Most organisations are not struggling with a lack of EDI activity. Across academia, there is already a significant amount of work in motion, from strategies and action plans through to networks, training, and targeted initiatives, often led by people who are both committed and experienced in this space.
The assumption underpinning this is that if the right interventions are introduced, change will follow. That progress is largely a question of identifying and implementing the right set of actions.
However, over the course of a 16-week FIELDS pilot, working with EDI and REF leads who were already actively delivering this work, a different issue became more visible. The challenge was not generating activity, and it was not a lack of commitment. Participants brought, in their own words, “passion for equality, tenacity and an open mind,” alongside a strong willingness to engage with new ways of thinking about the work.
What shifted was not what they wanted to do, but how they understood what would actually work in their context.
What we found out
One of the most consistent outcomes of the pilot was that FIELDS gave individuals a clearer way of positioning their EDI work.
Participants were able to move beyond thinking in terms of initiatives, and instead began to consider how their work would be interpreted by different groups within their organisation, how it aligned with existing values, and where it might create friction.
This is where the methodology was seen as particularly strong. As one participant noted, “the philosophy works really well… in alignment with the organisation’s values,” while another described the “methodology [as] excellent” and something that “could be trained effectively.”
In other words, the approach was leading, it made sense, and it was usable.
But this clarity also surfaced something more difficult.
Are you ready for it?
As participants began to apply this thinking, it became increasingly clear that the limiting factor was not their ability to design or position EDI work, but the conditions they were operating within. The methodology enabled them to see, with much greater precision, where alignment existed and where it did not, but in doing so it also made visible a more difficult reality, which is that in many cases the organisation itself was not yet in a position to respond to that level of clarity. The issue, therefore, was not whether better approaches could be developed, but whether those approaches could be received, understood, and acted on within existing organisational dynamics.
What this highlights is a key distinction.
FIELDS can equip individuals to position EDI work more effectively. It can help them see where alignment exists, where friction is likely to emerge, and how to frame work in a way that is meaningful within their organisation.
But it does not remove the need for the organisation itself to be ready to engage with that approach.
This is where the difference between activity and impact becomes more apparent.
EDI activity can be generated regardless of context. Interventions can be introduced, programmes can be delivered, and strategies can be published without a deep understanding of how they will be received.
Impact, however, depends on understanding how work will be received within a specific organisational context.
Across the pilot, participants developed more context-aware approaches to their work. They were better positioned to ask not just what should be done, but how it would land, who it would resonate with, and where it might be misinterpreted.
What became clear is that the effectiveness of an intervention is shaped by how it is experienced, and that experience is determined by the organisation, not just the individual delivering the work.
FIELDS is designed to address the first part of this challenge
It provides a structured way for individuals to assess their organisational environment through the lens of fairness, and to use that understanding to position their work more effectively. In practice, this means looking at how fairness is currently perceived, how different groups experience the same systems differently, where there is alignment or misalignment between stated values and lived experience, and what level of readiness exists for change.
Participants left the pilot with a clearer sense of how to position their work, but also with a more realistic understanding of the conditions required for that work to succeed. The need for time, for deeper contextual insight, and for organisational alignment werenot barriers to the methodology, but reflections of the environments in which they were working.
This is where many EDI approaches struggle. They focus on what individuals should do differently, without accounting for whether the organisation is able to respond differently.
Read the full case study on FIELDS to find out what participants discovered from their experience.
From activity to impact
The distinction between activity and impact is not a matter of effort, and it is not resolved by introducing more initiatives.
Activity is relatively easy to generate. It can be planned, delivered, and evidenced without a deep understanding of how it will be received. Impact is different. It depends on whether the work is aligned with how fairness is understood within the organisation, and whether the organisation is ready to engage with that work in the way it is intended.
FIELDS enables individuals to see that distinction clearly. It provides a way to position EDI work so that it has the best possible chance of landing. But it also surfaces a more challenging question, which is whether the organisation is prepared to meet that work with a corresponding shift in how it thinks, responds, and makes decisions.
This is where the difference between delivery and leadership becomes visible.
If EDI work continues to be introduced into environments that are not ready to receive it, activity will continue, but impact will remain limited. If, however, organisations are willing to engage with what the work is revealing about fairness, alignment, and readiness, then the conditions for impact begin to emerge.
And it is the point at which EDI work stops being something that is done, and starts becoming something that changes how the organisation itself operates.
Recommended learning: FIELDS
As ever, we use Fairness, Inclusion and Equity (FIE) in our practice because we are clear about what each of those terms means and why they need to be applied in that order. We use EDI terminology here as it is more widely recognised.
