Olivia: Companies have spent billions on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. So why hasn't hiring discrimination against Black workers changed since 1989? Jackson: Whoa, hold on. Since 1989? That can't be right. With all the workshops, the chief diversity officers, the public pledges... you're telling me the needle hasn't moved at all in over three decades? That's... deeply frustrating. Olivia: It is. And that exact frustration is at the heart of the book we're diving into today. It’s called DEI Deconstructed: Your No-Nonsense Guide to Doing the Work and Doing It Right by Lily Zheng. Jackson: A no-nonsense guide sounds like exactly what's needed if those numbers are true. Olivia: It's the perfect description. Lily Zheng is a Stanford-trained sociologist and a recognized Forbes D&I Trailblazer, and they approach this topic with a level of rigor and honesty that is both refreshing and challenging. The book is widely acclaimed precisely because it dares to say that most of what we call DEI work is, at best, ineffective and, at worst, actively harmful. Jackson: Actively harmful? Okay, I'm hooked. So if all that money and effort isn't working, where does it all go wrong?

Olivia: Well, Zheng argues it goes wrong because we're solving the wrong problem. We’re focused on intentions and appearances, not outcomes. They call this the "DEI-Industrial Complex"—a booming industry that’s very good at making companies look like they care, but not very good at creating actual change. Jackson: The DEI-Industrial Complex. That sounds ominous. Give me an example. What does that look like in the real world? Olivia: Zheng tells this incredible story from early in their career. A corporate VP reaches out, all excited, and offers them a $15,000 speaking fee to give a one-hour talk at a conference. A huge payday. Jackson: Nice. That's a great gig. Olivia: Right. But Zheng, being a sociologist focused on impact, pushes back a little. They say, "That's a generous offer, but for that same $15,000, I could conduct a full survey of your company's climate, do interviews, and give you a detailed report on exactly where your DEI problems are. It would have a much more lasting impact." Jackson: That makes perfect sense. A diagnosis before the prescription. What did the VP say? Olivia: He said, "Oh, that's not in the budget." And then he paused and added, "We just have the budget for the talk." Jackson: Oh, wow. So they had the budget for the performance, but not for the actual work. That says everything. Olivia: It says everything. They wanted the visible, feel-good action of having a DEI speaker on stage, but not the messy, difficult work of actually examining their own systems. Zheng ended up giving the talk, got paid, and never heard from the company again. This is the illusion in action: activity that is mistaken for progress. Jackson: I can see how that's frustrating. But what about things like mandatory diversity training? That feels more substantial than a one-off talk. Every company I've ever worked for has had it. Is that just part of the "complex" too? Olivia: It's one of the main pillars. And this is where the book gets really provocative. Zheng points to major sociological studies, like the work of Frank Dobbin and Alexandra Kalev, which analyzed decades of data from hundreds of companies. Jackson: And what did they find? Olivia: They found that mandatory diversity training is often one ofthe least effective tools. In many cases, it can actually backfire. When you force people into these sessions, especially ones that try to control their thoughts or blame them, it can activate resentment and defensiveness. Representation of women and people of color in management sometimes even decreased after these programs were implemented. Jackson: You're kidding me. It made things worse? That's wild. So the very tool that 99% of companies use to solve the problem might actually be reinforcing it. Olivia: Precisely. Because it’s based on a flawed premise: that you can "fix" people. Zheng argues you can't. You have to fix the system. And to do that, you first need to fix the language you're using to describe it.

Jackson: Okay, so if the old tools are broken, and even our best intentions can backfire, where do we even start? It feels a bit hopeless. Olivia: I hear that. But this is where the book pivots from deconstruction to reconstruction. Zheng argues that before we can act differently, we have to think differently. And that starts with the very words we use: Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. We think we know what they mean, but our definitions are usually vague, aspirational, and frankly, unhelpful. Jackson: What do you mean? Diversity is having people from different backgrounds, right? Olivia: That's the common definition. But Zheng offers a much more powerful, outcome-centered one. They define Diversity as: "the workforce composition that all stakeholders, especially underserved and marginalized populations, trust to be representative and accountable." Jackson: Huh. The key word there is "trust." That completely changes it. It’s not just about a headcount or checking demographic boxes. It's about whether the communities you claim to represent actually believe you have their back. Olivia: Exactly! It raises the bar from "Do we have a woman on the board?" to "Do women in our company, and in our customer base, trust that our leadership is accountable to their needs?" It’s a profound shift. Zheng uses the old saying, "Skinfolk ain't kinfolk," to make this point—just because someone shares your identity doesn't mean they are a true representative. Trust is the metric. Jackson: I love that. It’s like the difference between inviting a bunch of different people to a party versus being the kind of host everyone knows throws a great party where they'll feel safe and have a good time. Olivia: That's a perfect analogy. And it extends to the other terms, too. Equity isn't just about "fairness." Zheng defines it as "the measured experience of individual, interpersonal, and organizational success and well-being." It's not about equal inputs, like giving everyone the same bike. It's about equitable outcomes—making sure everyone can actually finish the race, even if that means giving one person a different kind of bike. Jackson: Right, like the classic illustration of giving people different-sized boxes to stand on so they can all see over the fence. Olivia: Precisely. And finally, Inclusion. It's not just a feeling of being "welcome." Zheng defines it as "the achievement of an environment that all stakeholders... trust to be respectful and accountable." Again, trust is the anchor. It’s a built environment, not just a vibe. Jackson: So, with these new definitions, DEI becomes less about feel-good initiatives and more about engineering trust and measuring outcomes. It’s less psychology, more sociology. Olivia: You've got it. It moves the work from the realm of the abstract and into the realm of the concrete. It gives you something you can actually build and measure. And once you have that new language, you can start using the playbook for real change.

