“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.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS