Common DEI Tools are harmful, new research says

A current study suggests, that the most wide-spread DEI programmes are actually counterproductive (!) to making progress. What does this mean for us, here and now?

Polarisation and fragmentation have already produced backlash. Now, latest research puts doubts on the impact of the most common DEI tools. In the light of negative drivers from all sides, we must start to think about the rescue of DEI.

ENGINEERING D&I provides robust analyses of the news and offers strategic, impactful solutions for you to move on with an improved approach.

The 'Rescue DEI Trilogy' part#1 (summer 2024)

The findings in a nutshell

An analysis of big data identified the prevalence of 16 standard DEI practices and their impact on the representation of diverse groups in management. The study found three clusters of practices:

  • DEI managers and task forces, mentoring, family-related support, targeted recruitment, empowering training, and diversity goals each were found to contribute to increasing diversity in management.
  • Cross-training, employee resource groups, self-managed teams, and skills training yielded mixed results in the same regard.
  • Four wide-spread practices, performance evaluations, diversity and harassment training, grievance procedures, and assessments for managers were found to be counterproductive in regards to increasing diversity in management.

Notably, all ineffective practices were at the same time frequently implemented while the effective cluster did not include a frequently implemented practice.

Taking a closer look

The approach and tone of the research echoes a study that made headlines in 2012 when Frank Dobbin claimed to have found that ‘Diversity Training does not work’. In fact, the current research has used Dobbin’s data from 806 U.S. organisations collected between 1971 and 2015. Interestingly, it has not been discussed how the nature and source of data may have influenced (or determined) the findings. It is important to note that

  • Vast DEI insight has been created in the past ten years, i.e. after the capturing of the data
  • The focus on the USA has several implications including
    • Preference for DEI tools that are following legal requirements or (a new, different training each year)
    • Preference for DEI tools that are naturally embedded in the country’s history (ERGs)
    • Predetermined diversity categories that are examined (Black, Lantinx)

The research assumes an increase of diverse managerial representation as the only goal of DEI programmes without even considering that, in a corporate context, there could be different or additional objectives.

What it means for your (European) DEI practice (or research)

Such drastic results can easily lead to dismissive knee-jerk reactions including…

  • Challenge the data and the analytical methodology – as the results do not comply with all the acclaiming reactions we usually get
  • Question the relevance or need of additional research – as we think we already have all the evidence we need
  • Produce alternative facts that support our approaches and activities in a different way.

All this would make us feel good and it would also evade our own principles, e.g. to constructively deal with dissenting perspectives. Instead we would focus on positive feedback from followers.

From an ENGINEERING D&I perspective, it is important to understand the deeper messages from the findings. On a general level, it reminds us that the framing of DEI in a corporate and business setting does not have to (and should not) be solely focused on representation as suggested by the research we discuss here. Another insight can be that repetitive or mandatory annual activities, driven by a legal, compliance, EO or AA rationale may not yield the desired positive impact. Dobbin already pointed out in 2012 that the mandatory nature of training contributes to a negative outcome. For these and more reasons, ENGINEERING D&I focuses on an alignment of DEI with the larger business agenda as described here.

How ENGINEERING D&I makes a Difference

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 storyline and strategy to identify valuable tweaks.

As a start, you can check if your DEI framing is likely to include some unintended elements by using the checklist at the end of this article and contact us for individual advice.

Original Research (access required)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0007681324000260

Short (tabloid) version

https://hbr.org/2024/06/research-the-most-common-dei-practices-actually-undermine-diversity