Welcome to
AXIS Live.
Your DEIB toolkit, here whenever you need it.
Reach for it when a real moment lands.
A living reference for the language, ideas and situations that come up in your workplace. Every page ends with prompts that turn your organisation's AI assistant into a personal guide, on whatever you're dealing with right now.
What it isn't: a course.
No homework, no modules to finish, no test at the end. Read one page or fifty. Nobody is keeping score.
When to reach for it
People move when they feel invited, not indicted.
AXIS Live doesn't tell you what to think, and it doesn't blame. It gives you the language and the context to act with confidence.
See how it all connectsAsk it. Don't just read it.
Every page in AXIS Live ends with prompts. Copy one, paste it into your organisation's AI assistant, and keep replying. The prompt sets things up. The conversation is yours.
Copy the prompt.
One tap on the button.
Paste it into your organisation's approved AI tool.
Copilot, ChatGPT Enterprise or whatever your company uses. Not a personal account.
Keep going.
Reply, pick an option, push back, ask it to go simpler. It gets more useful the longer you stay.
Learn it
You want to understand something properly.
The AI explains it in a work setting, gives you a real example, then offers three ways to go further. You pick; it follows.
Challenge me
You're not sure you agree, or want to test your own thinking.
The AI makes the sceptic's case, then the other side, then asks where you land. No audience, no judgement.
Help with a real situation
Something has happened, or is about to.
You describe it without names or client detail. The AI asks a few questions, helps you think it through, and gives you words you could use.
Plan my path
You want to build your own route through AXIS Live.
The AI asks about your role and what you're facing, then suggests where to start and what to read next.
The AI is only as good as what you give it back. A few replies that help:
AI can be wrong, and it can sound very sure while it is.
Treat it as a thinking partner, not an authority. Anything involving policy, discipline or the law goes to HR or your formal routes, not a chatbot.
Bring the situation. Leave out the people.
The prompts work best on real situations. They work just as well without real names. A few simple rules keep you, your colleagues and your organisation safe.
If this conversation were forwarded to the person you're describing, would they recognise themselves?
If yes, take more out.
It protects the people you're talking about, it protects you, and it keeps your organisation on the right side of POPIA. AXIS Live never sees your conversations. They happen in your organisation's AI tool, under its policies.
Some things need a person, not a prompt. If you're dealing with harassment, discrimination, a safety risk, or anything that may become a formal matter, speak to HR, your line manager or your organisation's reporting channel. If it's weighing on you personally, your Employee Assistance Programme is there for exactly that.
One system, not a list of topics.
DEIB can feel like a long list of separate subjects. It isn't. It's one chain, that all seeks to improve how we work well together, across lines of difference; how we each perform at our best, and how teams perform at their best. AXIS Live is designed to demonstrate how and why understanding DEIB can improve performance at work.
Create and keep workplaces where everyone feels safe enough to do their best work. That's good for people and good for performance. You don't have to choose.
Every concept page shows where it sits on this chain. Not sure where to begin? Start with psychological safety. Everything else connects back to it.
Psychological safety, unpacked.
Psychological safety is the shared sense, in a team, that you can speak up without being punished or embarrassed for it. Ask the question, flag the mistake, disagree with the senior person, try the idea that might not work. The term comes from Harvard professor Amy Edmondson, who spent decades studying why some teams learn and others don't.
"A shared belief held by members of a team that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking."Amy Edmondson
"The sense of being able to show and employ one's self without fear of negative consequences to self-image, status or career."William Kahn
What it is not
The Performance Pyramid
For years we assumed performance came from skill, ability and experience. Those are necessary, but not sufficient. Skill only becomes performance when it stands on a foundation of safety, both physical and psychological.
Safety is the base, skill is the middle, and performance sits on top of both. A capable person who doesn't feel safe won't give you their best. They'll give you their careful, guarded second-best.
How feeling unsafe works
The sequence is the same whether the threat is physical or psychological.
Trigger
Something happens: words, tone or volume, a look, a gesture, silence, being left out, an assumption, a memory, the energy in the room.
Threat to self
You read it as a risk to something that matters: your reputation, status, competence, influence, career, income, mental health or sense of belonging.
Unsafe
Your body reacts before you've thought it through. A threat to your standing registers much like physical danger.
Response
You protect yourself.
Disconnect
You're in the room, but you've left. You stop contributing and start performing engagement. It looks like compliance, which makes it the hardest to spot.
Retreat
You speak less, hedge more and make yourself smaller. You wait to see which way the wind is blowing before you commit. This is where the meeting after the meeting comes from.
Attack
You go on the offensive: sarcasm, humour that cuts, dominating the airtime, dismissing ideas before they land. At senior levels it often gets mistaken for confidence or decisiveness, which is what makes it the most damaging.
How it feels
Signs it's missing in a team
- People only speak in meetings when asked directly.
- Ideas come up in the corridor, not the room.
- Agreement in the meeting, contradiction afterwards.
- Nobody challenges the most powerful voice.
- Mistakes are hidden or played down.
- Over-performing. "I can't afford to be seen struggling."
- Humour as deflection. The person who always makes a joke when things get tense.
- Fast agreement. How quickly does the room settle on the leader's view?
- Selective silence. Who goes quiet on some topics but not others?
- The bright star who dimmed. Someone who used to contribute, and has stopped.
In many South African workplaces, deference to seniority, age and hierarchy runs deep, which can make speaking up feel riskier than the organisation intends.
What the research says
- Finally, a way to talk about why good people go quiet.
- It makes speaking up the norm, not an act of courage.
- It gives managers something practical to work on, not just a value on a poster.
- "Soft." Another HR buzzword for making everyone comfortable.
- Worry that it lowers standards, or that feedback now has to be sugar-coated.
- Scepticism from people who've seen "speak up" campaigns come and go while nothing changed.
Both reactions have a point. It is overused as a buzzword, and it has been used to mean "never upset anyone", which is not what it means. The honest version is harder: high standards and high safety, at the same time.
In five sentences, explain what psychological safety is and what it isn't. Give me one realistic scenario from a South African workplace where a lack of it cost the team something real. Then give me three options (a, b or c) for where to take this next. I'll pick one and we'll continue.I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student.
I want to test my thinking on psychological safety. First, make the strongest honest case that it's a soft idea that lowers standards, and say what is understandable about that view. Then make the strongest case against that view. Don't tell me which is right. Ask me one question about where I stand, and respectfully challenge my answer.I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student.
I want help with a real situation where people aren't speaking up, or where I don't feel safe to. I won't use names or details that identify anyone, so please don't ask for them. Ask me up to three questions to understand it. Then help me think through what to do, and give me a few words I could actually say.
Here's the situation: [describe it using "a colleague", "my manager" or "someone on my team"]I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student.
I've just read about psychological safety in AXIS Live, a DEIB toolkit. It covers foundations (psychological safety, power, identity, bias, microaggressions, allyship, inclusive leadership, repairing mistakes, resistance), dimensions of diversity (race, gender, LGBTIQ+, disability, neurodiversity, health, age, religion and culture, language, class, nationality, carers) and real workplace situations. Ask me four questions, one at a time, about my role, my team and what I find hard. Then suggest the next three topics I should look at, in order, with one line on why each.
No names, no client details. Keeping it confidential
- Psychological safety
- The shared belief in a team that it is safe to take interpersonal risks, such as asking questions, admitting mistakes or disagreeing.
- Interpersonal risk
- Anything you say or do at work that could make you look ignorant, incompetent, negative or disruptive.
- Employee silence
- Holding back ideas, concerns or information that could help, usually because speaking feels risky or pointless.
Related
Unconscious bias.
A bias is a leaning: towards some people, ideas or things, and away from others. Your brain makes thousands of fast judgements a day so you don't have to think through every one. Psychologist Daniel Kahneman described this as "fast thinking": automatic, effortless and mostly invisible to us.
Run to the Monster puts it simply. All bias is, is who and what we find safe, familiar, valuable and likeable. "Unconscious" just means automatic. The leaning runs in the background, like an operating system, until we stop and look at it.
What it is not
Identity is usually the first thing we notice about someone, so it is what triggers bias most. Bias is one of the main ways safety erodes: who gets the benefit of the doubt, who gets interrupted, whose mistakes are remembered.
Safe, familiar, valuable, likeable
Safe
Won't cause failure. "I can rely on them."
Familiar
We know how they behave. "They're like us."
Valuable
Gets results, tried and tested. "They deliver."
Likeable
Pleasant to be around. "I enjoy working with them."
Think of a close colleague or mentor. What makes them feel safe, familiar, valuable and likeable to you? Now think about who you automatically see that way, by race, gender, age, accent or background, and who you don't. That is your bias at work.
Safe, Familiar, Valuable, Likeable, Run to the Monster.
Taught and caught
Where does the leaning come from? Some of it was taught: at home, at school, in places of worship, in textbooks that called some cultures civilised and others primitive. Some of it was caught: from who we see in charge, on the news, in films, in our feeds. Our brains work like algorithms trained on historical data. If the data is biased, so are the outputs. That isn't about shame, and it isn't about blame.
Common biases at work
The gut is never neutral.
"I just had a feeling about them" is your safe, familiar, valuable and likeable filter speaking. Gut feel can be useful. It is worth a second look before a big decision.
- A way to talk about unfairness without calling anyone a bad person.
- Explains patterns that individual intentions can't.
- Practical: you can build checks into decisions.
- Fatigue: "another unconscious bias training".
- Worry that it labels everyone as prejudiced.
- Scepticism about the research and the tests.
Fair points. Some bias training has overpromised, and awareness alone doesn't change much. What does help is slowing down the decisions that matter and checking them. And noticing a bias in yourself is not the same as being a bigot. It is being honest.
In five sentences, explain what unconscious bias is, using the idea of who and what we find safe, familiar, valuable and likeable. Give me one realistic scenario from a South African workplace where bias quietly shapes a hiring, promotion or allocation decision. Then give me three options (a, b or c) for where to take this next. I'll pick one and we'll continue.I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student.
I want to test my thinking on unconscious bias. First, make the strongest honest case that unconscious bias is overhyped and training about it does nothing, and say what is understandable about that view. Then make the strongest case against that view. Don't tell me which is right. Ask me one question about where I stand, and respectfully challenge my answer.I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student.
I want help with a real situation where I think bias, mine or someone else's, may be shaping a decision. I won't use names or details that identify anyone, so please don't ask for them. Ask me up to three questions to understand it. Then help me think through what to do, and give me a few words I could actually say.
Here's the situation: [describe it using "a colleague", "my manager" or "someone on my team"]I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student.
I've just read about unconscious bias in AXIS Live, a DEIB toolkit. It covers foundations (psychological safety, power, identity, bias, microaggressions, allyship, inclusive leadership, repairing mistakes, resistance), dimensions of diversity (race, gender, LGBTIQ+, disability, neurodiversity, health, age, religion and culture, language, class, nationality, carers) and real workplace situations. Ask me four questions, one at a time, about my role, my team and what I find hard. Then suggest the next three topics I should look at, in order, with one line on why each.
No names, no client details. Keeping it confidential
- Bias
- A leaning towards or away from people, ideas or things. Run to the Monster defines it as who and what we find safe, familiar, valuable and likeable. Bias is a normal feature of how brains work; it becomes a problem when it decides things that should be decided fairly.
- Unconscious bias
- Bias that operates automatically, without our noticing. Also called implicit bias. "Unconscious" doesn't make it more or less harmful; it means we need to slow down to see it.
