WHAT'S IN A NAME — Should Companies Drop the Term DEI?

In today’s media, politics, and corporate circles, the terms diversity, equity, and inclusion (shorthanded as DEI) have become lightning rods. The reaction? Drop the acronym. Change the names. Call it "belonging." Focus on "inclusion."

Some clients ask me, “Are these the right moves?”

My answer: Don't lead your response with a name change. Instead, lead by explaining what it will take to safeguard the work. Once you do this, then it doesn't matter whether you change the name or not.

Renaming diversity efforts without reinforcing the work behind them is a mistake I am seeing too many make. The SCOTUS ruling in the summer of 2023 banning Affirmative Action in universities led to rollbacks in many corporations that swiftly banished "DEI" language and substituted it with all kinds of other terms that the enemies of DEI would not see as threats to their worldview.

This response was misguided because they did this without first asking themselves some fundamental questions:

• What do we believe about the realities of a diverse world that shapes the workforce and marketplace?
• What Implications does it have for us as a business and employer?

For those companies who took the moment to pause and reground themselves on the original Whys for the work, it only re-confirmed for them that there were plenty of good reasons for why they had invested so much in the work of DEI over time in the first: attract best talent, optimize team performance; generate more innovation; penetrate and grow in previously unreached markets.

With their Whys clear, then came the Hows: With the anti-DEI wolves outside the DEI coop, how to keep discovering hidden talent outside and inside the organization? how do we leverage the power of diverse perspectives generated by differences in experiences, backgrounds, beliefs, and practices to generate never-before-created ideas to counter never-before-seen challenges and seize never-will-be-seen-again opportunities? how to fully engage and value those who have traditionally been on the outside of opportunities?

With the anti-DEI wolves outside the DEI coop, how to keep discovering hidden talent outside and inside the organization?

There are plenty of good answers: expanding the definition of overlooked talent to be inclusive of anyone who had experienced limited access and opportunity due to being lower income or first generation in the corporate world; taking meritocracy so seriously that organizations elevate their commitment to metrics that will hold their companies accountable for living up to this ideal; seeing everyone as "diverse" in that each one of us has an irreproducible, unique story; making inclusion of everyone in the community the responsibility of all.

With this clarity, then the safeguards to be able to do the work must be budget and resources. Those companies that changed the name and reduced budgets and resources revealed the shallowness of their belief and commitment to the issues. But there were plenty who judiciously chose to change the name while still protecting the monies and the talent dedicated to keeping the work going.

Making the Decision

Once companies put these safeguards in place, then they can debate—once they have implemented legally defensible approaches—whether they need or want to change the name of DEI.

Among these companies, those who choose to change the name can do so without it being a retreat or surrender. Rather, it simply becomes an astute response toward those who have chosen to weaponize the term DEI to target the organization.

Others will choose to double down on the use of the term DEI because it's a declaration of how important it is for them not even to give the appearance of retreat.

As someone who cares deeply about transformational work, I don't worry about either answer being the best one for those who ensured they safeguarded the work. In those companies, the transformation will proceed and yield results because that's what truthful, authentic, values-driven, committed, and accountable work does.

But for those companies who dropped DEI without safeguarding the work, that choice is entirely different from that of companies who did the work and yet decided it would best protect their efforts to drop the term DEI.

You can rebrand all you want, but without substance, cracks will show. Renaming your DEI initiative isn’t going to protect you from scrutiny, backlash, or failure. The real question you must answer is whether your commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion is authentically meaningful or just-for-show performative.

You can rebrand all you want, but without substance, cracks will show. Renaming your DEI initiative isn’t going to protect you from scrutiny, backlash, or failure.

But companies with a solid foundation don’t need to hide behind new names. If you’ve built real systems of accountability, the name is secondary. In the end, it’s not about the name—it’s about the outcomes. Companies that have done the real work of building diverse and inclusive cultures will thrive, no matter what they call it.

If you’ve done so, the name you end up with will not matter.

Note: This piece is a follow-up to my previous issue of the Generative Newsletter, "THE END OF CORPORATE DEI? The Threats Are Real, But the Fundamentals Have Not Changed (at all)."