5 impacts on college recruiting of SHRM’s removal of “equity”

The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) is the largest professional human resources membership association with nearly 340,000 members in 180 countries. Two weeks ago, on Black Women’s Equal Pay Day and only days after not addressing the issue at all at SHRM’s annual conference, its CEO, Johnny Taylor, announced on LinkedIn that the organization was officially eliminating Equity from Inclusion, Equity and Diversity and would lead the effort with Inclusion and Diversity instead. “Effective immediately, SHRM will be adopting the acronym “I&D” instead of “IE&D.” This strategic decision underscores our commitment to leading with Inclusion as the catalyst for holistic change in workplaces and society.”

The announcement to shift from “IE&D” (Inclusion, Equity, and Diversity) to “I&D” (Inclusion and Diversity) represents a significant change in the emphasis of workplace diversity initiatives. We wanted to know what impact, if any, this could have for diverse students, recent graduates, and other candidates who are early in their careers, including those who identify as being LGBTQ+, first-generation, Black and African American, Latinx, economically disadvantaged, women, international students, Students with Disabilities, Veterans, Neurodiverse Students, Student Athletes, Native American & Indigenous, Asian American & Pacific Islander, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). We see five major impacts:

Focus Shift: The removal of “Equity” might signal a shift in focus from actively seeking to balance the scales for underrepresented groups to a broader approach that emphasizes inclusion and diversity without the explicit mandate to address systemic inequalities. This could influence how policies and programs are structured within the mostly large employers who hire most students, recent graduates, and other such early career candidates.

Potential Backlash: There may be concerns or backlash from stakeholders who view the elimination of “Equity” as a step back from commitments to correct historical and systemic disparities in the workplace. This could impact employer branding and attractiveness to socially conscious job seekers, including those who do not identify as being diverse but who are about those who do.

Policy and Program Adjustments: Employers, whether they’re actively involved in SHRM or not, might reassess their own diversity and inclusion policies to either align with SHRM’s new terminology or to explicitly maintain their commitment to equity. This could involve redefining goals, metrics, and the overall strategic approach to diversity and inclusion.

Implications for Recruitment: For large employers, particularly those heavily recruiting from colleges and universities, this change might necessitate a review of recruitment strategies to ensure they still meet the goals of attracting a diverse workforce. They may need to communicate their commitment to inclusive practices more clearly, especially if they choose to retain a focus on equity. It might be tempting to infer that all employers who continue to market that they hire and manage in an equitable manner actually do, but there are countless examples of employers who like to talk the talk while, at the same time, refusing to walk the walk. The converse is also true: there are many employers who don’t promote how their hiring and managerial policies promote equity in the workforce, yet they do.

External Perception and Employer Branding: How organizations respond to SHRM’s change could affect their image, especially among younger, more diverse candidates who often scrutinize potential employers’ commitment to social justice issues. Employers may need to bolster their efforts in other areas of diversity and inclusion to maintain a positive perception.