1. Introduction
Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives have gained significant importance in contemporary workplaces, reflecting a commitment to equitable and diverse environments. Despite growing interest in the field, there remains a need for a comprehensive understanding of the practitioners who drive these initiatives. This study addresses this gap by investigating the profiles of 1000 DEI officers on LinkedIn, aiming to uncover key patterns and dynamics within this profession. The research problem centers on delineating the career trajectories, job roles, and industry distributions of DEI practitioners in Australia, ultimately contributing to a more nuanced understanding of their contributions and challenges. Through an analysis of LinkedIn data and the application of descriptive statistics and visualizations, the research objective is to shed light on the diverse dimensions of DEI practitioners’ roles and their impact on organisations.
For a considerable duration, diversity has been under-emphasised, necessitating a thorough comprehension (Moieni et al., 2017) . Fractal analysis, as proposed by (Moieni & Mousaferiadis, 2022) , has encompassed four dimensions—namely, ethnicity, birth country, languages, and worldviews—to evaluate diversity. Moreover, their 2021 contribution introduced a methodology to gauge the degree of representation or mutual inclusiveness between two cohorts (Moieni et al., 2017) . Emerging technologies such as machine learning hold promise for identifying and mitigating gender and age biases present in job postings. Through the programming of machine learning algorithms to identify gender-specific terminology and age-associated phrases, impartial evaluations of potential biases within job descriptions can be executed (Moieni & Mousaferiadis, 2022) . A recent endeavor by Moieni et al. (2023) employed a machine learning algorithm to prognosticate organizational diversity in the year 2023.
Employees within the corporate world identify opportunities for advancement based on their unique skills, interests, and career objectives. From both the individual and the employer’s perspective, it is important that career progression take place. Progression within one’s chosen field improves job satisfaction, thus yielding better results for organisations looking to retain talent. Our everyday actions shape our future, therefore we need to be adaptable, and each individual job search must be considered in the wider context of the career as a whole.
It is therefore important to create both short and long-term future career strategies in order for the desired outcome to be accomplished. Short term goals are those that can be carried out in a limited time frame. In making a longer-term career plans, one must be free from barriers such as loss of motivation and family strain and peer pressure. By avoiding these obstacles, it is far more viable to create a successful plan (Al-Bahrani et al., 2020) .
An individual’s own pressure on themselves may affect the outcome of decisions detrimentally. Wrong information and decisions will impact the future of the jobseeker. Therefore, people need to be both positive and realistic about their future career plans, taking into account interests and long term personal goals. It is then possible to adapt to industry and workforce changes, while still maintaining long term career objectives, and to integrate more seamlessly into new employment situations. One must engage in ongoing career training in order to remain current, and be able to identify his own strengths and weaknesses. This means in stable times, the individual is able to make changes to their plans based on the current corporate climate and be able to examine the likelihood of achieving career objectives (IvyPanda, n.d.) .
It is also necessary to understand one’s own personality. More than ever, there is language we can use to define ourselves, and use this to investigate our ideal career—including career flow, various alternative pathways, starting from the present and moving forward. These steps are what make up a career plan. Proper research is key to deciding on a career path—including what credentials are expected, industry standards, and how long one is expected to stay in a role. This will offer a good idea of a realistic timeframe in which to complete goals, balanced with a realistic view of oneself (Al-Bahrani et al., 2019) .
In the career analysis path, there is the advancement analysis group. It makes certain that every employee advances professionally. This should be performed by way of giving them the perfect preparation in order that they own the abilities wished for that unique activity. It is tough to perform as predicted if one isn’t always completely educated. It could be required of one to place their schooling to apply. A lack of right work overall performance results from this lack of training. To attain the important input for making changes to the areas that call for improvement, employers ought to maintain a regular verbal exchange with their workforce (IvyPanda, n.d.) .
It is therefore necessary to create a plan to obtain the necessary qualifications and credentials, and then be aware of the time and adjustments these will entail. Resources for career transitions should include checklists and there is a need for consultants to assist with career planning. Planning should take into account a person’s hobbies, worldviews and values, and the chosen career trajectory should align to these (Duffy, 2010) .
When choosing a new career, transferrable skills are a factor to consider that may facilitate a more rapid career progression. The individual can through this understand strategies that are required for their new position, through use of SWOT analysis, and promote oneself accordingly.
