SHRM's DEI Dilemma: Regressive Policies in Polarized Times

In a controversial move, the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) announced a pivot in their approach to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), de-emphasizing equity in favor of a focus on inclusion and diversity.

This decision, initially announced on Black Women's Equal Pay Day, has sparked intense debate within the HR community and beyond.

As the founder of The Center for Conscious Leadership, I've dedicated my career to fostering transformative change in organizations. With over a decade of experience in this field, I've seen the powerful impact of embracing equity - and the challenges that arise when organizations feel pressured to step back from it.

SHRM's DEI Pivot: Understanding the Context

To grasp SHRM's decision, we must consider the broader political landscape. With a contentious presidential election looming, many organizations are bracing for potential changes in the DEI landscape. This uncertainty pressures institutions like SHRM to navigate a middle ground that allows them to support HR professionals while avoiding political backlash.

SHRM's actions could be viewed through the lens of harm reduction - a strategy aimed at minimizing negative consequences in challenging circumstances. By pivoting to an "inclusion first" approach, SHRM may be attempting to maintain its relevance and protect its members in a potentially hostile political environment.

This approach, however, raises important questions about leadership and organizational values.

Remaining Steadfast Toward Progress As Seas Change

SHRM's rationale for this pivot is to address "the current shortcomings of DE&I programs, which have led to societal backlash and increasing polarization." While it's crucial to acknowledge these challenges, it's equally important to consider the implications of retreating from a commitment to equity.

The concept of equity in DEI work is fundamental to addressing systemic inequalities. By seemingly downplaying its importance, SHRM risks sending a message that these systemic issues are of secondary concern.

But here's the kicker: SHRM seems to have forgotten a fundamental truth about leadership and organizational change. Once you've expanded to hold space for equity, you can't simply squeeze that concept back into the box. It's like trying to put toothpaste back in the tube - messy, ineffective, and ultimately futile.

“Once you've expanded to hold space for equity, you can't simply squeeze that concept back into the box. It's like trying to put toothpaste back in the tube - messy, ineffective, and ultimately futile.” — Sharon Podobnik Peterson, Founder, The Center for Conscious Leadership

The implications of this decision are far-reaching. For SHRM's people, it creates the conditions for moral injury, wherein folks work against their values and potentially their own interests. For SHRM members, it undermines trust in an organization that's supposed to be at the forefront of workplace best practices. And for the organization itself? Well, history has some cautionary tales.

Lessons from History: Boy Scouts of America

The Boy Scouts of America's slow response to changing societal values, particularly around LGBTQ+ inclusion, resulted in declining membership, loss of sponsorship, and eventual bankruptcy. Despite finally lifting bans on gay scouts and leaders in 2013 and 2015, the damage was already done, leading to bankruptcy in 2020.

Recognizing the need for more comprehensive change, the organization announced in May 2024 a rebranding to "Scouting America," along with policy changes to include girls and transgender youth. While it's a step in the right direction, it underscores how societal pressure can force even the most traditional organizations to evolve–often at a significant cost.

While SHRM's situation is different, there are parallels in the potential long-term consequences of being perceived as regressive on critical social issues.

In challenging times, conscious leadership is more crucial than ever. It's about doing what's right, not what's easy or popular. It requires the courage to stand firm in one's values, even when faced with backlash. True inclusion cannot exist without equity, and diversity without equity risks becoming mere tokenism.

A Call for Resilience and Conviction

To HR leaders feeling disheartened: don't lose hope. You can continue to push for equitable policies in your organization and in the HR industry as a whole. Keep having those difficult conversations and be the wave of change that says "no" to regressive policies.

To CEOs and organizational leaders: reflect on what you truly stand for. Are you leading with steadfast conviction, or are you swaying with the societal breeze? Are you brave enough to go against the grain when it's the right thing to do?

SHRM's decision reminds us that progress is not inevitable. Progress requires constant vigilance and unwavering commitment. As conscious leaders, it's our responsibility to keep pushing forward, expanding our understanding of equity and inclusion, and creating workplaces where everyone can truly thrive.

While we can understand SHRM's challenging position, the pivot represents a step back for DEI progress. It serves as a powerful reminder of the need for conscious leadership in evermore complex times. SHRM–and all organizations–must find ways to navigate political pressures while still championing the values of true equity and inclusion.

The future of our workplaces–and our society–depends on it.

Work With Me: Get in touch to explore an engagement.

Purchase My Book: It's Not (All) Your Fault: Self-Help and the Individualization of Oppression Available in paperback and audiobook form.