Preventing DEI Backslide in the Workplace

There's a widening gulf between the workplaces that continue to be safe, respectful, inclusive, and fair, and those that descend into toxicity, exploitation, chaos, and mistreatment. The hard pill to swallow is that this difference has nothing to do with the strength of leaders' commitment to diversity, equity, or inclusion. It's decided almost entirely by whether leaders see people as assets or expenses. I've worked for many companies that have stated their commitment to DEI. They've put it on their websites. They've named it in their shareholder reports. They've trained their leaders on how to talk about it. They've sponsored many events. Now, some of those outputs are changing as leaders take their commitment underground, the language evolves, and programs shift, often to heavy criticism. Yet, from my experience over the past year, some of the organizations "retreating" on formal DEI continue to have extraordinarily healthy workplaces. Some of the organizations "doubling down" on DEI are simultaneously backsliding into toxicity. Why? Because REAL progress toward diversity, equity, and inclusion has little to do with a company's stated commitment, and everything to do with how the leaders of that company treat their people. In workplaces that treat people as expenses, leaders see people as disposable. They treat their customers poorly because they see an abundance of replacements. They exploit their workers because they know that there are ten desperate candidates on the market ready to replace any overworked employee prepared to quit. Peoples' low engagement, turnover, and competition are simply the costs of doing business. In these workplaces, DEI support is cynical. It exists to give the illusion of progress and false hope, while keeping the toxic status quo of exploitation fixed in place. Shareholders can vote 99-1 to keep DEI — but retaining a superficial program is not the same as creating progress. In workplaces that treat people like assets, leaders see people as the foundation of the organization. They treat their customers, workers, managers, and vendors well, because they value not only purchases made or work product delivered, but the harder-to-measure trust, relationships, loyalty, and institutional knowledge that people possess. And by doing so, they have the highest likelihood of achieving diversity, equity, and inclusion, even if they don't say "DEI." This is what we have to stay laser-focused on in these times. Pushing leaders to value not "saying the right words," but seeing the value of people. Building workplace cultures of high trust and collaboration. Elevating everyone's needs as equally important. Having the courage and tools to solve problems as they arise. Creating well-understood processes and procedures to safeguard a #FAIR workplace. Making sure EVERYONE WINS. The work is greater than the words. And make no mistake: the work continues on.

This is one I've been reflecting on for quite some time: my fellow #diversity and #inclusion practitioners are burning out. 🤯😩😵💫🔥 Some reasons behind that are quite obvious: many of us have been put in our roles with little-to-none preparation or onboarding, by business leaders with too much of a sense of urgency given the pressure on organisations to respond to the unprecedented social unrest right after George Floyd was murdered in 2020. Given the lack of planning, many took over roles with loose job descriptions, slim budgets and indifferent peers. No wonder the formula didn't work. There's more to that, though. As this Harvard Business Review article highlights, this job demands constant emotional labour and surface acting (when people try to fabricate positive emotions when they do not genuinely feel positively and suppress negative emotions when they feel them) – particularly for professionals of colour. As a result, frustration and exhaustion mount. Here's what any wise business leader can do to actually set their DEI leaders up for success: rethink how your DEI programmes are designed. When programmes take what’s known as a "discrimination-and-fairness" paradigm approach, DEI leaders experience more burnout because the organisation’s focus assumes employee differences are sources of problems that must be managed. Alternatively, when organisations take a "learning-and-effectiveness" approach, which values employees for who they are, #burnout is less frequent. How does one do that, though? 1️⃣ Conduct regular DEI climate assessments: rely on surveys to get insights, so you can count on effective benchmarks to assess future progress (other than over-relying on subjective notions of success on the role); 2️⃣ Assess and improve HR policies to ensure equity: there's only so much a DEI leader can do if our HR policies are stuck in the last century – we gotta ensure whenever inequities emerges there's a plan to redress them; 3️⃣ Top management must demonstrate consistent, enthusiastic DEI support: racism, sexism, ageism and all the other - isms were not invented by a single person, so can't be addressed by a DEI leader alone. It takes a village and here it's critical that the C-suite not only leads by example, but also ensures there's clarity that complacency or indifference to DEI have no place in the organisation; 4️⃣ Institutionalise DEI roles with the power and resources to effect change: give us the money and access to the resources needed to have the impact that's envisioned. We gotta have a seat at the table if we want to really walk our talk; 5️⃣ Provide resources for social support when emotional regulation is necessary: this job is tough! Ensure DEI leaders have access to peer networks, external coaches and/or industry mentors. We gotta help each other here. What other tips would you add to this list, based on your experience?

The real problem with eliminating DEI programs is the potential return of the mediocre white male. As companies retreat from diversity initiatives amid political pressures, we're not just losing buzzwords and HR programs. We risk reverting to a system where connections trump competence, and mediocrity thrives under the protection of homogeneity. I've spent decades watching organizations struggle with talent acquisition. The data is clear on 2 things: - Teams with a variety of perspectives and backgrounds perform better; - When companies rely solely on traditional networks, they perpetuate existing imbalances and also wind up missing candidates with the most merit. Consider this: While men represent roughly 50% of the population, they occupy 70% of leadership positions. Black Americans comprise 13% of the population but hold just 3% of executive roles. The solution is to elevate standards rather than abandon them by looking for what I call ME&I: Merit, Excellence, and Intelligence across every step of the talent pipeline. There are 3 parts of your pipeline to look at: 1. Start with your search function. Examine where your candidates come from to ensure that you’re sourcing diverse candidates. If you’re only getting white males, you may be missing an excellent candidate. 2. Next, selection. Selection should start with finding the highest quality candidates, but if two candidates perform equally well, there’s value in choosing the minority candidate, especially if your company currently has a discrepancy internally. 3. Finally, integration. True integration means creating environments where all perspectives get heard and valued. Once critical mass is achieved, this becomes self-sustaining - you’ll have more of a built-in support system for employees of different backgrounds. Let's be clear: Ditching DEI programs without addressing underlying process flaws doesn't advance meritocracy, it undermines it. The choice isn't between merit and diversity. The highest-performing organizations know that having a meritocracy means you need to make sure that diverse candidates have the same chance to show their merit as others.