Diversity And Inclusion Policies

If #diversity, #equity, and #inclusion practitioners want to get ahead of anti-DEI backlash, we have to address an elephant in the room: no two people in the same workplace perceive their workplace the same way. I see this every time I work with client organizations. When asked to describe their own experience with the workplace and its DEI strengths and challenges, I hear things like: 😊 "I've never experienced any discrimination or mistreatment; our leaders' commitment is strong." 🤨 "I had a good time in one department, but after transferring departments I started experiencing explicit ableist comments under my new manager." 🙁 "I've never had anything egregious happen, but I've always felt less respected by my team members because of my race." Who's right? Turns out, all of them. It starts to get messy because everyone inevitably generalizes their own personal experiences into their perception of the workplace as a whole; three people might accordingly describe their workplace as a "meritocracy without discrimination," an "inconsistently inclusive workplace dependent on manager," or "a subtly racist environment." And when people are confronted with other experiences of the workplace that DIFFER from their own, they often take it personally. I've seen leaders bristle at the implication that their own experience was "wrong," or get defensive in expectation they will be accused of lacking awareness. It's exactly this defensiveness that lays the foundation for misunderstanding, polarization, and yes—anti-DEI misinformation—to spread in an organization. How do we mitigate it? In my own work, I've found that these simple steps go a long way. 1. Validate everyone's experience. Saying outright that everyone's personal experience is "correct" for themselves might seem too obvious, but it plays a powerful role in helping everyone feel respected and taken seriously. Reality is not a question of "who is right"—it's the messy summation of everyone's lived experience, good or bad. 2. Use data to create a shared baseline. Gathering data by organizational and social demographics allows us to make statements like, "the average perception of team respect is 70% in Engineering, but only 30% in Sales," or "perception of fair decision making processes is 90% for white men, but only 40% for Black women." This establishes a shared reality, a baseline for any effective DEI work. 3. Make it clear that problem-solving involves—and requires—everyone. The goal of DEI work is to achieve positive outcomes for everyone. Those with already positive experiences? Their insights help us know what we're aiming for. Those with the most negative? Their insights help us learn what's broken. The more we communicate that collective effort benefits the collective, rather than shaming or dismissing those at the margins, the more we can unite people around DEI and beat the backlash.

Three major developments in the last week should have every HR leader, employer, and AI vendor paying attention: 1. The AI Civil Rights Act was reintroduced in the US Congress Led by Senator Ed Markey and Representative Yvette D. Clarke, this legislation places hard guardrails around AI and algorithmic systems used in decisions related to hiring, housing, healthcare and beyond. It demands transparency, bias testing, and accountability. Think of it as GDPR for bias, but with broader implications across HR, tech, and operations. “We will not allow AI to stand for Accelerating Injustice.” – Senator Ed Markey for U.S. Senate 2. California’s new workplace AI discrimination laws are now in effect. The new rule governing companies' use of automated decision-making technology will likely create a situation where companies are liable for hiring practices if a system violates anti-discrimination laws. As other U.S. states also implement laws and regulations containing similar ADMT protections, companies deploying the technology will need to be proactive in their record keeping and vetting of third-parties while auditing their own tools to understand how the software functions. It’s no longer enough to trust your tools and vendors, you must prove they’re fair. 3. Insurers are backing away from covering AI risks AIG, Great American, and WR Berkley are asking regulators to exclude AI-related liabilities from their policies. Why? Because the risks (from chatbots hallucinating to algorithmic bias in hiring) are seen as “too opaque, too unpredictable.” When insurers are pulling cover, it’s a warning sign: you own the risk. 👁 What this means for HR and recruitment business leaders: We’ve officially entered the age of AI Accountability. That means: ✅ You need visibility into how your AI systems work, especially if they’re used for hiring, performance management, or workforce planning. ✅ You must audit your HR tech stack (yes, that includes Workday, ATS platforms, and even AI resume screeners). ✅ You need to document fairness, not just assume it. ✅ You must rethink your contracts with AI vendors. If the tech goes wrong, insurers may not have your back. 🛡 If you haven’t already, it’s time to start building your AI Governance Playbook. 📌 Audit all AI tools in use 📌 Build an internal AI ethics committee 📌 Ensure legal, DEI and HR alignment on tool deployment 📌 Partner only with vendors offering bias mitigation, auditability, and indemnification

