Why Diversity Can’t Be Trained
By Nkazi Nchinda
It seems like most institutions are eager to demonstrate their commitment to diversity. Businesses boast about new initiatives, colleges proudly display demographic breakdowns, and multicolored faces smile at us from a sea of product advertisements and political ads. Despite this apparent eagerness to integrate the workplace, board meetings at most Fortune 500 companies are overwhelmingly white.1 These boards mirror traditional corporate demographics, but their homogeneity can’t be tied solely to a reluctance to change existing power structures. Throughout the 1990s, Wall Street firms spent hundreds of millions of dollars to settle several major discrimination lawsuits. These losses pushed many companies to expand their diversity programs, targeting minorities and women with a renewed vigor.2 After all, increasing diversity was good for business.
However, these outreach efforts have not had the intended effect, and many modern corporate boards resemble those from 50 years ago. In an study published in the Harvard Business Review, Frank Dobbin and Alexandra Kalev—sociology professors at Harvard University and Tel Aviv University respectively—provide some insights into why many of these efforts, from diversity trainings to impartial promotions, have failed.
The stagnation in corporate boards mirrors the lack of innovation in approaches to diversity. Many methods for increasing diversity have been reused since the 1960s without ever being revamped. In some cases, these approaches can even be counterproductive, decreasing diversity rather than increasing it.
While basic tips on avoiding discrimination can be helpful, companies often impose mandatory diversity trainings which emphasize the legal penalties of discrimination rather than focusing on the interpersonal harm it causes. Companies also use these trainings strategically to buffer public criticism without making lasting changes. In response to a high-profile discrimination case in Philadelphia, Starbucks closed 8000 stores for a “racial bias education day”.3 However, Dobbin and Kalev’s research shows that the benefits of traditional diversity training rarely last beyond just a few days. In fact, several studies suggest these mandatory trainings can be counterproductive, since employees often respond to such measures with anger and annoyance. This frustration can cause managers to resist the trainings and, in some cases, feel even more hostile toward certain minority groups.2 Following the training day, a Starbucks employee may have phrased it best: “While this may be the most cost-efficient way to handle the situation, I don’t feel like it will change much of anything.”4
Companies have also tried to preempt discrimination by tying promotion decisions to unbiased metrics, but because these metrics are often doctored or ignored, they are of little benefit to diversity in the workplace. Hiring tests provide criteria for comparing job applicants, and annual performance ratings offer justifications for promotion decisions. However, these metrics are often bypassed in several ways. Managers can selectively administer tests to screen out minorities or unfairly weight the scoring to benefit specific candidates. Other managers work around performance reviews, giving all of their employees similar marks to leave open their hiring options.2 Even when metrics seem impartial, human bias can quell well-meaning attempts at increasing diversity.
A more promising approach to increasing diversity is increasing regular exposure to different types of individuals. Regular contact between different groups may decrease discrimination. A study led by Dr. Alexandra Scacco of New York University taught basic computer skills to a class of Christian and Muslim young men in Kaduna, Nigeria. Though individual prejudice wasn’t eradicated, there was a significant decrease in discriminatory behavior and an increase in generosity by the end of the 16-week course.5 Businesses can also benefit from increased contact between groups. By cross-training new managers—rotating them through a variety of different departments—companies can ensure that managers are prepared to work with a range of different individuals, improving their overall performance.2
To boost diversity, companies can also invite managers to become active in their diversity recruitment programs. Many managers are willing to participate once asked, and these new college recruiters can easily become “diversity champions”.2 Tasked with finding strong, underrepresented candidates, ambivalent managers soon become passionate advocates. This voluntary approach encourages managers to view diversity initiatives with reverence rather than resentment.
Dobbin and Kalev’s research demonstrates that meaningful changes in diversity require participation at multiple levels. Rather than merely leaning on mandatory trainings and metrics, companies can create passionate managers who view increasing diversity as a challenge rather than an obstacle. In the same manner, by diversifying the experiences of their members rather than merely implementing trainings, institutions like universities can produce individuals who are prepared to face the world at large.
References
1. Jones, Stacy. “Fortune 500: 7 in 10 Senior Executives Are White Men | Fortune,” 2017. http://fortune.com/2017/06/09/white-men-senior-executives-fortune-500-companies-diversity-data/.
2. Dobbin, Frank, and Alexandra Kalev. “Why Diversity Programs Fail.” Harvard Business Review 2016, no. July-August (2016). https://doi.org/R1607C.
3. Bill Chappell. “Starbucks Closes More Than 8,000 Stores Today For Racial Bias Training : The Two-Way : NPR,” 2018. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/29/615119351/starbucks-closes-more-than-8-000-stores-today-for-racial-bias-training.
4. Jennifer Calfas. “Inside Starbucks’ Racial Bias Training, According to Employees | Time,” 2018. http://time.com/5294343/starbucks-employees-racial-bias-training/.
5. Scacco, Alexandra, Shana S Warren, Kate Baldwin, Bernd Beber, Chris Blattman, Eric Dickson, Pat Egan, et al. “Can Social Contact Reduce Prejudice and Discrimination? Evidence from a Field Experiment in Nigeria *,” 2016. https://www.nyu.edu/projects/scacco/files/Scacco_Warren_UYVT.pdf.