- Affinity bias
- The tendency to favour people who seem like us, in background, school, language, interests or looks.
- Confirmation bias
- The tendency to notice and remember information that confirms what we already believe, and to discount what doesn't.
Related
Race and ethnicity.
Race is a way of sorting people into groups by how they look: mostly skin colour, hair and features. It is a social category more than a biological one, and it is very real in its effects. In South Africa it was written into law and used to decide where people could live, learn and work.
Ethnicity is about shared culture: language, heritage, customs, faith, food and a sense of where your people come from. Two colleagues can share a race and have different ethnic identities. An isiXhosa-speaking colleague from the Eastern Cape and a Tshivenda-speaking colleague from Limpopo are both Black South Africans, with different languages and traditions.
This dimension covers how race and ethnicity shape trust, opportunity and belonging at work: who is seen as competent, who is given the benefit of the doubt, and who has to adjust to fit in.
The key distinction
Seeing race is not the same as judging by it. The aim isn't to stop noticing that people are different. It is to stop attaching value to the difference. As Run to the Monster puts it, our differences have never been the problem. The ranking of our differences is. See Power and privilege.
In 1950 the Population Registration Act classified every South African, from birth, into one of four racial groups. Apartheid laws used those classifications to decide where people lived, which schools they went to, which jobs they could hold and how far they had to travel to reach them. Parliament voted to repeal the Act in 1991, and democracy followed in 1994. The patterns they built, in where people live, how wealth is held and who sits in which office, have taken far longer to change.
Census 2022 counted just over 62 million people: 81.4% Black African, 8.1% Coloured, 7.3% white and 2.7% Indian or Asian. The top of the workplace still looks very different. In the 2025 reporting cycle, the Commission for Employment Equity found that white people held 57.1% of top management posts while making up 7.7% of the economically active population. African people held 21.1%, against 81.3%.
The Constitution commits the country to non-racialism and to equality, and allows measures to advance people disadvantaged by unfair discrimination. The Employment Equity Act applies that to the workplace. Run to the Monster's view is simple: in South Africa, we don't have the luxury of not looking at identity. Non-racialism is the aspiration. The reality is that race still shapes access, safety and opportunity. See Employment equity conversations and The law in plain language.
Racial terms in South Africa carry history, and people within a group don't always agree on them. Some people describe themselves as Black, others as African, Coloured or Indian, and many by their language or culture first. Listen for the words someone uses about themselves, and use those. If you are unsure, it is fine to ask, privately and with real interest: "How do you describe yourself?"
- Finally, room to talk about something everyone sees and few say out loud.
- Helps explain why the same workplace feels so different to different people.
- Recognises what people have done to get here, not only what they have carried.
- Fear of being labelled racist for asking a question or using the wrong word.
- A sense that talking about race keeps the past alive and divides people who just want to get on.
- Fatigue on every side: some feel blamed, others feel they have explained it a hundred times.
Both reactions are real, and more widely shared than people think. Run to the Monster calls it voicelessness. White colleagues fear being called racist. Black, Coloured and Indian colleagues fear being seen as troublemakers or ungrateful. So everyone goes quiet, for different reasons. This is not about shame, and it is not about blame. It is about being able to talk.
In five sentences, explain how race and ethnicity shape people's experience at work in South Africa, and the difference between seeing race and judging by it. Give me one realistic scenario from a South African workplace where colleagues of different races leave the same meeting with very different experiences of it. Then give me three options (a, b or c) for where to take this next. I'll pick one and we'll continue.I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student.
I want to test my thinking on race and ethnicity at work. First, make the strongest honest case that talking about race keeps old divisions alive and we should all just focus on being South African, and say what is understandable about that view. Then make the strongest case against that view. Don't tell me which is right. Ask me one question about where I stand, and respectfully challenge my answer.I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student.
I want help with a real situation involving race at work, where I am not sure what to say or whether to say anything. I won't use names or details that identify anyone, so please don't ask for them. Ask me up to three questions to understand it. Then help me think through what to do, and give me a few words I could actually say.
Here's the situation: [describe it using "a colleague", "my manager" or "someone on my team"]I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student.
I've just read about race and ethnicity at work in AXIS Live, a DEIB toolkit. It covers foundations (psychological safety, power, identity, bias, microaggressions, allyship, inclusive leadership, repairing mistakes, resistance), dimensions of diversity (race, gender, LGBTIQ+, disability, neurodiversity, health, age, religion and culture, language, class, nationality, carers) and real workplace situations. Ask me four questions, one at a time, about my role, my team and what I find hard. Then suggest the next three topics I should look at, in order, with one line on why each.
No names, no client details. Keeping it confidential
- Colour-blindness (race)
- The claim that you "don't see colour" and treat everyone the same. It is usually meant well, but it can lead people to overlook the ways race still shapes access, trust and treatment.
- Colour-brave
- Noticing race and talking about how it shapes people's experience, openly and calmly, without attaching a value to it. The alternative Run to the Monster offers to "I don't see colour".
- Social hierarchy
- A ranking of differences in which some identities are treated as the norm and more valuable, and others as less. Most dimensions of identity, from race and gender to language and class, carry one.
- Designated groups
- Under the Employment Equity Act: Black people (African, Coloured and Indian), women and people with disabilities who are South African citizens by birth or descent, or who became citizens by naturalisation before 27 April 1994 (or would have, but for apartheid policies). Employment equity plans aim at their equitable representation.
- Microaggression
- An everyday comment, question or action, often unintended, that sends a slighting message to someone about a group they belong to. The impact comes mostly from repetition. The term was coined by Chester Pierce and developed by Derald Wing Sue; some researchers debate how it is defined.
Related
LGBTIQ+, unpacked.
