees who identify as people of color, women, LGBT, disabled, etc. necessitates that those who were once without a social category are now labeled as white or males, and with that comes a whole slate of characteristics often associated with maleness or whiteness. Thus, when these emerging groups begin to judge members of the majority and stop seeing them as individuals, these original members begin to feel threatened by the emergence of new groups. “This is because the threat stems from the very fact that people’s preferred self-categorizations do not correspond to the way they are perceived by others” (Branscombe et al., 1999, p. 38). Group members who up until now have considered themselves part of the “good people” category will resent the emerging diverse groups when they are confronted or reminded of how the majority groups have participated in hegemonic and exclusive practices. An example of this can be seen in work environments where companies begin to demand that their employees refrain from using sexualized or lewd language. In these companies, you will hear men complain that the company is becoming too sensitive or decry that the office environment has become a place where “people can’t joke around anymore.” The threat is that behaviors that used to be considered acceptable are now considered inappropriate. This behavior is consistent with research that shows that when internal and external categorizations do not match with each other, the result is often a defensive reaction (Branscombe et al., 1999).
So what’s next? I propose we need a new way of thinking about DEI work: a systems-integrated way that goes beyond the work of DEI 1.0 and 2.0. A new paradigm that sees equity, inclusion, and belonging as something that cannot be separated from the core mission of our organizations.
DEI 3.0
First, DEI 3.0 organizations understand the importance of inclusion as the foundation of DEI work. Let’s look at the research available on the power of inclusion and exclusion for group formation and individual development. Social psychologists Baumeister and Leary (1995) found that most of the strongest emotions felt by people are happening in the context of inclusion and exclusion. When people feel included, they feel a sense of bonding and social cohesion in a group. They form an attachment to that group and to each other, and they develop a sense of safety and belonging that comes from that group. Developing programs and interventions so that all members of the organization feel included is not something to aspire to simply because it is a popular thing to do. A sense of belonging is crucial for the psychological well-being of employees and promotes higher levels of health and satisfaction among its members.
In contrast, the feeling of being excluded also produces powerful reactions in individuals which can be felt in both physical and psychological ways. Those who have experienced rejection, feeling excluded, marginalized, or ignored, also report feeling higher levels of pain, depression, anxiety, loneliness, and jealousy (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Having an organizational commitment to inclusion, not just diversity, is extremely important given what we know about the importance of the feeling of belongingness for individuals. This commitment takes on a higher importance when organizations begin to evolve into more diversified ecosystems.
In the previous phase of DEI change, employees and members with marginalized identities were often the only ones in their divisions with those identities. However, when the number of people from underrepresented backgrounds begins to increase, the need for these newly formed groups to feel included also increases. Organizations often get stuck in DEI 2.0 because they have managed to add diversity to their ranks but have not done much to make sure those new groups feel included in the organization. Which then turns into a higher turnover rate for employees of underrepresented groups (Buttner et al., 2010). If we want to move forward into a new phase of DEI work, organizations will need to have a steadfast commitment to inclusion amongst its underrepresented cohorts which also means that the organization must be willing to change its culture, frames, and traditions to make space for new, more expansive ones.
Secondly, DEI 3.0 organizations recognize their own blind spots. Our current organizations and mode of DEI work remain convinced that the solution to DEI challenges is “out there” (Senge, 2006), needs to be found, or exists within another online diversity curriculum that all employees need to go through. DEI 3.0 starts from a different point of view: the idea that organizations and leadership have a blind spot (Scharmer, 2009). DEI 3.0 organizations recognize that to make meaningful changes and become more equitable and inclusive places of work, the organization must begin this change process by interrogating its own source, assumptions, biases, and the ways in which they are working (knowingly or unknowingly) to sustain the status quo and the embedded systems in the organization. Scharmer (2009) argues that the results achieved by the system are a product of the quality of awareness from the people who are in the system. Next-level DEI work is not something that will happen with a new strategic plan, DEI committee, or by hiring a new chief diversity officer. Next-generation DEI work happens when the organization and its members are willing to bring forth the level of awareness and intentionality to make the organization more inclusive. This will inevitably necessitate a change in how the system operates—and here is where most people get stuck. They want change but they do not want to change. They want more employees of underrepresented backgrounds, but they also want to keep all the executives, VPs, and managers in their positions.
