Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
We are skilled guides helping teams turn big thinking into impactful doing. By creating engaging, fun, and transformative experiences, we bring people together to connect deeply, work better, and grow more innovative.
During this podcast series we will explore programs to make collaboration meaningful, fostering cultures of alignment and continuous improvement that drive lasting results.
We envision a world where teamwork builds trust, drives growth, and creates lasting impact. Through carefully designed workshops, we spark positive, lasting shifts that unlock the full potential of teams and businesses. Serious work doesn’t have to feel heavy—we make it enjoyable and inspiring.
We value teamwork, continuous improvement, and meaningful connections. Great ideas and success come from bringing people together, thinking differently, and building something bigger. By staying curious and people-focused, we help businesses thrive through collaboration, innovation, and a culture of growth.
Degmo Daar: [00:00:00] To be honest, I think it's actually a sign that DEI is starting to do what it was always meant to be and it's to challenge power. It all goes down to we have to educate ourselves, and even if it's difficult to bring these topics up, specifically, if you work in an environment with
Podcast Host: the world is changing. For most human beings, change is uncomfortable and challenging to address. Whether you are a startup working on agile processes or a mature organization, navigating change within existing complex structures, the mindset and skills to adapt has never been more vital. The team from the strategy table want to help the wider world understand the need.
An approach to meaningful and impactful change management, helping organizations navigate disruption and make change accessible to everyone. [00:01:00] This is accessible disruption.
Anthony Vade: Welcome to another episode of Accessible Disruption, the podcast where we explore change and how organizations can build resilient, adaptive, and collaborative teams. Before we jump into this episode, I wanna remind all of the listeners out there to subscribe and please share this podcast. We see you listening in your favorite podcast platforms, but only a few of you take that vital step of hitting subscribe.
We'd love you to take a seat at the strategy table with us. And we'd love you to bring your communities into this conversation too. So hit that subscribe button and share button, and leave some comments to help us drive these conversations. I'm Anthony Vade, one of the co-hosts of this podcast and co-founder of Strategy Table, and joining me as always, uh, my fellow co-founders, Tira and Dean and Ryan Hill.[00:02:00]
We've got a fascinating topic and a topic that's pretty near and dear to me, having worked a bit in the d and i space and, uh, being pretty passionate about how we can create inclusive environments, in particular for neurodivergent people. So I'm gonna have a bunch of questions to explore on that topic today, but as I always love to do Tira, when you kick us off, what is this?
Topic mean to you, and where do you see this conversation going before we introduce our amazing guest?
Tahira Endean: So, as somebody who's been working in the experience design space for, you know, three decades, what I've always loved about creating large events is that we have people coming from ten, twenty, a hundred and twenty, a hundred and fifty countries from around the world, and we get to invite them into our own homes, essentially, our home.
Countries and celebrate together and learn from each other and collaborate and be stronger together. And, oh, you know, over the last most recent [00:03:00] time, what we've seen is, uh, an inability to use the words diversity, equity, and inclusion in the ways that they're legitimately meant, which is as ways that we can be stronger together.
And I'm so excited today to have with us Dig Moar. I met Dig Mo. Oh. Not that long ago actually, but as soon as we met, we knew that we were aligned on how we approach life. And so we've had her to speak at Imex Frankfort recently, so where she did a couple of sessions, and I'm going to just turn it over to you dig Mo to.
Tell us a bit about you, where you're based, the work you're doing, and then these boys are gonna have so many questions for you.
Degmo Daar: Wonderful. Thank you very much for having me. I'm super excited and obviously I have been listening to previous episodes, so I've been Yeah, gearing up and being super excited.
So thank you for having me. So Big Mo, I am based in. [00:04:00] A town called Sana, just north of Stockholm in Sweden. I am of, uh, Somali or Somali Lamb heritage, but I have a, I call myself a nomad by heart and blood. I've, uh, traveled and lived in different countries. I was born in the Middle East, lived in the us, grew up in Sweden, and I've always been super intrigued and very interested in different cultures and understanding how, how we as human beings, you know, how we live together, the experiences and the stories that we bring, and our differences in how we can live as well.