LGBTIQ+ is an umbrella for people whose sexual orientation, gender identity or sex characteristics sit outside what society treats as the default. People sometimes joke about the "alphabet soup". The jokes usually come from not knowing what the letters mean, so here they are.
Three different things
Sexual orientation
Who you are attracted to, if anyone. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, pansexual, asexual, straight.
Gender identity
Who you know yourself to be: a woman, a man, both, neither. Transgender, non-binary, cisgender.
Sex characteristics
Your body: chromosomes, hormones, anatomy. Intersex people are born with variations.
These are often mixed up. A transgender woman may be straight, lesbian or bisexual. An intersex person may be a man, a woman or non-binary. The letters sit together because they share a history of being pushed to the edges, not because they describe the same thing.
The word queer was once an insult. Many people have reclaimed it as a word of pride: "I'm queer, so what." Others still find it hurtful. Use it if the person you are talking to does.
Refracting the Rainbow, Run to the Monster.
In 1993, South Africa became the first country in the world to include a ban on unfair discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation in its constitution. That protection carried into section 9(3) of the 1996 Constitution. On 1 December 2005, in Minister of Home Affairs v Fourie, the Constitutional Court found that excluding same-sex couples from marriage was unconstitutional, and the Civil Union Act came into force on 30 November 2006.
Other laws followed. The Alteration of Sex Description and Sex Status Act (49 of 2003) lets transgender people who have had medical or surgical treatment, and intersex people, apply to change the sex description on their birth register. Applications need medical reports. The Employment Equity Act protects sexual orientation at work. The Hate Crimes and Hate Speech Act, signed in 2024, covers sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, and sex characteristics, although it was not yet in force in October 2026.
Africa's first Pride march took place in Johannesburg on 13 October 1990, while apartheid was still law. Pride is marked internationally in June, and Johannesburg Pride is held in October.
The law and the lived welcome are not the same thing. In a 2016 Human Sciences Research Council study for The Other Foundation, more than 70% of South Africans said same-sex sexual activity was morally wrong, yet more than half said gay and lesbian people should have the same human rights as everyone else. LGBTIQ+ people still hear their identities called sinful or "un-African", and some face violence. Many walk into work with the same quiet question: am I accepted here because the law says so, or am I actually welcome?
- Constitutional change and participation of LGBTI groups: a case study of South Africa, 2015 (International IDEA)
- Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Chapter 2: Bill of Rights (gov.za)
- Minister of Home Affairs v Fourie [2005] ZACC 19 (SAFLII)
- Civil Union Act 17 of 2006 (gov.za)
- Alteration of Sex Description and Sex Status Act 49 of 2003 (gov.za)
- Prevention and Combating of Hate Crimes and Hate Speech Act 16 of 2023 (SAFLII)
- Regulations for the Hate Crimes Act still pending, 2 October 2026 (GoLegal)
- 13 October 1990: first Pride march on the African continent (South African History Online)
- Survey finds lack of direct contact with gay people, 2016 (GroundUp, on the HSRC study)
If you are unsure what word someone uses for themselves, listen for it, or ask privately and simply. Never ask someone about their body, their sex life or their medical history.
- South Africa's Constitution leads the world here, and many people are proud of that.
- Visible support, like Pride events and partner-inclusive policies, tells people they can stop hiding.
- Many LGBTIQ+ people say small acts, like the right word, matter more than any campaign.
- For some, faith or culture teaches that same-sex relationships are wrong, and they feel their beliefs are being overruled.
- Some feel sexuality is private and has no place at work.
- Some feel the language changes too fast to keep up, and worry about saying the wrong thing.
You don't have to change your beliefs to work well with LGBTIQ+ colleagues. The workplace asks for dignity, fairness and the same courtesy everyone else gets. And sexuality is already at work: in the wedding ring, the photo on the desk and the weekend chat. The question is whether everyone gets to share that ordinary detail, or only some people.
In five sentences, explain what the letters in LGBTIQ+ stand for and the difference between sexual orientation, gender identity and sex characteristics. Give me one realistic scenario from a South African workplace where a gay or lesbian colleague is unsure whether it is safe to mention their partner. Then give me three options (a, b or c) for where to take this next. I'll pick one and we'll continue.I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student.
I want to test my thinking on LGBTIQ+ inclusion at work. First, make the strongest honest case that sexuality is a private matter that has no place at work, or that LGBTIQ+ inclusion conflicts with faith or culture, and say what is understandable about that view. Then make the strongest case against that view. Don't tell me which is right. Ask me one question about where I stand, and respectfully challenge my answer.I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student.
I want help with a real situation involving LGBTIQ+ inclusion in my team, such as language, a comment I heard, or making someone feel welcome. I won't use names or details that identify anyone, so please don't ask for them. Ask me up to three questions to understand it. Then help me think through what to do, and give me a few words I could actually say.
Here's the situation: [describe it using "a colleague", "my manager" or "someone on my team"]I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student.
I've just read about LGBTIQ+ inclusion at work in AXIS Live, a DEIB toolkit. It covers foundations (psychological safety, power, identity, bias, microaggressions, allyship, inclusive leadership, repairing mistakes, resistance), dimensions of diversity (race, gender, LGBTIQ+, disability, neurodiversity, health, age, religion and culture, language, class, nationality, carers) and real workplace situations. Ask me four questions, one at a time, about my role, my team and what I find hard. Then suggest the next three topics I should look at, in order, with one line on why each.
No names, no client details. Keeping it confidential
- LGBTIQ+
- Short for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer (or questioning). The plus leaves room for other identities, such as asexual and pansexual. Organisations use longer and shorter versions; AXIS Live uses LGBTIQ+.
- Sexual orientation
- Who a person is romantically or sexually attracted to, if anyone. It is separate from gender identity: a transgender person can be straight, gay, bisexual or any other orientation.
