Since when did diversity become such a dirty word?
Diversity may not be for everyone, but it does not get in the way of hiring based on merit.
I am going to start this article with a personal experience of mine that really surprised me.
Last year, I pitched my startup SkillsRobin at one of Investment NSW’s “Find a co-founder events.” (for context, SkillsRobin is a platform that matches early stage startup founders with pre-vetted developers). Once the pitches were done, quite a few of the attendees hung back to talk to me.
The surprising thing was that everyone who did - was a woman. And of the women, almost all of them were either women of colour or had a migrant background.
This is despite the fact that approximately 90% of the event attendees were men and presumably everyone was there to find a co-founder or join a startup.
In fact the only men I talked to during the entire event were the ones I approached and struck up a conversation with.
The 2 main learnings I got from this event were:
If I were to hire a team, I would have to be very deliberate about NOT completely filling it with other asian women like me. Obviously, we attract each other.
People are especially nervous about approaching people that don’t look like them
Now back to the broader issue.
People against diversity argue it prevents organisations from hiring and promoting based on merit. That they are forced not to choose the best person for the job, but the person who will meet a diversity requirement.
I would agree with them if organisations always did hire based on merit. Unfortunately in most assessments of performance, merit is subjective.
As an example, let’s look at some of the common methods people use to hire:
Reviewing resumes
Interviews
Technical challenge
Candidate presents a case study or example of their work
White boarding sessions
Work trial
Meet the team to check out if everyone “vibes” with them
Aside from some quiz-based technical challenges, there is no universally “right” or “wrong” way for a candidate to present themselves in these scenarios. There is only better or worse.
Oftentimes that better or worse is only in the eyes of the beholder.
Let’s use reviewing a resume as an example. Things that will get you bonus points from the person reviewing your application - even if it’s unconscious and not enunciated:
Having studied the same degree or gone to the same school:
What the hiring manager thinks: I understand what kind of training you would have received and can more accurately guess what kind of skills you might have. I have a better understanding of how you might contribute to the organisation compared to someone with an education I am unfamiliar with.
Having a similar career trajectory (e.g started in consulting,)
What the hiring manager thinks: Same as above
Identifying as the same sex, race, religion or nationality, or being of similar age
What the hiring manager thinks: I think we are more likely to get along. I feel more comfortable around you.
(Side note: The age one is particularly surprising, especially at the c-suite. At every company I’ve worked at, I’ve noticed that the CEO tends to surround themself with executives of very similar age to them (plus another 5-10 years). A 20-something CEO has an executive team predominantly in their twenties and thirties. A 40-something CEO has an executive team predominantly in their 40s and 50s. Aside from the odd Hollywood movie where the protagonist inherits the company from their father, I don’t see a lot of companies run by 30-something CEOs with 50+ year old executives.)
Having worked in a well known company or gone to a very famous school
What the hiring manager thinks: I recognise that company/school. They have a good reputation. You worked for that company. You must be good too.
In reality, reviewing a resume is more like reviewing for familiarity than reviewing for merit. In fact, I would say the candidates a hiring manager shortlists says as much about the hiring manager as the candidate themself.
At the core, diversity efforts should be about counteracting humans’ natural inclination towards homophily. It is no coincidence that Donald Trump’s administration is disproportionately stocked with billionaires!
In the absence of initiatives promoting diversity, these are the only ways I see a candidate from a marginal background getting ahead.
Be so extremely AND visibly good or overqualified that the hiring manager would feel stupid if they didn’t hire / promote you. Sadly this also implies the candidate has to do 10x more work to get there - so I’m not sure this is fair.
Get into a profession where your skills are incredibly scarce or in high demand, so people cannot afford to pass you over based on surface characteristics (like a doctor in a country town).
Find a company where people like you are the majority, and such bias will benefit you. (This is much easier for some people than others. In fact, this is the default position for many people against DEI. No wonder.)
Take a very unique and creative pathway to success where you can avoid the biases of the establishment (probably involves a high degree of risk, not for the faint hearted, only achievable by a select few by definition).
Organisations would do well to remember birds of a feather flock together. And that while that can help teams mesh, that doesn’t always lead to great performance. It is also in no way meritocratic.
One thing I and the anti-diversity advocates agree about is that diversity isn’t something that should be forced on organisations. It is something that an organisation needs to decide if they value or not. In the same way that multi-culturalism is not pursued by every country, I don’t think diversity has to be pursued by every company.
The more diverse an organisation's stakeholders, the more it makes sense to have a diverse team of staff. You would hope the composition of governments reflects the citizens they serve. You would hope a company like Meta, with users from all walks of life, would have a product development teams from all walks of life. Being able to appreciate someone else’s experiences is not the same as having had those experiences yourself. And properly understanding people is so important to making decisions that align with their interests.
I will 100% not agree with someone who says diversity gets in the way of merit though. Bias gets in the way of merit. Exclusion gets in the way of merit. Diversity initiatives implemented properly, are about helping organisations recognise merit among groups of people who are typically overlooked or discriminated against based on pre-existing factors.
People who don’t like DEI should just own up to it and say they don’t care about systematic bias. I would be ok with that. People are entitled to their own opinions and values. What irritates me are arguments that deny systematic bias ever existed in the first place. That the world was fair and meritocratic before diversity initiatives were implemented.
But I guess denial is a very effective strategy. What isn’t named, isn’t acknowledged. Things that don’t get called out, get accepted as normal and unremarkable. This whole diversity vs. meritocracy debate is just a form of white washing.