So yes, settings and their features— before anyone in the setting does anything— can trigger identity threat and churn. Settings have agency of their own, an agency that can be a problem in an identity-diverse society trying to overcome stratification. Many of our settings— corporate boardrooms, waiting rooms, DEI workshops, art galleries and museums, hiking trails, neighbourhoods, faculty meeting rooms, classrooms, country clubs, college campuses— have features (from their demographics to pictures on the wall) that can push one or another identity into churn.

Second, ask people to identify features in a setting that imply that some identities belong there more than others, or that expectations are higher for some identities than for others.

Experience can tell us important things about how to make good ideas work— for example, that how something is done can be as important as what is done. A cues audit can yield information that is invaluable to the life of a setting. Look at how dramatically it changed 3M. But experience with such efforts tells us something else too: to avoid a heavy hand in implementing it. It shouldn’t become a tyranny. I suspect you know what I’m saying. We shouldn’t use relatively small violations of emerging mores to morally condemn or socially ostracize a person— to “cancel” them. Terms or behaviour that degrade the humanity of other groups— mortal sins— have to be off-limits. But experience suggests it’s wiser to treat venial sins with more latitude. Reacting too strongly to them can undermine the very goal we’re after— a setting with a climate of greater trust and lower churn. Remember the manager who keeps talking to his staff about his European cathedral tour when many of them can't afford an out-of-town vacation.

This is why I like Mary Murphy’s stress on making a system of evaluating the features of settings an educational effort. In that regard, two general guidelines might be useful. First, it should be a low-key, routine practice that, for the most part, focuses on incremental changes that are well integrated into the functioning of a setting. It shouldn’t be done once and forgotten. Nor should it be done only when a crisis has arisen. It should be a recurring, normalized activity— part of the operational woodwork.

Welcoming. When we enter a setting that is important to us— a university, a recreational area, a diversity workshop, a workplace— a churn-causing question hangs in the air: How will my identity— who I am— affect my experience here? To build trust in diverse settings, it’s important to give people a welcoming experience that addresses that question.