242 A. Shyamsunder

Diversity and Inclusion Standards:Forget the Chicken and the Egg, Let’sBuild the Farm First!

AARTI SHYAMSUNDERCatalyst

The authors Hays-Thomas and Bendick(2013), in their focal article, pose the ques-tion about whether voluntary professionalstandards should precede or follow profes-sional practice in diversity and inclusion(D & I). As a scientist–practitioner focusedspecifically on D & I issues around gender,I believe that professional standards andpractices are just pieces of the puzzle—theentire ecosystem needs to be enhancedbefore we can call ourselves true D & I ‘‘pro-fessionals.’’ This commentary will focuson specific aspects of this ecosystem—thechicken farm, if you will—that I believe canbenefit from more focused attention. Specif-ically, I will call attention to (a) expandingthe horizons of research beyond what’spublished in peer-reviewed I–O journals,and (b) engaging hitherto uninvolved par-ticipants in the process.

Correspondence concerning this article should beaddressed to Aarti Shyamsunder.E-mail: ashyamsunder@catalyst.org

Address: Catalyst, B-601, Ivy Tower, Vasant Valley,Mumbai 400097, India

Professional Standards: Necessarybut Insufficient

Having started my career in the moremainstream I–O world of selection andassessment, I can vouch for the utilityof standards the field adopts in guidingresearch and practice in the profession.Not only do they help fledgling researchersand practitioners (especially practitioners)understand what the legally defensible andwell-proven ways to do things are, theyalso keep the profession accountable andfocused on quality work. I agree withHays-Thomas and Bendick that the currentstate of D & I practice can benefit fromsome standardization and evidence-basedmethods—but I believe that professionalstandards will only accomplish a smallamount of this.

The authors’ distinction between diver-sity (as a property of the workforce) andinclusion (as a property of the workplace)is an interesting perspective. This itselfunderscores the scope of change that isrequired before D & I practices can reachthe mature stage of other HR practices suchas pre-employment testing. The very nature

D&I standards: Building the farm first 243

of D & I work—which is not only ‘‘touchy’’and ‘‘difficult’’ by the authors’ own admis-sion but also requires a unique combinationof shifts in organizational culture (macro)and policies/practices (micro)—makes it adifficult candidate to ‘‘professionalize’’ by amere set of rules or guidelines. It takes moreconcerted effort to change mindsets, thesystem, the people, and the practices withinit. In other words, even if we have both thechicken and the egg in the form of bothformal standards and practices, where willthey nest if the ecosystem isn’t mature yet?

Expanding the Horizons ofApplicable D & I Research

The authors are no doubt right in believingthat more organizational D & I practicesare driven by success stories or casestudies, by intuition or at best, theoreticalreasoning rather than empirical evidence. Ioffer a solution that is not in the least bitnovel—interdisciplinary research.

D & I by its very nature is well-suited todraw upon various research methodologiesand fields. Be it qualitative or quantitativeresearch, survey based or metrics driven,focused on the individual, organization,system or even society, there is a place forsuch research in the D & I space. Fieldsas diverse as economics, anthropology,social psychology, business management,and of course, industrial–organizational(I–O) psychology can drive hypothesisgeneration, research design, and analyticalmethods in D & I research.

Another solution I would like to offermoves away from how research on D & Iissues is conducted to how it is dissem-inated. Once more, this touches on adebate not unfamiliar to readers of the IOPjournal—what are the best means for ourresearch to have practical impact? I wouldlike to argue that although the peer-reviewprocess is critical for the advancement oftheory and science, in its current form, it istoo lengthy and demanding to have imme-diate and topical impact. This is why wemust be cautious not to confuse our questfor ‘‘professionalism’’ with the demands of

academic credentialing. In expanding thehorizons of research on D & I beyondthe peer-reviewed publication forums, intotrade publications, conferences, and forumsrun by consultants or professional organi-zations, the field’s focus on ‘‘professionalstandards’’ will ensure representation fromthe various prevalent domains of activityin the space currently. By thus expand-ing the body of work we draw upon intothese realms, what then makes the cut forthe professional standards will need to bedetermined by the process that the authorshave described—that is following the fourprinciples they propose to develop the setof professional standards.

