Opinion
Diversity, equity and inclusion: Action over eloquence please
Summary
- An ‘affinity bias’ could explain why so many organizations that claim commitment to DEI policies fail to walk their talk on the matter, as seen in the low priority it’s frequently given. Sound decisions emerge when diverse views are taken into account and an inclusive culture is fostered.
Asix months’ grace period was something I learnt to negotiate in assignments as one of the first women working in the infrastructure sector. When I was posted in the ports sub-sector, or in a large infrastructure project, many would question my suitability as a woman officer for a role in a male-dominated field.
Inevitably, I would ‘beg’ for six months before a decision was taken to re-post me to an assignment considered more conducive for a woman officer. Things have somewhat changed today, and many women are contributing at different levels in these ‘tough’ sectors. Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) is much propagated. Yet, once senses some impatience with gender diversity.
While organizations claim commitment to DEI, only a few companies, boards and nomination and renumeration committees (NRCs) prioritize what has long been ignored. Who a board includes as member is a strong leadership signal to others in the company.
As the Companies Act mandates that the board must decide its own composition, every board has an opportunity to ensure its own diversity and lead by example. Very often, for inducting members, boards rely on their own networks as this provides comfort and continuity.
Also read: Companies are watering down their diversity recruiting programs
However, known networks are not socially neutral and exclude diverse groups from legitimate opportunities. As Abraham Maslow observed, boards can either step forward towards growth or step back into safety.
Diversity assumes centre-stage in an organization once it goes beyond the stipulated mandate and has more than one woman as a board member.
Nuances in interactions create perceptions and these weave an organizational culture. Often, women employees state that they are hardly aware of board agendas that include a diversity component. Similar concerns led the Union budget to include ‘gender budgeting’ in 2005-06. But corporates rarely study the impact of their plans on differing gender needs and priorities or discuss it.
This should be a board room issue, as the board is a symbol of authority and governance. If it does not insist on diverse viewpoints, it unwittingly encourages exclusion. Board interactions at different levels also set the tone. Is the board given to hearing diverse voices? Does what its members say reflect a quest for equality, or does it convey a condescending attitude?
To increase diversity, most NRCs place the onus on the human resources (HR) team and its leader. Champions of diversity, however, are needed at all levels. Organizations often omit to review specific cultural leanings that prevail within them. It is not just formal processes that lead to targets being met, but also unstructured conversations.
An ‘affinity bias’ is at the root of an asymmetrical work force, and it impacts recruitment, training, assignments, promotions, halting the career progression of those who lack ‘affinity.’ It also confines gender diversity to ‘soft jobs’. If this bias is not weeded out, any DEI achievement would be temporary at best, as attrition would soon set in.
In a race to meet business targets, there is often little patience with diversity, with boards doing little to assess the management’s acceptance of diversity. Today, it is politically incorrect for CEOs not to portray themselves as DEI champions. However, whether the talk is walked must be analysed. One effective mechanism is to include DEI as a key responsibility area (KRA) for the performance evaluation of top managers.
Also read: Greater social diversity in higher education is serving India well
NRCs tend to overlook two key factors: the cost of deficient diversity and the perseverance needed for it. Identifying diverse candidates for various positions can be complex and time-consuming. This is costly, just as provisions like creches, security, maternity leave and childcare support are. Yet, these costs are outweighed eventually by the cost of DEI failure.
Organizations rarely have a formal consultation mechanism that enables women to participate in designing a safe work environment. A clear understanding of women’s needs (safety has a psychological aspect too) is critical to frame robust policies.
As an independent director, my interactions with women employees have been an eye-opener. Achieving diversity is one thing, fostering an inclusive culture, where different voices are heard and valued, is another. Boards forget to assess if their organization absorbs diverse employees well or suffers from a cultural bias that discourages assimilation.
Dismissive attitudes to compliance requirements like POSH, maternity leave, etc, can add to discord. Any talk of the alleged futility of such policies and criticism of ‘privileges’ can create dissonance. Lost in such conversations is how diversity adds value and divergent views form the basis of sound decision-making.
If replication of success is an important part of any strategy, so should addressing what has been neglected. DEI should be prioritized. Women can narrate innumerable instances of patronizing attitudes and indifference to diversity. This needs to end. Boards must demonstrate their commitment to DEI. Action is more powerful than eloquence, as it goes beyond tokenism and testifies to that commitment.
