A funny thing seems to happen out there in the world of professional Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) work: professional experience, tangible skills, and subject matter expertise are sometimes deemed less important than things like passion for the work1. It’s not uncommon to see job postings for high-level DEI positions that essentially (or, worse, explicitly) say that no experience is required. Seemingly anyone can be hired on to do this work.
A few things to be clear about at the outset:
I won’t pretend to know why this might be the case —the potential reasons range from the purely economic (supply and demand of capable practitioners) to the nefarious (the organization never really cared about these efforts in the first place). This post (like good DEI work generally) is about the impact of such decisions, not the intent.
This is also not about gatekeeping: the decision not to be strict about some specific requirements (be they degrees, certificates, years of experience, professional backgrounds, etc.) when they are not relevant to the position can help to improve access —and that’s often a path to greater equity. (Does your local bakery need to only hire people with a college degree? For most positions, I’d imagine not. But for their accountant, specific accounting credentials makes perfect sense.) DEI practitioners can and do come from a wide variety of academic, professional, identity, and industry backgrounds. But that doesn’t mean that anyone / anything goes.
So yes, anyone can be hired on to do DEI work! But this work demands skilled professionals who can, at minimum:
apply and understand social scientific approaches to diagnosing specific problems in institutions and cultures (Note here that one doesn’t have to be an expert in the social sciences; they simply need to know the general principles and who to trust to give them quality insights)
design meaningful interventions to address any shortcomings in experiences, policies, practices, or institutional cultures that indicate a lack of fairness or belonging; this often involves a working knowledge of workforce recruitment and advancement, legal, communications, public relations, learning and development, people management, and many other business functions…
…and the ability to build strong and trusting relationships between those branches of the organization
assess the impact of those interventions designed to close any gaps —did they help us get to a point where one’s demographics cannot predict their success or experience of belonging? If not, time to iterate and test again….
understand and communicate effectively about DEI strategies and goals without needlessly politicizing, and in some cases needfully depoliticizing, them —cleanly and honestly articulating the value of DEI efforts for everyone in the organization and the population(s) it serves, while being held accountable for progress that may feel stalled or results that don’t materialize
possess a high-level evidence-based knowledge about the basic tenets of diversity, equity, and inclusion and the experiences of folks from a wide range of identity-based backgrounds, and how those come to matter in organizational settings
strategize and manage policy, program, educational, and other change management efforts (which constitutes much of the day-to-day work of DEI)
A failure to hire for specific skills, experience, and expertise can lead to disastrous results. And we seem far more willing to do this for DEI work than with most other functions. Would we allow people not trained or experienced in accounting, for example, to do sophisticated and consequential finance work simply because they have a "passion" or "commitment" to fiscal responsibility? Or someone who loves to watch Law & Order and got called for jury duty once to serve as legal counsel? Or someone who always loved Top Gun to pilot an airplane? Or, imagine the following:
Organization: "Hey, is that a cell phone in your hand?"
Employee: "Oh, uh, yeah --I was just..."
Organization: "Great! We need a new app built for our core products and services. Don't you use apps?"
Employee: "...Yes, but I've never worked or trained in computer science or engineering technology...."
Organization: "No biggie: No Experience Required! We'll check in quarterly to see what you've made, or when we run into a huge crisis we could have easily avoided with a well-crafted app --whichever comes first!"
Employee: ....
Organization: "Now let's go ahead and start by sharing stories with one another about our favorite apps! You can take it from there!"
I wish I was only kidding here, but this encapsulates the ask that we’re making when we bring in those without concrete and relevant skills, knowledge, and experience to DEI roles. And that’s just one side of the equation —even the most skilled and experienced practitioners also need resources (human and otherwise) to successfully accomplish those goals. Otherwise, it sets those to whom we assign those tasks up to fail. And if those individuals are also themselves members of historically marginalized groups, the consequences can be even more dire, leading at minimum to unsustainable levels of stress, conflict, and fatigue for the already-marginalized individual and a “See? We tried it and it didn’t work for us, back to business as usual” mode for the organization.
What are some warning signs that this might be happening in your organization?
high levels of turnover in DEI leadership and roles
an inability to talk concretely about equity, inclusion, and diversity in ways that are both savvy and meaningful
an inability to only talk, and listen, and talk, and listen, without ever taking additional steps toward concrete improved outcomes
growing frustration among key constituencies (students, some segments of the workforce, customers, etc.) about a lack of meaningful change or unmet needs
a lack of good evidence and metrics for key elements of DEI strategy
a lack of DEI strategy and transparency around it
an overreliance on volunteers to carry out critical work
….and more.
In the end, DEI work isn't for the faint of heart, and that’s exactly why it should be done with the utmost rigor and care. If left in the wrong hands, it could do more damage than good, and is likely a PR effort rather than a sincere project to support fairness and belonging for all, and the institutional success that comes from that work.
I’d love to know —what else belongs on that list of warning signs, in your experience? How can we all, regardless of our positions, support greater professionalism of this work in the organizations that we care about? And, as usual, what else did I miss here? See you in the comments!
Friendly reminder that in this and every post, the views expressed here are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my current or any previous employers.