SHRM appears to be doubling down on their recent statement on equity, instead of listening to their membership as people speak out across publications and social media against the decision to remove equity from DEI. (I even considered adding letters to DEI! Have you heard of ABIDE?) The new SHRM direction appears to focus on civility.

Voices sticking with the SHRM decision to lump equity under inclusion have called it things like “a strategic move about driving results” and that it “brings more people along for the ride.” 

Someone shared a recent interview with Johnny C. Taylor, and it’s simply solidified my decision that SHRM no longer represents me and my HR and DEI work. Civility does not replace equity.

Culture Leaders Interview with Johnny C. Taylor

This interview is a longer one, and covers several topics. The discussion of the recent SHRM announcement starts at approximately 11:00.

Some Highlights:

• Research showed that “the E” was creating divisiveness and disagreement.

First, can we see that research anywhere? What percentage of people, and from which demographic groups, are having trouble with equity? Is it a majority of people, or simply the loudest voices?

We get it, some people just don’t like equity. Individuals who subscribe to the idea that social identities shouldn’t matter may perceive equity initiatives as promoting division and highlighting differences rather than focusing on commonalities. Some people may feel that efforts to achieve equity result in discrimination against majority groups. But, as anyone who works in DEI knows, these perspectives often stem from a lack of understanding of the historical and systemic factors that contribute to inequality. 

Second, if a widely-used term like DEI or equity is confusing your audience, why not educate and enlighten – or even be a thought leader on what equity is? Why remove it from the conversation entirely? I don’t even agree that it’s SHRM’s place to define DEI at all – it’s simply an unfortunate reality that DEI initiatives and departments usually fall under the HR organizational structure.

• Equity as a business product?

Okay, now it’s clearer. SHRM as an organization isn’t invested in what Human Resources or DEI practitioners want from them – it’s all about what a business needs instead. SHRM’s goal is supporting what a CEO wants, not a CHRO or CDO does. This aligns with some of the other positions SHRM has taken in recent years: against labor unions (How Can We Prevent a Union From Organizing in Our Company? comes up in the top search results on SHRM’s site for “union guidance,” believe it or not!), against Black Lives Matter (“The Problem with SHRM” from 2020!), and President Johnny C. Taylor’s work in the previous presidential administration.

• A steadfast, continuing commitment to equity?

You don’t demonstrate a commitment to equity by lumping it under inclusion. Same with the other concepts Johnny mentioned in the video like accessibility and belonging – these concepts stand alone in different acronyms to demonstrate their importance. (Seriously, let’s bring ABIDE into circulation!) Are you willing to “die on the sword” for the E? YES!

I encourage you to watch the whole thing to hear the words straight from the SHRM CEO himself. (Even the part where he compares himself to Martin Luther King, Jr.)

About the Data

Here’s some further reading I found that you may want to explore until Johnny shares his!

• The Business Impact Of Diversity, Equity And Inclusion (Forbes)
• How Investing in DEI Helps Companies Become More Adaptable (Harvard Business Review)
• Diversity Matters Even More: The Case for Holistic Impact (McKinsey)

Civility Instead?

Johnny’s proposal is to shift the conversation to a civil one. But there’s a critical point here to make about the limitations of civility in addressing systemic issues like inequality and marginalization. While civility is important for respectful dialogue, it cannot replace the fundamental need for equity and justice.

• A Suppression Tactic: For marginalized groups, who have historically been silenced and oppressed, calls for civility can sometimes feel like a way to maintain the status quo rather than addressing root causes of inequality. It can be seen as a tactic to suppress dissent and prevent meaningful change.
• From a Place of Power: The call for civility often originates from those in positions of power or privilege. For marginalized groups, who have less power, this can feel like gaslighting or a way to shift the blame away from systemic issues.
• We’re Done Being Polite: True progress requires more than just polite discussions. It demands action, policy changes, and systemic reforms that dismantle power structures that perpetuate marginalization. Civility alone cannot achieve this.

Words Matter: Civility Does Not Replace Equity

Civility is a necessary component of respectful discourse, but it’s not sufficient for achieving equity. A one-size-fits-all approach to civility fails to acknowledge intersecting experiences and the unique challenges faced by different groups. Addressing systemic injustice requires confronting power imbalances, amplifying marginalized voices, and demanding tangible action towards a more just and equitable society.

