SHRM (the Society for Human Resource Management, a professional association of HR professionals and leaders whose aim is to advance the profession) has made a public announcement that the group will be dropping the “E” (for Equity) from the previously promoted acronym, “DE&I” (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion). DE&I seems to have emerged around 2016. Previously, the language used was “equal opportunity”, “diversity”, “equal pay”, “non-discrimination” and “affirmative action”. Most of these terms were found in laws and regulations that go back decades to the Civil Rights Act, subsequent executive orders, multiple employment-related laws and various court cases. All of these were part of a political and social trend of opening up the avenues of economic advancement to everyone based on capability, regardless of any non-job-related factor, like age, gender, ethnic status, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc.
SHRM’s announcement comes fairly close in time after the Bud Light customer backlash for using a transgender person in an advertising campaign, and more recently Tractor Supply’s decision to drop DE&I programs and staff, after some of its customers complained. There is a reactionary trend of public opposition to DE&I because the acronym has taken on the connotation of a political and social agenda that is repugnant to a significant part of the electorate, who are exerting their collective commercial influence through their consumer decisions. My response to the backlash is similar to Inigo Montoya’s comment to Vizzini in The Princess Bride, when Vizzini says “Inconceivable!” the third or fourth time: “I don’t think that word means what you think it means.”
I don’t know what prompted SHRM to take this action, or why dropping the “E” was felt to be the important part to exclude. Did somebody important complain? And who did the deciding? Was a poll taken from all members? Did the association executives huddle and wrangle it out? What is the expected positive result of this action? Are all SHRM members now required to drop the “E” in their own communications and professional work? And who else besides SHRM really cares that they did so?
SHRM explained their decision with this: “…by emphasizing inclusion first, we aim to address the current shortcomings of DE&I programs, which have led to societal backlash and increasing polarization.” What shortcomings? Will removing one letter of the acronym eliminate “societal backlash” or reduce polarization? Does this mean SHRM is saying that “equity” (equal opportunity, equal pay for the same contribution level, equal assessment methods of performance, equal application of policies, i.e., a meritocracy) no longer needs attention or is not important any more?
It seems that SHRM’s announcement just made it worse. Many HR professionals and leaders are now scratching their heads about why this was done, noting the confusion it creates and the damage it may do to the laudable efforts leaders have been applying to make the workplace a true meritocracy.
Then there’s all the consulting firms who sell DE&I support and advisory services. It will be interesting to see if rebranding takes off like a storm, on the heels of the SHRM announcement. Or not.
SHRM’s leadership would do better to focus on substance rather than form. This announcement does not increase the stature of, and respect for SHRM. It just made it harder for HR professionals and leaders to make a positive difference in the performance of the organizations they serve.
I would suggest that the “E” is the most important letter and should have been retained. If the principle of meritocracy were truly a part of every organization’s values and methods, the “D” and the “I” would simply be the result.