One must establish a plan for personal development, in both work life and personal life separately. The latter encompasses the essential social and leisure components of life. Through working a suitable career, the personal life should be enhanced rather than subsumed. There is a necessity to have appropriate objectives—realistic goals, training and learning objectives, and realistic timeframes for the desired outcome. Knowing any obstacles that might arise is necessary, too, in assisting the individual to achieve their goals (Duffy & Dik, 2009) .
2. Literature Review
The emergence of the call for experts in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) is an increasingly growing phenomenon around the world, and more so within the United States. As a result, DEI programs and initiatives have become a part of an ever-increasing trend that seeks to address diverse needs, mainly in light of the United States’ divisive political context and social unrest. From 2017 to 2019, DEI positions within the US increased by 18%, with recent data showcasing that as of March 2020, DEI roles were at an all-time high. Nonetheless, the COVID-19 pandemic was to see a decline in this trend at almost twice the trend of previous growth, to a whopping −60%. The need for works surrounding DEI was seen to be more evident following the murder of George Floyd in the United States when public sentiments sparked an all-out call for DEI to be at the fore of human rights (Griffen, 2021) .
The importance of understanding what DEI in lieu of the above crises cannot be understated. This understanding can be achieved by first breaking diversity, equity and inclusion into its base words to provide a better perspective on the term. Diversity includes the presence of unique differences within any given setting. In a workplace context, this could mean various ethnicities, gender identities, ages and socioeconomic classes. Furthermore, it also includes the unique differences in veteran status, abilities, and whether or not an individual has children. All these are elements of diversity. Equity, on the other hand, entails the process that ascertains that programs and practices within a defined setting are fair and impartial and provide for as many identical outcomes for all concerned. Finally, inclusion comprises ascertaining that individuals feel they have a sense of belonging, especially within the workplace (Heinz, 2022) .
In Comes Team DEI… Over time, a deliberate component has been the career path that DEI team takes. A reasonably new role within many organisations, only some have been able to illustrate the distinct career role and job responsibilities. Unlike other areas that have mapped career paths, DEI professionals are drawn from a range of different backgrounds, seemingly on an ad hoc basis. Correspondingly, DEI professionals have different levels of authority and so confusing DEI positions within the organisational structure (see Appendix B). For instance, DEI could be recognised as part of Human Resources function within large enterprise (see Figure A1), as a separate department (see Figure A2), or as part of different work groups (see Figure A3).
However, to better understand this, it is crucial to comprehend that, as mentioned in the introduction, the diversity function has evolved mainly due to the aftermath of a discrimination lawsuit.
It is important to note that the DEI industry as a field is increasingly growing and needs dynamic and innumerable skills and career experience. Organisations are hiring staff who are able to use their respective skills, such as cultural humility, challenging structural inequalities, and awareness of one’s own social identities, to assist them in increasing their DEI engagement while improving the well-being of employees (Cancio, 2022) .
Within the workplace, DEI teams are now more than ever before coming up with programs and policies that uproot sexism, homophobia, racism, as well as a myriad of other forms of discrimination. The power of DEI is such that it can transform organisations from the inside out and address critical functions such as business principles, power dynamics, and hiring practices. When applied appropriately, DEI assists small to large size organisations create crucial structural changes that enable them to mitigate any chance of future bias while correcting past wrongs. Initiatives that DEI professionals could potentially be involved in include the removal of existing barriers and biases during application processes to increase the representation of minority groups such as people of color and women within the workplace.
Additionally, DEI professionals have more power to ensure that an organisation’s policies elevate equality and diversity, such as including pictures of underrepresented groups in visible locations. DEI staff could also use the inclusivity of language in their hiring and training sessions and materials to support their employees within varying demographics such as disability, religion, gender, age, and race (Cancio, 2022) .
A number of distinct roles can easily be found within the DEI spectrum today. Such roles include administrative duties, education, leadership, and even executive roles. As a result, specific skills have proven to be present in the candidate for a successful DEI role over time. Personal attributes include being confident, optimistic, and resilient. Nevertheless, because DEI is still a relatively new area for many organisations, career switches have usually been witnessed to stem from most parts of the workforce.
Nonetheless, some careers have facilitated the switch to DEI roles with less difficulty than others (Buss, 2022) . Such careers include project management, human resources, and business development. The related skill sets within these careers usually rotate around communication, monitoring, delegation, employee engagement, empathy, training, development, evaluation, awareness, and strategy.
