Diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging (DEIB) are indispensable for a successful enterprise. A thriving workforce requires promoting engagement among employees from diverse backgrounds, fostering a sense of belonging, and creating an inclusive and equitable workplace. DEIB enhances employee satisfaction and boosts productivity, innovation, and profitability, ultimately resulting in a favorable return on investment for the enterprise. Nevertheless, it is crucial to avoid tokenism and performative actions that do not address the underlying causes of inequality. To attain genuine DEIB, engaging in constructive dialogue, addressing systemic issues, and prioritizing accountability and action are necessary.
During a conversation between Jonathan H. Westover, Chair-Organizational Leadership Development at Utah Valley University, and Nolan Hout, Senior Vice President at Infopro Learning, the topics of diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging were discussed at length. The conversation delved into how these concepts relate to employee engagement, return on investment, and actions that should be avoided. Westover highlighted the distinctions between university students and corporate learners and underscored the significance of continuous learning in the present and forthcoming job environment. He emphasized that lifelong learning is crucial for remaining up-to-date and preventing actions that could be detrimental to others. He stressed the need for an asset-based and strength-based approach to developing employees’ capabilities.
Listen to the podcast to learn more:
Expert profile:
Jonathan H. Westover
Jonathan H. Westover is a well-known scholar, professor, and author in leadership, organizational behavior, human resource management, and talent development. He is a Professor and Chair of Organizational Leadership at Utah Valley University, where he has been teaching since 2007. Westover has a Bachelor’s degree in Political Science, a Master’s degree in Public Administration, and a Ph.D. in Human Resource Development. He has authored several books and scholarly articles and is a sought-after keynote speaker, delivering presentations and workshops for various organizations and conferences. He is a trusted advisor and consultant to numerous organizations in the public and private sectors.
Nolan Hout
Nolan Hout is the Senior Vice President at Infopro Learning. He has over a decade of experience in the L&D industry, helping global organizations unlock the potential of their workforce. Nolan is results-driven, investing most of his time in finding ways to identify and improve the performance of learning programs through the lens of return on investment. He is passionate about networking with people in the learning and training community. He is also an avid outdoorsman and fly fisherman, spending most of his free time on rivers across the Pacific Northwest.
The excerpt of the discussion is as follows:
Nolan:
Hello everyone, and welcome to the Learning and Development Podcast sponsored by Infopro Learning.
I’m your host Nolan Hout. We’ve got a special guest joining us today, Jonathan H. Westover, a three-time best-selling and award-winning author. Jon works as a professor at Utah Valley University and is the Chair of Organizational Leadership Development there. Additionally, he provides consultancy services to prominent corporations.
During our conversation today, we will extensively discuss the topics of diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging. Specifically, we will delve into engagement, return on investment, and, most notably, what actions to avoid.
I’m super excited. So, let’s get into it. Hello Jonathan. Welcome to the podcast.
Jonathan:
Thank you for having me. It’s a pleasure to be with you today.
Nolan:
Before delving into the topic of diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging, which I know many of us are eager to discuss with you, Jon, I always like to give my guests a glimpse into your journey to your current position as the Chair of Organizational Leadership Development at Utah Valley University or as a managing partner at your consulting organization.
However, your professional journey began at a later point. I have observed in the L&D domain that careers in this field only sometimes begin in learning development, professional development, or people development. Rather, they tend to have diverse trajectories, akin to a tree with multiple branches, where one may move from one opportunity to another.
Could you assist us in gaining a deeper understanding of the journey that led you to your current position?
Jonathan:
From an early stage, I realized I enjoyed collaborating and imparting knowledge. This was something that I had encountered in my earlier experiences. However, during my college years, like many others, I explored different fields and changed majors frequently to determine my interests and strengths. Additionally, I felt pressure to conform to societal expectations and familial aspirations. As a result, I stumbled upon the learning and development and people management field as my chosen degree program after a few major switches.
I pursued a major in accounting at a renowned university with one of the top programs in the country. It was a great achievement for me to have been accepted into the program, and I excelled in it. However, as I progressed through the program, I realized it wasn’t something I truly enjoyed. While studying abroad for a couple of years, I developed an interest in Korean culture and language, which led me to minor in Korean alongside my accounting major. These Korean courses were more enjoyable for me compared to my accounting courses.
One day, while at university, my Korean professor offered to return to Korea for an internship during the summer. Intrigued, I raised my hand without hesitation, even though I had no idea what the internship would entail or whom I would work with. I ended up in the corporate organizational development and change department at LG Electronics in South Korea, which was an amazing experience that broadened my horizons. I got exposed to the professional world, which involved training, learning and development, mentoring, and executive retreats. After spending a summer doing this, I returned to university with a change in perspective and no longer wanted to pursue accounting.
I desired to pursue a specific path reminiscent of what I did during the summer. However, after consulting with my professors, they could only offer courses tailored to my aspirations. They suggested I transition to a social science major, which I eventually did. Subsequently, I changed majors again and eventually earned a degree in sociology. I concentrated on human resources, learning, and development in my master’s and doctoral studies. That is how I discovered my passion for these fields, albeit in a rather roundabout way.
Since then, I have been fortunate to have had numerous opportunities to enhance my skills and collaborate professionally and academically with individuals from diverse backgrounds. As you mentioned, my primary occupation is as a tenured full professor and Chair of the Organizational Leadership department at Utah Valley University. I thoroughly enjoy teaching and conducting research. My passion for working with a wide range of students, including non-traditional and executive education students, is evident in my work. Additionally, I have been operating my consulting practice since 2007, focusing on corporate clients. I stumbled into this field, but it quickly became my calling, and I have thrived ever since.
