DEI getting a bad rap?

DEI has been getting a bit of a bad rap of late. One might argue that it’s all been instigated by one powerful source. But the reality is that the cascade of that message across the educational and corporate world has met limited—if any—resistance. Suddenly, overnight, many global organisations that used to proudly show off their Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion awards have cancelled their DEI programmes altogether.

Which begs the question: if scrapping has been so easy for so many, does it mean that the original deployment of this programme was no more than lip service? Were companies only interested in the optics of DEI all along? This article aims to cast light on the original logic of DEI. My objective is to help us arrive at some rational (vs emotional), responsive (vs reactive) decisions on the way forward.

What was the original logic of Diversity?

At the heart of it was the belief that diversity of thought—i.e., diverse perspectives—applied to a problem are more likely to produce a better solution, a more innovative solution. And what organisation would not want to foster innovation in a dog-eat-dog VUCA world?

While it’s been acknowledged that diverse perspectives could lead to disagreements, that very conflict was seen to shed light on underlying assumptions. Questioning these assumptions would open up a different way of thinking, fostering breakthrough solutions. In direct contrast, the opposite of diversity of thought was uni-directional thinking—an inability to anticipate change, akin to being the ostrich with its head in the sand—that would inexorably lead to a company’s inevitable decline.

The logic of this idea—that diverse thought equals innovative perspectives equals better solutions equals happy clients equals better business results—is actually quite hard to dispute. Several studies even ‘proved’ how gender diversity on company boards of directors resulted in higher company turnover and lower levels of attrition. And yet, what is happening in the world today feels like a backlash. Perhaps it was in the implementation of this idea across our educational, corporate, and governmental institutions where we may have gone awry?

A key component of the “how” of implementing diversity was to target specific minority constituencies. The rationale was that people who come from different backgrounds are likely to think differently. So, if we make efforts to bring diverse constituencies into our organisation, it will automatically result in diverse perspectives. A further bolster to this line of thought was that diverse constituencies in the workplace ought to mirror the reality of diverse constituencies in our marketplace. So, not only would organisations get a variety of perspectives, but they would also be able to demonstrate client orientation through the representation of diverse client constituencies within their organisation.

And so, we began to classify our talent in terms of specific minority identities—along the lines of gender, race, caste, ethnicity, disability, age, and more. The contention was that we will hire based on merit and (or shall I say ‘but’?) we will also go out of our way to solicit candidates from our underrepresented minority constituencies. The choice of minorities prioritised visible differences—so gender, disability, and ethnicity were given importance—and took into account the political climate of the day—so LGBT (though not as visible) were included too.

In the US, ethnicities like Hispanic and Native American were given priority; in Australia and New Zealand, native populations like Aborigines and Maoris were prioritised; in India, it was about scheduled castes and tribes. It’s still not entirely clear to me why, but perhaps it was the strong American bias in favour of separation of church and state that kept religion at bay.

Be that as it may, in addition to the ‘standard’ diversity constituencies, each country had their own diversity nuance to define underrepresented minorities in their respective regions. Once this approach was put into action, there arose the need for equity and inclusion—the E and I add-ons to the D agenda. It was quickly fathomed that equal treatment of all constituents would end up reinforcing those who already had access, those who were already privileged. The only way to counter this would be to provide equity versus equality—in other words, to each according to their need.

Enter: affirmative action programmes aimed at giving the underprivileged a level playing field. Hello also to inclusion-focused training programmes—awareness and education to understand unconscious biases, uncover privilege, refresh mindsets—all with the intent to create a psychologically safe space for people to share views, even if they went against the grain.

Whole departments were created to manage DEI—attract, develop, and retain minorities; measure impact; run affirmative action programmes; educate employees and leaders about inclusive leadership; and more. And maybe, just maybe, we forgot the purpose of all of these initiatives. Because how else can we explain the reason for the current backlash?

Did the pendulum swing too far in support of minorities? Did the disgruntled rumblings from qualified, capable candidates—who saw their privilege slipping away—become more strident? Did the proliferation of social media, with its propensity to amplify misinformation, play a role in vilifying the Other? Did global political leaders see an opportunity to capture the popular vote by finding a scapegoat for citizens’ frustrations? Or perhaps, it’s all of the above and more.

We are at a crossroads—a time of reckoning. And it’s worth pressing pause to ask: in rejecting DEI programmes, are we throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author in her personal capacity and do not reflect the official policy or position of any organisation she is or has been affiliated with.