Four years ago, we were all observers and participants in a transformative moment for organizational culture worldwide, catalyzed by a global reckoning on race in the U.S. that was recognized around the world; the unprecedented challenges of a pandemic, and other seismic shifts in social consciousness. On the business front, this movement placed a very bright light on the critical issues of equity and the work needed to advance it in professional environments.
In response, there was a surge in commitment to culture and climate initiatives by organizational leaders. The role of Chief Diversity Officer became the fastest-growing job title in the C-suite, and the establishment of dedicated DEI teams became widespread across sectors.
Fast forward to 2024, however, and this initial momentum is tapering off. Diversity leaders face alarming burnout rates, DEI budgets are getting slashed, progress is stalling (or even reversing), and the discourse surrounding DEI has become increasingly polarized and politicized, including what it should be called. Is diversity still critical or is it just inclusion and equity now? Beside the politics and most concerningly, significant inequities still persist within workplace environments.
What went wrong?
1. Reactive culture/work-climate initiatives are unsustainable.
Spurred by the fear of public critique and censure, many organizational leaders were quick to implement diversity measures in 2020 – but without assessing their implications or effectiveness thoughtfully. What is really needed to make this work is the question asked for any work challenge that is taken seriously.
In the rush to demonstrate commitment to equity, leaders frequently engaged DEI consulting firms and created positions with “diversity” in the title. Unfortunately, as good as the intentions are, these roles often lacked clear structure, defined objectives, and sufficient authority, setting up new diversity leaders for failure. Tasked with transforming entrenched organizational cultures without adequate resources, these individuals often found themselves in roles that were more symbolic than substantive. Relegated to coordinating events like unconscious bias trainings and cultural celebrations, they struggled to tackle pervasive issues such as biased hiring practices, unequal promotion opportunities, pay inequities and ongoing workplace toxicity.
The reality of daily operations remained largely unchanged, and diversity leaders often bore the brunt of the blame for the lack of significant progress, despite their often being excluded from critical decision-making processes. To often their roles were marginalized, preventing them from implementing effective, long-term changes. This untenable situation frequently led to burnout and high turnover among diversity officers, with the tenure of Chief Diversity Officers (CDOs) averaging less than two years.
The pattern of quick turnover and systemic ineffectiveness underscores a critical flaw in how organizations have approached diversity initiatives. It signals a pervasive reliance on superficial measures rather than on embedding diversity into the fabric of organizational strategy and operations. This lack of a strategic, and operationally integrated approach undermines the potential for real progress in DEI efforts.
This is why the need for organizations to transition from merely reactive diversity gestures – like hastily appointing diversity leaders without empowering them, to a strategic, integrated approach – is more urgent than ever. DEI roles must be endowed with the authority and resources necessary to drive genuine change and the leaders selected must have the skills needed for the ambiguous nature of the role. The selected leader must be able to leverage the authority and resources given to create something that the organization is not even certain of what it should be. By doing so, organizations can ensure these roles have what is required to foster an inclusive culture. Only then can we envision a move towards authentic inclusivity and equity, moving away from tokenistic practices that fail to tackle the root causes of inequity.
2. DEI leaders are set up for struggle – and failure.
The current organizational structure of DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) roles often positions diversity leaders in precarious situations, setting them up for significant challenges. These professionals are frequently appointed as symbolic figures without the necessary resources, authority, or strategic influence to drive meaningful change.
The separation of DEI from core HR operations compounds these issues, creating tension and misaligned priorities. Rooted in traditional methods, HR departments may regard innovative DEI initiatives as disruptions rather than crucial evolutions. As a result, diversity leaders are at risk of being seen as adversaries rather than allies.
This problem is evident in the experiences of some DEI directors who have left their roles due to overwhelming frustration. Their efforts to correct biased hiring and promotion practices were undermined by their limited influence over HR processes. Often confined to the role of “the diversity person”—perhaps known mostly for leading annual unconscious bias training—these leaders struggle to implement the systemic changes necessary for true equity.
To overcome these challenges, leaders need to recommit to the placement and empowerment of DEI roles, starting with integrating these positions more fully within the HR department or under operational leaders that can help lead the changes needed and provide them with real authority. These steps are essential for breaking down systemic barriers and cultivating an inclusive corporate culture. This strategic shift would enable DEI leaders to move from isolated roles to central figures in strategy and operational development, promoting sustainable and significant organizational change.
3. Leaders were performative and reactionary with DEI advancement.
The reactive nature of DEI initiatives post-2020 has unfortunately sparked increased skepticism and backlash, with critics labeling these efforts as manifestations of “woke” culture that detract from business objectives. Much of this criticism, stemming from a resistance to social progress, highlights the limitations of reactionary rather than strategic DEI measures.
