Beyond Diversity, Towards Justice

Turn DEI checklists into a justice centred culture shift

Many organizations have embraced the language of DEI, but their efforts often remain cosmetic. Trainings are isolated, checklists are created, and “diverse hiring” becomes the metric of success. But real change doesn’t happen at the surface. It happens when power, processes and culture are reimagined at the root.

This session will challenge conventional DEI thinking and introduce a deeper, justice-centred approach to equity work. You’ll learn how to move beyond representation and inclusion, and into participatory practices that shift who holds decision-making power, how systems are built, and what transformation really looks like when equity-deserving communities help lead the design.

What You’ll Learn

• Why inclusion alone cannot drive meaningful change
• How to embed justice into hiring, governance and decision-making systems
• Tools for participatory design and equity audits
• How to navigate discomfort and move from conflict avoidance to transformation

Webinar Transcript

Mohamed Hamad: Good morning, everybody, and, welcome to, this month’s webinar. It’s a very exciting day today. We’re talking with Julie Savaria, our guest today, and this is a really interesting topic for us because it is all around DEI and where to take it.

Now, DEI, in the last while, has become a bit of a sensationalist and controversial topic given the political climate that we have had in the last year, or at least since February. But we wanted to take the time to really dive into it today and, really talk about how to institutionalize and, make DEI as part of the culture and move it away from the ideas of performative DEI, which a lot of organizations do these days, which is, you know, check the checkboxes, do the training, you know, and, and call it a day. But what goes beyond that? Before we get started, Julie, I’d love for you to introduce yourself to everybody today.

Julie Savaria: Well, thank you. Thank you so much for the invitation. I think from the first time that we just introduced ourselves to each other, I was already excited to explore this topic more. So it’s really privileged to be here on this platform, today.

So a little bit about me. As you know, my name is Julie Savaria. I like to share my pronouns, so my pronouns are she and her. And I like to. I like to call myself a JEDI designer. So, JEDI is not for Star Wars. It is for Justice, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion. And, I founded the company, a boutique firm, called Masla Empathy Lab. It is a firm where we do some consulting, training, and also coaching. So we support organizations and individuals to relearn or to fine tune their ways to be better humans, as I say, to better human altogether.

And this is one of the reasons why I really like the JEDI acronym that I took. Well, I got inspired from the B Corp community, because Masla Empathy Lab is also a B Corp. So for those of you who don’t know what B Corps are, B Corps are companies that have been certified, in a way that they show that they use a business model for positive impact and for good. 

And they have been using JEDI for a very long time as one of their pillars. And I like the J of Justice because it goes beyond what we can think about, Equity, that can be just policies, for example. It goes really beyond what we think Inclusion can be and belonging. It’s for us to go further, to aspire to what we’re capable of as a collective together. So this is me in a nutshell.

Mohamed Hamad: Awesome. Yeah. And you’ve got quite an interesting past as well. It’s not like you’ve jumped into this, you know, from the get-go. You have a background in clinical research. Is that correct?

Julie Savaria: Yes. Yes, it’s true. I have the. I don’t have the typical background that people, that someone may expect for someone in, I guess in the field of work that I’m into. So I’m actually a scientist by training. I did biochemistry and masters in research and molecular biology, University of Ottawa. 

Working clinical research for a couple of years at St. Justin’s here in Montreal and at the MUHC, at the children’s before it merged with the Glenn. I was not testing on anybody. It was epidemiological research. So it was really asking questions to pregnant women. Then after, you know, just asking questions about the baby. 

So I got to play with babies for five years. That’s what I say. But the crux of the research, I think, also put me well into that path. It was to look at the impact of environmental contaminants on the development of children in utero and also once they’re born, through a study that’s called MIREC.

So it explores really how our environment and how our systems have been influenced on us as soon as we are conceived, really. And then after I went on to do my MBA at McGill and I thought I would still be into the healthcare system, but nope, I discovered what social entrepreneurship and social innovation was. And that’s where I’ve been ever since under the JEDI theme.

Mohamed Hamad: Amazing. So before we dive into the topic of today, just letting everybody know that if they have any questions, please pop them into the chat and we’ll be answering questions towards the end of this session and this discussion.

So today’s conversation really is, you know, talking about your background and your expertise, is that a lot of organizations these days, you know, there is a sense of performative DEI or you know, JEDI. 

You know, it was, there was, there was a hot minute there where everybody wanted to get on the bandwagon. Everybody wanted to do the training, they wanted the checklist, everybody got certified and all of that, but the work to be done, at the core of an organization’s culture and institutionalizing the frameworks around DEI and JEDI and equity and inclusion and all of that didn’t really go any further than those trainings and— 

One of the things that we wanted to talk about is how do you take that from a program to more of a baseline of the organization, like as a culture and assistant? You know, maybe you can, you know, talk a little bit about that.

