How should workplaces reframe diversity and inclusion practices?

The writer is chief commercial officer, Caliber, a media start-up. She is writing in a personal capacity

When I first began writing this essay in the summer, I did not expect that the very need for diversity practices would soon come under question, let alone how diversity and inclusion should be reframed.

As a British woman living between the UK and US, I’ve directly experienced how today’s political and cultural shifts carry real consequences. With the US leading a rollback in corporate diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, any successful reframing will struggle to gain traction, unless those working directly or indirectly in DEI can embrace change.

After years of reports from institutions such as business consultancy McKinsey, there is abundant evidence that diversity benefits business. Yet, despite several research studies finding that diverse management teams have a positive impact on revenues, workplace diversity and inclusion remains “a practice”, not a foundational operating principle.

This is, in part, a communications failure. DEI has become siloed, jargon-laden, and reactive. Training is too often reduced to tick-box exercises, exposing the gap between intention and outcome. These fragmented efforts are especially vulnerable to changing economic conditions or shifting political opinion.

If the benefits of diversity in organisations are to be unlocked, workplaces must consider three seemingly subtle shifts that begin with the basics: culture, language and ownership.

Culture

Businesses must build organisational cultures that emphasise embracing complexity, not simply promoting diversity. A recent study by Maslansky+Partners, a consultancy specialising in language strategy, found that 62 per cent of the general population in the US did not know the specific term “DEI”, a familiar abbreviation to those working in the area, but sometimes baffling to those outside. Even among college graduates, only 48 per cent knew it. This lack of familiarity reflects a deeper problem: the very language of “diversity and inclusion” is increasingly out of step with the realities it aims to address.

When I reflect on my own career, it’s possible to see instances where the absence of strong, value-driven cultures can lead to groupthink and conformity, even in progressive teams. The real business value of embracing complexity, and the intellectual friction that it sparks, then gets overlooked despite it driving innovation.

In my experience in a leadership position at Caliber — a media start-up — I have learned to codify and build a workplace culture from scratch. This has helped me see where I may have failed as a leader of others in the past and where I too have been failed by others. More recently, building values around words such as “honesty” and “candour” has created a shared language of leadership at every level and taught me how to welcome productive tension and dynamics where people feel both challenged and seen.

That process has changed the way I build teams, lead through the uncertainty business brings and hold space for challenging conversations or feedback. Where I once treated feedback to others as “a big conversation”, I now find ways to give it fast and in the moment rather than lose opportunities to help my team course-correct or learn. Where once I treated conversations about my own development as something to dread or avoid, I now see them as opportunities to grow and be better.

Language

As well as embracing complexity, we need to rethink the entire language of DEI. It cannot come with a dictionary of definitions, because that would stop it becoming instinctive and instead lead to it becoming merely a clinical exercise. For businesses to welcome the progress that true diversity brings, we must not attach it to terms that create clinical detachment at best or the lip-service of performative allyship at worst.

Terms such as “allyship” or “psychological safety” may be well-intentioned, but in practice they too often create superficial consensus or mask inaction. Compliance policies tend to flatten complexity and I have found that genuine inclusion thrives more on curiosity and ambiguity, rather than on corporate scripts that try to set out rules for discourse.

Ownership

With a strong culture and clear language, the next question is who “owns” — that is, who is responsible for — and champions DEI’s success within a workplace. In 2022, just over half (53 per cent) of Fortune 500 companies had appointed chief diversity officers, according to a McKinsey report. Yet despite this perceived progress, I work with many small to midsize businesses where DEI lies in the hands of overstretched HR teams whose priorities may well conflict with their goals. Championing diversity exists to challenge the status quo, but the role of HR is often to comply and maintain legal protection. This tension means HR may ultimately work against an environment where diversity thrives.

The ownership of diversity needs to sit at board level within a business so that it can be spread beyond the employee experience. Be it a creative agency casting an advertisement; a bank serving thousands of customers; or a fast-food company with complicated supply chains — there are many opportunities to embed diversity across every facet of an organisation.

It is tempting to believe that true progress on workplace equality will come through global policymaking or bold initiatives. But my experience is that meaningful short-term change begins with the basics. By focusing on these quieter, structural levers, we make the benefits of diversity harder to ignore and can start to build resilience against the political and cultural forces that are already undermining it.

DEI should not be about compliance. It should be about embracing complexity, and the creativity, resilience and honesty it demands. If we reframe it this way, we will build not just more inclusive businesses, we will build organisations that are better prepared for an unpredictable world.