A new framework for DEI

A new framework for DEI

Note: earlier today (12/23/24) I posted a related blog in my Forbes channel. That version was aimed at business leaders. This version is aimed at DEI practitioners and leaders.

Many years ago one of my colleagues introduced me to a framework to help understand the value of an offering from the point of view of the clients. He suggested thinking of all the benefits that may result from our offering, and placing them on a diagram based on two dimensions: tangible<->intangible and direct<->indirect (TIDI).

How does this help? Most clients only want to buy offerings based on their direct/tangible benefits, which must align with their needs. The TIDI framework is a strategy to help us describe our offerings so that the direct/tangible benefits align with the client's needs. To the extent that we believe there are additional benefits, it is helpful to categorize them in the TIDI framework to help the client see the additional value of what we offer.

Viewing DEI in the TIDI framework

The TIDI framework can help us understand what has gone wrong with DEI, and how we may want to reframe DEI to overcome the backlash.

Traditional DEI approaches have placed Diversity as the main goal and the main metric of success. Back in 2018, I suggested that focusing on diversity as the main goal was a mistake because it was likely to lead to backlash by creating resentment. More recently, I also explained why diversity-based targets create misalignment. The misalignment becomes clear when we map the stated benefits of traditional DEI approaches onto the TIDI framework.

Looking at the left side of the figure above, traditional approaches to DEI place "increased diversity" in the "direct/tangible" area, making it the primary objective. All other benefits are indirect, intangible, or both. This has been the traditional pitch for DEI: create more diversity, and many benefits will follow.

However, this is not what most corporate leaders want. They may love DEI and believe in diversity, but it's not aligned with their primary responsibility: make more money for shareholders. And when some leaders buy into the traditional narrative and don't see the results they were promised, they become disenchanted.

On the right side I show the TIDI mapping of benefits based on my work on Measuring Inclusion. The approach aligns with corporate objectives by showing profitability as the primary benefit, and listing other benefits as secondary. This mindset is reflected in the subtitle of my book, higher profits & happier people, without guesswork or backlash.

Diversity as an indirect/intangible benefit

In the TIDI framework, we see that "increased diversity" appears as an indirect/intangible benefit. Some of my colleagues and friends may object to this framing. If so, please consider that identifying diversity as an indirect/intangible benefit does not mean there is no value in greater diversity, it just means that:

  1. It is indirect because you cannot manipulate diversity directly. Even if you have not read my explanations of why inclusion is what you do, diversity is what you get, the repeated failed attempts to increase diversity directly should be a pretty compelling argument.
  2. It is intangible because diversity is not something you can put as an asset in your balance sheet or show to your board as a strategic advantage. Diversity is just a snapshot in time of who is in your organization.

It is crucial to understand that the point of the TIDI framework is to help frame things in a way that appeals to corporate leaders, it is not a statement of implicit value or of my personal thoughts about diversity.

If this still bothers you because you think that diversity should be the #1 priority, ask yourself the following question: would you prefer to use a framework that can motivate leaders to take meaningful action, with the indirect result of greater diversity? Or would you prefer to insist that diversity should be the #1 objective, and watch in dismay as your efforts are rejected by leaders and give rise to backlash?

The strategic value of the TIDI framework

The point of revisiting DEI within the TIDI framework is to help us all become more strategic about the work we do. I have been reading a lot of articles and participating in a lot of conversations about how to reframe DEI in light of the backlash. Most of these conversations unfold along the lines of "how do we change the messaging so that this important work can continue without incurring the backlash?"

This mindset is bound to fail. There are indeed some people whose goal is to perpetuate systems of inequity for their own advantage. These people are not stupid, and they are very effective communicators. They will figure out any superficial attempts to reword our work while doing the same things. Trying to change words runs the risk that, in addition to turning "DEI" and "woke" into bad words, we will create negative feelings about all other the words in our DEI dictionary.

What I suggest we do as a field is:

  • Try to understand the mistakes we made that contributed to the current situation, and learn from them.
  • Stop trying to put lipstick on a pig by changing words or tweaking approaches, while still trying to push the same methodologies and ideas that have demonstrably failed to produce desirable results.
  • Stop blaming white supremacy, insensitive leaders, systemic racism, structural inequities, and other "boogeymen" for the failure of past attempts. The vast majority of white male leaders I know would be delighted to do "the right thing" if only they had "the right tools." Yes, a small set of ultra-conservative DEI haters have taken blatant advantage of our collective failures to generate the backlash. But the solution is not to hate on them, it is to figure out why we failed and do better the next time around.
  • Be strategic: continue to be driven by a desire for more diversity, but figure out how you can actually change your work so that your objectives align with those of your target customers. You will get the increased diversity you want as a result. Focus on the endgame and what we need to do in order to achieve it, don't obsess on the specific path you follow to get there.

As a final suggestion, if you haven't read my book, please grab a copy. This may seem self-serving, but my goal is not to make money off it. Right now (but only until Dec 24, 2024) you can buy a Kindle copy for only $0.99 (not a good way for me to make money). If you miss this and you can't afford $9.99 for the regular price, contact me and I will send you a free Kindle copy.

Let's take the end-of-year break to regroup and think strategically. And let's start 2025 with renewed energy, clearer plans, and more achievable objectives.

Dr. Tiffany Jameson, MBA, PHR

Passionate Change Maker Igniting Person-Centered Workplaces | Organizational Psychologist | Neurodiversity Specialist | Keynote Speaker | Researcher | LinkedIn Learning Instructor

2 个月

I couldn’t agree more with your article. We can’t have diversity for diversity sake. We must address the needs of the business to allow it to be sustainable and grow. Look at it this way- say your “diversity numbers are big” - say like you have 20 neurodivergent hires. That’s great and the effort to create environments where this talent can flourish is an amazing accomplishment. But what good is this if the company has to lay off people in a few months because it isn’t stable? Because it hasn’t kept its eye on business sustainability and stakeholder’s requirements? Are we any better off? Instead let’s create workplaces that meet the needs of the people——be person-centered. Build processes that attract and retain all talent with the business goals at the heart. We can do this. It’s a different mindset. I may also upset people but we can’t say “you have to hire XYZ to be a good company.” Instead, support the business on building a great place to work with inclusive practices- because diverse talent will come.

要查看或添加评论,请登录

Paolo Gaudiano的更多文章

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了