Introduction
Diversity, equity, and inclusion, shortened to DE&I. These three terms are often grouped today. It wasn’t always so and need not always be. For example, as organizations become more diverse and equitable, inclusion could become a viable sole, standalone objective. However, ground realities today likely necessitate at least an understanding of all three.
Diversity is understood today in the human sphere to be linked to difference and/or variety, and the impact of this on the ways we think, act, cooperate, and relate to one another. You can only be diverse in relation to someone else. “I am diverse” only makes sense when viewed in terms of the group or individuals you are comparing yourself to. As no two individuals are alike, we are all “diverse” from one another to some degree, and it is only the degrees of diversity that vary between individuals. The sources of diversity are usually a mix of factors linked to our inherent makeup, qualities as individuals, and the circumstances in which our lives have evolved. Structural shifts also matter. For example, globalization and trade have created untold wealth in the world but may have also unleashed forces that make diversity both more visible and more precarious (e.g., dismantling of local customs, educational systems, languages, and ways of life). Each society has norms and priorities on who is considered diverse, and these evolve with the passage of time and changing circumstances.
Equity is a relatively new entrant into management vocabulary and is often used in contrast to the word equality. Both words share common Latin origins. Their modern management interpretations imply subtle but important differences. Equality means the attempt to create fair outcomes by equalizing opportunity across people, while equity means the attempt to create fair outcomes by recognizing that allowances need to be made depending on individual circumstances. It is not hard to see why purist approaches on either are problematic. We prefer to see it as a continuum, with balance as the objective. Over-indexing on the side of equality could lead to the embedding of privileged access to opportunity and the cornering of economic rewards among the most fortunate. Over-indexing on the side of equity could lead to damaging the legitimacy of those making these decisions, legal challenges, and competing claims on who is most deserving. Individual circumstances vary, but in most cases, subtle rather than blatant supportive interventions are warranted to ensure the maximization of opportunities (rather than outcomes).
Inclusion is the act of valuing differences and enabling everyone to bring their distinctiveness to, and thrive in, any situation. It is also about encouraging a sense of belonging, without the pressure to conform. It is the desired sociological situation on which the realization of many of the potential benefits of diversity to individuals, organizations, and societies depends. The greater the diversity of a team, group, organization, or society, the greater the inclusion challenge, as individuals have less in common with one another. Diverse teams that are not part of well-functioning, inclusive cultures may still claim to be preferable to less diverse teams in a social benefit sense but may struggle to do so in any meaningful team performance sense. Cultures that are not inclusive could end up perpetrating one of two outcomes for a diverse individual: They never feel that they belong and are on the fringes, or they are sucked into the vortex of dominant cultural norms, losing their individuality in the pressure to conform. As with diversity and equity, there are no precise answers on optimal levels of inclusion, and all three terms need to be viewed as evolving in line with societal and organizational evolution.
