Signal and Noise

It's What Works That Matters

2024 has opened with a flurry of questions about companies shying away from a commitment to DEI. Yes, the hiring splurge that followed the murder of George Floyd has diminished. And some companies are updating their language to reframe DEI, emphasizing improved performance or expanded promotion criteria. This is a welcome development, as DEI continues to prove its worth.

So why is the opposite impression— that it is not worthy and not working— gaining political traction?

Because some stand to gain by it.

I believe that the expectation that political pressure will blow up corporate commitment to DEI is as off-base as the phenomenon that is driving it: namely, politicians and activists seeking to grab media attention by ranting about “woke” agendas and equating political correctness with DEI. 

Viewing this as anything other than noise overlooks two fundamental differences between how business and politics operate:

1. Business and politics have very different hiring needs. Politicians, as well as the interest groups and activists that back them, don’t need a lot of hires. In the US, members of House have an average of five staffers, while Senators have an average of six. Even activists with big megaphones usually have only an assistant or two, plus a community manager for social media. They may hire a pr firm, but the people assigned to them are employed by these firms, not by their firm’s clients.

   Nor do politicians– not to mention activists– typically hire staffers whose views and backgrounds differ from their own. 

   By contrast, many organizations have put DEI on the map precisely because they have diverse and expansive hiring needs. They need people with varied values, experiences and talents in order to compete. So casting as wide a net as possible is simply good business. Whereas years ago, conformity to a corporate ideal might have been valued, a decade of research linking diverse perspectives and backgrounds to high-functioning teams and innovation have made the conformist approach obsolete. And whereas previously, being viewed as “a good fit” meant that a potential hire fit into the larger culture, today it’s more likely to mean that someone adds experience, views, or perspectives that are missing.

2. The second difference between organizations and the politics lies in the products and services they provide. While some political leaders prioritize making life better for those they represent (which routinely results in the media dismissing them as dull), many focus their efforts on stirring controversy, division, or outrage, in an effort to compel notice. This is especially true of those railing against DEI. 

   Organizations, by contrast, thrive based upon the quality of their products or services, the robustness of their distribution networks, and their ability to stay ahead of the market. Capturing attention may draw customers, but it cannot retain them. Only interactions with motivated and engaged employees can do that.

As investor, shark-tanker, and sports executive Mark Cuban noted last week, good businesses look where others don't to find employees who will put them in the best possible position to succeed. Cuban “takes it as a given that there are people of various races, ethnicities, orientation, etc. who are regularly excluded from hiring consideration. By extending our hiring search to include them, we can find people that are more qualified.” 

A legendary competitor, he added pointedly, “The loss of DEI-Phobic companies is my gain.” 

Please share your comments below, or email me at sally@sallyhelgesen.com. I’m looking for anecdotes or examples of organizations who have experienced tangible improvements as a result of inclusive practice, and would love to share your contributions as part of this larger discussion.

Like what you’re reading? Click here to order my most recent book Rising Together from Amazon. Also available from your favorite bookseller. Thank you for your support!