Since June, a mounting number of companies have pulled back on their corporate commitments to diversity, equity, and inclusion. Tractor Supply and John Deere were some of the first companies to do so, reversing some of their DEI policies and pulling sponsorship of Pride events and other “social or cultural awareness” events. In the months since, several others have followed suit—including Harley-Davidson, Lowe’s, and Ford—and revoked their participation in the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index, which evaluates companies on how inclusive they are of LGBTQ+ employees.
The automaker will no longer sponsor LGBTQ+ events and plans to “narrow our community activities to align with STEM education and workforce readiness,” according to a Bloomberg report.
Like other companies, Toyota will also no longer participate in the Corporate Equality Index.
My understanding is that following the protests in 2020, there were quite a few federal funds made available for developing DEI initiatives and events in the US. Lots of programs sprung up to...
My understanding is that following the protests in 2020, there were quite a few federal funds made available for developing DEI initiatives and events in the US. Lots of programs sprung up to capture some of that funding and in many cases good work was done. But national objectives shifted and Build Back Better funding was attached to jobs programs rather than equity. So none of the DEI work is being subsidized by the federal government now and all the companies that "were doing the hard work to learn and fix their systems" aren't willing to pay for it out of pocket.
We've seen a similar trend in the local businesses, NGOs, and startups. When the federal DEI funding dried up they all pivoted to work programs and worker readiness. It ended up gutting a few key programs friends of mine were working on. It's all pretty sad and shows that companies/NGOs don't really have a guiding ethos, they follow funding opportunities.
To me, it shows that DEI programs are only political in nature and don’t actually have the tangible business benefits that are claimed. If they did, then companies would continue them after...
shows that companies/NGOs don't really have a guiding ethos, they follow funding opportunities
To me, it shows that DEI programs are only political in nature and don’t actually have the tangible business benefits that are claimed. If they did, then companies would continue them after government funding dries up.
I've posted this before, but I'll post it again, because I'm tired of seeing this argument trot out. Basically all research shows that diverse companies are more profitable, innovate more, make...
I've posted this before, but I'll post it again, because I'm tired of seeing this argument trot out.
don’t actually have the tangible business benefits that are claimed
Basically all research shows that diverse companies are more profitable, innovate more, make better decisions, are more likely to grow market share, more likely to capture new markets, and attract better and more talent. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 It's a bit of an irk of mine when people talk about DEI as not being profitable or justifying something being cut because an executive decided it wasn't making them money because those are objectively incorrect statements, it's just that most business isn't run by purely objective individuals. They cut DEI because they didn't like DEI, not because it was costing them money or wasn't beneficial.
Being profitable is an important part of it, but it also requires leadership who knows how to actually calculate ROI or factor in the ways in which it is profitable. It's not easy quantify soft metrics like "more likely to grow market share" and it's also really easy to write off bad profits as a bad quarter without figuring out why that quarter was worse than other quarters, especially when it's a reflection of worker engagement and sentiment driving productivity (engagement and sentiment are directly influenced by worker diversity and disparities between demographic groups).
This conflates diversity metrics with DEI programs. What evidence is there that the kind of diversity generated by DEI programs is the same kind that is correlated with business outcomes? I can...
This conflates diversity metrics with DEI programs. What evidence is there that the kind of diversity generated by DEI programs is the same kind that is correlated with business outcomes?
I can see how companies that organically ended up with higher diversity through a process that still chooses the best candidates for a job will have higher performance, while a company that hires on the basis of race or other characteristics would have poorer outcomes.
In more concrete terms, a company based in Silicon Valley that hires exclusively on candidate quality will have higher diversity because the population is diverse. A company in West Virginia with the same hiring process will have low diversity because West Virginia is 97% white. However, Silicon Valley (and most cosmopolitan coastal cities) attracts the best and brightest, while West Virginia attracts… people who were born in West Virginia.
You're right, and performance improvement plans don't always improve performance and quality improvement initiatives don't always improve quality. I think it's reasonable to assume that companies...
This conflates diversity metrics with DEI programs. What evidence is there that the kind of diversity generated by DEI programs is the same kind that is correlated with business outcomes?
You're right, and performance improvement plans don't always improve performance and quality improvement initiatives don't always improve quality. I think it's reasonable to assume that companies which create DEI programs are generally interested in increasing diversity demonstrated by their investment in said programs.
But since you asked for figures, here's a HBR article from 2016 on this general idea. Keep in mind that while this is ultimately an article critical of many diversity "programs" it was written almost a decade ago when DEI programs were still fledgling in many sectors. Of note, this particular image which shows the most effective diversity programs are those which are commonly championed by DEI programs- mentoring, task forces, and diversity managers.
Of note, there's plenty of research out there easily accessible which shows that DEI programs generally do increase diversity, and plenty of research out there which will show the opposite. As a whole, they tend to at least marginally increase diversity, but culture is the key factor here. Companies which are resistant to diversity will continue to be resistant to diversity whether a DEI program exists or not and companies which genuinely attempt to increase diversity will see less relative gains out of a DEI program than those which sit closer to the middle.
still chooses the best candidates for a job will have higher performance, while a company that hires on the basis of race or other characteristics would have poorer outcomes.
