How to make diversity programs work.

There are serious negative outcomes associated with diversity programs.The best response isn’t to dismantle them, but to rehabilitate them. 

Calls to end diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs are getting louder. At least two US states are actively defunding and dismantling DEI programs which they call illegal and illiberal. Media commentators calling for an end to DEI say they undermine western democratic values such as merit and personal achievement and reinforce antisemitism. Corporations are quietly losing interest in DEI as hiring has declined by a third from the 2020 peak following the death of George Floyd. But there’s another reason politicians, business leaders and influencers should be wary of DEI programs: they are doing more harm than good. Rather than reduce biases, diversity messages can reinforce, activate and amplify them. Compulsory training leads to anger and resistance, with trainees leaving with more animosity toward other groups. The net result is to stoke group divisions without moving the needle on representation. 

Despite poor outcomes, large and medium sized companies keep using diversity programs. They’re common in education, health care, government institutions, media and not for profit organizations. They’re in place not because they work, but because they protect against litigation and reputational risk. But if, as the evidence suggests, such programs do harm rather than good, they put people and organizations at greater risk. In one high profile case, a former school principal was so mistreated during diversity training that he filed for leave and eventually won compensation for workplace harassment. According to his family, the incident led to a mental breakdown and eventual suicide, which is now being investigated through a formal inquiry. Since C-suite executives and board members have a duty to protect employees and organizations from harm, this case, and others like it, suggest it may be only a matter of time before the presence of diversity programming increases the likelihood of litigation and reputational risk.

While acknowledging the serious negative outcomes associated with diversity programs, what if the better response isn’t to dismantle them, but to rehabilitate them? Here’s why: As western communities become even more diverse, there is an argument in favour of programs that actively promote social cohesion and collaboration. Rather than cohesive melting pots, western cities look more checkerboard communities divided by tribal hostility imported from different parts of the world. Finding new ways to help people from different backgrounds work and live peaceably together isn’t just a nice idea. It’s essential. The more diverse our communities, the more splintered and hostile they are likely to become.

Rather than chuck diversity programming out the window, we need to find ways to make them work without the unintended consequences. Social science points to some clear and sometimes counter-intuitive solutions, which are outlined below. 

Promote similarities rather than differences. People are sensitive to who is ‘us’ and who is ‘them’. They are wired to favor those in their in-group based on age, gender, culture or race. Diversity is not a strength when group differences are made more salient than similarities. The relentless focus on race and various other social and political differences, which is amplified by typical diversity programming, exacerbates tribalistic tendencies, and tends to increase division and hostility. Even the smallest differences can trigger in-group biases.  Dividing people into groups based on the toss of a coin can cause people to discriminate in favor of ‘my team’. Membership in ethnically oriented student organizations is likewise associated with an increased sense of ethnic victimization and a decreased sense of common identity and social inclusiveness. Researcher Karen Stenner points to ‘difference-ism’ as the root of intolerance.

That’s why downplaying differences and promoting commonalities promises better outcomes. Making group identities less salient, and common identities more salient, can promote cooperation and inclusion. One study found that race played a less prominent role in how people formed coalitions when they shared something else in common such as underlying beliefs or shared clothing. Likewise, training that emphasizes similarities rather than differences between genders is more effective than programs that emphasize gender differences.

Progressives tend to downplay national identity in favour of pluralism. In 2015, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau declared Canada the first post-national state, with no core identity to bind it together. But as countries – and individual communities and organizations – become more diverse, a sense of common identity and common goals and common values is necessary to sustain social cohesion. As factional hostility has poured onto streets following the attack by Hamas on Israel on October 7, promoting social cohesion is the new imperative. Social cohesion is associated with cultural harmony as well as better health outcomes and economic growth. By emphasizing similarities first and differences second, it is possible to respect plurality while focusing on the common good.

Practically speaking, what does offering a sense of common identity look like? It could be about referring to common end goals. A few years ago, a friend called with a problem. She owned a business in a small town and was getting ready to sell to an employee: a young, male, Syrian refugee. Locals were hesitant about the new owner. I suggested she stop talking about the prospective owner as a refugee but rather as a valued member of the community. He’d already lived and worked in the town and in the business for several years. He loved the town and wanted it to thrive. He wanted to keep the business a going concern, and wanted to keep supporting local suppliers, many of whom lived and worked nearby. By focusing on common goals and values, the concerns disappeared. The sale went forward without a hitch. Today, the business carries on with the same spirit and nearly the same team. Speaking to common values like truth, honesty, loyalty, love, and peace are not only a reflection of what it means to be human, they also cultivate fundamental goodness within people and the larger community. 

