Global D&I Trends: D&I, I&D or Something Else?

Post Views: 5,905

The evolution of how we have labeled this “work” is a diversity trend in and of itself. As more organizations have begun to adopt their own strategies towards fostering a diverse and inclusive workplace, so have they also begun to define what that actually means to their organizations.

As part of our Global D&I Trend series, this week, we explore the ways organizations are labeling their diversity and inclusion (D&I) departments. How much do semantics matter?

Traditionally, D&I (or I&D) has been predicated around the goal of ensuring the presence of diversity and differences by way of increasing the representation of underrepresented groups. This was followed by efforts that focused on ensuring diversity and difference was effectively managed and felt “included.” Andres Tapia in The Inclusion Paradox made it plain when he called diversity “the mix,” and defined inclusion as “making the mix work.”

Nonetheless, some organizations have opted to reframe their approach from D&I to I&D or another variation; and there are many factors that influence these decisions. For example, company values and culture, global presence, current workforce demographics, and industry can influence an organization’s business case, thus informing how they name or prioritize the “I” and the “D,” or if they drop the two, altogether.

In our Global D&I Tipping report, we share insights from D&I practitioners into how and why their “D&I” departments are labeled as such. We found that many believe positioning the “D” before the “I” and vice versa comes with both pros and cons The following are some of the pros and cons shared by D&I (or I&D) practitioners and leaders across different industries:

D&I	I&D
Pros	Pros
Keeps race, gender, and other dimensions of difference top of mind in developing strategy and programs Fosters accountability by ensuring the recruitment and retention of underrepresented groups isn’t an “after thought” Organizations can’t maximize diversity of thought and perspectives without the presence of “difference” and “diversity” Progress in Diversity can be quantified and is measureable	People are more comfortable with the word “inclusion,” and white males are more likely to feel part of the conversation Inclusion is the requisite for innovation and other benefits of diversity Inclusion is a verb and can be linked to behaviors, actions, business impact
Cons	Cons
An organization can have diversity without inclusion and miss out on the benefits White males may not feel part of diversity & inclusion efforts “Diversity” may not resonate across global cultures Diversity is often times mistaken for affirmative action and compliance	Leaders may get “comfortable” with inclusion and avoid focusing on traditional dimensions of diversity or more difficult identity categories (i.e. race) Inclusion may not resonate in some areas of the world Inclusion may be difficult to quantify, link to ROI Some organizations may espouse inclusion, without the presence of diversity

That said, what should your organization consider when “naming,” its work around diversity & inclusion, or doesn’t it even matter? We share practical recommendations and implications for leaders and practitioners in our report.

Download Report