If we're gonna pick apart the nuance here, we also need to recognize that most hiring practices are deeply biased. The process by which to determine the "best candidate" for a job is often highly biased. The article linked above talks a bit about this, but for a deeper dive into how to conduct a job task analysis that eliminates or reduces bias, check out the OPM's structured interview guide. Keep in mind, however, that most interviews are not rigidly structured and that unstructured interviews introduce large amounts of bias 1, 2
Honestly its a really tough problem to think about, but the gut reactions that I often see online of "must not be working" give far too much benefit of the doubt to companies which ultimately are beholden to the shareholders and the whims of management. These folks are often looking to cut costs in the short term to make themselves look good or otherwise inflate stock price because they are ultimately interested in short term returns. This is why we see such a push on return to office, because it's a convenient cover to let folks go while profits are still increasing (salary is typically the largest cost for most companies). Many companies are going to optimize for returns, even in the face of declining customers, because the turnaround time from "good company, good product" to "used to be good, crappy quality now" takes more than a few years for consumers to notice - certainly long enough for a CEO to finish out their term and leave with a golden parachute.
In short, all of this has nothing to do with what's "good" for companies, so much as it is a game of finding what you can acceptably cut from a company's bottom line, regardless of whether it will hurt a company.
… Again, I’m not disputing this. What I am disputing is that a raw diversity metric itself is a causal factor. My belief is that anti-diversity practises are bad for companies, because they...
I think it's reasonable to assume that companies which create DEI programs are generally interested in increasing diversity demonstrated by their investment in said programs.
…
Of note, there's plenty of research out there easily accessible which shows that DEI programs generally do increase diversity
Again, I’m not disputing this. What I am disputing is that a raw diversity metric itself is a causal factor.
My belief is that anti-diversity practises are bad for companies, because they introduce non-meritocratic factors into hiring, which is where we get the signal we see from diversity metrics.
This is the same effect I see from DEI initiatives though. What we really want to measure is the relative diversity with respect to the applicant pool. I suspect that any time we deviate strongly in either direction from that we will see business losses, and the closer we get to unbiased hiring based on qualification the better the business outcomes.
I disagree with this premise. Research into why diversity is important often focuses on what diversity brings. Ultimately diversity is a reflection of background; we use simple words like race and...
the closer we get to unbiased hiring based on qualification the better the business outcomes.
I disagree with this premise. Research into why diversity is important often focuses on what diversity brings. Ultimately diversity is a reflection of background; we use simple words like race and sex to quantify and box conceptual ideas together, but intersectionality is a better lens to view this through. Having individuals who come from different backgrounds and who were exposed to different cultures, who think differently, and who approach problems differently means that your business considers more potential options when examining business processes, potential customers and projects, how to reach specific markets, and even what metrics are worth measuring. There's endless literature on this, but it's nicely summarized with the following quote 1:
How might diversity affect business outcomes? Page (2007) suggests that groups displaying a
range of perspectives outperform groups of like-minded experts. Diversity yields superior outcomes over homogeneity because progress and innovation depend less on lone thinkers with high intelligence than on diverse groups working together and capitalizing on their individuality. The best group decisions and predictions are those that draw on unique qualities.
While I understand your desire to compare diversity to locality specific population metrics of diversity (important for understanding reasonable diversity goals), this is simply not necessary when we talk about job performance, team performance, or company performance. There is endless literature about how having teams of individuals who do not all think the same are incredibly useful for reasons outside that of 'qualification'. We are not machines and outside of incredibly manual jobs such as factory workers, our critical thinking skills, our creativity, and our general approaches to life are important when it comes to business execution and thus diversity of thought is easily linked directly to performance.
If you have a product team that has zero women on it and you have two candidates- man who scored 100 on bis hiring test and a woman who scored 90. Your belief is that the company would lose out by...
If you have a product team that has zero women on it and you have two candidates- man who scored 100 on bis hiring test and a woman who scored 90. Your belief is that the company would lose out by hiring the woman because the man scored better on their hiring test and no other factors are pertinent.
You may believe this but just want to confirm you are saying what you think you are.
I’m actually rather disgusted by the idea of hiring someone based on their genitalia, skin colour, or country of origin. That's the literal definition of discrimination, and I won’t be a party to...
I’m actually rather disgusted by the idea of hiring someone based on their genitalia, skin colour, or country of origin. That's the literal definition of discrimination, and I won’t be a party to it. The only time I would consider it is if has some kind of direct and irreplaceable relevance to the position, eg. job requires native fluency in X language, involves dealing with female domestic abuse victims, or something similar.
In fact, I would probably avoid hiring based on discriminatory practises even if there was a proven business detriment. That’s an ideological red line for me.
I’m curious though, if the roles were reversed and you had a product team with only women, would you hire a less qualified man to increase diversity?
I'm not personally at the scale where that kind of thing would be feasible. I don't have an HR department, for example. I would expect that a large business would benefit from blind hiring...
I'm not personally at the scale where that kind of thing would be feasible. I don't have an HR department, for example. I would expect that a large business would benefit from blind hiring processes though. That said, I think the results speak for themselves -- I do in fact employ a diverse set of employees, but I haven't set out to explicitly do so.
I’m sure you’d also claim to be color blind, but your assumption that non-meritocratic factors are only in play when companies seek to increase diversity is what’s fundamentally wrong. Implicit...