So I work within the DEI space, diversity, equity Inclusion. And I work across sectors, helping organizations to, to rethink their structures and challenge assumption assumptions and sort of center equity, uh, not only in the way that we speak and the way that we act, but in, in leadership, in strategy, in [00:05:00] everyday decisions, and our everyday mentality.
And the reason to why this matters so deeply to me is because. I, myself have moved through systems that weren't built for someone like me in mind, a black Muslim woman, and it could be, you know, whether it's, uh, race, gender, background, religion, perspectives. But I've seen how exclusion doesn't always show up as.
Verbally loud denial. Sometimes it's the silence in the rooms that you walk into, the unwritten rules, the way power protects itself. So, DEI has become something both personal, something that I've decided to dedicate my professional life to, and uh, that's why I am here today to just, uh, share my thoughts and hear your thoughts, and to have a great conversation on the topic.[00:06:00]
Anthony Vade: I love to jump straight into getting a feel for where you see d, e and I being in the business landscape to today. And thank you Tehir for setting it up. 'cause I think Ryan and I are gonna have some questions for you, but as is so typical, white men generally take up a lot of airspace and tend to ask a lot of questions.
So we're gonna try and manage that as well. A book that that I read. In the last five years, it was titled Overcoming Bias and Understanding that need for people in a pro position of privilege to be open to being educated on their privilege and educated on their position. And so why I flag immediately that we're gonna have a lot of questions, but we will take up a lot of air spaces.
Part of having that self-awareness as a white male that, you know, we do tend to take up a lot of airspace. So with that in mind, and you probably won't hear much from me in the next little section, I'd love to hear that initial question, what is the state of this [00:07:00] conversation as well? Uh, what do you see from a global perspective as well?
'cause it can be tempting to base everything. On the United States because of just sheer scale and scope are other trends we're seeing in, in our case, south of the border, being Canadians. Uh, are those trends being replicated in other marketplaces that, that you come across or that you work within? And what really is the state of de and I within the business ecosystem?
Degmo Daar: That's a great, really and a deep question and, uh, thank you first, uh, Anthony for raising that of the white men taking up airspace. And I think it all starts with awareness and remembering each other to share spaces. But to get back to the question that you asked me, the state of DEI today is. Hard to say.
I think the, the backlash we're seeing, 'cause we've seen quite a, a heavy backlash the last couple of months since the beginning of the year. [00:08:00] And I think that it's, to be honest, I think it's actually a sign that DEI is starting to do what it was always meant to be. And it's to challenge power. Otherwise it wouldn't, it wouldn't be an issue.
And for years and years, um, working on the topic, it has been. We've seen that in the beginning, DEI was, it was almost being safe guarded. It was about, you know, lunch seminars. It could be, uh, calm and ease, sort of unconscious bias training, a few campaigns with representation. But as soon as DEI started touching upon leadership on budget, on decision making, that's when it really became a threat to status quo.
So I think like if we zoom out and you ask the question like what's happening globally and not only in the us uh, in the US obviously Trump's uh, executive order in the beginning of the year [00:09:00] framed the DEI as a legal risk and that RIP would effect hit global companies. We have to be clear on that and that's unfortunate.
Thousands and thousands of DI roles have been cut. And a lot of these global companies are rebranding their work to avoid being targeted. So we've seen the words like diversity, inclusion, equity, um, along a list of words being basically banned. And I understand that fear. I have total respect for it. I try to remind fellow colleagues in, in, in the industry that.
The fight, fight for justice have always been here. It has always just reshaped taken new forms. Um, or the, the foundation has always been the same, but it, we've called it differently. It was the Women's Freedom fight. It was the civil rights movement. So we have always been, you know, [00:10:00] working toward, towards liberation, towards justice, and sometimes we just have to sort of.
As a comedian, adjust and adapt and just reframe it. And so this is not something that's gonna go away, but what I'm seeing is unfortunate. There is a fear and the work is always gonna be uncomfortable. 'cause otherwise it wouldn't make a difference. But at the end of the day, this is for the right, for every human being living.
It's about justice and it should stink 'cause nobody would ever want to give away power. But it's about redistributive power. And as I just mentioned in the beginning, I think DEI has been, uh, is being framed as dangerous because it's doing the right thing and it's doing what it was meant to do. And we just have to continue.
