Repositioning our value as DEI professionals in the current economic and political climate

Without question, the DEI landscape has changed. Some may say we have experienced a radical departure from the established approach over the last few weeks. Many of us have witnessed several US companies in particular roll back their DEI efforts, with many more excluding DEI from their annual reports for fear of being targeted for their DEI initiatives. 

In the UK, the FCA and PRA have recently announced that they will not be pressing ahead with widely anticipated new DEI rules for City institutions. The proposals had been designed to prevent 'groupthink' and to promote healthy work cultures, but in the context of a lack of consensus, and citing the need to reduce regulatory burden, the proposals are now in review. 

Many of these decisions are reactionary to the current political landscape, but they have real consequences for the goals we are trying to achieve. These goals for us at FAIRER Consulting are to create workplaces that are free from bias and inclusive in their design. The purpose is that inclusion drives innovation and high performance, specifically in an ever-changing and complex social, political and economic environment. The business case for DEI is solid. 

So, within this context of ‘shifting sands’, we as a DEI community should take this moment as an opportunity to pause and reflect. Indeed, now is the time to reflect deeply, and to embrace the principle of radical curiosity. True reflection requires humility and a lack of defensiveness, which is, of course, all too natural within such contexts. We should reflect on:

• What is really driving the current backlash?

• What are the emotions and motivations behind this?

• What is it about the current approach to DEI that may have contributed towards this?

• Could we – or should we – have foreseen this?

• How do we, as a DEI community, respond to the current critique?

• How do we engage with each other through respectful questions and perspective-taking?

How did we get here?

It’s important at this point that we embrace the moment with some honesty. The causes of the current backlash are many and complex, but my observations, having worked in this field for over 20 years, are as follows:

1. How we like to judge: The irony of working in the DEI field lies in witnessing almost daily instances of judgement and bias. As a community of practitioners, our ‘language of DEI’ is guarded like a secret code. Terms like ‘othering’, ‘covering’, ‘white privilege’, ‘micro-aggressions’ or ‘micro-incivilities’, which are commonplace within the DEI world, have little meaning to everyday citizens.

   We often judge harshly those whose perspectives fail to align with our vision of how these concepts should unfold. We label those with little access to these terms, or those who disagree as ‘ignorant’, or ‘misguided’. We have created little space for what psychologists call 'perspective-taking'.
   

2. DEI as a side-hustle: Despite the overwhelming business case for DEI, few organisations have taken a culture of a systems-based approach to integrating DEI into everyday thinking, policies, and ways of working.

   Rather than being rooted in cultural integration, DEI still tends to be initiative-led or event-focused. This approach could never be sustainable in a business landscape where ‘core’ operational and strategic goals will always take priority. It reduces DEI to a ‘nice to have’, a side-hustle to the day job.
   

3. The paradox of prioritisation: Although the logic for data-driven prioritisation within a business seems sensible, one of the unintended consequences of prioritising, for example gender and ethnicity, is the perceived (or real) exclusion of other groups.

   We have created a corporate hierarchy of diversity in-groups and out-groups. This has fuelled a sense of ‘othering’ amongst minority and majority groups alike. Hiring and promotion decisions are no longer seen as merit-based (not that they ever were); they are now seen by some as tokenistic and driven by ideology, over business logic.
   

4. The skills deficit: I think it is fair to say, if we are practicing deep honesty, that we, as a DEI community, do not have a consistent skill set on which we are operating. Too often we have allowed our passion for creating fair and inclusive workplaces to override our need to develop coherent frameworks for analysis.

   These frameworks could draw on, for instance, social, psychological, cultural and change management, or behavioural science. The framework is less important; the key message here is that too many individuals working in the field of DEI view their lived experience as evidence of competencies. 

   While, of course, we wouldn’t want to invalidate personal lived experience, this alone can never equate to a broad set of change agent (if this is what we are) competencies and skills. Which, within a chosen framework, includes data analysis, stakeholder management, a working knowledge of the legal and regulatory frameworks within which we work, and wider areas, such as cultural intelligence.

   My experience as a gay man provides insight into my world view and some alignment to the collective experiences of other gay men and women. However, it is my wider experience and track record as a professional - who has developed an extensive skill set based on cultural analysis and social psychology - that enables me to confidently and competently have a view of issues of inclusion and exclusion, etc.

   These skills enable me to move beyond my own field of personal interest, and to adopt a cross-community approach. This is something that we pride ourselves on at FAIRER Consulting.
   

5. Organisational homelessness: One of the biggest challenges that DEI professionals have faced to date, is the challenge of finding a natural home within an organisational context. Many colleagues sit within HR – which automatically positions DEI as a people issue (as opposed to a strategic priority). It associates the profession with the soft side of strategy and culture, and therefore is always vulnerable in times of strategic change and challenge.
   

