With the election of a new president, DEI policies in the US are becoming a focal point of intense debate. Since the US has such an impact on global management, you might be interested in what is going on.
Organizations in the US have had diversity programs since the 1960s and 1970s, sometimes earlier. These programs were motivated by a need for talent, a social desire for fairness, and legal changes like the formation of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in 1965.
It would be an exaggeration to say there was no controversy with these programs, however, given that they involved significant social and organizational change, the controversy was relatively muted. Most people agreed that it was fair and good for businesses to get the best talent irrespective of race, religion, ethnic origin, or gender.
That lack of controversy is long gone; some thought leaders see DEI as divisive, racist, and bad for business. How did that happen?
It’s worth noting that what started as “Diversity” became “Diversity & Inclusion (D&I)”, which became “Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion (DEI)” and then “Diversity, Equity, Inclusion & Belonging (DEIB)”. The crucial moment was when “equity” was slid into the program. Leaders probably thought this meant “fairness” and hence was not a significant change to D&I. In fact, “equity” in this context is from a field of study called Critical Theory. Critical Theory is in fact a collection of theories including Critical Race Theory that have wide-ranging implications.
It's difficult to describe Critical Theory in a paragraph because it has a broad scope and is often vague or contradictory. Critical Theory posits that there is no “truth”, only power relations and that even a subject like mathematics will be steeped in the dynamics of one group oppressing another. Advocates for Critical Theory are often in favour of overthrowing capitalism.
In terms of intent, it’s easy to see why a movement desiring to overthrow capitalism would be seen as bad for business. At the level of actual implementation, many DEI programs have created bitterness and division, the exact opposite of what D&I programs were meant to do. Some DEI programs were also frankly foolish. Most HR programs associated with DEI are moderate in approach, and their intentions are generally positive. However, the more extreme implementations have contributed to the current crisis.
The “equity” element of DEI contains radical and controversial practices that have stirred up powerful forces seeking to expel the “E” and get back to D&I. In fact, the world’s largest HR association, the US-based SHRM, has shifted from DEI to I&D; emphasizing the agreeable term of “inclusion “and leaving out the controversial concept of “equity”.
It’s not the case that all of Critical Theory’s ideas about equity are radical; it’s just that it’s a difficult and nuanced topic. Harvard University’s approach to equity ended up discriminating against a minority (Asians). In trying to do good things, they did bad and illegal things. The important point is that you cannot run a DEI program based on slogans, you need careful analysis of all the implications.
What will happen next? While political and business forces seem to be aligning with I&D as a replacement for DEI the outcome of the struggle between DEI advocates and opponents isn’t certain. Most educational institutions are controlled by people committed to ideas from Critical Theory. Furthermore, the fervor of advocates on both sides means we won’t easily find a consensus.
While all this is going on, most managers simply want fair and effective HR practices. That the choice between DEI or I&D has become such a battleground in the US is an unwelcome development, but one US managers will need to grapple with.
My advice to managers around the world is to note that there are broad areas of agreement amongst employees about being inclusive, nurturing a sense of belonging, and being reasonably tolerant of different cultures and opinions. Most agree organizations should hire the best talent available. Furthermore, most people agree that business is fundamentally about delivering a product or service customers want. In other words, business should be about business, not politics. These broad areas of agreement mean we should be able to create HR policies that are embraced by employees and are good for the organization. Organizations can’t escape the choice between DEI and I&D, but they can focus on finding their own way with values and practices that align with their own pragmatic needs.