Anthony Vade: If we're ruffling a few feathers, we're probably having important conversations. And I think to your point, words have power and the way [00:11:00] we use words. It can be used in, I think for a long time, Dee and I was actually an empowering statement, but to your point now, it's been reframed. I think
Tahira Endean: we need to be really careful.
I saw something yesterday that there's a group on LinkedIn called Women in cx, so Women and Customer Experience, and they were flagged by LinkedIn as being dangerous because we're not allowed to use the word women. Yeah. All of a sudden that's a target word. I'm sorry as let's go with 51% of the world's population, all of a sudden we're dangerous.
So there is so much danger in not looking at people as being equitable.
Degmo Daar: It is, and I think we have to acknowledge that the road we're heading down. 'cause it is for real. It definitely is. The pages after pages of words banned. And how they affect research and everyday life. As I said, 51% where it's not like women are going to just disappear [00:12:00] tomorrow, but I think that's why this work really needs to be emphasized and to be, to be taken seriously and really be giving the budget.
And we are seeing a lot of companies that, you know, stand tall and who've said that we're not gonna back down. And, um, but it's gonna take a while. It just, uh, we just have to really push through and it's unfortunate.
Tahira Endean: So, Ryan, you are a husband and a father of daughters, and, um, working in what is, you know, a clearly a male dominated field, what question would you have for DMO about the work that she's doing?
Ryan Hill: To be honest, I get frustrated as someone that doesn't see the. Quote, unquote threat of DEI, the way that I think others in my field sometimes do, and I don't know how to communicate with my peers or my leadership that maybe do subscribe to that unfortunate worldview that [00:13:00] DEI is a zero sum game. And so that, you know, if someone else is, is give, be given a chance and that's a chance that they're not being given themselves.
So how do I communicate more clearly? To the lower IQs in the room that DEI is a positive. And how do I frame that in a way that someone that subscribes to that logic of giving power to someone else is taking power out of my pocket? Like how do I coach them, I guess, appropriately and help them reframe that?
Degmo Daar: That's a deep question and I think that, or I know that a lot of people struggle with the same. There are ways, obviously, I mean, every situation is different. There will always be people that are against equitable opportunities and it's frightening to see people in power who don't really understand the fundamental position, what the I actually is.
And we've seen the definition or the false, you know, narrative of what DEI is and that's. [00:14:00] Giving space or jobs and promoting people outside of merits. It's really interesting 'cause DEI actually works against that Cracy. Uh, whilst what we're seeing today is exactly what is being said about DEI. People are being promoted based on in many cases, uh, whiteness, uh, name, gender being male over female, and so on.
Well, DI really works against, uh, against that and giving everyone an equal chance. And what I try to. Tell colleagues and clients is, it all goes down to we have to educate ourselves. And even if it's difficult to bring these topics up, specifically, if you work in an environment with clear hierarchies and dominance, you know, positions that can be threatening and that can have a direct impact.
I think it's really about how we communicate about, it's not about. I'm not here to teach [00:15:00] you, but I'm here to have a conversation with you and just invite you about the situation and do it in a subtle way rather than attacking so myself when I'm in a room, if I notice that I'm, I'm talking to someone who might not really understand the fundamentals or the or, or the foundation of DE, I try to ask them questions and try to understand where this logic is coming from.
Then easily bake that into the conversation and share, well, you know what? Give them counter arguments that are easy to to understand rather than attacking. 'cause then DEI will only become, you know, something to use as an attack and that will just scare people off. So I would say try to wave it into conversations and try to understand where their logic is coming from.
But I totally understand it. It's not. It is one of the biggest challenges 'cause it's easy to just read the headlines and follow what the leader is saying, [00:16:00] basically.
Ryan Hill: Yeah. I did a terrible job of articulating that question and you did a wonderful job of answering it and nailing exactly what I was, what I was trying to get at.
And you mentioned something that I thought was. I mean, it's, it's sadly hilarious and beautifully ironic, I guess, about how in their attempt to roll back DEI, they are really just validating that they are doing the same thing. They are promoting or placing people in high positions because of the way that they look, their gender, their sexual orientation, et cetera, and they're firing people for the exact same things.
