The HBR study you cite actually says the evidence shows that some types of programs do effectively improve diversity, but many companies employ outdated methods that can be counterproductive.
Despite a few new bells and whistles, courtesy of big data, companies are basically doubling down on the same approaches theyâve used since the 1960sâwhich often make things worse, not better. Firms have long relied on diversity training to reduce bias on the job, hiring tests and performance ratings to limit it in recruitment and promotions, and grievance systems to give employees a way to challenge managers. Those tools are designed to preempt lawsuits by policing managersâ thoughts and actions. Yet laboratory studies show that this kind of force-feeding can activate bias rather than stamp it out. As social scientists have found, people often rebel against rules to assert their autonomy. Try to coerce me to do X, Y, or Z, and Iâll do the opposite just to prove that Iâm my own person.
In analyzing three decadesâ worth of data from more than 800 U.S. firms and interviewing hundreds of line managers and executives at length, weâve seen that companies get better results when they ease up on the control tactics. Itâs more effective to engage managers in solving the problem, increase their on-the-job contact with female and minority workers, and promote social accountabilityâthe desire to look fair-minded. Thatâs why interventions such as targeted college recruitment, mentoring programs, self-managed teams, and task forces have boosted diversity in businesses. Some of the most effective solutions arenât even designed with diversity in mind.
The rest of the article has some good examples and data on which sort of programs work, and would probably be a good reference for anyone looking to design an effective diversity program.
Agreedâthough many of the more successful diversity efforts are really just efforts to make companies nicer and more collaborative places to work (e.g. cross-functional teams, mentoring). My personal preference is to focus on making companies welcoming to all rather than specifically targeting racial minorities.
Iâm also a little sceptical of the huge gains the HBR article suggestsâdo diversity task forces really increase the number of Asian men in management by a third? It suggests looking at Google as an example of âa company thatâs made big bets on [diversity] accountability⊠We should know in a few years if that moves the needle for themââit didnât.
Agreedâthough many of the more successful diversity efforts are really just efforts to make companies nicer and more collaborative places to work (e.g. cross-functional teams, mentoring).
Agreed. This makes those sorts of policies all the more attractive in my opinion, since improving diversity is just one of the benefits.
Iâm also a little sceptical of the huge gains the HBR article suggestsâdo diversity task forces really increase the number of Asian men in management by a third? It suggests looking at Google as an example of âa company thatâs made big bets on [diversity] accountability⊠We should know in a few years if that moves the needle for themââit didnât.
Iâm also skeptical that particular programs will lead to huge gains. But I donât think itâs fair to say that Googleâs efforts to improve diversity havenât worked. The article you cited on that was from 2017. Looking at updated numbers from Googleâs site, the mix of new hires (which are less sticky than total employees) does seem to have shifted since 2014 (when Google began its initiatives) and 2018 (most recent data available). These arenât enormous gains, but new hires do seem to have become notably more diverse. I certainly wouldnât look at this data and say that Googleâs efforts didnât move the needle.
Women: 30.7% in 2014 vs 33.2% in 2018 (2.5% diff, 8% Pct Change)
Asian+: 37.9% in 2014 vs 43.9% in 2018 (6% diff, 16% Pct Change)
Black+: 3.5% in 2014 vs 4.8% in 2018 (1.3% diff, 37% Pct Change)
Latinx+: 5.9% in 2014 vs 6.8% in 2018 (.9% diff, 15% Pct Change)
Native American+: .9% in 2014 vs 1.1% in 2018 (.2% diff, 22% Pct Change)
White+: 59.3% in 2014 vs 48.5% in 2018 (-10.8% diff, â18% Pct Change)
As another resource on effective D&I practices, HBR just published a new piece on âDiversity and Inclusion Efforts that Really Work.â It summarizes a detailed report on this topic, which âoffers concrete, research-based evidence about strategies that are effective for reducing discrimination and bias and increasing diversity within workplace organizations [and] is intended to provide practical strategies for managers, human resources professionals, and employees who are interested in making their workplaces more inclusive and equitable.â
Iâm sceptical; diversity programs often donât work (Google spent $300m+ on diversity programs and didnât move the needle) and in many cases reduce diversity.
The HBR study you cite actually says the evidence shows that some types of programs do effectively improve diversity, but many companies employ outdated methods that can be counterproductive.
The rest of the article has some good examples and data on which sort of programs work, and would probably be a good reference for anyone looking to design an effective diversity program.
Agreedâthough many of the more successful diversity efforts are really just efforts to make companies nicer and more collaborative places to work (e.g. cross-functional teams, mentoring). My personal preference is to focus on making companies welcoming to all rather than specifically targeting racial minorities.
Iâm also a little sceptical of the huge gains the HBR article suggestsâdo diversity task forces really increase the number of Asian men in management by a third? It suggests looking at Google as an example of âa company thatâs made big bets on [diversity] accountability⊠We should know in a few years if that moves the needle for themââit didnât.
Agreed. This makes those sorts of policies all the more attractive in my opinion, since improving diversity is just one of the benefits.
Iâm also skeptical that particular programs will lead to huge gains. But I donât think itâs fair to say that Googleâs efforts to improve diversity havenât worked. The article you cited on that was from 2017. Looking at updated numbers from Googleâs site, the mix of new hires (which are less sticky than total employees) does seem to have shifted since 2014 (when Google began its initiatives) and 2018 (most recent data available). These arenât enormous gains, but new hires do seem to have become notably more diverse. I certainly wouldnât look at this data and say that Googleâs efforts didnât move the needle.
Women: 30.7% in 2014 vs 33.2% in 2018 (2.5% diff, 8% Pct Change)
Asian+: 37.9% in 2014 vs 43.9% in 2018 (6% diff, 16% Pct Change)
Black+: 3.5% in 2014 vs 4.8% in 2018 (1.3% diff, 37% Pct Change)
Latinx+: 5.9% in 2014 vs 6.8% in 2018 (.9% diff, 15% Pct Change)
Native American+: .9% in 2014 vs 1.1% in 2018 (.2% diff, 22% Pct Change)
White+: 59.3% in 2014 vs 48.5% in 2018 (-10.8% diff, â18% Pct Change)
As another resource on effective D&I practices, HBR just published a new piece on âDiversity and Inclusion Efforts that Really Work.â It summarizes a detailed report on this topic, which âoffers concrete, research-based evidence about strategies that are effective for reducing discrimination and bias and increasing diversity within workplace organizations [and] is intended to provide practical strategies for managers, human resources professionals, and employees who are interested in making their workplaces more inclusive and equitable.â
Thanks for adding that resource, Anon.