Brandon Springle, MHR’s Post

Earlier this week, SHRM made the following announcement: “Today, SHRM announces an important shift in our approach to Inclusion and Diversity. Effective immediately, SHRM will be adopting the acronym "I&D" instead of "IE&D." This strategic decision underscores our commitment to leading with Inclusion as the catalyst for holistic change in workplaces and society. As SHRM President & CEO Johnny C. Taylor, Jr., SHRM-SCP shared in his #SHRM24 Main Stage address, this new focus highlights SHRM's role as the foremost expert and advocate in workplace Inclusion and Diversity. By emphasizing Inclusion-first, we aim to address the current shortcomings of DE&I programs, which have led to societal backlash and increasing polarization. While we shift to I&D, our commitment to advancing Equity remains steadfast. Equity will be integrated under the broader Inclusion framework, continuing to be a priority in our strategy and leadership decisions.” SHRM isn't just an organization for HR professionals. They're one of, if not the, biggest advocates for and shapers of policies in the workplace. Our founder, Sarah Noll Wilson, has had the privilege of speaking there for many years and notes that those who attend the SHRM conference in particular are generally people who are trying to make their workplaces better. Many of them want to do good work and create the best possible cultures they can for their teams. As an organization, we believe that by removing equity and the systems work from their DEI focus, SHRM will greatly reduce their impact and limit others’ ability to make progress towards dismantling systemic oppression. Eliminating the "equity" from DEIB (or "IED") in this case signals that fairness and impartiality has evaporated. The core components of the fairness equation are practices, policies, and systems. Without equity measures, there is no accountability, rendering I&D simply an illusion. Dismantling systemic oppression requires more than simply saying that we value differences. Equity is a key part of the DEI work. Equity means giving people what they need in order to succeed; it is about having policies, practices, and resources that allow opportunity and access for all. Diversity and inclusion are important, but equity is what will help solve the lopsided power dynamics we currently have in our society. Words matter, and what we focus on grows. By not speaking to equity—by not normalizing talking about what it is, how it benefits people, all the ways we are showing up with inequity—we're less likely to take steps in a better direction. As you know, we believe having better conversations starts by asking better questions. Instead of eliminating equity from the conversation, what if we dug deeper? As a society and as people in power, how can we get more courageously curious about why it’s uncomfortable to talk about these things? What's the price of taking our eye off of thinking about equity, and who is going to pay it?

There has been a lot of discussion this week about the recent announcement by SHRM over their decision to remove equity as a main pillar of building healthy organizations. My colleagues and I had plenty of conversations around the frustration and disappointment we feel by this move as we captured below. There plenty of folks who I will continue to highlight who are able to articulate the impact of this more effectively than me. That said, among the many points made in the announcement from SHRM, one that stuck with me was the reasoning provided “due to the societal backlash and polarization”. Let’s be clear there has always been polarization between those who have and those who don’t. Between those who navigate systemic and cultural marginalization and those who don’t. Between those who benefit from unchecked bias and those who don’t. Between those who “look like a leader” and those who don’t. Between those in which our current structure is accessible and to those who it isn’t. The list goes on. Who is this decision benefiting? Who is it protecting? Societal backlash by whom and towards whom? The last four years gave us an unprecedented opportunity to revolutionize how work could be done better, be better, and feel better for more people. Equity is a critical component for us to keep creating a better today and tomorrow for everyone.