In this novel frontier, a clearly defined and well-understood scope (by all stakeholders) is pivotal in consolidating its goals and objectives and the skills required to achieve them. It also goes a long way in the workplace in ensuring that all these stakeholders are on the same page. Luckily, its scope can easily be understood through a deeper comprehension of its goals and strategic priorities, which is highlighted in the individual components of its career title. Let’s understand these fundamental objectives deeper, shall we?
1) Achieving Diversity
This entails an intentional paradigm shift towards acknowledging, valuing, and harnessing the benefits of our differences in the following areas:
· Socioeconomic status and culture
· Gender and sexual orientation
· Race and ethnicity
· Religion and spirituality
· Generation and age
· Disability
2) Achieving Equity
This involves “leveling the playing field” by factoring in both individual and contextual advantages and disadvantages of team members in your workplace to ensure the accordance of fair opportunities for all.
3) Achieving Inclusion
This is realized when the two preceding objectives have been well understood, implemented, and achieved. In other words, it is the automatic outcome of achieving both diversity and equity.
3. Methodology
This study has two stages. The first stage scrapes LinkedIn profile data to analyse general patterns in terms of state distribution, gender distribution, job title and position, industry, and job tenure. The second stage uses questionnaire methodology to understand the rationale of the practitioners to leave the industry.
3.1. First Stage
The data set of 1000 LinkedIn profiles includes data on demographics and work experience from 1000 D&I practitioners based in Australia, which are divided into 2 types:
· “Dedicated” D&I practitioners: individuals whose job title contains key D&I-related terms including diversity, inclusion, equity, and belonging.
· “Part-time” D&I practitioners: individuals whose job title does not relate to D&I, but they obtain related job responsibility, or part of the responsibility, as mentioned in the job descriptions.
This research focuses mainly on dedicated D&I practitioners, as well as a limited number of part-time D&I practitioners. All profiles were searched from personal connections and randomly selected. Keyword search of profiles includes ”diversity”, ”inclusion”, ”equity”, and ”belonging”, which are common job titles and responsibilities in the D&I industry (see Appendix A).
HTML profiles were collected and processed to extract the sections of demographics and work experience of each profile. All job entries of each person were harvested, including current and previous employment information. Gender pronouns and self-introduction on the profiles were used to identify the gender of the person. Besides, the data set was enlarged by searching companies’ profiles on LinkedIn to identify the company industry which recruited the practitioners, enabling the research to provide more insights about the feeders of the D&I industry. Table 1 provides a summary of data that was collected from the profiles.
3.2. Second Stage
A questionnaire that targets D&I practitioners who have left a role in the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion industry was established through Diversity Atlas platform and distributed on LinkedIn. The questionnaire was structured into two main parts. The first part consisted of demographic questions about gender, education, country of birth, ancestry, language, worldview or religion, branch, and denomination. The second section contains 2 questions:
· Have you ever left a role in the Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI) industry?
· Why did you leave the role in DEI?
A total of 22 responses were collected by posting the questionnaire link on LinkedIn. Of the respondents, 86.36% (n = 19) have even left a role in the industry.
4. Results and Findings
A total of 1000 LinkedIn profiles were collected, which included 909 dedicated D&I practitioners and 91 part-time D&I practitioners. The employment of D&I ranged from 1983 to 2022. 1841 current and past D&I job entries from the dedicated D&I practitioners, and 650 non-DI job entries with D&I-related job descriptions were identified. The analysis of dedicated D&I practitioners will be the main focus of the following sections, while the last section will focus on the part-time D&I jobs.
![]()
Table 1. A table to show the data harvested.
This study presents key insights:
• Tenure: On average, the practitioners spend about 2.08 years in a single D&I job and have around 2.03 D&I jobs throughout their careers, summing up to 4.22 years in the D&I industry. Similar durations of approximately 2 years are observed across hierarchical levels.
• State Distribution: The practitioners are concentrated in Victoria and New South Wales due to their higher populations. However, Queensland, despite its larger population, experiences a considerable gap in experts. Professionals from Victoria have shorter tenures in one D&I job compared to those from South Australia and Tasmania.
• Position Distribution: Most practitioners hold managerial and individual contributor positions, with limited entry-level roles.
• Industry Engagement: The public administration/government sector offers the most D&I job opportunities, followed by education and financial services.
