“DEI hire” — diversity, equity and inclusion — is a new version of an old insult. For the past 50 years, the term “affirmation action hire” hurled the same accusations of ineptitude. Then and now, the goal is to imply that the person is incompetent — even illegitimate — whether they are the vice president of the US, the head of the US Secret Service, a hypothetical airline pilot, a US Supreme Court justice, a mayor or a college president. The criticism is clear: A DEI hire “Didn’t Earn It.”
The usual response is to get defensive, insisting that the person’s credentials are impeccable and downplaying their race or gender.
However, race and gender are not superficial characteristics that can or should be stripped away to prove someone’s merit. And the reality is that, more often than not, such hires do not lower the bar; they raise it. So maybe we should insist that “DEI hire” is a compliment — even if that is not how it is intended.
DEI’s opponents insist that underrepresented or marginalized groups have cheated the hiring process or skipped the line in order to advance, but there is no evidence that is true.
To be clear, the opposite of the diversity is not meritocracy. It is homogeneity. And homogeneity, not diversity, is what tends to lower the bar. Homogeneity allows employers to remain too comfortable with the “status quo” and lets workers succumb to groupthink and other decisionmaking traps.
In homogenous companies, white leaders tend to be evaluated by less-rigorous standards; they are seen more favorably when they succeed and penalized less harshly when they fail. And in organizations with fewer black leaders, black employees tend to have more fairness concerns and be more skeptical about whether their organizations will act honestly and ethically.
In contrast, diversity, equity and inclusion raise the standard for performance. Diversity — whether of race, politics or gender — has been found to enhance group problem-solving and decisionmaking. Racially diverse juries deliberate more thoughtfully. Politically diverse debate teams prepare more diligently. Mixed-gender teams of scientists are more likely to produce breakthroughs. Exposure to people from different backgrounds leads teammates to pause, question their assumptions and explore better ways to proceed. This has a measurable impact on outcomes and has been shown to improve on-the-job learning, innovation and even safety.
Inclusion matters, too. There are decades of studies showing that when employees feel more included, they contribute more of themselves and their ideas. Workers of all backgrounds are more committed to teams and organizations that they believe operate fairly. And when organizations seek to reduce bias in hiring and promotion, it results in a more level playing field for everyone.
And there is yet another reason DEI tends to raise the bar: Leaders from historically underrepresented and excluded backgrounds must jump hurdles of bias. These obstacles get a lot of attention from academics like me, and the evidence on racial and gender bias is robust and consistent. It can also be dispiriting.
However, there is a positive spin to put on it, too: Those who do get ahead often possess extraordinary qualifications.
Is it fair to expect women or people of color to be not only as good as a white man, but better? That is a heavy burden. People like former Xerox chief executive officer Ursula Burns and media mogul Oprah Winfrey represent rare, trailblazing success that many leaders try to emulate, but few replicate. And the pressure to perform better than everyone else contributes to mental and physical health complications, which can undermine performance.
Yet those who succeed can achieve exceptional outcomes. Their presence is expansive, redefining what leadership can look like and broadening the possibilities for everyone. For example, runner Allyson Felix ensured the first on-site childcare facility for athletes at the Paris Olympics. Thasunda Brown Duckett, CEO of TIAA, has advocated for a series of financial reforms that would help the 40 percent of Americans who have not been able to save for retirement. Tennis legends Serena and Venus Williams have fought for pay equity for female players and invested in 85 companies, including 14 unicorns, largely led by underrepresented founders.
So there is nothing wrong with intentionally bringing diversity, equity and inclusion to the table. In fact, it is exactly what is needed.
So when someone accuses me of being a “DEI hire,” I will respond with thanks, knowing that I have “Definitely Earned It.”
Laura Morgan Roberts is a professor at the University of Virginia’s Darden School of Business. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS