Identifying and Resolving DEI Initiatives That Are Harming Your Company

There is a wealth of material available on the advantages of diversity, but the consensus is that having a variety of perspectives is extremely beneficial for problem-solving and innovation—two things essential for businesses to succeed. In fact, given how frequently DEI policies appear in company communications, marketing materials, websites, social media, and print advertisements, they are widely accepted.

Fremont, CA: Companies actively promoting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives are easy to find. In fact, given how frequently DEI policies appear in company communications, marketing materials, websites, social media, and print advertisements, they are widely accepted. The truth is that others entirely disagree with the DEI idea. The critics do not want to be labeled racist or bigotry in a society willing to "cancel" anyone with a dissident voice.

However, it is important to state that all firms should strive to create diverse workplaces that welcome all their employees for various reasons. There is a wealth of material available on the advantages of diversity, but the consensus is that having a variety of perspectives is extremely beneficial for problem-solving and innovation—two things essential for businesses to succeed.

Read  More : 

 

Here are a few reasons why DEI policies, if they haven't already, would eventually fall short of their intended purpose of diversifying the firm's employee base to optimize company value for their employees and other stakeholders.

1) DEI is prejudiced

It is difficult to argue against the fact that discrimination against a person based on race, religion, gender, or orientation is wrong and prohibited. Yet, it is referred to as "diversity & inclusion" when someone is given preferential treatment at work based on those same characteristics. How would you react if you were informed that you weren't recruited or promoted for a position even though you were totally qualified for it because you weren't the correct race or gender? Although it is illegal and would inevitably result in a lawsuit, no one would ever say that to you directly, but due to preferences/quotas usually imposed by DEI efforts, it nevertheless frequently occurs covertly.

2) DEI unduly favors physical characteristics over non-physical ones

Whether on purpose or not, DEI programs frequently prioritize differences in appearance over differences in beliefs, cultures, backgrounds, financial circumstances, experiences, etc. This is probably because a firm's employees still think, act, and hold the same beliefs to fit in with the company culture, even though the emphasis on the physical makes DEI programs appear more diverse.

The benefit of diversity is in people's diverse ideas and viewpoints, which are significantly more useful in addressing issues or achieving goals than just one's gender or skin tone. Of course, that doesn't mean they aren't mutually beneficial.

3) DEI reduces the pool of available talent

The number of skilled candidates who might otherwise be a better fit for the organization is drastically decreased by unnecessarily restricting the talent pool due to racial or gender quotas created under DEI initiatives. There is always a larger pool of applicants to pick from when recruiting decisions are based more on the candidate's abilities, background, personality, and motivation, which is a big benefit in the current talent scarcity brought on by the "Great Resignation."

4) DEI lowers performance

Failure frequently occurs when recruiting decisions are based solely on a candidate's appearance rather than their abilities, background, and credentials. When a candidate who is vastly underqualified for the position is hired, one of two things frequently occurs: either the candidate remains with the company and gradually loses productivity, or they quit/are fired, and their work is transferred to others, lowering everyone else's performance until the position is once again filled, at the cost of tens of thousands of dollars. When it might have otherwise been prevented by employing a better competent candidate, a lot of time, money, and productivity has been lost when a new, qualified candidate is granted the position not based only on their gender or ethnicity.