Four things we were wrong about, and four things we still can’t figure out
One of the most important disciplines in equity work is learning how to be wrong well.
There is a version of this work that rewards certainty. Certainty helps people feel confident in your leadership, it helps anchor a room when the conversation is difficult, it makes equity work look digestible, branded, and contained. But the longer we do this work, the more we have come to understand that certainty should be earned, not performed. Equity work is a form of applied social science, and like any serious discipline, it demands humility. If we are serious about doing this work well, we have to approach it with the same rigour we would expect from any other technical field. That means testing hypotheses, adjusting when the data tells us to, and avoiding conclusions that are not grounded in evidence or experience.
This does not mean that everything is subjective! There are things we know: There are structural patterns that have repeated for generations, and there are choices that predictably lead to harm, and others that build accountability. But the complexity of this work also means there are moments when the most responsible thing to say is that we do not know yet, or that we were wrong, or that we need to try a different approach.
So here are four things we have been wrong about in the past five years, and four things we’re still trying to figure out.
What we’ve been wrong about
1. Knowing about systems of oppression is not the same as knowing how to build equity in corporate environments
For a long time, we believed that people who deeply understood systems of oppression would be well equipped to lead organizational equity work. We assumed that a strong grasp of colonialism, anti-Blackness, misogyny, ableism, and systemic racism would naturally translate into effective strategy. Boy, were we wrong!
Equity work inside institutions requires a different set of competencies. These include process design, policy development, operational analysis, governance structures, procurement systems, budgeting frameworks, and HR practices. It requires not only an understanding of how power works in society, but also how it is codified, distributed, and protected within the specific environment of an organization. You have to know how decisions are made, how authority flows, and how performance is measured. The ability to name structural harm is essential, but so is the ability to redesign workflows, identify bottlenecks, align incentives, and restructure accountability. Without those technical skills, equity work often stalls at the level of values or awareness.
2. Not every issue can be solved with internal equity work
We used to believe that most problems could be solved with a strong internal approach. If an organization was willing to audit its systems, restructure its policies, and commit to a clear plan of action, we assumed it could move the needle on almost any equity issue. What we failed to account for is how many inequities operate at a scale much larger than any single institution.
The gender pay gap is a clear example: Within a single workplace, you can implement transparent salary bands, redesign performance evaluations, and invest in equitable hiring and promotion systems. These interventions can significantly reduce disparities, but they cannot eliminate them entirely. This is because pay gaps are shaped by external realities: the uneven distribution of unpaid caregiving, the cost and availability of child care, inequitable access to parental leave, and broader cultural norms that devalue work traditionally done by women. Many of these factors sit far outside the jurisdiction of a single employer. Organizations can and should act, but we cannot afford to conflate internal action with full resolution.
3. Trying to change the minds of the most powerful people in the room may not always be the best use of energy
Earlier in my career, I believed that with enough clarity, evidence, and well-constructed framing, it was possible to bring any decision-maker on board. I saw the work of persuasion as central to long-term change. In some cases, that belief has held true. Strategic communication, thoughtful framing, and strong relationships have opened real doors. But in other cases, the resistance we encountered had little to do with misunderstanding or lack of exposure and had everything to do with the preservation of power.
There are environments where pushing to change minds becomes a distraction from building systems that are ready when the leadership changes. There are moments when the most responsible approach is to be clear about what is possible, create tools for those who want to act, and allow others to make individual choices about whether they stay, adapt, or exit. This is especially important for equity practitioners who are often expected to hold unrealistic expectations for organizational transformation without structural support. Continuing to direct energy toward the most resistant leaders can drain capacity without improving outcomes.
4. We was wrong to assume that under-resourcing always reflects disinterest or opposition
When I first began doing this work, I often interpreted underfunding as a signal of reluctance or avoidance. I believed that if equity was a true priority, it would show up clearly in the budget. Over time, I have come to understand that the relationship between funding and intention is not always linear.
Organizations operate within financial constraints that are often inflexible and inherited. Budgets are shaped by funding models, revenue cycles, legal obligations, board expectations, and long-standing risk assessments. It is possible for a team to care deeply about equity and still face severe limitations in what they can fund. That reality does not excuse a lack of action, but it does require us to build strategies that take those constraints into account. It is easy to design a perfect equity plan that fails in practice because it does not reflect financial reality.
Being honest about financial constraints allows us to create tiered plans, set achievable goals, and sequence interventions in a way that makes room for long-term sustainability. It also helps us avoid over-explaining underperformance through the lens of personal resistance when the real barrier is structural. There are certainly times when funding is withheld because of lack of interest. But treating that as the default assumption weakens our analysis and limits our creativity.
