Special Issue Article

Leadership
2021, Vol. 17(1) 18–31
The paradox of the seed and soil: © The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
Cultivating inclusive leadership sagepub.com/journals-permissions

for a “new normal”

DOI: 10.1177/1742715020976201
journals.sagepub.com/home/lea

Keith Caver
Leadership Assessment and Development, APT Metrics Inc, CT, USA

Ancella Livers
Leadership Assessment and Development, Center for Creative
Leadership, NC, USA

Abstract
Persistent evidence shows that African Americans, women, and other people of color are con-
sistently overlooked in promotions, growth assignments, and other significant opportunities to scale
the corporate ladder. Further, organizations tend to fault these diverse employees for their slower
progress in achieving aspirational goals and ignore addressing the insufficiency of existing orga-
nizational systems and processes as the primary barrier to furthering inclusivity—especially in senior
leadership roles. Using the metaphor of “the seed and the soil,” which was first articulated by David
Thomas, PhD, the article examines corporate America through the lens of the “seed”; the em-
ployees of difference who most often must navigate corporate cultures without significant support;
and the “soil,” the organizational leadership, mindset, and infrastructure that continue to overlook
people of difference while suggesting the organization is working on their behalf. The article links
national unrest to the mindset and actions that dismiss notions of societal justice. Further, the article
clarifies the connection and support of the corporate–social perspective that helps to maintain the
status quo. The article concludes by clarifying the steps required to create an inclusive ecosystem in
which the soil is effectively cultivated so that all seeds have the potential to thrive as organizations
prepare for a more diverse, inclusive, and profitable future.

Keywords
Seed, soil, ecosystem, potential, future, equity, inclusive, race, miasma, culture

Corresponding author:
Keith Caver, Leadership Assessment and Development, APT Metrics Inc, One Thorndal Circle, Darien 06820, CT, USA.
Email: kcaver@aptmetrics.com
Caver and Livers 19

The seeds of people of difference are often dropped into the ground and expected to grow. Yet, their earth
is watered irregularly, and sunlight shines more brightly in other directions. Additionally, these seeds are
often called upon to spread their petals and spare others from viewing the cracked and parched ground.
All of this occurs as the air, wafting from the higher reaches, rarely deigns to share the soft breeze of
attention under the shade of the petals, or on the seeds themselves. And yet, many are left to wonder why
these seeds typically don’t blossom as often as expected, nor grow as readily as the others that have
received ample air, water, and light (Thomas, 2020).
It is a simple metaphor of seed, soil, water, and light: the elements needed for continual personal growth
and organizational success. Without these elements, growth can happen, but the end results are rarely as
successful or as robust as when all components are available and working together.
In today’s world, while Black leaders and others who are different have become part of the corporate
landscape, they often enter a system where they receive less guidance and opportunity than their
mainstream colleagues, even as they are asked to help manage the questions and concerns a diverse
workforce can bring. The result, it seems, is that these seeds of difference are largely left to grow
themselves.
The challenge is for the seed and the soil, and the air and the water, to come together in a transformative
environment where organizations take ownership of their culture and actions to create a system where
everyone becomes a part of an interdependent ecosystem that harnesses the potential of an increasingly
diverse global workforce.

Seeds sown in a season of discontent—the need for inclusive leadership

More than 18 years ago, we wrote an article for Harvard Business Review entitled “Dear White
Boss...” Around the same time, we also wrote our book, Leading in Black and White. Both the article
and the book detailed the difficult experiences of African Americans in corporate America. Yet,
while there has been some progress, the plight of African Americans, and other people of color, has
not seen significant progress in the ability of people of difference to thrive in corporate America.
What has become clear is that it is not the fault of people of color. It is the organizational culture and
leadership that have failed their employees along with their customers and clients.
Leadership has often:

1. neglected and mistreated Black people and other employees of color, rendering them unseen and
leaving them to navigate their careers with inadequate support and additional hurdles (Jameel and
Yerardi, 2019);
2. never truly owned the idea of “inclusion.” Although the term is widely used and touted, the true
impact of inclusion—cherishing and utilizing the differences that all bring—is still largely a
concept more than an actuality. Consequently, although corporate America has bandied about the
term “inclusion” as if it were the national flag, organizational policies, promotions, and cultures
that promote exclusion have remained hard to navigate and even more difficult to change
(Roberts and Roberts, 2019);
3. failed to adapt to a changing environment. As world markets and workplaces have become
increasingly diverse, employees, clients, and customers continue to behave as if yesterday will
continue uninterrupted. They are wrong. The world is being made anew and leaders must be
willing to adapt to the upcoming and unknown environment or fade with the old one (James,
2000).
20 Leadership 17(1)

In order to grow and thrive, leaders will have to stop insisting that Black people and other people
of color, the “seeds,” must change and instead look to the “soil,” the leader behavior and orga-
nizational culture if it truly wishes the seeds to grow. In truth, in order for us all to be successful, we
need the best for all of us and the best in all of us.