• Job Titles: D&I job titles lack standardization, with “diversity” and “inclusion” being the most common terms. Specialized titles related to categories like disability and LGBTIQ+ are also observed.
• Gender Representation: The industry is female-dominated across all levels, with both genders typically spending less than 3 years in the industry.
• Career Transitions: The primary source of D&I practitioners is the human resources field, with frequent transitions between D&I and human resources roles.
4.1. State Distribution
There are more dedicated D&I practitioners from Victoria (n = 386; 42.46%), followed by New South Wales (n = 290; 31.90%), Queensland (n = 102; 11.22%), Western Australia (n = 65; 7.15%), Australian Capital Territory (n = 30; 3.30%), South Australia (n = 29; 3.19%), Tasmania (n = 6; 0.66%), and Northern Territory (n = 1; 0.11%). The distribution shows a high density of D&I practitioners in Victoria and New South Wales, which is associated with the latest statistics regarding state population in Australia (https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/national-state-and-territory-population/latest-release). Figure 1 suggests the dedicated D&I practitioners from Queensland, as the third largest state in terms of population, are underrepresented, which presents the biggest gap in comparing the number of D&I practitioners to population among all the states. Nonetheless, the chart indicates a gap between states that people from Queensland, Western Australia, Tasmania, and Northern Territory do not have equal access to the D&I industry, in comparison to people from Victoria and New South Wales.
![]()
Figure 1. A combo chart to show the relationship between D&I practitioners distribution and state population. The bar chart represents the number of dedicated D&I practitioners. The line chart represents the state population.
Victoria appears as the biggest job market with the greatest number of dedicated D&I job entries (n = 786; 42.69%), followed by New South Wales (n = 641; 34.82%). Figure 2 illustrates the numerical proportion of dedicated D&I jobs in different states. Notably, there is a certain limitation of this result when the practitioners work outside the state as they introduced in their profiles, which could be appeared as a potentially wrong classification.
4.2. Gender Distribution
Among the dedicated D&I practitioners, 82.51% (n = 750) are females and 17.49% (n = 159) are males, reflecting the dominance of females in the workplace. Females also dominates every position level of the 1841 dedicated D&I jobs, in which females occupied 82.13% (n = 1512) of the jobs whereas males occupied 17.87% (n = 329) of the jobs. Most of the D&I jobs are of individual contributor levels, including advisor, business partner, consultant, officer, specialist, and coordinator. Table 2 summarises the gender distribution of the D&I job entries by 4 position levels.
Figure 3 visualises the gender divide across position levels, in which the largest gender gap appears at managerial-level jobs. Notably, this finding has limitations because non-binary people were not identified in the study.
4.3. Job Title and Position Level
Almost two-fifths (n = 705; 38.29%) of the dedicated D&I job titles are unique, implying that job titles in the D&I space are not standardised or regulated. Table 3 provides insight into the patterns of D&I job titles, in which “diversity” and “inclusion” appears most often, and a few specialise in fields related specifically to disability, First Nation concerns, gender, LGBTIQ+, and equal opportunity. Table 4 summarises the top 10 most frequent job titles.
The job titles also include information about the position held by the practitioners, who were normalised into 4 position levels: entry level, individual contributor level, managerial level, and directorial level. The vast majority of the dedicated D&I jobs were held at the individual contributor level (n = 856; 46.50%) and managerial level (n = 827; 44.92%). About 8.26% (n = 152) of the jobs were at the directorial level, while only 0.33% (n = 6) of entry-level jobs were found. Table 5 summarises the top 10 most frequent positions, in which the most common positions are at the managerial level.
![]()
Figure 2. A pie chart to show the distribution of dedicated D&I job between states.
![]()
Figure 3. A stacked bar chart to visualise gender divide of dedicated D&I jobs across position levels.
![]()
Table 2. A table to show gender distribution of the 1841 dedicated D&I jobs by 4 position levels.
![]()
Table 3. A table to show the occurrence of keywords on D&I job titles.
![]()
Table 4. A table to show the top 10 D&I job titles that appear most often.
![]()
Table 5. A table to show the top 10 D&I job positions that appears most often.
