Did Microsoft Fire Its Diversity And Inclusion Team?

Two weeks ago, it was reported that Microsoft eliminated its inclusion and diversity teams, calling into question its commitment to building equity within the tech space at large and its ecosystem specifically. CRN finds answers and seeks clarification on the real impact.

When I first read the headline about Microsoft and its removal of its inclusion and diversity department, I was disappointed and a little confused. Like many equity and inclusion writers and scholars, I follow top enterprise organizations closely, looking at their best practices and evaluating their effectiveness. Understanding their global impact provides a barometer for how inclusion is centralized within tech and beyond.

So, color me confused when I read that inclusion and diversity were no longer critical to the business needs of Microsoft. But I’m from Missouri so you have to show me. That is, I trust but verify most of what I see, read, and hear.

So that’s just what I did.

Upon digging, I found that the reports were incorrect. In a statement to Inc.com, Microsoft clarified its actions: “This was two roles impacted in the events team, doing work that was duplicative of the centrally managed D&I org—called Microsoft's Global Talent, Development, Diversity and Inclusion team. GTDDI work continues and commitments remain unchanged.”

The Copilot AI developer says it maintains an intact and unchanged commitment to the transformative power of engaging many different perspectives, details of which can be found in its 2023 Global Diversity & Inclusion Report.

In a follow-up statement provided to CRN, Microsoft spokesperson Jeff Jones continues: “As we move forward, our D&I commitments remain unchanged. Our focus on diversity and inclusion is unwavering and we are holding firm on our expectations, prioritizing accountability, and continuing to focus on this work.”

Microsoft’s D&I reporting alongside their statements by executives continue to support the company’s commitment to building equity within its organization, however the question remains: what is the impact to the channel ecosystem?

How Microsoft D&I Shows Up In The Channel

Having the depth and reach of Microsoft allows the organization to build upon its commitment to diversity via inclusive leadership practices while maintaining substantial economic growth.

It is one thing to change the internal policies, practices, and procedures with a focus on diversifying talent pipelines and building culturally inclusive collaboration, however often the external impact can be less measurable.

Anecdotally, there is an impact to the channel ecosystem.

Taking note from the UN Sustainable Development Goals, Microsoft’s Build for 2030 aims to “accelerate innovation, changemaking, and collective impact” within the MSFT partner community. For some, it has been a success, showcasing how internal programs impact the experience of diverse suppliers.

“What I've experienced is that DE&I [is] less of like a department at Microsoft, and it's more so like, baked into a lot of the things that they do,” shared Cloudforce CEO Husein Sharaf in an interview. The Maryland-based strategic IT consultancy has been heavily involved in programs that help to promote diverse businesses, leveraging their status as a minority owned-Microsoft partner.

Sharaf continues, “It's like everybody, from sales to support to customer experience to the product [team], they all have these sort of objectives and initiatives baked into what they're working on. Not just their hiring.”

Who Benefits From A Negative Narrative About D&I

So, at least anecdotally, the Build for 2030 initiative coupled with its internal commitment has made considerable impact, showcasing organizational ability to create positive change and build equity in the ecosystem.

However, I am left with an additional question: if organizations like Microsoft, who continue to show external commitment to facilitation of diversity and inclusion are also making internal changes – why lean on the narrative that D&I is being abandoned? Or asked another way: why are the loudest voices disparaging the business case for building inclusion and focusing on diversity?

By minimizing the efforts toward building diversity and inclusion, we are also reinscribing the systems that make their existence necessary. Are programs that make organizational change easy or simple? Not in the least. Are the programs building diversity and inclusion perfect? Far from it. They will continue to require reframing, reassessment, and reevaluation. Too often we think that inclusive leadership is successful when we have arrived at a specific outcome. That one day we will have done enough.

However, change is hard. It takes hard work, but we like hard work. As inclusive leaders we are made better when we use our collective ability to see complex problems of inequity, focus on their root causes, and build toward more diverse and inclusive outcomes. And, in the 2024 Channel Company’s State of Equity and Inclusion in the Channel survey, 70 percent of solution provider respondents state that a vendor’s commitment to diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging (DEIB) is important to their business decisions.

Focusing solely on negative outcomes is only beneficial if we also find spaces that have worked or are working, telling the complete story can give insight on future growth and dare I say hope. So, inclusive leader, let’s trust but verify – checking for the less than perfect champions of change. Because, in the words of scholar, poet, and global personality Fred Rogers: when you look for the helpers, you’ll see that there’s hope.

The Inclusive Leadership Newsletter is a must-read for news, tips, and strategies focused on advancing successful diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives in technology and across the IT channel. Subscribe today!