In the current push for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), some businesses are focusing on “racial parity” in their workforce demographics — that is, prioritizing the hiring of people of color until their internal demographics mirror those of their communities. But does this approach lead to genuine progress, or create new problems? The Cranky Creative explores.
Not long ago, I was invited to interview for a marketing agency that claimed to be an “anti-racist” organization. As you can imagine, this piqued my interest.
To “combat the racism that is woven intricately into the fabric of our country,” the company said it had committed to achieving racial parity in its workforce demographics. As the company operates in a city that is approximately 35 percent people of color, that means it had set a goal of making 35 percent of its employees “people of color” by 2025.
Although the company admits this goal will require it to prioritize the hiring of people of color, its justification is that hiring for diversity now will restore balance to a world that has become unbalanced due to systemic racism in the past.
I don’t know about you, but something about this did not sit well with me. So I did some research to try and understand the arguments, both for and against, hiring for racial parity — and I came across some surprises.
Here is what I found:
Arguments for racial parity in hiring
- Equity vs. equality: Proponents of racial parity in hiring argue that focusing on equal outcomes (parity) is necessary to address historical and ongoing disparities faced by specific racial groups. Simply offering equal opportunities, they say, might not be enough to overcome systemic barriers that have led to unequal starting points.
- Diverse perspectives and innovation: A racially diverse workforce brings together different experiences, viewpoints, and talents, which proponents say can lead to better decision-making, innovation, and understanding of customer needs.
- Addressing unconscious bias: Even with good intentions, unconscious bias can influence hiring decisions. Setting a clear goal of racial parity can hold organizations accountable and proactively address these biases.
Arguments against racial parity in hiring
- Forced quotas and reverse discrimination: Critics of hiring for racial parity argue that enforcing strict quotas based on external demographics can lead to hiring less-qualified candidates or discriminating against other groups to meet targets. This can have negative consequences for both individuals (including those who may suffer the stigma of being seen as “diversity hires” despite being exceptionally qualified) and the organization.
- Focus on individual merit: Critics of racial parity in hiring believe that hiring decisions should be based solely on individual qualifications and fit for the specific role, regardless of race. They argue that focusing on merit promotes fairness and avoids potential favoritism, while prioritizing diversity could undermine meritocracy and create resentment.
- Limited talent pool: Depending on the location and industry, the available talent pool might not perfectly align with the external demographics. Enforcing strict parity in such situations could limit the organization’s access to qualified candidates.
Skills over sex or skin color: why I favor merit-based hiring
For my part, I have always believed that the best way to hire is to hire based on merit. To get the best possible workforce, a company ought to focus on making its best possible hires from a pool of candidates who 1) are interested in doing the job, and 2) have the ability to do it well — regardless of sex, age, race, religion, or any other demographic factor.
Think of it this way. Women have been historically underrepresented in the industries of logging, mining, roofing, construction, and refuse collection. Does that mean that companies in these industries should have to prioritize hiring from the 5, 10, or 15 percent of women who apply for those jobs?
Or does it simply mean that men and women gravitate toward different jobs and activities because they are different, and smart employers would do well to hire the candidates who are most interested and able to do the work?
I believe in equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.
I also believe that hiring based on race is racism. No matter who is doing it. No matter how they attempt to justify it.
That said, I understand that this topic is complex and rife with challenges. Thoughtful and multi-faceted solutions are required.
So let’s take a look at some alternatives to racial parity in hiring. Let me know in the comments below if you can think of more.
Below: Jerry Seinfeld addresses a CBS interviewer’s question about the apparent lack of racial diversity in his show, “Comedians In Cars Getting Coffee.”
Alternatives to racial parity in hiring
- Diversity goals instead of quotas: Setting flexible diversity goals can encourage progress without the rigidity of quotas.
- Focus on building a diverse talent pipeline: Partnering with educational institutions and communities to create pathways for underrepresented groups can expand the talent pool organically.
- Holistic review of applications: Considering various factors beyond just qualifications, such as cultural fit, potential, and willingness to learn, can increase diversity in the workplace.
- Skills-based assessments: Measuring candidates’ aptitude for doing a job can mitigate bias, conscious or otherwise.
- Blind hiring: Using technology or other means to remove personal information from resumes (such as names, schools, and addresses) can reduce unconscious (or conscious) bias.
- Transparency and accountability: Regularly monitoring progress toward diversity goals and publicly reporting results can ensure transparency and help organizations stay accountable.
Ultimately, the goal for employers should be to create a fair and equitable hiring process that attracts and retains top talent from all backgrounds.
Which, contrary to what many people think, is essentially what the term “diversity hiring” really means.
‘Diversity hiring is merit hiring’
A common misconception is that the goal of diversity hiring is to increase diversity for the sake of diversity. No. The term was never intended to mean “hire more minorities.” Rather, the aim of diversity hiring is to identify and reduce potential biases in the hiring process that could overlook qualified candidates from diverse backgrounds. By mitigating bias in sourcing, screening, and shortlisting, diversity hiring ensures a fairer and more inclusive hiring process for everyone.
