Ten years ago, I wrote The Loudest Duck: Moving Beyond Diversity While Embracing Differences to Achieve Success at Work (Wiley & Sons). My work with organizations prompted me to write that initial book on diversity because I observed those same organizations struggling with how to both make a case for diversity and implement efforts to achieve what they said their goals were.

Ten years on, I do observe progress, particularly in the recognition that it isn't just about diversity, but must also encompass equity and inclusion. I called the initial focus on diversity the “Noah's Ark” phase. That's when you just get two of each in the ark and say you have accomplished the mission. Many groups are still in that stage, with representation of differing people the be‐all and end‐all of the efforts, mainly concentrating on recruitment of diverse individuals.

While recruiting was and is important, it is a partial view. It is the “intake” view, but it does not recognize the “upgrade” view or the inclusion and equity view. That is, people are coming in the door but have not been as successful at thriving and rising in organizations. It also did not take into account what is now clearly seen: that a new type of leadership is required, one that prizes inclusivity as an essential element of what leaders must do.

In The Loudest Duck, my purpose was to create clear and practical ways to ensure that people were treated equitably and that the value of diversity would be attained. The book started with a look at the case for diversity, particularly cognitive diversity and getting the differing perspectives that each of us brings to the workplace to enhance creativity and innovation. There are many other reasons for why diversity should be pursued, but at many points in the book I refer back to this fundamental reason. I ask the reader if they are getting the cognitive diversity they purport to want.

The next step was to explore what we unconsciously bring to the workplace, beyond unconscious bias that makes us respond to people who are like us differently than people who are not like us. I wanted to move beyond thinking only of unconscious bias to thinking of all the other types of unconscious ways of existing. We have unconscious beliefs, attitudes, perspectives, preferences, roles, associations, and archetypes.

I then focused on the Elephant and the Mouse, which is the concept that dominant groups know little about nondominant groups, but the latter knows a great deal about the former. This causes continual issues and problems within organizations because it means that some people have almost no awareness of how actions, processes, decisions, and comments can disproportionately impact diverse individuals.

Dominant groups still don't know the fully lived lives of nondominant groups. I have come to see that this dynamic is perhaps one of the most powerful ones that haunt societies, particularly as more and more diverse groups correctly express their desire to be fully accepted and treated equitably. The Elephant and Mouse metaphor has resonated well with those who read my book and those to whom I've spoken. In fact, it was so popular that one group decided to name its company The Mouse and the Elephant and base its framework on my work!

As the world continues to become increasingly interconnected, it is crucial to know about others, particularly how others experience life and are impacted by conscious and unconscious beliefs about who they are. That is why this book is titled The Elephant and the Mouse. To me, this is a core tenet of the effort to reach full diversity, equity, inclusion, and social justice. It now must be a core tenet of how leaders behave and how they are measured. Diversity, equity, and inclusion can no longer be seen as “nice to have” but are essential to high‐functioning, successful organizations. A parallel example, given to me by Mason Donovan and Mark Kaplan of the Dagoba Group, might be when a company realizes that “safety first” requires a full reorientation of how it operates and how everyone is responsible for that safety goal.

The Elephant and the Mouse is a callout to all of us to acknowledge that the concepts and realities of diversity, inclusion, and equity are becoming fully embedded in our lives and structures. This requires far more from each of us with concomitant effort and reward.

THE DIVERSITY OF DIVERSITY

The Loudest Duck also outlined the many diversities we find in the workplace, not simply the legally covered or generally assumed ones such as gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, disability, religion, or age. Diversity is about like to like and like to not like. We discover that there are many ways we separate ourselves from others. In that separation comes a propensity to bond and take seriously those who are like us and to distance ourselves or find reasons to dismiss others who are unlike us, as well as their ideas and even their essential personhood.

There are the smokers and the nonsmokers, introverts and extroverts, tall and short people, folks who are standard weight and those who are nonstandard weight. Introverts think that extroverts talk too much and extroverts think that introverts have nothing to say. There are the Manchester United football fans and the Arsenal fans, both equally passionate and, in their own minds, quite discerning. Parents and non‐parents often live in different worlds from each other, and so too do those who have varying speaking styles.

