DEI: Inclusion as a Lightning Rod?

Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. DEI. On the face of it, three words and an idea that should be uncontroversial and difficult for most to oppose or argue against.

In reality, an acronym that has become a lightning rod for stakeholders who view the world through an “ideology first and above all” perspective, and a source of debate for others who question the approaches chosen, to implement the principle. An idea rooted in good intention that has, in some jurisdictions, triggered legal action to eradicate it from public policy, corporate and commercial priorities and even academic attention.

Looking at this from a communications lens, we can bring back the Red Sangria “Pendulum Perspective”, introduced in an earlier post. The framework that looks at certain developments such as corporate social responsibility, ESG and now DEI, as existing on a spectrum of priority, attention and focus.

Having been at one extreme for a very long time over the arc of history – zero attention, zero priority and active, systemic opposition – some of these ideas, and their related Pendulum, swung to the other end of the spectrum. Perhaps a little too far beyond what could have been a sustainable and equitable equilibrium, but understandably so when considered through the prism of the Pendulum Perspective.

An important question around DEI comes down to the type of society one wishes to build, and what priorities will determine its character and qualities. At the peak of global attention to ESG, inclusion and sustainability, there was significant political, social and policy commitment to ideas like DEI. Today, some jurisdictions actively push back, and opponents of various stripes are once again vocal about their views.

One concrete, messaging and communications-based example of the triggers of this pushback, relates to negative storytelling to advance DEI. The expression “Pale, Male and Stale” illustrates such poorly conceived, divisive messaging which in the end, did not serve those seeking to advance DEI. In stark contrast is an axiomatic understanding that has evolved in the art and science of international development: in some communities, the only viable way to ensure positive outcomes from development funding is to ensure the resources are managed by the women of the community. This is not posturing, it is strategy rooted in experience and analysis (as well as costly past mistakes). DEI in this context is not a nice theory or a forced policy initiative devoid of substance. It can be a matter of life and death for a family and a community.

Similarly on the other side of the argument, a position which opposes DEI based on the “small to negligible” number of affected individuals, misses the mark. Inclusion is not about numbers as proxies for social impact or even political capital. It is about reflecting and valuing our collective community, and about commitment to doing so even when “the numbers” don’t support the approach.

Strategic messaging around DEI must balance multiple factors and considerations, including the need to retain a focus on genuine meritocracy, and the imperative to acknowledge and eliminate systemic (conscious and unconscious) bias. Messaging must objectively demonstrate the value of reflecting a range of perspectives, for example on the boards of companies, non-profits and other institutions. It should also give due weight to the “soft” reputational and brand benefits of reflecting the communities in which an organization operates. All this can be done in a voice that is positive, constructive and forward-looking, and with a discipline around offsetting divisiveness and the dangers of creating – again – an “us and them” dynamic.

Creating – or highlighting – a shared enemy to drive unity around a cause can work in certain circumstances, but in advancing the ideas and aspirations connected to DEI, the approach is misaligned and fundamentally flawed. Setting aside the desire by some to completely eliminate DEI considerations, but giving due consideration to those who aim to help attain an equitable and sustainable equilibrium, it is important to devise messages that tell a story of balance and genuine fairness. These should hone in on positive impact to social fabric, and on the sustainability of DEI, rather than using sensationalist, often logically and factually flawed “examples” of “injustice” arising from DEI measures and initiatives.

Like many such issues, DEI and its status, impact and potential will vary materially across jurisdictions, cultures and organizations. Some contexts call for strong, unequivocal and decisive messaging, others will be better served by a more measured tone and approach: the art of strategic communication is in determining which voice to adopt, how to use it to tell a compelling story, and which sets of issues (and their nexus) are best addressed at a given moment.

The nature and tone of a communication strategy – like DEI itself – goes to the heart of the type of society, community or organization stakeholders wish to build. Whether the messaging finds its roots at the “top”, grows from the foundation, or evolves from both directions to meet in the middle, is also a matter for thoughtful consideration in crafting a powerful, effective approach, and a compelling message.

DEI is here to stay in some form. Its ultimate nature, shape and character will come down to the messaging that defines its next chapter.

Red Sangria. Human Powered. Every Time.