Special Note: I won't be commenting today on the imposition of American tariffs, but I hope the following puts American madness into proper perspective.
Last week I posted about the craven response many corporations are having to the Trump push to demonize Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programs. The majority, both in the U.S and Canada, are clicking their heels and shouting "Aye, ready aye" to the MAGA fiat to disempower traditionally underrepresented people in the workplace. An unseemly abuse of power, it reflects the American tradition of finding witches in their midst and dispatching them to metaphorical dunking chairs and pyres.
From comments I received last week, some see these programs merely as corporate-imposed dictates, a kind of performative politics that ultimately mean little. Indeed, it has been alleged that they have been wielded as a cudgel to advance the agenda of certain groups. While there may be elements of truth in that, DEI programs have much to commend themselves.
David Olive writes:
DEI is simply the enlightened business practice of creating workplaces whose diversity of talent and backgrounds helps make enterprises more productive, responsive to customers, and profitable.
But U.S. President Donald Trump regards DEI as “woke,” or unduly sensitive to marginalized people, and has banned DEI programs in his administration, claiming they are “radical” and “wasteful.”
Olive goes on to make reference to corporate obeisance to Trump by Canadian companies like Shopify, as well as sponsors now pulling out of Pride Toronto sponsorships, including Nissan Canada.
Many, however, have rushed to defend DEI.
...major Canadian corporations including Loblaw, Magna International, Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) and Brookfield Asset Management have kept their DEI practices in place.
And a deeper dive by David Olive reveals the value of such programs:
What is DEI?
In their hiring practices, organizations that adopt DEI values recruit employees of diverse backgrounds. Managers are trained in DEI practices of celebrating diversity.
Managers’ pay is tied to achieving DEI goals that commonly include promotion of women and minorities. DEI enterprises purchase from Black-owned and women suppliers.
And DEI organizations use their financial resources to support marginalized groups in the wider society from which they draw their employees, customers and suppliers, including the LGBTQ+ community, Indigenous Peoples and people with disabilities.
Advocates of DEI regard it as a set of tools for creating a sustainably successful enterprise. That means maintaining “safe” workplaces where employees are protected from sexual predation and racist behaviour.
Such enterprises build employee loyalty and suffer less turnover, boosting productivity.
Corporate quislings responding with such alacrity to the madness from the U.S. risk compromising their businesses.
“Inclusive workplaces drive innovation, enhance productivity, and increase profitability.”
“Companies that turn away from inclusion risk alienating talent, stifling innovation, and exposing themselves to long-term harm.”
Add to that the disgust many Canadians will feel over a corporate lack of spine in this arena, especially in these times, when the Americans are seen more as foe than friend. Companies would therefore be well-adivised to proceed with extreme caution and eschew the frightened-rabbit response so many sadly seem prone to today.
Where's the evidence that “inclusive workplaces drive innovation, enhance productivity, and increase profitability?" I've come across no studies that show such cause and effect.
ReplyDeleteWhere's the evidence that DEI does anything that human rights codes don't already do to maintain “safe” workplaces where employees are protected from sexual predation and racist behaviour? How, for example, do "inclusive" mixed-sex changing rooms and washrooms protect females from sexual predation, voyeurism, exhibitionism and privacy violations?
Where's the evidence that the LGBTQ+ "community" is marginalized? US research shows that gay men and women outperform straights in educational outcomes? This also holds true in Canada. As expected from the better educational outcomes, US gays now earn on average some 10% more than straights.
Some might argue that DEI policies led to better outcomes for gays, but according to the oppressor-oppressed logic of DEI, aren't straights now the "marginalized community" in need of support? I'm not surprised that companies are pulling back from DEI based solely on the shaky evidence that supports it. I see little in it beyond performative virtue signaling.
This study might set your mind at ease regarding the business case for DEI initiatives, Ranger:
Deletehttps://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinamilanesi/2023/04/20/the-business-impact-of-diversity-equity-and-inclusion/
Among the highlights are:
71% of Leaders report usually beating their competitors to market. This compares to only 34% of Nascent organizations. On average, Leaders enjoy a 4-month time-to-market advantage.