It seems like most institutions are eager to demonstrate their commitment to diversity. Businesses boast about new initiatives, colleges proudly display demographic breakdowns, and multicolored faces smile at us from a sea of product advertisements and political ads. Despite this apparent eagerness to integrate the workplace, board meetings at most Fortune 500 companies are overwhelmingly white.1 These boards mirror traditional corporate demographics, but their homogeneity can’t be tied solely to a reluctance to change existing power structures. Throughout the 1990s, Wall Street firms spent hundreds of millions of dollars to settle several major discrimination lawsuits. These losses pushed many companies to expand their diversity programs, targeting minorities and women with a renewed vigor.2 After all, increasing diversity was good for business.
However, these outreach efforts have not had the intended effect, and many modern corporate boards resemble those from 50 years ago. In an study published in the Harvard Business Review, Frank Dobbin and Alexandra Kalev—sociology professors at Harvard University and Tel Aviv University respectively—provide some insights into why many of these efforts, from diversity trainings to impartial promotions, have failed.
The stagnation in corporate boards mirrors the lack of innovation in approaches to diversity. Many methods for increasing diversity have been reused since the 1960s without ever being revamped. In some cases, these approaches can even be counterproductive, decreasing diversity rather than increasing it.
While basic tips on avoiding discrimination can be helpful, companies often impose mandatory diversity trainings which emphasize the legal penalties of discrimination rather than focusing on the interpersonal harm it causes. Companies also use these trainings strategically to buffer public criticism without making lasting changes. In response to a high-profile discrimination case in Philadelphia, Starbucks closed 8000 stores for a “racial bias education day”.3 However, Dobbin and Kalev’s research shows that the benefits of traditional diversity training rarely last beyond just a few days. In fact, several studies suggest these mandatory trainings can be counterproductive, since employees often respond to such measures with anger and annoyance. This frustration can cause managers to resist the trainings and, in some cases, feel even more hostile toward certain minority groups.2 Following the training day, a Starbucks employee may have phrased it best: “While this may be the most cost-efficient way to handle the situation, I don’t feel like it will change much of anything.”4
Companies have also tried to preempt discrimination by tying promotion decisions to unbiased metrics, but because these metrics are often doctored or ignored, they are of little benefit to diversity in the workplace. Hiring tests provide criteria for comparing job applicants, and annual performance ratings offer justifications for promotion decisions. However, these metrics are often bypassed in several ways. Managers can selectively administer tests to screen out minorities or unfairly weight the scoring to benefit specific candidates. Other managers work around performance reviews, giving all of their employees similar marks to leave open their hiring options.2 Even when metrics seem impartial, human bias can quell well-meaning attempts at increasing diversity.
A more promising approach to increasing diversity is increasing regular exposure to different types of individuals. Regular contact between different groups may decrease discrimination. A study led by Dr. Alexandra Scacco of New York University taught basic computer skills to a class of Christian and Muslim young men in Kaduna, Nigeria. Though individual prejudice wasn’t eradicated, there was a significant decrease in discriminatory behavior and an increase in generosity by the end of the 16-week course.5 Businesses can also benefit from increased contact between groups. By cross-training new managers—rotating them through a variety of different departments—companies can ensure that managers are prepared to work with a range of different individuals, improving their overall performance.2
To boost diversity, companies can also invite managers to become active in their diversity recruitment programs. Many managers are willing to participate once asked, and these new college recruiters can easily become “diversity champions”.2 Tasked with finding strong, underrepresented candidates, ambivalent managers soon become passionate advocates. This voluntary approach encourages managers to view diversity initiatives with reverence rather than resentment.
Dobbin and Kalev’s research demonstrates that meaningful changes in diversity require participation at multiple levels. Rather than merely leaning on mandatory trainings and metrics, companies can create passionate managers who view increasing diversity as a challenge rather than an obstacle. In the same manner, by diversifying the experiences of their members rather than merely implementing trainings, institutions like universities can produce individuals who are prepared to face the world at large.
References
1. Jones, Stacy. “Fortune 500: 7 in 10 Senior Executives Are White Men | Fortune,” 2017. http://fortune.com/2017/06/09/white-men-senior-executives-fortune-500-companies-diversity-data/.
2. Dobbin, Frank, and Alexandra Kalev. “Why Diversity Programs Fail.” Harvard Business Review 2016, no. July-August (2016). https://doi.org/R1607C.
3. Bill Chappell. “Starbucks Closes More Than 8,000 Stores Today For Racial Bias Training : The Two-Way : NPR,” 2018. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/29/615119351/starbucks-closes-more-than-8-000-stores-today-for-racial-bias-training.
4. Jennifer Calfas. “Inside Starbucks’ Racial Bias Training, According to Employees | Time,” 2018. http://time.com/5294343/starbucks-employees-racial-bias-training/.
5. Scacco, Alexandra, Shana S Warren, Kate Baldwin, Bernd Beber, Chris Blattman, Eric Dickson, Pat Egan, et al. “Can Social Contact Reduce Prejudice and Discrimination? Evidence from a Field Experiment in Nigeria *,” 2016. https://www.nyu.edu/projects/scacco/files/Scacco_Warren_UYVT.pdf.
