7 Ways DEI Is Harming Your Company and How To Resolve It.
One need not look far to see companies actively promoting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, which saw a dramatic increase following tensions in race relations caused by the death of George Floyd in 2020. In fact, one would think that DEI policies have been universally accepted because of widespread proliferation in corporate communications, marketing materials, websites, social media, and print advertisements. But the truth is, the whole concept of DEI, in general, is not without critics.
The reason you probably haven’t heard this criticism is because the critics are hesitant to speak up for fear of being labeled as a bigot or racist in a society eager to “cancel” anyone with a dissenting voice. The absence of any differing opinions on any topic should be enough cause for additional scrutiny, and that is the purpose of this article.
Before continuing though, it must be clarified in advance that having diverse workplaces inclusive of ALL employees, is a worthwhile objective for all corporations for a multitude of reasons. There is information abound on the benefits of diversity but the most popular opinion is that differing perspectives are incredibly valuable in solving problems and innovation; two things critical for businesses to prosper. However, there is an argument to be made that the most common approaches to implementing DEI policies can actually do more harm than good to both the business and those whom they are intended to benefit. Assuming the genuine goal of DEI policies is to diversify the company’s employee base to maximize company value for their employees and other stakeholders, here are 7 reasons why they will eventually fail to accomplish that objective if they haven’t already.
1) DEI is discriminatory
It is hard to disagree that firing or not hiring someone because of their race, religion, gender, or orientation is discrimination and is illegal. Yet, when someone is treated preferentially in the workplace based on those same characteristics, it is called ‘diversity & inclusion?’ Logic suggests that preferencing candidates based on these qualifications mean that others are intentionally discriminated against based on the same criteria. How would you feel being told that you weren’t hired or promoted for a role because you weren’t the right color/gender for a role you were otherwise completely qualified for? No one would outright say that to you because it's illegal and a lawsuit would surely ensue, but it still frequently happens secretively because of preferences/quotas often established by DEI initiatives. When a company is known for discrimination toward anyone, people don't want to work there, which limits access to top talent, and the company suffers. It also increases the chances of being sued for discrimination, which is not only costly but creates incredibly bad PR.
2) DEI unnecessarily preferences physical attributes over the non-physical
Whether intentional or not, DEI programs tend to favor those who look different as opposed to those who are diverse in other areas, like thought, faith, culture, background, socioeconomic upbringing, experience, etc. This is likely because the emphasis on the physical makes DEI programs give more immediately tangible results by making a company LOOK more diverse, when in reality the people still think, act, and believe the same to fit in with the company culture. Silicon Valley and Wall Street are excellent examples of this phenomenon. What is the value of having equal representation of males and females of every orientation from every race if they all have similar beliefs/views? Of course, this is a major overgeneralization, but the point is that the benefits of diversity are not derived purely from physical attributes. The value of diversity is in different thoughts and perspectives, both of which are far more effective in solving a problem or accomplishing an objective than simply one’s gender or skin color. Of course, that is not saying they’re not mutually exclusive, but the less diverse the views and perspectives of a company’s employees, the weaker it will be with innovation and problem-solving.
3) DEI diminishes the size of the talent pool
By putting unnecessary limitations on the talent pool because of racial or gender quotas established under DEI programs, the number of qualified candidates that may otherwise be a better fit for the company is significantly reduced. By basing hiring decisions more on the candidate’s skills, experience, personality, and motivation instead, there is always a wider pool of applicants to choose from, which is a huge bonus during a talent shortage caused by the “Great Resignation.” Companies achieve greatness by hiring great people, and the more the talent pool of great people is restricted, they lose access to the best people and greatness becomes less attainable.
4) DEI decreases performance
When hiring preference is placed on one’s looks rather than skills, experience, and other qualifications, failure is often the result. Two things can typically happen when a significantly underqualified candidate is hired, 1) the candidate stays with the employer and decreases productivity over time, or 2) they quit/get fired and their work is passed on to others, decreasing the overall performance of others until the role is again filled with a more qualified candidate, costing tens of thousands of dollars in the process. By the time a new, qualified candidate is given the position NOT based purely on their gender or race, much time, money, and productivity has been sacrificed when it could have otherwise been avoided by hiring a more qualified candidate from the start. “Lost time, money, and productivity from underqualified hires with poor performance really helped our company this quarter,” said no CEO ever.
5) DEI is divisive
When anyone is shown preference throughout their career based on their physical attributes rather than on merit, envy and disdain are sure to occur, causing in-fighting, unnecessary distractions, and ultimately division in an organization. This can significantly decrease morale amongst other employees and even lead to racist/sexist/exclusive behavior that would otherwise not have previously existed. Nobody likes being treated like they’re second class and showing favoritism will inevitably lead to more division in the workforce. Division makes it impossible for employees to collaborate on near and long-term goals, which is detrimental to a business's short and long-term success.
