Belonging, Not Diversity, Is A Key Organisational Infrastructure. We Should Treat It That Way.

Belonging: noun

a feeling of being happy or comfortable as part of a particular group and having a good relationship with the other members of the group because they welcome you and accept you.

Cambridge Dictionary

In digital infrastructure, discussions often centre on technical details like cables, HVAC, cloud setups, and uptime metrics. But people build and run these systems. Human factors introduce risks like attracting talent, skill development, retention, burnout, an ageing workforce, and underused skills. Ignoring these risks is both foolish and risky.

We should see belonging as an organisational structure, not just a cultural add-on or a wellbeing initiative. It shapes whether people feel safe to speak up, share knowledge, or raise concerns. When people feel they don’t belong, systems become fragile. Limited information flows waste human potential. As a result, issues arise later than they should.

Many confuse diversity with belonging. Diversity shows who is in the system. Belonging is about experience. It reveals whether individuals can participate fully without facing penalties or additional effort. One measures who is present; the other measures how they function. Simply boosting diversity doesn’t guarantee a sense of or culture of belonging.

This distinction is vital. Many organisations prioritise diversity hiring but overlook necessary changes in their systems, processes and behaviours. There’s a necessary push to include more women and individuals from diverse cultural, neurodivergent and socio-economic backgrounds in digital roles. However, when these individuals enter environments that still rely on narrow norms of communication, informal networks of influence, and simplistic assumptions about competence, the burden of adaptation (i.e., the expectation that they ‘fit in with us’) falls to them.

The effects are clear. Individuals expend extra effort figuring out how to contribute and be heard. This raises mental strain and reduces psychological safety, which can increase turnover. If we don’t focus on belonging, diversity efforts might lead to churn instead of real change.

This issue isn’t about people not fitting in; it’s about systems not accepting differences without penalties and additional load.

My work on the impostor phenomenon highlights this. What might seem like a lack of confidence often comes from a mismatch between capability and recognition. In digital infrastructure, expertise can be highly specialised and often invisible outside certain roles or teams. People filter signs of competence through confidence, language and familiarity with generally accepted norms. For example, leaders are often expected to be assertive and independently decisive, while others who are more collaborative and mildly mannered may have their leadership capabilities overlooked. This is detrimental to the individual and the organisation, too.

As a result, capable individuals may hesitate, overcompensate, or withdraw. Many leave. The system operates below capacity, not due to a lack of capability, but because capability goes unrecognised and underutilised. Belonging ensures that capability is seen and included to enhance organisational performance.  

There’s also an immediate operational cost when belonging is absent. Individuals who don’t feel they belong manage their participation with caution. They adjust how they speak and when to contribute, which distracts from their work. In high-stakes environments, this distraction reduces performance and increases risk.

Belonging can be designed into organisational systems. This needs focus on decision-making, sharing information, recognising expertise, and managing disagreements. We need to rely less on informal networks and make workplace expectations clear. Input mechanisms shouldn’t depend on confidence alone. They should also recognise different types of expertise with ways and means of ensuring that expertise is put to good use for the benefit of the individual, the team and the organisation as a whole.

This also means shifting our understanding of belonging. It’s not about fitting in; it doesn’t require conformity to dominant norms. Instead, it allows for differences without penalties or extra effort. Cognitive diversity is key in digital infrastructure. It drives both resilience and innovation. Systems benefit from diverse viewpoints that challenge assumptions. If belonging demands sameness, we lose that advantage, especially in the as the industry faces the influences and consequences of Industry 5.0.

The message is clear. Diversity hiring alone won’t create lasting change if we don’t also design for belonging. It increases turnover, weakens capability, supports old habits and biases, and keeps current patterns. If we want resilient, high-performing digital infrastructure, we must treat belonging as part of the system itself.

Because it is. 

Dr Terri Simpkin, PhD

April, 2026