DEI: Are You Listening?

I am not a DEI expert. I identify as a cisgender, gay, Latino man. In addition to having a bachelor’s and master’s degree in social work, I am a certified diversity professional. These do not make me an expert in DEI. I work in the area of health equity; I provide leadership and resources for behavioral health authorities to address health disparities in their communities. I firmly believe that DEI is a part of and a strategy to effectively address health inequities. 

While I am not an expert, I do actively learn and participate in the DEI space. Something I have noticed in the discourse on DEI, is the emphasis on hiring a more diverse workforce. Yes, we should be doing this. Absolutely. No arguments here. Yet, we don’t talk about an important area of diversity because the people leading the conversation do not readily identify with this segment of the population.

Who are these people who are often excluded from certain positions? It’s the quite people. The introverts. The people who are not loud and boisterous, but soft spoken and contemplative.  The people who may not have the charisma but are still able to lead from a place of authenticity.

There are many talks on introverts in leadership:

Angela Hucles – Why We Need Introverted Leaders

Simon Sinek – How to Leverage Being an Introvert

Carol Stewart – Introverts Make Great Leaders Too

While we are breaking away from the dichotomy of introvert vs. extrovert, a lot of our knowledge still centers around it. Barry Smith has said that ambiverts, those who fall in the middle of introverts and extroverts, make up about 68% of the population. Popular beliefs seems to still hold that if you are not an extrovert than you are an introvert.

So, what does this have to do with DEI?

I’ve heard from interviews that they were looking for someone to “take charge” of a room. That is not my style. I want to observe the room, learn who is there, and listen to what people are saying. “Taking charge” sounds like white supremacy culture and that’s what I want to actively dismantle.

Far too often those traits we are looking for in potential candidates, those traits outside the job description, hinder the potential pool of applicants. Not redefining your beliefs about leadership can curtail view of who can be a leader; it can hinder possibilities. I am not saying that charismatic leaders should be overlooked. Reverse engineering leadership to focus on traits more related to introverts is not the answer. To be clear, if we do not interrogate our beliefs about leadership and expand our views of leadership than we are overlooking quality candidates. 

Soft spoken does not mean weak

A continual critique I receive is that I am quite/soft spoken. It is an odd critique because some people are just naturally boisterous, and others are soft spoken. Concerns have been verbalized about my ability to lead because I am soft spoken and will be perceived as not confident, unknowledgeable, or incompetent. I am also not very talkative; I am an internal processor. So this comes across to some as disinterested or aloof. It amazes me that people would rather have an unknowledgeable, confident person who speaks loud and often than a knowledgeable person who is soft spoken but displays restraint and confidence. I’ve actively worked to reframe my perceived weaknesses as opportunities to quite the room and listen. I choose fewer words because what I say is meaningful and matters. I do not need to be loud or over speak because I am confident in what I am saying.  

I encourage those in the DEI space to become allies to those potential leaders who are introverts and soft spoken. Don’t just listen to the loudest ones in the room. Actively listen to and support those who are overlooked. It’s time to quite the voices of the loudest in the field to make room for those who are not as loud or charismatic – so their voices and perspectives can be heard. DEI, are you listening?

Thoughts on Social Work Licensure

I will preface this with I do have some bias. I am a licensed independent social worker in Ohio with supervisory designation. I have past the BSW and advanced clinical ASWB exam on the first time without studying. I have provided training supervision for several social workers getting their independent licensure exam and have had success in supporting them to pass the ASWB exam. 

----

On Monday I listened to a panel on social work licensure that was sponsored by ACOSA. I had a number of issues with the panel. The majority of participants presented as White. One participant identified as bi-racial (Black and White). The panel also really didn’t give a strong voice of why social work licensure is beneficial with the focus of it being “bad”. Another issue is a sort of picking and choosing what is gatekeeping and what is not. There was an emphasis on how licensing is gatekeeping – which I agree – But there was not recognition that getting a college degree and having to be accepted into a major along with a certain GPA is also gatekeeping. I am not saying that the panelist do not believe that, but fundamentally gatekeeping starts at getting the right degree. From experience, I would add as a social work professional gatekeeping also involves going to the “right school”. I didn’t attend a prestigious social work program. I received by undergrad and graduate degree in social work form the University of Toledo where I was trained in an advanced generalist model. I have the highest social work licensure in my state and regularly give back to the profession. Often, I am not recognized or do not get a platform because I did not graduate from somewhere like Case Western or The Ohio State University. That’s a different topic of a different day, but it seems inauthentic when the “elite” social workers discuss professional gatekeeping when while practicing it themselves.

As I consider licensure, I reflect on the questions “what social work activities need to be licensed”? Obviously, not all of the things social workers do require a license. If social workers did not provide psychotherapy would a license be necessary at all? A point during the panel that was touched on several times was that social work is about relationship building. If social work can be distilled to relationship building, then we do we need a license or even a degree. There are a number of things that social workers are trained in, but if it just comes down to relationship building there are many other professions that can do that.

Maybe it is our social justice orientation that makes us a distinct profession? I choose social work because I wanted to see systems that were just. However, a lens of social justice or even a focus of social justice does not necessarily require a license. Training through an organized curriculum, probably – but a license to practice, I don’t think so.

So, what are the benefits to social work licensure?

• It creates a scope of practice that distinguishes us from other disciplines.  Losing the license would also likely mean losing that scope of practice which may be similar to other professions.
• There is a body to contact (licensure board) when a social worker practices outside of that scope or unethically.
• It creates a requirement for continuing education. While professionals should constantly be learning, I have met more social workers than I care to count that have forgotten to engage in continuing education to complete their continuing education requirement. 
• Finally, it adds legitimacy. Now we can argue about the extent of the legitimacy, but a license at least creates a framework for legitimacy.

The panel discussion seemed to argue two things simultaneously which seemed to weaken both arguments. First there are significant and valid issues with the ASWB licensure test so some are calling for the abolition of that test and some alternative route to licensure. Arguing the invalidity of the test (and it may very well not be a good measure) and establishing an alternative licensure route at the same time seems a bit contradictory. An alternative pathway to licensure may be beneficial, but it brings us back to asking what is the point of licensure and what are we trying to establish with it.

I am willing to engage in more conversation on the issue and I am very open to hearing from other perspectives. These are just my thoughts upon reflecting on Monday's panel discussion. 

Quick Fix to the Opioid Epidemic?

USC Researchers Suggest a Quick Fix for America's Opioid Epidemic

There is no single solution to the opioid epidemic and the solutions are not easy. However, this article shares research suggests a solution: notifying a doctor (medical doctor) when their patient died from an opioid overdose. They found that doctors who received a letter had a quicker rate of reduction in prescribing opioids. They argue it is a simple, quick solution to that can have a long term impact in the fight against the opioid epidemic. The full article is linked above.