Every organisation contains people who identify structural inequities, name processes that produce unfair outcomes, propose alternatives, and persist in advocating for change even when that advocacy is uncomfortable for those around them. These are changemakers. They are not a self-selected category of professional activists. They are employees at every level, in every function, who are doing the analytical work of identifying what is not working and the relational work of trying to move the organisation toward something better.
Most organisations do not support their changemakers well. Some organisations actively suppress them. The structural conditions that allow inequitable patterns to persist inside workplaces are the same conditions that make changemaking difficult, uncomfortable, and professionally costly for the people who attempt it. Understanding those conditions, and building the infrastructure that converts changemaker energy into organisational progress, is one of the most technically demanding and practically important challenges in DEI practice.
This article works through who changemakers are in a professional and DEI context, why organisations structurally suppress changemaking behaviour, what the data shows about the gap between employee capacity for change and organisational support for it, the specific barriers changemakers from non-dominant groups face, and the practitioner framework for building organisational systems that identify, protect, and channel changemaker energy into durable equity outcomes.
A changemaker, in an organisational context, is an employee who takes sustained action to improve a system, process, policy, or culture that they have identified as producing inequitable, inefficient, or harmful outcomes. The distinguishing characteristic of changemaking is not intent, because the intent to improve things is common. It is the combination of diagnostic clarity, about what specifically is wrong and why, with the relational persistence to advocate for change across the friction that proposals for change reliably generate.
In DEI contexts, changemakers are frequently the employees closest to the inequitable patterns being perpetuated. They are the employees from non-dominant groups who experience firsthand how hiring processes filter out qualified candidates, how performance reviews score the same behaviours differently across demographic lines, how informal sponsorship networks concentrate advancement opportunity, and how complaint processes fail to produce outcomes that protect the people who use them. Their diagnostic clarity is rooted in lived experience and direct observation, which makes their input analytically valuable to organisations trying to understand where equity gaps originate.
This positional advantage in diagnosis comes with a structural disadvantage in advocacy. The employees who are best positioned to identify inequitable patterns are frequently those with the least organisational power to drive the changes that addressing those patterns requires. They are also those who face the highest professional risk in raising concerns, because challenging the systems and norms of an organisation whose culture was designed around the preferences and experiences of a different demographic group is personally costly in ways that employees from dominant groups advocating for the same changes do not typically face at the same intensity.
The U.S. Office of Personnel Management Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, administered annually to over a million federal employees, directly measures two dimensions that are foundational to changemaking support: whether management encourages innovation, and whether management involves employees in decisions that affect their work.
In its 2022 report, the OPM defined the Innovation dimension of the FEVS as evaluating the extent to which the workplace supports the development and implementation of new ideas and approaches, describing innovation as foundational to organisational adaptability and employee motivation. The Involvement dimension was defined as assessing the extent to which employee input is sought and can influence decisions, management practices, and whether employees generally feel heard in decision-making. These are the two structural conditions that determine whether changemaking can function as an organisational resource rather than a source of friction.
The 2024 FEVS report, which surveyed over 674,000 federal employees representing a 41 percent participation rate among eligible employees, identified innovation as one of the areas requiring focused governmentwide attention alongside resilience and employee recognition. The OPM’s own agency results from 2023 showed that management involves employees in decisions that affect their work received a positive response rate of only 21.2 percent among OPM employees, one of the lowest-scoring items in the survey. The 2024 FEVS governmentwide Employee Engagement Index reached a record high of 73 percent, yet innovation and employee involvement remain the dimensions with the most room for improvement, indicating that engagement is not automatically translating into the conditions changemakers need to be effective.
The OPM’s response to its own FEVS data is instructive: it implemented structured idea jams as part of its Employee Experience plan to capture innovative ideas from employees, grouped those ideas into focus areas, and reviewed them against agency priorities. That is a specific operational mechanism for converting employee changemaker capacity into institutional consideration, and it illustrates the type of infrastructure that most private sector organisations lack.
Changemaking is suppressed by the same structural conditions that suppress other forms of non-dominant-group voice in organisations. Understanding these conditions as systemic rather than interpersonal is the prerequisite for addressing them at the organisational level rather than placing the full burden of change on the individual changemakers who are already carrying a disproportionate load.
The first suppression condition is the asymmetric risk calculus. Employees who raise concerns about inequitable systems are taking professional risks that are qualitatively different depending on their positional power and demographic membership. A senior leader from a dominant group who identifies a process flaw and proposes an alternative is operating in a low-risk environment. Their positional authority protects them from the informal social consequences of challenge, their demographic membership aligns them with the group whose norms the process was designed around, and they can propose change without the proposal being interpreted as personal grievance. An employee from a non-dominant group who raises the same concern about the same process flaw is operating in a higher-risk environment. The same proposal is more likely to be interpreted as complaint rather than analysis, more likely to generate informal resistance from those whose practices are being questioned, and more likely to result in the quiet social marginalisation that precedes formal exclusion from the informal networks that determine advancement.