A shift in the political landscape triggered some US firms to roll back on their DEI best practices and bury them in the fine print. Recently, Accenture scrapped its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) targets, following similar actions taken by Meta, Alphabet, and others. As US firms re-evaluate DEI commitments amid a changing political climate, the India diversity charter of MNCs remains robust. Some firms have relabelled these efforts as talent initiatives while continuing to monitor performance indicators internally. India hosts approximately 1,700 global capability centres (GCCs), which have demonstrated forward-thinking approaches in their talent management strategies, including accelerating DEI efforts. Recently, DEI firm Avtar examined India Inc’s position in the DEI debate. The study showed that the US govt’s directive on DEI has no significant impact on Indian and non-US multinationals. When it comes to Indian affiliates of American companies, over 50% of the companies are pausing their DEI programmes temporarily or indefinitely. Additionally, the study showed that 33% of the companies stated they will continue DEI with some modifications. This means that while DEI will not be pursued under a formal DEI agenda, it will be adopted through other avenues like CSR or by transforming the workplace culture. Among the US companies, 50% of their Indian entities said that their DEI initiatives will continue unchanged (17%) or with some modifications (33%). Kellie Wagner , founder and CEO of US-based DEI lab Collective, said while some of these US companies are dismantling programming or efforts they never fully bought into and embarked on out of social pressure, others are simply modifying language to avoid the wrath and attention of the Trump administration. “For instance, while news is reporting that Disney ended their DEI work, they simply recoded their language about DEI, embedding it into how they talk about their values and masking it with language like 'talent strategy.' With a closer look, it appears that most of the rollback is simply a modification of language designed to appease an administration that is hostile to the work,” she said. #diversity #MNCs #DEI #inclusion Ramkumar Ramamoorthy Dr Saundarya Rajesh

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?

Finally, Australian organisations are realising that diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) work goes beyond gender, that all people have intersecting identities and our work must address these. Addressing ageism is crucial for genuine equality. Victoria's Gender Equality Act has allowed for consistent tracking of age data and it's analysis by gender. What have we learnt? We must: 🔍 Recognise the Impact: Ageism affects job opportunities and workplace culture, with significant pay gaps for older women. 🌐 Understand Generational Diversity: There are differences and similarities in the generations, we need to value the differences and foster the similarities to create a cohesive inclusive workplace 🚫 Challenge Stereotypes: Move away from generalisations. Focus on individual abilities and review recruitment processes for bias. This means actually unpacking the reasons people over 50 are not selected for roles. 🤝 Foster Intergenerational Collaboration: Encourage knowledge sharing and two way mentorship across generations to build a stronger, more inclusive team. 📚 Promote Lifelong Learning: Offer continuous development for all employees, aspiring leaders can be any age. Measure the age diversity of participants in professional development and leadership programs. 📑 Create Inclusive Policies: Have flexible work arrangements that are accessible for grandparents, people caring for parents, and people without caring responsibilities. Let's also not forget the impacts of menopause and peri-menopause - what is your workplace doing in this space? 🔗 Intersectionality: Consider ageism alongside sexism and racism. Our diversity, equity and inclusion work has to take into account different aspects of a persons identity and how that influences their opportunities and experiences. And age is one of those aspects that can really matter. Have you experienced ageism? What is your organisation doing to tackle it? Put your thoughts in the comments below. #Inclusion #AgeDiversity #WorkplaceEquality

A study found that when professors were rated on a 1 to 10 scale, women received lower scores than men. When researchers changed the scale to 1 to 6, the gender gap nearly disappeared. Nothing else changed between the two conditions. The researchers' explanation is that a 10 evokes the idea of perfection, and deeply held stereotypes about what professional perfection looks like still work against women. A 6-point scale leaves room for more kinds of excellence to count. Kenji Yoshino and David Glasgow of NYU's Meltzer Center described this recently. They draw a distinction between two very different approaches to DEI. The first, which many organizations adopted after 2020, is "broad but shallow." Lots of heritage months, training sessions, demographic targets, and programs for specific groups. The second approach is "narrow but deep." It steps back from demographic-specific programs and instead pulls apart every workplace system, one at a time, to find and remove the bias baked into the design. Outreach. Job descriptions. Resume screening. Interview structure. Onboarding. Work assignments. Performance reviews. Promotions. Discipline. Referrals. Layoffs. Every one of those systems is making decisions about your people right now, and every one of them has design choices that quietly advantage some employees over others. The case for doing this work in 2026 is strong. It is legally safer than affirmative action or group-specific programs. It remains politically popular even with current EEOC leadership, which has publicly endorsed practices like removing unnecessary degree requirements and standardizing promotion consideration. And it is more effective than the broad approach at changing the everyday experience of work for the people inside your organization. After 25 years of doing this work, here is what I would tell you: the inclusion strategies that will survive this moment are the ones that get underneath your systems and fix what is broken at the level of design, not the ones that make the most noise. Source: https://lnkd.in/d7uMJ7af https://lnkd.in/deWFZJt6 #InclusiveLeadership #DEI #WorkplaceEquity #SystemicChange #InclusionDesignGroup