Julie Savaria: Yes, yes, absolutely. And this is really at the core of a lot of the first conversations that I have, with organizations and also clients, whether they’re individual, really working in the, like wanting EDI, services, JEDI services, or even for the clients that I coach in leadership, it all ties in together. 

Because maybe something I can say from the get go is that maybe it’s not good for my business really. But I don’t believe that DEI should have its own thing. Eventually. Right now we do, we absolutely do need it because, yes, we do. Let’s just leave it at that. But I do believe that it has to be embedded everywhere.

It’s not a skill set like, marketing or finance. It doesn’t have a framework really. Being inclusive, having differences around us and having a support system for people to reach the same results, the same outcomes as we would want to. The same opportunities. These are part of what makes us human. It’s all human skills. 

It’s all, what we can call how do we human better together, really. So this is also something I’ll say from the start because then it’s better. It’s easier to understand where I’m coming from. So what we’ve seen a lot is how DEI has been seen as this, this complimentary thing that people pay for, to, well, to look good. To appease the tension that’s been arising, from what happened to George Floyd. Even before that, in the 80s, it was under gender parody.

But now that that’s passed, and now that not everybody sees it as something that is nice to have, it’s important to realize that it’s a must have. That’s why we talk about JEDI as being really a culture and a systems redesign, if you wish. Because it has to be embedded in every single part of the business around us, otherwise it will fail. 

This is it. We see it around us. Budgets being cut, roles being cut or being transformed or assimilated into, ESG. So, environment, social and governance, diluting what DEI is by trying to change the acronym or to make it softer to not shock people. But the truth is, if you don’t take it as one of the pillars, or a pillar, of your organization, then it is really just aesthetic, it is just performative. It is just a checklist, as you mentioned. 

Real JEDI work starts by really asking ourselves, what is the experience of everybody within the organization? How do they relate to each other? What are the power dynamics that are in place? Are the resources accessible for all, no matter what our identity dimensions are? 

But also how are decisions made? Do we have a representation of the different voices present at our organization around the table? And if we don’t, then maybe we have to ask ourselves, why? Where does it start? 

So this is where audits are really helpful. And to see, are we just doing it for the public or is it just a photo op? Or is it something that we truly believe in? What are we willing to go through the pains of transformation for our workplace to be more inclusive, more equitable, more human centered, really, where people can show up to their best abilities and be who they are?

And there’s been so much research on this. We can. You can look at Gallup research, we can look at Edelman research. We see that when employees are disengaged, we lose money. When people are unhappy, we lose money. We lose money, we lose productivity. We lose the collective, as well because joy is part of the collective, as well. 

So, yeah, this is perhaps my first addition, to this shift that we are noticing and the importance to not be scared by the acronym, but really ask ourselves when we start to be resistant to DEI, EDI, however we want to call it, JEDI Work, we have to ask ourselves, are we resistant to equity? Are we resistant to inclusion? Are we resistant to having different people around us who think differently, who act differently, who look different? Because when we’re against the DEI, this is what we’re against at the end of the day.

Mohamed Hamad: Yeah, no, absolutely. And it’s something that you said earlier, that there is how to better human, how to be more connective, on a personal and individualistic level. But then, at the core level of the organization, how does it promote the foundational tenets of Equity, Diversity, Inclusion and Justice? And there is. 

It’s tough to change everybody and know their habits, their backgrounds, their social conditioning and all of that. But an environment, when created well, can foster change, you know, around people. So while we can’t necessarily induce change within a person, we can maybe create the environment around them that helps and facilitates that. 

Which leads me to the next question: what is it that makes an environment or a work environment conducive to that change? How do you design it or how do you set it up from the ground up? Where do you start there?

Julie Savaria: It’s interesting. I’ve had a conversation with some B Corps in Quebec, in Canada, in the States, as well. Because it is a requirement, you have to prove that your organization operates along the JEDI guidelines, the JEDI values. 

So we hear a lot about representation, representation in sports, representation in ads. Representation, representation, representation. And it is extremely important. It is the first step. Because we cannot think differently if we don’t see differently as well. We cannot inspire if we don’t show something to inspire too. So representation is extremely important. 

However, it is still just a band aid solution for the systems in which we’re operating. So if the organization culture, if the structures are still inequitable. So this is why we often say diversity and inclusion is not enough. You really need to make sure that however your organizations show up, that it is ready for that change. 

And we’ve seen it happen so many times with organization. You know, they make a big push to have quote, unquote, diversity. Big push to appear inclusive. But the problem is that they don’t take the step necessary to welcome that quote, unquote, again, diversity. And I explain what I say, quote, like on the, like in the workplace. 

