Workplace diversity schemes have a problem – but that doesn’t mean Trump is right to axe them
- Written by Louise Ashley, Senior Lecturer in Sociology of Work, Queen Mary University of London
Donald Trump’s inauguration was marked by a doubling down against programmes of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). Among the executive orders he signed during his first days as US president, two were targeted at DEI. The focus was on federal government but the intention appears to be that this should also extend to other American workplaces[1]. And it comes as Meta and Amazon[2] are also retreating from diversity programmes.
In Trump’s directive[3], DEI is said to undermine “traditional American values of hard work, excellence, and individual achievement” in favour of an “identity-based spoils system”. But the move dismayed[4] many workers. It doesn’t just seem regressive, but it also appears to make poor business sense – advocates argue that attention to diversity and inclusion[5] can offer higher performance and profits.
Trump appears to believe DEI offers unfair advantages on the basis, for example, of gender or ethnicity. But an alternative view could be that DEI is a necessary response to a situation where certain groups (often men, typically white, and generally from privileged backgrounds) have benefited from unearned advantages to maintain their grip on power.
Here, DEI is a response to the idea that simply belonging to these traditionally advantaged groups can be perceived as “talent”. This comes at the expense of typically marginalised groups, who are subject to discrimination and unconscious bias. From this perspective, hostility to DEI might be seen as a way for the traditionally privileged groups to remain dominant.
Both sides are apparently in favour of merit as the ultimate goal, although they have different views on what this means and how it is achieved. This suggests a paradox.
But is there any reason to worry about the widespread use of DEI? Based on my research[6] with firms in the City of London, I think the answer is yes (though for very different reasons than the president suggests).
This raises the question of what (or whose) purpose corporate commitments to DEI actually serve. Common sense would suggest that a primary function is to ensure people can access positions that would previously have been closed off to them.
Yet it is also worth remembering that where, for example, more women become corporate lawyers or senior financiers, this has no bearing on wider inequalities[7] in society. In fact, in a further paradox, my research has found that some of the organisations most likely to express their commitment to DEI are also implicated in generating these inequalities.
I researched diversity and inclusion practices in elite financial and professional service firms. These firms have played a key role in orchestrating a form of “rentier capitalism”, where small elites control the means of generating wealth. This system has much wider detrimental effects, as where wealth is increasingly concentrated towards the top, one consequence is stagnating incomes for the middle and working classes[8]. This in turn drives insecurity and widens the wealth gap.
This, of course, is not the fault of people working in these firms. But overall this system desperately needs legitimacy. This is more difficult when senior jobs at the centre of this model of “financialised capitalism” are mostly taken by those from historically privileged groups. Put simply, it makes them look bad.
One way they can ensure legitimacy is to shout about their commitment to DEI. This can help suggest that the system is merit-based, as access to these “top jobs” seems fairly distributed while rewards appear justly deserved. Most recently, these impressions have been generated by a vocal commitment among these organisations to promoting “social mobility”[9].
Opening access to a wider demographic, while good for the organisation and individual staff, has no impact on underlying inequalities. Yet in practice, these measures lack some efficacy. In fact, by offering an impression of change in terms of who occupies the top jobs, DEI can help legitimise and sustain an unequal status quo.
This matters for everyone because the ramifications can spread beyond the workplace. As wealth trickles up and populations grow frustrated that systems are not becoming fairer, the messages of the populist right can hold more appeal[11].
Trump’s objection to DEI is very different. For him, DEI is a convenient tool in the culture wars.
Yet this leads to the current situation, where conservatives like Trump loudly reject what might be considered a conservative agenda (in that the old economic order remains unchanged). It can all start to feel like a disorientating hall of mirrors.
I am not suggesting, as Trump is, that governments and employers should abandon DEI. This would certainly represent a backward move. But while measures to improve inclusivity in organisations remain important and worthwhile, this should not be seen as a substitute for much wider structural change.
Perhaps the most urgent challenge for government is tackling wealth inequality as a source of legitimate grievance. This more radical change in direction might even make reactionary and potentially harmful policies – like Trump’s take on DEI – less alluring to voters.
References
- ^ other American workplaces (www.theguardian.com)
- ^ Meta and Amazon (www.bbc.co.uk)
- ^ directive (www.whitehouse.gov)
- ^ dismayed (www.theguardian.com)
- ^ diversity and inclusion (www.mckinsey.com)
- ^ my research (bristoluniversitypress.co.uk)
- ^ wider inequalities (www.brookings.edu)
- ^ middle and working classes (policy.bristoluniversitypress.co.uk)
- ^ “social mobility” (www.progresstogether.co.uk)
- ^ PintoArt/Shutterstock (www.shutterstock.com)
- ^ populist right can hold more appeal (fairnessfoundation.com)