- Gender identity
- A person's internal sense of their own gender: being a woman, a man, both, neither, or another gender. It may or may not match the sex they were assigned at birth, and you can't tell it by looking at someone.
- Queer
- An umbrella word for people whose sexual orientation or gender identity sits outside straight and cisgender norms. Once used as an insult, it has been reclaimed by many as a word of pride. Some people still find it hurtful, so follow the lead of the person you are talking to.
- Heteronormativity
- The assumption that everyone is straight and cisgender, and that this is the normal, default way to be. It shows up in forms, policies and small talk, such as asking a man about his wife.
- Passing
- Being taken for a member of a more privileged group (for example straight, white, local or non-disabled) because the part of you that differs is not visible. It can lower the risk of being targeted, at the cost of hiding and the fear of being found out.
Related
Pronouns, unpacked.
A personal pronoun is the word someone uses in place of their name, the everyday shorthand others use to refer to them: "she led the deal," "he sent the deck," "they chaired the meeting." Most of us never think about our own, because the world tends to guess them correctly. For many colleagues that guess lands wrong, and being referred to accurately, in the small moments, is part of feeling seen at work.
Pronouns matter for everyone, but they carry particular weight across the LGBTIQ+ community. In particular, transgender, gender non-binary and gender fluid people often use pronouns that differ from the ones others might assume, and "they" is one many people in these groups choose. Getting it right isn't about memorising labels, it's a direct, everyday signal that someone is seen and welcome exactly as they are.
Some people are comfortable with more than one set; some prefer you use their name and skip pronouns altogether. The point isn't to memorise a list, it's to notice, and to ask when you're unsure rather than assume.
"They" isn't new, and it isn't ungrammatical.
English has used the singular they for a single, unknown person for centuries, "someone left their badge at reception" needs no thought at all. Using it for a specific person who asks for it is the same word, applied deliberately. It refers to one person whose gender isn't captured by "he" or "she": someone non-binary, or simply someone who finds it fits them best.
Pronouns have become a visible, and contested, part of the culture. Naming both responses honestly is part of navigating it well.
- A simple, low-cost act of respect that signals a workplace is safe to be yourself in.
- Sharing pronouns in email signatures and introductions normalises it, so the burden doesn't fall only on trans and non-binary people.
- For many, hearing the right pronoun is the difference between bracing and belonging.
- Some feel it's imposed, or worry about "getting it wrong" and being judged for an honest slip.
- Others see it as politicised, or question singular "they" on grammatical grounds.
- Some prefer not to share their own, and can feel pressured when it's expected.
AXIS Live doesn't tell you what to think. It gives you the language and the context to act with confidence, and to lead others through the same, without blame in either direction. The whole point: people move when they feel invited, not indicted.
In five sentences, explain why pronouns matter at work. Give me one realistic workplace scenario where getting them right makes a difference to how a team works together. Then give me three options (a, b or c) for where to take this next. I'll pick one and we'll continue.I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student.
I want to test my own thinking on pronouns at work. First, make the strongest honest case someone sceptical would make about sharing or using pronouns at work. Then make the strongest case for it. Don't tell me which is right. Ask me one question about where I stand, and respectfully challenge my answer when I give it.I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student.
I want help with a real situation involving pronouns at work. I won't use names or details that identify anyone, so please don't ask for them. Ask me up to three questions to understand what happened. Then help me think through what to do, and give me a few words I could actually say.
Here's the situation: [describe it using "a colleague", "my manager" or "someone on my team"]I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student.
I've just read about pronouns in AXIS Live, a DEIB toolkit. It covers foundations (psychological safety, power, identity, bias, microaggressions, allyship, inclusive leadership, repairing mistakes, resistance), dimensions of diversity (race, gender, LGBTIQ+, disability, neurodiversity, health, age, religion and culture, language, class, nationality, carers) and real workplace situations. Ask me four questions, one at a time, about my role, my team and what I find hard. Then suggest the next three topics I should look at, in order, with one line on why each.
No names, no client details. Keeping it confidential
- Pronouns
- The words used to refer to someone in place of their name, such as she, he or they. Most people never think about their own because others guess them correctly. The respectful default is to use the pronouns a person tells you.
- Transgender
- A term for someone whose gender identity differs from the sex they were assigned at birth. A transgender person may use pronouns different from those others might assume, and being referred to correctly is a basic part of being respected at work.
- Gender non-binary
- An umbrella term for people whose gender isn't fully captured by "man" or "woman". Many non-binary people use "they/them", though some use other pronouns; the surest approach is simply to go by what a person tells you.
- Gender fluid
- Describes someone whose sense of their gender shifts over time rather than staying fixed. Their pronouns may change too, so a brief, respectful check-in, rather than an assumption, is always welcome.
- Misgendering
- Referring to someone with a pronoun, name or gendered word that doesn't match who they are. One slip, corrected quickly, is part of learning. Doing it repeatedly, or on purpose, tells the person they aren't seen.
Related
I got it wrong.
You used the wrong pronoun for a colleague in a meeting. Or mispronounced their name, again. Or made a comment that landed badly the second it left your mouth. Your face goes hot, and part of you wants to carry on as if it didn't happen.
Everyone gets this wrong sometimes. The slip itself is usually small. What the other person remembers is what happens next: whether you noticed, whether you cared, and whether it keeps happening.
Intent matters to you. Impact is what they live with. Both are real, and repair is how you close the gap between them.
Correct it quickly, then carry on.
A small slip needs a small fix, in the moment.
If it was bigger, follow up privately.
A short word afterwards, not a public scene.
Apologise once, briefly.
Name what you did, say sorry, stop.
Change the behaviour.
Practise the name. Use the pronoun. The apology only counts if it doesn't keep happening.
Let it go.
