Who's Threatening Diversity and Inclusion?

Some themes are more consensual than others. That of diversity and inclusion is rather... divisive in nature. Just ask those around you if people are for or against parity, ethnic, religious quotas: this is sure to liven up your dinners in town. The very job of “Head of Diversity & Inclusion” is no exception to this ambivalence. In 2020, a large number of items present him as THE job to run for, with a growth of 100% in 5 years. Except that 2023 has gone through this, and for the first time the number of professionals in the field is declining. Worse: those who left can no longer find a job. On the employee side, the fatigue experienced by these managers in the face of the inaction of their companies. On the employer side, the “nice to have” dimension of the subject. It must be said that in the US - often leaders on these issues - the trend is not favorable. The Supreme Court has just dismissed Affirmative Action as unconstitutional, Big Corps lawyers are preparing for discrimination claims, and the presidential election context has a tendency to antagonize positions. Not to mention the recent mistakes of Gemini, Google's AI, which has become the laughing stock of the Web by rewriting the past (and denying the present).

So is that what D&I or DEI, a simple fad, comes down to? Or are we in the middle of a valley of disillusionment before the subject comes back? We offer you some keys to make it a sustainable subject.

What are we talking about?

The literature abounds on the subject, but if we simplify and take the “HR Process” angle:

• Diversity is a matter of Talent Acquisition, i.e. inviting less privileged profiles to the party
• Inclusion is a matter of management, i.e. to spin the metaphor, invite diversity to dance. That means changing the processes of Talent Review, Succession Planning, etc.

The subject is obviously very well regulated. Already because the associated personal data is at the highest level of sensitivity, or even completely proscribed in a large number of countries. In France, only data related to gender, education or career are authorized.Second, because the subject is quite often mixed with CSR indicators, new European directives relating to CSRD, and specific local focuses (e.g. the professional equality index) .Beyond moral issues, regulation by itself could justify the creation of roles in companies or the extension of existing roles. And that's actually what happened.

Settle everything with a post

Are we being asked to “do D&I”? No problem, let's create a new role! If the “pattern” seems familiar to you, it's because it's the same as the one followed by Digital, right down to the title of the role (CDO) .In other words, with the vague but urgent injunction to reflect in society Diversity Of the Society (enjoy using the upper case), we answered as we usually do: you name a chef.

But not a team.

A function that is not a function

Because appointing a manager and building a team comes up against another vision of D&I (which is also valid for all new subjects, e.g. digital technology): it must be integrated everywhere. So there's no point in making it a dedicated function, because that's everyone's business. Create a function with resources that cost money, or do nothing and take the risk of being the last in the class? Let's reach a compromise and appoint a manager, with a small communication budget. And that's what's creating the blues for D&I managers today: they are 40% more likely to leave their company than their HR counterparts, and when asked if they feel supported by middle management, 42% say yes (down 8 points between 2022 and 2023).

Stop looking at the past

What if the function was simply not maturing, suffering from growing pains? As the saying goes, you only improve what you measure. And there is no shortage of reporting expectations, even for small businesses. The professional equality index, for example, concerns companies with more than 50 employees. It is an essential first step, of course, and being able to generate historical data constantly and “at scale” is not easy. But the return on investment is still zero. By content themselves with reports, companies are only complying with the legislation. It is a defensive posture, which is not part of the action. The next step is therefore naturally to project D&I over time in order to draw a trajectory. Because if you suffer from your past, you can remain maneuverable about your future. Unsurprisingly, it is one of the many applications of Strategic Workforce Planning. The SWP process (GPEC 2.0) indeed includes the concept of supply and demand. By planning its diversity, the company can once again become intentional in its equity actions. It is this projection that will allow D&I to gain credibility. Otherwise, she condemns herself to ambitions that will sound like wishful thinking.