Why Is Diversity Important?

Diversity, i.e. the collection of differences and similarities in individual and organizational characteristics, values, beliefs, experiences, backgrounds, and behaviors, is a vital component of thriving organizations. Empirical research shows that diversity offers a body of advantages for businesses, communities, and countries. 

Diversity fosters creativity and innovation, encourages better decision-making in both cooperative and competitive contexts, and boosts economic growth, enabling organizations to react to changing situations and unforeseen difficulties more successfully. This is because diverse groups have access to a greater variety of perspectives, and they consider a greater range of information and process that information more deeply and accurately. 

McKinsey has done substantial research on this issue and produced a number of publications highlighting the advantages for companies that hire a more diverse workforce. These assessments, which were published in 2015, 2017, and 2020, demonstrate that

diverse businesses are 35% more likely to produce above-average profit margins and more long-term revenue.

But interacting with individuals from other backgrounds can also cause discomfort and conflict. When people from various backgrounds interact, they don't always share the same thought patterns, values, beliefs and assumptions, manners, or biases. As a result, workplaces frequently have to deal with concerns of fairness, offense, and misunderstanding. In efforts to reduce these issues and create a work environment where everyone feels belonging, many workplaces have been engaging in various diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts, mostly taking the form of DEI training.

What Is DEI Training Anyway? 

Diversity Equity and Inclusion training, or DEI training in short, are structured educational programs that try to foster knowledge, understanding, respect, and coherence among individuals with various backgrounds, ethnicities, ages, races, genders, sexual orientations, faiths, physical conditions, and beliefs so that they can work together. 

DEI training in organizations usually centers around unconscious and implicit bias awareness, reducing prejudice, and cultural awareness and belonging. It is believed to be able to curtail some undesirable behaviors in the workplace environments by drawing attention to instances in which people may harbor biases, informing them on how to identify them in themselves and others, and how to prevent the negative behaviors that come with these biases. DEI training is also believed to boost employee morale, make employees feel more devoted to their professions, aid businesses in attracting and keeping a diverse staff, and boost creativity and productivity. 

Despite the fact that DEI training has been declared a potent remedy for a number of diversity-related workplace challenges, others have questioned whether it actually achieves its stated goals. There is evidence that DEI training alone does not change attitudes or behavior; its benefits seldom ever persist longer than a day or two. Paluck and Green, in their 2009 research, reviewed 985 studies of anti-bias interventions and found little evidence that training reduces bias. In another review study, Kulik and Roberson reviewed organizational studies using pretest/posttest assessments or a control group and identified that 27 out of 31 studies documented improved knowledge of or attitudes towards diversity, but these improvements were small and short-lived. 

The Pitfalls Of Diversity, Equity And Inclusion Efforts

A number of studies indicate that DEI training could even exacerbate bias or provoke a backlash. Management consultants and studies discover conflicting responses to diversity management among, for instance, white men, who claim they are tired of being made to feel guilty in discussions of diversity and of being painted as oppressors.

Nevertheless, research supports the possibility of DEI training's effectiveness. The ineffectiveness of current initiatives might be attributed to the fact that the wrong methods are being employed. There are a few causes why DEI training might not succeed, depending on how the training is introduced, how it is delivered, and what is being delivered:

• How the DEI training is framed can influence whether it is  accepted or rejected 

• People with non-marginalized identities might feel left out or feel attacked 

• Participants are expected to shed their biases in a short period of time, which is neither possible nor realistic

• DEI structures create the illusion of fairness unless delivered by competent trainers

Let's take a look into the pitfalls in more detail.

Pitfall 1: Framing it as mandatory

People don’t like being told what to do! 

One worry voiced by some is that DEI training could backfire by making people feel targeted and resentful. Is that a legitimate worry? It seems that the most widespread and seemingly simple strategy—mandatory DEI training—may really cause more harm than benefit in terms of reducing people's biases or avoiding discriminatory behavior. 

People frequently react angrily and negatively to required training and many participants even report feeling more prejudiced toward other groups afterward. Psychologically, if someone is forced to sit in a training, they won't want to interact. This is what we do: we protest against control. However, optional training produces the opposite reaction: if people choose to show up, they are already more bought into the idea of diversity, equity, and inclusion. 

