Building a Workplace Like Building a House

When I see the headlines about major companies scaling back or ending their Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs, it makes me reflect on what those programs were meant to achieve—and why they might not be working as intended.

What is DEI?

DEI stands for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, and it encompasses initiatives aimed at creating a workplace where individuals from all backgrounds feel valued, respected, and supported. Diversity focuses on having a range of people from different races, genders, sexual orientations, abilities, ages, religions, socioeconomic statuses, and cultures. Equity ensures that everyone has fair access to opportunities and resources by addressing systemic barriers that might prevent some individuals from thriving. Inclusion is about creating a culture where everyone feels welcome and heard, not just represented.

DEI programs may address marginalized groups such as women, people of color, LGBTQ+ individuals, veterans, people with disabilities, older employees, and those from various faiths, but the goal is to create a workplace where everyone—including people who do not identify with a specific marginalized group—feels respected, safe, and treated fairly. Inclusion should never come at the cost of exclusion.

When I started to think about how companies were built, and the structure of a company, I thought of it like building a house. Employees are residents, and they should feel at home—protected, welcomed, and safe. Analogies often paint a clearer picture.

The Original Structure: A Solid Foundation

Many of these companies have been around for decades, some over a century. They were built with a clear purpose: to provide goods, services, and jobs. Like a house built in the 1900s, they were functional and beautiful for their time.

But times change.

Just as a homeowner realizes that a single bathroom might not be enough for a growing family, companies realized that their policies were not accommodating a diverse workforce. So they added on.

• Affirmative Action — Focuses on increasing opportunities for historically underrepresented groups in hiring, education, and government contracts.

Affirmative Action was primarily a federal policy in the U.S., though it also influenced private companies' hiring practices. Affirmative Action laid the groundwork for modern diversity policies. Companies often adopted similar principles voluntarily to ensure fair representation and avoid discrimination.

Additions Upon Additions: Functional or Chaotic?

The first additions to the house might have made sense—a second bathroom, a new bedroom, maybe a ramp to make it accessible. These changes helped people feel more comfortable and included. They addressed the problem and were functional.

But as more rights were perceived as being violated or overlooked, more additions were made. A company might add a DEI program here, a task force there. And before long, the house that once had a solid foundation and a welcoming design now looks like a chaotic patchwork. Instead of creating a nice flow, walls were built which created division.

What was meant to promote inclusion can sometimes do the opposite. When walls are built between different groups and specific rights are granted to some while others feel excluded, the house no longer feels like home to everyone.

• Employee Resource Groups (ERGs) — Also known as affinity groups, these are employee-led groups that provide support and networking opportunities for specific demographics (e.g., women, LGBTQ+, veterans, people with disabilities).

  
  

• Unconscious Bias Training — Workshops aimed at making employees aware of their implicit biases and how they can affect workplace decisions.

  
  

• Supplier Diversity Programs — Initiatives to include businesses owned by minorities, women, veterans, LGBTQ+, and people with disabilities in the supply chain.

  
  

• Pay Equity Audits — Assessments to ensure that employees performing similar work receive equal pay, regardless of gender, race, or other factors.

  
  

• Mentorship Programs for Underrepresented Groups — Pairing employees from marginalized groups with mentors to help them advance their careers.

  
  

• Flexible Workplace Policies — Adjusted work environments to accommodate people with disabilities, parents, and caregivers (e.g., remote work, modified schedules).

  
  

• Inclusive Hiring Practices — Initiatives aimed at reducing bias in recruitment and ensuring a diverse talent pool is considered for open positions.

  
  

• Bias-Free Performance Reviews — Programs designed to make sure performance evaluations are fair and not influenced by bias.

  
  

• Cultural Competency Training — Educating employees about different cultures, traditions, and practices to foster understanding and inclusion.

  
  

• Anti-Discrimination and Anti-Harassment Policies — Policies that go beyond legal compliance to create a safer, more respectful workplace.

  
  

• Pronoun and Name Policies — Programs encouraging employees to share their preferred pronouns to promote inclusivity for gender-diverse individuals.

The Music Room vs. The Study Room: A Workplace Analogy

Think of a workplace like a house with many rooms. There is a music room for musicians to practice, and next door is a study room for academics. Both are valuable spaces.

But what happens when both groups want to use their rooms at the same time? The musicians want to play loud music, and the academics need silence to concentrate. Suddenly, the house designed to accommodate everyone is not working for anyone.

That is what happens when companies build separate spaces for different groups but do not consider how those spaces affect the whole.

My Experience: Inclusion Gone Wrong

I once filed a complaint when I worked at Amazon after seeing an email signature that included an image saying “Proud to be LGBTQ+.” Company policy was clear—no images in email signatures. Yet, because it was “Pride Month,” management decided it was okay to bend the rules. In that moment, I felt excluded. It was not about the message itself. It was about the inconsistency. Rules that applied to some did not apply to others. That is not inclusion—that is favoritism. Looking back, I should have taken my complaint further. Not because I oppose anyone’s right to express who they are, but because a policy that is selectively enforced creates division, not unity.

Another program was removed within days after I sought to understand the purpose. It was a weekly posted employee feedback board about co-workers and managers. It was meant to be inclusive and positive. However, it was very exclusive, filled with many questionable nicknames, inside jokes, and over the top praise based on popularity—this board did not feel like it should be in a professional environment. It was uncomfortable.

Time to Tear Down the Walls

Maybe it is time to rethink DEI programs altogether—not to eliminate inclusion, but to build a better foundation. Instead of adding more rooms and walls, companies should focus on tearing down the divisions and creating an open space where everyone feels welcome. True inclusion means everyone has the same rights to be seen, heard, and respected—no exceptions. This does not mean accommodations are not needed. Reasonable accommodations are meant to provide necessary support for individuals to perform their job effectively—not to change the entire workplace to suit one person's needs, but to ensure they can contribute within the existing environment.

Final Thoughts

When DEI initiatives were created, the aim was to create workplaces where individuals from all backgrounds felt valued, respected, and supported. These programs addressed systemic barriers to participation and success by fostering a culture that celebrated differences and ensured equal opportunities for various groups, including but not limited to, individuals of different races, ethnicities, genders, sexual orientations, religions, ages, and abilities. It also considered socioeconomic status, veteran status, and those from underrepresented or historically marginalized communities. By moving away from DEI programs, companies can and should build environments where all employees feel they belong and can contribute their unique perspectives. Diversity, equity, and inclusion are not about special treatment for some. It is about fairness, consistency, and providing reasonable accommodations to ensure everyone has the opportunity to succeed.

A company that values inclusion should ask itself:

• Are we building walls between groups or creating open spaces?

• Are we enforcing the same rules for everyone, or bending them for some?

• Are we fostering unity, or are we unintentionally creating division?

I am all for inclusion, but it has to make sense. Should people that are clearly not qualified be given a position just so they are not excluded? This does not make sense. A solid foundation comes from having the right people in the right roles—where their skills are valued and utilized. Inclusion means qualified people from all backgrounds are given opportunities without bias. It is about fairness, not favoritism or entitlement. Silly humans!

I am hopeful that this shift away from DEI programs will lead to something better—a workplace where no qualified employee feels excluded, and everyone feels they belong. As companies rebuild their “houses,” let us hope they choose to create spaces where all voices are valued equally without relying on a separate set of rights for each group.

I’d love to hear your thoughts—do you think companies are heading in the right direction by moving away from DEI programs? Share your thoughts in the comments!