Inclusion Is What You Do: A Conversation with Paolo Gaudiano

Paolo Gaudiano’s career path – from academia to entrepreneurship to leading systemic inclusion work – mirrors the complex systems he studies. A former academic and CEO of Aleria, Gaudiano is best known for using computer simulations to illuminate how inclusive practices in organizations lead to better diversity and performance. We spoke about his work, his definitions of D&I and why so many companies still get inclusion wrong.

Alessio Salviato: Paolo, how did you first become interested in diversity and inclusion?

Paolo Gaudiano: About ten years ago, after working on computer simulations for business problems – marketing, organizational design, even ship survivability – I realized something was missing in the DEI conversation: a way to quantify the financial impact of DEI. 

I’d always been interested in diversity and inclusion on a personal level, but what struck me professionally was that companies had no rigorous way to evaluate how their treatment of employees affects organizational outcomes. So, I built a computer simulation of how a typical company operates and I showed that inequitable treatment led to both reduced performance and reduced diversity over time.

AS: Can you explain the ecosystem analogy?

PG: Sure. Think of a company as an ecosystem – people interacting with each other, with corporate policies and processes, and with external factors like customers and partners. Statistical analysis cannot capture all of the complexities, it only tells you how the company is performing at the macroscopic level. 

But a computer simulation that imitates the day-to-day behaviors and interactions can show you how the overall ecosystem behavior is shaped by the individual employees and their interactions.

AS: And how does this help to explain the impact of how people are treated in a company?

PG: Imagine a team working together. If some team members are less satisfied, their performance will drop, which hurts the team’s performance. And these team members are more likely to leave, causing even more disruption and costing the company more money. When specific groups – say, women or people of color – face more obstacles than others, their performance drops and they’re more likely to leave. As a result, over time, the organization becomes less effective and less diverse. It’s a self-reinforcing loop. You can’t fix the problem simply by hiring more people from these groups. Companies that try to diversify by setting quotas or targets without making structural changes will fail or, worse, face backlash.

AS: In other words, you argue that diversity is an outcome, not a cause.

PG: Exactly. I define it like this: Inclusion is what you do. Diversity is what you get. Equity is what you want. Inclusion means ensuring that everyone’s experience at work does not depend on their identity. When organizations are inclusive, retention rates will be the same for all groups, which means greater diversity in the long term. And if satisfaction is not equal, it means that some groups have lower performance, which is why I say that “equity is what you want” as an organization, because then performance will be higher for everyone and the organization will make more money.

AS: But how do you measure inclusion?

PG: Inclusion isn’t a feeling – it’s a set of experiences and processes that determine how people navigate the workplace. Stop asking people how included they feel. Ask instead about what happened to them – were they invited to meetings, considered for promotions, given meaningful projects? Inclusion should be measured structurally, not emotionally. In other words, measure experiences, not sentiment. And companies need to realize that culture, motivation, satisfaction – these are emergent phenomena. You can’t change them directly, but you can change the workplace policies and processes that shape them.

AS: So, what’s your advice to companies that want to improve D&I?

PG: First, forget about trying to “fix” diversity. Focus on inclusion. That means identifying and correcting the differential experiences of employees. For example, if you find that a lot of people complain they don’t get invited to decision-making meetings and that this happens a lot more to women than to men, then fix the meeting process. This will benefit everyone – including some men – but especially women. Diversity will follow.

AS: What happens when companies impose top-down diversity mandates?

PG: When you artificially force a specific outcome – like mandating a certain percentage of women at the executive level – you risk triggering resentment, especially if the surrounding system isn’t inclusive. You might create short-term diversity but long-term dysfunction. Structural changes must be aligned with everyday behavior and culture to avoid backlash.

AS: Do these principles scale beyond corporations?

PG: Definitely. We’ve used these ecosystem simulations in education, public health and even to guide peace-building strategies for governments. Understanding structural causes and emergent outcomes is key. That’s why I believe systems thinking should be taught across every discipline – because it helps us move from ideology to impact.

AS: Any last thoughts?

PG: Just this: stop treating inclusion as a buzzword. It’s a structural issue. If you’re not analyzing and changing your organization’s behaviors, processes and policies, then, no matter how good your intentions are, diversity won’t improve and performance will suffer. 

You can’t control how people feel, but you can control what they go through. 

Because inclusion is what you do. Everything else – diversity, performance, equity – is a result.