I’m sure you’d also claim to be color blind, but your assumption that non-meritocratic factors are only in play when companies seek to increase diversity is what’s fundamentally wrong. Implicit (and explicit) biases always play a role, as do systemic issues that prevent people of certain backgrounds to attain their qualifications as easily as other peers.
When the relative difference in qualifications is so small as to be negligible (the 90/100 example), it’s more than fair to look to expand the pool of backgrounds in your team. What you essentially keep arguing is that this is valueless and mean and unfair and, and, and.
Yet, any grown adult who has held a job knows the way people are being hired is subject to all these issues, but it tends to prioritize likemindedess, nepotism, people hiring people that look and think alike, rather than diverse viewpoints that might challenge a team to look at things differently.
So you’re against diversity and would prefer to hire people like yourself without any brakes to account for “merits” that don’t translate to diplomas or years at a prestigious company or having held some silly title; you don’t appreciate that people are excluded from achieving what they can because of factors they have no bearing on; and someone breaking the chain of insular hiring wouldn’t bring value to a company. That’s the gist of it.
If you genuinely think that meritocracy leads to desirable and fair outcomes in our deeply flawed societies, you really need to get to know other people unlike yourself, ironically. Wake up, friendo. We don’t live in a ceteris paribus world, so forcing this make-believe rationality onto it is, plainly, naive.
I like how you basically call me a racist. My most recent company has offices across the country, and the majority of the managers are women, and the majority of the staff are visible minorities....
So you’re against diversity and would prefer to hire people like yourself without any brakes to account for “merits” that don’t translate to diplomas or years at a prestigious company or having held some silly title; you don’t appreciate that people are excluded from achieving what they can because of factors they have no bearing on; and someone breaking the chain of insular hiring wouldn’t bring value to a company. That’s the gist of it, isn’t it.
I like how you basically call me a racist.
My most recent company has offices across the country, and the majority of the managers are women, and the majority of the staff are visible minorities. I am personally of mixed race.
I mean, I quoted your words. I don’t think I’m going to get anywhere useful in this conversation though — personal attacks don’t set a very productive tone.
Your words, not mine.
I mean, I quoted your words. I don’t think I’m going to get anywhere useful in this conversation though — personal attacks don’t set a very productive tone.
I don't particularly see the value add either, no. I've been in the position to hire people, and have hired men and women of a plethora of backgrounds and I still would always choose the most...
I don't particularly see the value add either, no.
I've been in the position to hire people, and have hired men and women of a plethora of backgrounds and I still would always choose the most qualified person. Obviously, test scores aren't the only qualifier, an interview can tell a lot about a person.
A man from background x or class y is just as diverse and brings new experiences than man from background z and class a.
I'm with @unkz in this, any other preferential treatment based on unchangeable traits is discriminatory.
Because consider there's a third applicant, scored a 90 but would be the only black male in the team.
Would you hire the woman or the black man? Whose diversity matters more and would add more value to the team? I'm not, and I'd argue most people aren't, qualified to answer this and I would feel gross even trying to turn it into a point system where one type of diversity matters more than another.
I do understand where you and others are coming from. I'm talking about an ideal state and we simply aren't at the point where people are being hired for their merit alone therefore a DEI program could force the issue. I don't agree with the approach, but I can at least understand it. Even so, I do not think a single person taking a meritocratic approach should be chastised or told they're doing it wrong. In an ideal world, they're doing it right.
I apologise for the simplified example, and I didn't intend it as a whataboutism, because I do think it paints the picture. There is a real question in that. If not quality, what would promote...
I apologise for the simplified example, and I didn't intend it as a whataboutism, because I do think it paints the picture. There is a real question in that. If not quality, what would promote diversity then?
Though it does feel like you're digging in a bit. I'm not trying to attack, simply discuss, but it doesn't feel like there's room for that. And that's ok. So I'll let it rest.
Or they’re a hiring manager who wants to hire people they assume they’d get along well with on an interpersonal level. Increased competitiveness and dynamism solely accrue benefit to the...
Or they’re a hiring manager who wants to hire people they assume they’d get along well with on an interpersonal level. Increased competitiveness and dynamism solely accrue benefit to the shareholder class. May as well hire people you’d like to get a beer with after you clock out.
Of your 1,2,3,4,5 links, #2 is basically already in #1 (McKinsey study), #3 is paywalled and might even be just #2 again, #4 has no content in it and probably is a fine source but it's not the...
Of your 1,2,3,4,5 links, #2 is basically already in #1 (McKinsey study), #3 is paywalled and might even be just #2 again, #4 has no content in it and probably is a fine source but it's not the right link, #5 is fine but not exactly a rigorous study (mostly survey data plus some assertions).
Edit: I have no problems with the claims, just pointing out problems I have with the links. Link dropping puts a burden on the reader to go and read and try to identify what conclusions should be drawn vs direct citations, but the links should at least be direct then.
Cheers, looks like some of these links have died since. To be clear, I tried to pull from a diversity of sources to represent different opinions on the subject so some are more primary sources...
Cheers, looks like some of these links have died since. To be clear, I tried to pull from a diversity of sources to represent different opinions on the subject so some are more primary sources than others. It's not like any of this kind of literature is difficult to find, however, just trying to put a few links with broad overviews and in-depth sources in case anyone is interested.
