The acronym “DEI”—diversity, equity, and inclusion—has come to represent a wide range of organizational commitments, ranging from inclusive hiring to anti-racism training to belonging strategies. But it has also become a lightning rod, pulled into the orbit of culture wars and reduced to a political symbol rather than a strategy for transformation. As public scrutiny grows and legislative challenges to DEI increase across sectors, many leaders are asking: Should we rename it? Defend it? Let it go?

At Tayden Impact Partners, we’ve been engaging these questions long before the current backlash took hold. In 2023, we published Making DEI Obsolete, a paper that challenged organizations to go beyond performative gestures and embed the work so deeply that it no longer needed a separate label to be seen. Our position was clear then, and it remains so now: the goal is not to retreat from equity, but to move from visibility to durability. The work doesn’t disappear when you stop calling it DEI. In fact, it has the potential to become more powerful.

When DEI is positioned as an external signal—something housed on a separate page, managed by a separate team, or centered in one annual training—it becomes easier to isolate and dismantle. But when it is embedded in how decisions are made, how leaders are developed, how strategy is executed, and how people experience the workplace every day, it becomes inseparable from the organization’s identity. That kind of integration isn’t just more resilient—it’s more effective.

We know that organizations with inclusive cultures are more successful. McKinsey’s 2020 report found that companies in the top quartile for gender and ethnic diversity outperformed those in the bottom quartile by 25% and 36%, respectively. But those outcomes don’t come from a statement or a slogan. They come from embedded systems, practices, and expectations. We believe the time has come to stop defending the acronym—and double down on the deeper redesign.

Why We’re Moving Past the Acronym

The organizations making the most progress on equity aren’t the ones with the boldest branding—they’re the ones redesigning their infrastructure. In our work with clients, we’ve seen that the strongest commitments to equity aren’t always loud. They’re operational. They show up in how compensation is structured, how feedback is normalized, how risk is distributed, and how power is shared. The acronym might not appear on the org chart—but the principles show up in the outcomes.

This shift away from the acronym is not reactive—it’s strategic. Many of the organizations we work with found that even before the political tides changed, the DEI acronym was starting to feel limiting. It was increasingly associated with short-term initiatives, overly symbolic gestures, or polarized reactions. Meanwhile, the actual work—building cultures of belonging, dismantling bias in decision-making, and aligning leadership behavior with stated values—was happening in quieter, deeper ways.

For example, one organization we supported restructured its performance evaluation process to prioritize equity in advancement—not under a DEI project, but as part of a broader shift in leadership culture. A nonprofit we partnered with redefined its strategic goals to include shared accountability for culture across all teams. Neither used the term DEI as a primary frame. Yet both saw increases in staff engagement, trust, and internal alignment over a 12-month period.

Language matters. But only insofar as it reflects substance. When the acronym begins to obscure the work or make it harder to engage in, it becomes a barrier. We are not advocating for abandonment—we are advocating for precision. If a term no longer serves your strategy, change it. If it helps anchor your commitments, keep it. But either way, let the depth of the work—not the label—be your guide.

A Lens, Not a Label

What we’ve learned through years of supporting culture transformation is that equity isn’t a program. It’s a way of seeing. We encourage our clients to adopt what we call a “lens, not a label” approach—embedding equity, inclusion, and belonging into every function of the organization without requiring it to stand apart. This means rethinking not just what your DEI team does, but how every leader makes decisions, communicates, and holds power.

Consider the difference between a DEI training and leadership development conducted through an equity lens. The former might focus on bias or microaggressions as a standalone topic. The latter would infuse those concepts into how authority is exercised, how team dynamics are shaped, and how leaders are held accountable. This integration turns equity into a practice, not a program. And it ensures that it is sustained long after the training ends or the DEI lead leaves.

The “lens” approach also reduces the performative burden many organizations feel. Instead of showcasing DEI as a separate commitment that must constantly be justified, organizations can begin to normalize inclusive practice as a standard operating condition. A Bain & Company study found that 65% of employees say feeling included is critical to job performance—but only 29% feel consistently included. This is not a branding issue. It’s a systems issue.

When the lens is in place, equity becomes part of the organization’s reflex. It’s how hiring rubrics are written, how policies are stress-tested, how meetings are facilitated. It becomes a muscle memory—present even when unspoken. And when that happens, you don’t need a separate acronym to prove your values. Your organization becomes the evidence.

What Changes When You Let Go of the Acronym?

What we’ve seen is that letting go of the DEI label can open up space for deeper transformation. Leaders no longer have to constantly explain or defend a term that may be misunderstood. Instead, they can redirect their energy toward reworking the systems that matter most—hiring, advancement, pay equity, decision-making, and strategy. The work doesn’t diminish. It expands.