6. High effort / low impact: Perhaps one of the greatest challenges of all, is that despite many years of effort, very little has changed. I began my DEI career within the era of Macpherson and the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000.

   It’s not for want of effort, but we need to ask: are we focusing our time and energy on those things that have real and lasting impact? Naturally, change takes time, and with this comes fatigue. To help counter this, it’s important that we can evidence significant inclusion outcomes balanced against significant inputs of time, effort and organisational resources. 
   

Is it time for a repositioning?

The DEI backlash is nothing new, but without question, the Overton window of acceptability has fundamentally shifted. Ideas that were once on the margins (‘DEI is simply about political correctness’) are now becoming more mainstream. This shift is having material impacts on jobs, budgets and regulatory guidance. It will impact people’s life opportunities. 

To address this, we, as a community, need to do more than tinker and tailor around the edges of our thinking and approach. Instead, we should calmly reflect and question how we can regain and maintain our position as credible change agents within organisational thinking and decision-making. 
Based on my experience, my initial reflections are as follows: 

1. It’s all about culture: We need to ensure that our work moves from the margins to the mainstream. As a community we should adopt the principles of system and culture integration, facilitated by a data-driven approach. The utilisation of data as a change-management tool repositions perceptions that DEI is an identity-based project. Instead, it helps to frame our conversations with evidence of good practice and impact.

   It’s important that we focus on the positives, as well as gaps in strategy. This approach also helps to avoid the in-group politics between diversity groups, as a data-driven approach, with adequate resources, helps to avoid the identity politics that have so often driven the narrative to date.

2. Impact over initiative: Too often DEI has been initiative-led. It’s time to stop investing in the projects and programmes that make us feel good, and instead prioritise our time, energy, and resources for activities that research suggests have the greatest impact. We at FAIRER Consulting draw on evidence from behaviour science to drive our work with clients. A good starting point for anyone interested would be What Works by the Harvard professor, Iris Bonnet.

3. Refresh the business base: It never hurts to continue to articulate the ‘why’ of DEI. However, this should not be driven by the economics of DEI alone. While research by McKinsey and BCG stress the relationship between DEI and business projects, the wider business case is that between inclusion (not just diversity) and high performance.

   The correlation, as evidenced by research from psychologists such as Daniel Pink, is clear. Create a sense of inclusion and belonging and reap the rewards of higher levels of motivation, a strengthening of the psychological contract, and the positive impact this has on workplace retention, innovation and brand reputation. The war for talent is alive and well and creating cultures of inclusion for all, by leveraging difference, is a strategic step in gaining a competitive advantage within this talent war.

4. Reframe the conversation: Too often DEI is positioned as a ‘corrective measure’. The psychology of this is that something ‘bad’ needs to be fixed, and the DEI army of social warriors are here to help. This creates an ‘us’ and ‘them’ negative dynamic from the start.

   We at FAIRER Consulting often utilise an ‘appreciative inquiry model’ within our consulting services. This approach is a strength-based model to organisational change. Its starting point is, ‘what is working well that we can amplify and build on?’ It’s a different approach and mindset to ‘what is broken?’ This approach not only helps in creating a positive mindset, but also supports an evidence-based system and culture change method by finding good practice and building on it.

5. Get skilled up: It is imperative that we as a community build the strategic skills and ‘executive presence’ that is required to lead and support other key stakeholders within our respective institutions. In a classic Harvard Business Review article, the academics Goffee and Jones, asked a key question: ‘why should anyone be led by you?’

   I often ask this question when working with global leaders. It’s a question we should ask of ourselves daily. What gives us the right to lead on this topic? What is my experience? What skills do I have? Am I balancing competencies and capability with passion and energy? Too many DEI ‘professionals’ are high on passion and low on competencies. This facilitates confirmation bias and creates a wider ‘horn’ effect that impacts all of us and our wider work.

6. Create a strategy that promotes corporate cohesion: Our current approach, while good in intention, has led to a separating out of diverse groups. It’s a strategic tension that we need to resolve. Current ERG structures do little to promote intersectional connectivity. In many ways they promote competition for executive airtime and financial resources.

   To be clear, ERGs have strategic places, so I would not advocate disbanding them, but we need to find a formula that shifts the focus from expecting ERG members to carry the burden of responsibility for driving culture change projects. Thus, the current model needs a radical review.

A final reflection would be one of alignment around core values. Regardless of any external ‘noise’ and the ebbs and flows of legislation and regulatory requirements, aligning behavioural and decision-making expectations with organisational value can bring all communities together. This area of focus needs more attention. 

For more information, please contact dan@fairerconsulting.com or info@fairerconsulting.com.