Nolan:
Amazing! Jon, I didn’t mention it earlier, but I have a tie to Utah. Utah Valley University is located in Orem, Utah. Interestingly, my initial job after college was in Provo, Utah, close to Utah Valley University. I worked at a call center as a representative trying to sell website designs, and the call center was in an abandoned bowling alley.
While it wasn’t the most financially rewarding profession, and I left it earlier than expected, a few aspects of your background intrigued me. One of them is your attraction toward development. What do you think it is if we examine the essence of your inclination towards development? Are you naturally inclined towards making a difference and helping people grow, or does your enjoyment of collaborating with others give you a sense of fulfillment? What do you believe was the underlying value that you derived from the summer program?
Jonathan:
That’s a great question that may be attributed to my background. I am the odd one in my family, as most have pursued careers in psychology, counseling, and social work. Although I also work in higher education, my primary focus is in the business and corporate sectors. I come from a big family with eight children, including my parents, where most followed paths related to helping professions.
As for myself, I had always envisioned pursuing business-related endeavors rather than the path I saw others taking. However, reflecting on my upbringing and values, I realize these have significantly impacted my career trajectory. Although I work in the corporate realm, specifically in HR and learning and development, there is significant overlap with the skill sets in social work, counseling, psychology, and therapy. This overlap comes naturally and directly results from my upbringing and values.
My perspective on the world, my approach to social interactions, and my tendency to analyze relationships, organizations, and effectiveness are interconnected. These innate qualities influence my work with people, which I find incredibly intriguing and absorbing. It’s just the way I naturally function.
Nolan:
I believe the term “natural” would be the most fitting description. You mentioned that everyone in your extended family is involved in social services, which reminds me of a scene from the movie “The Godfather,” where the protagonist expresses his struggle to break free from his family’s criminal empire. It appears that you tried to distance yourself by pursuing a finance career but couldn’t resist the pull of your family’s calling. Additionally, I found it intriguing that it’s rare to find individuals who transition from higher education to the corporate sector.
I will continue on this path, which is quite interesting. The other day I met someone who discussed the contrasting attitudes toward learning in the corporate world between Americans and Europeans. They mentioned that Europeans tend to show more enthusiasm towards learning, while Americans may require a more forceful approach at the corporate level to motivate them. Do you have any thoughts on this?
We were speculating about the possible reasons for this. I suggested that many of us in the United States feel the pressure to quickly establish our careers, causing us to switch off our learning mindset after college. Education becomes merely a hurdle we must overcome rather than a learning opportunity.
Do you have a better insight into the differences and similarities in learning behaviors and habits between your corporate clients and the students you work with, given your experience in educating both groups? Are there any notable distinctions in their eagerness to learn?
Jonathan:
The question you raised is quite interesting, and it has influenced my academic career and the type of university I am currently affiliated with. The universities where I earned my Ph.D., master’s and bachelors were highly regarded as research-focused institutions. In contrast, Utah Valley University is a regional teaching university prioritizing student success and teaching above all else. While we also conduct research, my main goal is to provide my students with more opportunities to conduct research and mentor them, which informs my teaching and practice. This academic experience differs fundamentally from someone attending a major research-oriented university.
At my university, we highly value practitioner orientation, and I consider myself a scholar-practitioner. As a professor, teacher, and researcher, I aim to apply what I learn from my research to my classroom teaching and professional work as a consultant in organizations. Likewise, I strive to let my practical experiences inform my research and teaching activities. This approach is only commonly adopted by some academics who focus solely on their academic pursuits.
In the realm of research and teaching, there tends to be a distinct separation from the corporate world. While some universities may offer executive education within their academic setting, only a few academic researchers also actively engage in consulting work. Therefore, I am unique in that regard. Regarding your question about the differences between university students and corporate learners, this is an important topic to explore.
There are differences between the types of students at Utah Valley University (UVU). If I were to divide them into two groups, one group would consist of the traditional quote-unquote students aged 18-22 or 23 who are just starting and trying to establish their careers. The other group would consist of non-traditional students, typically older – around 28-29 years old, rather than 19-22. The average age of students in my courses is closer to 28-29.
It is common to have students at UVU who are in their 40s and 50s and have already had a career before returning to the university to reskill or upskill. This makes the profile of student learners at UVU somewhat different from that of other universities, with more overlap between adult learners. However, regardless of where one studies, I strongly believe in the importance of lifelong learning. Due to the constant technological advances, individuals must stay relevant in the modern and future world of work.
The advancements in technology and their application in the workplace are rapidly changing the way we work, the types of work we do, and the design of our work. To remain relevant in our fields, we must continue to learn. I strongly advocate this to my students at the university and in corporate settings.
The main difference between teaching in a university setting and being a consultant or training specialist in a corporate setting is that people have already decided to learn in the former. At the same time, in the latter, participants may wait to buy into the program, depending on how it was presented to them by the organization.
Particularly when it comes to diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging initiatives, which are often mandatory and require everyone’s participation, resistance can arise, creating barriers and making it difficult to engage individuals who are not already motivated to participate in the training, regardless of its design.
During the podcast, Jon and Nolan delved further into the complexities of diversity, equity, and inclusion and explored several thought-provoking questions on the topic, listed below:
- What strategies or techniques can effectively address implicit biases in corporate environments when discussing diversity and inclusion? How can individuals quickly reframe their thinking to break down such biases?
- Have you encountered technology in bias training leveraged to help people overcome their natural biases? Has this been a topic in your research or practical application in the corporate world, and have you seen other organizations using this approach to promote unbiased training?
- As we approach the conclusion of this podcast, I would like to inquire if you have any final reflections or valuable insights to share that we may have overlooked. Do you want to convey anything to our audience before we conclude our conversation?