Lily Zheng published What Comes After DEI in the Harvard Business Review (January 2025), which looks at the pitfalls of DEI in creating more equitable workplaces and proposes a new framework built around the core outcomes of fairness, access, inclusion and representation (FAIR).
Human Level’s Take:
- Amid growing anti-DEI backlash, now is the time to rethink what’s needed, and what’s not working, to build a model that truly delivers equitable workplaces.
- The need is clear - 91% of workers have faced discrimination related to race, gender, disability, age or body size. And 94% care about feeling a sense of belonging at work.
- Yet, many DEI efforts fall short, relying on jargon, one-off workshops, and siloed programming that relies on burned-out volunteers, with little accountability or measurable impact.
- So what can companies do? Companies can: 1) use data-driven strategies to measurably improve outcomes for all employees and track impact, rather than relying on awareness-building alone; 2) apply a change management approach by improving personnel policies, hiring, promotion and feedback processes, leadership incentives, and organisational culture and norms. This differs from a “self education” approach whereby the onus is on individuals to align their beliefs with an arbitrary standard of “inclusion”; 3) build inclusive coalitions, which engages everyone in the workplace as part of the solution and avoids blaming or targeting specific social identity groups; and 4) communicate the win-win value of DEI rather than reinforcing zero-sum narratives.
Some key takeaways:
- Pitfalls of DEI initiatives: The need for inclusive workplaces for all is undeniable, with the article quoting two polls by Monster and the American Psychological Association that find that 91% of workers have experienced discrimination related to race, gender, disability, age or body size and 94% of workers caring about feeling a sense of belonging at work. Despite this, the article finds that current DEI initiatives fail to change bias, reduce prejudice, or improve outcomes for underserved groups. Instead, they use jargon-heavy communication, siloed programming reliant on burned out volunteers, and one-off workshops. There is also little measurement of progress or accountability. Given the current anti-DEI backlash, the article shares that this is an opportune time to reimagine this work.
- What does a better model look like?: Due to the shortcomings of current DEI initiatives, the article argues that “DEI needs a reset.” In its place, DEI work should evolve to incorporate the following four principles: 1) Outcomes-Based, going beyond whether an employer has committed to progress to whether they have measurably achieved progress. For instance, focusing on measurable results like pay equity, physical and psychological safety, wellness and promotional rates, rather than bandwagoning and budgeting for a one-time training and posting on social media; 2) Systems-Focused, using change management to achieve healthier workplace systems (implementing policies, processes, practices and norms) rather than a “self-education” approach. For instance, a systems-focused approach aims to achieve inclusion at scale by rewarding inclusive leaders, creating inclusive workplace processes and normalising expectations for inclusive behaviour; 3) Coalition-Drive, engaging everyone in taking responsibility and working together to find solutions that work for all, rather than delegating the blame or placing the onus of problem-solving to small groups of employees; 4) Win-Win, focusing on communicating the benefits of progress for everyone and pushing back against the notion that progress could be zero-sum. For example, reaching out to people of all genders to challenge gender biases, rather than assuming only women will be interested in, and will benefit from, this topic.
- How can FAIR succeed where DEI has failed?: Based on the aforementioned principles, the fairness, access, inclusion and representation (FAIR) framework aims to achieve the following four outcomes:
- Fairness, which is when all people are set up for success and protected against discrimination. Fairness does not mean treating everyone in exactly the same way because people have different identities, experiences and needs. It means building workplace policies, processes and practices to prevent bias, maintaining accountability, and meeting a range of needs while ensuring the same high standard of experience for everyone. In practical terms, this means looking at the major touchpoints of a person’s interaction with their workplace environment (e.g., pay, promotion, resources, opportunities, discipline, learning and feedback). Where there are major differences in experience, potential unfairness is investigated and policies, processes or practices are corrected to fix the problem;
- Access, which is when all people can fully participate in a product, service, experience, or physical environment; this applies to more than disability. It requires removing barriers to participation and designing products, services, experiences and environments that work for all. For instance, if a monthly networking event takes place during typical daycare pick-up hours, the event is inaccessible. In practical terms, access can be measured by looking at people’s participation and engagement with their environment, and metrics like attendance, utilisation, or completion rate can be used. If major differences in experience are identified, potential inaccessibility can be investigated and corrected, which involves adopting new standard practices in design and development;
- Inclusion, which is when all people feel respected, valued and safe for who they are. It means engaging thoughtfully with what makes people different. For instance, if a workplace is a physically and psychologically safe place to work for all genders, this is gender inclusion. In practical terms, inclusion can be measured by administering surveys and assessments on people’s feelings and experiences within an environment. If major differences in experience are identified, potential exclusion can be investigated, those involved can be offered feedback and accountability, and the environment can be corrected to fix the problem;
- Representation, which is when all people feel their needs are advocated for by those who represent them. This requires participatory decision-making processes, frequent and transparent communications between leaders and key partners, and high trust in leadership from many different groups they represent. For instance, if leaders consistently promise that they will listen to workers experiencing exclusion but then refuse to meet with them, those workers lack representation even if they have a designed “representative” on the leadership team. In practical terms, representation can be measured by collecting self-reported data from surveys and assessments on people’s feelings about leadership, influence, voice and trust. If major differences in experience are identified, the potential lack of representation can be investigated and corrections to communication, behaviour and decision-making processes can be made. In addition, representation is a matter of trust, not tokenism. For example, a leadership team made up entirely of women may be non-representative of women if none of the leaders make an effort to understand and advocate for the needs of the women they represent.
