D&I has always evolved

Call it what you want. The case for D&I work hasn’t changed

Whether we call it diversity and inclusion (D&I), DEI or belonging, the real goal is the same: making workplaces fair. 

Diversity and inclusion (D&I) work has always evolved.  But evolution and change does not have to mean the end of something. In fact, it can make the work stronger.

The story so far

In Ireland, the work started in an Equality Officer role, primarily in semi-state and public sector organisations.  Much of the early focus was on representation, for example, improving opportunities for people with disabilities, alongside legislative and compliance requirements.  The problem with purely legislative approaches is that it has and always will drive a compliance approach and not a cultural approach.  

The presence of the American multinationals in Ireland influenced how the work evolved further. When I started working in D&I, nearly 18 years ago, most multi-national organisations used the term diversity and inclusion (D&I).  In my organisation, we flipped it to focus first on inclusion, putting the cultural change first. 

Over those 18 years, I have seen the addition of the words equality, equity, belonging, and justice into the title and activities of the people working in this area.  These are all important elements to consider.  But organisations that stayed with the D&I label were not necessarily ignoring the work on belonging and justice and equality.  

What we call the work is not as important as doing the work.

Where we are now

Given the damage the D&I brand has taken over the last two years, and the growing polarisation around it, we should value the work more than the label we give it.  We all have the power and responsibility to be more inclusive in what we do and how we interact every day, and we can do that whether we have a Head of D&I or a Head of Equity.  Real D&I lives in the actions of individual business leaders and if the work hasn’t made it outside the auspices of HR then that’s where focus is required.

What this means for leaders

For leaders navigating the current debate, the real question is not what we call the work and not whether HR are leading the work, but whether our organisations are creating environments where people can contribute and fulfil their potential. And you have to ask yourself why would you not want to get the most out of everyone working in your organisation?  In the words of Carla Harris:

“You cannot have a 100 percent meritocratic environment when there is a human element involved in the evaluative equation, because by definition, that makes it subjective.” 

Leaders need to ask what they are doing to ensure and build a meritocratic environment through their everyday actions.

Why should you care?

Organisations and leaders that work towards being meritocracies will have a competitive advantage. They will benefit in terms of innovation, collaboration and talent attraction and retention.  How do I know?  This year’s Edelman Trust Barometer clearly articulates the cost of doing nothing to ensure that the work of diversity and inclusion, the work of ensuring that employees with difference can work together:

42% of employees would rather change departments than report to a manager with very different values, 34% of employees would reduce effort for a project lead with opposing beliefs

Creating fair opportunities for people to fulfil and maximise their potential gives organisations a competitive edge from the talent they have already invested in hiring.

The language and landscape around diversity and inclusion will keep changing.  The need for fair workplaces will not.