Jackson: Okay, I'm sold on the new language. It's sharper, it's more accountable. But how do you actually put it into practice? A great definition doesn't automatically change a company's culture. Olivia: It doesn't. And that's the final, and most empowering, part of the book. Zheng lays out a practical playbook that starts with understanding power and recognizing that everyone has a role to play in making change. It’s not just the CEO's job. Jackson: I'm curious about this. Most people, especially in junior or mid-level roles, feel pretty powerless. Olivia: Zheng argues that's a misconception. Power isn't just formal authority. There's expert power, informational power, and referent power—the influence you have because people like and respect you. The key is to know what kind of power you have and how to use it. But the most powerful idea is that change happens through coalitions, where people play different, specific roles. Jackson: What kind of roles? Olivia: Zheng identifies seven key change-making roles. There are Advocates, who are the moral voice, raising awareness and speaking truth to power. There are Educators, who help people understand the issues. There are Organizers, who connect people and mobilize collective action. Jackson: That makes sense. The classic activist roles. Olivia: But then there are others. Strategists, who develop the long-term plan. Backers, who are often leaders with access to resources—they use their formal power to provide budget, protection, and support. Builders, who design the new systems, policies, and programs. And finally, Reformers, who work from within the system to change it, often by translating the demands of advocates into language the institution can understand. Jackson: Wow, I love that framework. It immediately makes me think, "Which one am I?" It means you don't have to be the person with the megaphone to be essential. You can be a quiet Backer who approves a budget, or a Builder who redesigns a hiring rubric. Olivia: Exactly! And Zheng tells this fantastic story about transforming a company's anti-harassment training that shows how this works in practice. The old training was a joke—a cold, clinical, legalistic video that everyone hated and that changed no one's behavior. Jackson: Sounds familiar. Olivia: A small group of Advocates started complaining. They went to their managers, who were sympathetic Backers. The feedback got passed up the chain. The company then hired a new director, who acted as a Builder and Reformer. She didn't just roll out another off-the-shelf program. She listened to the employees. She worked with the Advocates to design a new, positive program focused on creating an inclusive culture, not just avoiding lawsuits. Educators and Organizers then promoted the new training, and it became a huge success. Jackson: So it was a team effort. No single hero. The Advocates couldn't have done it without the Backers, who couldn't have done it without the Builder. Olivia: That's the secret. A successful movement needs all of these roles. It’s a coalition. And when you see it that way, you realize that making change is a team sport. Your job is to find your position on the field.

Jackson: That is such a powerful way to reframe it. The big takeaway for me, from everything we've discussed, is that we've been treating DEI like a PR problem or a legal checkbox, when it's actually an organizational design problem. Olivia: That's a perfect summary. It's not about 'fixing' people with a one-hour training, but about redesigning the systems—the hiring, the promotions, the feedback—to produce better, more equitable outcomes by default. Jackson: And it all comes back to that shift in mindset. Moving away from just having good intentions, which as we've seen can go horribly wrong, and toward being accountable for the actual impact of your actions. Olivia: Exactly. And Zheng offers a final, brilliant question to guide that shift. They suggest that instead of asking ourselves, "Am I biased?" or "Am I a good person?", which leads to defensiveness, we should ask a different question entirely. Jackson: What's the question? Olivia: "Am I fulfilling my responsibilities to eliminate harm and make my environment diverse, equitable, and inclusive?" Jackson: Oh, I like that. That's an engineer's question. It's not about your moral character; it's about your function. Are you doing the job effectively? It completely sidesteps the shame and blame game. Olivia: It does. It makes it about the work, not about you. It's a call to action, not a judgment. And it puts the power back in your hands. Jackson: That feels like a great place to leave it. It makes me want to ask our listeners: Thinking about your own workplace, and the roles we just discussed—Advocate, Builder, Backer, and the rest—what's one small, concrete action you could take this week, in your specific role, to move the needle? Even just a tiny bit. Olivia: A perfect question to reflect on. The work is big, but it starts small, with each of us finding our part to play. Jackson: This has been incredibly insightful. Olivia: This is Aibrary, signing off.