Issue 22: 2016
The Case for Exclusion
The importance of exclusion has been overlooked. In the midst of our quest for inclusion,
it has been tempting to view exclusion as the enemy, the problem, the thing we are trying
to move away from. This belief is not only limiting, it is dangerous. The reality is that
exclusion is inescapable. With limited time and space, there are only so many people we
can fit into our networks, our organizations, and our boardrooms. There are only so many
perspectives we can integrate at one time. There are only so many ideas that can hold our
attention. Exclusion is merely the filter that delineates who and what we prioritise.
The real problem is not exclusion, it is the mindless nature of how we generally exclude.
Our default filters consist of automatic responses that help to simplify decision-making.
As social animals, for instance, we often have favourable perceptions of people from our
in-group. We assume that their positive behaviour reflects their natural disposition, and
that their negative behaviour is the result of external forces. When someone is from our
out-group we do the opposite, assuming their negative behaviour reflects their natural
disposition instead. Similarly, we prioritise those whom we perceive to be of higher status,
giving their opinions more weight, and making a greater effort to accommodate them.
There are a variety of other automatic responses that influence how we filter people,
perspectives, ideas – and thus how we exclude. Amongst these are associations and
beliefs we form in childhood, based on limited experience, which become hard-wired as
habits. Also relevant is our reaction to normative forces, which often serve to reinforce
the status quo.
The organizational implications of
are significant. How we exclude
determines the effectiveness of our decision-making. If we allow perceptions of similarity
and/or status to define our filter, we severely limit the pool of perspectives available to
inform our judgment. Even if we are comfortable with who is currently included, do we
even know who has been systematically excluded? So long as we stick to our own version
of the status quo, we will never be the wiser.
How we exclude also determines the culture of our organizations. The experience of
excluding or being excluded can be traumatic for individuals and extremely damaging to
relationships. This can make it difficult to collaborate effectively, thus limiting organizational
productivity. Exclusion that is defined by perceived similarity or status can also reinforce
that this is “what it takes to get ahead around here”. These kinds of systemic messages
lead to cultures of conformity and political manoeuvring, which in turn distort decision-
making even further.
As with any filter that is not working, it can be tempting to throw it out – to stop excluding
entirely. There are two major problems with this. The first is that, as mentioned earlier,
this leaves us with no mechanism for active prioritisation. Exclusion still occurs, given
the limitations of time and space, but we now have no ability to influence it. The second
By Justine Lutterodt
Excluding with the Whole in Mind