Legault, Gutsell and Inzlicht, in a 2011 study, examined how the everyday environment can influence people’s tendencies toward prejudice. The researchers conducted two experiments examining the influence of two kinds of motivational interventions: an autonomy-limiting (controlled) kind that instructed participants what to do, and a more autonomy-supporting (personal) kind that described why being prejudice-free is personally desired. In experiment one, participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions where they read a brochure that discussed a new campus initiative to reduce prejudice. In one condition, participants read a brochure with autonomy-limiting instructions. In the second condition, participants read a brochure that was designed to support personal motivation to reduce prejudice. And in the last condition, participants read a brochure that did not discuss prejudice reduction at all. While the group with the brochure designed to support personal motivation showed less prejudice, the group that received controlling instructions showed more prejudice than the other two groups. Researchers replicated their results with a second experiment where they randomly assigned participants a questionnaire designed to either stimulate personal or controlled motivation to reduce prejudice. The researchers contended that interventions that restrict people's ability to embrace diversity on their own terms might actually foster animosity toward those who are the focus of prejudice.

Therefore, one of the typical recommendations from this literature on DEI training is that it's frequently better to make it optional rather than something mandatory. 

A worry with an opt-in approach to DEI training might be that those that may need the training the most may not receive it. Yet, research instead shows that most individuals take part in these trainings voluntarily when they are asked to support the organization in its efforts to reach a wider range of talented people to boost their team’s productivity. As such, sharing research findings demonstrating that diverse teams frequently experience higher levels of productivity and creativity can be made available to employees to increase voluntary participation.

Framing matters!

Therefore, framing matters! Just as offering DEI training as mandatory or voluntary, the specific framing of diversity policies plays a crucial role in shaping whether they are met with acceptance or resistance. In some parts of the world, DEI strategies are introduced for legal reasons. However, training programs that emphasize multiculturalism, hence, the value of diversity have been shown to have a less detrimental effect. This approach has been associated with more accurate perceptions of other groups, less intergroup bias, and smoother interactions with people from different backgrounds, as opposed to a colorblind approach, where differences between social groups are explicitly ignored. Multiculturalism has also been shown to promote respect for underrepresented groups and groups from underrepresented backgrounds to take advantage of opportunities and be more engaged at work. 

However, multiculturalism can also lead to opposition from dominant groups. Plaut and colleagues discovered that the widespread use of pro-diversity messages at work causes people from advantaged groups to feel alienated and decreases their support for diversity. For instance, it has been found that white people often believe that they won't receive fair treatment in workplaces that promote diversity.
Making sure that multiculturalism is articulated inclusively and emphasizing the benefits for both underrepresented and dominant group members is one way to reduce this opposition and boost support for workplace diversity initiatives among members of dominant groups.

Pitfall 2: People feel left out

What about me? 

Indeed, a study conducted by Greatheart Leader Labs found that knowing whether they are "welcome" is the single biggest obstacle to participating in DEI efforts, according to over 70% of the white men surveyed.

DEI practitioners frequently emphasize the value of diverse identities, but mostly for the marginalized ones, because in many parts of the world, historical power disparities mean that men, white people, people without a disability, straight people, and cisgender people can live their entire lives without actively considering their masculinity, whiteness, abled bodies, heterosexuality, or cisgender status. As a result, women, people of color, religious minorities, people with a disability, and LGBTQ+ people are constantly reminded of their differences. Therefore, the argument is that it makes no sense to uplift heterosexual white men, for whom society is designed, but uplifting people of color, women, immigrants, LGBTQ+ people, and other groups is important to counteract the oppression they suffer in society.

Building a DEI program around this justification, however, reinforces the idea that individuals from rather privileged identities don’t belong, which is a risk we just cannot take. We need individuals who are in privileged positions and who tend to occupy leadership positions to be included in the DEI efforts. Even when they are not the ones doing the training, leaders' attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors can have a significant impact on the effectiveness of the training and its sustainability. In fact, according to research, employees are more receptive to and interested in training when they feel their leaders support it.

I am under attack!

Once we attract individuals with non-marginalized, privileged identities, the next challenge is to ensure that they do not feel attacked when we talk about the marginalization of other identities and privilege. For individuals with rather privileged identities, isolated DEI training in their workplace may be the only time they may encounter a direct and sustained challenge to their privilege. Therefore, for these individuals, seemingly innocent professional remarks can be some of the first times they consciously consider their positionality.  They may become defensive when they hear about a group that they are a part of because those aspects of their identities become more prominent than ever. They may think, for instance, that I’m White and my group is being attacked!  Or I worked hard to get where I am as well! 