Exactly, and I think that's, that they can't see. The irony of that is, is really disappointing. I did have one other question, if it's okay. Yeah. As Anthony was saying, it's hard to not see this outside of the frame of the US because of the scope and scale of it. And right now with everything that's going on, it's a very hot topic within the United States.
I'm curious to know that at a global abroad, globally, are there similar resistors [00:17:00] in place to DEI initiatives using the same kind of logical fallacies or. Defense mechanisms that we've seen some of the US opposition using here, or is that more unique to the United States that's then being exported outward, you know, in other places?
Degmo Daar: Yeah, no, I get it. I think, I believe it's in, in different dimensions. The US have come extremely far in the UK as well, talking about race. Seeing from a position where I live, I live in Sweden. In Sweden, we don't collect race data, for instance. That's illegal. That's against Swedish law, so that means we can't measure skin color and discrimination and racism towards race.
Um, it's quite a dangerous place to be in the Nordics. Sweden are very forward when it comes to gender equality, and we can see a, a recent report that was, uh, just released a couple of months ago, shown that in board [00:18:00] rooms, the public listed company, Swedish companies, the boards have more than 40% women, and which is a massive increase from the last couple of years, however.
They were able to measure people with foreign descent, and that was less than 3%. So 1% for women and 2% for men. So in Sweden and in many of the Nordic countries. What I see from a personal stand, then what, and the conversations that I hear is we have a systematic issue when it comes to ethnicity. The gender part is really that we're, we're thriving, but we're not measuring how it actually looks when it comes to ethnicity and race.
So I think that the question is not is in the US we see the backlash, but here we see it from a systems perspective and from another way. There's always. I mean the, I am, I'm doing the quote [00:19:00] side, but woke that term being a woke term and it's being illegal, that's always gonna affect the US is like a role model to the world in many, you know, everything that happens there.
And it's also in terms of finances, we have a lot of companies that have investors, uh, from the US that, that are putting pressure on European companies, but. We don't see it in the same way. We see the companies are being affected because of them being, you know, um, American owned in many ways. But the issues or the problems here are more based on what data and what are the actual, the actual structural injustices in place.
And we see the uk, they're really well at taking race data and ethnicity and ability disability in a completely different way. So they have a huge data, data collection, meaning that they can target in in different ways. When I talk to my colleagues in the UK, it's completely [00:20:00] different from my colleagues in the Nordics.
Same thing in Germany. But there is a wave of backlash and we're seeing it in a political scale when it comes to the extreme far right wave that is hitting both Europe and the rest of the world as well. And that is obviously against everything that has with migration, immigrants and everything. That's not the norm.
But it's, um, it is out there. It's just, uh, takes shapes and it takes different shapes. I would say.
Anthony Vade: I can give you some comfort in recent elections in both Canada and Australia. The right populists lost pretty badly because there's some backlash against that. So hopefully there's some equal backlash. I'm gonna be a controversial one because I always am.
It's in my nature and I have fun with, and there's probably. Some part of my diversity that leads to that too, which we can unpack at some other time. I love that you brought up this idea of meritocracy. The hypocrisy that often goes with that. Uh, I've been saying for [00:21:00] decades now that businesses making database decisions are often pretty flawed.
Because they're making bias decisions off of bias data, uh, which is not representing the whole truth to what their businesses actually need. And this, this short term chase for shareholder value, I is trumping any long, like what I use there trumping any long term vision that they could possibly have.
What's gonna. Actually improve their businesses year over year, over year, not just quarter by quarter. And so that needs us to sort of stopping so myopic in our thinking about our businesses and our teams and how to optimize how our teams perform, to then understand is there merit in the way that they're performing to get the real data to say that.
What I believe is the future of DE and I, which is universal design, that we just have workplaces, we just have cultures where everybody can turn up, no matter who, what, where, uh, they come from or, or what they show on the outside or what is hidden within [00:22:00] to be their true selves and thrive. And that's gonna bring the benefit to business.
What do you see this whole world of universal design and de and I like? Is there an interrelationship? What's your vision for how those two elements coexist?
