Elinor Flynn, of the London Business School, says that a reassessment on diversity goals can create a more inclusive and fair organisational culture
Walmart has been the latest US company to announce in recent weeks that it will be reducing its focus on diversity, equality and inclusion (DEI), and cutting several diversity initiatives. Walmart’s pivot, like other organizations making similar announcements is rooted in concerns over exposure to legal risk following the Supreme Court’s ruling on affirmative actions 2023 combined with pressure from conservative stakeholder. Walmart responded by saying it was committed to “foster[ing]” a feeling of belonging for everyone, suggesting that it is more interested in a climate of inclusivity than formal initiatives.
I can understand, as a diversity scholar why so many DEI supporters are disappointed by these changes. It seems that the gains in workplace diversity made over the last few years may be at risk due to the growing chorus of DEI cutbacks and declarations that “DEI has died”. The corporate reckoning about diversity that is taking place now offers organisations the opportunity to reevaluate their approach to DEI and possibly shift it, without abandoning core principles and goals such as increased fairness and inclusion.
This moment offers the opportunity to take an honest inventory to determine if your organization has adopted diversity initiatives that will be most effective, versus those that are easiest to implement.
The reaction to DEI may not be all bad-faith; research over decades shows that the effectiveness of diversity initiatives can be mixed, and many initiatives have unintended effects such as negative stereotyping or negative perceptions of organisations. Recent research shows that diversity practices most likely to get adopted by companies are the least effective. This includes mandatory diversity training or implicit bias. Compared to formal mentoring programmes and targeted recruitment, which are used less frequently but more often effective, the latter is likely to be more successful.
In the end, many of the problems that underrepresented groups are facing have their roots in the organisational culture. This calls for a deeper reevaluation of norms and expectations regarding how work is done and evaluated. We should not defend all DEI investments on principle but instead encourage organisations to take a more evidence-based approach and be more selective about the areas they invest in. This will increase the perceived credibility both of DEI research as well as practice over the long term, making DEI more sustainable.
Behavioural nudgings
Second, we can consider practices that do not fall under the “DEI initiative” category. These are less likely to cause backlash and will still advance diversity goals. A growing body of research suggests that organizations can still achieve the goal of diverse representation without traditional DEI methods, for example through “nudges” in behaviour. Nudges are interventions that aim to change behaviour by altering the context of choices made, without changing incentives or limiting options. When making hiring decisions, for example, it is better to make them in groups rather than in isolated decisions. This will encourage decision makers to pay more attention to diversity when choosing who to hire or interview. If you provide feedback to managers about their past decisions (for instance, 25% of people you interviewed were minorities compared to 37% by average for your peers), it can motivate them to be more inclusive in the future.
Nudges are also designed to target underrepresented groups that the organization is trying to support. When it comes to applying to a job, for example, changing the default to opt-out from opt-in, (you have to decide to apply), or increasing the transparency of qualifications for positions, has both been shown increase the number of women who apply for male-dominated jobs.
They are cost-effective and can help organizations achieve diversity targets without being accused of anti-meritocratic or limiting managerial decision-making. They can also help organizations attract diverse talent, overcome bias and make them less vulnerable to reverse discrimination claims.
One final opportunity is to change the way leaders speak about diversity and inclusion at work. Although it is clear that diversity at work can be uncomfortable for employees of all backgrounds, leaders tend to avoid acknowledging this fact and to talk about DEI in an entirely positive manner. They are afraid they will appear prejudiced if they do not.
Research that I conducted in conjunction with researchers from New York University, and the University of Minnesota, found that leaders who adopt a nuanced frame of DEI, which acknowledges that diversity has both benefits and challenges (contingent rhetoric), are more effective at motivating their employees to participate in diversity initiatives. We also found that presenting a realistic view of DEI not only helps leaders to avoid coming across as biased, but it also increases employees’ awareness that DEI success for an organisation requires collective responsibility and effort. Our findings indicate that organizations are more likely than not to achieve their diversity goals if they change their diversity rhetoric from being unrealistic and unbalanced to one which is realistic and balanced.
Change of Approach
Conclusion: The scaling back of DEI investment does not have to mean a complete abandonment of goals for greater equity and inclusion at work. It is an opportunity for organizations to reevaluate if their current strategy works as intended. While the appetite for DEI investments may be changing over time, organizations will still face serious reputational and competitive risks if they don’t remain committed to greater fairness and inclusivity. Furthermore, a significant number of employees say that diversity in an organization is a factor they consider when applying for a position. Let this moment be the time when organisations take a more nuanced, evidence-based approach to tackling diversity. This will increase the chances of realising benefits from more inclusive, fair and equitable organisational cultures while reducing scepticism and reactance.
Subscribe to our weekly HR news and guidance
Every Wednesday, receive the Personnel Today Direct newsletter.