Cocreating the D & I Agenda:Calling for More Chicken Farmers!

One of the principles Hays-Thomas andBendick outline in their focal article isfocusing on the relationship with stake-holders. I cannot agree more with theproposal that for any professional standardsto become accepted in practice relevantstakeholders must grant legitimacy tothe developers and also feel involvedin the process. The list of stakehold-ers that the authors provide (‘‘currentemployees, potential employees, publicpolicy advocates, unions, customers andclients, investors and investment advisors,government regulators, litigators, insurers,and the news media’’) is an exhaustive and,frankly, an ambitious one!

Perhaps a more nuanced approachmight benefit this quest. Different setsof stakeholders might already be moreor less inclined to become involved inthis effort and might therefore need tobe brought into the fold with differentdegrees of involvement by the developersof professional standards in D & I.

Drawing from some of Catalyst’s workwith women’s advancement in business,we know that a critical reason why someof the representation numbers are stuck,and the leadership pipeline is broken, isthat we have failed to fully engage menin the effort. Our research has found that

244 A. Shyamsunder

men are not as engaged in gender diversityinitiatives, often viewing these as ‘‘women’sissues’’ for a few reasons. A primary oneis apathy—it’s not that men don’t care, butthat they fail to appreciate the link betweentheir personal involvement and improvedoutcomes for women and business. Oncethe business case is made clear, and theyrealize that it’s more about appropriatetalent utilization than ‘‘women taking overfrom men,’’ they are more engaged in theeffort. But the fact is, removing hurdlessuch as fear (of being ridiculed, of beingblamed, or of losing their privileged status)and apathy is critical to engaging men asequal partners in the effort of advancingopportunities for women in the workplace(Prime & Moss-Racusin, 2009).

Expanding from these lessons, it is likelythat a lot of the stakeholders who wouldbe required to legitimize any professionalstandards for D & I would need to be madeaware of their critical role in the effort. Ifnot, apathy, and worse, fear, is likely tokeep them from becoming true championsof D & I.

An important group to mobilize is seniorleadership. The most compelling way togain this group’s support is to demonstratethe business case for diversity to them. Thisincludes in the case of gender, for instance,building awareness around the relation-ship between a more gender-balancedworkforce/leadership team and outcomessuch as financial performance, leveragingtalent, building a marketplace reputationby reflecting the customer-base, andpromoting more sustainable and innovativedecisions (e.g., Catalyst, 2012).

A related way to start building momen-tum around the need for professional D &I standards is to start focusing on deliveringthe message all the way from the top tothe newest, entry-level employee in orga-nizations. Educating employees about thebusiness case and need for concerted effortin the space can therefore anticipate the

move to a more formal set of guidelines orstandards to dictate D & I practice in organi-zations. We can, in this manner, guaranteemore interest and involvement from allthese stakeholders down the line. Thus, inthis case, building the farm is more of anexercise to create a culture and mindset(starting with senior leadership and trick-ling it down from that) that will precede theactual development of practices and profes-sional standards to achieve D & I goals.

Conclusion

The common thread with all of the abovesuggestions is the idea of cocreation.Whether it is expanding the ways in whichwe conduct and disseminate our research,or how we articulate its results to decisionmakers in organizations, or indeed, whowe deem as key stakeholders in the pro-cess, it is important for us as a professionalorganization to expand our boundaries. Myargument here is that an ecosystem needsto exist before professional standards (evenvoluntary ones instead of mandated ones)gain acceptance. This ecosystem consists ofpeople and resources beyond D & I prac-titioners and beyond I–O psychologists. Ibelieve that efforts to build the farm—theecosystem—carried on in parallel withdeveloping evidence-based practices andprofessional standards will add credibility toour research and practice in D & I in a waythat growing just chickens and eggs will not.

References

Catalyst (2012). Why diversity matters. New York, NY:Catalyst.

Hays-Thomas, R., & Bendick, M., Jr. (2013). Profes-sionalizing diversity and inclusion practice: Shouldvoluntary standards be the chicken or the egg?Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspec-tives on Science and Practice, 6, 193–205.

Prime, J., & Moss-Racusin, C. (2009). Engaging menin gender initiatives: What change agents need toknow. New York, NY: Catalyst.