Words Matter: Diversity. Equity. Inclusion. Belonging. 

DEIB is under attack…especially the ‘D’ & the ‘E’ 

In the United States, there is a concerted effort to have DE&I programs viewed as unnecessary and increasingly as illegal. The campaign began in earnest in 2024 and is now in full swing. The baseline of this power play to demonize 60 years of affirmative action and equal access to opportunity is that “we” (recruiters and hiring managers):

• have stooped to hiring unqualified individuals from ‘protected’ classes by prioritizing race, gender, orientation, age, disability etc. over merit; 
• have done this ‘illegal’ activity at scale;
• need to stop so that we can refocus on selecting qualified individuals who can be promoted on merit.

The best supportive evidence offered by those leading this insidious campaign is that ‘it is just common sense.’ Common sense only makes sense when the data supports it.

Processing a Continuous Bombardment of Accusations

The media keeps repeating the words, ‘DE&I Hires’ out of context. They try to note that no data is offered but the frequency with which these charges are mentioned helps drive the belief that they must be true.

The leaders of underrepresented groups have yet to find their collective voice. Too soon? Too frightened? I have no idea but I’m waiting to hear their point of view. I believe (and hope) it will come soon.

Employers have, for months, been reeling from accusations that Diversity and Equity need to be reframed if not eliminated wholesale. Most employers (90% by my estimation) are still watching the common sense experts express themselves while waiting to hear what their leaders and lawyers want them to do. A few employers have doubled down on their DEI actions - a risky effort that some fear is akin to putting a target on their back.

Many are considering a path to soften their voices by not mentioning or measuring words like ‘Diversity’ (i.e. of how many protected class members are being hired to increase significant under-representation that exists within the company) or the word ‘Equity’ (i.e. of pay and benefits for similar work) as too controversial. Outcomes for inclusion and belonging will likely be anecdotal.

Organizations may reframe their stance with words that recall their past successful outcomes and then commitment to focus on Inclusion and Belonging - two words with challenging definitions to measure and no established consequences for not doing so. Diversity and Equity, as words they historically applauded, may be absent perhaps in the common but mistaken view that underrepresented groups and their allies will understand their reluctance and that those in power will stop harassing them. 

I fear this approach is a sure-fire message to hiring managers that they can defend their ‘inclusive’ hires without actually risking the selection of any diverse and protected class candidates who are still severely underrepresented in their respective firms. 

Who does the hiring? 

Political administrations don’t actually do the hiring. Recruiters and Hiring Managers do the hiring. There are hundreds of thousands of them that have hired tens of millions of candidates each year in the United States. 

Almost all of them are professionals who care about sourcing, selecting and developing qualified candidates. Hundreds of billions of dollars are spent annually to do it well (flawed as it might be on occasion). 

Here are some things I know:

• I’ve never seen a recruiter intentionally offer a slate of candidates to the hiring manager that they knowingly padded with diverse candidates they believed were unqualified. 
• I’ve never encountered a Hiring Manager willing to ignore qualified candidates for an unqualified person just because they were diverse. Now the opposite I have observed.
• Anyone making a decision to select an unqualified person because of their protected class alone is a disappointment to those of us who take pride in our profession.
• I know which path I can collect and defend with data and common sense.

Words continue to matter

The world I want to live in - the employer I would prefer to work for - would use words like these on their website to set my expectations and then live up to them:

“Our professionally trained recruiters take pride in sourcing, engaging and presenting a diverse slate of qualified candidates for every opening and we are committed to sharing how the outcome of our hiring process, over time, helps us ensure equal opportunity and access for individuals who are underrepresented in our firm.”

“Our professionally trained managers take pride in selecting qualified candidates to join our company who represent our commitment to an inclusive workforce which mirrors our company’s values.”

“Our company’s leaders are committed to managing employees so that their performance and contribution is evident; that they are rewarded equitably; and are provided a sense of belonging so that we are all pulling in the same direction.”

Let’s take back DEI. 11246

For more years than I can count, I’ve devoted my time to learning as a priority. It keeps me engaged, satisfies my curiosity, and fills the gaps between the daily tasks that bring a return. 

Occasionally, what attracts my attention is relevant in the near term, but it is never my intent to discover something immediately practical. Instead, the sparks that fire my imagination typically go into a Tomorrow File - a folder I began keeping during my years at J&J, where budgets always wait for a proper use case and the right timing. 

Fast forward to today however, and the explosion of published content by billions of people curating their own version of reality online makes separating signals from the noise of unreferenced opinions and badly designed research - even (or maybe especially) within HR and Talent Acquisition - a task way beyond my pay grade. Still, for the next few weeks I’ll share what causes me to pause and ruminate about where we’ve been, where we are, and where we can go. If any of this sparks a thought or two, please let me know.