DEI needs to work for everyone, or it works for no one

With news cycles becoming ever faster, and our collective attention span shorter, you may have already forgotten about the hit Netflix drama, Adolescence. Not so long ago, it was all anyone was talking about. The phenomenal production, acting, and what colour of heart emojis are appropriate (or not) to send at work. We were in raptures. But now, we are teetering on the edge of failing to capture that interest and turn it into action. The program (temporarily) forced us to recognise a nation of men – particularly those from less privileged backgrounds – in crisis. Men who’s suffering has been dismissed for too long. Perhaps the issue lies in a collective fear that by talking about men, we are stealing much needed time away from raising awareness of the discrimination other groups face. But we must stop pitting women against men. And we must stop treating white men as a homogeneous collective.  

 

You might be surprised to hear that young women now out-earn their male counterparts across the age group 16-24. And in education, girls are outperforming boys across all age groups and nearly all ethnicities. Now, I consider myself a feminist, so you might expect me to be pleased about these statistics. But there is a more sinister story behind the numbers. As ex-England manager Gareth Southgate put it, “too many young men are isolated”. They are in crisis. The recent “Lost Boys” report from the Centre for Social Justice goes some way to uncovering the myriad of challenges young men face in today’s world. I don’t proclaim to be able to solve these issues through this article. But I do see an opportunity to do better. 

 

To me, the concurrent backlash against Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) is no coincidence. I fear the DEI movement has alienated young men. Made them feel villainised. Although I also recognise the feeling that there is a certain irony to white men feeling irked by DEI initiatives, I do believe the DEI backlash brings to the fore much needed scrutiny.  

 

Performative action has dominated to date.

The death of George Floyd prompted rapid – arguably rushed – responses across corporate America. And where America goes, the rest of the western world tends to follow. This “jumping on the band-wagon” saw the proliferation of ineffectual DEI strategies and commitments, including taking an oath of “commitment”, pledging money, and making sure to post all about this on social media (bonus point for overlaying a rainbow on your company logo on LinkedIn). 

In the wake of George Floyd’s death, America’s 50 biggest public companies and their foundations committed at least $49.5 billion to address racial inequality (between May 2020 and August 2021). The corporate awakening to DEI also saw the proliferation of the Chief Inclusion Officer (CIO) role. This certainly seems like a step in the right direction from the outside, but according to Leslie Short, founder and CEO of The Cavu Group, this new cohort of CIOs “were not invited to be part of the C-suite, nor given budgets and staff, nor were they allowed to dig deep to build DEI not as a one-off initiative, but as part of the foundation of the company.” In effect, the roles were totally performative. And it hasn’t been going much better when it comes to educating workforces through “diversity training”. Studies have found that such efforts have “no positive effects in the average workplace”. In short, from the more explicitly performative actions like donations, to what appear to be proactive, strategic steps forward within organisations, much of the action to date falls short of being truly effective in making our workplaces more diverse and inclusive. 

 

It is also clear DEI has a communications problem.  

The terms ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion’ are often conflated, and the latter, conceptually ambiguous. Diversity is more easily defined and measured, it is about representation across the spectrum of visible and invisible traits like age, gender, disability and ethnic background, socio economic status, marital status and sexual orientation. Inclusion on the other hand, is a personal experience. It refers to a feeling of belonging, realised when employees feel valued, respected, accepted, and encouraged to fully participate. Importantly, it does not follow that diversity implies inclusion. 

 

I think metaphors are wonderful for explaining complex issues like this (you’ll shortly see my own attempt), so I particularly like Uzma Chaudhry’s (Inclusion Manager at giffgaff) take on diversity vs inclusion: 

“If I hear one more person quote Verna Myers’ “Diversity is being invited to the party, inclusion is being asked to dance”, I might actually quit my day job. (Full drama intended). The quote is used at every possible given opportunity and fails to recognise who gets to write the invites - that diversity is about not needing invites to the party, and inclusion is about entering the party already dancing.” 

 

Similarly, the terms ‘equality’ and ‘equity’ are used interchangeably, and often incorrectly. Allow me to explain through a 100-meter dash metaphor. While equality is founded in a belief that all people should have equal opportunities, it ignores the fact that we all start a different distance from the finish line. Diverse lived experiences mean that, even if we assume all our racers can run at a similar pace, some people start only 50m from the finish line, while others have 150m to cover. Hardly fair. Enter ‘equity’ to the race. The principle of equity is to take into consideration peoples differing circumstances, making adaptions that ensure a single, equitable starting line, so we all have the same (metaphorical) distance to run. 

 

Meritocracy is the new equality. 

The recent backlash against DEI has seen the proliferation of the term meritocracy. But what about potential? For those with less privileged backgrounds, entry to the workforce comes too late for merit to be an equitable measure. Meritocracy then, is really no different to equality. It works for those already half way to the finish line, but not those starting 50m behind the start line. As a result, meritocracy directly inhibits the potential to increase diversity within an organisation.

 

It is time for change.

We have an opportunity – and clear need – now, to totally rethink our approach. We need to meet everyone’s needs, while avoiding unintended consequences. Here are four (none-exhaustive) principles to consider in designing effective strategies to achieve equity, and foster inclusive workplaces: 

1. Clearly define your end goal. It is important to be clear on what equity and inclusion looks like for your organisation. Defining this end goal – and identifying the change needed to achieve it – helps identify the most effective actions for success. It is important to reflect at regular intervals too, asking ourselves “are these actions and initiatives leading to the change we expected?” if not, how can we adapt our approach?
   
   
   
2. Get to know your employees personally. It may seem obvious by way of the word ‘diversity’, but everyone is different, and every workplace different too. Before setting out a DEI strategy (and while implementing it), it is vital to understand the varying start points of current and perspective employees, tailoring your approach to suit their needs. That requires deep engagement. I’m not talking about an online tick-box form that uses arbitrary metrics like “first generation university student” to determine socio-economic status. To truly understand an individual, deeper, personal engagement is needed.  
   
   
   
3. Be open minded. As you may learn from implementing point 2 (or from watching Adolescence), those starting further back from the start line can – and will – include men. They shouldn’t be ignored. While the approaches needed to support under-privileged men will be different than those appropriate for women, striving for equity should never be an either/or decision.
   
   
   
4. Start at the beginning (a very good place to start). When the talent pool to hire from is as homogenous as the existing workforce, it can feel like a losing battle. This is particularly relevant in STEM fields, where an often-heard argument is “we are doing the best with what we have”. But if an organisation has recognised the opportunities a more diverse workforce present, and has ambitions to realise these opportunities, then attention must be turned (at least in part) to education settings – ensuring more opportunities for, and establishing more interest amongst girls and young women in schools and universities to study STEM degrees. Improvements in organisational DEI will take time to filter through, but after all, Rome wasn’t built in a day.  

 

The backlash against DEI has held a mirror up to corporate DEI practices. Practices that have left some feeling not only that DEI isn’t for them, but that it is against them. It’s time for a rethink. DEI needs to work for everyone, or it works for no one. Let’s take this opportunity.