The feeling of being singled out, attacked, judged, or accused can lead to guilt, anger, shame, or outrage. DiAngelo, who is known for her work regarding "white fragility", asserts that these feelings stem from seeing ourselves as objective and unique individuals, leading to the assumptions that interpersonal biases, such as racism, are simply personal and intentional. Hence, people who act on these biases are bad individuals, and we can have an objective worldview and be free of these biases. Or similarly, leading to the assumption that people holding privileged positions do so based solely on their own merit, and structural biases that favor certain identities do not play any part in their success (Important to keep in mind here is that you can be both privileged in some areas of life, and underprivileged in some others).

Indeed, when we talk about biases, most people think that these biases are conscious and harmful prejudice of someone who is intentionally rude and dislikes others because of their background. Yet, we must understand the crucial role that socialization plays. Our perceptions and experiences are shaped through a particular cultural lens of the society we live in that structurally favors certain identities and statuses and are learned and internalized throughout our lifetime.

These internalized biases may inevitably exhibit themselves outside of our intentions, which are identified and questioned during DEI training. As DiAngelo states,

the question is not whether one is biased but to what extent we are aware of these biases that shape our perspective and experiences.  

All of us, but especially Diversity, Equity and Inclusion practitioners, must offer individuals with privileged identities the psychological safety to address these topics. If not, we'll keep encountering opposition and won't have the support we need from these people. If you are one of the rather privileged individuals, you may ask yourself what the “discourse of self-defense” is and whether you have ever used it yourself.

Pitfall 3: Thinking one or two days of training is enough

Quick fixes won’t work but behavioral design will

It is of course not only how we frame DEI training and whether we make everyone feel included that influences the effectiveness of DEI efforts. The content and delivery of the training have a huge impact too.
A study by Devine and colleagues suggest that training that is part of a wider program of change using research-based strategies can reduce bias in the long run. Yet, employers are not too enthusiastic about such costly solutions. Instead, the type of training that is typically employed is brief, one-shot courses that allow ticking the appropriate diversity boxes. 

These efforts are unlikely to have an impact on participants' routines or long-term behavior. First off, people do not generally change as a result of short-term educational activities. Secondly, implicit biases develop during a person's whole life. Therefore, interventions that aim to eliminate them over a short period of time often have a really strong immediate impact on lowering implicit biases, but they quickly return after a few days. Although our biases are incredibly difficult to overcome, we can empower organizations to help our biased minds make the right decisions. We can equip individuals with the proper knowledge, habits, and incentives so that, rather than completely eliminating biases, they are better able to recognize when they are susceptible to bias and overcome it. 

Alternatively, we can change organizational policies and procedures to make people less likely to act on their prejudice in the first place. Changing, for instance, the recruiting and promotion processes so that employees are less likely to consider demographic characteristics such as ethnic background or gender based on the structure of the decision-making process.

Let's take a look at the hiring process, an area where bias is pervasive. Firstly, the initial recruitment strategy may play a big role in who applies for positions. There are information channels that are predominantly used by certain groups. Depending on where the job announcement is posted, it may not reach a balanced audience. Job postings may use language that can unintentionally discourage either men or women from applying. As ‘competitiveness’ and ‘assertiveness’ are characteristics traditionally ascribed to men, using these terms when portraying the desired candidate may deter female applicants. The filtering of applicants can also suffer from biases. There are many initiatives, such as GapJumpers or Blendoor, that enables hiring managers to provide anonymous answers to assignments related to the roles they are hiring for or remove irrelevant demographic information, such as age, gender, educational background, ethnic background, and socioeconomic status, order to concentrate solely on merit. The best way to eliminate bias from the following interview process is to stop using unstructured interviews where hiring managers are prone to act on their “gut feeling”, hence, bias, when assessing a candidate's fit. A substantial body of scholarship recommends, instead, to use structured interviews during which each candidate is asked the same questions in the same order, and their responses are scored in real-time.

Pitfall 4: Not using professional, experienced trainers

We need competent DEI professionals and not “diversity washing”

As we can see, DEI training is no simple task. Still, we frequently see workplaces incorporating training created by human resource managers and self-described diversity experts who lack the background or training in the theoretical and empirical aspects of diversity science and the necessary background to evaluate the effectiveness of DEI efforts. 

And why is this a problem? Because the appearance of DEI efforts, rather than their effectiveness, may impact dominant group members' perceptions of how fairly members of underrepresented groups are treated. As a result, DEI efforts have the potential to produce an illusion of fairness. 

