Building diverse and inclusive companies, part 1: past efforts & current challenges

Diversity programs are frequently successful but virtually never successful enough. Despite decades of effort, companies struggle to create inclusive workforces. But there is reason to believe we may be at a turning point. This requires broadening thinking about what a “diversity program” entails. This two part article discusses why diversity programs have historically fallen short of expectations and what is needed to make future efforts more successful. Part 1 draws on my own personal journey to summarize where we have been and where we are now in terms of diversity challenges. Part 2 explores research suggesting where we should go next to create inclusive companies.

Past efforts. Formal effort in the United States to reduce workforce bias and exclusion based on demographic[1] characteristics dates back to legislation introduced shortly after the Civil War in the 19th century. Sadly, this initial concern for equality quickly shifted direction. The second half the 19th and first half of 20th century saw extensive creation of social institutions and laws that promoted discrimination based on race, gender, and ethnicity. Societal attitudes started to shift back toward equality after World War II leading to the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s. One could argue that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 marks the start of modern era of workforce diversity programs. Although current efforts also have roots tied to the women’s rights movement of the 1960s and 1970s and the Americans With Disabilities act of 1990.

My own experience with workforce diversity started in 1990 when my manager gave me the Hudson Institute “Workforce 2000” study and asked how our company should respond to the issues it raised. This influential study called attention to the growing diversity of the US population and the shifting nature of the labor market. A key finding was the need to “maintain the dynamism of an aging work force, reconcile the conflicting needs of women, work, and families; and integrate Black and Hispanic workers fully into the economy”. This sentence was written in 1987 but could have been written today. In graduate school I dove into the science of individual differences and validity of claims about diversity and discrimination made in books such as “The Bell Curve”.[2] After receiving my Ph.D., I worked with companies to increase diversity by developing multi-cultural awareness among leaders and removing bias from employee selection methods. Since joining SAP, I helped create SAP’s “Business Beyond Bias” solutions to improve gender equity through use of technology, looked at ageism in companies, and am currently working with SAP customers on responding to concerns about racial justice.

Current challenges. Over the years, this work has led me to several conclusions about the nature of inequality and bias and the challenges faced by corporate diversity programs. 

• The reasons for inequality are multifaceted and complex. They range from designing jobs based on biased assumptions about work requirements to addressing the impact that lack of diverse role models in certain occupations has on children’s career aspirations. The reasons for inequality can be tied to early child development, educational access, economic inequality, implicit biases and adverse impact in human resource processes, exclusive corporate cultures and many, many more factors.
• Point solutions do not create lasting change. Because of the complex nature of inequality, single solutions tend to have limited and often short-lived impact on diversity. For example, changing job requirements may increase applicant diversity, but it will not reduce bias in selection decisions. Nor will reducing bias in hiring create an inclusive culture. To have a lasting impact, diversity interventions must address issues across the entire organization and employment lifecycle.
• Short term fixes may perpetuate long term issues. Many proposed diversity fixes can have a short- term positive impact while ignoring or even worsening the underlying problem of non-inclusive cultures. This point is illustrated by a colleague’s response to the suggestion that pictures be removed from employee profiles because they might trigger racial biases in talent decisions: “I don’t want to work for a company where I have to hide my face to be treated fairly”. Similar concerns can be made about how companies have addressed age diversity and the use of quotas and other numeric diversity targets.
• Companies apply cosmetic solutions to structural problems. At its core, the problem of workforce diversity is a result of societal and organizational biases. These biases create inequality in distribution of economic opportunities across groups, career expectations and encouragement given to individuals, and methods used to judge people’s value and potential. The only way to eliminate bias is to change how opportunities are distributed and how decisions are made. Yet many diversity efforts focus almost exclusively on increasing awareness of bias. Very little is done to concretely change how jobs are designed and staffed or modify how employees are developed, managed and rewarded. There is value in talking about the importance of diversity, value of inclusion, and existence of inequality. But if companies truly want to create inclusive and diverse organizations, they must focus on changing the structural processes that influence job design, management behavior and staffing, development and compensation decisions.
• The experience of work can be very different based on your demographic background. It has been said you can never truly know what it is like to walk in someone else’s shoes. This is particularly true when it comes to the experience of discrimination, exclusion and bias. The “#MeToo” and “#BlackLivesMatter” movements provided many powerful examples of just how much societal biases and stereotypes change the experience of work and life for women and people of color. Never assume what work is like for other people. You can only know by asking them and creating a culture where they feel safe responding honestly. 
• Demographic biases impact everyone, but some far more than others. Some groups in society suffer far more from bias than others. But all people will be challenged by bias at some point in their lives, either directly through things such as ageism, or indirectly through challenges faced by their children, spouses or others they care about. Everyone has a personal reason to be concerned about bias regardless of their background. This point was powerfully made by a colleague discussing discrimination against people with disabilities: “this is not just about helping other people; if we are lucky to live long enough every one of us will develop a disability at some point”. There is a tendency to think diversity programs only help certain groups. But to the extent they reduce bias, they help everyone.

What we know. Companies have been actively working to create diverse and inclusive cultures for over 50 years. This work has largely taught us two things. First, creating diverse and inclusive workforces drives business success. There is social and economic value in the creation of a fair, equitable and inclusive world of work. Second, there is no easy fix that will create diverse workforces or build inclusive cultures. Despite years of effort and considerable financial investment, companies continue to struggle to achieve demographic equity, diversity and inclusion. How do we fix this enduring problem that plagues both companies and society at large? Part 2 of this article provides a promising path forward.

References

[1] The term “demographics” refers to any non-job relevant individual characteristics that are associated with bias and discrimination at work. This includes race, ethnicity, gender and gender identity, age, sexual orientation, health and disability status.

[2] My father Earl Hunt was a cognitive psychologist who studied intelligence including writing a widely cited critique of the Bell Curve. His brilliant mind, social compassion and empirical objectivity are a source of inspiration on my own journey looking at the intersection of psychological science, societal wellbeing, and economic growth.