Degmo Daar: Wow, love it. Uh, where to begin? So I mentioned at the beginning that I work with the systems thinking and systems decide, uh, in my DEI approach and I combine that with design thinking.
Meaning everything from universal design, inclusive design, accessible design, and liberatory design. So using creative problem solving methods to really understand and solve the, um, the, the problems ahead. The future is, we just have to, for me, it really boils down to we need to understand the foundations and we need to ask ourselves those critical questions.
So we're living in a system or we walking into a room, it can be a boardroom or whatever, a working, uh, a working [00:23:00] environment. We need to ask ourselves, who designed this room? Not just the physical room, but the processes, who designed it and who is benefiting from it? Then in critical systems thinking, you talk about the 12 boundary questions.
And I think that is the foundation. If we're ever going to try to disrupt or change anything for the better. We need to be. We need to be bold and we need to be dare to listen to the answers. So who designed it and be really critical about that. Who is this system benefiting? And be really honest about that.
And thirdly, who ought to be benefiting from it. So unless we can answer this question, nothing will ever change. And I might sound cynical, but I think that is, or I believe that is what we have to do. We have to redesign. It's not about adding layers on top of something that is already built. It's about, and not really [00:24:00] dismantling it either, but it's redesign that system.
To understand and to make it fit for a world that is so global and workplaces that are not homogeneous. They they're not. So how do we make sure that everyone fits within that room and that it's being designed for every, with everyone in mind? I could talk about this forever and ever. I love that question and.
Anthony Vade: A, and you're in good company. 'cause I think we could talk about continuous improvement and design through collaboration all day and every day. 'cause and in a previous episode we were talking about experience design, what that means both for business to consumer and business to business and into business relationships.
So I, I'm interested in your perspectives on how might organizations. Really get to grips with where they are today and really how can they get past that surface level conversations or even the rhetoric, and really get down [00:25:00] to really understanding that baseline, where they're at, and before they even think about where they want to be.
But really. Have open, honest, and vulnerable conversations organizationally about the good and the bad that they're doing.
Degmo Daar: It all starts with conversation and dialogue. I think it, it has to do a lot with, uh, Ryan's question earlier and how to bring this topic up with someone or people who might be against it.
And it is about opening up for conversation and involving every person in the entire supply chain. It's not about having this conversation at management level or. Between, you know, employees and creating, um, employee resource groups where they can talk to each other. It's really about broadening in the whole spectrum, involving, you know, the user.
If you're a product that, that you're selling, if you're a marketing agency or if you're, um, an event agency or whatever business you're in, it is really about, 'cause my assumption or my view of a company can be completely different from yours. [00:26:00] So unless the two of us have a conversation, then who are we really benefiting?
So I, that's why I have like town hall conversations. You open up the floor, you have the mayor, you have politicians, you have teachers, uh, and every, every actor within a a, a society. So I think that's the whole thing companies have to do as well. And I love doing focus group conversations. I mix both. The target audience with the CEOs or marketing people and different people within, uh, companies, for them to have a conversation and to understand how the dialogues and the assumptions and the, uh, perception of a brand or a company really is.
And only thank you. We truly understand the impact, um, and the position of where that company and that brand actually starts. Otherwise, we're just gonna, it's like having, creating a survey with questions that I decided and sending that out. That's starting out from the wrong end. It's, uh, you know, you, [00:27:00] every one of us have biases, so I've already decided what you will answer it.
So that's not even, that's not a transparent way of, you know, opening up your dialogue.
Anthony Vade: It's a bit of confirmation bias. Tehir. Um, given your background in experience design and the amazing book you just released, how can we make these kinds of conversations not only productive, but truly make them joyful experiences?
Is that even possible? Can we find joy in exploring challenging conversations like this? What's your perspective on that? But of course if you are listening to this podcast on the free channels, you'll have to step over to strategy table.co to check out the full extended response from Tahira. Uh, don't forget to like, subscribe, follow and share this, and to hear extended versions, sign up for your seat at the table@strategytable.co.
Head on over to that website now and you'll find extended versions, ad free listening and additional experiments and [00:28:00] resources you can use to apply these ideas within your organization. So head on over to strategy table.co. We'll be back after this short break.
