SHRM’s recent adoption of the new acronym “I&D” instead of IE&D—removing the term “equity” from “Inclusion, Equity, and Diversity” —has caused quite an uproar in the HR industry.
SHRM’s post on LinkedIn announcing this change has sparked rapid response and discussion throughout the HR community. The post, which has over 500 comments, features a myriad of reactions. Some LinkedIn users voice their sharp disappointment in SHRM—writing that true diversity and inclusion can’t be attained without equity—while others applaud an inclusion-first approach. But, the majority of the comments stand against SHRM’s decision.
Angela R. Howard, CEO and Founder of Call for Culture, writes on LinkedIn,
Ditto to all of my brilliant friends in response this post. You all are incredible ??. Keep speaking up, keep sharing your voice.
Now it’s time for action.
What we need to do next (or at least this is what I’ll be doing next):
1. Let that SHRM certification lapse. They are no longer the bar for industry leadership that aligns with my ethics and integrity. Letters at the end of a name without substance mean very little.
2. If you are a hiring manager, stop requiring or even including a SHRM certification in requirements or preferred requirements.
3. Stop sponsoring attendance or attending SHRM events – put that budget towards spaces and forums that are focused on justice, liberation, and equity at work. I promise you that you’ll get significantly more ROI then whatever SHRM has been offering.
In their post, the organization announced, “This strategic decision underscores our commitment to leading with Inclusion as the catalyst for holistic change in workplaces and society.” While “Equity” was eliminated from the acronym, SHRM attests their “commitment to advancing Equity remains steadfast. Equity will be integrated under the broader Inclusion framework, continuing to be a priority in our strategy and leadership decisions.”
Himanshu Patni, Assistant General Manager of HR at Apollo Health and Lifestyle Limited comments,
It’s great to see SHRM emphasizing the importance of Inclusion in their new approach. However, it’s crucial to remember that equity is also a vital component of creating a fair and inclusive workplace. Without a strong focus on equity, we risk leaving behind those who need additional support to thrive. By integrating equity more visibly and explicitly, we can ensure that all employees have the opportunity to succeed and feel valued. Let’s work together to make sure that Inclusion, Equity, and Diversity all receive the attention they deserve.
This is not the first time SHRM has updated their terminology. In 2023, SHRM made the initial decision to change the acronym from diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) to IE&D. As Johnny C. Taylor, the President and CEO of SHRM, explains it, the DEI space has changed drastically over the past 30 years. “First it was just diversity, next D&I, then DE&I, and now, in many instances, DEIB+. But through every iteration, we’ve found our nation becoming increasingly polarized,” he wrote in a SHRM article.
In the LinkedIn post about SHRM’s adoption of the I&D acronym, Taylor says, “Our focus shifts from our differences to our commonalities. We champion respect and civility.” Taylor further explains the reasoning for the change as a “head-on” approach to address the shortcomings of DEI programs, social backlash, increased polarization, and the fact companies are taking a step back from DEI indicatives.
Wynne Beers, HR Director at U.S. Army HQDA G-3/5/7 Strategic Leadership Division (DAMO-SSF), writes,
To SHRM’s point about “societal backlash or polarization” as the cause for this change: Yes, we’ve seen some leaders and groups push back on DE&I. That resistance underscores the need to improve DE&I messaging by providing better analysis tying business outcomes to equity measures related to pay and career advancement. This is not the time to back down from or hide the importance of Equity.
As the conversation continues among HR professionals on SHRM’s move along with other news of companies who have retracted their DEI strategies, these questions arise: Is DEI under assault? Are we seeing a broader trend of companies changing direction in DEI strategy? And what will be the path forward for DEI?