I strongly disagree with "basically all" here. The widely cited (and nonreplicable) McKinsey studies do not seem to be supported by their own data, this is probably the most notable study:...
Basically all research shows that diverse companies are more profitable, innovate more, make better decisions, are more likely to grow market share, more likely to capture new markets, and attract better and more talent.
At one point I went through a bunch of studies on this and found the results were a mixed bag. They were dependent on overall diversity of the community they were operating in and the type of work...
At one point I went through a bunch of studies on this and found the results were a mixed bag. They were dependent on overall diversity of the community they were operating in and the type of work being done. In some circumstances there was negative impact to performance.
I haven't seen a good roundup for the evidence tbh. Maybe a podcast like The Studies Show could go through it, I'd really appreciate that. Or if someone has written in a little more depth. Ultimately, its hard to wade through the studies on this because so many writers have an axe to grind to fit some particular viewpoint.
Regardless of the economic benefits or drawbacks, you'd think there would be a moral imperative, but I don't see why companies would care about that, not unless they had significant employee representation or some other mechanism to make them care.
This is an even more difficult matter than examining the data, so I don't insist on this, but: I am unconvinced - that is, as long DEI is practically done the way it's done (and there's the...
Regardless of the economic benefits or drawbacks, you'd think there would be a moral imperative
This is an even more difficult matter than examining the data, so I don't insist on this, but: I am unconvinced - that is, as long DEI is practically done the way it's done (and there's the question whether it is realistically possible to do it differently in a corporate environment). I think that arguments can be formed about it merely shifting existing inequality elsewhere. And I think that the fact that it's receiving pushback from "culture warriors" is not only alt-right nonsense but it's also caused by this.
Same story here. Environmental improvement projects also don't generally show benefits on a company's bottom line, or if they do they are vague and very delayed (don't match quarterly earnings...
To me, it shows that DEI environmental programs are only political in nature and don’t actually have the tangible business benefits that are claimed
Same story here. Environmental improvement projects also don't generally show benefits on a company's bottom line, or if they do they are vague and very delayed (don't match quarterly earnings report cycles).
Racism, sexism, and environmentalism issues will never persuade Capitalism to give a shit about them. The returns are too abstract and delayed, despite being the right thing for people.
I think part of the problem with this whole thing is it's hard to identify some gains, but it's also possible to keep those gains and lessons learned without having a dedicated DEI...
I think part of the problem with this whole thing is it's hard to identify some gains, but it's also possible to keep those gains and lessons learned without having a dedicated DEI commitment/department/team as these things require.
I wouldn't be shocked if it turns out some companies learned something of value but also didn't see the need for dedicated resources when it's really more a culture shift.
Assuming they do have benefits, those benefits (more equal workplace and more diversity in higher-up decision making hierarchy) would only become apparent after years, if not decades. On the...
Assuming they do have benefits, those benefits (more equal workplace and more diversity in higher-up decision making hierarchy) would only become apparent after years, if not decades. On the timescale of these programs, it's very unlikely that anyone can even have some usable data, let alone benefit from it.
But even if we would have data, remember that these companies, counter to popular belief, are not just led by cold logic. They're led by people, who like their job and their friends and, generally, when they are in power, want to stay in power. Because we are talking here about systemic issues, by definition, the people currently deciding about these issues did not and do not experience the issues. It's also likely that there direct colleagues and friends do not. They have no incentive to change things. And even if some scientifically backed up study came out to prove them that the company would make more of a profit if there were less people like them... Well.
For the record: not saying this is some dark conspiracy. Just that these type of programs go very much against the current. They are logically against the decision makers, with no incentive for them to change apart from government funding.
…and anyone who willingly increases company fortunes at the cost of their personal salary is a chump.
even if some scientifically backed up study came out to prove them that the company would make more of a profit if there were less people like them... Well.
…and anyone who willingly increases company fortunes at the cost of their personal salary is a chump.
I think that assumes that companies make decisions on long term benefit - which DEI programs inherently require. I'd say looking to how companies are currently handling work from home (FANNG et...
I think that assumes that companies make decisions on long term benefit - which DEI programs inherently require. I'd say looking to how companies are currently handling work from home (FANNG et al.), quality control (Boeing) might showcase that "tangible business benefits" aren't necessarily at the heart of all decisions.
I work for a large corporation. It always felt like political theater. The people who participated, sure, were sincere and believed in the causes, but the higher ups promoting it are a different...
I work for a large corporation. It always felt like political theater. The people who participated, sure, were sincere and believed in the causes, but the higher ups promoting it are a different story. Very much always felt like "this is the hit thing to do right now so we are jumping on the train. Hey everyone, see how awesome we are?! See how much we care about this?!"
I'n all for diversity, equity, and inclusion, but really am not really a fan of companies using it as bait to try and pretend like they care so they can get a larger employer pool.
I'm not a huge fan of political theater myself, but it is a warning sign for me when companies drop even that political theater because it, for me, acts as a thermometer for the culture (both in...
