The DEI wars: dissecting the myths and mayhem

DEI has been a disaster

Christopher Rufo, a well-known crusader against ‘critical race theory’ said on a recent New York Times podcast: “When you give governing power to these ideas, it ends in heartbreak, disaster, destruction.” At this point, his host, Ross Douthat interrupted him and said: “or it ends in employee retraining seminars.” 

As an experienced HR practitioner, I can’t say I’ve witnessed Rufo’s account of ‘disaster and destruction’ in DEI programs either side of the Atlantic. Although I have participated in many unconscious bias seminars. 

Mostly, they’re peaceful affairs and employees often leave feeling more understanding of, and more connected to, one another. For every uncomfortable learning, there can be huge strides in empathy and authenticity. Delivery is key and facilitators must be experienced, supportive and insightful, as there will be resistance and deep questioning, which is only natural. 

However, I have seen these trainings turn into car crashes if the process is seen as a dumbed-down box-ticking exercise, where statements are not backed up by sound empirical evidence.

This can make participants feel admonished or forced to conform with certain ways of thinking. In turn, tensions and divisions increase. Instead of focusing on how the majority can support inclusion efforts, these discussions often leave this demographic feeling like they are part of the problem. 

It requires a greater degree of listening and understanding and leaders need to be equipped with the facts and evidence to start their own personal journey towards being an inclusive leader. This does not happen overnight. What’s important is that we take forward what works and learn from what hasn’t. 

DEI is not meritocratic

For detractors, DEI has a new definition: didn’t earn it. Last year, Alexandr Wang, the founder of Scale AI, rejected DEI in favour of MEI –  a new acronym which stands for merit, excellence and intelligence. According to Wang, this involves “objectively selecting the best, without bias in any direction”. 

But is there such a thing as bias? Dr Kenneth B Clarke’s 1974 ‘Doll Study’ found that bias starts from the age of three. Children were presented with two dolls, identical except for the skin and hair colour. The children were then asked which doll they would rather play with, which is the nice doll, which one looks bad, which one has the nicer colour and so on. 

The experiment showed a clear preference for the white doll among all children (both Black and white) in the study. One of the conclusions of the study is that a Black child, as young as three, is already aware that their skin colour is deemed a mark of inferior status in American society. 

Studies also show female applicants receive fewer interviews than their male counterparts, despite being equally qualified. The University of Oxford found that applicants from ethnic-minority backgrounds had to send 60% more applications than their white counterparts. Elsewhere, a recent study found disabled applicants had a 15% lower call-back rate. 

Other than leadership training on bias, there are key ways to further awareness of this issue. Being exposed to people from different backgrounds is one of the best ways to develop positive attitudes towards them. 

I’ve always encouraged leaders to understand that not all employees have had the same experiences or challenges. Taking the requisite time to understand your people is time well spent and builds a closer connection. 

If biases are a given, we need mechanisms, both subtle and robust, to dismantle them and allow the best talent to shine through.

DEI is bad for business

McKinsey’s reports have come under fire recently as subsequent studies have failed to replicate its finding that DEI policies improve financial performance. But in my early HR career in the banking industry, these studies were crucial for persuading a data-driven audience of the benefits of diversity. 

It’s common sense that putting the best minds together, regardless of demographic, leads to a broader range of opinions and experiences being heard. Often when you look at winning teams, there is a diversity of mindset which provides a wider lens through which to view challenges. 

But our own biases can affect how we build teams. Affinity bias leads us to favour people similar to ourselves who share the same experiences. 

As great as we are as a human race, our minds are lazy and can, without conscious effort, be one-dimensional. Having a preference for people who share backgrounds, experiences and outlooks is proven to be the easier, more comfortable option. 

This is how bias spills into recruitment or even when choosing which friends to spend time with. Research has shown affinity bias limits our possibilities and ties us to a comfortable existence with people we perceive to be similar to ourselves. 

Of course, as a proponent of inclusion, throughout my career I have hired HR management teams with diversity of thought, educational background, gender, age and geographical experience. My last management team at Adidas was a clear example.