Leading with curiosity, I'd love to hit you with how big a challenge is, uh, navigating my personal area of interest, uh, with apparent and non apparent differences. The ones that, you know, obviously we can look at race, we can look at things that are maybe physical accessibility needs that are a bit more obvious.
You can tell someone's in a wheelchair. When they're in a wheelchair. It's pretty, pretty obvious, but you can't tell somebody who has scoliosis. That may have a lot of continuous pain because of that, but they probably equally, uh, need support within that organization and in the neurodivergent space with upwards of 25% of the population sitting somewhere on the dyslexia spectrum, which.
In and of itself is an [00:29:00] amazing statistic to know that one in five is sitting there. Um, how do organizations understand apparent and non apparent, uh, differences in how to accommodate them in the workplace if they are by nature non apparent?
Degmo Daar: This is one of my, you know, hearts, uh, areas. And, uh, I love that you brought this up, seeing the GLO globally.
I believe that it's, what is it like 80% of the popul of global world has some forum form of disability in terms of, or, uh, and that's, uh, a massive, and then if we count in family and relatives. Always the majority of the entire world. So I think it's ludicrous that businesses and societies don't take.
Take this into account and neurodiversity is such a, uh, harmful, like not considering neurodiversity when you design spaces is, can be [00:30:00] such a harmful, harmful place to be in. And it really, we talk about DEI, so diversity, equity, inclusion, we hardly talk about the b the additional letter, the the belonging.
And how can we create spaces where everyone feel that they can belong unless we design it equitably, equitably for everyone in that space and for anyone who wants to enter. So I think that what we have to do is, again, open up a conversation. We really need to normalize the conversation around inclusion, accessibility, and normalize it in a way that it's in every way, everyday design.
It shouldn't be an add-on to have. You know, digital solutions that are accessible, that have, you know, different features, it should be automated in the process all the way from the beginning. And I think that a great example of accessibility in the sign [00:31:00] is, uh, Xbox, A couple of years ago when they designed the accessible controller.
Yeah, and they released this, uh, they released this, the ad, their ad for accessibly accessible controller during Super Bowl. So obviously it was, yeah, a big moment. And what they did, and what happened was that just by showing. And the signing this, um, this controller, they said they, they, I think the slogan was like, everyone has the right, has the right to play.
Podcast Host: Mm-hmm.
Degmo Daar: They normalized the conversation and showing that it's, it's not like what's normal. We're all human beings, where kids are kids regardless, and everyone should pay and they also push their, uh, competitors to do the same. To also design accessible controllers. And again, I mean, having [00:32:00] the com it was all over, you know, TikTok, no, TikTok wasn't, back then, it was Twitter before it came x and on any kind of, you know, social media.
So I really think that we cannot be afraid. We need to read the data and we need to just start implementing, redesigning the processes when we design spaces, products, services, whatever it is we're designing. And it's not supposed to be an add-on. There are, I don't know, I'm not sure how it is in the US now or in Canada, but the eu, we have, you know, the accessibility, um, we have the EU regulations where, which are mandated on, on specific cases, but it's not really that, I'm gonna be honest, it's often an aftermath rather than implemented instructors.
Anthony Vade: Sadly, I can say it's very similar with the a DA in North America that it is, there are guidelines that that, that you can follow in order to be more compliant with the a DA, but there's [00:33:00] not much policing it until there becomes a legal issue. So what I'm hearing is normalized conversations and spark important conversations.
Uh, I feel like Ryan's got something he wants to spot.
Ryan Hill: Yeah. Sorry, I was like holding in a sneeze. You've said so many things that I want to just like talk to you for hours about now. Uh, but I'll be respectful of our time. So. First, I want to thank you for including like the unseen, the neurodiversity, the mental health aspect of what designing a space to be accessible and inclusive would look like.
We see a lot of what you call bolt-on or attachment style, uh, where we're just adding on things to, to check the block of inclusivity or, uh, meeting needs. And I think a lot of it can be boiled down to. I'm all in on trying to be inclusive or accessible, as long as it's not inconvenient, right? Because the right answer is not adding something on.