This shift also strengthens internal alignment. When DEI is seen as the responsibility of a single team, it’s easy for others to disengage. But when it’s framed as a shared leadership lens, the work gets distributed. One client—an association navigating generational and cultural tensions—redesigned its meeting norms and conflict resolution systems through an inclusion lens. The changes weren’t labeled DEI, but the results were unmistakable: more participation, more trust, and a dramatic reduction in internal miscommunication.

Letting go of the acronym can also protect the work from external volatility. In an era where “DEI” is being banned, politicized, or defunded in multiple states, organizations that have embedded equity into their operations are better positioned to hold the line. Their values don’t depend on slogans or public statements—they’re built into the organization’s DNA.

Of course, the acronym still matters in some settings. Advocacy organizations, mission-driven foundations, and publicly accountable institutions may benefit from naming DEI explicitly. And we support that. But for those asking whether the term is still the best vehicle for change, we offer this: It’s not what you call it. It’s whether your systems reflect it.

This Is a Strategic Shift—Not a Retreat

Some leaders worry that removing the DEI label sends the wrong message. Won’t it look like we’re caving? Are we signaling that this work no longer matters? We understand that concern. But what we’ve seen, time and again, is that moving away from the acronym—when done intentionally—isn’t about minimizing the work. It’s about maturing it.

This is a shift from visibility to integration. From symbolism to infrastructure. From “we support DEI” to “equity is how we lead.” A Deloitte study found that companies with inclusive cultures are six times more likely to be innovative and twice as likely to meet or exceed financial targets. These are not soft outcomes—they are the direct result of embedded equity practices, regardless of what they are called.

In fact, some of the most courageous equity leaders we know are the ones moving the work offstage—not because they’re hiding it, but because they’re building it into places where it becomes harder to undo. Equity woven into procurement. Inclusion baked into onboarding. Belonging centered in performance reviews. These shifts are subtle—but they are durable.

This is not a retreat. It’s a repositioning. One that allows organizations to lead from strategy, not sentiment. From practice, not performance. And it sends a far more powerful message to your team: We don’t just say we value equity. We’ve designed ourselves around it.

A Call to Action for Leaders

Now is the moment for courageous leadership—not reactive positioning. The question is no longer whether equity should be part of the work. It’s whether leaders are willing to do the deeper, slower, more strategic work of integrating it into how their organizations actually function. The organizations that will thrive through complexity are not those with the most polished values statements. They are the ones where equity shows up in infrastructure: in how budgets are built, how teams are led, and how people are held—accountable, supported, and valued.

We invite leaders to move beyond cosmetic change. Don’t just rename your DEI department. Rethink whether your leadership structure reinforces hierarchy over inclusion. Don’t just reword your values. Revisit how decisions are made, who is in the room, and how dissent is managed. Don’t ask your DEI lead to do all the work of transformation. Build cross-functional systems that hold everyone responsible for culture and equity—not as an extra, but as a core leadership competency.

This is the kind of work that can’t be outsourced or automated. It requires principled reflection and practice. It asks leadership teams to be honest about where inequity still exists in their systems and whether they are willing to address it—not with workshops alone, but with changes to power, process, and practice. It also means acknowledging when language has become a distraction and having the discipline to focus instead on impact. In our experience, the teams that shift their energy from terminology to implementation see faster traction and deeper results.

We said in 2023—and we’ll say it again: the goal of DEI is not to live forever as a separate category. It’s to become so fully embedded that it no longer requires special justification. That is not a diminishment. It’s the ultimate signal of success. If your team is ready for that level of commitment, the question isn’t what you call it. It’s what you’re willing to change. The future isn’t acronym-dependent—it’s equity-driven. And the organizations that understand that now will be the ones most prepared to lead, grow, and serve well into what comes next.

From Label to Legacy

At Tayden as an organizational development firm, we’ve spent our work focus on helping mission-driven organizations become high-trust, high-impact workplaces by aligning strategy, leadership, and culture through an equity lens. Our core belief is simple: systems shape experience. If the systems don’t change, neither will the culture. That’s why this work must move beyond symbolic gestures and become embedded into the architecture of how organizations function.

We don’t believe there’s one right path. But we do believe the next era of leadership will belong to those who move from compliance to conviction, from optics to ownership. Whether or not you use the term DEI is less important than whether your organization reflects its values in daily practice. When equity is fully embedded, it doesn’t need defending—it becomes how you lead.

The time to shift is now. Not in response to headlines, but in service of a deeper alignment with who you say you are and how you want to serve. 

If your organization is ready to move from a label to a lasting lens—one that touches every decision, every team, and every outcome—we’re here for that work.