When you see lists celebrating companies for making changes to DEI policies, it’s easy to assume these organizations are champions of diversity, equity, and inclusion. But headlines often obscure the full picture. Take John Deere, for example. While this list might appear to signal their commitment to DEI, a closer look reveals a more complex reality. Their decision to cease sponsoring social or cultural awareness events and audit training materials reflects a troubling shift away from meaningful inclusion. Adding to this, their statement distancing the company from diversity quotas and pronoun identification shows a selective approach to DEI. This serves as an important reminder: NOT ALL DEI EFFORTS ARE CREATED EQUAL. True diversity, equity, and inclusion require an unwavering commitment to uplifting all marginalized communities—not just those whose support aligns with corporate comfort or public image. Companies don’t get to cherry-pick which groups they’ll support, leaving others—such as LGBTQIA2S+ individuals, Black and Brown communities, or people with disabilities—behind. DEI isn’t a token gesture or a PR move. It’s a pledge to create equitable spaces for everyone. So when you see these articles and images, dig deeper. Are these companies truly embodying the principles of DEI, or are they merely reacting to external pressures? Performative actions and diluted commitments aren’t enough—not when real lives and livelihoods are at stake. Rejecting anti-DEI sentiment is a start, but it’s only the beginning. What we need are organizations willing to lead with courage and advocate unapologetically for inclusion. Because when even one community is excluded or seen as “other,” we all lose. As Audre Lorde wisely said, “There is no such thing as a single-issue struggle because we do not live single-issue lives.” It’s time for companies to embrace this truth, take real action, and build a better, more inclusive future for everyone. True inclusion doesn’t allow for exceptions—when even one group is left behind, the work is incomplete.

In recent years, many organizations have taken visible steps to improve gender diversity, investing in recruitment, mentorship, and leadership development programs to bring more women into their ranks. These efforts reflect a growing recognition that diverse teams drive better decision-making, innovation, and organizational performance. But while increasing gender diversity is an important milestone, a critical question remains: Does greater representation of women also translate into greater fairness—specifically, more gender pay equity? Or are organizations celebrating progress on diversity while leaving deep disparities in compensation unaddressed? My wonderful colleagues Dr. Claudia Holtschlag, Dr. Carlos Morales, Aline D. Masuda and I explored this question in a study that was just published in Human Resource Management (HRM) (Wiley). 📄 Full paper: https://lnkd.in/dP3kprRJ The answer to our question: Not necessarily. Here’s what we found in our longitudinal study of 9,000+ observations: 🔹 Women with lower initial pay tend to receive larger raises—consistent with equity-based pay policies. 🔹 But in work units that have already achieved gender balance, these equity-based raises weaken or stop altogether. 🔹 Why? It seems that once visible diversity goals (like a balanced ratio of female and male employees) are met, organizations feel the work is “done”—even when deep-seated inequities (like pay gaps) persist. We call this the diversity paradox: When well-intentioned diversity efforts signal progress, they may inadvertently stall further action toward real equity. Why this matters: Representation is just one part of the DEI equation. Without attention to how people are actually treated and rewarded, diversity initiatives risk creating symbolic progress rather than systemic change. 🔍 Diversity metrics ≠ equity outcomes. 📊 True progress requires tracking representation, opportunity, and reward together. We hope this research supports HR leaders, DEI professionals, and policymakers working to move from performative diversity to real equity. #DEI #GenderEquity #PayEquity #Leadership #DiversityParadox #PeopleAnalytics #HumanResources #Inclusion #WorkplaceEquity