So what ends up happening is that people come into a workplace that is ill prepared to receive people that have different needs, different backgrounds, different traumas as well, different realities. And then in turn, the same people experience microaggression. They experience discrimination, exclusion. And then at the end you lose those people. So you don’t get actually to experience a person at their full potential as who they are and what they can contribute really, to the workplace.

And so that’s the first step you have to prepare for, to receive people and to be brutally honest with each other, to push the ego on the side. And that’s why consultants are—you know, it’s easier to do it with a consultant. That’s what I mean. Because if you are within an organization, you try to do it internally. Sometimes, you know, you are in an echo chamber and you have to answer to your supervisor or to your director, your vp, the board.

 So, you know, there’s a lot of things happening. So a consultant can come and give an objective opinion as to what is going on. Even if it hurts at first, it’s going to be okay. Right, because then you’re not alone. To make sure that your organization can be a place where people feel like they belong. Where people feel they can be who they are, that they can contribute, that they are heard, that they are seen, that they don’t just sit at this table, that they have no idea what happened, who made it, what’s the history behind that table. 

But then you have people sitting at a table where they can actually contribute. Their voices are heard. And this is how change has happened. This is where you have co-creation and co-designing redistributing how decisions are made. This is how you make a workplace really inclusive. 

And I know I say a lot of words that may seem very overwhelming, but this is the crux of the work in the long run. People often think that, oh yeah, I’m going to adhere to a three year plan, a five year plan. Reality is for an organization to be actually equitable and actually inclusive, it takes up to 8-to-10 years. And that’s if you really put like 95% of your resources into it. So it takes time. So we have to be patient.

Mohamed Hamad: Where would you start in this? Would you start at the top? But let’s say at the C level, leadership level? Or would you start at management? Or who would be the spearhead in this conversation around equity? 

Because you know, when it comes to bringing people to the table, the voices that push for change need to have authority. But then pushing authority, on people, can also have a sense of silencing, or pushes people to the back. Like, how do you get the conversations going is what I’m trying to say.

Julie Savaria: Yeah, yeah, I like to do the sandwich effect in a way. So of course you have to have the buy in of the people who have the decision making power, that have the decision making power in terms of finances, in terms, and also in terms of how to make things happen. And sometimes those are formal power, and sometimes it’s informal power. It really depends on the organization. 

But one, one example that I have where it worked really well is that we talked first to the executive team to have their buy-in. Because once you have the execs, the leadership. Oh, well, hearts there, when you have the execs, embodying what they want to do, even if it’s not perfect, then it inspires others or it actually sets the tone as, okay, this is where we’re going. This is what the boundaries are. This is what is acceptable, what is not acceptable. 

However, at the same time, we went to the employees, people who are on the ground experiencing and delivering what the company is meant to do to also have a conversation. Those two conversations are different, but they work conjunctly to bring change in different ways, but in a much more sustainable way with less resistance, as well.

Mohamed Hamad: Okay. Because there is, from an organizational level, you want people to be comfortable, you want people to be able to open up and talk and all of that. Are conversations that can be very hard sometimes, right? Holding truth to power can be very uncomfortable. 

And how do you take that and turn it into a point of transformation? How do you make sure that whatever the tough conversations to be had are a point of change?

Julie Savaria: Yeah. When it comes to challenging conversations, in my opinion, the goal should be to try to transform it into a learning conversation. So what can we learn from each other, at least, from the conversation itself? 

So, another, another belief is that we lost the art of having conversations. We don’t know how to talk to each other, especially when it’s a topic that we don’t align with. So then we try to convince the other to assimilate, to integrate our own, our own point of view. However, those conversations are uncomfortable. 

Conversations are necessary for change. You cannot understand what someone else is living or experiencing if they cannot tell you, if you’re not ready to receive the feedback. We don’t know how to receive feedback. Neither constructive. We don’t know how to do that. To be able to lean into a discomfort that is productive, that is gearing, towards learning. 

We have to be able to master once again, what does it mean to listen without reacting? What does it mean to be able to listen to our own body? And to notice when something makes us very uncomfortable and to ask ourselves why, to really question ourselves. Okay, well, why does my body hold those tensions around those beliefs? Why do I feel this way when this topic comes up? Because then that also helps us to navigate. Okay, well, maybe I have to learn more around that. 

And the more we practice in a safe container, whether it’s facilitated by someone or in a safe environment where people will not drop in or eavesdrop. Then you start little by little to have those conversations because you have to be able to build psychological safety and accountability. And to do that people have to be able to want to come to you to talk. But if they can’t do that, then you operate into that same container, that can feel oppressive for some. 

So yes, comfort and consensus is definitely part of our society, where you know, we’re taught not to disturb, not to disrupt, not to point fingers, et cetera. And I’m not saying that you have, to go all rebellious all of a sudden everywhere. But we have to be able to recognize when we can have conversations that can be catalytic to a new learning, to a transformation within the organization. 

