Why I am Leaving DEI Behind
Shifts can be scary even for seasoned leaders. I've made a significant shift in the way I talk about my work, moving away from using DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) and moving toward organizational development to describe my expertise and client outcomes.
Trust Me, No One Wants to Attend a DIE Training
Diversity. Equity. Inclusion. Depending on your perspective, these three letters - DEI- can mean much or nothing. As I write this, I recall a conversation with a friend and colleague who has been in this business a long time, who asked me, “Why do we call what we do DEI? Where did that come from?”
I flashed back to an old graphic from when I was a consultant with the Race Matters Institute of JustPartners, Inc. In that version of the Race Matters training, I recalled that we always used this graphic to discuss Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity (see below).
Source: Race Matters Institute, formerly of JustPartners, Inc (circa 2016).
We always named diversity first because that is where people tend to start. Shifts in diversity always call for inclusion questions about power and voice. Yet, neither is sustainable without equity, which focuses on an organization’s internal systems upheld by policy, practices, and protocols.
As I shared this memory with my friend, I recalled that we made the shift because we thought the acronym in the order of the content was quite unappealing. Who wants to facilitate a DIE session?
I want to be clear—I am not saying we created this term. I am only sharing how we decided to use it in our work at that time.
Do I Have to say DEI?
Fast forward. In 2016, when I started my firm, Stamey Street Consulting Group, I resisted the term DEI. Completely.
Only recently have I used it to describe myself, on the advice of a coach who said I needed to use terminology that people understand. Before that guidance, I always referred to myself as a racial equity consultant because that is the core of what my work with clients accomplishes—more racially equitable workplaces. I can’t say that I was always comfortable with the term, but I went with it. It was short, easy to remember, and widely known, even if not always understood.
However, in the past couple of years, using the term DEI started to feel like jeans that were too snug. They fit but aren’t as comfortable as they once were.
Here is why.
At my core, I'm an organizational development consultant. My focus is on policies, practices, and protocols. I am most interested in where equity lives inside organizations and the surrounding culture. That is almost always found in “the how” of everyday work. I have always felt that the descriptor DEI and how people understand it (which varies greatly) didn’t adequately describe what I do with my clients.
For example, my work is systemic:
I look for how my clients define equity, which should always be actionable and measurable.
I examine how a client does their work — the planning, tools, execution, and outcomes.
I look for differences in the staff experience by identity.
I look for how leaders lead and help them work through growth edges in their leadership journey.
I examine their policies and practices, both the written ones (policies) and the unwritten ones (practices).
Racial equity and organizational development go hand in hand.
When I think about all of this together, it feels bigger. More accurate. Offers greater clarity.
While organizational development can be undertaken without a racial equity perspective, racial equity cannot be achieved without organizational development. If a client has an equity problem, they almost always have an organizational development problem. My work addresses both.
Honestly, organizational development does not sound super fun, either. But for me, it feels right, like a new pair of jeans.
For more:
Check out this short video where I unpack more of my thinking. (3:17 via YouTube)
You can search the Race in the Workplace blog archive by topic
