Board Governance and Leadership of Equity

Equity – refers to fairness and justice…the quality of being fair and impartial, distinguished from equality by accounting for each person’s starting point to adjust for imbalances.

Diversity – state of being diverse…including people from a range of different backgrounds.

Inclusion – the state or act of including.

These words, defined above in everyday language (summary definitions from google and standard online dictionaries like Oxford/Cambridge/Merriam-Webster) have never been more contested. Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI), are meant to be values that guide societies and organizations towards better outcomes for all, often enshrined in our most fundamental governing and social/psychological contract texts and promises, from constitutions to the law.

Yet today, across North America/the Western world these and their related cousin words globally that call for anti-oppressions of all forms (e.g. gender mainstreaming, decolonization etc.) and that are grounded in humanistic/democratic values, have never been more contested. EDI and related terminologies now elicit debates, strong emotions and polarization on a continuum that runs from the legitimate and very normal emotions that come with change and transformation to entrenched ideological beliefs that leave no room for bridging, eliciting othering instead of fostering our basic, fundamental human need for belonging in our human societies and institutions. So for those responsible for governing today’s organizations, from public institutions, to civil society, to corporate organizations, the question is: How do you guide, direct and protect the institutions which you are meant to be working in the collective best interests of? For board directors and leaders, how do you exercise your core duty of care and fiduciary responsibilities within organizations that mirror the polarizations of the day regarding J/EDI issues. Here are some basic considerations for Boards and leaders regarding governing EDI.

First, understand that the current EDI landscape, including the increased debates about its (re)prioritization, (de)prioritization and popular polarization makes it a significant governance issue of concern. In the midst, Boards and leaders today must consider: What is the case for EDI in your organizational context? What is the place/position of the Board and subsequently management regarding EDI in your organization? What are your compliance requirements? What are the risks such as legal, reputational and business/organizational continuity to the decision(s) you make about EDI?

Second, review and trust the data, seeking both qualitative and quantitative sources and disaggregating data to deeply understand equity issues and move beyond the anecdotal and entrenched impasses of EDI conversations. What is the sector data showing? How does that impact your industry and your particular organization? What is the data from your own organization showing? For individual directors, this is where your duty of care becomes critical. How do you immerse yourself while differentiating your own personal biases, beliefs and positions from the actual data in front of you? How will you remain open to changing your perspectives as you reasonably assess and review the actual evidence. This is part of the ‘do your work’ responsibilities of directors and it is critical, in a context where misinformation and disinformation has become endemic to EDI work, for governors to make evidence-informed decisions. ?

Third, center your fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of the organization you serve in making your decisions regarding EDI. Boards must do this in the face of competing and conflicting stakeholder interests, from activist investors to community members to the public interest depending on the sector they are serving in. What are the strategic opportunities regarding EDI for the organization? What are the related risks, including the polarized challenges of on all sides of the debates and how can they be addressed? Here, individual board members must also manage and declare their own conflicts of interests that may impact decisions as the Board works through these questions.

Fourth, determine the strategic direction and how to ensure oversight, reporting and evaluating of any EDI strategies adopted by the Board. What Board committee will support governance of the EDI direction? Does the board see EDI as a primary risk concern? A people and culture/talent management concern? Other? And regardless, what might be the responsibilities for every Board committee in regard to EDI if it is to be held as an underlying value of importance across the organization?

Fifth, and arguably most importantly, clarify how you will model and enact EDI within the structure of your Board and senior leadership teams to ensure that the importance of EDI, if adopted within the organization for the right strategic reasons, is modelled and signaled right from the top. Today, prospective employees start right at assessing a Board and leadership team’s diversity and adoption of best practices such as written policies/commitment statements and demographic disclosures/reporting as a measure of an organization’s alignment to its values, which directly impacts recruitment and retention efforts including of the Board’s single employee—the President/CEO.

The current business case for EDI seems clear. For example: ~~~see full post here ~~