And if leaders can have that example, then it’s going to trickle down to the organization and vice versa. Because if you have inclusion but inclusion just for some, it’s not an inclusion that is real. It’s one that suits maybe one part of the organization, but not the whole organization. And the aim is to have an inclusion and equity, that is real for everyone to go towards that goal of equitable organizations.

Mohamed Hamad: I want to go back to something that you said earlier and you touched on two very specific words, safety and accountability. And there is. And everything starts with language and everything, everything starts with the words you use and what do they mean and how do they manifest. 

There’s the idea of having safe spaces and then there is the idea of having accountable spaces. Now you know, the workplace should be a point of safety or a place of safety in that, you know, you could be able to express your views and your values without having retribution. You know, unless they’re, they’re completely unethical to the company values themselves. 

But there also needs to be the idea of accountable spaces, right, where people can express themselves in a space where they are accountable for what they say. So there is a clash between the two safe spaces and accountable spaces. And I want to hear your thoughts on that.

Julie Savaria: Yeah. So, I’ve stopped using the safe space, the safe space notion just because to me it’s unrealistic. I cannot guarantee a safe space for everyone. I don’t know, even for you, I don’t know you. I don’t know what your traumas are. I don’t know what your experiences are. I don’t know if I’m going to say or do something that is going to trigger you in a way that renders you unavailable for our exchange. 

So I use brave spaces more that do hold some sort of accountability because this is where community, the community aspect kind of gets into it as well. Where we create a space where people can share what feels courageous, brave for them. 

So brave spaces, where there’s also an intentionality about. Around being accountable for what we say about being so accountable for each other. To make sure that we don’t want to censor nobody, but we also want to be real around. If someone says something that is considered maybe violent or triggering for someone else or a microaggression, we should be able to say it. 

We will always make mistakes. This is also something we don’t allow mistakes in that work. And yes, the mistakes in inclusion and equity are more costly, just because it deals with humans. 

However, we all make mistakes. I made mistakes more than once even during training. Everybody I know makes mistakes. What matters is what do you do after those mistakes? But so they go hand in hand almost. It’s not one versus the other, it’s more so around. How can we create a space where people agree that there is a culture of yes, being genuine, authentic and there’s a brave space for people to share what they say and also to be able to receive feedback around. 

Okay, well what you said here made me feel this way and here’s why. X, Y and Z and with. And fighting the urge to justify ourselves, all the time. So these go hand in hand really. You have to be held accountable and you also have to hold spaces where people can feel that they can exchange and share and learn from each other.

Mohamed Hamad: Absolutely. We’re coming in on time and I wanted to let everybody know if they have any questions, questions for Julie about what we’re talking about today, please throw them into the chat. But if you want to connect with Julie, I put her LinkedIn bio right there. And you can use. Just click on that to connect with her. And you can also find her at her website, which is the Masla Empathy Lab, right there. 

In saying that parting words, if people want to start, where should they start with trying to transform their organization. Where is the jump off point here?

Julie Savaria: I think the jump off point here, if we’re talking organizations, you need to know where you’re starting from. You need to know what is happening within the organization, what is the profile of the organization, before even doing anything? Because we love to jump into the do, do, do. But we have to understand, you have to understand how the organization is showing up internally, what are the feelings of inclusion, et cetera. 

So I would say definitely, maybe a diagnostic and audit would be the very first step. And also making sure that you understand the why. Why do you want to do this? Is it to answer some requirements, which is also valid in a way, it can open conversation. Or is it because you really want to change your organization, to be, to be more, more inclusive and more human?

Mohamed Hamad: And if you were someone that is looking at your organization and, and thinks that this needs to be done, or how do you bring that up to the leadership or managers in your organization? Like, where do you start that conversation?

Julie Savaria: Well, usually you kind of read between the lines. You kind of understand, if someone reaches out to you because there is any, maybe something happened or they want to do something because someone suggested it to them. 

But it really starts with that, like, hey, I hear you’re interested in learning more about this. Let’s see what’s going on first. And then after we can see, okay, what are the trainings that are needed? Is there coaching needed, not just in EDI or JEDI, but maybe in leadership, to understand how it shows up. But that’s really the first thing to do. And then after we can talk about longer term. But we have to understand where we’re starting from first.

Mohamed Hamad: Absolutely. In saying that we’re at time, but it was lovely chatting with you today, Julie. Obviously this conversation is not something that we can wrap up in half an hour. There’s so much to it and it’s so multi layered. 

But I appreciate your time and your insight and your background on this and hope to catch you soon. Everybody, that’s joined us today, reach out to Masla Empathy Lab and Julie, if you do need help with this, if you want to find out how to improve your internal organizational structure and redesign around Justice, Equity and Inclusion.

Julie Savaria: Thank you so much.Mohamed Hamad: Thank you for joining us today and we’ll see you next time.