Asking the right questions about DEI key topics
Current analyses have already questioned the positioning and impact of mainstream DEI programmes. Read about the questions we need to ask to get to meaningful moments of truth.
Rescue DEI Trilogie part#2 (summer 2024)
Issues hidden under the Rainbow
The example of LGBTQI* integration shows both the enormous progress DEI can make in a space of few years as well as the polarisation this can create. The vast presence of different rainbow flags during Pride month and beyond suggests a new normality that was a remote vision in the 1990s when ‘modern-time liberation’ accelerated.
Thanks to decades of research and international alliances, we are in a position to understand where substantial change was achieved and where issues prevail or re-emerged. A series of German workplace studies, for example, allows to describe a long-term development. The first ‘out in the office’ research was carried out in partnership with the German arm of European Diversity in 2006 and has since been replicated three more times (in 2017, 2020 and 2023 respectively). Over time, data show some robust progress and also some worsening.
- Across all subgroups, LGBTQI* employees are living more openly vis-à-vis their colleagues
- Experiencing discrimination, however, has increased for trans / non-binary persons, in particular regarding strong forms of discrimination
- The positive nexus of corporate DEI management, corporate culture and LGBTQI* openness was confirmed for the fourth time although the effect has slightly decreased in the current study
- The study also confirms a clear interrelation of individual openness and work-related commitment, satisfaction and self-esteem in the workplace
- An increasing share of LGBTQI* employees report low to no DEI activities in their organisation
- At the same time, the preference for LGBTQI* friendly employers, services or brands rose by 10% across all subgroups and categories – reconfirming the business case for a holistic DEI management.
Are we ready to ask the right questions?
As developments can at best be described as mixed should we critically reflect the special interest approaches that were dominating the LGBTQI* area for the past ten years? How may they have had both positive awareness-raising and polarising effects? What about re-considering previously successful, integrated approaches? How do we deal with the politisation of the topic (e.g. by UEFA) or revisionist political trends (e.g. in Italy)?
Fiscal and economic effects of migration and societal openness
The racial discourse, as another example, experienced huge attention through #BLM and has been fiercely (and increasingly) attacked by Nationalist campaigns since. They present migration and cultural diversity as a threat also to individual and collective wealth, welfare and wellbeing. This narrative stands in sharp contrast to abundant research evidence confirming – consistently across countries and over decades – that immigration contributes to an economy and also improves the economic situation of the ‘general’ population.
- Already ten years ago, Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research showed that the 6.6M migrants living in Germany at the time contribute EUR 147.9 bn more than they receive in transfers (over their remaining life cycle)
- In 2022, Institute for Labour Economics showed that the presence of a migrant with average qualification causes a present-value subsidy of at least $128,000 to all other taxpayers collectively
- Published in 2024, Foundation Social Economy calculates that Germany will need both more and higher qualified migration in order to close its prospective fiscal gap (including tax income and social security system)
- At EFA (see further reading) Moritz Schularick, President of Kiel World Economic Institute, presented research evidence that nationalist policies were “costly” – in contrast to their proclaimed goals. They lead to “significant losses of prosperity” and to increasing (economic) inequality.
Are we ready to ask the right questions?
When nationalist economic narratives or racial business biases are presented, how do we react? Are we prepared to unmask false assumptions as ideologically driven attacks? How do we make a robust business case for DEI as a strong counter-narrative? Are we transparent and consistent in pursuing a comprehensive framework that benefits everybody?
Neverending stories: Glass ceiling and gender stereotypes
Gender constitutes the deepest root of DEI and keeps claiming a dominant equality agenda, e.g. regarding representation. How a strong number focus has harmed the DEI agenda is covered in dozens of articles. A smart and promising alternative lies in root course analyses and a subsequent focus on relevant items. Interestingly, some components of the glass ceiling created their own industries offering ongoing work on particular issues including services for dependent care, equal pay audits, mentoring & cross mentoring, training & development programmes for women etc. Many are now firmly embedded in HR strategies and never got re-assessed as to their relevance, impact or value-add.
In the meantime, however, additional evidence helps us reconsider past activities and future directions. A meta study consolidated a few dozen of academic contributions about the glass ceiling and found no silver bullet that could shatter the barriers for women. Instead, the research makes two important points
- Only a well-orchestrated and synchronised – let’s say engineered – approach is likely to result in measurable progress
- A very significant barrier is difficult to address and requires other stakeholders to participate: persisting gender stereotypes – both in individuals and in cultures
- The latter was recently confirmed (once more) by a large-scale research from the USA showing that women are not promoted because men underestimate their potential
Are we ready to ask the right questions?
How can we advance gender issues in an inclusive way that does not stereotype women or men? Do we work with leading and lagging indicators (KPIs) in a consistent way? What do we do to address the intra-group diversity among men or women (in different age groups)? How do we cope with intersectionality of gender issues (e.g. in relation to the topics above in this article)?
Review, reframe, understand what’s next and bravely go there
Rescuing DEI from external threat and internal dissatisfaction requires us to reassess our journey to date including an evaluation of the desired and unwanted effects it has created. The answers to new questions will show us different ways forward and create moments of truth. There and then, we must take bold decisions, eventually leave deep-rooted beliefs and established routines behind. This sounds as if we should do exactly what we have been preaching for a long time…
How ENGINEERING D&I helps to ask the right questions
In the vast landscape of D&I resources, we provide a unique combination of
- Critical evidence-based analyses
- Context-focused design conclusions
- Connected implementation support for impact and change.
Related to the questions of this article, we work with companies to review their DEI journey to date to understand what’s next in their individual development, taking into account their cultural identity and business context.
As a start, you can check your change approach using the checklists at the end of this article or in this article and contact us for individual advice.
Related Articles:
