By Dr. Catherine Ashcraft, Director of Organizational Research & Change
It’s been quite the chaotic few weeks, to say the least. Feeling overwhelmed or confused by the tsunami of attacks on DEI efforts? First, we want to say: know that you’re not alone. Second, know that despite the confusion there are some clearer than you may have been led to believe answers and guidelines. At NCWIT, we always strive to help our member organizations distinguish the signal from the noise. And there is no time like the present to cut through the current chaos and confusion. So we’re going to give it a go here.
Perhaps most importantly, rest assured that we have always based our approaches to creating organizational cultures on the latest and most rigorous research, ensuring that they are effective, sustainable, and in step with all applicable laws and regulations. And nothing about that has changed. What has changed is that DEI terminology has now been politicized, creating confusion and making it seem as though we need to scrap the whole ship over a leaky plank. But that is simply not the case. And, in fact, organizations that do so will likely pay a high price (more on that later).
First, let’s try to separate the wheat from the chaff. To be fair, we have long said that some approaches to diversity and inclusion need to be reconsidered or avoided because they are not based in research and are ineffective. In short, the kinds of approaches we have always advised against are approaches that:
- Rely on “diversity training” that is mandatory, spreads blame or pits groups against each other, or is disconnected from a larger strategy.
- Implement quotas, prioritize “headcount,” or give preference to certain groups.
- Employ isolated, “one-off” interventions or reactionary, performative efforts that amount to nothing more than “virtue signaling”.
Research does not support these approaches and, indeed, suggests that they are often likely to backfire. So it’s no coincidence that these are the kinds of approaches that are now being challenged. Though some will have you believe that all inclusive culture efforts are problematic or illegal, that is simply not the case.
Here we aim to clarify the difference. Let’s start with what is not allowed under the current landscape1:
- Giving preference to particular protected identities or groups, especially when it comes to hiring, promotion, or other evaluative decisions. This involves setting numerical targets that require hiring, promoting, or retaining employees based on race, gender, or other protected characteristics instead of qualifications, experience, or performance.
- Restricting opportunities, scholarships, leadership or other kinds of programs to specific demographic groups. Training programs, employee resource groups, or similar initiatives designed for specific groups should remain open to anyone who wishes to participate in support of the organizational mission.
It’s worth reiterating, that these types of approaches were never actually sanctioned; they may have taken place at times (thus the aforementioned “leaky plank”) but not in the widespread way that some would have us believe. It’s also probably worth reiterating that at NCWIT we have always advised against these kinds of problematic efforts because research also does not support them.
Here is what is supported by research (and always was — and still is – recommended).
- Implementing practices that expand candidate pools and other opportunities to a wider range of people, as long as no particular group is given preference in hiring, promotion and similar evaluative kinds of decisions.
- Assessing organizational environments and practices for inclusion and equity. Doing so is still allowed and, in fact, required by law. It should simply involve inclusion and equity for all – as we have always said. For example, when men face bias or barriers (e.g., stigmas for taking parental leave), these should always be – and always should have been addressed. The same, of course, goes for bias or barriers that anyone faces (e.g., pay inequities). It is also still acceptable to consider that different employees face different kinds of barriers and have different needs – just be sure you’re making these considerations for everyone.
- ERGs or programs that address the needs of particular groups as long as they are open to all – something else we have always recommended.
- Leadership, mentorship or similar kinds of programs for different groups as long as they also are open to all.
- Even better, general programs that reach a broad range of employees. Research shows that programs tailored for different groups have limitations (e.g., give the impression that certain groups are all the same or need special help or different kinds of training). As a result, we have always instead recommended implementing more general leadership development programs, ensuring that barriers to access are removed so that a wider array of talent is included.
To sum up, organizations should avoid any approaches that……
- Spread blame and pit groups against each other
- Give preference to certain groups over others
- Are not open to everyone
And they should continue any approaches that:
- Are strategic and focus on culture change rather than “headcount”
- Make the environment more inclusive for everyone
- Address bias and barriers that different people face, as long as that is being done for everyone
- Expand candidate pools, opportunities, and pathways to a broader range of people, as long as they do not preference any particular group.
Finally, a word about language, specifically to use — or not to use — the term DEI. Language constantly evolves for all kinds of reasons, and when broader contexts change so must language, depending of course on an organization’s unique context. Here are some of our thoughts to consider (and we are happy to discuss more with members as needed).
In the public discourse, the term “DEI” has become weaponized and used in ways that intentionally sow confusion. In an era of manufactured outrage and misinformation, relentless clarity is one of the most important things we can provide. What is most important is to help others make sense of this confusion, to clarify what the nature of our work actually is, and to help people continue working toward research-based culture change that makes the workplace and educational environment better for everyone. Some organizations may be in contexts where the distinction between “illegal” and “legal” DEI can be relatively easily explained or understood. If, however, organizations are in contexts where using the term sows confusion or creates more heat than light, then it has probably outworn its usefulness. It is important to note that when making such language changes, it is not about trying to “hide” your efforts behind new language; it is about using language that more readily and accurately conveys the truth to people who in this new context would otherwise be confused. We must all clarify what we do – and its importance — in the face of intentional chaos.
While there are useful critiques of DEI efforts, many recent attacks have purposefully muddied the waters, distorting its purpose, erroneously lumping all kinds of different approaches together, and painting it as a threat rather than an asset. Such attacks can cast a spell of confusion, exhaustion, and overcorrection. In response, the tech community can do something deceptively simple yet profoundly important: cut through the noise and tell the truth.
Clarity is the antidote. Clarity has power. Clarity helps break the spell.
