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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.