If you’ve ever read or seen Romeo & Juliet, you’re familiar with the line “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose/ By any other name would smell as sweet…” Yet when it comes to discussions of diversity, inclusion, and equity, there’s been a lot of movement around the terminology. Most recently SHRM made waves by dropping the E and going to I&D. This examination of the evolution of the names used also addresses what it all means for the work to create genuinely inclusive environments.
The civil rights movement of the 1960s is largely viewed as the starting point of today’s focus on workplace diversity. This included:
- Equal Pay Act which in 1963 aimed to create a more equitable workplace
- Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibiting discrimination in hiring and promotion
- Age Discrimination in Employment Act, passed in 1967, to create a more equitable workplace
- 1973’s Rehabilitation Act fostering inclusivity for individuals with disabilities
As a result of these laws focused on diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility, companies began incorporating more diversity training and working to integrate their office environments without discrimination based on race, gender, national origin, religion, age, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status or other distinctions.
The business impact of diversity, equity, and inclusion
Research is plentiful today supporting the value of diversity and how it affects how well people do their jobs. In its late 2023 report, Diversity Matters Even More, McKinsey & Company found the business case for these efforts is increasing. For example:
- Gender diversity: In 2023, top-quartile companies had a 39 percent greater likelihood of financial outperformance versus their bottom-quartile peers. In 2015, that number was 15.
- Ethnic diversity: Those in the top quartile of ethnic representation had a 39 percent increased likelihood of outperforming those in the bottom quartile. Top quartile companies also showed an average 27 percent financial advantage over others.
- Board diversity: Top quartile companies outperformed those in the bottom quartile by 27 percent (gender) or 13 percent (ethnicity).
So, what’s with all the changing ways of labeling these initiatives? That’s what we discuss next.
Evolution of the concept
As organizations and communities have broadened their understanding of what it takes to achieve diverse representation and take a purpose-driven approach to equity and inclusion, the way we talk about it has changed. This section provides a succinct summary of each stage of this progression.
Diversity & Inclusion (D&I)
The initial focus, roughly starting in the late 1980s, was often on Diversity and Inclusion. “Diversity” focused on representation across different demographics, especially race and gender. “Inclusion” aimed to ensure these diverse groups were welcomed and respected.
In many cases, these initiatives in the workplace leaned heavily on hiring practices and ensuring underrepresented groups were included.
Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI)
In the 1990s, the importance of addressing systemic barriers that prevent equal access and opportunity was better understood. This led to an added emphasis on Equity to highlight the need for fair access to resources and opportunities for all employees.
The attention to fair treatment and leveling the playing field embraced a broader spectrum of diversity recognizing various identity groups, including ethnic, religious, and LGBTQ+ communities.
Some feared expanding the scope would dilute efforts. Yet at the same time an emergence of diversity professionals in organizations helped the shift to more awareness raising and educational trainings.
Diversity, Equity, Inclusion & Belonging (DEIB)
In recent years, some organizations added ”Belonging,” which is defined by the Achievers Workforce Institute “as an experience of connection, security and community – feeling at home in one’s place without reservation.”
This shift reflected the increased emphasis on employee experience and acknowledged that true inclusion involves creating spaces where people feel they can be their authentic selves.
The Achievers Workforce Institute reports employees with a high sense of belonging compared to a low sense of belonging are:
- 7x more productive and are 6x more engaged
- Experience 12X greater well-being, 5x greater psychological safety, and 3x greater physical safety
- Show 9x more job commitment and are 12X more likely to be employee advocates
Yet, some worry the subjectivity of Belonging — as it taps into emotional and psychological aspects of workplace culture — makes it more difficult to influence and measure.
Inclusion & Diversity (I&D)
All of which brings us to the more recent, I&D. Some organizations have reordered the terms to I&D to stress that creating an inclusive culture is the foundation upon which all else rests.
Announcing the change at SHRM in July, president Johnny C. Taylor, Jr. wrote on Linkedin, “We’re going to lead with inclusion, because we need a world where inclusion is front and center. And that means inclusion for all, not some people. Everyone has a right to feel that they belong in the workplace and that they are included.”
This reframing is meant to encourage organizations to first build inclusive policies, practices, and mindsets so that when diversity increases those individuals are genuinely included from day one.
Dropping equity from the discussion was met with widespread criticism. Opponents questioned the absorption of “fairness, justice and access to advancement for all people” into the broader term when structural inequality and systemic barriers remain. For example, take wage disparity:
- Women earn 84 cents of every dollar men make
- Black women were paid 66% of what non-Hispanic white men were paid in 2022.
- Latina women working full-time, year-round are paid 57 cents and all earners (including part-time and seasonal) are paid 52 cents for every dollar paid to non-Hispanic white men
Still others defended the move stating that the equity component has seen serious backlash. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling against affirmative action in higher education, major companies have seen a jump in complaints, threatening letters, and litigations regarding long-standing DEI policies and procedures.
Authors of a Harvard Business Review article wrote that diversity programs may be at risk if they meet the following three criteria:
- “It confers a preference, meaning that some individuals are treated more favorably than others.
- The preference is given to members of a legally protected group, such as groups defined by the categories protected in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These are race, color, religion, national origin, and sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity).
- The preference relates to a palpable benefit, such as a job, a promotion, a pay raise, a work assignment, or access to training and development opportunities.”
The practice remains relevant
Ultimately, every change in the way we view diversity, equity, inclusion, and even belonging, reflects shifting societal understanding of the importance of balance representation, fairness, culture, and emotional safety in the workplace. Again, drawing on Shakespeare, the rose can smell just as sweet regardless of its acronym so long as efforts continue to be not just about numbers but about creating holistic, supportive, and fair environments where everyone can thrive.
Find out how your employees feel about your current diversity and inclusiveness efforts with surveys that reveal their sentiments.
