I recently went one-on-one with DEI expert Patsy Doerr. Patsy was the Global Head of Inclusion at Thomson Reuters and the Global Head of Diversity and Inclusion at Credit Suisse.
Adam: What are the keys to navigating the changing landscape of DEI?
Patsy: I think it’s such a critical and timely topic, and I find myself talking about it in every scenario, socially and professionally lately, because it’s on people’s minds and it’s in the news so much. I think a couple of things. First of all, I would say that DEI as a general concept, whether we call it DEI, inclusion, diversity, etc., has been in flux for many years. So this is not a new chapter. It’s just a different chapter. When DEI became important on the agenda of different corporations and organizations, this was probably about 25 years ago when corporations really started talking about it. At that time, it was more of a compliance exercise, very much driven by regulatory and legal issues. Companies felt, and this is a generalization, by the way, Adam, that they had to do something about it, so they mandated diversity training and started to put in place some simplistic ways to increase representation in organizations.
Then it continued to evolve and became more important with the focus on inclusion. So not just the diversity piece, which is the representation component, but the inclusion piece, which is really about creating that culture where everyone, including diverse people, can feel they can bring their full selves to work and be productive and engaged. And then, of course, we had the murder of George Floyd in 2020, and that changed the landscape once again, particularly in the United States but with global implications. Diversity started to focus heavily on race and ethnicity above anything else. Historically, it started with gender and then grew to include every other aspect of diversity, but at that point, we had a heavy focus on race and ethnicity.
So what we’re seeing now, and the reason I tell you that story, is because DEI is always in flux. This is a new chapter of that fluctuation. What’s new now, and what needs to happen to answer the second part of your question, is that DEI is being used as a concept and a term where you’re either in great support of it or you’re not in support of it at all. And that’s not what DEI is about. DEI is about the exact opposite. It’s about creating an environment where everyone can use their voice, be valued, and bring different perspectives.
In short, what I see happening, and what I think needs to happen, is two primary things. One is to help people understand what DEI is. Right now, it’s just these three letters being thrown around. So what does diversity mean? What does inclusion mean? What do equity and equality mean, and what do they actually mean for society? Education needs to take place around that. And then as a result, I think organizations need to consider changing, and they are doing this, the names of their DEI functions and integrating DEI into the broader talent strategy around the entire employee experience.
Adam: What do those three letters – DEI – actually mean?
Patsy: This is where I think it’s so important to have these conversations. I will answer your question, but I think this context is also helpful. DEI is right now being seen across the United States, most particularly because it’s not necessarily a global issue, as the opposite of meritocracy. It is being labeled, and I have conversations all the time, where people say DEI is about choosing diverse people for the job. It’s not about meritocracy. It’s the opposite of meritocracy. And that is not true.
Again, DEI is actually the opposite of what is being said in America right now. It’s all about meritocracy. In fact, I had this conversation with a CEO that I’m working with very recently who said, “Well, don’t you believe in meritocracy?” I said, “Of course I do.” He said, “But you’re a DEI specialist.” I said, “Yes, and that’s what DEI is all about. It’s about making sure that we widen the pool of potential candidates for any role who may not have had the opportunity or exposure to that particular role, and therefore broaden the pool and the mindset of leaders.” So that’s one piece of context I think is really important and is making the debate around DEI very complex and complicated because people don’t understand what DEI means.
What does DEI actually stand for? The D is for diversity, and that is representation. In my experience and my strong view, I used to say humble, but I’m no longer humble about it, diversity is about representation. It means having representation of diverse individuals of every type, whether it’s race, gender, ethnicity, LGBTQ status, neurodivergent individuals, or at its baseline, diversity of thought, style, experience, and approach. No matter where you’re from or what you represent, to me, that’s the crux of what diversity and representation mean.
The E is the complicated one because people don’t necessarily understand the difference between equity and equality. Equality sounds like a wonderful term, right? We want everybody to have access and to be treated equally, access to opportunities and resources. But the reality is that’s not the case. There are barriers to access for certain populations and individuals. So equity is really what the E stands for. Equity is about recognizing and acknowledging those barriers, knowing that based on socioeconomic status, race, geography, or a variety of other elements, not everybody has the same access. So equity is about being aware of and removing those barriers to access, to information, opportunities, and resources.
Then the I is the culture component. It’s about creating that inclusive culture where everybody feels valued and feels they can use their voice and speak up. This whole concept of bringing your whole self to work means that you’re bringing your full self and you’re comfortable having conversations no matter who you are or what you represent. That ultimately leads to increased engagement, productivity, retention, and profitability. So that’s really what it means when you look at each of the letters individually and in aggregate.
Adam: Everything that you’re describing as you describe the D, the E, and the I isn’t controversial. There isn’t anything controversial about broadening the pool of applicants so that you can ultimately find the most qualified person. There isn’t anything controversial about creating an environment where everyone shows up as their best self. These are not controversial ideas, but to your point, the language around them has become controversial, and the language around them, unfortunately, has become problematic for many organizations to implement, and a big piece of advice that you shared is that it’s important for organizations to change the names of some of the programs, to think about what they’re doing and not necessarily think about what they’re doing differently, but to think about the way that they’re packaging it a little bit differently. How can they do that?
