Skip to main content

SHRM24 Takeaways: Where Will HR Focus Next?

July 2, 2024
Diane Knoepke

shrm-sp24.jpg“Many of us, HR professionals, don’t really understand, or even agree at times, what DE&I is.” SHRM President and Chief Executive Officer Johnny C. Taylor, Jr., SHRM-SCP shared this observation in his SHRM24 address on June 24, entitled “Run Fearlessly into the Storm.” He spoke of the current “backlash moment” for diversity, equity, and inclusion and how “SHRM and the HR profession must step in” to define, re-envision, rethink, and focus on inclusion and diversity in the workplace. I agree strongly that we need to work to bring clarity—and individual and organizational firepower—to what DEI work is, can be, and should be. The time I spent in our Northwestern MSLOC exhibit booth during SHRM24 reinforced this need and desire. As part of our participation, we set up a bulletin board and invited attendees to participate in our spot poll about how much time they expect to spend per week on change management, learning, and equity and inclusion, in the next year. While I was not surprised to see an overall lower set of estimates for equity and inclusion, the results raised many observations and questions, some of which are closely aligned with those Taylor outlined.

Poll Set-up

The banner across the top asked, “IN THE NEXT YEAR, HOW MANY HOURS PER WEEK WILL YOU SPEND ON…” followed by three posters underneath that read, “CHANGE MANAGEMENT,” “LEARNING,” and “EQUITY AND INCLUSION.” Each of the three posters included a 0 to 40 vertical scale, representing 0 to 40 hours projected to be spent on each of the three practice areas. We handed each poll participant a sheet of three sticky dots (the different colors of dots do not signify anything) and asked them to indicate on the posters how much time they expect to spend in each area. We indicated there were no “wrong” answers, rather we wanted to gather their best projections. 

Poll Results
The following observations are based on (a) my visual assessment of the final distribution of stickers on each poster and (b) my reflections on what I overheard from attendees while engaging with the poll in real time.

Change Management

  • The responses were fairly evenly clustered around 10, 20, 30, and 40 hours per week.
  • More people indicated a projection between 20-40 hours than those who indicated a projection between 0-20 hours.
  • More people indicated they expect to spend 30-40 hours on Change Management than on Learning or Equity and Inclusion.
  • A relatively small number (<10%) of poll participants projected spending less than 10 hours weekly on change management.
  • Many participants made comments that were variations on “it’s all change,” or “we are going through a LOT of change,” and/or mentioned a specific initiative coming up, such as a technology transformation. These comments were often paired with a sigh or a playful eye roll accompanying a knowing smile.

Learning

  • While there were multiple participant responses at 10, 20, 30, and 40 hours per week, it was not as evenly clustered when compared to the Change Management results.
  • More people indicated a projection around 10 hours than any other point on the scale.
  • A relatively small number (15% or fewer) of poll participants projected spending less than 10 hours per week on Learning in the next year.
  • I overheard several participant comments about “always learning,” while a few asked if the poll was asking them to project the time they were going to spend on their own learning or others’ We answered “both” when asked.

Equity and Inclusion

  • Participant responses were not evenly clustered around 10, 20, 30, and 40 hours per week, with very few participants (<15%) selecting a point above 25 on the scale.
  • Far more people indicated a projection of 0-20 hours than those who indicated a projection between 20-40 hours.
  • Far more people indicated they expect to spend 0-10 hours on Equity and Inclusion than on Change Management or Learning.
  • Nearly half of poll participants projected spending 10 hours or less on Equity and Inclusion per week in the next year.
  • For Equity and Inclusion, the participant comment I heard most upon placing their sticker on the poster, typically toward the bottom of the scale, started with “Unfortunately…” Some followed that up by explaining that it was illegal or otherwise prohibited in their (U.S.) state to call any of their work “Equity and Inclusion,” while others indicated more general regrets that little of their time, if any, would be allocated toward Equity and Inclusion.

Questions and Possible Interpretations

Each of us who has done any kind of research, let alone an informal spot poll or pulse survey, knows that with interesting data come many equally interesting questions that affect our interpretations.

  • How is each person defining these terms for themselves and/or within their organizations?
  • What tasks does each person consider falling under each of these practice areas?
  • What are the respondents’ assigned roles/job descriptions?
  • Where does each respondent’s role fall on a spectrum of generalist to specialist?

Depending on the answers to those questions, along with broader analysis of the current and projected state of these practice areas, I see several possible (and not mutually exclusive) interpretations of the results we see from our spot poll. This is certainly only the start of a list. It is informed by conversations I had with both SHRM attendees onsite and my Northwestern MSLOC staff and faculty colleagues.

  • Respondents may see change management and learning as parts of their daily work, no matter what their titles/roles, versus more often seeing equity and inclusion as a specific or specialized practice area.
  • Respondents may see change management, learning, and equity and inclusion as discrete practice areas. And we may have reinforced that view in the way we set up the three discrete posters. Certainly, there are areas of knowledge, skill, and competency closely tied to each of these three practice areas. What’s interesting, though, is that some respondents who saw “everything” as dealing with change, and/or learning, did not see “everything” as related to equity and inclusion. That’s not a judgment but a notice, as our views are shaped by our own experiences and preferences as well as the operating and cultural norms tied to our organizational and systemic contexts.
  • As evoked by the question above about generalist versus specialist, what might these results mean for how change management and learning are viewed? If people across organizational roles and departments see change management and learning as part of their jobs, that could mean more power and effectiveness toward positive change management and learning outcomes. What might it mean for investments in specialized talent dedicated to change management and learning? And are organizations investing in skill development for all who are expecting (or expected) to participate in change and learning?

These interpretations all relate to other areas of needed HR focus and influence that Taylor spoke of in his address, including (a) closing skill gaps and (b) working with (versus against) artificial intelligence. Each of these practice and skill areas will be critical—for individuals, teams, organizations, and systems— across the next 5, 10, 15 years and beyond. What remains to be seen is whether we will individually and collectively do the hard work, and fight to allocate precious human (and, in some cases, machine) capacity, to adapt and collaborate in ways that drive both productivity and purpose in new eras already here and those to come.