How Your Organization’s Diversity Statement May Derail Achieving DEI Goals

The various explanations for attending to diversity create a frame that elevates DEI, but how organizations choose to rationalize or justify their pursuit of more diverse memberships may inadvertently send negative signals to the actual people they hope to attract. Dissecting these justifications may give a glimpse into why some institutions seem to lack progress in accomplishing their DEI goals despite the sincerity of their diversity rhetoric.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion statements can be found in a variety of organizational communications such as websites, strategic plans, and often recruitment efforts. In most cases, these messages exalt the value of diversity. This is a major step forward given there was a time, not that long ago, in which a typical diversity statement was a brief sentence like, “This organization is an Affirmative Action (AA)/Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Employer.”

Organizations have moved beyond the standard “AA/EEO Employer” statement to declarations of deeply held values for and appreciation of diversity, often followed by some kind of framing such as a justification or rationale for their efforts. This framing frequently positions diversity as a strategy for accomplishing an institutional goal such as expanding markets or helping those within the institution be more innovative or creative.

In other cases, these statements serve as evidence that the organization is pursuing social justice goals (e.g., righting wrongs). These types of statements appear in communications targeted at diverse pools of applicants who might become future employees.

Among the most frequent rationales for organizational efforts to create more diverse workplaces is the business case. This type of instrumental rationale typically frames diversity as creating an opportunity for employees to learn more so that they can perform better or that having a diverse labor force enables organizations to better market and sell products and services to more consumers.

Yet a recent study suggests that although these messages attempt to convey an instrumental value of diversity to organizations and their members, business justifications may also signal a limited opportunity to experience a sense of workplace belonging for the very types of individuals these organizations seek to recruit and retain African Americans, LGBTQIA+ people, and other marginalized groups like women in STEM. Additional research in the European Journal of Social Psychology demonstrated that members of historically marginalized groups perceive instrumental arguments, like the business justification, differently and more negatively than dominant group members.

This dynamic is not unique to workplaces; a 2021 PNAS article demonstrated similar issues for colleges and universities. Across six studies, researchers confirmed that instrumental arguments are more frequently used by higher education institutions, as compared to morality/social justice-based arguments. Like workplaces, instrumental rationales are preferred by whites over African Americans.

Promoting student diversity as a way to create a more stimulating learning environment in universities signaled to admissions officers and Black families that Black students might experience a lack of belonging and similar challenges on these campuses. Indeed, researchers discovered a larger Black-white graduation gap for those institutions using an instrumental justification compared to those colleges employing a moral argument for their DEI efforts.

Perhaps instrumental rationales for diversity are getting in the way of organizations connecting with prospective applicants from historically marginalized groups, which subsequently derails their ability to accomplish a common DEI goal of diversifying their membership. Leaders who need to communicate their diversity values while avoiding messages that derail their ability to accomplish their DEI goals might consider the following:

1. Share but say less. It seems clear that morality-driven rationales for diversity appear to outperform instrumental justifications in sending inclusive and positive messaging to marginalized students, families, and workers. Given the ongoing desire for organizations to recruit diverse applicant pools, in workplaces and on college campuses, institutions might consider stepping back and making sure their organizational cultures consistently and sincerely reflect values for diversity, inclusion, equity, and belonging (DEIB). A Georgetown University Law Center paper suggests that the best rationale is that organizational diversity efforts simply reflect who organizations are rather than arguing the case for DEI as value added.
2. Work on culture first. If DEIB are not core components of institutional culture and identity, leaders might spend time and energy identifying what they aspire the organization to become and subsequently developing strategies based upon that. Benchmarking the DEI strategies of aspirant organizations and learning from their DEI journeys and evolution will be time and energy well spent.
3. Interrogate whose voice is centered. Leaders must also question whose perspectives are being centered in organizational communications, especially around DEI. The need to justify desiring or working toward having a workforce or student body that is reflective of society can signal that majority group members who might resist diversity and who have always had access to professional careers and higher education, are more important than the historically excluded and marginalized individuals that organizations may be seeking to attract, retain, and develop.
4. Seek to be inclusive and reflective. DEI strategies and communications should be the result of reflective and inclusive practices. Of course, the standard should be that there is a diversity of decision-makers guiding both. Yet given how persistent the practice is of centering only the perspectives of members of the cultural default and majority groups, even diversity at the table may not be enough. There has to be an intentional effort to regularly pause and consider whose voice and needs are inherently guiding DEI goals and strategies so that organizations have the opportunity to pivot and center inclusivity rather than dominance.