SHRM had two choices at their fork in the road, as Johnny outlines: Get out of DEI altogether, or rethink their approach. I think SHRM went the wrong way at the fork – it would have been better for them to leave DEI to the DEI professionals that care about making work equitable for all.

The post Civility Does Not Replace Equity appeared first on Inclusive Pixelation.

I’ve had so many great conversations since that SHRM announcement! Equity, while sometimes misunderstood, is such a critical part of the work that DEI professionals set out to do.

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.

Read more: Not Without Equity

I think, instead of removing letters from the acronyms we use to describe our work, we should be adding letters. Let’s consider ABIDE.

ABIDE: Accessibility, Belonging, Inclusion, Diversity, and Equity

ABIDE is an acronym that stands for:

• Accessibility: equal access to opportunities and resources, regardless of abilities or disabilities
• Belonging: a sense of connection and acceptance where everyone feels valued and welcomed
• Inclusion: environments where everyone feels respected, heard, and supported, regardless of their background
• Diversity: differences that make us unique, including many facets such as race, gender, age, and disability
• Equity: the resources and support needed for everyone to compete fairly

Each component of the ABIDE framework is interconnected and crucial for creating an inclusive environment.

The ABIDE Interdependence

• Accessibility without inclusion can lead to physical access but social isolation.
• Belonging without accessibility can exclude individuals with disabilities.
• Inclusion without diversity can create homogeneous environments lacking innovation.
• Diversity without equity can result in tokenism rather than genuine opportunity.
• Equity without belonging can lead to a sense of isolation even with equal opportunities.

ABIDE Without _____?

• No Accessibility: Excludes individuals with disabilities, limiting talent pool and violating rights.
• No Belonging: Creates a hostile environment, leading to low morale, turnover, and decreased productivity.
• No Inclusion: Marginalizes underrepresented groups, stifling creativity and innovation.
• No Diversity: Limits perspectives, hindering problem-solving and decision-making.
• No Equity: Perpetuates systemic inequalities, undermining fairness and justice.

ABIDE in Circulation

I’m not the first to use this acronym, but I think it’s time we bring it into wider circulation.

These sources came up for organizations using the ABIDE acronym to mean Access(ibility), Belonging, Inclusion, Diversity, and Equity. There aren’t too many yet!

• American Printing House: https://www.aph.org/abide/
• Second Helpings: https://www.secondhelpings.org/second-helpings-abide-committee-looks-towards-future/

Other variations include:

• advancing belonging, inclusion, diversity, and equity (Henry Ford College)
• accountability, belonging, inclusion, diversity, and equity (Luther Seminary)
• appreciation, belongingness, inclusivity, diversity, and equity (Ascension Health System)
• authenticity, belonging, inclusion, diversity, and equity (various LinkedIn/Twitter posts)

What About DEIB, IDEA, JEDI, and Other Acronyms?

The landscape of diversity, equity, inclusion, and related concepts is filled with a variety of acronyms. Each has its own nuances and focuses. The plethora of acronyms reflects the evolving nature of the conversation around diversity, equity, and inclusion. Different organizations choose different terms based on their specific goals, values, and target audience.

Ultimately, the most important thing is not the acronym itself, but the actions and commitments behind it.

The post ABIDE: Accessibility, Belonging, Inclusion, Diversity, and Equity appeared first on Inclusive Pixelation.

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:

• SHRM, a leading HR organization, is no longer focusing on ‘equity’ in its DEI approach – Fast Company

“[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.”

• The world’s top HR association cuts ‘equity’ from its diversity program amid DEI backlash – Fortune

“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?'”

• HR Voices Opposing SHRM on PetitionBuilder

“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:

1. Letting my national and local memberships lapse (just cancelled auto-renew)
2. Withdrawing my application to become a recertification provider (more on that later!)
3. Not renewing my SHRM-SCP certification when it expires next year
   • Anyone interested in taking over some Quizlet card sets?
4. Removing the SHRM-SCP designation from my social media and professional marketing materials
5. 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:

1. Studying for and taking the SPHR exam from HRCI
2. Applying to become an HRCI recertification provider for my conference talks
3. Broadening my speaking applications to non-SHRM HR conferences and events
4. 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.

The post Not Without Equity appeared first on Inclusive Pixelation.