Patsy: You’ve nailed it just in terms of how you described it. That’s exactly it. So I think it’s a couple of different things, and this is how I advise now in my consulting capacity. I’m working with a variety of different organizations, which is fascinating because I now have exposure to many different industries and sizes of organizations as well.
The way I advise organizations, and based on my own experience, is number one, to look at changing the name. If you look at some organizations, JP Morgan being one of the most recent, Jamie Dimon came out and said, “We’re going to rename our DEI team to be Diversity, Opportunity and Inclusion.” One word changed, but they are still doubling down on their DEI efforts. That change of name sends a different message, because we are in a world today where DEI is a polarizing term that most people don’t truly understand. So it can be as simple as that.
The second thing is that I’m seeing organizations, and I give the same advice, integrating DEI, or inclusion if we want to call it that for today’s discussion, into talent strategies and people strategies. It’s about creating an environment where everybody feels motivated and engaged, which ultimately leads back to productivity and profitability. It’s about creating that culture. So integrating DEI into the culture and values of the organization, and clearly articulating the link between those values and inclusion or DEI, is key. At the end of the day, to your point just a moment ago, it really shouldn’t be a controversial term. It’s about respect, treating people properly, and including people in conversations and opportunities. These are things most people actually want when they sit down and think about it. They don’t want the opposite for themselves or for others.
The third critical piece, and I firmly believe this is critical for most things, but particularly around this topic, is ongoing education. It’s educating people on why an organization should or does care about DEI or inclusion. Educating employees and leaders on what it means, just as you and I are having this conversation. And then also educating leaders and employees on how to practice inclusive behaviors, the types of behaviors that help people feel more included, engaged, and motivated. That’s a really important part of it.
It comes back to this concept of not only renaming, but reframing. Reframing it back to the company’s values so people say, “Well, actually, we’ve always been about respect. We’ve always been about dignity. We’ve always been about inclusion.” So maybe we rename our efforts, but at the end of the day, we are sticking to who we are, meaning the collective we, the organization. Making that connection between DEI and the values of the organization is important.
If I were speaking to a DEI practitioner, a leader, or anyone who cares about this topic, I would say that is a really important part of it. Another piece is that, in my experience over the years in many organizations at various stages of DEI development, it has not always been successful. That is a reality to consider. My strong view is that one reason it has not always been successful is because DEI is often viewed as a separate exercise. There is a whole separate team that runs it, and frankly, I don’t think that works.
In order for it to be successful, the whole organization, starting at the top, has to believe in it, has to understand the why, and has to role model the behaviors. The DEI team, if there is one, which I think there should be, should be fully integrated into talent, human resources, and the business. That includes how they initiate new programming, recruitment practices, and development initiatives. Ultimately, DEI practices should be embedded in how the business operates, from how we attract, recruit, develop, and retain talent, to how we engage clients and customers. It applies to investors as well, especially as impact investing continues to rise, and also to consumers and supply chains.
So it’s important to think more broadly about what DEI means. It is not just about hiring diverse people. It impacts the entire stakeholder universe of an organization. As part of that broader view, I’ve also seen links between DEI and ESG, environmental and social governance. ESG is slightly less controversial at the moment, and it is more clearly linked to profitability and impact investing. Linking DEI to ESG can help remove some of the emotional charge from the DEI conversation.
Another helpful element in demystifying DEI and removing that emotional edge is to focus on the business case. Why should an organization go down this path? The exciting thing is there are so many resources, research reports, and discussions that show a positive correlation between successful DEI efforts and bottom-line results. Reports from firms like McKinsey, Deloitte, and Harvard Business Review have shown these correlations for years.
The benefits extend to innovation, productivity, and profitability. There are links to stock performance and sales performance. The business case for DEI is strong, but not everyone understands it. Many focus on the social case, which is, of course, important too. It is the right thing to do. It aligns with dignity and respect for humanity. But for people who are skeptical or pushing back, particularly some CEOs and other leaders, the business case is often the most effective way to bring them on board.
Adam: Do you have any specific advice for how to deal with the executive orders?
Patsy: It’s a tough question. I’m going to answer it, but it is a tough question because I do think it’s a multifaceted, complex scenario that organizations are facing right now, and they have to tackle it from a variety of angles. The reality is that some significantly sized organizations, as we’ve seen in the news, have cut back on their DEI efforts as a result of the executive orders. One example, which I’ll cite here as public information, is Accenture. Accenture was one of the first companies to say, “Okay, we’re going to stop DEI. We’re not going to focus on this as much, and we’re going to pull back our resources on this topic.” So everybody reacts — oh my gosh, look at what Accenture is doing. Wow. They’ve always been dedicated to DEI, and they have had a fantastic program for years. I was actually shocked myself.
