The Trendification of DEI: From Civil Rights to Corporate Trends
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) is more than a corporate catchphrase; and it’s a complex framework built on three key threads discussed in Qin et al. (2013): the attributes discussed by researchers explore topics that differentiate people, the levels at which diversity operates, and the ways these attributes are configured into meaningful actions. These threads have shaped DEI’s evolution from its origins in the civil rights movement to its current state as a trendy, often performative, corporate initiative.
The first thread, attributes that differentiate people, highlights the many ways individuals are distinct, from visible traits like race and gender to less apparent ones such as education and values. Over time, DEI has expanded its scope to include a broader range of differences, reflecting the growing complexity of workplace and societal diversity.
The second thread addresses the levels of diversity constructs, emphasizing how DEI operates individually and collectively. While diversity can focus on personal differences within a group, it also examines the demographic composition of teams and organizations, shaping how inclusion is implemented and measured.
Finally, the third thread explores the configuration of attributes into diversity, examining how individual traits interact to influence perceptions and behaviors. This approach underscores the importance of understanding diversity not just as a collection of differences but as an intricate interplay of identities.
However, as DEI has gained prominence, it has also been subject to trendification. From the 2010s onward, high-profile movements like #MeToo and Black Lives Matter thrust DEI into the spotlight, prompting companies to issue statements, hire Chief Diversity Officers, and host events. While these efforts brought attention to DEI, they often reduced it to a checklist rather than embedding it into organizational culture. As a result, DEI has too often become a fleeting priority, vulnerable to shifting public attention and economic pressures.
To understand how we got here and where we’re headed, we must first examine DEI’s roots, its evolution, and the lessons history offers for creating a sustainable, impactful future.
Attributes That Differentiate People:
DEI discussions often begin with identifying the numerous attributes that differentiate individuals. These attributes range from visible traits, such as race, gender, and age, to less visible ones, like education, values, and personal experiences. Over time, the focus of DEI expanded from legally protected attributes (e.g., race and gender) to a broader spectrum of human differences, reflecting the growing complexity of workplace diversity.
Levels of Diversity Constructs:
DEI operates at multiple levels, individual and collective. At the individual level, diversity focuses on personal differences compared to others in a group. At the collective level, it examines the demographic composition of teams or organizations. This distinction is critical because it shapes how diversity is understood and measured, influencing outcomes at both personal and organizational levels.
Configuration of Attributes Into Diversity:
The way personal attributes are configured into the concept of diversity is another vital thread. Researchers categorize diversity attributes into mono-attribute (e.g., focusing on a single trait like gender) and multiple-attribute approaches (e.g., considering combinations of traits like race and tenure). This thread underscores the importance of understanding how different attributes interact and influence perceptions and behaviors within groups
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) has become the darling of corporate mission statements, university programs, and HR initiatives. But where did it all begin, and how did it transform from a civil rights necessity into a buzzword? More importantly, how do we ensure DEI isn’t just a passing trend but a lasting framework for societal progress? Let’s dive into DEI's history, evolution, and future in the United States.
In the mid-1960s, following the Civil Rights Act of 1964, companies began implementing diversity initiatives to comply with new equal employment laws. These early efforts primarily focused on preventing racial discrimination in hiring practices.
By the 1970s and 1980s, diversity training expanded to include gender and other protected characteristics, with companies implementing more formal diversity initiatives.
In the 1990s and 2000s, there was an increased focus on diversity and inclusion, with companies starting to measure and report on diversity metrics and a growing understanding of the business benefits of diverse workforces.
However, some companies that initially adopted DEI initiatives during these decades later scaled back or abandoned these efforts due to various factors, including legal challenges, public scrutiny, or shifts in corporate priorities.
The Shifting Landscape of DEI: A Historical Perspective
The evolution of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) practices in organizations has undergone significant transformations since its inception in the 1960s. The initial focus on compliance and affirmative action in the 1960s and 1970s laid the groundwork for a broader understanding of diversity. At this stage, the primary aim was to ensure equal employment opportunities, often targeting visible demographic characteristics such as race, gender, and age. Organizations were compelled by legislation, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to establish non-discriminatory workplaces and implement affirmative action programs.
The 1980s marked a pivotal shift toward cost-effective diversity training. Companies began to expand their focus beyond legally mandated attributes, incorporating a broader range of individual differences such as education and values. This period also saw an emphasis on creating inclusive cultures that encouraged participation from all employees. The primary driver of these initiatives was the avoidance of legal liabilities and the pursuit of improved workplace harmony.
By the 1990s, the “business case” for diversity emerged as a dominant narrative. Organizations recognized that a diverse workforce could foster innovation, creativity, and financial performance. This era expanded the concept of diversity to encompass various human differences, from functional backgrounds to cultural perspectives. Inclusion became a critical focus, with efforts directed at removing systemic barriers that hindered the full participation of marginalized groups. However, the period also highlighted challenges, such as inconsistent implementation and the risk of superficial compliance.
As we expand the consciousness of social justice identification, we recognize that DEI didn’t emerge from thin air. Its origins trace back to key historical movements that created unforgettable moments of social mobility when systemic discrimination against marginalized groups was challenged at every level. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, a cornerstone of this era, prohibited discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It also paved the way for Affirmative Action policies, which sought to correct historical injustices by promoting opportunities for underrepresented groups.
