When a company deploys a diversity policy, it usually justifies the move by citing 1) business reasons – the famous “business case for diversity” – or 2) equity issues or 3) a mix of both. However, researchers at Yale University have just highlighted the repulsive effect of this kind of discourse on diversity candidates.
The title of their article published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology last June announces the colors of the discovery:
Diversity for Business Reasons Repels (Candidates): the Detrimental Effects of Instrumentalizing Organizational Diversity Rhetoric on Underrepresented Groups’ Sense of Belonging.”
According to the researchers, the majority of Fortune 500 companies justify their diversity policies by citing the “business” benefits of diversity (better productivity, creativity, customer service, understanding of target customers, etc.). This is what a textual analysis of their diversity policies shows (study 1):
- About 80% of Fortune 500 companies cite business reasons;
- 1-5% cite equity reasons;
- About 17% have no rationale.
Next, the researchers asked three underrepresented groups (people identifying as LGBTQ+, women in engineering, and African Americans) how they felt about a company seeking diversity candidates for 1) business reasons or 2) equity reasons.
The goal was to measure their “anticipation of developing a sense of belonging.” The Yale team predicted that underrepresented groups would feel chilled by a business case. And this was the case in the 3 separate studies they conducted with each group. What the research team did not anticipate was the negative perception of diversity candidates toward an equity rationale.
Studies 4, 5, and 6 showed that equity rationales (versus the control group) can also compound the anticipation of rejection among underrepresented groups. Note that we had not theorized or predicted this effect, which emerged in the post-hoc analysis of the data-and consistently so. This finding should be considered exploratory in nature.”
Equity motives, they point out, were overall “less misperceived” by applicants than business motives. Nonetheless, they urge business leaders to reconsider trying to justify actions taken under a diversity policy at all costs.
In practical terms, the results of this article provide a coherent and reliable argument for abandoning an instrumental rationalization for a commitment to diversity.”
It is important to understand their message:
That said, we are in no way suggesting that leaders should avoid talking about diversity – but rather, the organization should simply consider stating their commitment to diversity as something, which, in fact, is self-justifying and simply part of the core of their business mission.”
The bottom line: stop justifying yourself!