I'm not a huge fan of political theater myself, but it is a warning sign for me when companies drop even that political theater because it, for me, acts as a thermometer for the culture (both in and outside of the company). It's very similar to all the rainbow logos during pride month. Having a DEI program or a pride month logo doesn't necessarily mean you actually give a shit about diversity or queer people, but scrapping your existing DEI program or pride month logo is a worrying indicator that you value the opinions of those who oppose these things (and thus people who hate me and oppose me working in my industry) more than you value even maintaining the weakest political theater pretending to be tolerant.
I agree. This is why I actually support companies showing up to pride and other events. I want there to be positive financial incentives for supporting queer people and diverse communities! I...
I agree. This is why I actually support companies showing up to pride and other events. I want there to be positive financial incentives for supporting queer people and diverse communities! I think it's actively harmful how many queer people rag on corporations that show up to pride and share data with HRC. I understand the suspicion and justified accusations that they're fairweather friends, but things like Subaru marketing to lesbians really do matter.
This and also the presence of these programs at a company didn’t necessarily mean that they’re actually LGBT friendly. The program and the people running it are some closed off group of HR...
This and also the presence of these programs at a company didn’t necessarily mean that they’re actually LGBT friendly.
The program and the people running it are some closed off group of HR employees who make everyone attend some kind of learning once or twice a year and no one even talks to them outside of that. I worked at a company who had one of these programs and the director of our development team would purposely misgender one of the developers any chance he got.
Yeah at the most basic level they sort of signal a desire to take discriminatory behavior seriously, that doesn't mean they do take it seriously Whether those trainings are put into practice, or...
Yeah at the most basic level they sort of signal a desire to take discriminatory behavior seriously, that doesn't mean they do take it seriously Whether those trainings are put into practice, or supervisors are dedicated to making changes, etc make a huge difference in the outcome. And ultimately those groups of folks will continue to leave and the company won't be as diverse and likely that's why the positive outcomes relate to diversity - because more diverse companies are doing the things to retain those people - rather than necessarily being able to trace causation to DEI programming.
At a public university, my department takes DEI work seriously but doesn't have a separate position, we try to work it into our daily work and existent training as well as adding or encouraging attending other training sessions. But that doesn't mean leadership sees the same priorities, or that every department feels the same, or that there's no one in our department saying something ignorant ever. I've been the only person in meetings about students with a non-binary pronoun, and been the only one insisting I not deadname our students and that we gender them appropriately. With one of the lower titles in the room.
But when I did it, they all listened, so... Maybe there's hope?
In all honesty, as bad as it may sound, DEI initiatives are just handicaps to capitalism. If someone else isn't paying for you to put the work in, then you are ham stringing yourself as far as...
In all honesty, as bad as it may sound, DEI initiatives are just handicaps to capitalism. If someone else isn't paying for you to put the work in, then you are ham stringing yourself as far as capitalism is concerned. The vampiric corporation that isn't "wasting" it's own profits on DEI is going to be at an advantage over the one that is.
Is this a good thing? Nope. Is it how capitalism works? Yup.
sadly not surprising. DEI was something followed for tax breaks and other external incentives. Once those dried up so did the "need for a diverse workplace to share experience and ideas". I can...
sadly not surprising. DEI was something followed for tax breaks and other external incentives. Once those dried up so did the "need for a diverse workplace to share experience and ideas". I can tell you the game industry completely about faced on it the moment interest rates rose.
They only care if it can make or save money. Almost like we were... tokens of some sort.
My understanding is that following the protests in 2020, there were quite a few federal funds made available for developing DEI initiatives and events in the US. Lots of programs sprung up to capture some of that funding and in many cases good work was done. But national objectives shifted and Build Back Better funding was attached to jobs programs rather than equity. So none of the DEI work is being subsidized by the federal government now and all the companies that "were doing the hard work to learn and fix their systems" aren't willing to pay for it out of pocket.
We've seen a similar trend in the local businesses, NGOs, and startups. When the federal DEI funding dried up they all pivoted to work programs and worker readiness. It ended up gutting a few key programs friends of mine were working on. It's all pretty sad and shows that companies/NGOs don't really have a guiding ethos, they follow funding opportunities.
To me, it shows that DEI programs are only political in nature and don’t actually have the tangible business benefits that are claimed. If they did, then companies would continue them after government funding dries up.
I've posted this before, but I'll post it again, because I'm tired of seeing this argument trot out.
Basically all research shows that diverse companies are more profitable, innovate more, make better decisions, are more likely to grow market share, more likely to capture new markets, and attract better and more talent. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 It's a bit of an irk of mine when people talk about DEI as not being profitable or justifying something being cut because an executive decided it wasn't making them money because those are objectively incorrect statements, it's just that most business isn't run by purely objective individuals. They cut DEI because they didn't like DEI, not because it was costing them money or wasn't beneficial.
Being profitable is an important part of it, but it also requires leadership who knows how to actually calculate ROI or factor in the ways in which it is profitable. It's not easy quantify soft metrics like "more likely to grow market share" and it's also really easy to write off bad profits as a bad quarter without figuring out why that quarter was worse than other quarters, especially when it's a reflection of worker engagement and sentiment driving productivity (engagement and sentiment are directly influenced by worker diversity and disparities between demographic groups).
This conflates diversity metrics with DEI programs. What evidence is there that the kind of diversity generated by DEI programs is the same kind that is correlated with business outcomes?