In my research for this blog post, I came across an article at Recruiter.com that prescribes merit-based hiring as a way to achieve a diverse workforce. The author, Anne-Valérie Heuschen, vice president of corporate affairs at Voxbone, explained how her company achieved competitive gender diversity without strict HR quotas. Instead, they focused on hiring the best talent while remaining mindful of the gender balance in their teams and the organization overall.
Says Heuschen:
“Ideal.com defines diversity hiring as ‘hiring based on merit with special care taken to ensure procedures are free from biases related to a candidate’s age, race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and other personal characteristics that are unrelated to their job performance.’
“So, when organizational leaders wonder how to create more diverse workforces, the answer is simpler than they think: Hiring qualified and motivated employees without bias will naturally lead to a more diverse workforce.
“For many, this answer may feel unsatisfying, but the fact is a hiring policy that turns qualified people away in the name of diversity can only damage your company. Hiring based on merit is the best place to start, and it is how you can remain ahead of the diversity curve.”
It is also a key imperative if we are to avoid the upcoming competence crisis that some say threatens to collapse America’s complex systems, degrading our country’s infrastructure and imperiling the high standard of living that we enjoy today.
One last anecdote about discrimination in hiring
Years ago, while working for a public university, I was assigned to a hiring team. As part of our training, the HR manager said, “If you have to choose between two candidates who are equal in every way, but one is white and the other is not, race can be a tie-breaker.”
As this HR manager was a black man, we all knew what he meant.
As I think back on this, I am reminded of something Elon Musk said recently of DEI: “The point was to end discrimination, not replace it with different discrimination.”
Sadly, many businesses still haven’t grasped this idea. This includes those taking ESG money for hiring based on race and sex.
Share your thoughts on racial parity in hiring
OK, Cranky readers, now it’s your turn. What are your thoughts on racial parity in hiring? Is it the best approach for building a diverse workplace? What do you see as the potential benefits or drawbacks for job seekers, employees, companies, and the economy at large? What alternative approaches would you suggest? And were you as surprised as I was to learn what the term “diversity hiring” really means? Share your thoughts below — and thanks for reading!
If you like this blog post, please share it far and wide. Your support helps keep The Cranky Creative going!
Related reading: Let’s talk about forced diversity in TV commercials, This is why companies are pushing LGBTQ+, Complex Systems Won’t Survive the Competence Crisis (via Palladium)
Main image created using Bing Image Creator.
See all Cranky ad reviews | Subscribe | Go to blog home page
When thinking about DEI based hiring, I’ve got two letters for you – KH.
Although to be fair every bit as qualified to be VP as many others who’ve held the position.
Ok, then. Two more letters for you – JB
I agree he does hire a lot based on demographics.
No matter your political stance, this is a fair example of why hiring primarily on the bases of sex and skin color is a bad idea.
Executive Order 10925, signed by President John F. Kennedy on March 6, 1961, required government contractors, except in special circumstances, to “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin”. – Wikipedia
————————————
DEI does exactly the opposite of Kennedy’s affirmative action. Race, creed, color and national origin are regarded as everything in DEI. DEI’s goal is to make our economy less competitive and our society MORE divided by race.
It’s certainly having that effect, Jerry. Chalk up another one for the law of unintended consequences.
Thanks for writing.
Well written and articulated as always while representing both sides of the discussion. As an HR professional who has done more than a fair amount of hiring it really comes down to demographics of your talent pool. The key word being talent. An organization can market and recruit across various platforms, but in the end is left with those who apply that are qualified for the position. As a company that is very inclusive and has it in our values, at the end of the day we are still left picking the best qualified from those that applied.
Your company is doing the best it can, then, at least as far as the forces it can control.
Regarding all TV commercials…Black must be the “new” White!
Yep, and it’s the same idea here. While our nation is undoubtedly becoming more diverse, I think the attempts so far to reflect this in advertising and recruitment have been clumsy and counterproductive, deepening divisions instead of bringing us together.
I came from a disadvantaged white family and had to work my way through undergrad and law school. I applied for a law clerk position my first year with a large well known bank. It took me literally 6 months to get hired. I found out later it was because the last thing they needed was “another white male.” It turns out, however, that I was the only applicant willing to work full time while also attending law school. When I graduated there happened to be an open position in my department. Although I applied they never even granted me an interview but instead hired a person of color who had no experience in our area of the law. He ended up flaming out. Recently I was hiring an attorney for our team and my boss was down on my recommended choice because he was a white male. I ended up being permitted to hire him when she found out he was gay. These are just a few examples of what I’ve seen and gone through my entire working life. Pardon me for being jaded.
I hear you, Anonymous. The things you described are happening more and more. They meet the very definition of “discrimination” and soon, they are going to have very real consequences for organizational performance, morale, quality control, safety, efficiency, etc.
“The road to Hell is paved with good intentions,” as the saying goes. Except I’m not entirely convinced that good intentions (e.g., fairness and equity for all) are the true driving forces behind this in every organization.