In an ideal world, we wouldn’t need rules or guidelines to embrace diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). We wouldn’t need structured efforts to ensure fairness. Instead, we would recognize and reward people based solely on their skills, effort, performance, and moral compass. Our differences — whether race, gender, religion, or background — would be incidental, not defining.
But let’s face it: That’s not how the world works. If it were, history would have played out very differently. There would have been no slavery, no women’s suffrage movement, no need for civil rights activism and so many other examples. The fact that humans tend to self-segregate — gravitating toward those who look, think, and act alike — has led to centuries of exclusion, inequality, and systemic barriers. Whether we like it or not, societies have long struggled to treat people as true equals.
Yet, as we evolved, many of us have come to value and embrace the immense benefits of opening up to diverse perspectives and points of view in societies, communities, and organizations — something that fundamentally differentiates us from other species. Humans have a unique ability to collaborate beyond immediate kin, form diverse alliances, and build large, complex societies. This ability to work across differences, learn from one another, and adapt collectively has been a key driver of human evolution. Openness and inclusion foster understanding, collaboration, and richer problem-solving — enabling innovation, resilience, and progress.
However, this doesn’t necessarily come naturally to many, prompting the need for mechanisms to help organizations and communities experience the benefits of opening doors and leveling the playing field. I believe that DEI, at its core, was meant to serve as a catalyst — a set of training wheels, if you will — to facilitate this process. Much like how we provide children extra support when learning to ride a bike, DEI efforts were meant to help create pathways for everyone — regardless of background, race, religion, or other differences — to contribute meaningfully and to allow our society, communities, and organizations to experience the benefits. And for a time, we seemed to be moving in the right direction.
But then, we lost our way.
Somewhere along the journey, DEI became yet another tool for division. Instead of fostering inclusion, some efforts ended up reinforcing separation — turning a movement meant to unify into yet another reason for fragmentation. However, blaming the entire DEI philosophy for its flawed execution is like blaming a company’s mission statement for its financial struggles. The problem isn’t necessarily with the intention — it’s with how it has been implemented. Much like any strategic transformation effort, what was needed was:
A clear definition of the desired outcome. What does success look like?
Comprehensive guidelines outlining what approaches align with the goals and which do not.
A robust action plan that includes concrete initiatives, milestones, defined roles and responsibilities, and measurable results.
A structured monitoring and feedback system to identify and address deviations, assess progress, facilitate learning, and make necessary adjustments.
We failed somewhere along these requirements. But the rushed response we’re seeing now — erasing everything, banning DEI efforts outright — is just as flawed. Just as overreach can be damaging, so too can complete abandonment. The solution isn’t to throw everything away — it’s to review, refine and recalibrate.
So, what can be done — at least within the spheres where we have influence, such as our companies, organizations, and communities?
- We need to renew our shared understanding of DEI. This requires extensive dialogue, and sometimes uncomfortable conversations, to reassess and refine what DEI means in our specific context today. We can build on past efforts rather than starting from scratch, and establishing clear guidelines on what it entails — and what it does not.
- We need to adapt our formal mechanisms. This requires reviewing current structures, processes, policies, and systems to identify gaps or misalignments with the renewed definitions, and recalibrating accordingly.
- We need a strong monitoring and control system. Oversight is crucial to ensure DEI efforts don’t become superficial check-the-box exercises. This means evaluating existing initiatives, refining measurement criteria, and establishing adaptive feedback loops that allow for continuous improvement. We need to track progress, assess impacts, make necessary adjustments, and be open to phasing out initiatives once their goals have been achieved.
- Most importantly, we need leadership that walks the talk. Leaders must embody DEI principles in both their words and actions, modeling behaviors that align with the agreed-upon guidelines and respecting the formal mechanisms in place.
I believe that DEI, in its truest form, was never about creating an artificial sense of equity. It was about ensuring that opportunity, access, and fairness were real — intentionally enabling organizations, communities, and companies to benefit from diversity and inclusion. The goal was never to erase differences but to remove barriers that prevented people from contributing their best. Like training wheels, DEI was meant to provide stability as we learned to ride, with a clear plan for when to remove them — not to become a permanent fixture or, worse, evolve into something counterproductive.
If we can return to that original mission — with a renewed understanding, adapted mechanisms, strong monitoring, and leadership that walks the talk — we might rediscover what DEI was always meant to be: a way to level the playing field, not deepen divisions.
- Ximena Jimenez is a strategy consultant, business coach, and thought partner to company owners, CEOs, and executive teams across the Americas. As the founder of LITup, she helps leaders navigate complexity and drive strategic transformation.