Plight of the seed

In many ways, the experiences of current and aspiring Black managers and leaders are not sur-
prising. While organizations have opened their doors to Black leaders and others of difference, they
have also shut their eyes to the totality of the Black corporate experience. Consequently, Black
managers and leaders, as well as others of difference, find themselves in organizations, but not fully
a part of them. Like the seed that is only occasionally watered, Black leaders have fought to grow in
a system that has not served them as well as it could. A study released in December 2019, Being
Black in Corporate America, clearly stated that Black people feel as if they are invisible (Center for
Talent Innovation, 2020). In fact, 19%, or nearly one in five, of the Black respondents to the study
felt that “someone in their race would never achieve a top job at their companies.” Conversely, only
3% of white respondents felt the same. The significance of the difference between these two groups
in many ways tells the story of the mindset and lived experience of each group.

Fight to flourish
After being in corporate America for more than 40 years, Black leaders are still seeing significant
barriers to full acceptance. These barriers include:

1. the belief that Black people must work twice as hard as their white colleagues;
2. a vital need to deftly navigate organizational culture; and
3. limited opportunities for growth.

It is no surprise that organizational advancement is a key measure showing whether Black people
and others of difference are equitably moving up organizational ladders. Further, the study noted that
of those surveyed, 65% of Black respondents said they “have to” work harder to advance at work
than 15% of white respondents. In addition to having to work harder than their white colleagues to be
chosen for growth opportunities, Black employees also said they were less likely than their white
counterparts to be hired, have planned learning opportunities, and have access to senior leaders who
might share knowledge or become a mentor or, more importantly, a sponsor. These findings suggest
a significant gap in the expectations that Black people have toward the equity they believe their
organizations display.
Yet, there is more than one reference that tells the same story of the lack of full acceptance and
opportunity faced by Black leaders. After the death of George Floyd, the Black man who was killed
with a police officer’s knee on his neck, Fortune® magazine asked Black people to share reflections
of their corporate experiences. Their stories highlight perspectives of those who worked in a system
that did not fully support their presence. “For many years, I have worked in corporate America,”
wrote one contributor. “As I slowly moved up the corporate ladder, I began to notice there were
fewer black employees until I was the only one. Eventually, I myself resigned because I learned I was
being paid less than half of what my white colleagues earned.” Another corporate employee shared,
“People can acknowledge that I do good work, but if they do not want to “grab beers” with me, it
is incredibility limiting for my progress.” Although the lack of having a few beers may seem
Caver and Livers 21

insignificant, socializing after work with colleagues is key to understanding the organization itself.
Having opportunities to socialize with colleagues to exchange information that may help them learn
of new opportunities or give them insights about what is happening outside of their department is
a key tool to enhance organizational success.
Additionally, nonwork gatherings generally keep colleagues abreast of what is happening in the
larger organization; sharing knowledge and learning and laughing with each other helps to build trust
and connection. It is these vital relationships—these common experiences—that are essential to
reshaping our organizations into more inclusive institutions. But even as Black leaders do get close
to the higher corporate ranks, they still are asked to “do more” by being offered “glass cliff”
assignments—those jobs that are particularly difficult to successfully achieve (Wooten and James,
2019). Further complicating the Black employee’s experience is the impact of miasma on success.
Miasma, first referenced in our 2003 book, Leading in Black and White, is a murky atmosphere of
misperception and distortion; it is a reaction to difference when it is introduced in the workplace
(Livers and Caver, 2002). Although unseen, the impact of miasma is quite real because it influences
mindsets and thus the perceptions, actions, and decisions people—workers and leaders—make.
In some areas, these influences taint the environment and culture in deeply significant ways. Yet,
in other areas within an organization, and with other leaders, the miasma may be thin, allowing Black
and other employees of difference to navigate the organizational terrain more successfully. The
difficulty, however, is that the employee of difference must always be attuned to their surroundings,
reading nuances to ensure they can respond appropriately to the current miasmic environment. More
than a survival skill, this ability to successfully navigate multiple environments helps Black people
and others of different shift approaches to adapt to situations. Although this shifting of miasma offers
Black and other employees potentially safe zones, it also means they must constantly be reading their
environment to determine if a particular team or leader is truly open to the difference various
employees bring to the workplace. For the seed, it is yet another patch of hard soil through which
they are required to navigate.

Growing in the shade

While they may be able to deftly manage mindsets and attitudes, Black employees are often not
provided the same opportunities and training as their mainstream colleagues, according to recent
studies. In the article “Toward a Racially Just Workplace,” the authors argue that this dearth of
opportunity creates a learning and skills gap that white employees, particularly those deemed as
“high potentials,” are granted (Roberts and Roberts, 2019). More than others, high potentials are
introduced to a planned learning journey to prepare them for higher positions. And while Black
people may be sent to a program or given a new opportunity, their learning is often piecemeal rather
than the result of an integrated learning plan. Consequently, they are less likely to get the continuous
learning that helps employees make deeper connections and receive opportunities to build more
complex skills and relationships.
In their seminal book, Breaking Through: The Making of Minorities in Corporate America,
Thomas and Gabarro (1999) found that while white men often received promotions on their assumed
ability, white women and men and women of color typically had to prove they could do the job
before they actually received the role. These employees would have to prove their skills without
having the full authority of their jobs. Black seeds have been largely left to grow by themselves—to
break through hard soil, work with little water, and then be blamed for not developing as quickly
as their well-watered and sunlit colleagues. And yet, even as they have largely been ignored or
overlooked, Black employees have continued to find ways to grow and excel in untilled soil. But, the
22 Leadership 17(1)

world is changing too swiftly for organizations to continue to thwart the growth of those who do not
fit the current corporate and leadership norm. National and global demographics are changing. The
marketplace is broadening. Clients are becoming more diverse and the care of the seeds must change
as well. All seeds must be planted in tilled ground, watered regularly, and placed in light and air. It is
the only way to successfully move toward tomorrow.

