The term ‘Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion’ was first coined in the 1980s - and over these last few decades, it has started to gain prominence through initiatives in workplaces and general education curriculum across the world - and primarily in the Western world. But why have these three words been so contentious, despite their ostensibly positive intent?
While DEI programmes have been introduced to firms and educational institutions to 1eradicate and educate about existing prejudices and discrimination against ethnic, cultural minorities as well as other marginalised groups, it is unclear what kind of impact they really have, and whether they are able to achieve this aim at all.
Lewis Griggs - the European-American man that coined these words and has since developed their meaning by introducing diversity initiatives into American workplaces and schools, said that the aim of these initiatives is to ‘value diversity’. According to him, this entails recognising and acknowledging the differences between individuals and treating these differences as assets to the environment. It attempts to inculcate the attitude of ‘acceptance’ and ‘embracing uniqueness’.
But how can we define diversity, and how can it help reduce discrimination in workplaces? When we’re referring to diversity in this context, we are often referring to diversity of culture and ethnicity, rather than that of thought, which is what Griggs intended for these initiatives to target. As for this, Forbes Magazine has stated that companies with more culturally diverse executive teams are 33% more likely to see better-than-average profits. This increase in profits has helped to increase worker morale and improve relationships within the workforce. As our world becomes increasingly globalised and businesses become more interconnected, there is a growing hope that this rise in connectivity and awareness is reflected in the employees of these businesses. To implement this and make it a reality, many firms work with ‘diversity and inclusion managers’, who educate employees to have a grasp on ‘cultural competence’ - increasing awareness and reducing any stigma of and around the lifestyles, beliefs, and customs of new cultures and ethnicities, which reduces the proclivity of workers to behave in discriminatory ways. An article written for the Harvard Business Review states that ‘Nearly 84% of corporate directors believe that diversity in the workplace enhances board performance’. This comes from the belief that culturally diverse employees have skill sets, perspectives, and talents to offer that may not be found in employees of any homogeneous ethnic background. The core belief, in this case, is that inclusiveness fosters greater employee satisfaction, which can lead to increased productivity. The success of a company as a result of increased cultural diversity is usually measured by the short-term profit generated.
This idea has been disputed and challenged by academics and executives around the world, almost since it was first introduced. Naturally, part of this opposition stems from the desire of people in power to maintain the status quo, and ultimately remove the tedious and onerous task of implementing inclusive measures. But there is some merit to this argument. There are two main stratas of society that form this ‘opposition’. One of these groups of people takes issue with the very concept of the DEI initiatives, and the other takes issue with their implementation and practical flaws (with the latter being the most common and widespread in media). The position of the former group is essentially that diversity, equity, and inclusion programmes (in workplaces especially) tend to erode the meritocracy and work-reward system, which has a disparaging effect on the people that attain success through hard work, and instead gives undue advantages to people purely because of their cultural ‘uniqueness’. The belief is that this may reduce the net productivity of the workplace, as the employees would not have been hired because of the quality of the work that they are able to do, but rather the quality of the image they will help the company advertise. This has the opposite effect, as it inevitably leads to greater discrimination towards minorities. For example, in the last two decades in the US, while there has been an exponential increase in DEI initiatives and a general greater understanding of social issues surrounding this, there has been a net 0% change in the level of hiring discrimination that African American and Latin people face. Since around 1990, white applicants receive (on average) 36% more ‘callbacks’ than African Americans, and 24% more than Latin Americans.
However, researchers acknowledge that this problem arises from the implementation of these initiatives, rather than the idea itself. There are theoretical arguments for finding a balance between merit-based practices and diversity management, and although they are well intended, their impact and practicality remain an issue. The rising demand for diversity, along with the relative ease with which we are able to hold individuals and companies accountable due to the rise of social media, leads to pressure being put on the leaders of our communities. With this increasing pressure and the spotlight on inclusivity within the workplace, there has been considerable pushback against social initiatives, which are often deemed to be ‘inauthentic’ and ‘ineffective’. This is often because the executives and decision makers in firms tend to value profit and cost above social impact and the eradication of discrimination, and thus attempt to respond to the pressure they receive using ‘diversity quotas’ to display representation that is almost always surface level. In addition, social workshops to reduce social exclusion and discrimination seem to be more reactive than proactive - they take place usually after a company is held accountable for discriminatory practices or lack of general inclusivity and equity among their workers rather than functioning as a preventative measure.
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Initiatives, which have been on the rise for the last three decades, have been the topic of much discussion and conflict - in workplaces, educational institutions, and personal lives, although it is a common belief that the purpose of these initiatives has strayed from their original intentions. While these three words represent indisputably positive ideas, they are hardly ever implemented well, and their manifestations in today’s world tend to be very simplistic and surface-level. Relationships within the workplace are harmed rather than improved, and the discrimination that it aims to reduce is in fact increased, by a forced sense of diversity inspired by a capitalistic culture focused on social accountability.
Bibliography:
Comments