Blaming DEI industry for failures misses the point

[ad_1]

The increased attention given to corporate DEI since the summer of 2020 has been followed by several criticisms of the work in popular media. Being open to informed criticism is essential to improving products and services, and the work of DEI should not be excluded.

There are, however, two analytical problems that tend to show up in these plays. First, they often fail to take into account the breadth of approaches and perspectives in DEI work. By painting the DEI space with a broad brush, critics can overgeneralize ideas from scholarly literature. Words like DEI trainings and workshops are largely synonymous with DEI work in general, which, when done well, includes tailored strategic work that links DEI efforts to the organization and its specific goals.

Second, these plays tend to disproportionately blame perceived industry failures at the feet of DEI practitioners. Usually omitted from these critiques is any recognition of organizational leaders and their agency in approving and spending on supposedly ineffective services.

For the first point, consider the frequent reference to sociologists Frank Dobbin and Alexandra Kalev’s study of diversity initiatives in over 800 companies. Seminar in the diversity management literature and fundamental to the design of best practices for DEI work, the study found that diversity interventions that grant managers little agency in how a diversity intervention diversity material is executed are usually unsuccessful or even counter-productive. Compulsory training is doing particularly badly.

There are no less than three issues, however, with using this study to suggest that DEI work should generally be viewed with skepticism:

The study analyzed the success of a range of diversity initiatives by measuring the percentage change in the proportion of minorities and women in leadership positions. This is only one measure, albeit an important one, of diversity success and does not relate directly to equity and inclusion. The study also found that several diversity interventions were successful, namely those that allowed managers to take ownership and leverage the execution of initiatives. Critics of the effectiveness of the DEI often downplay discussion of this finding or omit it entirely. Because 2015 is the last year of data on which the study is based, the analyzes of the studies do not include the breadth of DEI interventions that have entered the market since.

The third point is crucial. Ahead of the 2020 racial awakening following the murder of George Floyd, there was public outcry following the murder of Michael Brown in August 2014. This event, along with high-profile protests by Colin Kaepernick and others, opened the leads to more candid conversations. on how inequality can appear in the workplace. DEI providers who support strategy and implementation work to address these inequalities, whether structurally or interpersonally manifested, often frame their work and intended outcomes around equity and inclusion. , rather than diversity and representation.

For many of us who approach work in this way, we take a long-term approach, ensuring that the foundations and commitment to fair and just practices are in place before committing more deeply to the questions specific to people belonging to minority identity categories by race. , ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation and ability, among others. Taking such a deliberate and intentional approach tends not to yield glowing results in the short term.

Certainly, there are DEI frameworks and models that do not stand up to analytical scrutiny. But why do they continue to be viable in the market?

One answer to this question, as I alluded to at the top of this article, is that leaders are not held accountable for their choices in how to engage in DEI work. At the most fundamental level, the job of leaders looking to engage in DEI work is to select the right tool(s) for DEI work at their fingertips in their organizations. This means using the same analytical rigor that would be applied to any other job a leader envisions, including identifying goals, assessing gaps, and identifying and using the right tools to fill those gaps.

As I’ve seen repeatedly in my own practice and recently discussed on a podcast with another practitioner, this lack of accountability can show up even before consulting engagements begin. It is not uncommon for potential clients to show up at first meetings having given little thought to their goals for their organization’s DEI work.

Some DEI consultants will meet potential clients where they are and help them define key areas of potential scope of engagement before a contract is secured. Sometimes this process can work, especially when the DEI consultant is skilled, familiar with a wide range of DEI approaches and tools, and can help the potential client define the scope of work to be done so that they have a demonstrable impact.

Often, however, a DEI consultant is selected to perform a narrow scope of work upon which the leader (and the organization more broadly) expects greater DEI progress and results to be based. This is how organizations can find themselves in situations where a consultant is hired to do a series of ally workshops or unconscious bias trainings, and a year later the leadership team judges the Unsuccessful DEI efforts and associated expense are not worth it because black employees are leaving at a higher rate than before sessions began.

In these situations, it is not the DEI practitioner who should be held accountable, but the leaders who hired the consultant with goals that exceed anything that a series of trainings or workshops, no matter how well designed and delivered, can they provide.

It is up to leaders to define themselves with the insight of their teams and the potential support of consultants what the success of DEI means for them and their organizations with rigor and strategic acuity. If leaders cannot hold themselves accountable for this, no one should hold the DEI space and its practitioners accountable for so-called industry failures.

Follow me on LinkedIn.

I provide educational experiences and consulting services to equip leaders committed to advancing DEI in their organizations with the skills to do so. I am an Adjunct Professor in the Masters and Leadership in Learning and Organizational Change (MSLOC and ELOC) programs at the Northwestern School of Education and Social Policy and I am the faculty manager for the Leading Equity and Inclusion Certificate (LEIOC) program. My academic work focuses on inequality in organizations, how minority people generate and use social capital in organizations, and alliance in workplaces. As Chair and Co-Founder of Equity Based Dialogue for Inclusion (EBDI) and Senior Advisor to Working IDEAL, I work with organizations across all sectors and industries to develop and implement structures and policies Hard-hitting DEIs. I hold a doctorate. in Organizational Behavior from Harvard University, and an MBA and Masters of Education from Stanford University.

Read moreRead less

[ad_2]