Different nationalities can create troublesome beliefs and give permission to one group to dismiss the thinking and creativity of the other, thereby defeating what was the original stated rationale for diversity. In his book Blink, Malcolm Gladwell explains that 16% of men in the United States are 6 feet or taller, but 57% of Fortune 500 male CEOs are 6 feet or taller, which is four times the cohort!¹ I have yet to see research that correlates leadership ability and skeletal structure.

The military has a convenient phrase: “Large and in charge.” We have an image of what a leader looks like. If you fit that image, you have a lot of tailwinds going for you. People will assume you are competent until you prove you are not. If you are shorter than 6 feet tall, you are not going to get that easy advantage. You might be assumed to be incompetent until you prove you are competent. Tall people are more likely to be pushing an open door. Short people find themselves having to demonstrate their abilities more often and more consistently with a different measuring stick.

Without more tools to use to ensure inclusion and equity, the very diversity we say we want can actually cause more problems than homogeneity, which is less compelling but easier to maneuver. For example, many held beliefs—and continue to hold them—about what roles are acceptable and proper for women to play and what roles men should play. The bulk of caregiving and housework globally falls to women and, while that is changing somewhat, men play a much less equal role in care and housework. Some countries have strict laws and cultural norms about these gendered roles. Equality Now, an organization that tracks laws that discriminate against women, found in 2020, for example, that “in 59 countries there are no laws on sexual harassment in the workplace, and in 18 countries husbands are legally allowed to prevent their wives from working. Meanwhile, 104 countries have laws that prevent women from working in specific jobs, according to U.N. Women.”²

How and where we form beliefs about other people was also explored in The Loudest Duck. All of the ways we learn about people, I called Grandma (society). Thus, we are all diverse and we all unconsciously bring our Grandmas to work with us.

We learn in myriad ways. Our parents teach us, peers put pressure on us, our everyday experiences in life shape us, religion sends messages to us, and the media, TV, film, and social media are playing a bigger and bigger role in how we learn about others. And all those fairy tales, fables, and myths? Those are strong molders of the archetypes we have of others.

I reflected on the great myth of the hero's journey. It is about the young man who has to overcome great odds, slay the dragon, and defeat the evil empire. It looks like he is going to lose to the enemy, but he comes back stronger and overcomes the struggles. He returns to his kingdom, village, or tribe and gets his rewards, which are generally the keys to the kingdom, the pot of gold, and the hand of the fair maiden.

These myths find their way into movies and television. I once read a review of a forgotten, money‐losing 2005 movie called Sahara, directed by Breck Eisner and starring Matthew McConaughey as “an aquatic treasure hunter who halts a worldwide plague, defeats the evil dictator of Mali, locates a fortune in gold and rolls around a pristine beach in the arms of a scientist played by Penelope Cruz.” (At least the woman has a career!)

An equally strong mirror myth is the rescue or rescue me myth. The classic is Cinderella, who is rescued from the evil stepmother by the prince, or Sleeping Beauty who, after lying on a table for 100 years, is awakened by the prince with a (nonconsensual) kiss.

We learn about people unconsciously in so many ways. Movies, fairy tales, and myths depict various archetypes, including the mentor (think Yoda), the orphan (Harry Potter), and the jester or joker (kings often had one to humorously tell them bad news). Generally speaking, men are agents of change and women are waiting to be cared for. Lately, we are seeing more of a mixing in gender, such as Wonder Woman as the hero, but the overwhelming images and archetypes are based on gendered roles. Today, the diversity movement continues to advance, aided by those who understand the moral reasons for change, spurred on by continuing research into the value of diverse organizations, pushed by social justice movements, forced by legal dictates.

Much has changed and yet progress has not been as manifest in the diversity world as it should be, given all of the noise made and efforts that organizations have tried. Diversity has now expanded to diversity, equity, and inclusion, commonly referred to as DEI. It also embraces social justice in its broadened aperture. I have no doubt that 10 years from now there will be further expansion of our understanding and embrace of these concepts.