Once you've repaired it, don't keep bringing it up.
- Over-apologising. Now they have to comfort you.
- Explaining your intent at length. It turns the moment into a conversation about you.
- "I'm just bad with names." It sounds like an apology but works as an excuse.
- Getting defensive. "I didn't mean anything by it" may be true, and still doesn't help.
- Avoiding them afterwards. Awkward distance does more damage than the slip.
"Sorry, they. As I was saying..."
"I've been saying your name wrong. Could you say it for me? I want to get it right."
"What I said earlier landed badly, and I'm sorry. I'll be more careful."
"Thanks for telling me. I'll change it."
If it keeps happening, if the other person has raised it formally, or if it wasn't really a slip, this is no longer a repair conversation. Speak to HR or your line manager. If you were on the receiving end, go to 3.3 It was aimed at me.
I got something wrong with a colleague and I want to put it right. I won't use names or details that identify anyone, so please don't ask for them. Ask me up to three questions to understand what happened and how it landed. Then tell me honestly whether it needs a follow-up, and if it does, give me a few short words I could actually say. Don't let me over-apologise.
Here's what happened: [describe it using "a colleague" or "someone on my team"]
No names, no client details. Keeping it confidential
Someone said something off.
Someone makes a comment in a meeting. About a colleague's accent, about "people like that", about who is really good with numbers. A couple of people laugh. Someone looks at the table. The meeting moves on, and you are sitting there wondering whether you should have said something, and whether it is too late now.
The room has just learned something about what is allowed here. If nobody responds, the lesson is that this kind of comment is fine. The person it was about, or anyone who shares that identity, has learned something too: that they are on their own.
Most people stay quiet because they are not sure it was bad enough, they don't want a scene, or the person who said it is more senior. That is normal. It is also why the bystander is one of the most useful people in the room. You don't need a speech. You have more options than "say something dramatic" or "say nothing".
Pick the move that fits the moment.
You don't have to confront it head on. The five Ds give you a range, from low risk to high: Delay (check in with the person afterwards), Distract (change the subject, ask a question), Delegate (get someone with more standing to step in), Document (note what was said, for the person affected) and Direct (address it in the moment).
If you can, name it lightly and early.
A short, calm line in the moment does more than a long one later. You are describing the comment, not judging the person.
Check in with the person it was about.
Privately, afterwards. Being believed and not left alone matters more than what you said in the room. Ask what they would like, if anything.
Talk to the person who said it, if it needs more.
One to one, with curiosity: what did they mean, and how might it have landed? Most people take this better in private.
If you run the meeting, it is your job.
The most senior person in the room sets what is allowed. A simple "let's not do that here" from the chair carries a lot of weight.
- A public lecture. It makes the person defensive and turns the room's attention to the argument, not the comment.
- Sarcasm. It feels satisfying, and it usually escalates.
- Speaking for the person it was about. "That's offensive to her" puts them in a spotlight they didn't ask for. Ask them first.
- Waiting for someone more senior to do it. Often, nobody does.
- Laughing along to keep the peace. It tells everyone the comment was fine.
"Let's not do that here."
"Hang on, I'm not sure that came out the way you meant it."
"What did you mean by that?"
"I heard what was said earlier. Are you okay? Is there anything you'd like me to do?"
If the comment was about someone's race, gender, sexuality, disability, religion or another part of who they are, and it keeps happening (or one incident was serious), it may be harassment. If it was sexual, or a threat, it is more than a bad comment. The person affected usually decides what they want to do, and they may want your support or your notes. If you manage the people involved, you may have to act once you know: see 3.4 A colleague came to me with something. See 3.3 It was aimed at me and The law in plain language.
Someone said something off in a meeting and I am not sure how to respond. I won't use names or details that identify anyone, so please don't ask for them. Ask me up to three questions: what was said, who was in the room, and where I sit in terms of seniority. Then tell me honestly whether it needs a response, which of the five Ds (delay, distract, delegate, document, direct) fits best, and give me a few short words I could actually say. Keep it calm and practical.
Here's what happened: [describe it using "a colleague", "my manager" or "someone on my team"]
No names, no client details. Keeping it confidential
The right words, and why.
Language changes, and people within a group don't always agree. When in doubt, use the words a person uses about themselves, and ask if you are not sure. Getting it wrong occasionally is normal; correct it and move on.
South African racial terms carry history. The Employment Equity Act uses "black people" as a broad term for African, Coloured and Indian South Africans. In everyday conversation, many people prefer to be described more specifically, or by their culture or language. Follow the person's lead.
See Pronouns for pronouns, including singular "they".
Under pressure
Regulated language, from Building Healthier Teams, Run to the Monster. Some of these can feel a little scripted. Find your own version.
See Names and pronunciation and Accent and the English default.
The ideas underneath everything.
Twelve pages, in the order they connect: performance runs on safety, safety is shaped by power, power sits with identity, and bias is how safety erodes.
Who we are, the South African way.
Twelve dimensions of diversity, each written for South African workplaces. Every one opens into the questions people actually bring.
Something just happened.
Twelve situations, in the words people use when they arrive. Pick the one closest to yours.
Look it up, fast.
A definition, the right words, the law in plain language, or a prompt.
Glossary, A to Z.
Every term in AXIS Live, defined once. Definitions describe real people and real identities, so they are written to be accurate and neutral. Where a word is still contested, we say so.
- Affinity bias
- The tendency to favour people who seem like us, in background, school, language, interests or looks.
- Bias
- A leaning towards or away from people, ideas or things. Run to the Monster defines it as who and what we find safe, familiar, valuable and likeable. Bias is a normal feature of how brains work; it becomes a problem when it decides things that should be decided fairly.
- Colour-blindness (race)
- The claim that you "don't see colour" and treat everyone the same. It is usually meant well, but it can lead people to overlook the ways race still shapes access, trust and treatment.