The organisational cost of employees being unwilling to raise concerns because the risk exceeds the expected benefit is paid in the sustained persistence of inequitable patterns that employees can see but organisations cannot fix because the information needed to fix them is not reaching the people with the authority to act.
The second suppression condition is the organisational immune response to challenge. Organisations, like biological systems, develop responses to perceived threats that are protective of existing structures. When a changemaker proposes that a process is producing inequitable outcomes, the immediate organisational response is frequently not analysis of the claim but protection of the process and the people who designed and benefit from it. This immune response operates through several mechanisms: questioning the changemaker’s data, reframing the structural problem as a personal grievance, suggesting that the changemaker lacks the organisational context to understand why the current system works, and applying social pressure that signals the changemaker is not a team player.
Bias in how organisations evaluate and respond to challenge from different types of employees means that the immune response is not applied uniformly. Challenge from employees with high positional power and dominant group membership is more likely to be received as strategic input. The same challenge from employees with lower positional power and non-dominant group membership is more likely to trigger the immune response. The result is a filtration system that surfaces some changemaking perspectives for consideration while suppressing others, and the filtration criteria correlate systematically with demographic membership.
The third suppression condition is the absence of institutional channels. Most organisations have no structured mechanism for converting employee-identified equity concerns into policy review processes. Employees who identify problems can raise them with their manager, but if their manager is the source of the problem or is protective of the system generating it, that channel produces nothing. Formal complaint mechanisms are designed for legal threshold events, not for the systemic pattern problems that most changemaking activity is trying to address. ERGs exist but frequently lack the governance connections to formal decision-making processes that would allow them to function as policy input channels rather than employee support communities.
Changemakers from non-dominant groups face all of the suppression conditions described above at higher intensity, with additional barriers that are specific to their positional and identity context.
Credibility asymmetry is the most pervasive additional barrier. When an employee from a non-dominant group identifies an inequitable pattern in hiring, performance evaluation, or advancement, there is a structural tendency for the organisation to treat that identification as subjective rather than analytical, as reflecting personal experience rather than systemic observation, and as requiring a higher evidentiary standard than the same claim would require from a dominant group employee. This asymmetry means changemakers from non-dominant groups must invest significantly more work in building the evidence base for their proposals before those proposals receive the same quality of consideration that less evidenced proposals from dominant group employees routinely receive.
The emotional tax is the second additional barrier. Employees from non-dominant groups who consistently advocate for equity inside their organisations are not operating from a position of professional detachment. They are frequently advocating for changes that would directly improve their own working conditions, which means that the advocacy is emotionally costly in ways that advocacy by dominant group allies is typically not. The professional requirement to maintain composure and analytical framing while raising concerns about systems that are personally causing harm is a significant ongoing burden that accumulates over time and produces the burnout pattern that DEI fatigue describes at both the individual and organisational level.
Visibility risk is the third additional barrier. Changemakers from non-dominant groups who are visible in their advocacy become identified with it in ways that affect how their professional contributions are received. An employee who is consistently raising equity concerns is likely to be evaluated by some managers and colleagues through the lens of that advocacy rather than through the lens of their full professional contribution. This dynamic is a specific form of the pigeonholing that limits advancement for non-dominant group employees in many organisations and represents a professional cost that changemakers bear that dominant group employees largely do not.
Supporting changemakers is not primarily about individual manager behaviour, though leadership behaviour matters enormously. It is about building institutional infrastructure that creates channels through which changemaker insights reach the decision-making processes that need them, protects the people who generate those insights from the professional costs of generating them, and closes the feedback loop between raised concerns and organisational response.
Employee Resource Groups, when structured with direct governance connections to HR policy review and senior leadership decision-making processes, are one of the most effective changemaker channels available to organisations. ERGs aggregate individual changemaker observations into collective pattern identification, which carries more evidentiary weight than individual concerns and is more likely to reach the threshold for organisational attention. They provide a community structure that reduces the isolation changemakers otherwise experience and offers the peer validation that sustains advocacy through the friction of organisational resistance.
Moving from mentorship programmes to broader movements that drive structural change requires connecting individual changemaker energy to collective infrastructure that is durable beyond any single person’s tenure or motivation. Individual changemakers who are not embedded in institutional structures are vulnerable to burnout, departure, or the gradual professional costs that sustained advocacy accumulates. When changemaker energy is channelled through institutional structures with their own governance and continuity, it becomes an organisational asset that survives the departure of any individual.
Allyship is the specific mechanism through which dominant group employees can materially reduce the risk that changemakers from non-dominant groups carry. Allies who amplify changemaker concerns in decision-making settings, who co-sign requests for systemic review, and who use their positional authority to advocate for the changes that changemakers have identified transfer some of the professional risk from the changemakers to themselves. Because allies typically carry lower demographic risk in advocacy settings, that transfer meaningfully changes the risk calculus that otherwise suppresses changemaking activity.
The role of inclusive leadership in creating workplaces where changemaking can function is the most important single variable in whether the institutional infrastructure described above produces real outcomes or remains dormant. Infrastructure without the right leadership response is an empty channel.