Initially, these policies focused on compliance — ensuring organizations met minimum standards for diversity. However, as the decades progressed, the conversation shifted from mere representation to fostering environments where all individuals could thrive. The seeds of DEI were planted, but it would take time for them to grow into the comprehensive frameworks we see today.
The Evolution of DEI: From Policy to Practice
In the 1970s and 1980s, Affirmative Action faced significant backlash, with critics arguing that it promoted “reverse discrimination.” This pushback forced organizations to rethink how they approached diversity. By the 1990s, the language began to shift. Terms like “inclusion” and “equity” entered the lexicon, emphasizing the presence of diverse individuals and their meaningful participation and equal opportunities.
The rebranding of DEI was strategic. It moved away from the contentious image of quotas and toward a more holistic vision of workplace and societal harmony. This evolution was further fueled by research showing that diverse teams are more innovative and effective, a finding that made DEI not just a moral imperative but a business advantage.
DEI Goes Mainstream: The Trendification of Inclusion
Fast forward to the 2010s, and DEI had gone from a niche HR concern to a cultural phenomenon. High-profile events, such as the #MeToo movement and the Black Lives Matter protests, thrust issues of inequality into the spotlight. Companies rushed to release statements, hire Chief Diversity Officers, and host events to showcase their commitment to DEI.
But with this newfound popularity came a troubling trend: DEI became performative. Instead of embedding diversity, equity, and inclusion into their organizational DNA, many institutions treated it as a checklist item. Workshops, panels, and “Diversity Days” proliferated, but their impact often proved superficial. Employees of color and other marginalized groups frequently reported feeling tokenized rather than truly included.
The rise and fall of companies’ commitments to DEI initiatives reveal a pattern of trend-driven adoption followed by quiet abandonment. In the wake of the Black Lives Matter protests in 2020, corporations like PepsiCo, Adidas, and countless others made bold promises to prioritize diversity, equity, and inclusion. Many hired Chief Diversity Officers, pledged millions to social justice causes, and launched high-profile DEI campaigns. However, as the immediate social pressure waned, so did the momentum. By 2023, reports surfaced of companies quietly dissolving DEI departments, reallocating budgets, or scaling back their commitments. High-profile layoffs disproportionately affected DEI roles, signaling a shift in priorities. For instance, Twitter (under Elon Musk’s leadership) significantly reduced its DEI team, and other tech giants followed suit. This trend reflects a broader issue: when DEI is treated as a reactionary measure rather than an integral part of business strategy, it becomes vulnerable to the ebb and flow of public attention and economic downturns.
The Problem with Making DEI “Trendy”
Here’s the hard truth: trends fade. What’s hot today is forgotten tomorrow, and DEI is no exception. When organizations treat DEI as an event-filled priority rather than a sustained commitment, they risk reducing it to a passing fad. This undermines the progress made and breeds cynicism among employees and stakeholders.
Consider the rise of “woke capitalism,” where companies adopt progressive language and imagery without enacting meaningful change. The result? There is a backlash from both ends of the spectrum: critics who see it as empty virtue signaling and advocates who feel betrayed by the lack of substance.
DEI’s Future: Moving Beyond Events to Embedded Change
If we want DEI to last, we must move beyond surface-level initiatives. Here’s how:
- Integrate DEI into Strategy: DEI shouldn’t be confined to HR or a single department. It must be woven into every aspect of an organization, from hiring practices to product development to customer service.
- Measure Impact, Not Activity: Instead of counting how many workshops were held or how many statements were issued, organizations should focus on tangible outcomes. Are marginalized employees advancing in their careers? Are pay gaps shrinking? Are customers from diverse backgrounds feeling seen and valued?
- Commit to Long-Term Investment: DEI work is not a sprint; it’s a marathon. This means allocating resources, time, money, the mental maturity to accept correction from the oppressed, and attention over the long haul.
- Listen to Marginalized Voices: Too often, DEI initiatives are designed without input from the very people they aim to support. Authentic progress requires centering these voices and acting on their feedback.
- Move Beyond Optics: True DEI work is often messy and uncomfortable. It requires addressing systemic issues, which may involve difficult conversations and decisions. But the payoff, a more equitable and inclusive society , is worth it.
Lessons from History: Avoiding the Pitfalls of the Past
History offers valuable lessons for the future of DEI. The backlash against Affirmative Action in the 1970s and 1980s shows the importance of framing DEI not as a zero-sum game but as a collective benefit. Similarly, the trendification of DEI in the 2010s highlights the dangers of prioritizing optics over substance.
To ensure DEI endures, we must remember its roots in the civil rights movement. At its core, DEI is about justice, righting historical wrongs and creating a society where everyone has the opportunity to thrive. This is not a trendy goal; it’s a timeless one.
Conclusion: The Path Forward
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion have come a long way from their origins in the civil rights movement. They’ve evolved, rebranded, and become a central part of our cultural and corporate landscapes. But their journey is far from over.
To ensure DEI isn’t just a passing trend, we must treat it as a fundamental value rather than a fleeting priority. This means moving beyond events and statements to systemic change. It means committing to the hard work of equity, even when it’s uncomfortable or unpopular.
The future of DEI depends on all of us — our willingness to learn from history, challenge the status quo, and build a world where diversity, equity, and inclusion are not just buzzwords but realities. Let’s make it happen.
Reference:
Qin, J., Muenjohn, N., & Chhetri, P. (2013). A review of diversity conceptualizations: Variety, trends, and a framework. Human Resource Development Review, 13(2), 133–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484313492329
