Political analysis
Leveraging Diversity the Right Way
- By NotYourDaddy
- February 04, 2008
A number of studies* in recent years have demonstrated that diverse groups come up with better solutions than homogeneous groups in a variety of different types of problem-solving and decision-making tasks. The more complex the task, and the more creativity required, the greater the advantage of diverse groups over homogeneous groups. This is not particularly surprising. When each member has something unique to bring to the table, the group has a larger pool of experience and skills upon which to build. A solution subjected to input and examination from multiple perspectives is also apt to be more robust. Given the evidence, and the logic to support it, it’s clearly in the best interests of businesses to leverage diversity in their workforces.
There are many types of diversity. As a society, we’ve become much more focused on categorical diversity than individual diversity. We go to great lengths to acknowledge and embrace every category of diversity imaginable. We have laws and even quotas to ensure diversity in our workplaces and educational institutions, and “protected classes” of people who cannot be terminated without consulting the legal department first. But are we focusing on the right kind of diversity, and are we doing it in the right way?
The original purpose of these laws was to remove barriers for qualified individuals who belong to certain categories that have been subject to discrimination based on negative stereotypes. However, by creating quotas, special protections, and diversity incentives, we induce employers and others to think in terms of categories rather than the unique merits of each individual. That was clearly not the intent of the laws, but the result is nevertheless predictable. Laws that don’t accomplish their intent are, at best, ineffective and, at worst, detrimental.
Laws intended to promote diversity can inadvertently encourage employers to “lower the bar” for individuals who happen to belong to a targeted category when they need to fill a quota or qualify for an incentive. This is harmful in two ways. On an individual basis, the person who is accepted with lesser qualifications than his or her peers is not made aware that their qualifications are inadequate, depriving them of the opportunity to improve their qualifications before entering the field. This puts them at a greater risk of failure than those who had to meet a higher bar to get in. This phenomenon, taken on a large scale, ensures that a greater proportion of people from the targeted categories will be less successful than their peers, reinforcing (or even creating) the same sort of negative perceptions the laws were intended to counteract.
A rational way to address this problem would be to focus on individual diversity rather than categorical diversity. The value in each individual lies in what’s unique about them rather than what they have in common with others. An individual may belong to multiple categories (whether by birth, by choice, or by circumstance), and each one may contribute in different ways to their overall identity. But each individual is far more than the sum of the categories to which they belong, and should be judged solely according to their own unique merits.
If we truly value individual diversity, then all other types of diversity follow without need for special designation. The studies referenced above show that it’s in the best interest of employers to hire individuals who are not only highly qualified, but also have diverse backgrounds and experiences. Employers who hire the best resources available, and know how to leverage diversity, will be more successful than their competitors who don’t. If diversity leads to success, then success will lead to more diversity. It’s not necessary for the government to legislate that businesses act in their own best interest. If the government gets out of the diversity business, the free market will accomplish it more effectively.
*Sources: Stanford Graduate School of Business, Leiden University, Tufts University, University of Michigan
-
Rate it!
Let us know what you thought of this article. Your feedback drives the quality of our content. Plus, it’s easy!
Rate this article -
Socialize it!
We greatly appreciate you adding us to your favorite social network.
Spread the word
We have laws and even quotas to ensure diversity in our workplaces and educational institutions, and “protected classes” of people who cannot be terminated without consulting the legal department first.
I read the “Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964” as well as the subsequent legislation concerning Equal Opportunity, up to and including the Equal Opportunity Act that Bob Dole ® introduced in the Senate in 1995, and I cannot find SQUAT concerning quotas. Not one word.
I have fired a couple people that are members of “protected classes” and no legal department was required, well, no more than for members of “unprotected classes”. Where is the proof of your statement about being required to consult the legal department within the laws, as you suggest?
Laws intended to promote diversity can inadvertently encourage employers to “lower the bar” for individuals who happen to belong to a targeted category when they need to fill a quota or qualify for an incentive.
…And yet you either do not have or will not show us any proof that the bar is being lowered. Where are the ruined businesses, the wrecked systems, the devastation to cities and industries from the wholesale hiring of “substandard quota people?”
