We have diversity training, “Best of” rankings, legal
requirements, and programs galore, but we do not appear to be making progress on
the diversity, equity and inclusion front in our organizations. What is keeping
us from breaking through the diversity barrier?
This past Sunday, the NY Times Magazine’s Education Issue
included an article entitled What
College Admissions Offices Really Want, which sheds some light on the
complexities of this challenge. The article focuses on the lack of improvement
in diversity numbers especially at the most select colleges. Part of the problem
is a result of the perverse relationship between diversity goals and tuition
funding requirements. Admission officers are tasks with balancing the tipping
point between high caliber, socially disadvantaged students and their
institutions’ need for tuition dollars to survive. The issue can be summed up in the following
quotation from Jon Boeckenstedt, who spent 17 years in DePaul University
enrollment department. “Admissions for us is not a matter of turning down
students we’d like to admit. It’s a matter of admitting students we’d like to
turn down.” Unfortunately, the current funding requirements of operating higher
education institutions allow for only so much support of hard working but
economically disadvantaged students. Hence, the diversity numbers have improved
only incrementally. It becomes a resource issue.
Even in the Ivy League, where many endowments are
sufficiently large to provide greater support to build a more diverse
population, there are other factors that impact admissions decisions. The 2020 US News College Rankings
were recently released. While those in academia may view the rankings with a
level of distain, college bound students and parents view this ranking as a
crucial tool in the college decision process. As pointed out in the article, if
you rise in the ranking your institution’s application pool improves both in
terms of numbers and quality. One of the key components of the ranking is the
SAT score which has been shown to favor white males. Often, high SAT scores are
used to offset lower grades in the admission process as a proxy for “college
readiness.” Research done by Boeckenstedt demonstrates that highly selective
institutions admit students with very high SAT scores and consequentially very
low number of economically disadvantaged or minority students. If we give up
our ranking mania, will this remove this self-fulfilling prophecy and improve
diversity percentages. The bottom line is that improving diversity is complex,
expensive, and fraught with unintended consequences.
While this story is a reflection of academia, I believe that
it has relevance for corporate diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. The
fundamental issue remains are we moving the needle in terms of create and
supporting a more diverse, equitable, and inclusive workforce. While we have
seen a rise in the number Diversity Equity & Inclusion roles along with
mandatory training, and minority board representation requirements, the needle
hasn’t really moved. According to Women on
Boards 2020, women in 2018 represent 21% of Board members for Russell 1000
companies. While this is a slight increase from 2017, it is far below the
demographic percentage of women in the US at 51%. Women continue to be
significantly underrepresented on IPO boards. While this is just one statistic,
it is representative of the baby rather than giant steps that have been made on
the DEI journey.
Like in the NY Times article, there are a number of
conflicting factors that impact driving improved diversity numbers. First is
the issue of training programs. While many organizations provide mandatory
training programs, they often lack strategic vision around diversity goals. As
a result, the training is a one-off rather than a new model for doing business.
In addition, there is a fundamental lack of understanding around bias. People have
been programmed to believe that bias is “bad” and that if they are a “good”
person they don’t have bias. The reality is that we all have unconscious bias.
Understanding our unconscious bias is foundational to improving diversity,
equity, and inclusion. Raising awareness and encouraging people to slow down
their decision process to question their assumptions drives impact, but
committing to these changes is an ongoing process that requires time and money.
What
Works Gender Equality by Design by Iris Bohnet is a good resource for both
identifying the barriers and for creating solutions. She recommends a tool
known as perspective taking. By
walking in your counterpart’s shoes, you begin to get an idea of what it is
like to be them. To provide this perspective, I use an online interactive tool in
my program that allows you to take the perspective of a young African American
women as she experiences micro-aggressions at work and in social settings. In
order to make progress, we need to really understand another’s perspective to
change behaviors, systems and structures that support certain individuals but
not others.
While the numbers demonstrate how challenging this work
remains, we can and must change the status quo. Progress requires a significant
change in mindset through out organizations. It requires a fundamental change
in people, process, and policies. The journey is fraught with competing priorities and unintended consequences. In order to break down the diversity barriers, leadership needs to develop a DEI strategy that
is part of leadership’s goals and is supported with time, talent, and
resources.
Our next installment of this blog will focus on what is working in the DEI arena. If you would like to reinvigorate, your DEI program, please contact Kris at Kris@HRcomputes.com.
unconscious bias
