As published on afr.com

DEI, as a consulting cash cow, has in many ways led the charge. If you’ve seen any popular “business case for DEI” material over the past decade, you’ll likely notice its origins traced back to independent research by consulting firms that are sometimes also disguised as not-for-profits (look closely at the revenue and cost structures).

Their solutions? Self-serving initiatives designed to secure future work, leaning heavily on “feel good” language and questionable metrics. These include leadership and behavioural training and resource-heavy “inclusive culture” strategies delivered without credentials, quality assurance, or measurable outcomes.

In short, DEI has been a financial windfall for consultants, far exceeding the gains for the target groups they state they support.

For those who genuinely want to drive change, the story is more sobering. The DEI movement has attracted well-meaning individuals with real experiences of injustice, human resources professionals (another largely unregulated field), and opportunists mirroring the big consultancies. Unfortunately, many DEI initiatives – training programs, quotas, and awareness campaigns – have been copied and implemented without meaningful quality assurance or financial impact analysis.

Ironically, a field centred on diversity has often lacked diverse perspectives from experts in economics, finance, and business operations. In turn, it missed the mark in identifying the customer and accurately measuring and sustaining benefits.

Critically peer-reviewed international research from academia over the past decade paints a starkly different picture from that of the consulting agenda. The data supports ending many common DEI practices now “banned” in the US, showing that the productivity and financial benefits for organisations are instead correlated with the safe expression of a diversity of thought and experience within groups and the design of the practical structures and systems of work.

This doesn’t mean the intent of DEI is inherently flawed, but it does mean that critical analysis of the effectiveness of different initiatives is sorely needed.

Organisations should aim to be healthy, profitable and productive workplaces that attract and retain great people from different backgrounds. The key is rigorously testing interventions and setting up systems to identify and measure unintended consequences – principles that should guide all strategic decisions.

Success shouldn’t be measured by the participation rates of arbitrary categories but through more nuanced, meaningful metrics that align with the overall organisational strategy.

For executives questioning DEI, consider this: are you measuring compliance or outcomes? Are employee surveys and people performance measures correlated with operational performance? What’s the cost of absenteeism and turnover? How robust is your risk management? How do you evaluate decision quality? These questions offer a more grounded approach to assessing the impact of “DEI”.

Strip away the noise of consulting services, and you’ll find that most people share common-sense values: fairness, respect, good work and opportunities to succeed without harming others. People want workplaces where they feel safe, their efforts are valued, and they can make choices that are not limited based on how they look or sound.

I entered the DEI field out of frustration. Frustration with wasteful, sometimes harmful, performative efforts that lacked quality and financial impact measurement and ultimately haven’t benefited the “target” groups anywhere near as much as they should have, given the efforts over the long term. The science exists, and it’s clear what works, what doesn’t, and what needs measurement and testing at an individual organisational level.

Hint: if you’re citing a 2000s publication or consulting firm’s “independent research”, start asking tough questions. Speak up to stop copying and pasting the tired “we are committed to fostering an environment that is …” (we all know it) and inclusive company values into every other corporate statement while keeping “that guy” that everyone knows is a bully in leadership but is just so good technically.

Stop posting more photos of women at morning teas and awards events than exist in your company outside of HR and admin support roles. Stop trying to change the behaviours of individual people through mandatory “thou shalt not” training – it doesn’t work.

Real DEI strategies look like business as usual – technology, facilities, process efficiency and asset optimisation with an overlay of demographic data to understand how work design impacts different groups of people.

Have an issue with retention and knowledge loss? Maybe your over-55 workforce would be less likely to retire if flexible working was normalised. Have issues with work plans not being completed on time and budget? Ask for anonymous feedback on the plan – maybe they are being written by technical people for a non-technical audience? Are women not returning from parental leave? Try asking them why they don’t want to work for you any more rather than just assuming they don’t want to work.

Big organisations already have the data to evaluate their interventions. DEI interventions are not exempt from return on investment analysis. After all, that’s the “business case”.

It’s time to bring diversity to DEI and welcome the challenges from experts in finance, economics and engineering. Building workplaces where everyone is welcome and motivated to meaningfully contribute is possible, but the business case on how to do it needs to stack up in real terms.