DEI. D - Diversity, E- Equity, I - Inclusion.
It’s a relatively new spin on the term from the 60s and 70s, Affirmative Action. Affirmative Action was a movement to hire more visible minorities and women, who suffered years of hiring bias preventing them from getting jobs they were otherwise qualified for, simply because they were of colour or because they were a woman. DEI is the 2020-24 version of Affirmative Action, but now includes members of the LGBT community.
DEI is a very popular term these days. The movement or tag line was intended to get companies to bring in more people from these groups suffering from hiring biases. More recently it has developed a negative connotation where people don’t want to be labelled as a hire only to fill a quota, or as part of a company’s social initiative. “She’s only a DEI hire” would be an insult. This trend has reminded me of conversations I had five years ago, well before I heard of the term “DEI”.
I recall a conversation I had years ago with a male CEO who was asking me if I knew anyone with a financial background to fill a position on his Board of Directors. “Oh, and it has to be a woman. I’m getting pressure from the Board to improve the gender balance on the Board”. My initial reaction was, do you want the best candidate to serve your company, or are you trying to fill a quota?
In another conversation I had also years ago with a female executive, at a time when there was a big push in the North American business community to improve the gender balance and diversity in companies' leadership teams and on companies’ Board of Directors. I asked her how she would feel knowing she was being hired as an executive or being appointed to a Board of Directors to fill a gender quota. Obviously she would not be thrilled knowing that was the case. She wanted to be hired or appointed on the merits, being the best candidate for the job. But she did stop short of saying she’d refuse the appointment knowing she was being hired to fill a quota.
I found myself getting into trouble when having this discussion in mixed company. I was unable to successfully make the distinction that I wasn't saying women couldn’t be the best candidates, I was saying that if a woman is hired she should be the best candidate, regardless of being a woman, just as a man should be hired only if they are the best candidate, regardless of being a man. Simply hire the best candidate regardless of their gender. There was so much angst built up over women being left behind and being treated unfairly, that using a big stick was the only way to fix the problem quickly. I would argue that there is no way to fix the problem quickly without depriving the organization of good candidates.
I also wondered how other members of management teams or Board of Directors would treat a DEI hire. Would they look down on that person, would they go out of their way to be nice to the person, or would they be indifferent? I’ve never made a DEI hire, nor do I believe I've ever worked with one, so I don’t have any direct experience with this situation. I suspect I would be indifferent as they were there and there's nothing I could do about it. Perhaps they had been subject to some form of bias earlier in their career.
I’ve hired hundreds of people over the years and interviewed dozens of people for Board of Directors positions. I can honestly say that when hiring staff or recruiting Board members, race, gender or sexual orientation of the candidates never entered my mind. I was solely focussed on finding the best candidate for the role, and determining if the person I was interviewing would be a good fit for our organization. That’s all.
I understand why Affirmative Action was a thing, and why D.E.I. is now a popular initiative. But they wouldn’t really change how I would go about hiring or recruiting. I’m only looking for the best candidate to begin with, which is what I believe all organizations should be doing. As a result I’m never looking for a woman for a specific role, or a person of colour, or a person that’s gay. If you’re one of those things and you’re capable and talented, and a good fit for our organization then I want to bring you on-board.
Given the general notion that the world has 50% women and 50% men, we should have an equal number of women and men serving in companies’ leadership. We should have Board of Directors composed of an equal number of women and men. But we don’t. We haven’t had gender equality for decades, or a meaningful number of qualified visible minorities. As a result, I understand why D.E.I. initiatives became a thing. I’m supportive of them, but I’m not going to do anything different because I wasn’t biased against a group of candidates to begin with.
I am not supportive of specific D.E.I. initiatives or targets at an organization. It implies that a bias exists on the part of the hiring managers that shouldn’t be there at the organization. Leadership should spend time correcting these biases, and simply emphasizing the corporate goal to hire the best, regardless of gender, sexual orientation or ethnic background. An over-weighting towards these groups of candidates runs a risk of a reverse bias and missing out on good, qualified candidates.
I read an article today in The New York Times about activist groups targeting companies with published D.E.I. mandates. Their goal is shaming, and to tarnish the reputation of their target organizations, suggesting that they are compromising the quality of their organizations to fill a quota. As a friend of mine once said, “no good deed goes unpunished…”. The fact that organizations like this exist and have traction is shameful. Trying to correct past wrongs is a good thing. Not making those mistakes and letting biases get the best of you is even better.
Comentarios