Leading organizations reported seeing an average 11.7% gain in market share in the last 12 months compared to 7.7% growth among Nascent organizations.
36% of Leaders compared to 14% of Nascent organizations report beating their most current fiscal year revenue expectations by more than 10%.
As for your concern that straight people are now marginalized, that sounds suspiciously like the American argument against things like affirmative action. It's one that has little credibility, in my view.
Amazon announced in January that it was dialing back on DEI. Given that the study you cited was conducted for Amazon, I guess they weren't convinced. I wonder how much of the performance difference between Leading and Nascent organizations came down to confounding factors such as market cap. In other words, large companies are more likely to have mature DEI programs than smaller ones.
DeleteDEI and affirmative action share a similar problem - what do you do when you succeed and the "marginalized" group does better than the "privileged" one? Women graduates have outnumbered men in medicine and law for at least two decades. So do we now discriminate in favour of men in these programs, or do we say that discrimination on the basis of race, sex and sexual orientation is bad no matter how noble the intent is? Fixing historical discrimination on the backs of people who had nothing to do with it is also unjust. Could we address inequity instead by putting resources behind people based on financial need, not their immutable characteristics?
These are good questions, Ranger. I suppose there is always an element of rough justice in all efforts to address historical inequities. You are certainly right about the number of women enrolled in medicine outnumbers men, but I'm not entirely sure if that is a solely a result of specific programs and measures to right the playing field.
DeleteAs for Amazon, I have to wonder if its retreat from DEI isn't part and parcel of Bezos' efforts to appease Trump.He has, after all, been altering what is permissible on the Washington Post, and did contribute, as did other tech bros, substantial sums towards Trump's inauguration.
Devils avocate here.
ReplyDeleteLets cut to the chase.
There will always be outlyers but
For the most part there is no argument on
The MLK I have a dream DEI thrust
But also along that line add
The MLK paraphrase " where they will not be judged by (DEI) but by the content of their character and capacity. "
For the most part that has happened,. Perfectly? no but happened.
DEI fails when it becomes disproportional.
A tiny fraction of the population does not get the right to have a representative in every department of every group of employees over 10 for whatever reason.
DEI fails when any of the DEI specifics become an advantage in getting the job.
DEI fails those DEI clients by allowing them to whinge about not getting the job/ not being included because of anti-DEI when in reality there were just many other better candidates.
AS to trans in sports , if in fact there are more than 2 genders then sports better come up with more than 2 categories. Pretending it is equal - is pretend.
On a lighter note and maybe more simply
The baby can have the manger if the bath water gets dumped on the dog"
Interesting points, lungta. I am not at all sure, however, that DEI confers the kind of disproportionate power you claim. As well, don't forget that DEI is not a sop to unqualified people; rather, it is a means of addressing discrimination that has long dogged a variety of people. The Americans under Trump have turned that effort into yet another weapon. By demonizing those it benefits, people like Trump insure that discrimination is legitimized under the rubric of fairness, the exact opposite of what that benighted administration is trying to achieve.
DeleteThanks for the reply.
ReplyDeleteI have over my lifetime worked with women bosses, feminine co workers, the deaf, the blind those in wheelchairs, lesbians, gay, amputees, war vets, transvestites, transexual (2 in my family), natives, east indians, asians and it was copasetic and agreeable until somebody made DEI the law of the land which many took as licence to micromanage HR and public space.
All human relationship can be simplified to "tit for tat" ergo none of your DEI tags compensate for antisocial or embarrassing or invasive or deluded conduct. That overreach into absurdity was handed to Trump on a silver platter and he won the election with it. If there ever was a reason to never visit DEI again the ability of it to propel people like Trump into power could count as #1. Defending deluded boys pretending to be girls was a really stupid hill to die on
So when someone says "we don't need it - we don't care", it can mean that our decisions are not affected by the DEI list.
Fair comment, lungta. I guess, however, that such initiatives were designed to deal with those businesses that have not been as open-minded as you to those who are different. And, of course, as you are aware, DEI addresses a far broader spectrum of people than simply the transgendered.
Delete