Latest news

Classic list

Globally incubate standards compliant channels before scalable benefits. Quickly disseminate superior deliverables whereas web-enabled applications.
fileupload-1553831835714-superJumbo.webp?fit=1200%2C943&quality=80&ssl=1

Embarking on a transformative journey to decode 'virtue signalling' in the realm of Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging. Learn how it impacts organizational policies, alters decision-making, and what we as leaders can do to promote genuine virtue over mere signalling to foster a truly inclusive culture. Dive into this engaging conversation and contribute your unique perspectives.


Standalone-vs-Embedded.png?fit=1080%2C1080&quality=80&ssl=1

We delve into the key differences between a standalone EIB strategic plan and embedding EIB into a strategic plan. These two approaches offer unique benefits for organizations looking to prioritize equity, inclusion, and belonging. A standalone EIB strategic plan provides a targeted focus on these values. By dedicating a separate plan to EIB, organizations can clearly define their objectives, align resources accordingly, and demonstrate a visible commitment to EIB. The detailed roadmap and accountability mechanisms of a standalone plan ensure that the organization stays on track towards achieving its EIB goals. On the other hand, embedding EIB principles into a strategic plan leads to comprehensive integration of equity, inclusion, and belonging. This approach promotes a cultural transformation within the organization, making EIB an integral part of decision-making processes and organizational DNA. By aligning EIB with other strategic goals, organizations ensure its consistent prioritization and long-term sustainability. Both approaches offer the benefit of consistent progress. A standalone EIB plan allows for dedicated resources, milestone monitoring, and iterative improvement. Meanwhile, embedding EIB into the strategic plan ensures continuous integration, ongoing evaluation, and accountability across functions.



 

If I wanted to be serious about my business, it required some clarity.

My past self as an urban planner collided with my present as future self as a organizational development consulting.  I debated on a name change again.  Urban planning and finance professionals still attempt to reach out via social media because of the name, but I attributed this to utter laziness on their part.  So the name is here to stay.

Most importantly was the logo change.  What precipitated it?  I wanted it to be resemble continuity and flow.  The Black and Gold was old, tired and resembled anger in my mind.  It needed a refresh.

The teal colour has meaning.  Ever since the San Jose Sharks were announced as a National Hockey League franchise in the early 90s, I fell in love with the colour.  (I still root for the Toronto Maple Leafs, for better or worse.)

Digging deeper, “Teal combines the calming properties of blue with the renewal qualities of green. It is a revitalizing and rejuvenating color that also represents open communication and clarity of thought. For Tibetan monks, teal is symbolic of the infinity of the sea and sky, while it is the color of truth and faith for Egyptians.”, according to creative design Canva’s website.

Finally, there are teal organizations. Named by Frederic Laloux in his 2014 book Reinventing Organizations, these organizations are characterized by features such as self-managed teams, intuitive reasoning, decentralized decision making, wholeness and a deeper sense of purpose.  It is with this purpose of a human-centred approach I want use to bring equity and belonging to organizations.

Welcome to Urban Equity Consulting Services.

 



Look! I’ve never watched any Star Wars movies and never will. SciFi isn’t a genre of film I like. Sue me!!!

So when I hear continuously hear practitioners float around JEDI (Justice, Equity, Diversity, Inclusion), or some jumbled up letters to mean the same thing, I take issue with it. I already have an issue with the bastardization and cheapening of the industry through the forever use of acronyms.

There are four criteria for measuring equity: procedural fairness, access, quality, and outcomes. Justice is also the larger organizational value within which equity resides. They are equivalent in nature where equity is focused on the concern of the provision of services and justice is more values-oriented. So then why do we need to separate the two areas in the work we are trying to achieve?

For those on LinkedIn, I’m going to leave the debate between Lily Zheng (they/them) (with a clarification here, Dr. Sam Rae (she/her) (with another clarification) and Aaisha Joseph for your own reading. But here is my commentary on this debate.

I will concur with Lily in that justice informs the work we do with the eventual outcome of equity through policies, process and access to services. Just like I never understand why were are still chasing diversity like its a fad, I believe adding justice to the title means we are not going to take away the power of organizations to operate. Justice is the role of the public sector, an area I have been in for much of my career. If you want justice, run for public office and be part of that change. As Lily said in their post, there is no price tag for justice.

We are all activists in some way, shape or form. But to achieve equity and proper organizational change, there must be some form of level-headedness and maturity. Not shouting to the rooftops, or getting likes on Linked In. By no stretch of the imagination am I a gatekeeper to White privilege. My experience working in the public sector, it has been about making effective policy change through equitable facilitation and consultation. As Susan Gooden states in her book, Race and Social Equity: The Nervous Area of Government, “the implementation of justice is context-based which is dependent upon understanding a complex array of historical, political and social factors” and equity means that public administrators are attentive to differences in fairness and justice based on social characteristics (p.25).

To create equitable organizations, it is about engaging leadership , defining equitable outcomes and redesigning the system with employees and public at the forefront of that change – regardless of the sector. Have a read of Minal Bopaiah’s book Equity: How to Design Organizations where Everyone Thrives where she goes through her steps for organizational change.

I am never going to call myself a JEDI practitioner, as much as I won’t call myself a DEI/EDI practitioner. Justice and fairness definitely inform my work. My mantra though is to advance equity in organizations through strategic policy change using a systems thinking approach. My call to action is for practitioners to do away with this acronym in order to make effective change with the work we do.



Follow us on social media

Stay on top of the latest news and events by joining our platforms.

Join our Patreon

Your support helps us create timely and relevant equity webcast content!

Subscribe to our newsletter

Sign up for the Urban Strategist newsletter for detailed roundups of what we’re working on.

Error: Contact form not found.