HRM 7620 Module 1 Discussion: Joining Diversity Strategy to HR Strategy Example

Module 1 Discussion: Diversity Inside or Beside HR?

Beside HR or Inside It? Why Diversity Work Stalls When It Runs Separately

At Hudson State University, where I work in HR, we have had a diversity office for eight years. It runs heritage month events, a speaker series and an annual climate survey. Meanwhile, HR runs hiring, onboarding, promotion and pay through processes that have not changed in a decade. When the climate survey showed that staff of color and first-generation college graduates were less likely to say they saw a path to promotion, the diversity office had no authority to change the promotion process, and HR saw the survey as the diversity office's concern.

Chun and Evans (2014) argue that diversity strategy succeeds only when it is integrated into the talent management system: recruitment, selection, onboarding, development, performance management and retention. When diversity work sits beside HR rather than inside it, it becomes symbolic. Research on diversity programs supports this. Kalev et al. (2006) found that when firms gave someone real responsibility for diversity, through task forces or managers with authority, the share of women and minority managers grew more than it did after training alone.

Integration also has to fit the law. Inclusive talent practices should widen access and remove barriers for everyone rather than prefer some groups over others. The Supreme Court held in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services (2025) that a plaintiff from a majority group does not need to meet a higher standard to bring a Title VII discrimination claim, which reinforces that programs and decisions must treat all employees under the same rules. New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination also protects a wide range of characteristics. Practices such as broad outreach, structured interviews, transparent promotion criteria and mentoring open to all employees fit that framework.

For Hudson State, integration would mean that the promotion process itself changes: posting all openings internally, publishing criteria, using structured interviews and tracking outcomes for every group. The diversity office's survey data would feed HR decisions, and HR would share accountability for the results.

Comment on Darnell's Post

Darnell, you wrote that your company scaled back its diversity programs in 2025 because of legal uncertainty. I understand the caution, but I wonder whether some of the practices that research supports, such as structured interviews and transparent promotion criteria, are actually lower risk than the old programs because they apply the same rules to everyone. Did your legal team distinguish between programs that limited eligibility and those that improved processes for all employees?

Comment on Kim's Post

Kim, you made a good point that a 40-person employer cannot have a diversity office at all. Integration may actually be easier at that size, since the owner or HR generalist controls hiring and promotion directly. Even simple steps, such as writing down the criteria for each role before interviewing, could make a difference. Would your organization's leaders be open to tracking who applies and who is hired over a year?

References

Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, No. 23-1039 (U.S. June 5, 2025).

Chun, E., & Evans, A. (2014). The new talent acquisition frontier: Integrating HR and diversity strategy in the private and public sectors and higher education. Stylus Publishing.

Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. (2006). Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies. American Sociological Review, 71(4), 589-617. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240607100404