What I still cannot figure out
1. Culture: what it is, what it is not, and how to change it
Culture is one of the most referenced elements of equity work, yet one of the least clearly defined. We understand culture as something that lives in the day-to-day actions of people within an organization. It is shaped by how meetings are run, how feedback is given, how decisions are made, and how mistakes are handled. It exists in what is rewarded, what is tolerated, and what is ignored. But knowing what culture is does not tell us how to change it.
We still do not know how to reliably shift culture without relying on metaphors, stories, or slowly evolving interpersonal dynamics. Culture is hard to measure, and even harder to isolate from other variables. You can build systems that support a culture of equity, but those systems take time to take root. You can surface patterns of harm, but that does not guarantee they will stop. Culture work is real and necessary, but I continue to struggle with how to design for it at scale without reducing it to vague goals or soft metrics.
2. Behaviour change: Where it fits and how much it is worth
Behaviour change does matter! Policies, strategies, and systems mean very little if the people implementing them are not aligned or engaged. But I remain unsure about how much of an equity strategy should be focused on behaviour. Behaviour change is highly individual, it is often inconsistent, it is difficult to measure with rigour, and it can be heavily influenced by performance incentives, personal disposition, and team dynamics.
I am still trying to figure out how to integrate behaviour change into equity strategies in a way that is proportionate and productive. It cannot be the entire focus, but it also maybe shouldn’t be completely ignored. What I do know is that when behaviour becomes the primary metric for progress, we lose sight of systems. We begin to track sentiment rather than structure. I continue to search for frameworks that can hold both.
3. How to move people away from thinking about equity as a feeling
There is a persistent tendency to evaluate equity work based on how people feel. If someone feels they belong, the system is assumed to be working. If someone feels excluded, the system is assumed to be broken. But feelings are subjective. They are shaped by role, identity, personal history, and momentary context.
What I am still trying to figure out is how to help people approach equity as a technical discipline. A discipline that includes structured problem definition, clear root cause analysis, solution building, implementation planning, iteration, and monitoring. I want to move this work into the same space that we reserve for other organizational functions like operations, finance, or risk management. Those functions are not reduced to emotion, and neither should equity be. The challenge is doing that without losing sight of human impact.
4. I still do not know how to incorporate financial constraint without defaulting to scarcity thinking
It is clear to me that financial constraints shape every part of equity work. But I have not yet figured out how to incorporate that knowledge without allowing it to shrink ambition. There is a difference between building with limits in mind and letting those limits dictate what is worth pursuing. I want to be realistic, but not defeatist.
Most organizations will never have unlimited funds for equity. That should not prevent them from doing meaningful work. What I am still figuring out is how to design equity strategies that are modular, resilient, and responsive to fluctuating resources. I want to build models that are honest about tradeoffs, but that do not surrender to them. That is the balance I am still trying to find.
While this work demands humility, it also demands direction. It is not enough to identify what is unclear. The goal is not to leave people overwhelmed or stalled in reflection. At QuakeLab, we believe in designing tools, strategies, and processes that help move this work forward, even when the conditions are not perfect.
Our Equity as a Technical Skill framework is one of the ways we approach the ongoing challenges in this field. It was developed in response to several patterns we saw across sectors and organizations. These included an overreliance on behaviour change, the widespread confusion between personal awareness and systems-level competence, and the persistent belief that equity work is primarily about emotion and interpersonal harmony.
We created this framework to reinforce that equity is not only about identity, values, or intent; it is also about structure. It is about mapping problems clearly, diagnosing their root causes, and testing solutions that respond to specific environments. It is about understanding how systems function and using that knowledge to make them fairer.
We also take financial constraints seriously! We know that many teams and individuals who care about this work are operating with limited resources. That is why we publish detailed blogs, share examples of our internal tools, and offer free and low-cost materials for anyone who wants to learn from or build on our approach. We know we cannot always work directly with everyone who reaches out, so we try to make sure that our thinking and methods are transparent, replicable, and accessible.
Every project we take on is essentially custom, we try our best not to apply templated solutions or off-the-shelf strategies. We work closely with our clients to understand their systems, timelines, limitations, and ambitions.
We still do not offer DEI training.
We believe there are many talented facilitators and educators doing that work well. Our contribution lies elsewhere, in building systems, processes, and tools that help organizations move equity work into the core of how they operate.
If this approach resonates with you, you are welcome to explore our public resources or reach out for a conversation. We will keep building, questioning, and correcting, as long as it takes.
