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.