DEI Rollbacks: A Step Backward—But We Can Keep Moving Forward Toni Morrison once said, “The very serious function of racism is distraction. It keeps you from doing your work. It keeps you explaining over and over and over again, your reason for being.” That is exactly what is happening with the current administration’s attacks on DEI programs. They’ve co-opted the language of equity to claim “reverse racism,” falsely asserting that they are “ending illegal discrimination” and “restoring merit-based opportunity.” But the underlying message is clear: a manufactured narrative that suggests DEI programs take opportunities away from deserving individuals, implying that those who don’t fit the dominant identity are somehow unqualified. Let’s be clear—DEI is not about excluding talent. It is about expanding access. These programs create pathways for historically excluded communities—including women, veterans, and individuals with disabilities—who possess the skills, qualifications, and, in many cases, are overqualified but would have otherwise been overlooked due to systemic barriers. As a Non Profit Executive, I’ve led  successful strategies that fostered equitable pathways and true inclusion. And if organizations want to thrive, we don’t need less of these strategies—we need more. The facts don’t lie: Studies consistently show that diverse teams drive more innovation, make better decisions, and yield higher profits. Yet, despite this evidence, we are witnessing a rollback of DEI efforts across industries. So what can we do? Even in the face of these rollbacks, organizations can continue advancing equity in meaningful ways: ✅ Embed DEI into core business strategy. Move beyond performative gestures—ensure inclusion is a fundamental part of how decisions are made and who gets a seat at the table. ✅ Reframe DEI as a driver of innovation. Position diversity, equity, and inclusion as competitive advantages, emphasizing their proven impact on creativity, problem-solving, and business success. ✅ Prioritize inclusive hiring practices. Implement skills-based hiring, equitable advancement opportunities, and mentorship programs to cultivate diverse leadership pipelines. ✅ Leverage Employee Resource Groups (ERGs). Support and fund ERGs to empower employees, foster belonging, and create spaces for underrepresented voices. ✅ Hold leadership accountable. Ensure executives and decision-makers are actively championing equity efforts, not just delegating them. DEI is not about checking boxes—it’s about unlocking potential. Despite the distractions and political rhetoric, we must remain committed to building workplaces where talent thrives, opportunity expands, and inclusion fuels innovation. How is your organization maintaining its commitment to DEI in these times? Let’s keep this conversation going. 👇🏾 #DEI #Equity #Leadership #Inclusion #Innovation

Recently, I've been reflecting on the troubling trend of companies removing 'equity' from their DEI initiatives, a move now endorsed by the SHRM. This shift is particularly harmful to the disability community. Equity ensures that everyone has what they need to succeed. For disabled employees, this might mean accessible workplaces, assistive technology, or flexible work arrangements. SHRM's decision to drop 'equity' from its strategy undermines these critical supports. The Wall Street Journal's Ray Smith reports the organization is "moving away from equity language to ensure no group of workers appears to get preferential treatment." However, this perspective ignores the unique barriers faced by the disability community and other marginalized groups. Removing equity from DEI efforts sends a concerning message: that the specific needs of marginalized groups are less important. This is not just a theoretical issue; it's a tangible setback. A recent piece by Bloomberg's Khorri A. Atkinson explored the impact on colleges and universities that have already begun eliminating hundreds of DEI-related jobs, impacting support for historically marginalized students. In the workplace, this trend could mean fewer accommodations and less understanding of the unique challenges faced by disabled employees. Moving through the world with various disabilities, I’ve experienced firsthand the difference that equitable policies make. Equity isn't about giving some people an unfair advantage; it's about leveling the playing field. Without it, disabled employees like myself are left at a significant disadvantage. We need to recognize that inclusion without equity is incomplete. Equity should be uncontroversial. It just means equality of opportunity. “Who are the people that find 'equity' confusing?" Deb Muller, the CEO of HR Acuity, told Axios’s Emily Peck. This is why the removal of 'equity' is so alarming—it risks undoing years of progress and harms those who rely on these measures the most. I urge my fellow advocates and allies to speak out against this shift. It's crucial that we maintain a holistic approach to DEI that includes equity. We need to push for policies that recognize and address the diverse needs of all employees. What are your thoughts on SHRM's decision to drop 'equity' from their DEI strategy? How do you think this will impact the disability community and other marginalized groups? #DisabilityAdvocacy #InclusionMatters #EquityInDEI #DEI #Accessibility #DiversityAndInclusion #EquityForAll #DisabilityRights #DisabilityPrideMonth #InclusiveWorkplaces #Advocacy