Making the 'business case' for diversity does not appear to be the best way to attract underrepresented job candidates — and it may even harm well-represented candidates’ perceptions of a prospective employer as well.
Why might this be?
The 'business case' assumes that underrepresented candidates offer different skills, perspectives, experiences, working styles, etc., and that it is precisely these “unique contributions” that drive the success of diverse companies.
This frames diversity not as a moral necessity, but as a business asset, useful only insofar as it bolsters a company’s bottom line. It also suggests that organizations may judge what candidates have to contribute on the basis of their race, gender, sexual orientation, or other identities, rather than based on their actual skills and experience — a stereotyping and depersonalizing approach that undermines candidates’ anticipated sense of belonging.
Ultimately, the 'business case' for diversity backfires because it sends a subtle yet impactful signal that organizations view employees from underrepresented groups as a means to an end.
It may seem counterintuitive, but making a case for diversity inherently implies that valuing diversity is up for discussion.
You don’t have to explain why you value innovation, resilience, or integrity. So why treat diversity any differently?
Read article here ->