DEI 3.0 is a different philosophy of engagement with DEI work. It requires a complete reimagining of what it means for an organization to make space for people who have been historically marginalized in the organization. It also requires a substantial commitment to building new structures and getting rid of old ones so that these new groups and members can flourish. For this level of change to happen, organizations must be willing to engage in dialogue, active listening, and deal with conflict and defensive positions with their employees and themselves (Senge, 2006).
One of the simplest ways to embrace some of these new practices is as simple as asking employees, what do you need to feel included here? What are some ways in which our organizational policies are not supporting you? Asking leadership in the organization why there is an under or over-representation of employees at different levels of the company, and coming up with a direct plan to change it. Another practice would include considering what symbols, traditions, practices, and myths are present in the organization, and ensuring that those practices are representative, appropriate, and useful for today’s organization. This process will be uncomfortable, it will mean that some people lose power, authority, and budgets, but it is the only way to ensure that the organization is working for all not just for those few for whom it has worked for in the last decades.
Lastly, DEI 3.0 believes that organizations are interconnected systems that are complex, living, and capable of changing. As long as we continue to believe that organizations can make decisions in ways that are independent of their employees, members, and the communities they live in, organizations will not make the changes they need to make to move on to the next level of DEI change. Organizations do not exist in a vacuum. They are related and dependent on all the different members that make up the organization at all levels of the company. This is why DEI 1.0 and 2.0 does not work. Simply adding diversity to the organization does not change the organization. What needs to change is a reimagining of the organization with DEI at the very core of its DNA. When an organization understands that DEI is good for business, (Diversity Matters Even More: The Case for Holistic Impact ), then they will be able to incorporate DEI values to the very core of the mission of the organization. The only way forward for companies is to understand that DEI is not something that can be understood as separate from the goals of the organization. DEI and mission, vision, and goals are two sides of the same coin.
The next generation of DEI work will be companies that see the value in creating equitable and inclusive practices because those practices translate into more resilient and sustainable ways of doing business or accomplishing their goals. DEI 3.0 organizations can see how the future is changing, they accept that reality, and are acting right now to adapt to it. They will embrace that our worlds are more connected, more interdependent, and in more need of ethical, inclusive leadership than ever before. DEI 3.0 organizations can assess the world with honesty and they can anticipate and lead from the future (Wheatley, 2023). DEI 3.0 cannot be concerned just with the present. They must begin to plan for and lead for the future. What will our audience and stakeholders look like in 10 years? What are the values and priorities we should highlight to work with the next generation of leaders, students, entrepreneurs, etc.?
Finally, DEI 3.0 must be grounded in compassion. Doing this work is hard, and it is just as much an art as it is a science. Compassion-based practices will give us the space we need to try out new ideas, to fail, to admit we were wrong, and to try again. DEI 3.0 is not based on perfectionism, it is based on a fundamental belief that organizations can change, adapt, and become islands of health, sustainability, resilience, and belonging. Compassion, as a field of practice, provides the necessary context for growth to happen while also understanding that the issues at hand are remarkably complex and extremely difficult to get right on the first try. If compassion is not the foundation of DEI work, then movements and organizations will often move towards perfectionism or fatigue, and ultimately will fizzle out because the movement itself will become secondary to the desire to “get it right,” or the constant effort needed to sustain it will become unsustainable and untenable even for the most well-intended organization. Change is possible, but perfection is not. Organizational change must be rooted in compassion for it to be sustainable, sane, and human.
References
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The Need to Belong: Desire for Interpersonal Attachments as a Fundamental Human Motivation. Psychological bulletin, 117(3), 497-529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
Branscombe, N. R., Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (1999). The context and content of social identity threat. Social identity: Context, commitment, content, 35-58.
Buttner, E. H., Lowe, K. B., & Billings-harris, L. (2010). The Impact of Diversity Promise Fulfillment on Professionals of Color Outcomes in the USA: JBE. Journal of Business Ethics, 91(4), 501-518. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0096-y
Diversity Matters Even More: The Case for Holistic Impact
Scharmer, C. O. (2009). Theory U: Learning from the future as it emerges. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Senge, P. (2006). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Random House Books.
Wheatley, M. J. (2023). Who do we choose to be?: Facing reality, claiming leadership, restoring sanity. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.