- Colour-brave
- Noticing race and talking about how it shapes people's experience, openly and calmly, without attaching a value to it. The alternative Run to the Monster offers to "I don't see colour".
- Confirmation bias
- The tendency to notice and remember information that confirms what we already believe, and to discount what doesn't.
- Designated groups
- Under the Employment Equity Act: Black people (African, Coloured and Indian), women and people with disabilities who are South African citizens by birth or descent, or who became citizens by naturalisation before 27 April 1994 (or would have, but for apartheid policies). Employment equity plans aim at their equitable representation.
- Employee silence
- Holding back ideas, concerns or information that could help, usually because speaking feels risky or pointless.
- Gender fluid
- Describes someone whose sense of their gender shifts over time rather than staying fixed. Their pronouns may change too, so a brief, respectful check-in, rather than an assumption, is always welcome.
- Gender identity
- A person's internal sense of their own gender: being a woman, a man, both, neither, or another gender. It may or may not match the sex they were assigned at birth, and you can't tell it by looking at someone.
- Gender non-binary
- An umbrella term for people whose gender isn't fully captured by "man" or "woman". Many non-binary people use "they/them", though some use other pronouns; the surest approach is simply to go by what a person tells you.
- Heteronormativity
- The assumption that everyone is straight and cisgender, and that this is the normal, default way to be. It shows up in forms, policies and small talk, such as asking a man about his wife.
- Interpersonal risk
- Anything you say or do at work that could make you look ignorant, incompetent, negative or disruptive.
- LGBTIQ+
- Short for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer (or questioning). The plus leaves room for other identities, such as asexual and pansexual. Organisations use longer and shorter versions; AXIS Live uses LGBTIQ+.
- Microaggression
- An everyday comment, question or action, often unintended, that sends a slighting message to someone about a group they belong to. The impact comes mostly from repetition. The term was coined by Chester Pierce and developed by Derald Wing Sue; some researchers debate how it is defined.
- Misgendering
- Referring to someone with a pronoun, name or gendered word that doesn't match who they are. One slip, corrected quickly, is part of learning. Doing it repeatedly, or on purpose, tells the person they aren't seen.
- Passing
- Being taken for a member of a more privileged group (for example straight, white, local or non-disabled) because the part of you that differs is not visible. It can lower the risk of being targeted, at the cost of hiding and the fear of being found out.
- Pronouns
- The words used to refer to someone in place of their name, such as she, he or they. Most people never think about their own because others guess them correctly. The respectful default is to use the pronouns a person tells you.
- Psychological safety
- The shared belief in a team that it is safe to take interpersonal risks, such as asking questions, admitting mistakes or disagreeing.
- Queer
- An umbrella word for people whose sexual orientation or gender identity sits outside straight and cisgender norms. Once used as an insult, it has been reclaimed by many as a word of pride. Some people still find it hurtful, so follow the lead of the person you are talking to.
- Sexual orientation
- Who a person is romantically or sexually attracted to, if anyone. It is separate from gender identity: a transgender person can be straight, gay, bisexual or any other orientation.
- Social hierarchy
- A ranking of differences in which some identities are treated as the norm and more valuable, and others as less. Most dimensions of identity, from race and gender to language and class, carry one.
- Transgender
- A term for someone whose gender identity differs from the sex they were assigned at birth. A transgender person may use pronouns different from those others might assume, and being referred to correctly is a basic part of being respected at work.
- Unconscious bias
- Bias that operates automatically, without our noticing. Also called implicit bias. "Unconscious" doesn't make it more or less harmful; it means we need to slow down to see it.
Every prompt, in one place.
Filter by the kind of help you want, or by section. Every prompt works in your organisation's approved AI tool. No names, no client details.
I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student. In five sentences, explain what psychological safety is and what it isn't. Give me one realistic scenario from a South African workplace where a lack of it cost the team something real. Then give me three options (a, b or c) for where to take this next. I'll pick one and we'll continue.
I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student. I want to test my thinking on psychological safety. First, make the strongest honest case that it's a soft idea that lowers standards, and say what is understandable about that view. Then make the strongest case against that view. Don't tell me which is right. Ask me one question about where I stand, and respectfully challenge my answer.
I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student. I want help with a real situation where people aren't speaking up, or where I don't feel safe to. I won't use names or details that identify anyone, so please don't ask for them. Ask me up to three questions to understand it. Then help me think through what to do, and give me a few words I could actually say. Here's the situation: [describe it using "a colleague", "my manager" or "someone on my team"]
I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student. I've just read about psychological safety in AXIS Live, a DEIB toolkit. It covers foundations (psychological safety, power, identity, bias, microaggressions, allyship, inclusive leadership, repairing mistakes, resistance), dimensions of diversity (race, gender, LGBTIQ+, disability, neurodiversity, health, age, religion and culture, language, class, nationality, carers) and real workplace situations. Ask me four questions, one at a time, about my role, my team and what I find hard. Then suggest the next three topics I should look at, in order, with one line on why each.
I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student. In five sentences, explain what unconscious bias is, using the idea of who and what we find safe, familiar, valuable and likeable. Give me one realistic scenario from a South African workplace where bias quietly shapes a hiring, promotion or allocation decision. Then give me three options (a, b or c) for where to take this next. I'll pick one and we'll continue.
I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student. I want to test my thinking on unconscious bias. First, make the strongest honest case that unconscious bias is overhyped and training about it does nothing, and say what is understandable about that view. Then make the strongest case against that view. Don't tell me which is right. Ask me one question about where I stand, and respectfully challenge my answer.