Power of the soil

In much the same way a seed’s ability to flourish is dependent upon the soil in which it is planted and
its care and nurturing by those responsible, in our metaphor, people of color are largely subject to the
systems, processes, and decision-making of their organizations and those leaders/functions re-
sponsible for administering and managing talent-related activities. Collectively, these individuals
also share accountability to multiple stakeholders for ensuring a robust leadership pipeline capable
of successfully advancing strategic imperatives and readily prepared to meet the evolving and
complex challenges associated with a still relatively undefined “new normal.” Hence, the ultimate
power of the “soil” and dependency of “seeds” on those responsible for the planting and main-
tenance of the environment to best ensure successful blossoms and harvests. Nevertheless, there is
overwhelming evidence of the incongruence between identified objectives and actual execution of,
or fulfillment of, responsibilities as illustrated in the continued underrepresentation of people of
color (and women) across organizations—especially at senior levels.

Hope or hazard for the harvest

Faced with a myriad of global challenges, from economic instability to health crises to racial unrest
to fallout from global warming, the need for us to have confidence in leadership has never been of
greater concern for stakeholders. A ready bench of high-potential leaders who have been identified is
critical to successfully guiding the organization into the future. In fact, when asked by the Con-
ference Board during their annual survey of global CEOs about their top strategic priorities, they
named the identification, development, and retention of leaders as their primary concern
(Development Dimensions International, 2018). Collectively, these CEOs confirm the elevated
importance of leadership as perhaps the one true differential game-changing advantage for or-
ganizations that recognize any hope of success in the 21st century. Meeting these challenges will
require inclusive leadership to set forth a clear and compelling vision for the future, exhibit greater
understanding of difference, inspire creativity and innovation, and exercise agility to adapt to
constant change.
Further, multiple studies point to the inherent value of inclusivity (especially at senior levels and
on corporate boards) across a number of organizational imperatives from innovation to engagement
to enhanced decision-making (Catalyst, 2004). Therefore, it should stand to reason that companies
would exhaustively seek to cast the widest net possible to identify those individuals who possess the
potential to effectively lead the organization in support of existing or anticipated business and
cultural priorities. However, despite more than two decades of compelling evidence and numerous
“fits and starts” of largely programmatic and educationally focused diversity, equity and inclusion
(DEI) efforts, organizations have widely missed their opportunities to drive truly transformative
cultural change, accelerate greater inclusivity, or fully optimize the value of a demographically
diverse workforce. A recent study by McKinsey provides additional insight into this regard by
highlighting that, although the United States’ workforce is increasingly more diverse at lower and
Caver and Livers 23

mid-range levels, the demographic shift is not reflected at higher organizational levels where people
of color and women appear to be systemically screened out (Hunt et al., 2018).
Thomas and Gabarro’s (1999) research also revealed that even when people of color had
consistently garnered strong records of success, demonstrated high performance, and established
solid professional relationships with their managers and peers, those who were different were still
subject to systemic inequities and the personal biases of those responsible for making decisions
related to talent management. Unfortunately, shadows from research conducted two decades ago are
still reflected in multiple current studies and in the experiences of women and people of color. These
studies and experiences document careers stalled or derailed by organizational talent identification
and acceleration practices that fail to ensure objectivity or equity in assessment and development.
These practices insufficiently advance inclusivity efforts and neglect to prepare stakeholders and
decision makers by calibrating and communicating expectations, providing appropriate tools, or
holding responsible leaders accountable for fulfilling the company’s talent management aspirations.
In such cases, the “seeds” not only are deprived of water and other sustaining nutrients of the “soil”
but are also vulnerable to other challenges as a result of neglect by responsible agents. These include
the requirements to periodically “treat” metaphoric weeds by identifying and effectively addressing
organizational practices or people that potentially choke growth and contribute to miasma, and
remove “rocks” or other barriers that inhibit access, limit visibility, or fail to provide equitable
development for all seeds. Finally, organizations must address issues of “pestilence” that may infest
the organization at their core and may manifest as systemic racism in processes, systems, or un-
conscious biases in those charged with accountability for talent management or driving broader
organizational culture transformation.

Inextricable ecosystem
In addition to nutrients and support provided by the soil, and responsible attention being paid to
enable the unencumbered ability of the seeds to germinate and thrive, the ecosystem in which said
growth is to take place represents an overarching and inextricably linked element to the broader
equation. In this regard, people of color are inclined to view issues of race as an enduring constant,
whether desired or not, and are all too often linked to matters of social injustices, disparities in access
or opportunities, or (as illuminated more vividly due to social media) associated with race-related
atrocities that tend to catalyze the examination of broader systemic racism across multiple fronts.
Unfortunately, the fervor fueled by tragedy burns out relatively quickly or is moderated by con-
solations from well-meaning supporters who are appalled by undisputable evidence of injustice. But
seldom does the outrage or broad illumination of evidence result in significant change. As a result,
what we have heard from people of color over the years is that “race is always with me.” This is
a testament to the ever-present reality of the importance of community to those who are different.
Perhaps due to, in large part, the broad implications many inequities hold for underserved and
underrepresented communities from health care to education to judicial reform to equal pay and
promotions. As such, there is apparent opportunity for organizations to better recognize and honestly
address the importance of the precipitating events, outcomes, and implications associated with these
illuminated disparities relative to their stated purpose and values. In effect, it is truly during these and
other critical challenges that a company’s mission, vision, and value statements are laid bare and
organizations face their “walk the talk” opportunity. Until such time, for people of color, institutional
change will remain modest at best and elusive at worst, unless organizations fully embrace the
responsibility to cultivate the soil and ensure equity and objectivity in identifying, deploying, and
24 Leadership 17(1)

supporting the development of the seeds—paying particular attention to the ecosystem in which
seeds are expected to flourish and making adjustments when and where necessary.

You will reap what you sow

In many ways, organizations appear to be at crossroads with regard to addressing the obvious racial
divide in the workplace, and the path ahead may very well determine the overall “persona” or brand
associated with each company. As such, an organization’s response to broad external societal
challenges (e.g., global pandemic and economic instability) or their reaction to illuminated evidence
of widespread systemic racism or race-based atrocities may provide insight into their alignment
between espoused and lived values. These challenges serve as a bellwether of sorts, especially to
those who are different. This is because it is primarily through the company’s responses to issues and
challenges, the actions, not just the rhetoric, that their commitment to inclusivity and cultural
transformation—or its reticence in maintaining the status quo by hanging on to vestiges of a system
that ignores evidence or sub-optimizes diversity—will ultimately be measured. Ultimately, incidents
of this nature create somewhat of a “what do we do” versus “who do we want to be” dilemma for
some organizations, challenging their resolve to simply say or do things in support of illuminating
and educating DEI central tenets or exhibiting their commitment by making systemic changes to
become a truly inclusive organization focused on optimizing diversity and ensuring equity.
While DEI’s awareness-building and targeted organizational–educational efforts (e.g., un-
conscious bias training and diversity) are well intentioned and certainly of some value, such
“surface” activities appear to fall short in both intent and impact in addressing talent identification
gaps or making necessary refinements to people’s practices and systems. As a result, the “soil”
remains largely in disrepair for many organizations and in need of significant cultivation to best
enable the production of a robust harvest—in this case, a diverse and ready crop of leaders to meet
the challenges ahead. A recent study does tend to shed some light as to why organizations have
faltered in delivering on DEI promises and have fallen short of their aspirations. In the article “Why
So Many Organizations Stay White,” the author cites a broad range of reasons for the general failure
of significant change. The reasons range, he suggests, from “race neutral” grooming codes which
tend to indirectly target Black hairstyles to white normativity inserted into seemingly nonracial
organizational expectations, both of which reinforce the position that negative outcomes for people
of color is coincidental and unrelated to racial component—a perspective and practice the author
identifies as especially dangerous. In sum, the writer suggests, “many organizations are not meri-
tocracies, but long-standing social structures built and managed to prioritize whiteness” (Ray, 2019).
Additionally, despite commitment to such educational and enlightenment efforts, companies
have struggled to significantly improve inclusivity while endeavoring to align, engage, and lead
a widely diverse workforce into a “new (and more impactful) normal.” In many cases, organizations
have elevated HR leader responsibilities or created roles in the organization’s C-suite to help chart
a strategic path to greater inclusivity. However, a recent study on chief diversity officers (CDOs)
provides some insights as to the underlying impediments to the success of such efforts. Specifically,
the study revealed that highly sought-after CDOs (and their associated insight and recom-
mendations) are often disregarded and rendered ineffectual by organizational executives, leading to
widespread turnover and minimal organizational change (Wall Street Journal, 2020). The haunting
reality is that companies continue to reflect vestiges of historic and systemic inequities and leaky or
narrowed talent pipelines.
Caver and Livers 25

To seed or not to seed?—that is the question

Many organizations find themselves seemingly at crossroads regarding next steps in their pursuit of
greater inclusivity and a more robust and diverse leadership pipeline. At the same time, there is a jury
of anxious observers made up of not peers but the employees and the court of public opinion, who
remain attentive to evidence presented and the organization’s response. Both people of color (and
other underrepresented groups) as well as those in the majority are watching and waiting to evaluate
the organization’s reaction and listening for associated messaging. Whether motivated by economic,
legal, or ethical factors, organizations are now being challenged to not only speak out, but to move
beyond rhetoric to true transformative action. In a recent Bloomberg (2020) article about race at the
senior level on Wall Street, the writer revealed insights into an unofficial, unwritten code which tends
to govern many of the interactions and illuminates the glaring disparity and implications of
a seemingly stalled push for diversity. As such, it may be no surprise that top among these 13
unwritten rules about being Black on Wall Street is a stark message to “never forget: despite all those
promises about diversity, only 1% of the senior management is Black” (Bloomberg, 2020). Although
this article and associated “code” specifically relate to the finance industry, there is ample evidence
across the spectrum of companies to know assuredly that such perceptions are widely consistent.
So, not only are employees and others watching, but organizational stakeholders are becoming
increasingly attuned to the way their words and actions are being perceived by others. This is
especially true during periods of social unrest, where messages are evaluated often on the basis of
whether or not they reflect empathy or understanding of public sentiment or support for emerging
progressive agenda. All of which tend to shine a brighter light on underserved or underrepresented
populations and more readily underscore disparities. And to be clear, often silence around these key
issues can be interpreted as nonsupport of issues or perspectives that matter to employees or
constituencies with whom companies have a vested interest. Nevertheless, current and prospective
employees wait, watch, and listen for responses to critical issues on a variety of matters from climate
change to wearing a mask during a global pandemic to addressing systemic racism to law en-
forcement and judicial reform. People are watching and listening to the response to political
corruption where confessed criminals are pardoned by leaders, while people of color are killed
without cause on city streets for minor offenses or just being Black; healthcare disparities in
communities; and issues surrounding immigration that require the separation of families or putting
children in cages. Now, at a time when children globally must quickly adapt to a new education
reality (indefinitely) highlighted by distance learning and virtually nonexistent extracurricular
activities, people in general are forced to become more keenly aware of the economic disparities and
technical divide that plague certain communities impacted by systemic racism and that ultimately
manifest in the corporate environment.
Organizations are now being challenged to clearly evaluate and consider how they want to be
defined or, perhaps more accurately, what they want their “brand” to reflect on multiple levels—
especially on those issues that seem to matter most to constituents (Bazerman, 2020). Such a
contingent of interested others are watching in the midst of gaslighting by political officials and
pundits who decry systemic racism as nonexistent or as others’ feign ignorance regarding the
significant disparity in police-related deaths or the incarceration of people of color. Likewise, people
are listening with rapt attention while some in positions of authority disavow the reality of climate
change despite fires raging out of control at an alarming rate, downplay risks associated with a global
pandemic, or mock others who fervently wear and promote masks as critical, while the 9-month
death toll in the United States tops 200,000. These are the issues and events that capture the
26 Leadership 17(1)

imagination and attention of the public and employees, and all are eager to know what organizations
believe, what they stand for, and what they will do in response to these critical challenges.
Yes, organizations are at a crossroads, but in many ways so is our nation, which formerly served
as a beacon of democracy for other nations and a symbol of hope for those yearning to be free. For
many, it is a very sad testament to the lack of progress made in the United States, colonized by and
largely made up of immigrants, and just a few years after two terms of the country’s first Black
president with one of the most racially diverse cabinets and administrations ever. Nevertheless, in the
21st century, who could have ever imagined this amount of social discord and racial unrest—
especially in what is considered one of the most developed nations in the world? Yet, in the
midst of what is being viewed as the greatest racial unrest since the civil rights movement of the
1960s, the US leadership continues to grapple with seemingly fundamental issues such as displaying
Confederate flags on US military installations, addressing Jim Crow-era conventions for naming US
military installations after Civil War Confederate officers, and debating other seemingly obvious and
long-overdue affronts. For example, despite the recommendations of the Secretary of Defense and
commanding generals, each of whom provided sound rationales for renaming the US Army bases as
in the best interest of “good order and morale” (not to mention removing an obviously divisive and
intentionally demeaning moniker of treasonous leaders), the calls for the renaming of military
installations, as well as the removal or contextualization of Confederate icons, were rejected by the
Commander in Chief, the incumbent President of the United States.
In a poignant Cable News Network Opinion article, Joseph (2020) recently summed up this
critical organizational crossroad moment in broad context. In his piece, America is on a Brink Like
None Since the Civil War, Joseph aptly points to the pivotal challenge facing leadership: “This year
of plague, racial justice protest, and violence has hastened America’s moral and political reckoning
with over a century of long-standing monuments, citadels, and symbols of white supremacy that
have narrated myths about our nation’s collective past.” For organizations at a crossroad, facing
a relatively unknown “new normal” and undeniable outcry for change both from within and without,
the challenge of “doing” versus “being” is perhaps the most important question they must answer.
Because, as with our metaphor, at the end of the season, organizations will certainly reap what they
sow.