It might, it usually looks like tearing something down to its foundation and rebuilding it. But there's this sunk [00:34:00] cost fallacy that I think a lot of people, a lot of businesses lean into. Well, just, it's not economically sustainable for us to completely rebuild. So how do we. Do the bare minimum to meet the need to say we're doing something.
I'll give a little bit of grace to the, the architectural side of the a DA here and, and to a larger extent over in Europe, the Accessibilities Act over there because yeah, we're talking about buildings that are hundreds of years old as they are in Europe. Uh, yes, they were not designed with accessibility in mind, and you can't always go into a city that's been growing, building and thriving for a thousand years and say, okay, now we're gonna tear it all down to the foundation and rebuild it.
Probably not a viable outcome, which, so I'll give you, I'll give them credit there. But when you're talking about rebuilding our institutions and our systems, we can see so, so clearly where we fall flat. Like my wife is a teacher and Anthony Hir could probably affirm this a little bit, but like I am very much opposed to the sunk cost fallacy approach.
If it's not [00:35:00] working, then I'm fine with completely. Nuking the entire program and starting over with something new. I hate the answer of, well, we do it that way because that's just the way we've always done it. That is never an acceptable position for me. And I also hate the answer to the question of why is, well because I said so.
That's also not a defensible position to me. So when we look at schools in the US, we've known for decades and really to the Western world to a larger extent, not just the us. We've known for decades that the way the school system is designed is really, it was rooted around the industrial revolution. It was designed based off of the system and the environment at the time, and we know that no longer works.
And then on top of that, we know just from the science that the way we learned, the way our species is designed to learn and work and live is really the opposite of what we've been. Doing for the last century of 40 hour work weeks using our executive control network and trying to pay attention to something externally for eight straight hours.
But it just doesn't [00:36:00] work that way. And yet, instead of in light of all this data, instead of rebuilding the structure, we just, the schools are still the same. We try to add little things onto them. We add ramps. Maybe we add cool spaces where people can go sit and it's like not a regular desk, it's a different chair.
And those are really great attempts by the teachers to try to address the inclusivity and the different learning styles. But at the foundation, we need to be redesigning what the system is that education is built upon and we aren't doing it. So all this to say, my rambling, aside from your perspective, what is it going to take for us to really get to the heart of the issue, which is people's aversion to or unwillingness to accept reality in that?
If we're ever going to actually make progress, like real progress in these areas, we have to be willing to go back to the drawing board and tear it completely down. How do we get them past whatever the fear is that is blocking them from accepting that reality and taking that risk and saying, all right, [00:37:00] I'm gonna tear it down and I'm gonna start over from the beginning and this time I'm gonna do it better.
I'm gonna do it right. Like, how do we get there? Can we get there? I guess maybe is a better question.
Degmo Daar: Wow. No, but Ryan, I hear you. Um, it, it, it's a, it is a frustration and as I mentioned earlier, like this journey has been ongoing for centuries. Um, so it's not new and I think it really is about, it is about justice.
Like a couple of weeks ago, I did a talk on purpose. It was such, uh, IMAX on purpose and profit. And how if we focus on profits, then purpose won't necessarily follow. But if we focus on businesses, focus on purpose, then profit will follow. And I said not necessarily the other way around. So I, what I see in the world is that.
I don't want to sound negative, but I don't think that there's, that we will [00:38:00] reach in Swedish we say, which means gold and green forests, a beautiful rainforest, and everything is just perfect. I don't think that's within our near future, but that doesn't mean that it's not possible. I think we have to start breaking down.
Be the systems in our societies into smaller pieces and see where can we start? What can we do with what we have now? And it is uncomfortable. And this work is not supposed to be comfortable 'cause it is about justice. It is about power. And as mentioned, power is not something someone willingly give away.
But it's not about giving away power, it's about redistributing it. Just because you share your power doesn't mean that you are giving it away.
Tahira Endean: Just because you share your power doesn't mean you're giving it away. Yeah. That is such a valuable lesson for people [00:39:00] because that is, I think, where we get stuck, where gaslighting starts, where all of those things happen is because people feel like they need to hang onto something that's not even real.
Yeah.
