SHRM’s recent decision

 What do you think of SHRM’S recent decision to drop the equity from DEI and pivot to focus on I&D?

 Jennifer Laurie, CPO at StartOut:

Including diverse individuals in inequitable workplaces is more harmful than ending DEI efforts altogether.

SHRM ditched the ‘E’ in their version of DEI and abandoned equity work because it doesn’t fit their agenda.

I’m not at all surprised or even really outraged, but I do think it’s worth noting why this is so problematic.

You can’t just get rid of equity and focus on inclusion and diversity.

Inclusion without equity creates increased power differentials and exploitation.

Diversity without equity is tokenism.

I would rather SHRM just lose all three. They have shown time and time again that they have no expertise in diversity, equity, and inclusion work, and their approach to HR could better be described as homogenous, inequitable, and exclusive. Their existence causes real harm by perpetuating systemic inequities and undermining true DEI efforts.

But this is exactly why I do the work I do.

I believe in equitable HR.

I even started a collective called Equitable HR Guild to create more resources based on this approach. Fun fact, it actually started as an idea I jotted down in my Notes app to create “the anti-SHRM.”

My commitment to equity isn’t going anywhere because I believe it is foundational to allowing individuals to thrive in all aspects of their lives, particularly in the workplace, which has historically been profoundly harmful, especially to historically marginalized folks.

So if you’re fed up with inequitable and damaging HR practices being pushed on you, you’re not alone. Let’s build a better way.

Sign the HR Voices Opposing SHRM petition! 

 RyanMae Pepin

I think it is tied to a highly volatile political climate, SHRM is the go to for HR resources in a lot of government settings. It also does business with a lot of big corporations who are scaling way back on DEI due to it being an employers market.

Would appreciate SHRM actually listening to HR PEOPLE, and what is actually important instead of making progress and what’s right an even bigger hill to climb. 

Stephanie Lemek, Founder & CEO at The Wounded Workforce:

I think SHRMs existing infrastructure is too good for it to crash and burn the way it should, unfortunately. There are so many people- including HR people that hold up SHRM as THE most credible organization for HR information.

Now I think that’s shifting but it’s a messy interconnected system with credentials and conferences. I honestly think removing current leadership would be the most impactful *cough* it’s time for that SHRM coup. 

 Alex Clermont, Director of People and Operations at TDC:

SHRM seems dead set on taking the “human” out of “human resources”. This will ultimately be their downfall, but in the meantime they are still the industry standard for certifications, they’re speaking on behalf of all of us in Congress, and they’re advising thousands of professionals who genuinely turn to them for guidance. This isn’t just a rebranding – it’s a screaming emergency siren calling all of us to action.

Taking equity out of the conversation about accessibility, inclusion, diversity, and people operations undercuts all the work we’ve been doing for so long. Pay equity. ADA accommodations. Mentorship programs. Supports for working parents. All of these are *equity* initiatives. They’re moves that create level playing fields and allow us to move forward in a way that challenges the status quo and allows progress and achievement for all individuals. I can see why the kind of people that lead SHRM might find that personally threatening, but if they can’t get past that and live up to the mission and vision they’ve been toting then they have no business milking the hard working people who do live those values out of their money, their time, or their good will.

We’re at a moment in time where having the wrong people at the helm of important institutions is truly dangerous, and with this move SHRM has proven they do not deserve the trust or status the industry has put in them. There’s no coming back. We have to decide together that it’s time to move on.

 Dani Herrera, Talent and DEI Consultant, Speaker & Trainer

SHRM steering away from Equity makes total sense.

Wouldn’t you agree?

I mean, after all, this is the exact same organization that:

• Never really created systems and processes for Pay Equity.
• Got sued multiple times for their lack of equitable access for their disabled members.
• Believes that gender equity can be solved with an “HR Diva” mug.
• Has a very problematic leader who lobbies against employee rights.
• Has made some very harmful comments about Historically Excluded Communities. Yes, even in 2020.

So, again, why are we surprised about this move?

This is exactly who and what they’ve always been. Y’all were not paying attention.

What exactly can you expect from now on?

Even more intentionally harming keynotes, policies, and processes. After all, everyone and their opinions have to be included!

An ever heavier alignment with harmful politics and outdated HR Practices.

I really (really!) hope this is the wake-up call that HR professionals need to distance themselves from this organization.

Seriously, y’all, when someone tells you who they are, with their full chest, believe them.

Rachel Ackerman, Director of People Ops at Barstool Sports:
I have thought for some time now that SHRM has become an outdated and antiquated leader in the People space. They’ve consistently proven to me that their main mission has been a money grab, either by membership fees or their extensive certification programs that cost big dollars and a major time investment to achieve. (Realistically, you learn more on the job or through other FREE resources)

Additionally, the focus on compliance and the way things have always been done has put a damper on the swiftly changing dynamics that make up People Operations or People Strategy. Human Resources as we’ve known it has become a thing of the past.

The declaration by the President and CEO of SHRM continues to solidify my initial, gut reaction that SHRM is not in the business of creating better People leaders but, like many other behemoth organizations, is in the business of lobbying and doing what is in the best interest of their own deep pockets.

As I mentioned on LinkedIn yesterday, SHRM made this announcement in an election year in a volatile political climate. My question is, what does it matter which letter of the acronym we lead with if individuals do not feel like they BELONG in an organization?

By making this announcement, SHRM is fostering and normalizing the elimination of equity in more than just DEIB. It’s just a matter of time before other forms of equity are scrutinized and pushed back.

Bailey Cummins, HR Consultant
DEI, when done correctly, is a 3- step process. It starts with diversifying the company, followed by including those diverse voices in decision-making, which leads to equitable outcomes. Removing ‘equity’ from the equation implies a lack of commitment to meaningful results and suggests a minimal effort meant to satisfy diversity advocates without achieving real change for affected individuals.

Critics of DEI often focus on race and gender identity/expression, which are often politically-charged topics. However, DEI extends to many other groups as well. For example, military spouses, veterans, and individuals with disabilities are also significantly impacted by DEI initiatives. SHRM’s announcement brings to mind the recent announcement from the farm supply store chain that is eliminating DEI initiatives at their organization, while simultaneously expressing a desire to focus on supporting veterans. You can’t have it both ways—claiming to support a group of individuals while not wanting them to achieve equitable outcomes. Having spent the last decade as a military spouse (which is a DEI category) and now as the wife of a medically disabled veteran, this is very personal to me.

Danielle Spinello, HR Specialist
SHRM has branded themselves as “The Voice of All Things Work”, but this move just further solidifies that they are the voice of only a certain type of worker, excluding all others. This decision didn’t happen in a vacuum and it didn’t happen overnight. When an organization shows you who they are and what their priorities are, believe them.

It’s time for a change and the reaction we’ve seen over the last few days gives me a lot of hope about the future of the profession, and more importantly the people. We are all watching.