4.4. Industry
The D&I practitioners are employed by, or self-employed, 802 organisations that span 43 industries, including but not limited to government agencies (e.g. Australian Federal Government, Australian Government Departments, City Councils), consultancies (e.g. KPMG, Deloitte, PwC, Synergy Group), colleges and universities (e.g. University of Melbourne, TAFE NSW), the sports industry (e.g. Australian Football League, Football Australia), the IT industry (e.g. Telstra, Google, Amazon, Gartner), staffing and recruiting agencies (e.g. Australian HR Institute, Hays, Maxima Group), health care institutions (e.g. The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Diabetes Victoria), civic and social organisations (e.g. YMCA, Settlement Services International, ACON), and financial institutions (e.g. Commonwealth Bank, Macquarie Group).
Among the dedicated D&I job entries, most of the jobs (n = 342; 18.58%) were provided by public administrators, followed by industries of education (n = 208; 11.30%) and financial service (n = 152; 8.26%). Table 6 summarises the top 10 industries that provide the most dedicated D&I jobs. Figure 4 summarises the total number of jobs of all 43 industries.
4.5. Tenure: Overall
The dedicated D&I practitioners, on average, work 2.08 years for every dedicated D&I job. Throughout their career, they take up 2.03 dedicated D&I jobs and spend 4.22 years in the D&I industry in total. Regarding the reason for leaving the industry, nearly half of the questionnaire participants had experienced burnout and were lacking tools to do their job, and about one-third of them were looking for a more financially secure job and thought there was a lack of career growth in D&I (see Appendix C for detailed questionnaire results).
In terms of D&I career span, more than half of the practitioners (n = 479, 52.70%) have spent less than 3 years in the D&I industry in total throughout their career, 18.04% (n = 164) of practitioners have spent 3 to 5 years, 19.47% (n = 177) of practitioners have spent 5 to 10 years, and 9.79% (n = 89) of practitioners have spent more than 10 years. Table 7 summarises the tenure patterns of these 4 cohort groups.
A positive relationship between the average number of D&I jobs per person and average employment duration per job was found in Figure 5, which appears highly correlated. It shows a general tendency that the more D&I jobs the practitioners have worked, the longer they will stay for a job.
![]()
Table 6. A table to show the top 10 company industries that appear most often.
![]()
Figure 4. A bar chart to show the total number of dedicated D&I jobs of 43 industries.
![]()
Figure 5. A scatter plot to show the relationship between the average number of D&I jobs of each expert and average duration of D&I jobs. It shows a positive correlation.
![]()
Table 7. A table to summarise employment duration of all practitioners and of each cohort which has a D&I career span of less than 3 years, 3 to 5 years, 5 to 10 years, and more than 10 years.
4.6. Tenure: States
Practitioners from various states take on 1.00 to 2.21 dedicated D&I jobs on average, work 4 months to 3.37 years (40.44 months) for a job, and spend 4 months to 5.06 years (60.67 months) in the D&I field throughout their career. Table 8 summarises the employment duration of practitioners from each state. We have seen that in Victoria, the state which has the most D&I practitioners, the practitioners on average stay 1.97 years (23.64 months) for each D&I job, which is shorter than most other states, whilst South Australia and Tasmania have fewer D&I practitioners but the practitioners stay relatively longer. Furthermore, while Victoria and New South Wales have larger job markets with a greater number of D&I jobs available, it does not attract practitioners from those states to take on more jobs.
Figure 6 depicts a comparison of the total number of jobs and average employment length among states. Despite having fewer D&I practitioners and fewer D&I jobs in Western Australia, South Australia, and Tasmania, practitioners in these three states stay on the job for a longer period of time.
Comparing cohorts in terms of practitioners from different states, more practitioners from Victoria were willing to spend less than 3 years (n = 209; 43.63%), 3 to 5 years (n = 74; 45.12%), and 5 to 10 years (n = 67; 37.85%) in total on D&I industry throughout their career. Practitioners from both Victoria and New South Wales dominate the cohort of more than 10 years by 40.45% (n = 36). Figure 7 depicts the state divide across each cohort. Table 9 summarises the distribution of practitioners from different states in each cohort.
![]()
Table 8. A table to summarise employment duration of dedicated D&I practitioners from each state.
![]()
Figure 6. A combo chart to compare tenure in different states. The bar chart shows the total number of D&I practitioners. The solid line demonstrates the average duration of D&I jobs for each state. The dotted line shows the overall average duration of D&I j0obs (i.e. 25.01 months).
![]()
Figure 7. A stacked bar chart to visualise state divide across each cohort.
