There are obviously many reasons, but some of the main ones are:
(1) Failing to create an inclusive culture: Diversity without inclusion is like a root canal without anesthesia. There is no point in bringing different people together unless there is a culture in place that makes those people work together. This starts with a climate of respect and civility, and a workplace where people are encouraged to tolerate those who look, think, and behave differently from them. Without inclusion, diverse candidates will not just feel ostracized and marginalized, they will also underperform or be evaluated more negatively by their managers, perpetuating the belief that diversity is anti-meritocratic: “Why are we hiring minority candidates if they perform poorly?”, critics will ask, instead of acknowledging that their culture and performance management processes are simply anti-diversity. For example, when a female candidate is hired into a traditionally male role those who are tasked with evaluating her performance will have a bigger tendency to be biased against her unless the culture is inclusive. In turn, this would suggest that females should not be hired into such roles, because “there is evidence that it doesn’t work”, etc.
(2) Lacking competent leaders who are committed to the cause: It is always easier to get people to work together when they are similar (e.g., same background, values, beliefs, personalities, etc.). This is why managers love hiring people on their own image. Indeed, saying someone is “great” when they are just like us, is a subtle and legitimate way to express our own narcissistic tendencies. By the same token, it’s a lot harder to accept people when they are very different from us. Fundamentally, people who are very different from each other will only be able to function as a cohesive unit or synergy when they are effectively managed. This is why leadership is the fundamental quality that enables teams and organizations to leverage diversity. What is the right leader profile to make this happen? They need to be open minded, curious, and tolerate ambiguity. They need to be humble and self-critical to understand that their perspective may just be that: their perspective. And they need to be altruistic and empathetic to understand and care about how other people think and feel, particularly when they are not inclined to agree with it. Importantly, no culture change intervention will work unless there is true buy in from the top, and top down diversity initiatives require genuine commitment from leaders who are capable of managing for diversity. Too may organizations embark in box-ticking initiatives where most leaders fail to buy in, and the actual focus is on managing reputation rather than instilling a culture that nurtures diversity.
(3) Not having a clear philosophy or framework that explains exactly what the goal is and why: Diversity has become a widely used term, which inevitably dilutes its meaning. Likewise, not all diversity interventions have the same goal, and the same goal may be achieved in different ways or for different reasons. For example, there’s a big difference between putting demographically diverse people together (not just in the company website) and creating an environment where individual and group differences are turned into a synergy or competitive advantage. By the same token, organizations trying to promote social justice or reduce social inequalities by favoring vulnerable or minority candidates should not automatically except a business case or ROI, and those who are interested in boosting diversity to improve their reputation may pay a high price for being perceived as fake or disingenuous. In short, before embarking on any formal intervention it is helpful to formalize a high-level goal and strategy, which will inevitably require understanding the trade-offs and compromises between imperfect choices. Fundamentally, leaders should try to achieve a minimum level of consistency between their words and their actions, putting their money where their mouth is. Together with “innovation” and “corporate social responsibility”, “diversity” features in most marketing materials and company websites as a cultural bastion or core value, but there’s a big difference between paying lip service to diversity and being committed to its pursuit.
To be sure, there is no universal formula for doing D&I right, not least because organizations – like people – are unique and they have different cultures, beliefs, and people, even if many of the problems they face are in fact the same: they mostly pertain people-problems. A good starting point is to self-reflect, inspect what their system of values is, and make it as explicit as possible. There is always a system, and a culture, with things that are rewarded and things that are sanctioned, even if you don’t want to make that system or culture explicit. But formalizing the rules of the games will always be fairer than keeping things invisible, which makes cultures more nepotistic and political.
For example, organizations may start by asking themselves what would happen if they had NO diversity policy at all. After all, this used to be the case for every organization until relatively recently. You always understand the value of something more when you don’t have it, so what would be the big loss if companies decided to suddenly eliminate their diversity frameworks? What would be the main cost? Would it be productivity, reputation, social injustice, all of the above, or none of the above? An objective, non-partisan, answer to this question may highlight the fundamental reason for actually needing a D&I policy.
More specific questions shaping the right type of intervention may include the following:
(a) Do you need a business case or ROI? (contrary to popular belief, increasing diversity of any form does not automatically benefit the business, particularly if we look at productivity or performance measures).
(b) If your focus on demographic or psychological diversity? Would you want one without the other? How do you define diversity? What exactly is included and excluded in that category? Are there specific diversity types that you prioritize over others? (e.g., race, age, gender, religion, nationality, social class, personality, values, thinking styles, etc.).
(c) If your focus the individual or the group? For example, would you rather hire the most talented individual even if they don’t increase group diversity, or are you mostly focused on boosting team-level diversity?
(d) Are you hiring for culture-fit? If so, when does hiring for fit begin to conflict with boosting diversity? By definition, getting people who are different to join your firm is incompatible with hiring for fit.
(e) If you think there’s a business case for diversity, how will you measure it (e.g., revenues, profits, innovation, NPS, engagement, reputation, engagement surveys, etc.)? You get what you measure, so don’t ask people to do things they are not rewarded for.
(f) Are you willing to invest money and time on boosting diversity even if there’s no measurable impact or benefit? If so, why? And will other key stakeholders agree?
(g) How are you planning to create a culture of inclusion, and how will you measure whether you are making progress on that front?
(h) Is your goal to reduce biases or improve behaviors? Are you focused on implicit or explicit biases? And why? What justifies your choices? What is the evidence for the effectiveness of your chosen intervention, and how will you measure impact in your organization?
Clearly, these are just some of the questions that need to be answered before organizations adopt a specific D&I intervention. On the one hand, they are pretty obvious; on the other hand, it is not evidence that most organizations have a clear answer to them…
[“source=forbes”]