I can see how companies that organically ended up with higher diversity through a process that still chooses the best candidates for a job will have higher performance, while a company that hires on the basis of race or other characteristics would have poorer outcomes.
In more concrete terms, a company based in Silicon Valley that hires exclusively on candidate quality will have higher diversity because the population is diverse. A company in West Virginia with the same hiring process will have low diversity because West Virginia is 97% white. However, Silicon Valley (and most cosmopolitan coastal cities) attracts the best and brightest, while West Virginia attracts… people who were born in West Virginia.
You're right, and performance improvement plans don't always improve performance and quality improvement initiatives don't always improve quality. I think it's reasonable to assume that companies which create DEI programs are generally interested in increasing diversity demonstrated by their investment in said programs.
But since you asked for figures, here's a HBR article from 2016 on this general idea. Keep in mind that while this is ultimately an article critical of many diversity "programs" it was written almost a decade ago when DEI programs were still fledgling in many sectors. Of note, this particular image which shows the most effective diversity programs are those which are commonly championed by DEI programs- mentoring, task forces, and diversity managers.
Of note, there's plenty of research out there easily accessible which shows that DEI programs generally do increase diversity, and plenty of research out there which will show the opposite. As a whole, they tend to at least marginally increase diversity, but culture is the key factor here. Companies which are resistant to diversity will continue to be resistant to diversity whether a DEI program exists or not and companies which genuinely attempt to increase diversity will see less relative gains out of a DEI program than those which sit closer to the middle.
If we're gonna pick apart the nuance here, we also need to recognize that most hiring practices are deeply biased. The process by which to determine the "best candidate" for a job is often highly biased. The article linked above talks a bit about this, but for a deeper dive into how to conduct a job task analysis that eliminates or reduces bias, check out the OPM's structured interview guide. Keep in mind, however, that most interviews are not rigidly structured and that unstructured interviews introduce large amounts of bias 1, 2
Honestly its a really tough problem to think about, but the gut reactions that I often see online of "must not be working" give far too much benefit of the doubt to companies which ultimately are beholden to the shareholders and the whims of management. These folks are often looking to cut costs in the short term to make themselves look good or otherwise inflate stock price because they are ultimately interested in short term returns. This is why we see such a push on return to office, because it's a convenient cover to let folks go while profits are still increasing (salary is typically the largest cost for most companies). Many companies are going to optimize for returns, even in the face of declining customers, because the turnaround time from "good company, good product" to "used to be good, crappy quality now" takes more than a few years for consumers to notice - certainly long enough for a CEO to finish out their term and leave with a golden parachute.
In short, all of this has nothing to do with what's "good" for companies, so much as it is a game of finding what you can acceptably cut from a company's bottom line, regardless of whether it will hurt a company.
…
Again, I’m not disputing this. What I am disputing is that a raw diversity metric itself is a causal factor.
My belief is that anti-diversity practises are bad for companies, because they introduce non-meritocratic factors into hiring, which is where we get the signal we see from diversity metrics.
This is the same effect I see from DEI initiatives though. What we really want to measure is the relative diversity with respect to the applicant pool. I suspect that any time we deviate strongly in either direction from that we will see business losses, and the closer we get to unbiased hiring based on qualification the better the business outcomes.
I disagree with this premise. Research into why diversity is important often focuses on what diversity brings. Ultimately diversity is a reflection of background; we use simple words like race and sex to quantify and box conceptual ideas together, but intersectionality is a better lens to view this through. Having individuals who come from different backgrounds and who were exposed to different cultures, who think differently, and who approach problems differently means that your business considers more potential options when examining business processes, potential customers and projects, how to reach specific markets, and even what metrics are worth measuring. There's endless literature on this, but it's nicely summarized with the following quote 1:
While I understand your desire to compare diversity to locality specific population metrics of diversity (important for understanding reasonable diversity goals), this is simply not necessary when we talk about job performance, team performance, or company performance. There is endless literature about how having teams of individuals who do not all think the same are incredibly useful for reasons outside that of 'qualification'. We are not machines and outside of incredibly manual jobs such as factory workers, our critical thinking skills, our creativity, and our general approaches to life are important when it comes to business execution and thus diversity of thought is easily linked directly to performance.
If you have a product team that has zero women on it and you have two candidates- man who scored 100 on bis hiring test and a woman who scored 90. Your belief is that the company would lose out by hiring the woman because the man scored better on their hiring test and no other factors are pertinent.
You may believe this but just want to confirm you are saying what you think you are.
Your example is why thresholds, rather than a pure ordered ranking, are superior when making a candidate pool. Unless you’re a sports team, of course.
I’m actually rather disgusted by the idea of hiring someone based on their genitalia, skin colour, or country of origin. That's the literal definition of discrimination, and I won’t be a party to it. The only time I would consider it is if has some kind of direct and irreplaceable relevance to the position, eg. job requires native fluency in X language, involves dealing with female domestic abuse victims, or something similar.
In fact, I would probably avoid hiring based on discriminatory practises even if there was a proven business detriment. That’s an ideological red line for me.
I’m curious though, if the roles were reversed and you had a product team with only women, would you hire a less qualified man to increase diversity?
Sure that’s fair.
Do you have a blind hiring process to ensure that?
