Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

Diversity—in terms of gender, age, ethnicity, or physical ability—is critical in the workplace. However, when it comes to corporate boards, the focus on diversity often centres primarily around gender.

Equity refers to the fair treatment of all people, ensuring that everyone has access to the resources and opportunities needed to succeed.

Inclusion involves creating an environment where all employees are encouraged to contribute meaningfully, with their voices genuinely heard and respected.

In 2022, McKinsey & Company defined these values as supporting various groups, including people of different races, ethnicities, religions, abilities, genders, and sexual orientations, to meet the needs of people from all walks of life.

At a recent CFO conference, I was asked about my views on diversity. I have always been a strong advocate for diversity in the workplace and on corporate boards. I’ve often spoken about my commitment to mentoring women in senior corporate roles to help them transition into board positions, and I take pride in the success we’ve achieved.

A few years ago, I said to my daughter, then in her mid-30s, “It’s becoming a woman’s world.” Her response was simple. “It’s about time.”

But has the pendulum swung too far? Women want their sons to succeed and be promoted, not left behind. While there is a necessary push to correct the inequities of previous generations, we must also ensure today’s men are not sidelined in the process.

A close friend of mine, in his 40s, recently resigned from a mid-level executive role at a bank to start his own business. He seemed to be on a solid upward trajectory—driven, hardworking, and putting in long hours. When I asked why he left, he said he believed his chances of promotion were now slim and that future roles would go primarily to women, regardless of his performance. While that may not have been the full story, it raises a valid question: Are men like him being left behind, or were there simply better candidates for promotion?

I recently attended a presentation by a very successful company. The CEO began by noting that the company was founded by women and employs an all-women workforce. Halfway through her presentation, she proudly claimed they had a “diverse” workforce. When I asked what made their workforce diverse given that it was all female, her response was, “I was given the body I have.” Frankly, I wasn’t sure what she meant by diversity in that context.

In the U.S., large tech companies introduced DEI programs to promote Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. In 2023, Microsoft released a 35-page report on its Global Diversity and Inclusion, while American Express was named one of Fortune’s Best Workplaces for Diversity and received a perfect score on the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index for LGBTQ+ equality. In 2020, AMEX had committed to spending US$1 billion over 10 years to advance racial, gender, and economic equity.

Despite these efforts, DEI programs can sometimes create tension, particularly among employees who feel excluded or disadvantaged by diversity initiatives.

On July 17, 2024, News.com.au reported that Microsoft had laid off its DEI team after spending millions on the initiative, citing‘changing business need’ as the reason. Similarly in the past year, Google and Meta also scaled back their DEI programs as part of broader layoffs and restructuring efforts. Google, despite its high-profile diversity commitments, faced significant backlash over several DEI failures, particularly in handling racial discrimination allegations.

Tractor giant John Deere also faced criticism for falling short on its DEI initiative with some policies being seen as more about meeting quotas than creating meaningful change. John Deere also faced criticism from conservative groups and announced it would eliminate nearly all its DEI policies in favour of a merit-based approach.

In 2024, Starbucks shareholders voted to remove diversity and sustainability metrics from executive bonuses, signalling a retreat from some of the company’s ambitious DEI goals. This decision came after conservative groups challenged Starbucks for its DEI policies, and some investors began questioning the focus on DEI over financial performance​.

An article in Forbes Magazine, published on 11 Oct 2024, by Cerys Goodall, discussed a new ideology emerging as an alternative to DEI – MEI which stands for Merit, Excellence and Intelligence, but MEI could disproportionally benefit those already in positions of power, with access to wealth, education and connections.

In 2001, Tennis Australia mandated equal prize money for men and women, arguing that both genders put in comparable effort. However, prize money is usually based on results, not effort. Since men play up to five sets, and women play a maximum of three, does this mean that, in effect, female players at the Australian Open are being paid 1.6 times more per set than their male counterparts or is that irrelevant in the broader context of gender equality in sports?

Unconscious bias can also complicate DEI efforts. At a live theatre event, a gentleman collapsed behind me. My partner, a female specialist medical doctor, rushed to his aid. Despite her attending to the situation, a woman next to me insisted she step aside for ‘the doctor’ who was male, approaching the scene. When informed that my partner, along with all the women I was with, were doctors, the woman left in embarrassment.

DEI in Australia

Australia has made meaningful progress with DEI initiatives, though challenges remain particularly in Indigenous inclusion, racial diversity in leadership, and closing the gender pay gap.

According to an article by the AICD, women now comprise 34.2% of ASX200 board members, with 41.8% of new appointments to ASX200 boards being women. Figures released in November 2023, by the Australian Government’s Workplace Gender Equality Agency, show that women make up just 22% of CEOs, 37% of key management roles and 42% of managerial positions.

The question remains: How can the corporate world ensure equality across all levels of the workforce, while striving to improve these percentages, and still ensure that the best and most suitable candidates are selected for jobs and promotions?

Author: Jon Brett

Jon Brett is Non-Executive Director of Corporate Travel Management (CTM) and Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee. Jon is also a Non-Executive director of Raiz Invest (RZI), the NASDAQ  listed Mobilicom, and the Chair-elect of Infomedia (IFM).

Jon is the author of the very successful podcast series “The Taking of Vocus” which chronicles the extraordinary rise of Vocus, what went wrong with the M2 merger and concludes with the privatisation of Vocus. The podcast is accessible on his LinkedIn profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jon-brett-95734732/