![]()
Table 9. A table to summarise the total number of practitioners from different states across each cohort.
4.7. Tenure: Gender
Women on average work 2.92 months longer than men for one D&I job and 4.69 months longer in the D&I industry than men do throughout the course of their careers. Table 10 describes the job length of practitioners in genders.
When taking into account the various cohorts, both women and men generally spend less than 3 years in total in the D&I industry throughout their careers. Table 11 summarises the figure of women and men within the cohorts. The gender disparity is the biggest in the 5-to-10-year cohort, which contains 76.28% more women. In contrast, the smallest gender disparity appears in the cohort of less than 3 years, with women outnumbering men by 60.34%. Nonetheless, there is a female predominance in every cohort, as visualised in Figure 8.
![]()
Table 10. A table to employment duration of females and males.
![]()
Table 11. A table to summarise the total number of practitioners in females and males in different cohorts.
![]()
Figure 8. A stacked bar chart to visualise gender divide across each cohort.
4.8. Tenure: Job Title and Position Level
When it comes to job titles, there is not much of a difference in the length of employment. The average employment tenure for dedicated D&I jobs with the keywords “diversity,” “inclusion,” “equity,” and “belonging” range from 1.55 years (18.63 months) to 2.08 years (25.01 months). Table 12 describes the employment duration of jobs with each keyword.
Entry-level jobs have the shortest average employment duration in comparison to other position levels, in which the jobs at the individual contributor, managerial, and directorial levels vary from 2.05 years (24.58 months) to 2.10 years (25.19 months). Table 13 describes the employment duration of jobs at each position level.
4.9. Tenure: Industry
The average employment tenure for dedicated D&I jobs across 43 industries ranges 1 month to 6.42 years (77 months), with the practitioners from public relations and communications services staying the longest, and those from wholesale trade staying the shortest. Table 14 summarises the D&I employment duration of all industries.
Figure 9 depicts a comparison of the total number of D&I jobs and average employment length among 43 industries. Even though public administration contributes the most D&I employment with the highest total employment duration of D&I jobs, the practitioners from public administration, on average, tend to leave their position after 1.78 years (21.3 months), which is shorter than average.
![]()
Table 12. A table to summarise employment duration of dedicated D&I jobs with different job title keywords.
![]()
Table 13. A table to summarise employment duration of dedicated D&I jobs at different position levels.
![]()
Table 14. A table to summarise the employment duration of dedicated D&I jobs in 43 industries.
![]()
Figure 9. A combo chart to compare tenure in different industries. The bar chart shows the total number of D&I practitioners. The solid line shows the average duration of D&I jobs for each industries. The dotted line show the overall average duration of D&I jobs (i.e. 25.01 months).
4.10. Career Shift
In addition to the D&I job entries, we also looked at the non-D&I positions that each expert held prior to changing their job title to D&I (n = 1142), and (/or) the non-D&I jobs that they held after leaving the D&I position (n = 659). Table 15 lists the top 5 job titles that represent career change patterns. It demonstrates the great frequency with which people from human resources enter the D&I sector. Additionally, the practitioners frequently transit to the human resources sector after leaving the D&I fields.
4.11. Part-Time D&I Jobs
The sections above have concentrated on dedicated D&I jobs that contain titles related to D&I. Nonetheless, there is a number of “part-time D&I jobs” that do not carry obvious D&I titles but have relevant job responsibilities as described in the job descriptions. This section will present the patterns of the 650 part-time D&I job entries found.
1) State distribution: The state distribution of part-time D&I jobs is similar to that of the dedicated D&I jobs, as Figure 10 shows. Victoria appears as the biggest job market with greatest number of part-time D&I jobs (n = 307; 47.23%), followed by New South Wales (n = 230; 35.38%), Queensland (n = 50; 7.69%), Western Australia (n = 32; 4.92%), South Australia (n = 15; 2.31%), Australian Capital Territory (n = 13; 2%), and Tasmania (n = 3; 0.46%). No job from Northern Territory is found.
2) Gender distribution: The gender distribution of part-time D&I jobs is also similar to that of the dedicated D&I jobs. Women occupy 82.62% (n = 537) of the jobs whereas men occupy 17.38% (n = 113) of the jobs. Women also dominate all position levels, as Figure 11 shows, resulting gender divide. Table 16 summarises the gender distribution of the jobs by 4 position levels.
![]()
Figure 10. A line chart to compare the number of dedicated and part-time D&I jobs across states.
