Why Diversity Training Doesn’t Work
by Miki Saxon
Yesterday we looked at the new methodology being used to determine Fortune’s 100 Best Places to Work, which has been tweaked to emphasize feedback from those who self-identified as women, minorities, or LGBTQ.
Hard data has proven over and over that a diverse leadership and workforce increases revenues, adding substantially to company revenues and success.
Companies have spent millions on diversity training, so why hasn’t it worked?
It shouldn’t be surprising that most diversity programs aren’t increasing diversity. Despite a few new bells and whistles, courtesy of big data, companies are basically doubling down on the same approaches they’ve used since the 1960s—which often make things worse, not better. Firms have long relied on diversity training to reduce bias on the job, hiring tests and performance ratings to limit it in recruitment and promotions, and grievance systems to give employees a way to challenge managers.
The answer is fairly obvious to anyone who considers people, instead of datasets, etc.
In short, people don’t like being told what to think/do.
As social scientists have found, people often rebel against rules to assert their autonomy. Try to coerce me to do X, Y, or Z, and I’ll do the opposite just to prove that I’m my own person.
Not exactly rocket science.
So what’s a successful approach?
It’s more effective to engage managers in solving the problem, increase their on-the-job contact with female and minority workers, and promote social accountability—the desire to look fair-minded.
Or in today’s terms, DIY
Maybe it is rocket science.
More proof that diversity is (finally) being taken seriously is found in a lawsuit recently filed by IBM.
Diversity hiring, once a niche pursuit of human resources, has become a major recruiting priority at many US companies. As evidence, IBM is suing its former chief diversity officer for bolting to Microsoft.
Diversity hiring as a trade secret.
I love it.
Image credit: US Forest Service – Southern Region
