Managing Diversity Hasn’t Provided Answers to

Legitimate Pushback

Managing Diversity efforts are fundamentally change efforts. Most initiatives try to capitalize on the differences among employees, customers, suppliers, and/or external stakeholders as a way to generate greater organizational performance. But one of the criteria for judging whether a change effort is effective is how it manages the resistance that inevitably arises. The Achilles’ heel of the argument for diversity has been that greater diversity doesn’t guarantee superior bottom-line performance. Diversity proponents have tended to worry that this is a fatal flaw in making their case. Critics might ask, from a purely utilitarian perspective, “What is the point of generating more diversity if, in fact, it won’t improve performance, or could diminish performance?” Traditional diversity initiatives, as a result, are sometimes characterized by a kind of fragility. Proponents struggle to reinforce the legitimacy of diversity efforts in the face of skeptics and resisters. And repeatedly being questioned about the importance of diversity activity can create a defensive posture.

In light of this, one of the most significant challenges for diversity professionals is dealing with the pushback on diversity activity from members of the organization who support the status quo. In a Managing Diversity world, diversity professionals and advocates take comfort in the fact that this is a manifestation of resistance to change. And it surely is. But just because resisters are making their points just to be oppositional doesn’t mean those points aren’t legitimate.

When a critic asks why the female employee with lower qualifications was hired over the male employee, most Managing Diversity scripts don’t equip proponents very well to answer, “Because we want more women. Period.” In response to the observation that matching company demographics to society demographics is arbitrary, it can be a challenge to admit, “You’re right, it is. We shouldn’t be pursuing that aggressive a demographic shift.” Or to say, “We should pursue a much more aggressive demographic shift.” As with any change initiative, Managing Diversity rationales are imperfect and embody contradictions. Flaws will constantly be pointed out by those resistant to diversity. Imperfections and contradictions are not fatal flaws per se. Failing to address them adequately is. That is one of the problems with Managing Diversity.

There are a number of thoughtful responses to the critically important question of why organizations should undertake diversity, some of which I will address in this book. Some of them are complex, and that complexity will make it easier for those who resist diversity to dismiss or undermine it. But there is no reason that leaders who advocate for change can’t respond to that resistance with compelling alternatives. Hopefully, some will be found in these pages.