Speak to mutual gain. Another way to focus on the common good is to speak to mutual gain. McKinsey has noted Whites generally doubt they will be treated fairly in workplaces with pro-diversity messages. It’s this signal of unfair treatment that can fuel resistance and spark a backlash. That’s why a more encouraging approach involves framing diversity messages in terms of mutual gain. Operationally, diversity has tangible value; diverse and inclusive teams are often more innovative and creative which makes them more productive. McKinsey has found gender-diverse companies outperform their peers by nearly fifty percent, and the outcomes are even higher for culturally diverse teams. Emphasizing mutual gain is the opposite of zero-sum thinking, which underpins DEI approaches. Thinking someone has to lose in order for someone else to win is associated with lower levels of cooperation, inclusion and trust -- and reduced productivity. According to the Financial Times, zero-sum thinking is on the rise. The average response to the statement, “people can only get rich at the expense of others” versus “wealth can grow so there’s enough for everyone” has risen by more than 20 per cent over the last century. This rise in zero sum thinking has big implications for immigration, the economy, and social cohesion. Ending DEI programs won’t in itself reverse that trend. Intentional efforts to promote inclusion through a focus on mutual gain and common good offer much greater potential good.     

Manage perceived norms. DEI programs tend to use evidence of racism as proof that these programs are needed. But focusing on the problem creates a problem. People who were told gender stereotyping was common were more likely to stereotype than those who were told it was uncommon. Likewise, amplifying stories of racism fertilizes the weeds DEI leaders are meant to destroy. People are strongly influenced by the behavior and attitudes of others.As the perception of racism grows, racist behavior is likely to increase. One study found low prejudiced students were more likely to exhibit racist behaviour when told others did not share their beliefs. Ironically, high prejudiced students were less likely to exhibit racist behaviour when told others did not share their beliefs. Over the last ten years, perceptions of race relations in America have deteriorated. Most Americans say it’s now more common and more acceptable to express racist or racially insensitive views. Over the past five years, about one-quarter think racism has increased. And over half of us think that others are racist. Remember how people are highly influenced by what they think others are doing? These data suggest years of effort to reduce racism has had the net effect of increasing it.

Since we learn from others, framing and communicating biased behaviour as aberrant, rather than commonplace, promotes more inclusive behaviour. While messages of intrinsic racism can trigger defensiveness, hostility, shame and resistance, framing people as willing allies encourages cooperation. Non-threatening, affirming messages make people want to be better. Positive emotions such as joy, enthusiasm, love, gratitude, and elevation have been proven to reduce prejudice and encourage empathy and collaboration while building the skills needed for people to be more adaptive, better able to respond to new challenges and risks, more successful, more open to possibilities, happier, and healthier. Uplifting messages reinforce trust and encourage goodwill, collaboration and engagement by making people want to be better. Best of all, inducing positive emotion can result in an automatic positive response that requires no cognitive effort at all. When change is easy it’s more likely to happen.

Frame positive change as possible. Implicit bias training backfires when stereotypes and biases are presented as unchangeable. Messages that suggest solutions are out of our control or are too big to influence can make people more likely to discriminate and less likely to try to make positive change. Likewise, sending the message that racism is systemic encourages marginalized people to see themselves as helpless victims. Liberal girls are much more likely to agree with the statement, "Every time I try to get ahead, something or somebody stops me." Those who agree with this statement have an external locus of control. The belief that change is ‘outside you’ undermines personal agency and self-efficacy and is associated with higher levels of depression. Promoting agency and self-efficacy should be a primary goal of our institutions and society.

Conclusion

DEI programming is doing real harm. But dismantling these programs without a real alternative could prove equally dangerous. Instead, let’s rehabilitate these programs in ways that positively and effectively promote social cohesion to ensure that our increasingly diverse communities become more united, cooperative and peaceful.