But if you dig into the details, you discover that 37 percent of their profits come from federal agencies, and they are a 450,000-person organization. So they had to make that decision, at least publicly. And I say at least publicly because I know a lot of organizations are still continuing their work in this space. I’m not suggesting Accenture is one of them, but a lot are grappling with this aspect. If your profitability is coming from federal contracts, you’re under different pressure than a JP Morgan, who isn’t bound by that same constraint.
I think it’s important to really dig into the details to understand them. The other thing we’re seeing is that many organizations receiving these notifications are saying, “Well, I don’t necessarily believe that.” Because when they look at the research, they see that individuals, particularly from the upcoming generations, and we now have six generations in the workforce for the first time ever, are much more focused on companies that care about inclusion and social issues. They’re choosing to join organizations based on how much emphasis and real energy a company puts into DEI, and they’ll leave if they don’t see it.
So there’s also a link back to profitability here, because organizations will lose talent, especially from the younger generations who focus on these topics. I think it’s important for organizations to take that very seriously, and they are.
Another thing is to look at the statistics, the research, and the data around incoming and exiting talent. It’s important to constantly monitor progress around inclusion across the entire employee lifecycle — from attracting, recruiting, developing, advancing, and retaining talent. You need to have your pulse on all of that. Have metrics around it. Monitor both quantitatively and qualitatively. Have conversations with people. How do they feel? Do they believe the company really supports this topic? If not, will they stay?
Those are some ways organizations can address this topic. Finally, what you’re also seeing is that some organizations that originally stepped back, like Costco, are getting pushback from their investors and shareholders saying, “No way. We want DEI.” So now you have companies bowing to pressure to reduce DEI efforts, then facing backlash from investors and stakeholders. They won’t survive that. So there’s the business case again. This is happening in many organizations, and I’m glad to see it because it means people are using their voices in different ways — shareholders, investors, employees. It’s powerful to see that collective momentum.
It comes back to the core values of what you want to stand for as an organization, and listening to your stakeholders, customers, and consumers — all of whom are part of your stakeholder world. A lot of organizations, especially those focused on ESG, but this applies to DEI as well, conduct what’s called a materiality assessment. That means reaching out to representatives of all your stakeholders to understand what’s most important to them. The result is a materiality assessment, which you can find in any corporate responsibility report from a publicly traded company. And you’ll see what stakeholders care about. I can’t give you an exact percentage because it’s evolving, but most organizations are finding that stakeholders care about inclusion. Talent cares. Investors care. Shareholders care. If a company ignores that data, the outcome won’t be good in any way.
The second thing I’d highlight is what you’ve said a couple of times, which I think is so important. To be a leader in this space, or in today’s society at large, adaptability and flexibility are absolutely critical. In fact, after many years in leadership development, which includes people development and inclusion, I’ve found that the number one predictor of success for CEOs and senior leaders is learning agility. That’s the ability to learn from experience, take feedback, and adapt behavior accordingly. That’s what adaptability and flexibility are about. Being able to respond, to adapt, and to understand the impact of your behavior on others makes you a more effective leader — and a more inclusive leader as well. That’s a critical success factor in today’s world more than ever.
Adam: We speak the same language. I’ve interviewed hundreds of the most successful leaders, and when I do keynotes, I share a list of the key characteristics of the most successful leaders. Right on that list is adaptability.
Patsy: I love that. Well, we’re definitely speaking the same language then, because I do think it’s critical. You see that adaptable leaders are the ones who thrive on change. In many ways, they seek change. Sometimes it’s thrust upon them, or they just have to deal with it. But typically, adaptable, flexible leaders thrive on change and know how to respond and stay the course during change while adapting around the edges. Staying the course in terms of core values and what matters, while adapting how the function is structured and determining which initiatives are most important to carry forward. I think it applies across all areas of leadership.
Adam: Do you have any other best practices to follow or pitfalls to avoid for anyone trying to understand how to best navigate the changing landscape of DEI?
Patsy: I’d highlight a few we’ve talked about and add a couple more. First, stay the course. DEI has never been an easy job. It is always a challenge. You’re always proving something to someone: the business case, the social case, or how things will work. How are we going to measure success? That’s been a big topic in DEI for years, because for many years, similar to leadership development, it was seen as a soft skill, and measurement, metrics, or KPIs were harder to quantify. That’s changed significantly over the past several years.
So I’d say focus on the quantifiable effects of DEI efforts. Also, stay the course. This is a long-term play. It’s not something you do for two years and expect to see massive change. It takes five to seven to ten years to really make a difference, especially in large, complex organizations.
I would also say stick to your values. It’s really important to stay grounded in the values of inclusion, whether you’re a DEI practitioner or a leader of any kind. That’s how you get the best out of people.
One major pitfall is failing to integrate DEI into the business. It’s a positive strategy to do so, but a pitfall if you don’t. If you keep DEI in a box, in a silo, that’s a problem. And that’s where discussions are headed now — as though it’s a separate entity. It’s not. It’s part of how things should operate.
So avoid that pitfall. Integrate DEI into the HR community, the business community, and the broader stakeholder community as well.