Leaders who view DEI merely as a checklist item or as a temporary solution to appease societal pressures inevitably foster cynicism and undermine the credibility of their efforts. DEI initiatives that lack thoughtful integration with broader HR and business strategies are unlikely to bring about lasting change. Furthermore, employees can readily perceive when commitments to diversity are insincere or not given the level of focus as other business priorities. This superficial approach not only fails to convince supporters of the need for these initiatives but also provides critics with ammunition to challenge their validity and effectiveness.
To navigate this complex environment, organizations have to adopt a forward-thinking approach to DEI. This involves embedding diversity initiatives deeply within the corporate strategy, ensuring they are not merely performative but integral to the fundamental workings of the company. By doing so, organizations can foster a genuine, lasting commitment to inclusivity that withstands scrutiny and contributes meaningfully to both social progress and business success. This approach is crucial for transforming corporate culture into a truly inclusive and equitable domain.
4. We need to measure impact differently.
As we pivot these roles towards long-term impact, it is imperative to redefine our measures of success. Historically, initiatives have been constrained by traditional ROI metrics, which demand clear, quantifiable returns within short timeframes. However, the nature of culture and climate work is distinctively intangible, cumulative, and manifests over an extended period. The critical goals of shifting representation, enhancing the retention of underrepresented talent, and fostering a culture of belonging are complex and resist simple cost-benefit analyses. How long did it take to create this problem? It will take some time to fix it.
Restricting our understanding of culture and climate initiatives to their direct revenue impact not only undermines the moral and ethical imperatives of workplace equity but also reduces such equity to a peripheral benefit. This approach fosters cynicism when initial investments do not yield immediate financial returns.
While strategic, data-driven approaches and accountability are essential, we must intentionally define the right goals and KPIs. These should promote sustainable cultural change rather than superficial, short-term gains. Metrics such as attendance at unconscious bias training or diversity event headcounts fall short in providing meaningful insights into the real progress on equity and if not managed right it will feed the naysayers what they need to “kill the effort”.
To effectively measure the impact of DEI initiatives, organizations should consider adopting more comprehensive and nuanced metrics. Examples of such metrics could include employee satisfaction scores segmented by demographic groups, which provide insights into the effectiveness of inclusion efforts across different sections of the workforce. Additionally, tracking the rate of internal promotions for underrepresented groups can help assess the effectiveness of career development programs. Another valuable metric is the diversity of candidate pools for hiring and promotions, which reflects the reach and inclusiveness of recruitment efforts. Finally, conducting regular pulse surveys to gauge employee perceptions of fairness, respect, and belonging can offer ongoing insights into the cultural climate of an organization, highlighting areas needing attention and improvement. These metrics collectively contribute to a more accurate and holistic understanding of DEI impact over time.
So, how do we move forward?
Transforming the roles of culture and climate staff in our organizations is no silver bullet—you, as leaders, must be meticulous and deliberate in how these roles evolve and their capacity to drive the impact you seek. There is no quick fix to unravel centuries of workplace inequity, but taking this step is essential to transition from making flashy promises to achieving sustainable progress.
This journey will demand tough conversations, a reallocation of resources, and a readiness to overhaul time-honored practices. It will be uncomfortable, undoubtedly. But the alternative—reducing diversity to a cynical, superficial exercise—is a far graver fate.
As we confront the intricate challenges of DEI in 2024, we as leaders face a pivotal decision. Will we learn from past missteps and elevate diversity as a core element of your business strategy? Or will we let resistance mount until the progress we’ve struggled to achieve erodes?
For the benefit of our employees, our communities, and our shared future, now is the moment to opt for bold, strategic action. Diversity leaders cannot shoulder this burden alone. It is incumbent upon each of us to step forward, rethink established norms, and construct the equitable workplaces that we all know are within our reach – by reimagining the roles that DEI staff members occupy in your organization.
The time to take action – and to renew our commitment to transformation through DEI – is now.
DAS & Associates helps leaders understand their organization’s strengths, vulnerabilities, and the steps needed for sustained transformation. We offer:
- In-depth culture assessments, uncovering what your data might not show.
- Training and development programs to transform culture company-wide.
- Guidance for establishing clear ethical frameworks for culture development.
We’re here to partner with you in centering your organization’s culture and climate as you continue to adapt to today’s business and technological landscape. This isn’t just the right thing to do – it’s the smart thing to do. Contact us to learn more and lay a foundation for true business transformation through culture work.
"*" indicates required fields