“Effective immediately, SHRM will be adopting the acronym "I&D" instead of ‘IE&D.’ ” - The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), July 2024 What you call your efforts is much less important that what you actually do. That said, this change by SHRM, combined with some of the wording SHRM used to rationalize the change, is problematic in our view. SHRM just announced this change in its approach to the realm of work commonly known as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI): a decision to lessen a focus on equity that, in our view, threatens to chip away at the progress made and still needed to create successful workplaces where all workers can thrive and focus on helping their employers succeed. SHRM communicated that they will focus primarily on inclusion and diversity because they aim to address the "current shortcomings of DE&I programs, which have led to societal backlash and increasing polarization”. Let me be clear: a focus on workplace equity within the field is not the reason for any related "societal backlash and increasing polarization”. These are, in large part, the results of a small but loud minority of voices, often online (from within the U.S. and beyond), that intentionally, and clearly successfully, use DEI to create and inflame a wedge issue to score political points within the so-called culture war within the U.S. Those that have been in this field as practitioners understand that equity is fairness - a key component of this work. Equity is not about preferential treatment or quotas. It is also important to note that equity goes far beyond racial equity which is what SHRM had been primarily focusing on since 2020. I’m a long-time SHRM member and supporter of SHRM’s efforts across the globe – and will continue to be. I’ve spoken a lot with our many clients and in public, including at local and national SHRM events, across the U.S. about how to thoughtfully and effectively operationalize equity in the workplace to help everyone, including employers, thrive. Our take: SHRM has erred here. And, SHRM is unintentionally emboldening the loud voices that aim to misrepresent this work and making the good work done by many people and organizations more difficult ongoing.   SHRM’s change isn’t going to impact what we do in our work.     What is your take on SHRM's shift in approach? To read more of our thoughts, go here: https://lnkd.in/gSV2SUE2 If you find this post valuable, please consider reposting it. #equity #shrm #DEI #diversityandinclusion

The decision by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) to eliminate "Equity" from its DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) framework and shift to an "Inclusion and Diversity" (I&D) focus is a grave misstep that warrants vehement criticism. This change, announced with the purported intent of fostering "holistic change" and reducing "divisiveness," instead appears as a retreat from a fundamental commitment to equity that is essential in addressing systemic disparities in the workplace. Equity is not a nebulous or extraneous concept in the DEI lexicon; it is a cornerstone that ensures fair treatment, access, opportunity, and advancement for all employees. By sidelining equity, SHRM is diminishing the fight against ingrained inequalities and signaling a troubling shift towards a more superficial engagement with diversity and inclusion issues. SHRM CEO Johnny Taylor's justification—that confusion surrounding the term "equity" and its divisiveness in training contexts prompted this change—falls flat. The confusion cited is less an indictment of the term itself and more a reflection of the need for better education and communication around its significance. Abandoning equity because it is challenging to define or because it generates debate is an abdication of responsibility. Critics rightly highlight that this decision is a step backward. Without equity, can we truly claim to be advancing DEI work? Furthermore, SHRM's action may embolden other organizations to similarly dilute their DEI commitments, thereby undermining the progress made in recent years. In the current climate, where anti-DEI sentiments are gaining traction, SHRM's decision appears as a capitulation rather than a principled stand. By prioritizing inclusion—an inherently more palatable and less contentious term—over equity, SHRM may be seen as yielding to external pressures rather than upholding the integrity of its mission. SHRM's rationale that emphasizing inclusion will lead to "universal or near-universal agreement" misses the mark. True inclusion cannot be achieved without equity; inclusion efforts are hollow without addressing the specific needs and barriers faced by marginalized groups. The social media backlash from HR professionals and DEI experts underscores the deep dissatisfaction and concern within the community. This decision risks alienating dedicated DEI advocates and undermining the trust and credibility SHRM has built over the years. SHRM's decision to exclude equity from its DEI framework is a regressive and disappointing development. The organization must reconsider this stance and reaffirm its commitment to equity as an integral component of diversity and inclusion efforts. Only through a holistic and unwavering commitment to DEI, including equity, can SHRM truly advance its mission and support meaningful change in the workplace. #equity #shrm #letdefygravity