Unconscious bias training has been seen as an essential part of changing people's mindsets about what views they harbor about others who are different than they are. In my perspective, unconscious bias training has been a ground‐shifting exercise, but has not completed the effort. This training must be added onto with actual practical tools for behavior change, for means to de‐bias both thinking and processes. Awareness does not necessarily lead to shifts in our behaviors.

I remember why I first started thinking about diversity efforts. It began with my interest in women world leaders and a journey to meet and interview women presidents and prime ministers. These interviews were spurred on by the question of what it would take and what it would be like to have a woman president in the United States (as of 2021, still an unanswered question).

After this journey, having met all 15 of the women presidents and prime ministers of the time period between 1993 and 1996, I co‐founded the Council of Women World Leaders, which was originally located at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. Every day on my way to the office I would walk by a park dedicated to JFK, where a memorial features a quote etched in stone from Kennedy's 1961 farewell speech to Massachusetts:

When at some future date the high court of history sits in judgment of each one of us, our success or failure in whatever office you hold, will be measured by the answers to four questions:

• Were we truly men of courage…?
• Were we truly men of dedication…?
• Were we truly men of integrity…?
• Were we truly men of judgment…?

I'd read that every day and think, “Such good questions to ask men.” But of course, they were good questions to ask women too. That was the start of an eye‐opening look at how men live in the world and how women go through life. It expanded into thinking about dominant groups and nondominant groups and how dynamics in organizations can cause real problems for those who are not in that dominant group.

The title of the book The Loudest Duck refers to how easy it is for some to be under‐heard and some to be over‐heard and how that can defeat the true essence of a diverse population. In some cultures, people are taught that “the squeaky wheel gets the grease.” Speak up and you get what you want. American men often exhibit this culturally learned behavior and it is acceptable for them to do this because Grandma has taught them it is okay. I call this the Wheel.

While doing sessions in Japan, I asked who knew what that squeaky wheel phrase meant. No one knew. They had been taught by Grandma that “the nail that sticks out gets hit on the head.” That's 180 degrees away from the squeaky wheel! I call this the Nail.

Another example: women in many cultures have heard the phrase “If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all,” mimicking the notion that women must above all else be nonconfrontational, nurturing, and unable or unwilling to exhibit anger. Again, 180 degrees opposite of the squeaky wheel. I call this Nice.

Finally, in China the societal norm is “the loudest duck gets shot.” Yet another 180 degrees opposite of the squeaky wheel. For example, in some societies' culture it is dangerous to share your political views if they are in opposition to those in power, so not speaking up can seem the smarter approach. In other places, it is considered bad form to ask questions in the classroom because that implies you are questioning the teacher's abilities rather than a simple request for information. I call this the Duck.

So, let's hypothesize that you are in a meeting and the team is diverse because you hired for diversity. It has a Wheel, Nail, Duck, and Nice. Who's likely doing most of the talking? The Wheel, because that is what they have been taught. But looking at it through the lens of cognitive ideas, the group is over‐hearing the Wheel and under‐hearing the Nail, Duck, and Nice. And the Wheel maybe gets more promotions or assignments or is seen as more valuable because they are the most often heard.

To put this in research terms, multinational professional services firm PWC has found that in a typical eight‐person team meeting, on average only three people do 70% of the talking. Organizations need to level the playing field so everyone is heard. I liken it to being a traffic cop (which I was once). The manager of the meeting says, “Let's hear from Jennifer first. Hold on, Bob. Now Andre, what do you have to say? Hold on, Bob.” The thing about having a diverse work group means that we need additional tools to make sure the heterogeneous Grandmas are not causing the advantaging of one group over another, of some groups being over‐heard and others under‐heard, which is the exact opposite of why we wanted diversity in the first place. If we wanted cognitive differing perspectives, we didn't get it.

