If you haven’t yet heard, SHRM (the Society for Human Resource Management) recently announced the “strategic decision” to rebrand DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) as Inclusion & Diversity (I&D), effective immediately. In their words, “by emphasizing Inclusion-first, we aim to address the current shortcomings of DE&I programs, which have led to societal backlash and increasing polarization […] Equity will be integrated under the broader Inclusion framework.”
I’ve been giving a lot of thought to what this announcement means in the context of the work that I do.
Equity in Context
Let’s ignore the loaded language in that announcement about “societal backlash and increasing polarization” for a moment and think about what it means to reprioritize, “reintegrate,” or remove equity from the DEI acronym. I believe this fundamentally changes what it stands for. Here’s how:
- Diversity without equity becomes simply having a variety of people present, but not necessarily in positions of power or with equal opportunities. This can lead to tokenism, where someone from an underrepresented group is included just for appearances, without true integration.
- The benefits often associated with DEI, like increased innovation and better decision-making, come from a truly inclusive environment where everyone feels valued and has the chance to contribute. Without equity, these benefits are less likely to be realized.
- Without equity, the emphasis might shift to treating everyone exactly the same, regardless of their background or needs. This can disadvantage those who have historically faced barriers. True fairness (equity) involves acknowledging these different starting points and providing support to level the playing field.
What About Merit?
Equity and meritocracy are two concepts that deal with fairness and opportunity, but they approach it from different angles. Here’s a breakdown of their key differences:
Equity focuses on leveling the playing field. It recognizes that people come from different backgrounds and may have faced different challenges and aims to provide the resources and support needed for everyone to compete fairly. True equity requires identifying and dismantling systemic barriers, which may involve targeted programs and resources that some might see as unfair advantages. Equity creates a more just and inclusive environment, which allows everyone to reach their full potential, regardless of background.
Meritocracy focuses on rewarding talent, effort, and skills. This framework defines that a person should get an opportunity (job, promotion, etc.) based simply on their qualifications and performance. Unfortunately, this can ignore starting point advantages. Socioeconomic background, access to education, and familial and social networks can give some individuals an unfair head start. Unconscious bias can perpetuate disadvantages, but on the other hand, meritocracy can motivate people to work hard and achieve excellence.
The ideal situation would be a balance between equity and meritocracy. Meritocracy without equity can solidify existing inequalities: those who already have advantages can easily maintain them. Equity without meritocracy can lead to resentment and a lack of motivation when people might feel rewards are not based on effort.
It is possible to focus on equality of opportunity alongside meritocracy. This means ensuring everyone has a fair shot at success, not just the same resources.
DEI Without E?
I encourage you to read SHRM’s full announcement on LinkedIn here. I’ve read a lot of other interesting perspectives on the topic, as well as looked into the direction the (new) SHRM President, Johnny Taylor Jr., has been taking the organization in recent years, and I can’t say I agree. While a search of the SRHM website still reveals some language around equity, I imagine pages like this one (Introduction to the Human Resources Discipline of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) will soon be undergoing a silent rebrand. I’ve collected some articles and interesting quotes below.
Read More:
“[Equity] had become a ‘divisive issue’ in trainings, according to Taylor.”
“if SHRM was in fact capitulating to anti-DEI crusaders, the organization would have scrapped those initiatives altogether.”
“We found that, my gosh, we’re spending all of our time debating the acronyms and the words instead of saying ‘what are we really trying to achieve?'”
“As HR professionals, we work to create equitable and inclusive workplaces. However, the continued reliance on SHRM as an authoritative body stands in opposition to our work, as they’ve demonstrated a complete misalignment with equitable and people-centered HR.”
Going Forward with Equity
I’ll be taking the following steps to distance myself from the SHRM organization:
- Letting my national and local memberships lapse (just cancelled auto-renew)
- Withdrawing my application to become a recertification provider (more on that later!)
- Not renewing my SHRM-SCP certification when it expires next year
- Anyone interested in taking over some Quizlet card sets?
- Removing the SHRM-SCP designation from my social media and professional marketing materials
- Withdrawing speaking applications for SHRM conferences and events
And of course, I’ll be doing some realignment with HR organizations that are better focused on the work I’m doing. Here’s some first thoughts:
- Studying for and taking the SPHR exam from HRCI
- Applying to become an HRCI recertification provider for my conference talks
- Broadening my speaking applications to non-SHRM HR conferences and events
- Focusing on the great groups I already work with, like ATD, DisruptHR, and Workplace in Action
I do hope that SHRM reconsiders this direction and I am able to revisit this topic in the future. It’s certainly given me a lot to think about.
Pingback: ABIDE: Accessibility, Belonging, Inclusion, Diversity, and Equity | Inclusive Pixelation
Pingback: Civility Does Not Replace Equity | Inclusive Pixelation
Comments are closed.