![]()
Figure 11. A stacked bar chart to visualise gender divide of part-time D&I jobs across each position level.
Table 15. Tables to show the pattern of career shift of D&I practitioners before they take on D&I position and/or after they leave D&I position. Top: Top 5 last job titles before the practitioners join D&I. Lower: Top 5 first job titles after the practitioners leave D&I.
![]()
3) Job title and position level: As for the pattern of job titles, human resources and organisational development appear most often. It illustrates the notion that D&I is seen as part of the role of human resources to manage and develop internal employees’ capabilities in the context of the organisation. Table 17 summarises the top 10 most frequent job titles. Regarding position level, consistent with the pattern of dedicated D&I jobs, the majority of the part-time D&I jobs were held at the individual contributor level (n = 302; 46.46%) and managerial level (n = 221; 34.00%). About 17.38% of the jobs were at the directorial level, and only 2.15% (n = 14) of entry-level jobs were found.
4) Industry: The part-time D&I jobs were provided by 38 industries in total, in which civic and social organisations offered most of the jobs (n = 103; 15.85%), followed by public administration (n = 78; 12.00%) and business consulting and services (n = 67; 10.31%). Figure 12 summarises the total number of jobs across all 38 industries.
5) Tenure: Part-time D&I positions were held on average for 2.88 years (34.52 months), which is 9 months longer than the dedicated DI positions (25.01 months). In terms of position level, the average employment duration ranges from 1.40 years (16.86 months) to 2.77 years (33.22 months). Table 18 describes the employment of the jobs at each position level. Jobs at the directorial level have the longest tenure on average. Interestingly, at all position levels, the average tenure of part-time D&I jobs is longer than that of dedicated D&I jobs. Figure 13 shows the differences in employment duration between dedicated and part-time D&I jobs.
![]()
Table 16. A table to show gender distribution of the 650 part-time D&I jobs by 4 position levels.
![]()
Table 17. A table to show the top 10 D&I part-time job titles that appear most often.
![]()
Table 18. A table to summarise employment duration of part-time D&I jobs at different position levels.
![]()
Figure 12. A bar chart to show the total number of part-time D&I jobs of 38 industries.
![]()
Figure 13. A line chart to compare the average duration of dedicated D&I jobs and part-time D&I jobs.
5. Conclusion
Drawing from the insights obtained through the analysis of 1000 Australian D&I officers’ LinkedIn profiles, this study illuminates the intricate dynamics of the field. These include the transient nature of D&I roles with an average tenure of around 2 years per position, the concentration of practitioners in Victoria and New South Wales, the prominence of managerial and individual contributor positions, and the intertwining of the field with human resources. Females dominate D&I roles and career transitions between D&I and human resources are evident. By leveraging LinkedIn, this study enriches our understanding of the industry, contributing essential insights into their roles and organisational impact.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by Cultural Infusion PTY Ltd. We thank Peter Mousaferiadis, Roman Ruzbacky, Duncan Foster, Michael Walmsley, Quincy Hall, and Jane Felstead who provided insight and expertise that greatly assisted the research, although they may not agree with all of the interpretations/conclusions of this article. We also thank Jane Felstead for editorial support and advice.
We would also like to express our special thanks to the University of Melbourne for supporting the internship program that allowed Nicole to conduct this research endeavor.
Appendix
Appendix A. Responsibilities for DEI Positions
The table below listed out 10 DEI job types and associated duties and responsibilities. The listed jobs have been searched from two major platforms—Indeed and Glassdoor—listing thousands of DEI job ads, as well as a number of journal articles (Grubbs, 2020) and news articles (Gilchrist, 2020; Miller, 2021) .
Appendix B. DEI in Organisational Charts
![]()
Figure A1. Hierarchical organisational chart at four levels created by Michael Walmsley from observation. DEI is generally recognised as part of Human Resources or Operation function within enterprises.
![]()
Figure A2. Hierarchical organisational chart at five levels researched from company websites.
![]()
Figure A3. Network organisational chart researched from company websites.
Appendix C. Questionnaire Results
The following Table A1 provides the results of the questionnaire regarding the reason for leaving the D&I industry. A total of 22 responses have been received, from which one participant did not indicate the reason for leaving. The participants can choose more than one reason.
![]()
Table A1. Result of the questionnaire regarding the reason for leaving the industry.