Leaders who support changemakers demonstrate specific, observable behaviours. They acknowledge challenge with curiosity rather than defensiveness when employees identify systemic problems. They follow up on raised concerns with documented outcomes rather than letting them disappear into meetings that produce no action. They protect employees who raise concerns from informal social consequences, by explicitly naming the value of the contribution, by ensuring the employee’s professional standing is not diminished by the act of raising an issue, and by monitoring for the subtle retaliation patterns that challenge often generates. And they model the organisational learning posture, the willingness to have their prior understanding corrected by new information, that gives changemakers evidence that their effort has a viable pathway to outcome.
The FEVS data is instructive here. The OPM’s 2024 Employee Experience plan responded to its own innovation and involvement FEVS scores by implementing idea jams, structured sessions designed specifically to capture and formalise employee-generated change proposals, and then reviewing those proposals against agency priorities with a documented feedback loop. That is the leadership behaviour that makes institutional changemaker support tangible rather than aspirational.
None of the institutional infrastructure for supporting changemakers functions without the foundational condition of psychological safety. Changemaking requires interpersonal risk-taking: raising concerns that may be uncomfortable for powerful people to hear, proposing alternatives that challenge established practice, and persisting in advocacy across the social friction that challenge generates. All of those behaviours require the prior assurance that taking the risk will not result in the social or professional consequences that make risk-taking irrational.
Engineering psychological safety in professional environments, including distributed and hybrid settings where the informal social signals that communicate safety or its absence are less visible, is the structural precondition for effective changemaker support. Without it, the channels exist but nothing flows through them.
Psychological safety at the work unit level is primarily determined by leader behaviour in response to the first few instances of challenging input. If those instances produce visible recognition of the contribution and documented follow-up, subsequent challenging input flows more freely. If they produce defensiveness, dismissal, or subtle negative consequence, subsequent challenging input stops. The changemakers are still observing the same equity problems. They have simply concluded that the cost of raising them exceeds the expected benefit.
Organisational resistance to change is not a temporary condition that exists only before a DEI programme is established. It is a persistent feature of every organisation, and it intensifies in direct proportion to how significantly the proposed change threatens existing power arrangements. Changemakers need to be equipped to sustain their advocacy across that resistance rather than consuming themselves against it.
When DEI momentum slows under organisational resistance, the practitioners and changemakers who sustain progress are those who have built their strategy on data, governance connections, and executive sponsorship rather than on personal motivation alone. Personal motivation is necessary but not sufficient for sustained changemaking. It depletes under sustained resistance. Institutional structures, data-based advocacy, and sponsor relationships that provide access to decision-making authority are what sustain equity work through the periods of resistance that most organisations generate when that work begins to produce consequential change.
The current DEI backlash environment represents exactly the type of sustained organisational resistance that tests whether changemaker support is structural or merely cultural. Organisations that built their DEI work on institutional foundations, with governance connections, measurement infrastructure, and leadership accountability, are more likely to sustain equity progress through that resistance. Organisations that built their DEI work primarily on individual changemaker energy and cultural momentum are losing ground because neither of those inputs is sufficient when the resistance is structural and sustained.
The measurement question for changemaker support is whether the organisation is producing conditions in which employee-identified improvement proposals reach decision-making processes, receive genuine consideration, and result in documented outcomes that are communicated back to the employees who raised them.
The FEVS items measuring management involvement of employees in decisions that affect their work and management encouragement of innovation provide the quantified baseline for this measurement at the organisational level. Survey items measuring whether employees feel comfortable raising challenges and risks with their supervisors, whether they believe their input influences team decisions, and whether they see their concerns result in visible organisational response provide the diagnostic data at the work unit level.
Collective action at the organisational level is what changemakers are ultimately building toward: the alignment of individual improvement proposals, collective ERG-level pattern identification, and institutional decision-making processes in a system that is designed to move equity concerns from observation to resolution. Measurement needs to track all three layers and the connections between them.
Supporting changemakers at work is not a soft cultural initiative. It is a structural design problem with specific institutional solutions and measurable outcomes. The OPM FEVS data demonstrates that even the federal government, with its explicit commitments to innovation and employee involvement as organisational health dimensions, scores management encouragement of innovation and employee involvement in decisions among its lowest-performing survey items. That gap between the stated importance of changemaker support and its operational reality is the problem practitioners need to solve.
The organisations that solve it are those that build specific channels through which changemaker insights reach decision-making processes, create institutional protection for the employees who generate those insights, connect individual advocacy to collective infrastructure that is durable across individual turnover and motivation cycles, and sustain those structures through the periods of organisational resistance that genuine equity progress reliably generates.
Changemakers are a finite and valuable resource in every organisation. Supporting them is how organisations convert the diagnostic capacity of their diverse workforce into the structural equity improvements that diversity tracking systems will eventually be asked to demonstrate.
The Diverseek podcast aims to create a platform for meaningful conversations, education, and advocacy surrounding issues of diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging in various aspects of society.