Employment
Some themes are more consensual than others. Diversity and inclusion is a rather…divisive issue. Just ask around if people are for or against quotas for parity, ethnicity or religion: it’s sure to liven up your dinner parties.
The very job of “Head of Diversity & Inclusion” is no exception to this ambivalence. In 2020, a large number of articles presented it as THE job to apply for, with 100% growth in 5 years.
Except that 2023 has come and gone, and for the first time the number of professionals in the field is declining. Worse still: those who have left are no longer finding work. On the employee side, this is due to the weariness these managers feel in the face of their companies’ inaction. On the employer side, the “nice to have” aspect of the subject. It has to be said that in the US – often a leader on these issues – the trend is not favorable. The Supreme Court has just struck down Affirmative Action as unconstitutional, Big Corps lawyers are gearing up for discrimination suits, and the context of the presidential election is tending to antagonize positions. Not to mention the recent errors of Gemini, Google’s AI, which has become the laughing stock of the Web with its rewriting of the past (and negation of the present).
So is this what D&I is all about – a mere fad? Or are we in the midst of the valley of disillusionment before a comeback? We’d like to offer you a few tips on how to make D&I a sustainable topic.
What are we talking about?
There’s a lot of literature on the subject, but if we simplify things 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 management issue, i.e., to stretch the metaphor, inviting diversity to dance. This means changing Talent Review, Succession Planning and other processes.
The subject is obviously highly regulated. Firstly, because the personal data associated with it is highly sensitive, and in many countries is even prohibited altogether. In France, only data linked to gender, education or career are authorized.
Secondly, because the subject is often intertwined with CSR indicators, the new European directives on CSRD, and specific local focuses (e.g. the professional equality index).
Moral issues aside, regulation alone could justify the creation of new roles within companies, or the extension of existing ones. And this is exactly what has happened.
Settling everything with a job
Are we being asked to “do D&I”? No problem, let’s create a new role! If the “pattern” sounds familiar, that’s because it’s the same one followed by Digital, right down to the role title (CDO).
In other words, in response to the vague but pressing injunction to reflect the diversity of the Company in the company (enjoy the use of the upper case), we responded as we usually do: we appoint a leader.
But not a team.
A function that is not a function
Because appointing a manager and setting up a team clashes with another vision of D&I (which also applies to all new subjects, cf. digital): it has to be integrated everywhere. There’s no point in making it a dedicated function, because it’s everybody’s business.
Should we create a function with resources that cost money, or do nothing and run the risk of being at the bottom of the class? Let’s compromise and appoint someone to be in charge, with a small communications budget.
And that’s exactly what’s giving D&I managers the blues today: they’re 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 to the past
What if the function is simply not maturing, a victim of growing pains?
As the saying goes, you only improve what you measure. And there is no shortage of expectations in terms of reporting, even for smaller companies. The professional equality index, for example, concerns companies with more than 50 employees.
It’s an essential first step, of course, and being able to generate historical data consistently and “to scale” is no mean feat.
But the return on investment is still zero. By contenting themselves with reporting, companies are merely complying with legislation. It’s a defensive posture, not one of action.
The natural next step, then, is to project D&I into the future, so as to chart its course. After all, if we are subject to our past, we can remain maneuverable in our future. This is unsurprisingly one of the many applications of Strategic Workforce Planning.
The SWP process involves the notion 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 enable D&I to gain credibility. Without it, it condemns itself to ambitions that sound like wishful thinking.