The decision by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) to eliminate "Equity" from its DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) framework and shift to an "Inclusion and Diversity" (I&D) focus is a grave misstep that warrants vehement criticism. This change, announced with the purported intent of fostering "holistic change" and reducing "divisiveness," instead appears as a retreat from a fundamental commitment to equity that is essential in addressing systemic disparities in the workplace. Equity is not a nebulous or extraneous concept in the DEI lexicon; it is a cornerstone that ensures fair treatment, access, opportunity, and advancement for all employees. By sidelining equity, SHRM is diminishing the fight against ingrained inequalities and signaling a troubling shift towards a more superficial engagement with diversity and inclusion issues. SHRM CEO Johnny Taylor's justification—that confusion surrounding the term "equity" and its divisiveness in training contexts prompted this change—falls flat. The confusion cited is less an indictment of the term itself and more a reflection of the need for better education and communication around its significance. Abandoning equity because it is challenging to define or because it generates debate is an abdication of responsibility. Critics rightly highlight that this decision is a step backward. Without equity, can we truly claim to be advancing DEI work? Furthermore, SHRM's action may embolden other organizations to similarly dilute their DEI commitments, thereby undermining the progress made in recent years. In the current climate, where anti-DEI sentiments are gaining traction, SHRM's decision appears as a capitulation rather than a principled stand. By prioritizing inclusion—an inherently more palatable and less contentious term—over equity, SHRM may be seen as yielding to external pressures rather than upholding the integrity of its mission. SHRM's rationale that emphasizing inclusion will lead to "universal or near-universal agreement" misses the mark. True inclusion cannot be achieved without equity; inclusion efforts are hollow without addressing the specific needs and barriers faced by marginalized groups. The social media backlash from HR professionals and DEI experts underscores the deep dissatisfaction and concern within the community. This decision risks alienating dedicated DEI advocates and undermining the trust and credibility SHRM has built over the years. SHRM's decision to exclude equity from its DEI framework is a regressive and disappointing development. The organization must reconsider this stance and reaffirm its commitment to equity as an integral component of diversity and inclusion efforts. Only through a holistic and unwavering commitment to DEI, including equity, can SHRM truly advance its mission and support meaningful change in the workplace.

We feel it is necessary to address SHRM's recent policy change to remove equity as a prominent category in the DEI initiative. I have been involved with SHRM at the national, state, or local level for many years, and I am currently a proud chapter leader with the NJ-RC SHRM. I have been concerned with National SHRM's direction for several years and remain so, especially with their most recent announcement. Equity plays a crucial role in ensuring that all individuals have fair access to opportunities and resources. By removing it from the forefront of the DEI framework, the HR Support Services Division with Industrial U.I. Services is concerned that the focus on creating truly inclusive and equitable workplaces may be diminished. Equity is not just an abstract principle but a tangible goal that requires deliberate and continued effort. What are your thoughts? Let’s continue to have an open and respectful dialogue.

***I WISH THAT SHRM HAD MORE COURAGE*** The HR community is reeling in the wake of SHRM's announcement that it would be eliminating a focus on equity. This heralds the removal of equity from Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. According to SHRM, this move is meant to address the "current shortcomings of DE&I programs, which have led to societal backlash and increasing polarization”. I confess that I'm really struggling to reconcile this "pivot" with SHRM's 2021 article in which they asserted that real progress requires sustained commitment. Where is that sustained commitment today?🤔 Has it been replaced by a new philosophy that holds that when the going gets tough, you back down and give in?😠 Just six months ago, SHRM published public comments on workplace equity. Here are just a few of the assertions in that document: 🚩 Organizations that proactively engage in pay equity best practices have a competitive advantage and stand to gain several benefits for both workers and the bottom line. 🚩 Organizations must look beyond quick, surface-level fixes and focus on how they can create more equitable and transparent pay practices that serve as a foundation for lasting and positive change. 🚩When considering best practices to achieve business diversity, any BDP should emphasize how important it is that HR, senior leaders and people managers are equipped with the right tools from the start rather than in response to the detection of a pay inequity Further, given SHRM's repeated statements about the importance of evidence based decision-making, how are we supposed to reconcile this pivot against the absence of empirical evidence to support their claim that the existing societal polarization and backlash is causally linked to the shortcomings of DEI programs? I think that Desiree Morton, Founder of Aginci, said it best in this quote: “Metaphorically, it's as if SHRM is hoping to mitigate a house fire by cutting the wick of a single candle within it. The house is still on fire, the effects are ongoing, and the efforts to mitigate it require a systematic and coordinated approach that first acknowledges the very realities of inequality at work. These are the true sources of polarization”. So, I'm calling on SHRM to grow a pair and to reconsider this pivot. Julie Turney, (HRforHR) Paula Walcott, FCIPD, SHRM-SCP #shrm #equity #equitywar #hrprofessionals #hrmatters #courage #dei #FixItSHRM