I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student. I want help with a real situation where I think bias, mine or someone else's, may be shaping a decision. I won't use names or details that identify anyone, so please don't ask for them. Ask me up to three questions to understand it. Then help me think through what to do, and give me a few words I could actually say. Here's the situation: [describe it using "a colleague", "my manager" or "someone on my team"]
I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student. I've just read about unconscious bias in AXIS Live, a DEIB toolkit. It covers foundations (psychological safety, power, identity, bias, microaggressions, allyship, inclusive leadership, repairing mistakes, resistance), dimensions of diversity (race, gender, LGBTIQ+, disability, neurodiversity, health, age, religion and culture, language, class, nationality, carers) and real workplace situations. Ask me four questions, one at a time, about my role, my team and what I find hard. Then suggest the next three topics I should look at, in order, with one line on why each.
I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student. In five sentences, explain how race and ethnicity shape people's experience at work in South Africa, and the difference between seeing race and judging by it. Give me one realistic scenario from a South African workplace where colleagues of different races leave the same meeting with very different experiences of it. Then give me three options (a, b or c) for where to take this next. I'll pick one and we'll continue.
I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student. I want to test my thinking on race and ethnicity at work. First, make the strongest honest case that talking about race keeps old divisions alive and we should all just focus on being South African, and say what is understandable about that view. Then make the strongest case against that view. Don't tell me which is right. Ask me one question about where I stand, and respectfully challenge my answer.
I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student. I want help with a real situation involving race at work, where I am not sure what to say or whether to say anything. I won't use names or details that identify anyone, so please don't ask for them. Ask me up to three questions to understand it. Then help me think through what to do, and give me a few words I could actually say. Here's the situation: [describe it using "a colleague", "my manager" or "someone on my team"]
I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student. I've just read about race and ethnicity at work in AXIS Live, a DEIB toolkit. It covers foundations (psychological safety, power, identity, bias, microaggressions, allyship, inclusive leadership, repairing mistakes, resistance), dimensions of diversity (race, gender, LGBTIQ+, disability, neurodiversity, health, age, religion and culture, language, class, nationality, carers) and real workplace situations. Ask me four questions, one at a time, about my role, my team and what I find hard. Then suggest the next three topics I should look at, in order, with one line on why each.
I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student. In five sentences, explain what the letters in LGBTIQ+ stand for and the difference between sexual orientation, gender identity and sex characteristics. Give me one realistic scenario from a South African workplace where a gay or lesbian colleague is unsure whether it is safe to mention their partner. Then give me three options (a, b or c) for where to take this next. I'll pick one and we'll continue.
I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student. I want to test my thinking on LGBTIQ+ inclusion at work. First, make the strongest honest case that sexuality is a private matter that has no place at work, or that LGBTIQ+ inclusion conflicts with faith or culture, and say what is understandable about that view. Then make the strongest case against that view. Don't tell me which is right. Ask me one question about where I stand, and respectfully challenge my answer.
I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student. I want help with a real situation involving LGBTIQ+ inclusion in my team, such as language, a comment I heard, or making someone feel welcome. I won't use names or details that identify anyone, so please don't ask for them. Ask me up to three questions to understand it. Then help me think through what to do, and give me a few words I could actually say. Here's the situation: [describe it using "a colleague", "my manager" or "someone on my team"]
I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student. I've just read about LGBTIQ+ inclusion at work in AXIS Live, a DEIB toolkit. It covers foundations (psychological safety, power, identity, bias, microaggressions, allyship, inclusive leadership, repairing mistakes, resistance), dimensions of diversity (race, gender, LGBTIQ+, disability, neurodiversity, health, age, religion and culture, language, class, nationality, carers) and real workplace situations. Ask me four questions, one at a time, about my role, my team and what I find hard. Then suggest the next three topics I should look at, in order, with one line on why each.
I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student. In five sentences, explain why pronouns matter at work. Give me one realistic workplace scenario where getting them right makes a difference to how a team works together. Then give me three options (a, b or c) for where to take this next. I'll pick one and we'll continue.
I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student. I want to test my own thinking on pronouns at work. First, make the strongest honest case someone sceptical would make about sharing or using pronouns at work. Then make the strongest case for it. Don't tell me which is right. Ask me one question about where I stand, and respectfully challenge my answer when I give it.
I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student. I want help with a real situation involving pronouns at work. I won't use names or details that identify anyone, so please don't ask for them. Ask me up to three questions to understand what happened. Then help me think through what to do, and give me a few words I could actually say. Here's the situation: [describe it using "a colleague", "my manager" or "someone on my team"]
I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student. I've just read about pronouns in AXIS Live, a DEIB toolkit. It covers foundations (psychological safety, power, identity, bias, microaggressions, allyship, inclusive leadership, repairing mistakes, resistance), dimensions of diversity (race, gender, LGBTIQ+, disability, neurodiversity, health, age, religion and culture, language, class, nationality, carers) and real workplace situations. Ask me four questions, one at a time, about my role, my team and what I find hard. Then suggest the next three topics I should look at, in order, with one line on why each.
I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student. I got something wrong with a colleague and I want to put it right. I won't use names or details that identify anyone, so please don't ask for them. Ask me up to three questions to understand what happened and how it landed. Then tell me honestly whether it needs a follow-up, and if it does, give me a few short words I could actually say. Don't let me over-apologise. Here's what happened: [describe it using "a colleague" or "someone on my team"]
I work in a South African organisation. Keep your answers short, plain and direct. No jargon. Treat me as a capable adult, not a student. Someone said something off in a meeting and I am not sure how to respond. I won't use names or details that identify anyone, so please don't ask for them. Ask me up to three questions: what was said, who was in the room, and where I sit in terms of seniority. Then tell me honestly whether it needs a response, which of the five Ds (delay, distract, delegate, document, direct) fits best, and give me a few short words I could actually say. Keep it calm and practical. Here's what happened: [describe it using "a colleague", "my manager" or "someone on my team"]
