Some time ago, I was working at a job that required 'diversity' in hiring practices. It was about 15 or so years, before this became a standard in most corporate hiring practices. I'm still trying to figure out what it means, particularly because I was always taught to hire the best person for the job. I'm not saying diversity is bad. In fact, I'm all for it. But there is no standard gauge for diversity and as a goal it's a moving target. Would 50% female and 20% black be sufficiently diverse? Do we need to have the same percentages of each group as exist in the US population? Or would some close approximation suffice? At what number of employees does diversity become an imperative? I'm not sure we can realistically set numbers for these kinds of things.
At my company, VP level and above employees actually had bonuses based on 'improving the diversity of their departments.' There was no specific guideline provided, the VPs were left to figure it out for themselves. Many got significantly reduced bonuses, which led to the suspicion that it was a corporate method of reducing payouts. I happen to think that was the case.
But the corporation took this all very seriously and each year we were given a 'diversity update,' during which we were showed charts and graphs of women and minorities as a percentage of the company's staff and the executive suite.
I didn't care much for it. I am not opposed to diversity, but as I said, I always hired the best person for the job. I never think in terms of women, Asian, Black, Indian, etc. Suddenly I was being told what the company required in this regard when I was doing my interviews. I will never forget the laugh of one VP, when I recommended a young man for a position, as he said "Unless he's a black woman, the interview will not be worth his time." Fair enough, but I sent him in for the interview anyway and he was not hired, despite having stellar credentials and strengths in all the key areas the company was seeking to improve.
Eventually, during one of our management meetings, as the company executives were going through their diversity charts and commenting on the annual 'improvement in diversity,' one female VP raised her hand. Her bonuses had been cut the two previous years, and she was sensitive to the topic, despite having one of the most 'diverse' departments in the company.
"At what point are we finished?" She asked.
"I'm sorry, what do you mean?"
She replied, "I'm just wondering when we're done. I mean diversity is the goal, right? (heads nod) So when do we know we're diverse enough? Surely you have metrics to define when we've reached our goal?"
"Well, diversity isn't just about gender or race, it's about diversity of thought, and while gender or race are important parts of that, there's no real way to define this goal, we just have to keep striving to improve."
She nodded and replied, "Of course we're trying to improve. I'm just wondering, since this is a goal, how we're going to know when we're done."
"It's a work in progress."
This conversation actually happened, and I was very pleased it was a woman who asked the question rather than me, because I would have been tossed out on my ear.
We hang far too much value on the term 'diversity', without ever really defining what we are looking for. Most of the time, it's a meaningless word, because it can mean whatever the person using it wants it to.
And what do we get with so much diversity? Discussions about how one group or another is going to save the world if we only give them a chance. What most proponents of diversity are saying is they are hoping a certain group of people will come with a single mindset that is closer to theirs, and change policy in their favor. After all, more women in Congress is a good thing if your goal is more women, but it's not necessarily a good thing because they all agree. Should the current Congress have been made up with 100 Sarah Palins, you have to wonder what the response would be. Would the exhiliration over all the current female members have been spent ripping the 100 Palins to shreds and talking about the danger of a single mindset? This assumes you could actually find 100 women who all think alike, and just like Sarah Palin. Palin may be the kind of diversity proponents of diversity dislike.
I'm all for the best person for the job. I don't care about their gender or race, and I never have. Yet when a company begins telling me my hiring practices need to become diverse, what they are really telling me is they want to have a greater say in who gets a job, rather than hiring the absolute best person.
Diversity isn't, and can't be, a goal. It's a character. Companies can be diverse, but one can't necessarily be more diverse than another. Sure, a company comprised of all-white men versus a multiethnic company with a female CEO may seem less diverse based on gender and race. But what is the background of those men? Are some gay? Are some from overseas? Were some raised by single mothers? How many are Democrats or Republican? Diversity, as my former company's executives pointed out, is also about diversity of thought. Diversity should be encouraged, but not by fiat. If it's not done voluntarily, what have you accomplished, aside from creating some potential animosity?
I have no idea what's going on in any person's mind, but it does help, when I'm hiring, to know that the best person for the job is preferred rather than the person who will make my department achieve an unquantified goal. What we should be seeking isn't diversity, but a free and open discussion about who is capable of doing what, rather than which person can probably do the job but makes the company diverse.
On the other hand, I do recognize the fact that making your company exclusive is not a particularly good idea and could wind up costing you money. If someone wants to hamstring their business in this fashion, shouldn't they be allowed to?