Ryan Hill: It's, it's a zero sum game and to them, and it's, there was this old. Story that I feel like I heard growing up in churches where they talked about the tighter you hold your fist around the money, the harder it is for any money to get into that fist either. But if you have an open hand where things can easily flow in and out, I'm not very religious anymore.
But I think that's an interesting analogy that we could still use. Like the more you hold cling onto power, like the more likely it is that you're going to lose it. You know it's gonna slip through your fingers and it's gonna hurt. Uh, and I think that's. It's crazy that we continue to miss that message, I think as a, as a society overall.
Degmo Daar: Absolutely. And and I, we can see that in, in every aspect. I mean, geopolitics today is just totally upside down. And the, the. Situation on, [00:40:00] not only in the US but globally, what's happening in Europe with the immigration policies. And it's still, it's the power and it's the fear of the unknown. And we're not asking ourselves like, why are we seeing such high numbers in immigration?
There's a reason to it. Nobody wants to leave their country just because. So we need to start asking these questions. We also need to push. Even though it is uncomfortable, and in some cases, obviously I don't want anyone to put themselves in in, in a position of risk or harm, but we also have to dare to ask these questions to our decision makers and the policy makers.
Ask them why. You know the question, why and how and who is this designed for? We need to really understand the system and we really need to. There to, to ask, as I said, but also redesign, and we need to do that in Cocreation. [00:41:00] Because it's not a one man show. So participatory design and co-creating it,
Anthony Vade: it's like you're speaking all of our language here.
I love, as soon as the word co-creation comes up, I get very excited, but I'm also incredibly conscious of time. Uh, this has been such a thrilling conversation and like so many of these, I feel like we could keep going. All day on this topic, and we probably should, and it probably does deserve it, but instead, we might have to ask you back to dig into this a little bit more deeply on a future episode of Accessible Disruption.
But as we always do, I wanna round this thing out by allowing each member of us to go through and have some key takeaways and perhaps one little piece of inspiration that the listeners can get from us. I'm gonna throw to Tira first, what's your takeaway from this, and what's your quick call to action for our listeners?
Tahira Endean: That we're better together, so let's find ways to be better together. It's not, yeah. Let's share the power. Move on.
Anthony Vade: Brian, what's your, what's your key takeaway here and what's your little [00:42:00] moment of inspiration?
Ryan Hill: Hard to pick just one, but I think it could boil down to don't be afraid to tear it all down and start over new.
It might seem like the insurmountable task at first, but the dividends that you'll receive in the long term are gonna far outweigh the initial cost of doing so. Again, that purpose. Really being the driver and not your profits, you know, with purpose comes profits. So I like that takeaway.
Anthony Vade: Amazing. Dema, what's your, what's your closing statement for us?
What's your call to action to our listeners?
Degmo Daar: I would say that power is not neutral and neither is silence. So if you're in a position of influence, staying neutral is not harmless. It actually harmful, it protects the structure is. So use your voice to challenge the norms and, uh, that equity is. About redesigning, not about charity.
Anthony Vade: Brilliant. We'd like to thank you for [00:43:00] joining us, uh, on this episode and sparking some very important conversations. Uh, we believe everything starts and ends with effective collaboration, and that's what we're committed to at Strategy Table, allowing teams to come together, see each other, and collaborate to the most meaningful and useful impact for businesses.
I'll leave you with a, a quote that gets missed. Misappropriated quite consistently. So I'm not gonna say who said it, but I like the quote as well. If you are thinking about this, if you run a business, if you lead a team, uh, you don't need to institute any d and i, you don't need to do universal design because your survival as a business is totally optional.
We really don't need you around if you don't wanna put the effort in. So go ahead, don't do anything. Push it to the side and you can go bankrupt and that will help everybody out a great deal. So yeah, evolution is not mandatory, survival is optional. And with that, thank you for tuning in to Accessible Disruption.
We'll be talking at you
Podcast Host: on the next episode. [00:44:00] Accessible Disruption is written and spoken by Tahira and Dean Ryan Hill and Anthony Vade. All content is developed in collaboration with the team at Strategy Table Podcast Production by Experience Design Change Inc. An association with the change lead network.
Find more information@strategytable.co.