In this book you will read about the division of responsibility required for ensuring the equitable and inclusive organization that many say they strive for. This is referred to as the Seed and the Soil. The Seed is the individual who has a 50% responsibility for ensuring their career goes well. The Soil is the institution and the management and leadership that comprise the institution, which has a 50% responsibility to bring the necessary tools to bear to create a fair organization. Each manager and leader must act so that their collective action provides the impetus of the organization to overcome systemic problems.

In The Loudest Duck, there are two dynamics I see over and over again. One is the lack of real, critical, and actionable feedback for women and other underrepresented groups by those in charge of giving feedback. It may well be a concern for how they will take the critical feedback or a worry that it will be perceived as biased. Sometimes the feedback comes in an unhelpful form. I've seen feedback that tells women to have more gravitas, for a Black person to stop appearing so angry, for an Asian man to be more athletic. None of this is helpful to the person receiving the feedback. I consider the absence of clear, detailed, nonbiased feedback to be one of the major roadblocks to the development of diverse groups. The Soil (organizations and managers) needs to be far more diligent in the processes of giving (and getting) this important development information.

The second dynamic is that some people are good at stating accomplishments, much like they are comfortable speaking up. Others have been taught by Grandma to be humble, not to brag, or to think that their work speaks for itself (hint: your work does not speak; only you do). Worse, some are delusional, thinking a manager will know what they are doing. The disadvantage can be huge, particularly if managers rely on their gut feeling or intuition based on the bragger's statements. The non‐bragger is seriously disadvantaged. The Seed (the individual) needs to learn more ways to ensure their work is recognized. They may need to tell Grandma to go home, to get out of their comfort zone, and to speak up more. The Soil needs to solicit the information about what the quiet ones are doing.

One of the tools I recommend is what I call “three up and three down,” the purpose of which is to eliminate the effect of the differing Grandmas. The employee expresses to the manager the three things they are doing well, and the manager shares the three things the employee needs to work on. Everyone thereby states accomplishments, and everyone gets feedback. This should happen at least every three months or sooner and can be informal in nature and quick to do. If a manager wants to reaffirm three ways the employee is doing well, that's fine, but they must give three actionable observations of feedback to help develop the individual. It is a simple yet effective tool and it can help de‐bias the system instead of defaulting to the unconscious ways people behave.

We have unconscious biases against some and unconscious biases toward others. (The latter looks like “He reminds me of me when I was young.”) But I never liked the term “bias.” Many people hear both accusation and wrongdoing in that word and it shuts us down to learning more. I have done diversity sessions for thousands of people globally, and I am confident that unconscious bias is an approach that is quite limiting.

My idea is that we have unconscious beliefs, perspectives, perceptions, associations, actions, roles, and archetypes. We need to go beyond unconscious bias, which feels like a limited way of thinking about our own thinking. The unconscious bias training may be necessary, but it is not sufficient. Some critics have assailed the framework because it can be seen as our having thoughts that are beyond our control. If all of this is unconscious, how am I supposed to know that I am thinking this way? How do I know that I am reacting in a hyper‐fast way and subtly or not subtly putting people in categories if it is all unconscious?

Others may embrace the beliefs but then cry out, “What do I do once I know what I didn't know before? Give me the tools to help me overcome these harmful beliefs.” I did receive feedback that The Loudest Duck book helped change attitudes and provided a useful framework and vocabulary to move beyond what diversity had been seen as.

Over the course of August and September 2021, I interviewed scholars, diversity consultants and practitioners, and executive leaders, by phone or, as appropriate for the times, by Zoom. The individuals I cite in this book are world‐class thinkers on issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion for whom I have great respect. Either through their leadership of organizations or through their consulting and research, they have advanced the understanding of how we can value and advance these goals.

My hope is that this book will build on The Loudest Duck and fill the gap between awareness and action. I hope it will provide a way to move beyond simply a desired outcome to make the goals of a diverse workplace a reality and a win‐win for all. Wherever you are on the journey of diversity, equity, and inclusion, the Elephant and Mouse will help you move even further along.