May 10th, 2010
Where does responsibility for Diversity and Inclusion belong?
I think organizations that do D&I well are good at diffusing resonsibility from top to bottom and side to side, but internal practitioners are generally housed inside of the HR function. This issue is to some degree dependent on the size of the organization and the scope and scale of the D&I investment, but I believe that D&I should be outside of the HR chain of command, and here are some reasons why:
- HR does not get it: HR gets a free pass on D&I that is generally unwarranted. HR likes to say that it “gets it” but rarely acts accordingly. I rarely see HR departments that actually integrate any real understanding of D&I into their recruiting efforts, their training and development efforts, employee relations, or benefits work and I think this has a lot to do with the common belief in HR that this all boils down to “respect” when respect is really just one small part of this work. Contrary to popular belief HR departments, HR professionals and leaders are some of the folks most needing to re-examine this set of issues. HR may be more diversity friendly than other parts of the organization, but they are not necessarily any more up to date or any more action oriented than anyone else.
- It is simply not a priority for HR: HR means well, but at the end of the day D&I is just not a priority and is often starved of resources. HR has a lot of balls in the air right now and I am okay that it is not a priority…I just wish that they would stop claiming that it is.
- HR has no extra juice right now: HR has been working hard for a few years now to figure out what it wants to be when it grows up and it is being called upon to be more strategic, to be more innovative and everything is changing all around the profession. It has no extra juice. Even if HR did get D&I, even if it truly was a priority, it simply does not have the policital, financial or intellectual capital to spare right now.
- D&I is about more than HR stuff: More and more D&I work is falling outside the realm of what is traditionally considered HR work. Vendor relations, R&D, marketing and other areas are, with each pasing day, becoming bigger and better opportunities for D&I work. There will always be a lot of interaction between the two functions, but there is less overlap than in the past.
- D&I must have the ability to identify organizational blind spots: One part of the contribution to be made by a D&I practitioner or function is the abilitity to say; “here is an example of where we say one thing, yet do another.” That is something that can be provided by D&I and is desperately needed, but it is difficult to actually do. Being in a chain of command makes it even more difficult to do, because you then become subject to the politics around and above you. I think that D&I should not be a part of the HR chain of command or any chain of command…it needs greater independence. It does not need a great deal of authority, but it does need leadership support and a fair amount of independence.
I would love to hear your thoughts on this.
Be good to each other.
I think responsibility for D&I is located exactly where responsibility for innovation is located.
Taking this notion you began with: "I think organizations that do D&I well are good at diffusing responsibility from top to bottom and side to side" – I would bet that the same organizations are good at innovating.
That top-to-bottom/side-to-side activity is imperative for excellent problem solving and breakthrough thinking. And to get something no one else has done before (i.e. something innovative) , organizations need different perspectives, different opinions, and a healthy way to create something new out of these essential differences.
The need for innovation in business isn’t really questioned, yet the crucial link to D&I is not always explicit. That’s our work, I think.
The crunchy-wheat, HR side of me bristles a little bit at your suggestion that us HR folks aren’t up to the task of driving D&I efforts in our organizations. The little-sweetened consultant side of me realizes that you’re right. The problem is that the structure of modern organizations almost demand that initiatives like D&I live within some kind of department structure. So: if not HR, than where?
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Mary and Ben, I appreciate it. Ben, in response to your question I think that D&I needs to exist outside of the HR chain of command and ideally it needs to have a direct link to the CEO/Board of Directors. That is the ideal, I think and I acknowledge that it will probably be very rare that it actually gets put together like that. Even if it is just outside of the HR chain I think there is benefit..one of the benefits is that HR will have a new strategic partner in another part of the org.
Joe – the research that we’ve done at SHRM indicates that you’re right – sort of. Our network of Chief Diversity Officers would likely all agree with you – that a direct link to the CEO would be much better than reporting through their Chief Human Resources Officer. But more specifically, the research shows that what really matter isn’t structure, it’s access. The two are related, of course – but if the CHRO is either a passionate advocate for D&I or simply steps out of the way when the CDO needs to speak to the CEO, D&I can thrive in an organization as if that direct link did exist.
What is more important to me is the other point that you mention – HR is, by and large, focused on the workforce. D&I can and should be focused on the workforce … AND customers, AND suppliers, AND community stakeholders. It can (and should) reach outside of HR into areas like Advertising & Marketing and Corporate Social Responsibility. To my mind, that’s a more persuasive argument for moving D&I into a direct report relationship with the CEO (or Dean, or Chief of Staff, or what have you).
That might seem funny, coming from someone who does D&I work at SHRM – but clearly, even on its own, HR competencies are required to do D&I work, and the two functions will be forever linked. There’s just a big difference between being linked and being surrounded. Good, provocative work, as always.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by joe gerstandt and FriendsOfJodi, Diversity Direct. Diversity Direct said: RT @joegerstandt: Why #hr should not own #diversity http://bit.ly/diBpwq Agree/Disagree? share your comments at the end of the post […]
I think D&I can work well in HR as long as there is a connection between the D&I and HR efforts. The problem is that often the two visions are separate or just goal oriented and NOTable to move the agendas together is when it results in little to no change.
If there is a way for D&I and HR to create practices that are shared throughout and organization/company along with workplace policies I believe that positive results for the workplace and the people will happen.
D&I and HR have been linked together since the beginning-so pulling them apart will be a culture shock in most places of business/work. However, I do believe that they would probably get better results as separate initiatives and then working together when necessary for specific projects or activities be it recruitment, retention, affinity group development, etc.
Thanks for making me think about this today!!!