Even if it is no more than "diversity washing", organizations that brand themselves as valuing diversity may be successful in persuading others that they are genuinely equitable. This illusion, in turn, makes it harder for members of dominated groups to recognize bias against underrepresented group members and makes them react more severely to underrepresented group members who state that they have experienced bias. In six experiments, Kaiser and colleagues have demonstrated that even if there is no proof that organizations' diversity initiatives are successful when they display their diversity credentials (such as diversity policies, diversity training, diversity awards, idiosyncratically generated diversity structures from participants’ own organizations), they may actually succeed in persuading others and their own employees that discrimination charges against them (on promotion practices, adverse impact in hiring, wage discrimination) are unwarranted.

The illusion of fairness can also fool the underrepresented group members themselves. 

Research shows that the perceived fairness of procedures, rather than the actual fairness of outcomes, has a greater impact on satisfaction with outcomes. Giving underrepresented individuals a chance to speak their thoughts, for instance, conveys the message that their perspectives are important and that they are respected, full-fledged members of the group. Giving this platform alone can lead people to be more satisfied with the outcomes, even when it is obvious that the exercise of voice had no impact on the decision-making and even when the outcomes are unfavorable against the underrepresented group members.

To ensure the success of DEI efforts, organizations need someone who has experience in multicultural and diverse programs, is knowledgeable about terms and definitions related to diversity and inclusion, and is familiar with different approaches to instructional design and delivery. Importantly, they need to have the necessary background to evaluate the effectiveness of DEI efforts. Considering that successful DEI training has been shown to boost an organization's effectiveness, seeking assistance from a professional can be viewed as an investment.

To Sum Up

Training can be an effective tool to ensure diversity, equity, and inclusion in the workplace. However, not all pieces of training are created equal. 

Mandatory participation and focusing on legal reasons as driving reasons are two aspects of diversity training that frequently give participants the impression that their commitment to diversity is being forced upon them. Rather than adopting DEI training that instructs people what to do and believe, we should enlighten, inform, and invite individuals to examine alternate ideas.

With careful framing, we can bring bias, privilege, and self-awareness to the table. While awareness itself is not enough, it is a significant step in the direction of inclusion. Yet, reaching DEI goals is a marathon, not a sprint. We all want a painless, quick cure when it comes to eliminating bias and improving equity and inclusion in the workplace. However, 40 years of research reveal that only ongoing efforts that aim to improve skills using research-based strategies, that are part of a larger development program that challenges structural barriers to DEI can have long-lasting positive outcomes.

Slowly, major businesses and academic institutions are creating multifaceted DEI efforts that address both individual and structural barriers, which entails posing questions such as "Which audiences does your job announcement reach”, “Is the language deterring to some audiences?”, "Are you listing skills that others can apply for?".  

To create Diversity, Equity and Inclusion on all fronts, we need our organizational leaders who are in the position of power to take the lead in DEI efforts and inspire their employees to take part, not with force, but by inviting them to create an organizational culture that values their diversity and opinion. Leaders need the assistance of DEI professionals who can deliver and carefully monitor the effectiveness of DEI efforts to not only create an illusion of fairness but reach an organizational culture that truly values diversity, equity, and inclusion.

About our Thought Provoker: Dr. Ceren Su Abacioglu is a behavioral scientist. Her expertise is on inclusive institutional cultures, characteristics of effective professionalization for the development of these cultures, and implications of inclusive practices on group dynamics and motivation. She is currently a research fellow at the University of Amsterdam, where she examines change that happens upon extended intercultural contact between different cultural groups. Moreover, she is the founder of Diversity Dive, a training and consultancy firm, where she uses her expertise and research background to design tailored educational programs and provide consultancy on diversity, equity, and inclusion practices in organizations and educational institutions. She focuses on topics including but not limited to barriers and approaches to diversity, diversifying the workplace, bias awareness, intersectionality, and effective communication through managing salience and meaning of differences.

DEI training can be challenging. Avoid common pitfalls by focusing on genuine diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. Effective systemic change is essential for successful DEI initiatives. Get practical advice from our thought provoker on Initiating Systemic Change

Read more blogs:

Amplifying Organizational Wellbeing: The Power of an Entrepreneurial Mindset and Communities

The Power of Employee Resource Groups (ERGs)

How to have difficult conversations with your team

Initiating Systemic Change

Burnout – Why A Toxic Workplace Is Only Half Of The Equation

Menopause At Work – Let’s Finally Talk About It!