Find the right solution for your business.
Explore SolutionsTo get the latest recruitment marketing news, updates and more delivered to your inbox, subscribe to our newsletter here. It’s free!
The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) announced a significant shift in its approach to Inclusion and Diversity (I&D), strategically choosing to adopt the acronym “I&D” instead of “IE&D.” This decision underscores SHRM’s public stance as prioritizing Inclusion as the primary catalyst for change in our workplaces and society. While the emphasis on Inclusion is commendable, the repositioning of Equity as a subcategory within this framework is somewhat problematic.
One might note that the move away from an acronym that bears an unfortunate resemblance to “IED” (Improvised Explosive Device) is a wise choice. However, this seemingly practical decision raises important questions about the implications for equity and its role in fostering true inclusion and diversity.
While some praised the move, SHRM’s announcement was met with swift and loud backlash by many in our Industry. Understandably so, as it certainly raises important questions for employers and those working in employer branding and talent acquisition.
Kibar Moussoba, Sr. Program Manager for Employee Experience at Southern New Hampshire University, shared this on LinkedIn: “This shift undermines the critical role that equity plays in fostering true inclusion and diversity. Inclusion without equity is merely a superficial gesture, one that fails to address systemic barriers and inequities.
I will not be renewing my SHRM membership. Instead, I will seek professional development opportunities that align with my commitment to advancing equity, diversity, and inclusion in the workplace. We must continue to prioritize equity to ensure meaningful and lasting change.”
If this had been SHRM’s first controversial move relating to the acknowledgement of the realities of inequality that still exist for minorities, or the protection and advancement of equity and equality, perhaps this wouldn’t be as noteworthy. But it’s not. SHRM has a long history of shying away from the hard-line stance necessary to protect minorities and truly advance inclusionary rights for workers. That SHRM chose to make this new announcement about inclusion before equity on Black Women’s Equal Pay Day highlights just how tone-deaf they truly are to the inequities of minority workers. It begs the question: what does inclusion really mean to SHRM? Their actions, and words, leads well-informed professionals to question if, for SHRM, inclusion is meant to be synonymous with “tolerance” and nothing more. If so, it’s a demonstrated lack of understanding that should beg us all to question if SHRM should be speaking for employer brand, recruitment marketing, and talent acquisition professionals (or anyone, really).
And perhaps that is why Kibar’s sentiments were widely echoed across LinkedIn, X, and other social media platforms yesterday. There were numerous posts and polls questioning SHRM’s trustworthiness and competence, even if they reversed their latest stance. Although SHRM’s announcement appears an attempt to sidestep the controversy that often surrounds the concept of ‘equity’ during an election year, it has sparked just that.
The Importance of Equity in Achieving Inclusion
In organizational psychology, we understand equity is a foundational element that supports the realization of true inclusion. Without equity, the efforts to create inclusive environments may fall short, as the systemic barriers and disparities that exist within organizations (and reflected in our larger society) remain unaddressed. Equity ensures that all employees, regardless of their background, have access to the same opportunities, resources, and support, thereby creating a level playing field.
In their work, Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice, Adams and Bell (2016) explain equity is a critical component of social justice, involving the fair distribution of resources and opportunities. This perspective aligns with the principles of organizational justice theory, which posits that employees’ perceptions of fairness in the workplace significantly influence their engagement, motivation, and overall well-being. What we can take from that is equity is not merely a subcategory but a fundamental prerequisite for fostering an inclusive organizational culture.
Inclusion Without Equity: A Paradox
This is precisely why SHRM’s presentation of the concept of inclusion without equity on an equal footing presents a paradox. Inclusion, in its truest sense, involves creating environments where individuals feel valued, respected, and fully integrated into the organizational fabric. However, without first addressing the structural inequalities that hinder equitable access and participation, inclusion remains an incomplete and unattainable endeavor.
Carter and Welner (2013) point out inclusive practices must be accompanied by equitable policies to dismantle systemic barriers that perpetuate discrimination and exclusion. By shifting equity to a subordinate position, there is a real risk of perpetuating the very disparities that inclusion aims to eliminate. It is similar to building a house on an unstable foundation—without solid ground, the structure cannot stand.
The Role of Talent Acquisition in Promoting Equity
It would be easy to say that equity is a HR problem, not an Employer Brand or Talent Acquisition responsibility. The reality, however, is equity is particularly pertinent for Talent Acquisition professionals. The recruitment marketing process is often the first touch—and talent acquisition the first point of contact – for most prospective candidates and any organization. Ensuring that this process is equitable involves implementing practices that mitigate bias, promote diversity, and provide both equal and equitable opportunities for all candidates. This includes using structured interviews, blind recruitment techniques, and inclusive hiring initiatives that equitably address the varying needs of candidates, providing true equal opportunity.
Research by McKinsey & Company has proven diverse teams drive better business outcomes, and equitable recruitment practices are critical to building such teams. But real and lasting diversity is the output of inclusive practices, not the start of them. Moreover, a commitment to equity in talent acquisition sends a powerful message about the organization’s values and its dedication to creating an inclusive workplace.
Conclusion: Leading with Equity
While SHRM’s decision to prioritize inclusion over diversity represents a positive step, the de-prioritization of equity is a significant oversight by the Organization. As professionals in Employer Brand, Recruitment Marketing, and Talent Acquisition, we must continue to emphasize equity to ensure fair and inclusive hiring practices in our own companies. Inclusion and Equity are inextricably – and equally – linked. Leading with inclusion necessitates an unwavering commitment to equity, ensuring that all employees have the support and opportunities they need to psychologically thrive and professionally succeed. It is this author’s hope that one day, SHRM leadership will recognize the importance of equity and restore the ‘E’ to its rightful place at the forefront of their framework. Until then, perhaps it’s time to rethink how much stock we put in an organization that has repeatedly demonstrated a lack of understanding of the people it’s meant to serve.
Poll
Do you believe SHRM understands Belonging, Inclusion, Equity, and Diversity issues well enough to trust them as the organization to professionally speak on your behalf with the Media, Government and/or Business Leaders around the World?
- Yes – I trust SHRM understands these issues.
- Not Sure – I’m uncomfortable with this stance but need to learn more to make a decision.
- No – I do not trust SHRM to represent me and my views as an EB/RM/TA/HR professional or believe in their ability to help advance true inclusion and equity in the workplace.
