By Dr Tanya Finnie
There’s a particular kind of exhaustion I hear about in organisations more and more lately.
Not burnout exactly. More a kind of cultural fatigue.
Another morning tea.
Another awareness day.
Another cupcake event where everybody wears the right colour for the photo.
And quietly underneath it all, employees are thinking:
“But nothing actually changes here.”
I’ve worked with organisations where people know exactly which events they are expected to attend if they want to be seen as supportive, engaged, inclusive, or aligned with company values.
Show up for Harmony Week.
Post the LinkedIn tile.
Wear rainbow colours for IDAHOBIT.
Attend the Women in Leadership breakfast.
Smile for the internal newsletter.
And yet the same people still get interrupted in meetings: the same voices still dominate decisions, the same employees still feel unsafe speaking honestly, the same leadership profiles keep getting promoted.
At some point, employees stop confusing visibility with change, and that’s where inclusion fatigue begins. Because symbolic inclusion is still symbolism.
Recently in Adelaide, protests erupted outside a school recognising IDAHOBIT Day, with some parents describing the event as “woke ideology” while others defended it as a simple act of inclusion and kindness.
Whatever side people sit on politically, I think the reaction reveals something deeper happening culturally right now.
We are living in a time where symbolic inclusion initiatives generate enormous emotional energy, public debate, media attention, and organisational anxiety.
But events alone rarely change behaviour. Systems do.
A morning tea does not automatically create psychological safety.
A rainbow cupcake does not redistribute power.
An awareness campaign does not suddenly make it safer for someone with a different accent, identity, communication style, or worldview to challenge leadership openly.
Culture shifts much more quietly than that.
In who gets listened to.
Who gets promoted.
Who gets sponsorship.
Who feels safe disagreeing.
Who has to self-monitor constantly just to survive the room.
That’s why employees become cynical when organisations heavily invest in visible inclusion moments while avoiding the harder structural conversations underneath them.
People can feel the gap between branding and behaviour. And once employees stop trusting the messaging, rebuilding credibility becomes incredibly difficult. The organisations doing this work well usually spend less energy performing inclusion and more energy examining systems.
- How are decisions made here?
- Whose communication styles are rewarded?
- Who carries the translation burden?
- What behaviours actually progress careers?
- What happens when someone challenges the dominant view?
- What does disagreement cost in this culture?
Those questions matter far more than whether everybody attended the cupcake morning tea.
This is often where cultural intelligence work becomes far more useful than another awareness campaign. Because the real question is not whether people attended the event, but whether the organisation has built the capability, psychological safety, and leadership behaviours required for people to contribute honestly once the event is over.
(You can explore more about Cultural Intelligence and Psychological Safety here.)
Employees don’t need another event if the system itself remains untouched.
They need evidence that speaking up is safe.
That difference is genuinely valued.
That inclusion is affecting behaviour, not just branding.
And employees are remarkably perceptive about the difference between the two.
One uncomfortable question:
What would your employees say changes in your organisation after the awareness week is over?