Alex Edmans’ December 2025 working paper The End of DEI from London Business School enters a highly charged debate. Edmans argues that contemporary DEI practice has become overly focused on demographic representation, politically polarised, and insufficiently grounded in evidence. He proposes a reframing around Potential, Synergy, and Inclusion, intended to preserve the aims of DEI while avoiding what he sees as its unintended consequences.
There is much in this paper that will resonate with leaders frustrated by box ticking approaches to inclusion. Edmans draws on a wide academic literature to challenge simplistic claims that demographic diversity automatically improves organisational performance. He makes a strong case that potential is often better captured by trajectories rather than past achievements, that effective teams are built through complementary skills and perspectives rather than representation alone, and that inclusion, particularly psychological safety, is the mechanism through which any form of diversity translates into outcomes.
However, reading the paper through an inclusion lens also raises important questions about perspective, power, and what risks being lost when demographic diversity is downplayed.
The paper explicitly positions itself within a business case frame. Edmans acknowledges the civil rights roots of DEI but deliberately sidelines moral and social justice arguments in favour of organisational performance. That choice matters. When diversity is treated primarily as an input into productivity, it becomes easier to abstract away from the historical and structural forces that have shaped who has access to opportunity in the first place.
A central concern is that this argument risks reflecting a dominant group perspective, particularly one shaped by white, male, professional privilege. The repeated emphasis on meritocracy, potential, and synergy is not inherently problematic. These concepts are valuable. But they are not neutral.
Assessments of potential, judgments about complementarity, and interpretations of merit are all socially constructed and historically patterned. Extensive research shows that people from marginalised social identities are more likely to have their competence underestimated, their mistakes penalised, and their ambition read differently than those from dominant groups. Without explicit attention to these dynamics, calls to move beyond demographic diversity can unintentionally reinforce existing inequities.
The paper also treats demographic diversity as a weak proxy for equity and inclusion, citing evidence that representation does not reliably correlate with performance. That point is empirically important. Yet it risks creating a reductionist perspective to a complex issue and sets up a false choice. The paper appears to assume that a true ‘equality’ had previously been achieved and therefore any evidence demonstrating no performance advantage for diverse teams and organisations is evidence against emphasising the importance of diversity. Yet, those who work in this space appreciate that even where progress had been made, there was still so much work left to do before equality could be experienced by all.
In addition, the significance of diversity in DEI has never been solely about performance optimisation. It has also been about visibility, redress, and signalling that organisations recognise historical exclusion. We cannot right the wrongs of the past if we ignore them. Rather, we create the conditions for history to keep repeating itself.
Edmans is right to criticise ‘add diversity and stir’ approaches and performative metrics. But the solution is not simply to broaden diversity into less visible forms while de-emphasising social identity.
A more inclusive reframing would hold both together. Social identity diversity matters precisely because power, discrimination, and advantage have tracked along those lines for generations. Socioeconomic background, cognitive style, and experience are critical additions, not replacements.
Where the paper is strongest is its treatment of inclusion. The emphasis on psychological safety, constructive dissent, and the removal of everyday frictions aligns closely with what evidence based inclusive leadership research consistently shows. Importantly, Edmans challenges the idea that inclusion means comfort, lack of challenge, or lowered standards. That clarification is timely and necessary.
For leaders, the implication is not to abandon DEI, nor to simply rebrand it. The challenge is to deepen it. That means designing systems that recognise historical inequities, interrogate how potential is assessed, and create conditions where different people can contribute fully without having to assimilate to dominant norms. Potential, synergy, and inclusion can be valuable lenses, but only if they are applied with an explicit awareness of power, identity, and history.
For those who are deeply committed to the importance and value of DEI, as we are, this article was a difficult and frustrating read. However, it still feels important to share. The arguments are presented in ways that appear scientific, evidence based, and logical, and may be taken up by some to justify narratives that minimise the importance of social identity in DEI or even abandon DEI altogether. Yet key aspects of the argument are missing or misrepresented, or even at times lacking in any evidence or backing at all (for example, the claim that ‘HR departments sometimes attract left-leaning employees’ (p. 20), being one of many. Presented as fact, yet supported by no evidence whatsoever. Not to mention the fact that this also implies that left-leaning employees are somewhat problematic as a default ….) illustrating how evidence can be selectively used to construct a particular narrative. If science and evidence are never entirely free from bias or subjectivity, why would we assume human behaviour is any different?
You can read the original article here.
