Didn't earn it?
Hello Break Roomers! Today we’re going to address the new nickname for DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion), “Didn’t Earn It”, and why it’s important to pay attention without getting swept up in the mess.
First, if you’re in the work every day: you’re incredible. I see you. Keep going.
Here’s the background: someone came up with a nickname, “Didn’t Earn It” for “DEI” and it went viral thanks to a tweet from Scott Adams on Twitter.
I haven’t been in DEI for a long time considering the age of the industry, but I’ve been adjacent to the industry since I started my professional career.
This work was always done in close partnership with executives and talent organizations across HR, TA, and DEI. So while I’ll never consider myself an expert voice, I do have a fair amount of experience within the structures and organizational strategies of DEI.
In my experience, the most common objections to DEI:
It’s helpful to consider how these views are shaped based on the people you’re talking to. A few translations:
“We don’t want to offend anyone”
When a CEO says it, means: I don’t want to lose business.
“It will slow us down”
When a hiring manager says it, means: I’m way under-resourced and need this person yesterday.
“We always hire the best person for the job”
When an executive says it, means: I was the best person for the job, which is why I’m here.
In each case, there is value in digging deeper into the fear behind the statement.
“I don’t want to offend anyone”
The CEO ??? I want this business to be successful and doing anything to offend or lose a customer will impact my ability to take care of my family, my employees, and ultimately this business.
领英推荐
“It will slow us down”
The hiring manager ??? If I don’t get someone in here to help, my headcount might be taken away and I’ll continue to be overworked in this role. I also won’t be able to take care of my team or hit my numbers, which could impact my role.
“We always hire the best person for the job”
The executive ??? I’m not biased or racist. I’ve always found the most capable person and given them the job, regardless of where they came from.
So what?
Most objections to DEI are rooted in fear: of the unknown, of losing power, of what opportunities are actually earned vs given.
Folks are overworked and don't want to be told they are bad people who didn't earn what they got in life. And people go immediately there with a closed mindset and in defense mode (it is physically impossible to learn anything when are brain is like this, BTW!) when they are told they aren't doing the right thing. - Marissa Dahlson (She / Her) ????? , Organizational Effectiveness expert
DEI feels messy because it’s rooted in identity. It feels personal because it is personal.
If your goal is to change minds and hearts, here’s a recipe I’ve used:
If someone believes that DEI = Didn’t Earn It, they are not who you should be trying to persuade.
Instead, double down on those that get it in an organization. Be the voice in the room who advocates for policies that break the myths of offending, slow hiring, and bias.
Note: DEI is an incredible nuanced and complex subject. This is a small representation and in no way comprehensive of all that goes into advocating for change within an organization.
Resources & Recommendations
Every week, I surface what I’m reading, listening to, or watching and my take on it. I’ll never recommend something I haven’t vetted.
Subscribe via email to get the full newsletter every week: https://thebreakroom.beehiiv.com/subscribe
Live
7 个月Your first point Is not an objection it is the reason DEI exists. And the only argument for it. Your second point is a valid, logical and reasonable objection. It will slow things down and take longer if qualified applicants apply and are not hired immediately because they do not fit a DEI bucket requirement. The third point is also a perfectly valid objection. It is merit based. Meritocracy should always be practiced when it can be, in order to improve a business. Higher the best employees get the best result. It is DEI versus meritocracy. Only if public opinion (PR) is more important to the companies bottom line (sales) than ability, skill or quality, is this justifiable. In today's opinion, based society where you have a social scoring and can be censored or canceled in this culture companies are often afraid thus willing to trade public relations (PR) for quality product (qp).?