Today, organizations that have embarked upon the diversity journey have also embraced the concept of equity and inclusion. These terms go hand in hand for many firms such as Sodexo, IBM, and L’Oreal, to name just a few. For them, diversity is the mix and variety of collaborators, for example of different ethnic backgrounds and genders. Equity is about taking into account the different needs of diverse collaborators so that they have the opportunity to achieve the same high performance outcomes; and inclusion is the means to bring different collaborators together in a way that reflects and encourages differences, and that leads to new opportunities and innovations. For diversity specialists ‘Diversity is a fact, inclusion is a choice’. Harvard Business School Professor, Boris Groysberg describes the two terms in the following way: ‘diversity is about counting the numbers. Inclusiveness is about making the numbers count’. It has also been said that “diversity is bringing people to the dance floor, and inclusion is getting them to dance together.” Whatever the metaphor, numbers by themselves are not sufficient, and organizations not only need to encourage representation of diverse populations, but in addition, need to proactively work on recognizing, celebrating and learning from the differences. When we address diversity from a numbers perspective, it is possible to take legal and political actions, because counting helps to clearly highlight inequalities in the existing system. Put another way, when it is not possible to count and show numerical discrepancies in representation for example in educational and employment opportunities, it is very difficult to pinpoint the problems that need to be addressed. Take the example of France where it is illegal to make ethnicity and race distinctions. Firms and other institutions are therefore not allowed to count people based on race and ethnicity. Consequently, they don’t have the numbers to show under-representation of ethnic and racial minorities in their ranks which complicates their measures for understanding and highlighting existing ethnic and racial issues. We have already seen that initiatives in management, such as gender quotas for corporate boards, disabilities quotas or affirmative action programs for underrepresented populations seek to address minority issues from a numbers perspective. The principal objective of such initiatives is to increase the numbers of specific historically under-represented groups in the workplace and other institutions in order to achieve representativeness of these groups vis-a-vis the general population. However, these approaches that tackle the numbers, by themselves, do not have a deep lasting effect. For example, gender quotas for corporate boards range between 30 to 40%. In countries where the laws are enforced by clearly defined sanctions, these initiatives have had a visible impact on the actual numbers of women on corporate boards. Where the laws are not backed up by strict sanctions, such as in Spain and the Netherlands for gender representation on corporate boards, the numbers stagnate below 20% and never meet the required quota. Even in countries with strict sanctions, some firms go out of their way to avoid the quotas, for example by changing their legal status. Similarly, regarding disabilities quotas, studies show that quotas are not necessarily directly effective. Companies often prefer to pay a fine rather than make the effort to meet the designated percentages. The numbers approach works to highlight existing inequalities, and is the first step to introducing more diversity into organizations. At the same time, it is not sufficient to ensure equity and inclusion. Other strategies such as equal opportunities go beyond the numbers to ensure that organizational practices also reflect equality. An example of an equity initiative is gender mainstreaming which has been implemented particularly in public policy since around 2000. Gender mainstreaming takes into account women’s experiences and the impact of policies on women. By bringing in women’s as well as men’s experiences, perspectives and interests in the development and evaluation of policies, it ensures that policy impact is equitable for women and men. More concretely, in the upper echelons of management where there are few to no women, some firms have attempted to correct gender-biased practices such as recruiting from an old boy's network, or identifying high-flyers within a certain age range, late 20s to mid 30s, or again, changing a work culture of working late, in order to develop equitable opportunities necessary for women to be considered for top management positions. While these strategies are a means by which firms and other institutions develop equitable opportunities for underrepresented groups to succeed, it has not necessarily impacted either individual perceptions and behaviors or organizational culture. Inclusion is about recognizing and learning from the diversity that is present in the organization, so as to encourage constructive contributions of individual collaborators that fuel collective creativity and performance. Firms such as PWC and IBM have set up advisory boards for various diversity groups in recognition of their potential. For example, as a first step towards recognition, the advisory boards for the LGBTQIA+ community have developed initiatives such as company benefits for same sex partners, which by the way is something that has long been taken for granted for heterosexual partners. At the same time, LGBTQIA+ issues are closely tied to individual-level attitudes and behaviors. And even within firms that have provided such equal opportunities, members of the LGBTQIA+ community may still not feel included, and feel the need to develop strategies to cover their gender identity or sexual orientation. The cognitive, emotional and performance costs of such strategies for the individual and also for the firm remain extremely high. Similarly, firms that have obtained 50/50 gender representation at entry-level, and that have worked on equality initiatives still find that there is more exit of women than men at each step of the hierarchy. Inclusive firms that are sensitive to the evaporation of women as they go higher in the hierarchy not only work to increase the number of women and create a level playing field. They also try to understand why women leave and to learn from their experiences to overhaul the recruitment and promotion process to make it equitable for everyone. Inclusion can also be seen in ergonomical improvements made for work stations initially for collaborators with special needs, which are then applied to all work stations for the benefit of all collaborators. According to the 2020 Mckinsey report on Diversity, equity and inclusion, even firms that are diversity champions still do better on the numbers aspect than on inclusion. Their findings indicate that there is a need for firms to transform their engagements from rhetoric to actions, and to develop inclusive leadership in their managerial ranks in order for diverse collaborators to feel that they are treated fairly and included.