I'm not personally at the scale where that kind of thing would be feasible. I don't have an HR department, for example. I would expect that a large business would benefit from blind hiring processes though. That said, I think the results speak for themselves -- I do in fact employ a diverse set of employees, but I haven't set out to explicitly do so.
I’m sure you’d also claim to be color blind, but your assumption that non-meritocratic factors are only in play when companies seek to increase diversity is what’s fundamentally wrong. Implicit (and explicit) biases always play a role, as do systemic issues that prevent people of certain backgrounds to attain their qualifications as easily as other peers.
When the relative difference in qualifications is so small as to be negligible (the 90/100 example), it’s more than fair to look to expand the pool of backgrounds in your team. What you essentially keep arguing is that this is valueless and mean and unfair and, and, and.
Yet, any grown adult who has held a job knows the way people are being hired is subject to all these issues, but it tends to prioritize likemindedess, nepotism, people hiring people that look and think alike, rather than diverse viewpoints that might challenge a team to look at things differently.
So you’re against diversity and would prefer to hire people like yourself without any brakes to account for “merits” that don’t translate to diplomas or years at a prestigious company or having held some silly title; you don’t appreciate that people are excluded from achieving what they can because of factors they have no bearing on; and someone breaking the chain of insular hiring wouldn’t bring value to a company. That’s the gist of it.
If you genuinely think that meritocracy leads to desirable and fair outcomes in our deeply flawed societies, you really need to get to know other people unlike yourself, ironically. Wake up, friendo. We don’t live in a ceteris paribus world, so forcing this make-believe rationality onto it is, plainly, naive.
I like how you basically call me a racist.
My most recent company has offices across the country, and the majority of the managers are women, and the majority of the staff are visible minorities. I am personally of mixed race.
I mean, I quoted your words. I don’t think I’m going to get anywhere useful in this conversation though — personal attacks don’t set a very productive tone.
I don't particularly see the value add either, no.
I've been in the position to hire people, and have hired men and women of a plethora of backgrounds and I still would always choose the most qualified person. Obviously, test scores aren't the only qualifier, an interview can tell a lot about a person.
A man from background x or class y is just as diverse and brings new experiences than man from background z and class a.
I'm with @unkz in this, any other preferential treatment based on unchangeable traits is discriminatory.
Because consider there's a third applicant, scored a 90 but would be the only black male in the team.
Would you hire the woman or the black man? Whose diversity matters more and would add more value to the team? I'm not, and I'd argue most people aren't, qualified to answer this and I would feel gross even trying to turn it into a point system where one type of diversity matters more than another.
I do understand where you and others are coming from. I'm talking about an ideal state and we simply aren't at the point where people are being hired for their merit alone therefore a DEI program could force the issue. I don't agree with the approach, but I can at least understand it. Even so, I do not think a single person taking a meritocratic approach should be chastised or told they're doing it wrong. In an ideal world, they're doing it right.
I apologise for the simplified example, and I didn't intend it as a whataboutism, because I do think it paints the picture. There is a real question in that. If not quality, what would promote diversity then?
Though it does feel like you're digging in a bit. I'm not trying to attack, simply discuss, but it doesn't feel like there's room for that. And that's ok. So I'll let it rest.
Or they’re a hiring manager who wants to hire people they assume they’d get along well with on an interpersonal level. Increased competitiveness and dynamism solely accrue benefit to the shareholder class. May as well hire people you’d like to get a beer with after you clock out.
Of your 1,2,3,4,5 links, #2 is basically already in #1 (McKinsey study), #3 is paywalled and might even be just #2 again, #4 has no content in it and probably is a fine source but it's not the right link, #5 is fine but not exactly a rigorous study (mostly survey data plus some assertions).
Edit: I have no problems with the claims, just pointing out problems I have with the links. Link dropping puts a burden on the reader to go and read and try to identify what conclusions should be drawn vs direct citations, but the links should at least be direct then.
Cheers, looks like some of these links have died since. To be clear, I tried to pull from a diversity of sources to represent different opinions on the subject so some are more primary sources than others. It's not like any of this kind of literature is difficult to find, however, just trying to put a few links with broad overviews and in-depth sources in case anyone is interested.
Yeah, if you didn't link #2, the link in #1 had also rotted so it's helpful that it was its own separate link.
I strongly disagree with "basically all" here.
The widely cited (and nonreplicable) McKinsey studies do not seem to be supported by their own data, this is probably the most notable study: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3849562
However there are more: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4500116
And there are also articles in non-academic media like this one, unpaywalled link or opinions of other researchers in the field.
And this is only the McKinsey studies, I did not make any effort to look into the others.
At one point I went through a bunch of studies on this and found the results were a mixed bag. They were dependent on overall diversity of the community they were operating in and the type of work being done. In some circumstances there was negative impact to performance.
I haven't seen a good roundup for the evidence tbh. Maybe a podcast like The Studies Show could go through it, I'd really appreciate that. Or if someone has written in a little more depth. Ultimately, its hard to wade through the studies on this because so many writers have an axe to grind to fit some particular viewpoint.
Regardless of the economic benefits or drawbacks, you'd think there would be a moral imperative, but I don't see why companies would care about that, not unless they had significant employee representation or some other mechanism to make them care.
