Time to close the business case for diversity

Phrases like ‘it makes good business sense’, ‘it’s good for the bottom line’ or ‘more diverse businesses make more profit’, are meant to encourage change but what they really do is uphold systems which can ultimately cause harm to marginalised voices and fail to cause change where it matters - in the beliefs, attitudes and actions of people with power.

We talk about diversity in this way because we’ve been told that’s how best to get the attention of those in power. Talking to your audience in their language is one of the tenets of good communication but when it comes to diversity this is one rule we need to break because doing so doesn’t change the status quo.

Using the business case for diversity as your primary argument means that I, a disabled woman, need to talk about my worth, my skills, my value, in a way which enables you to stay within your comfort zone. By using the business case for diversity, I am changing both how I talk about my illness and my place in this industry to make you more comfortable. It’s at odds with the commonly uttered phrase in diversity work ‘getting comfortable with being uncomfortable’. It’s not progressive and it’s not going to usher in lasting change. 

The way the business case argument is used is that the burden of proof falls to marginalised and oppressed people. Justification of worth in terms of the profit and monetary benefits that someone can bring to your business will always lead to tokenism because it equates people with cold hard profit; you’re here because the numbers work. It requires no evolution of thought or change in behaviour to enact. 

Perhaps one of the most uncomfortable aspects of the business case argument is that instead of dismantling systemic oppression it’s actually upholding it. In 1996, the Harvard Business Review published a piece called ‘Making Differences Matter -  A New Paradigm for Managing Diversity’ and this is where much of the research we now base ‘making the business case for diversity’ on was first mooted. However, what most organisations failed to take on board was the fact that different people learning from each other formed a central pillar of the diverse business success hypothesis. 

Instead, most businesses focused on the bit that felt familiar; increased profits and revenue, ignoring - wilfully or otherwise - the primary findings set out by the original scholars. This lack of importance given to absorbing and trying alternative ways of thinking, acting and behaving gives an illusion of inclusion whilst keeping in place systemic barriers caused by racism, ableism and misogyny. The very real impact of this is the continued mistreatment and othering of marginalised people. We all know diversity and inclusion leads who are either burnt out from battling for change or, worse, those who get accolades and awards whilst simultaneously contributing to the discrimination problems we have in this sector. 

Moving away from homogeneity in the workplace has always been about challenging thought processes (i.e. those which serve only the dominant cultures) and changing behaviours. Continuing to use the business case for diversity in its currently understood form may appeal to a board, but there’s increasing evidence it does more harm than good. Without the addition of the ‘learning and effectiveness paradigm’ the authors of the Harvard Business Review article mention, the business case is ultimately a superficial and ineffectual communication tool.

If organisations insist on retaining the business case as a tool for diversity work then they must take on both parts and put in a robust and measurable plan with education at its core. 

In the world of DEI doing the work on ourselves first and organisations second is important. Decolonising our workplaces starts with unlearning harmful behaviours, identifying discriminatory practices and acknowledging the ways in which we contribute, inadvertently or otherwise, to this. 

This approach, when done in partnership with actions like reverse mentoring, collecting and publishing pay gap data on gender, race and disability, and developing inclusive processes around recruitment, retention and promotion, will do more for the inclusivity of an organisation than a bottom line argument ever will. 

Sara Thornhurst is a Chartered PR practitioner and a disability activist and educator. She has been a visiting lecturer in digital marketing at Leeds Trinity University and was cited as one of the Shaw Trust’s top 100 influential people with a disability in 2018. Sara has spoken on disability inclusion, accessibility and diversity issues at multiple industry events. She is also the Chair of the CIPR Yorkshire and Lincolnshire regional committee.

Featured image by coffeekai on iStock