We are “an equal opportunity employer and champions accessibility, inclusivity, and diversity in the workplace”. Does this sound familiar?
Here are variants of this messaging:
- XZY “does not discriminate on the basis of age, race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, national origin, protected veteran status, disability or any other legally protected status.” (Job posting)
- “We value diversity and strive to create an inclusive, accessible workplace where all individuals feel valued, respected, and heard.” (Job posting)
- XYZ “strives to deliver this support through policies and programs that are intended to foster greater inclusion and fairness for all employees.” (Sustainability report).
What the data says
Progress in women’s representation among the directors and executive officers of Canadian public companies has stalled, Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt llp found in an analysis of disclosures.
The firm’s report on Diversity and leadership at Canadian public companies also shows that the representation of members of visible minorities, Indigenous Peoples and persons with disabilities on boards and in executive officer positions remained essentially flat if not regressing.
What’s more, external challenges, including political forces, are influencing a decline in diversity disclosure.
In the U.S., proxy advisory firm ISS Governance is proposing to update U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines for environmental and social-related shareholder proposals, specifically on four topics:
- Diversity and equal opportunity
- Political contributions
- Human rights
- Climate change/greenhouse gas emissions.
Proposing to move to a more case-by-case approach, ISS said:
The proposed changes reflect feedback on changing views from many investors, declining support for such proposals, changes in regulations, and the progress of many relevant company practices in recent years.
Given that many Canadian businesses operate in the U.S., the political pressure has reverberations here too.
What AI shows
For the purpose of this article, I asked several large language models to provide a picture of a CEO addressing a business audience about climate change.
Before prompting, I asked ChatGPT how people were mostly prompting it. Its answer was that most people prompt without giving enough context:
So to reflect how the majority of people prompt – according to the most popular chatbot receiving prompts – I just gave a short prompt without context:
“give me a picture of a CEO explaining climate change to a business audience“
Below are the unedited outcomes (when there were several images, I selected the top 3 in the order of appearance). It is also worth looking at the audience:
Perplexity AI
Grok
ChatGPT
Gemini
Canva AI
Manus
The Say-Do gap
Clearly, there is a gap between claims and the reality transpiring through the data and AI as a mirror of the data it has been trained on.
It is this gap between what is said and what can be proved that makes the whole narrative unrelatable. It is also a reminder that narrative isn’t just words.
Your narrative comes across through what you do, not just what you say.
It’s the same gap that sinks trust: the difference between what you say and what you do catches up eventually. In the current context, gloves are dropping and if your organization’s narrative strayed too far from its real values, you find yourself confined to DEI-hushing.
Not to mention the political risks. And the reputational risk of DEI in a context where 56% of Canadians believe the country accepts too many immigrants, according to an Environics Institute survey released in October.
How to navigate this complicated landscape?
Review your values and adjust if needed
Review your values and how they are understood by your internal and external audiences: your values will guide whether you should speak and how you should speak. The international public outcry following the murder of George Floyd led many CEOs and organizations to speak out. Some said they were passionate about DEI even though nothing in their past experiences reflected that passion: This screams performative messaging. The very populations you try to convince will not only see through, but risk being even more upset and take their wallers somewhere else.
Change perspective to understand where others come from
Are you hiring “someone you know” or someone who was “referred” by a friend and known to “fit” the culture? Perhaps an old friend from university? A colleague you used to work with and who shared your world view and above all who is loyal? People tend to stay close to what is already familiar. But this creates large groups of think-alikes, which goes against the very concept of diversity of thought. That “fitting” and “referral” approach closes the door to competition, otherwise known as meritocracy. Could it be that this approach creates a “loyalty-first” mentality limiting adaptation to a changing world?
On that front, a recent article in The Globe and Mail caught my attention:
Addressing Canada Prime Minister Mark Carney’s inner circle, the article stated: “Unlike most prime ministers, Mr. Carney didn’t bring in a lot of long-time political loyalists and old friends.”
The article then pointed out, when referring to two other appointees, that “Mr. Carney knew both before, but they weren’t buddies. They were hired for their CVs.”
In-the-know people had assumed the Senator who was “friendly” to Mr. Carney would be picked: “The post of Government Representative in the Senate didn’t go to the widely expected choice, Senator Peter Boehm, a former senior diplomat and bureaucrat who was friendly with Mr. Carney. Instead, he named Senator Pierre Moreau, who had no special relationship but political experience from the Quebec National Assembly.”
The point is: by sticking to the same circles, the emphasis is placed on loyalty, “sameness” and friendship over competence, closing the door to meritocracy. But this has never been called “affirmative action”. Perhaps unlocking competition in leadership positions to favor meritocracy could drive diversity of thought throughout organizations, public and private.
So now might be a good time to rethink your DEI approach through new lenses. The answer might not be in another DEI committee or LinkedIn post.
Remember: Your actions are part of the narrative
At the end of the day, much comes down to what you can demonstrate because right now, your words alone no longer relate.
Contact Y Perspective to discuss your DEI positioning and narrative.
All rights reserved – Y Perspective.
