Since I wrote a piece last month about the retreat of mainly American companies from the mantra of diversity, equity and inclusion, many more companies have backed away from the idea.
Yes, too often DEI is used as a set of metrics without anyone truly understanding the differences between the D and E and I. Whether inclusion is redundant because it is embedded in diversity- of that I am not too certain. The Corporate Governance Code, post Sarbaines-Oxley has perhaps created an understanding of Diversity as merely, number of say, women on a board of director.
However, protected quotas for certain groups often stems from past experiences of systemic social and institutional unfairness. I see it like this- When it hadn't occurred to us- the collective- to extend opportunities to all equally and fairly, that can be an ignorant exclusion but not necessarily entirely malicious. But when we see the detriment of exclusion and are no longer ignorant of the benefits of inclusivity, to still continue to do so or remove mechanisms of doing so, that gets closer to 'malicious and deliberate exclusion'.
Fairness, Openness and Respect are human values we ought to be live by. But perhaps the interpretation can be more fuzzy based on who is being fair to whom? who is accountable? under what circumstances is openness a good idea and to what extent. Respect is understood more universally yet we do not witness it much- whether that be in organisations or individual interactions. Respect sometimes gets clouded by cultural artefacts and turns into obeisance i.e. respect for the older (agree to this); respect for the hierarchy within organisations and respect to those who are more powerful, richer and so on.
I think Diversity, Equity and Inclusion considerations sharply cast the light on the existing gaps in those factors within our organisations and society. and whilst the words may not do justice to the scope of the task, but not even having those words anymore in terms of 'resource allocation segments' within organisations and government is only to the detriment of human society.
Thanks, Sukanya, for your close reading and thought-filled comments. I don't mean to ignore past injustice. My protest concerns the externalisation of a practice that most of all needs to be internalised. Promoting FOR is a call for thought-filled decisions, rather than compliance. See also https://donaldnordberg.substack.com/p/forget-good-governance-whats-good
![How to govern [not like that]](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!emEQ!,w_80,h_80,c_fill,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep,g_auto/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fa9d7f587-4c16-42f0-9526-b00edc0ab4c8_155x155.png)
![How to govern [not like that]](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!emEQ!,w_36,h_36,c_fill,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep,g_auto/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fa9d7f587-4c16-42f0-9526-b00edc0ab4c8_155x155.png)
![How to govern [not like that]](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!Te2X!,e_trim:10:white/e_trim:10:transparent/h_72,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F51c6c618-ff5a-481b-b4e2-28047c606ca8_990x369.jpeg)
Yes, too often DEI is used as a set of metrics without anyone truly understanding the differences between the D and E and I. Whether inclusion is redundant because it is embedded in diversity- of that I am not too certain. The Corporate Governance Code, post Sarbaines-Oxley has perhaps created an understanding of Diversity as merely, number of say, women on a board of director.
However, protected quotas for certain groups often stems from past experiences of systemic social and institutional unfairness. I see it like this- When it hadn't occurred to us- the collective- to extend opportunities to all equally and fairly, that can be an ignorant exclusion but not necessarily entirely malicious. But when we see the detriment of exclusion and are no longer ignorant of the benefits of inclusivity, to still continue to do so or remove mechanisms of doing so, that gets closer to 'malicious and deliberate exclusion'.
Fairness, Openness and Respect are human values we ought to be live by. But perhaps the interpretation can be more fuzzy based on who is being fair to whom? who is accountable? under what circumstances is openness a good idea and to what extent. Respect is understood more universally yet we do not witness it much- whether that be in organisations or individual interactions. Respect sometimes gets clouded by cultural artefacts and turns into obeisance i.e. respect for the older (agree to this); respect for the hierarchy within organisations and respect to those who are more powerful, richer and so on.
I think Diversity, Equity and Inclusion considerations sharply cast the light on the existing gaps in those factors within our organisations and society. and whilst the words may not do justice to the scope of the task, but not even having those words anymore in terms of 'resource allocation segments' within organisations and government is only to the detriment of human society.
Thanks, Sukanya, for your close reading and thought-filled comments. I don't mean to ignore past injustice. My protest concerns the externalisation of a practice that most of all needs to be internalised. Promoting FOR is a call for thought-filled decisions, rather than compliance. See also https://donaldnordberg.substack.com/p/forget-good-governance-whats-good