Inclusion is Delusion: The Myth of Diversity in Pakistani Companies

Globally, numerous studies have shown that diverse and inclusive organizations are more innovative, productive, and financially successful. However, many Pakistani companies undervalue the business case for "Inclusion". Smaller and/or family-run businesses, which dominate the local corporate landscape, mostly prioritize familiarity and nepotism over merit and diversity. Even larger companies, as many in retail and manufacturing sectors, often prioritize, immediate profitability over long-term cultural changes, maintaining a homogenous workforce and ignore the benefits of diversity. In an attempt to localize this vastly global idea, a myriad of complexities is presented, perhaps as a result of differing beliefs, intercultural divides, and diversification, as well as any post-colonial hangover. Pakistan's societal structure is heavily influenced by traditional cultural norms, which often prioritize specific groups over others. Factors like gender, class, religion, cast, sect and ethnicity deeply affect an individual’s prospects at the workplace. Prevalent examples include Ah_adis being unable to find organizational employment, non-muslims not being hired in food service sectors, and only certain minority groups being hired for cleaning or garbage picking (and if being done... its at a very meager level).

The rise of "Cancel Culture" on social media and its proportional manifestation out of cyberspace, has led to a requirement for the multiple spheres, that we interact within. Inclusivity as a concept is now being considered as a necessity to foster equitable experiences and opportunities for all the people regardless of their caste, creed, color, gender, and any other assumed barriers or socio-cultural constructs. In recent years, the concept of "inclusion" has garnered significant attention across global businesses landscapes, with companies striving to present themselves as diverse, equitable, and inclusive (DEI). However, in the context of local Pakistani companies, the notion of inclusion often remains more of a facade than a reality. Despite outward claims of embracing diversity, many companies in Pakistan continue to perpetuate practices that undermine the essence of true inclusion.

An observation is that inclusivity can only be practiced here in similar segments that are like-minded in order to achieve a set of objectives. Thus, it often exists only to a certain extent. Pakistan’s or rather subcontinental psychographic, demographic, and social differences (i.e., religious) make true inclusion nearly impossible. Somewhere, a child listens to his teacher saying, "All humans are created equal." There is the implication that no segmentation exists, yet simultaneously, the student sees many examples in his school which are contradictory to the statement. The illusion shatters. This societal allegory highlights the hypocrisy ingrained within our system, where class divides dictate roles, extending themselves to the education and beyond. For instance, students of a top ranked university, despite their university's outreach programs, will likely not accept any government university students, at their jobs, especially for similar level of responsibilities or titles. Similarly, alumni of formal educational institutes may find it difficult to embrace students from Madrassas.

Tokenism further exacerbates this issue. A common practice among many local companies in Pakistan is the superficial representation of diversity without meaningful inclusion. Organizations may hire a few women or minority employees or differently-abled persons to create the appearance of inclusivity, but these individuals are often relegated to lower-ranking positions or assigned roles with minimal decision-making power. While these actions provide a facade of progress, they fail to address the systemic barriers hindering real inclusion. This uncertain concept is forwarded and focused on ideas of feminism without further understanding of intersectionality. Organizations with white-collar jobs may hire more for diversity only to imply that the sentiments of said organization are aligned with feminist ideals. Yet, the glass ceiling persists, and work is not adjusted to meet each worker’s requirements. Equity and its opportunities are often overlooked in pursuit of equality. Moreover, companies rarely provide structural or policy-based support to foster inclusivity. Policies on harassment, maternity leave, or accommodations for differently-abled employees are often either absent or poorly enforced. The labor class is not even granted these basic considerations, as evident in the prioritization of hiring workers of specific genders for roles like cotton picking, packing, and nursing etc.

The psycho-cultural dynamic of the target audience must also be considered. mostly a sales girl may be at the forefront in retail outlets for presentation purposes, yet the majority of sales revenue is generated by males. As compared to the West, it is a BBC-worthy mention that a female truck driver exists in Pakistan (so astonishing for them it may be, I think...). This highlights the fragmented ideological framework of feminism in Pakistan, which favors certain classes while reinforcing patriarchal values for others, complicating lives and contradicting its initial purpose. Corporate hypocrisy plays a significant role in fostering classism while portraying a facade of egalitarianism. For tech companies, the most important department is operations and coding, while in agriculture, it is the agrarian workforce. These divisions create further organizational disparities. Office politics is particularly ruthless and fundamentally against inclusion in every society at our side its ruthless and brutal as well. Toxicity prevails as hidden agendas nurture anti-inclusion behaviors, starting from the very first day of a person’s corporate life.

it is an interesting commentary that people who were taught they could not even visit the mosque of another sect are now faced with ideas of celebrating their diversity and embracing the “other.” Yet, the question remains; What is the proper standard for inclusion? Will it be subjective to each group? Noting that in a state where there must be quotas for women and minorities just in terms of presence in the National Assembly, does our society fairly, truly, and equitably even permit inclusion? Assumingly, would we be ready for a president from the minority groups? The answers need to be pondered over if we are to take a step forward.

Imtiaz Khokhar

With a special vote of thanks for Damilah Imtiaz Khokhar