But, to be transparent, leading such teams is far more challenging because the views, opinions and experience are more varied. This means finding consensus can take much longer. 

However, if this is the compromise, I feel validated for creating a team dynamic where everyone has an equal voice and an ability to influence the shape of HR policy.

Organisations that are leaders in diversity, equity and inclusion are 25% to 36% more likely to have higher profits than their peers, according to the World Economic Forum. Innovation is 20% higher and there is a 30% greater ability to reduce business risks during decision-making. 

Aside from the research, it’s important to dispel the myth that DEI is equivalent to lowering the bar. Even when working with targets or an ambition to have gender balance or global gender parity – which will take another 134 years at the current pace of change – having such goals doesn’t mean companies are reducing their standards. 

There’s no such thing as racism

X owner and senior advisor to the US president Elon Musk has previously said DEI is “another word for racism” implying, perhaps, that DEI policies discriminate against white people. Simultaneously, he said: “Trying to make everything a race issue is divisive and corrosive to society… we need to move on.” 

Musk’s car company, Tesla, has faced multiple discrimination suits. One 2022 complaint, brought by California’s Civil Rights Department on behalf of workers at Tesla’s Fremont plant, alleges that Black workers faced several incidences of discrimination and harassment, including the use of racial slurs, racist graffiti and nooses in common work areas. 

Tesla maintains that it does not tolerate workplace harassment, but such legal cases can often be costly regardless of the findings.

On the question of whether DEI is racist, Keon West, author of the book The Science of Racism, cites several studies that show white men are favoured by recruiters, even when applicants of different ethnicities submit identical CVs. 

The gaps are often “enormous” says West and claims to the contrary are “Orwellian distractions from the real issues”. DEI programmes have not eliminated this and certainly haven’t reversed it. 

In some cases, DEI is shown to have actually benefited white people. A Deloitte study found white women were the biggest beneficiary of DEI and another study found diversity structures can reinforce the status quo under an illusory cover. 

The UK will follow the US

There are signs of political leaders in the UK following the US. Reform Party leader Nigel Farage and Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch have both described diversity policies as “poisonous”. But, as they’re not currently in power, the UK holds firm. 

US companies operating in the UK are reviewing their policies of course, but this has to be within the legal framework of the UK. As such, they must comply with The Equality Act, gender pay gap reporting requirements and local employment laws. Unlike the US, there are no mandatory quotas but there is more of a focus on positive action, such as scholarships, grants and mentoring. 

That said, companies will no doubt be reflecting on the success of their policies and looking to refine them moving forward. 

Having met with a number of CHROs and other C-suite leaders over the past six months, there is a clear disparity between the UK and our counterparts across the pond. 

UK locations with US parent companies are seemingly more cautious and, while not totally denouncing DEI initiatives, are generally being less obvious with public statements. 

However, UK-headquartered firms are holding strong with published efforts and I don’t see this changing in the short term. 

DEI kills people

I mean, where to begin with this one? Anti-DEI sentiment has become so feverish and extreme, that the new leaders of the free world are laying every disaster at its door – from plane crashes to wildfires. “DEI means people DIE”, claimed Musk, in response to the Washington plane crash that killed 67 people. 

If someone assigns blame before we have the facts, then it’s important to look at their intent. When emotions are high and egos are involved, it’s convenient to quickly assign blame. DEI is just another scapegoat, which can be very useful for leaders who want to avoid taking responsibility. 

Next!

DEI is dying.

The term might change, but the ambitions will probably remain, particularly in the US. New terms such as ‘culture team’, ‘community engagement’ and diversity, opportunity and engagement are gradually replacing DEI. Ultimately, DEI is about healthy company cultures and social dynamics. 

Jane Fonda recently accepted her Life Achievement Award at the 31st Annual SAG ceremony. While on the stage, she said: “Woke just means you give a damn about others.” And I think this is so true. 

DEI will not die. A recent study showed that 65% of companies will maintain their DEI budget for the year ahead, with only one in eight companies scaling back efforts.