This is an even more difficult matter than examining the data, so I don't insist on this, but: I am unconvinced - that is, as long DEI is practically done the way it's done (and there's the question whether it is realistically possible to do it differently in a corporate environment). I think that arguments can be formed about it merely shifting existing inequality elsewhere. And I think that the fact that it's receiving pushback from "culture warriors" is not only alt-right nonsense but it's also caused by this.
Same story here. Environmental improvement projects also don't generally show benefits on a company's bottom line, or if they do they are vague and very delayed (don't match quarterly earnings report cycles).
Racism, sexism, and environmentalism issues will never persuade Capitalism to give a shit about them. The returns are too abstract and delayed, despite being the right thing for people.
I think part of the problem with this whole thing is it's hard to identify some gains, but it's also possible to keep those gains and lessons learned without having a dedicated DEI commitment/department/team as these things require.
I wouldn't be shocked if it turns out some companies learned something of value but also didn't see the need for dedicated resources when it's really more a culture shift.
Assuming they do have benefits, those benefits (more equal workplace and more diversity in higher-up decision making hierarchy) would only become apparent after years, if not decades. On the timescale of these programs, it's very unlikely that anyone can even have some usable data, let alone benefit from it.
But even if we would have data, remember that these companies, counter to popular belief, are not just led by cold logic. They're led by people, who like their job and their friends and, generally, when they are in power, want to stay in power. Because we are talking here about systemic issues, by definition, the people currently deciding about these issues did not and do not experience the issues. It's also likely that there direct colleagues and friends do not. They have no incentive to change things. And even if some scientifically backed up study came out to prove them that the company would make more of a profit if there were less people like them... Well.
For the record: not saying this is some dark conspiracy. Just that these type of programs go very much against the current. They are logically against the decision makers, with no incentive for them to change apart from government funding.
…and anyone who willingly increases company fortunes at the cost of their personal salary is a chump.
I think that assumes that companies make decisions on long term benefit - which DEI programs inherently require. I'd say looking to how companies are currently handling work from home (FANNG et al.), quality control (Boeing) might showcase that "tangible business benefits" aren't necessarily at the heart of all decisions.
I work for a large corporation. It always felt like political theater. The people who participated, sure, were sincere and believed in the causes, but the higher ups promoting it are a different story. Very much always felt like "this is the hit thing to do right now so we are jumping on the train. Hey everyone, see how awesome we are?! See how much we care about this?!"
I'n all for diversity, equity, and inclusion, but really am not really a fan of companies using it as bait to try and pretend like they care so they can get a larger employer pool.
I'm not a huge fan of political theater myself, but it is a warning sign for me when companies drop even that political theater because it, for me, acts as a thermometer for the culture (both in and outside of the company). It's very similar to all the rainbow logos during pride month. Having a DEI program or a pride month logo doesn't necessarily mean you actually give a shit about diversity or queer people, but scrapping your existing DEI program or pride month logo is a worrying indicator that you value the opinions of those who oppose these things (and thus people who hate me and oppose me working in my industry) more than you value even maintaining the weakest political theater pretending to be tolerant.
I agree. This is why I actually support companies showing up to pride and other events. I want there to be positive financial incentives for supporting queer people and diverse communities! I think it's actively harmful how many queer people rag on corporations that show up to pride and share data with HRC. I understand the suspicion and justified accusations that they're fairweather friends, but things like Subaru marketing to lesbians really do matter.
This and also the presence of these programs at a company didn’t necessarily mean that they’re actually LGBT friendly.
The program and the people running it are some closed off group of HR employees who make everyone attend some kind of learning once or twice a year and no one even talks to them outside of that. I worked at a company who had one of these programs and the director of our development team would purposely misgender one of the developers any chance he got.
Yeah at the most basic level they sort of signal a desire to take discriminatory behavior seriously, that doesn't mean they do take it seriously Whether those trainings are put into practice, or supervisors are dedicated to making changes, etc make a huge difference in the outcome. And ultimately those groups of folks will continue to leave and the company won't be as diverse and likely that's why the positive outcomes relate to diversity - because more diverse companies are doing the things to retain those people - rather than necessarily being able to trace causation to DEI programming.
At a public university, my department takes DEI work seriously but doesn't have a separate position, we try to work it into our daily work and existent training as well as adding or encouraging attending other training sessions. But that doesn't mean leadership sees the same priorities, or that every department feels the same, or that there's no one in our department saying something ignorant ever. I've been the only person in meetings about students with a non-binary pronoun, and been the only one insisting I not deadname our students and that we gender them appropriately. With one of the lower titles in the room.
But when I did it, they all listened, so... Maybe there's hope?
In all honesty, as bad as it may sound, DEI initiatives are just handicaps to capitalism. If someone else isn't paying for you to put the work in, then you are ham stringing yourself as far as capitalism is concerned. The vampiric corporation that isn't "wasting" it's own profits on DEI is going to be at an advantage over the one that is.
Is this a good thing? Nope. Is it how capitalism works? Yup.
sadly not surprising. DEI was something followed for tax breaks and other external incentives. Once those dried up so did the "need for a diverse workplace to share experience and ideas". I can tell you the game industry completely about faced on it the moment interest rates rose.
They only care if it can make or save money. Almost like we were... tokens of some sort.