Johnny Taylor, President and CEO of the Society of Human Resource Management, shocked and upset much of the human resources world last week by dropping the equity in Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion.
Taylor wrote, “We’re going to lead with inclusion, because we need a world where inclusion is front and center. And that means inclusion for all, not some people. Everyone has a right to feel that they belong in the workplace and that they are included.”
I can agree with inclusion for all, but perhaps Taylor has forgotten that employers are in a pay equity, compression, and transparency crisis caused by higher than normal pay increases for new hires in 2024 and changes to job posting requirements by some states that require employers to post the job’s pay range. Perhaps Taylor has forgotten the requirement of employers with federal contracts to conduct an affirmative action plan, which includes a pay equity analysis with corrective action. Not discussing pay equity won’t make the issue go away. It only makes employees angrier and drives up turnover.
The LinkedIn post was met with major blowback. Marylynn Hibdon wrote, “that type of comment is UNACCEPTABLE. LinkedIn is for professionally minded people, and we don’t need your biases and negativity!
Malcom B wrote: “In this realm of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), the notion of removing equity as a fundamental pillar is not just a mistake—it is an egregious misstep that undermines the very essence of inclusion and perpetuates systemic discrimination.”
One of the reasons Taylor said for removing equity is that “it is divisive and inclusion should be for everyone.” Certainly, inclusion should be for everyone in an organization, but you can’t have people, notably people of color, women, and other protected classes, believing that they may be short sighted on equity. Some of the comments written in Taylor’s LinkedIn post, although a minority of those written, suggested diversity efforts can be divisive. Was I overlooked because I am Black? White? Because of my gender? My age? My religion?
Frankly, as an HR leader, I never thought equity was that difficult and more importantly, if a business has a contract with the federal government, it is a requirement that they show that qualified protected classes are not disproportionately excluded from moving forward in interviews, hiring decisions, promotions, and with pay. Candidly, meeting this requirement is not hard to do and leads to a workforce that is more committed to aligning behind the organization’s mission.
Our research at InnovationOne, LLC, shows that organizations with an inclusive, collaborative, transparent, and learning culture aligned to the mission of the organization are more innovative and profitable, have employees more aligned to the organizations mission, and less employee turnover.
My experience is that with an inclusive culture, you don’t need to follow the “Diversity Playbook” to achieve these wonderful results. However, you cannot have an inclusive organization if some employees believe they are excluded from skill and performance-based employment decisions on hiring, promotions and pay.
And in case anyone is wondering, yes, there still is discrimination in the workplace. Combating diversity still needs our sincere and long-term commitment.
Diversity has taken another hit lately
Diversity has taken another hit lately. but it isn’t fatal. Academics cannot reproduce McKinsey’s results in two of their four famous studies that showed higher financial results for organizations that have higher diversity. As reported by The Wall Street Journal, academics can’t replicate McKinsey’s study precisely because it keeps secret the names of the companies it used. But a paper published this year finds that McKinsey’s methodology doesn’t show benefits from diversity for S&P 500 companies for a range of profitability metrics. It isn’t that a lack of diversity is good for profits either. It’s just there’s no link.
Let me repeat the obvious, diversity, equity and inclusion are important because the US has a long term labor shortage. The smart employer will want the best employees no matter their age, race, color, sexual orientation, and gender. Moreover, other long-term, non-McKinsey studies, such as one from economists at MIT and George Washington University, that show the more diverse teams were more productive, better performing, and had higher levels of job satisfaction than less diverse teams. Learn more about this study and other studies here. My blog, “Seven steps to renewing your commitment to diversity,” is a great guide to organizations that want to sharpen their long-term commitment to hiring and promoting the best employees without regard to protected class status. And yes, equity is a major part of this commitment.
The McKinsey story is more about big consulting firms not allowing their research to be subject to peer-review academic scrutiny than a hit to diversity.
My blog, “Seven steps to renewing your commitment to diversity,” is a great guide to organizations that want to sharpen their long-term commitment to hiring and promoting the best employees without regard to protected class status. And yes, equity is a major part of this commitment.
About Victor
Victor Assad is the CEO of Victor Assad Strategic Human Resources Consulting and Managing Partner of InnovationOne, LLC. He works with organizations to transform HR and recruiting, implement remote work, and develop extraordinary leaders, teams, and innovation cultures. He is the author of the highly acclaimed book, Hack Recruiting: The Best of Empirical Research, Method and Process, and Digitization. He is quoted in business journals such as The Wall Street Journal, Workforce Management, and CEO Magazine. Victor has partnered with The Conference Board on innovation research. Subscribe to his weekly blogs at http://www.VictorHRConsultant.com