I’m not going to hit the rest of this
stuffpoint by point, but these are the same ignorant arguments that have been slopped into the trough since oh, around 1964, yet no proponent of this tripe has shown up with ANY studies that PROVE (or even mildly indicate) what is proposed here is true. If any of thisstuffwas real, every redneck in the known universe would be waving it around in triplicate. And I’d keep my trap shut.Sometimes the common wisdom is true, sometimes it ain’t.
And furthermore, I believe that nachodaddy is a member of that most protected class of all: White folks.
199 days ago by scumby
All that I need to know about this stuff is what the finish looks like. How do we know we are done or have paid enough penance for the “injustices” of the past? Tell me what the metric is and then I’ll have something to look forward to. This ambiguous “it’s never enough” approach to this issue kills me.
well put in your article BTW.
198 days ago by Avrerage White Guy
RE: “average white guy”
What ‘penance’, exactly, are you talking about??
by the way – you spell “average” like “average” not “avrevage.”
198 days ago by scumby
Thank you for an excellent article. We discussed it at our weekly staff meeting. It created a heated discussion. That was good.
198 days ago by Bill Johnson @ MT. View Electonics
“I have fired a couple people that are members of “protected classes” and no legal department was required”
Actually, scumby, I’ve had personal experience with a situation in which an employee was going through the termination process for poor performance. The employee belonged to two protected categories. I reviewed the documentation from Legal, who advised that there was a risk, due to the protected status, but that the risk was mitigated by the fact that the manager who was terminating the employee also beonged to the same two protected categories. Nevertheless, copious documentation was required, spanning a three month period, to prove that the termination was based on performance.
198 days ago by NotYourDaddy
“I read the “Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964” as well as the subsequent legislation concerning Equal Opportunity … and I cannot find SQUAT concerning quotas. Not one word.”
Apparently, you neglected to read all of the relevant case law. In Fullilove v. Klutznick, 1980, the Supreme Court upheld the use of set-asides for Minority Business Enterprises as a “reasonably necessary means of furthering the compelling governmental interest in redressing the discrimination that affects minority contractors.”
It’s true, the word “quota” doesn’t appear in the ruling. You may prefer the terms “proportional representation” or “ government set-asides,” but a quota by any other name is a quota nonetheless.
198 days ago by NotYourDaddy
“Actually, scumby, I’ve had personal experience with a situation in which an employee was going through the termination process for poor performance. The employee belonged to two protected categories.”
Our legal department has to vet the firing just like that on ALL cases of termination: I would suggest you might be the only one that viewed the terminated employee as a member of two “protected classes”, but I could be wrong….
RE: quotas — you said “quota” in your original post, just stand by it. Be aware that it is one of those buzzwords, like “urban” really means black, and maybe latino. Code for “Other than white.” If that’s the way you feel, don’t be ashamed, stand up for what you believe and what you are.
Set asides for government contracts and proportional representation HAVE leveled the playing field, but should be reviewed, perhaps every 10 years.
No need for 20 year old scare tactics.
Hey, Bill Johnson: Don’t you mean “Electronics”, not “Electonics”?
195 days ago by scumby
“I would suggest you might be the only one that viewed the terminated employee as a member of two “protected classes”, but I could be wrong….”
And, indeed, you would be wrong. The language in the report from Legal specifically called out the risk of terminating an employee belonging to two protected classes, as well as the fact that the risk was mitigated by the manager being a member of the same protected classes. As it happens, the employee had recently been assigned to that manager, after underperforming for some time while reporting to another manager. Coincidence? You decide.
I’m not suggesting anything unethical occurred. The employee was underperforming, and I’m very well aware of that. It just seems unnecessary that the cards had to be shuffled and the deck cut before that problem could be addressed.
195 days ago by NotYourDaddy
“RE: quotas — you said ‘quota’ in your original post, just stand by it. “
I am indeed standing by it, scumby. As I said, a quota by any other name…
195 days ago by NotYourDaddy