Cultivating for success—the fruit of inclusive leadership

So, how can organizations best ensure the success and sustainability of the seeds and enjoy the fruit
of inclusive leadership from the harvest? From the most dedicated farmer to the casual gardener, the
secret to ensuring a plentiful harvest is to diligently plan, plant, and maintain the soil by keeping
it readily fertilized with growth-enhancing nutrients and free of impediments and infestations.
Therefore, we have three recommendations for action, which may appear on the surface to be
relatively basic principles, but when effectively employed, can produce truly transformative or-
ganizational results. First, to ensure a ready harvest of leaders, organizations must be willing to
effectively “till the soil.” Second, truly inclusive leadership will require dedication to identifying,
addressing, and removing barriers and infestations that may put the harvest at risk. Third, inclusive
leadership involves responsibly tending the soil and ensuring the viability of the crop to fruition.

Tilling the organization’s “soil” will take courage

The insufficiency of solely educational and awareness-building initiatives and targeted training
efforts has been clearly documented over the past two decades, and the call for true and lasting
Caver and Livers 27

change has reached deafening proportions with regard to advancing inclusivity as a cultural ne-
cessity in companies. Clearly, for true change to occur, some things will have to be uprooted.
Organizational leadership will need to challenge systems and processes that have been in place for
longer than most employees have been in the workforce. This may require shaking off long-held
practices or addressing and removing organizational icons previously positioned and protected
(shamelessly) behind a veiled respect for “tradition.” However, such practices and icons have served
as nothing more than a reminder of (1) atrocities enacted against Black people (in particular) and
others who are different, (2) ongoing inequity and disparity across economic groups, and (3) the
pervasive racial divide in organizations. Ultimately, however, when it comes to leadership iden-
tification and deployment, tilling the soil will require reimagining leadership’s high potential.
Forward-thinking organizations increasingly view DEI as a core business driver and an essential
element of their growth strategy, and despite the compelling research that suggests diversity
promotes financial success and long-term viability, people of color (and women) remain un-
derrepresented on executive teams and boards on a global basis. As such, organizations need to start
at the top of the house (at the senior leadership levels) in addressing this intransigent challenge by
developing a robust and diverse leadership pipeline that can serve to populate senior leadership
roles.
Heretofore, the long-held axiom that past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior has
dominated the design and development of assessment practices. However, more recent research
(Scott, 2020) challenges that axiom, particularly given the dynamics of the 21st century workplace
and the fact that past experience requirements unintentionally may exclude certain people of color
and women who have not routinely had access to the same opportunities as their majority
counterparts. Nevertheless, while organizations cannot completely ignore past performance when
considering an individual’s leadership potential, they should explore alternative methods to predict
future ability that are less dependent on biased criteria or past experiences. Despite expected
challenges and pushback from within or without, and for a variety of different reasons, there is much
to be gained for organizations that commit to fulfilling DEI aspirations—especially if they choose to
start at the top of the house by targeting senior leadership roles and board memberships. In so doing,
companies will be best positioned to realize the economic, innovative, and engagement benefits
associated with greater inclusivity. Further, and perhaps most importantly, such change may provide
exponential value by demonstrating the organization’s commitment.
Providing real representation at the highest organizational levels requires far more than random
murals of diverse smiling faces on posters or PowerPoint presentations that reflect generally un-
fulfilled promises of DEI priorities. It will take courage for organizations to be willing to not only
participate in uncomfortable conversations but also to move beyond the objective of awareness and
appreciation of difference to actively making some organizational constituents uncomfortable with
changes that may affect their prior status or unspoken privilege. But, at the core of the issue, this is
what DEI initiatives are designed to do—not just for those who are different, but for all members of
the organizational community. Nevertheless, the messaging and (moreover) subsequent actions
toward greater inclusivity and equity may not resonate well with everyone, although designed to
benefit all.
Clearly, tilling the “soil” is no easy task, but driving organizational or cultural transformation is
not for the faint at heart or for blustering leaders who stoke fear instead of inspiring hope—even in
the face of dire challenges during turbulent times. This is why it requires courage—both the
conviction to address systemic inequity and the commitment to make required change by tilling the
organization’s “soil” to best ensure a robust harvest. In his book, Courage: The Backbone of
Leadership, Lee (2006) posited that courage was the first among all competencies, for without it
28 Leadership 17(1)

none of the others can exist. In his work, Lee positions courage as the perfect and only antidote for
overcoming FEAR, which he defined as “False Evidence Appearing Real,” and which Lee described
as the most debilitating, derailing leadership behavior. Instead, according to Lee, and relative to our
metaphor, organizations at the crossroads may be facing an uncertain future, but armed with clear
insight and evidence to illuminate a path to success, they only need to exercise the requisite courage
to till the “soil” to best enable seeds for growth and prepare for a fruitful harvest.

Indiscriminately remove weeds and impediments

Even with revamped organizational policies, systems and processes, the effectiveness and long-term
viability of DEI initiatives and those “seeds” striving for growth and support remain at risk. As with
our metaphor, the viability of the seeds and ultimate success of the harvest must be protected from
weeds, pestilence, and any other impediments that may thwart progress. As such, organizations must
seek to eliminate or address any harmful systemic practices, policies, icons, or actions that are both
obvious and easily accomplished—but, only at the direction of leadership.
In a recent article, Walker (2020), the president of the Ford Foundation, has thrown down the
proverbial gauntlet for organizations in a way intended to “speak plain” to company stakeholders
asking about ways to accelerate their pursuit of greater racial equality. In his article, Walker outlines
nine things that organizations can do, right now, to bring about change. Specifically, Walker
suggests, if companies really want to make a difference, start at the top of the house in remaking the
C-suite by elevating people of color (Black people in particular) to the board and C-suite roles and
then empower them to help drive change and add value. His second recommendation is to simply
leverage inherent power to transform the lives of Black people immediately by hiring and advancing
them more readily. In many ways, the simplicity yet potential of Walker’s recommendations is akin
to pulling up weeds, removing obvious rocks, or spraying your plants or garden when you see bugs.
Sometimes, doing what is right or doing what is best or doing what is needed in the moment does not
have to be complicated, it just needs to be done. To that end, organizations similarly should stop
coddling or making excuses for leaders who obviously (and often vocally) decry DEI initiatives as
unnecessary and contribute to stagnating efforts by tying their accountability to performance and
reward. Ultimately, as with weeds, some leaders may need to be simply “plucked” from their
responsibilities.
Often, a perceived lack of success is not because the employee has performed poorly but because
they have not been given the opportunity to learn the requisite skills or they have not been accurately
assessed. In such cases, diverse groups often find themselves last in line to receive opportunities to
develop those records of success (Caver and Livers, 2020). As such, other “rocks” and impediments
to success, that can and should be addressed as priorities, include any tolerance for or evidence of the
absence of objectivity or transparency in the assessment and selection process, which can choke
potential fruitfulness from any DEI initiative from the outset.

Responsibly address environmental factors and mind the soil

Paying attention to the weather, reading almanacs, or exploring other sources of information that can
provide insight into critical factors outside of, but inextricably linked to, the health and success of
one’s plant or crop requires commitment and, ultimately, a sense of responsibility. Nevertheless,
many of us might even view tending a home garden or providing extensive attention to a precious
orchid as both relaxing and a refreshing hobby of sorts. However, there are probably a few that have
the same “warm and fuzzy” feeling about the ease of life for large-scale farmers—we intuitively
Caver and Livers 29

know their days are long and the work, albeit rewarding and necessary for our collective survival,
can be grueling and present nearly as many Volatile, Uncertain, Chaotic and Ambiguous envi-
ronmental challenges as those faced by corporate America.
Relative to our seed and soil metaphor, our third and final recommendation for organizations
seeking to drive greater inclusivity is to “Get woke!”—become readily aware of the issues,
challenges, and complexity of the surrounding ecosystem and, especially, the implications for your
employees and the communities you serve. Be “woke” and be active and deliberate in your
communications, remembering that actions speak louder than words and being mindful that current
and prospective employees are waiting and watching for your organization to reveal what you are
willing “to do” or what you are aspiring “to become” in light of increased evidence of systemic
racism and inequities, as well as of the benefits and opportunities afforded through greater
inclusivity.
Irresponsibly leveraging insight has perhaps been one of the greatest failings of DEI initiatives
over the past two decades, as reams of research point to workplace disparities, inequities, and the lost
potential of added value in greater inclusivity in organizations. Due to the undeniable demographic
shift in the global workforce, opportunities for capitalizing on an organization’s diversity have been
squandered for far too long. Organizations can no longer afford to wallow in ignorance of evidence,
offer up stale rhetoric, or continue to sub-optimize the power of a disenfranchised, disempowered,
and potentially disengaged, albeit capable, segment of the workforce. This is true, especially if such
consolations and abdication of responsibility are designed to hold on to desirous elements of current
or past disparate processes or systems, or to mitigate others’ discomfort with difference, moderate
“white fragility,” or pacify those who reject the existence of white privilege or advantage.
Finally, minding the soil is all about measurement—ensuring the employed processes and
systems are actually advancing desired systemic changes, and leaders and others responsible for
administering and managing talent practices are ensuring objectivity and equity across all people
management practices. Overall, it is critical to tie enhanced DEI initiatives and revamped leadership
potential identification to valued organizational outcomes and build metrics that “speak the lan-
guage” of the stakeholders and decision makers. Create a stream of evidence that reveals causal links
between your efforts and desired organizational outcomes as you seek to capitalize on the promise of
inclusivity to more readily drive business success and achieve competitive advantage.

Conclusion
We started this article with a simple, if not universally known, metaphor regarding the seed, the soil,
and the associated ecosystem in which growth is anticipated—all related to the theme of this special
edition focused on race and leadership. It is clear, we truly are living in perilous times and the need
for all of us to be able to exert the best of what we each possess could not be more crucial. As such,
the DEI discussions must continue. However, there has never been a more important time to shift
from reflection and education to action and transformation.
This is the time for organizational stakeholders and decision makers to focus their primary
attention on the “soil” if there is to be any hope of a plentiful harvest. However, additional emphasis
on the soil must not come at the expense of the “seed,” those people of color, women, and all others
who identify differently from the majority. Instead, organizations should redouble efforts to till and
tend their fields by “weeding” out systemically biased processes and systems, better identify and
assess potential based on dimensions and competencies that matter most, while removing barriers to
success and addressing any impediments to the seed’s ability to flourish.
30 Leadership 17(1)

Ultimately, companies are destined to reap what they sow. However, for organizations at critical
crossroads, this is the time to pay attention to changes in the ecosystem, leverage the evidence to best
enable growth of the seed, courageously cultivate the soil, and responsibly manage the field to ensure
a plentiful harvest of leaders for the challenges ahead.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication
of this article.

Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD
Keith Caver  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7265-2943

References
Bazerman MH (2020) A new model for ethical leadership: create more value for society. Available at: https://
hbr.org/2020/09/a-new-model-for-ethical-leadership (accessed 25 September 2020).
Bloomberg (2020) Black and white on wall street: the unwritten code on race. Available at: https://www.
bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-06-29/rules-of-working-on-wall-street-from-black-employees-who-lived-
it (accessed 29 September 2020).
Catalyst (2004) The bottom line: connecting corporate performance and gender diversity. Available at: https://
www.catalyst.org/research/the-bottom-line-connecting-corporate-performance-and-gender-diversity/ (accessed
29 September 2020).
Caver KA and Livers AB (2020) What has–and hasn’t–changed since “dear white boss”. Available at: https://
hbr.org/2020/09/what-has-and-hasnt-changed-since-dear-white-boss (accessed 23 September 2020).
Center for Talent Innovation (2020) Being black in corporate America: an intersectional exploration. Available
at: https://www.talentinnovation.org/_private/assets/BeingBlack-KeyFindings-CTI.pdf (accessed 29 September
2020).
Development Dimensions International (2018) Global leadership forecast. Available at: https://www.ddiworld.
com/research/global-leadership-forecast-2018 (accessed 21 September 2020).
Hunt V, Yee L, Prince S, et al. (2018) Delivering through diversity report McKinsey. Available at: https://www.
mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/delivering-through-diversity (accessed 26 September
2020).
Jameel M and Yerardi J (2019) Workplace discrimination is illegal but our data shows it’s still a huge problem.
Available at: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/2/28/18241973/workplace-discrimination-cpi-
investigation-eeoc (accessed 25 September 2020).
James EH (2000) Race-related differences in promotions and support: underlying effects of human and social
capital. Organization Science 11(5): 493–508.
Joseph P (2020) America is on a brink like none since the civil war. Available at: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/
07/31/opinions/1619-project-tom-cotton-slavery-joseph-opinion/index.html (accessed 22 September 2020).
Lee G (2006) Courage: The backbone of leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Livers AB and Caver KA (2003) Leading in Black and White: Working across the Racial Divide in Corporate
America. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ray V (2019) Why so many organizations stay white. Harvard Business Review. Available at: https://hbr.org/
2019/11/why-so-many-organizations-stay-white (accessed 26 September 2020).
Caver and Livers 31

Roberts LM and Roberts AJ (2019) Toward a racially just workplace. Available at: https://hbr.org/cover-story/
2019/11/toward-a-racially-just-workplace (accessed 29 September 2020).
Scott JC (2020) Workforce 2021 Leveraging a robust and diverse leadership pipeline to drive strategic goals.
Available at: https://workforce2021.com/topics/diversity-and-leadership/.
Thomas DA and Gabarro JJ (1999) Breaking Through: The making of minority executives in Corporate
America. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Thomas DT (2020) DEI advancements in executive assessment and selection [Metaphor and high-level
perspective captured during virtual discussion 29 July 2020].
Walker D (2020) If corporations really want to address racial inequality, here Are 9 things that actually make
a difference. Time Inc. Available at: https://time.com/5875304/racial-inequality-corporations/ (accessed 24
September 2020).
Wall Street Journal (2020) Demand for chief diversity officers is high so is turnover. Available at: https://www.
wsj.com/articles/demand-for-chief-diversity-officers-is-high-so-is-turnover-11594638000 (accessed 26 September
2020).
Wooten LP and James EH (2019) The glass cliff: African American CEOs as crisis leaders. In: Robert LM, May
AJ and Thomas DA (eds) Race Work and Leaders: New Perspectives on the Black experience. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.

Author biographies
Keith Caver is vice president of leadership assessment and development for APTMetrics, a human
capital consulting organization based in Darien, CT., USA. With over 20 years of experience as
a practitioner and executive leader, Keith’s consulting capabilities are highlighted by a focus on
integrated talent management practices, organizational development, inclusivity and cultural
transformation. He is the coauthor of Leading in Black and White: Working Across the Racial Divide
in Corporate America, in addition to other works.

Ancella Livers is a skilled leadership development professional at the Center for Creative
Leadership®, (CCL) who also has deep experience in the equity, diversity and inclusion field.
Ancella previously served as Executive Director of the Institute for Leadership Development and
Research for the Executive Leadership Council® (ELC). A former journalist, Ancella has authored
or contributed to numerous works. She has been a blogger for the Network of Executive Women and
is coauthor of the “Tapestry: Leveraging the Rich Diversity of Women in Retail and Consumer
Goods” report and Leading in Black and White: Working Across the Racial Divide in Corporate
America.