6) DEI diminishes accomplishments and disincentivizes performance
Many DEI programs have caused some people to question whether the beneficiaries of these initiatives are there because of their qualifications, or because they are a “diversity hire/promotion.” That is absolutely a travesty and humiliating to those who genuinely achieved those positions on merit and nothing else. If DEI programs never existed, it would be safe to assume that anyone in a position of leadership got there by their own doing (even if it is from a helping hand of family, friends, or personal connections), and not because of their looks or because a quota required it. When accomplishments based on merit become worthless because people are promoted purely by physical attributes or diversity quotas, it takes away the drive and ambition of others to achieve them. When employees lose their incentive to perform, they won’t, and that will ultimately crush corporate performance.
7) DEI is distracting
DEI has become so widely promoted in corporate spheres following the belief that “diversity is strength,” that many executives have become obsessed with this notion and gone overboard in promoting it to the point that it has become more of a distraction from much more important corporate objectives aimed at benefiting all stakeholders. Take for example DEI training, which alongside quotas is the de facto means for executives to show the company and the world that they are “doing something” about diversity or so-called systemic racism. Many who have had to sit through this type of training would agree that they are a complete waste of time for adults who already know it is morally/ethically wrong and often illegal to treat different people differently. Furthermore, many would likely agree that DEI training often ends up making people more distracted by their colleague’s race or gender than if they had never participated in these sessions to begin with. Such focus on one’s colleague’s physical features only serves as an unnecessary distraction when employees would otherwise be collaborating, learning more important skills/knowledge, and focusing on their own productivity.
Now that these 7 issues have been introduced, the next logical step would be to try and resolve them to prevent further harm to organizations. With that, here are 4 ways to resolve the issue and organically make companies more inclusive and diverse.
1) Close down the DEI office altogether
As the saying goes, subdue the snake by grabbing the head. The mere existence of DEI officers and their staff is often the root cause of some of the negative effects outlined in the first part of this article. Instead, reassign all related roles and personnel as far away from anything HR-related as possible so they cannot continue to influence hiring decisions directly or indirectly. Then, once the role of Chief Diversity Officer has been eliminated, give that person a real leadership position more aligned with their true skills and experience. Rest assured they are probably capable of much more than simply setting quotas or telling other executives to hire more people like them.
2) Eliminate diversity quotas
It’s not a problem if your employee’s race and ethnicity aren’t commensurate with the respective percentages of the population. This doesn’t solve any problem other than appeasing a small and vocal group of people who think that is “equity.” Setting quotas to hire for population percentage representation is not equity, it’s an absurd idea that may make recruiters or executives feel good but otherwise adds zero value to an organization. It is not the role of business leaders to administer equity, which is a misguided ambition, to begin with, but that’s a topic for another day. A business leader’s job is to envision and plan strategies that add value to the company, employees, and other stakeholders. To achieve that goal, leaders need the best people for the job, and quotas prevent them from doing so.
3) Hire/Promote on merit
Now that we’ve seen some of the downsides of hiring or promoting purely on physical attributes in the name of diversity and equity, the opposite would imply reverting to hiring or promoting based on merit. In other words, focus on a candidate or applicant’s past achievements and consider options of intentionally ignoring the physical characteristics of candidates. Some practical ways to do this?
Prohibit recruiters from viewing Linkedin profiles.
Eliminate resume requirements that could give way to biases on names
Eliminate DEI questionnaires that could preference candidates
Utilize questionnaires to highlight experience and accomplishments during the recruiting process
Utilize monthly or quarterly performance reviews
Rely on the results of those performance reviews to influence promotions
By utilizing some of these suggestions, organizations will be surprised to see that they end up with a more diverse employee base more organically.
4) Cease all diversity training programs and reinvest that time and money to upskill employees.
It is pretty rare for employees to come out of these training programs with positive feedback and as previously mentioned, they are mostly just distracting and a complete waste of time. Why not prioritize training employees on more meaningful subjects, such as ones that help to advance their careers and make the company more profitable? Companies that reinvest in their employee’s careers are highly sought after and when they have more candidates vying for limited roles, they’re likely to attract, you guessed it, more diverse candidates.
These are just some steps that organizations can take to genuinely make their companies more diverse and are by no means meant to be all-encompassing. There are surely other ways of accomplishing this goal, and more effective solutions would prevail if more people felt comfortable bringing these ideas to the table. Unfortunately, many will continue to remain silent because they’re afraid of speaking up and criticizing DEI because of the risk of being ostracized, labeled a racist, and/or being fired as a result of that disagreement. But what does that say about inclusivity if someone is afraid to share their opinions on how to improve their company? It's certainly not embracing diversity if everyone is required to think alike on any topic to keep their job. The true value of diversity for a company is in having differing viewpoints on solving a problem or accomplishing an objective, and welcoming criticism and different solutions to increase diversity and corporate performance is a great place to start.