I have never believed that SHRM gave a sh*t about equity and haven't associated with them in years, but I am still talking about their missteps. I've been hearing comments and getting DMs from a few equity minded folks about why we shouldn't be talking about SHRM, and it seems to boils down to two main points. #1 "Why are people upset now?" or "I have known this forever, who cares." I get it, when you've been aware of the issues for so long, it's easy to just be done with it. I fully support folks who don't want to engage, especially those who have been impacted or excluded by SHRM forever. But here's the thing: awareness and change are not linear. Just because we've known about these problems for a long time doesn't mean they're any less significant or urgent. And for some folks this is new information. Either they haven't been paying as close of attention or they weren't as tuned into the inequities so many of us have felt. They see it clearly now. Every new person who becomes aware of and vocal about inequities contributes to the momentum needed for systemic change. So, while it may feel exhausting to hear the same messages, I believe that it's valuable. Every time we speak up, we educate someone new. We remind those who have grown complacent. We grow the support to make a shift away from SHRM as an industry. Change often comes in waves. What might seem like a sudden surge of urgency is usually the result of years of advocacy, of voices speaking out persistently. Each wave builds on the previous one, pushing us closer to true equity in our industry, workplaces, and beyond. So, to everyone feeling weary or disheartened: keep talking. Keep educating. Keep pushing. Keep moving towards action. Our collective voices are powerful, and together, we can create the change we want to see. And if you've been out on them and just want to be out of all of this, go for it. #2: "Why do we care about an organization that has nothing to do with us?" The other thing I've seen is folks who feel like SHRM is irrelevant or doesn't impact them. SHRM plays a significant role in shaping HR policies and practices across industries. They are a powerful lobbying force in government, influencing legislation that affects workplaces nationwide. Many organizations require certification for their HR representatives and rely on SHRM's guidelines and standards to shape their own HR practices. #3: This one I haven't seen but I would add my own critique of the discourse which is that only a small percentage of it has any action associated. Conversation and awareness aren't enough—we also need to be moved to action. I encourage folks to figure out what that looks like for them. There isn't only one way. If you want to see the actions items I'm taking and cosigning, check out the petition linked in the comments. Getting close to 400 signatures!

Clients and others across the U.S. have called us for our take on this recent SHRM announcement. The below post includes our thoughts. #dei #equity #SHRM #diversityandinclusion #humanresources

As a longtime supporter of SHRM This situation with dropping Equity from its DEI strategy has been very taxing to me. I’m literally losing sleep about it I don’t agree with every decision SHRM makes or every stand that they take however, it is an organization that gave me a Black Woman who prioritizes equitable outcomes every day the support I needed to forge a successful path in HR when NO ONE ELSE was checking for me. In effect it gave me the power and platform to bring along others who look like me. In other words push for equitable outcomes for all. I recognize not everyone feels that way or had my experience with SHRM but I’m fine with that and we can still exist together. These are my thoughts: * I don’t agree with dropping the equity but honestly it doesn’t matter what you call it if you are doing the work. I’m not saying SHRM is doing the work, I’m saying that I am. Are you? * Don’t punish the state and local chapters. Many of them do good work and personally touch diverse HR people every day. * No organization gives you permission to be equitable. Many of you work in or with organizations every day that are not equitable. If you’ve been doing the work, you will continue with or without any organization’s blessing or strategy. * For those of you not Black or Brown who are so bothered by this - take a look at your own circles of influence and work. Who are you supporting and raising up for equitable outcomes because your posts, group pictures and podcast guests don’t show or support diversity. (Don’t come at me with the diversity of thought or any of those other phrases because it is always intersected by race and if you are doing the work this is not for you) * Doing equity work does not require vitriol and hate. You don’t have to take on civility as your thing but my goodness giving such hate for something you don’t like is not the same as doing the work to break down systems and support true change. Good HR people don't depend on one organization to give them everything that they need to be good. You should be getting learning and resources from many places. That creates the good within you and manifests itself through your everyday actions to say what you mean, and do what you say. We can sometimes get so caught up in our need to say something or call out something that we think needs to be denounced that we lose sight of our individual power and responsibility. That is where the real change lies. I will close with this, as a fellow Linkedinder said, “t's not that I'm for SHRM- 𝐢𝐭'𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐈'𝐦 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐇𝐑 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐬.” I feel that deeply. Thanks for those words Stephanie! Ps Do not be disrespectful in these comments. It will not be tolerated. I suggest you put that energy into fighting for equity. Thank you kindly. #ilovehr #goodhr #humanresources