Greater diversity in our teams and our organizations have long been stated, with many of these arguments highlighting the strong “business case” for such diversity. Does this inevitably portray diversity as a means to an end rather than something valuable in and of itself, however?

Research from Yale set out to explore whether framing diversity as something that is seemingly only appreciated for its business benefits was both realized by minority groups and works to undermine them in the workplace.

The case for fairness

This contrasts with the “fairness case”, in which diversity is simply the right thing to do and is not dependent upon it benefiting the organization. The researchers first trawled the websites of each of the Fortune 500 to understand how each company described the importance of diversity, and why.

They then used machine learning to categorize each company’s explanation as either the business case or the fairness case. The results show that 80% of Fortune 500 companies currently describe diversity as valuable because of the business case, with just 5% doing so due to its inherent fairness.

The researchers then turned to whether this matters. They recruited over 150 LGBTQ+ MBAs and business school alumni via a recruitment conference and asked them to imagine they were looking for a job and read that company’s diversity statement. Half were shown the business case-based statement, and the remainder the fairness case-oriented statement. They were then quizzed on how strongly they felt they would belong to each company.

The results show that those who had been assigned to the business case statement were much less likely to feel a sense of belonging than those who read a more fairness-oriented statement. This then corresponded to a lower interest in joining the company. Similar results were then found among women looking for jobs in STEM fields, and again among Black students.

Undermining minorities

“When members of underrepresented groups enter a new environment,” the authors explain, “they’re alert to signals suggesting that they might be evaluated through the lens of their social identity (e.g., as a female engineer, rather than just as an engineer). Since this often comes with stereotyping and discrimination, such cues can trigger concerns that they will be less valued there. As a result, underrepresented job seekers start questioning whether they would really belong in that environment.”

Indeed, subsequent studies showed that minority groups who encounter the business case reported greater concern that their employer would view them through the lens of their social identity, and indeed that they would be judged through that lens. It’s something academics refer to as a “social identity threat”.

In other words, it makes people feel personalized and an almost interchangeable entity with any other member of their social group. Participants also said that they regarded the commitment to diversity of utilitarian organizations as less genuine. The results suggest that while framing diversity in terms of its business benefits may be well-intentioned, it could actually backfire.

“It sounds positive on the surface, but its inherent instrumentality actually undermines organizations’ efforts to attract individuals from these underrepresented talent pools,” the authors conclude. “What this work allows us to acknowledge is that organizations’ explanations for why they care about diversity do matter, and that they may be harmful even when they superficially sound positive.”