The How & Why of a "Diversity hire"

In the past few weeks since the announcement that US President Joe Biden will not seek re-election for a 2nd term, but instead will be endorsing his VP Kamala Harris, discussions about "diversity hires" have been reignited. Diversity hiring has been a contentious topic for many years, but has been particularly salient in the post-George Floyd era when companies all over the world made it a point of duty to hire a more diverse (specifically black) workforce. Not surprisingly, allegations started to swirl that companies were either lowering the standards for quality or abandoning them altogether to make it easier for diversity hires to get employed. But is this what really happens? Below, I'll try to explain how this works by considering a few hypothetical hiring scenarios.

First, let's produce a model job ad:

Ideal candidate: 400 points

Minimum points for consideration: 360 (minimum 90 in each category)

In the model job ad above, there are four primary qualifications for consideration. I have purposely labeled them simply as qualifications 1-4, none is more important and it doesn't matter what the specifics of the qualifications are (you can fill them in with whatever you want). What is clear is that the ideal candidate for the job is one that scores 100% in each of the areas of qualification for a total of 400 points. To be even considered for the job, the candidate needs a minimum score of 90% in each qualification—360 points overall. Anything below this and the candidate will not be considered for the job. Having said that, let's look at some CVs:

Scenario 1:

In this first round of candidate vetting, we can see that the four top candidates all have an equal score of 375 points. None of them has scored less than 90 in any qualification, and each of them has at least one qualification at 100%. Either of the candidates in this scenario would be ideal for the job; on paper, they are equally matched and if they all do equally well in their interview, a candidate could be selected at random and the job could be satisfactorily filled.

But...

Let's say that this company is actively trying to diversify the staff. At the moment, the staff is primarily white, and more than 50% male. Essentially, white men have the largest representation at the company. If that is the case, we can introduce some new information below:

Scenario 2:

The scores are still the same, all that has been included in this scenario is the demographical information about the candidates. We can now see that Candidate 1-3 are white men, and Candidate #4 is a black woman. If Candidate #4 gets the job, she would be considered a "diversity hire." This candidate, who happened to be as qualified as all the other candidates, was selected based on the fact that they satisfied a diversity initiative from the company. There could be any number of reasons for such an initiative: social awareness, pressure from stakeholders, incentives from the government, an attempt to appeal to a new consumer base etc. The point is, this scenario represents what is typical with a diversity hire—a candidate is hired based on a demographic characteristic provided they have satisfied the other qualifications. What some think when they hear "diversity hire" is what happens in this next scenario:

Scenario 3:

In this scenario, Candidate #4 has scored significantly less than all the other candidates, and below the minimum threshold for consideration. If this candidate is hired because of their demographical characteristics, they would also be a diversity hire but one who is not as qualified for the job. The company has not only circumvented its own criteria for the job, but it has overlooked three better qualified candidates. The company could choose to go with Candidate #4 because satisfying a diversity quota is a more immediate priority than hiring a candidate that scored the highest. This might not be the typical scenario, but, and this can't be understated, it does occur on occasion. The company has to assess the trade-off in making such a hire; the rewards for hiring a diverse candidate (social approval, government support), might outweigh the drawbacks in hiring a less than competent candidate (reduced productivity, resentment from non-diverse candidates).

There are two main problems with this sort of diversity hiring:

1. Circumventing the minimum qualifications for the role could potentially hurt the candidate in the long run. The candidate could suffer from chronic underperformance which ultimately impacts the overall performance of the company. If this candidate is dismissed, the company could be accused of discrimination and if the candidate is kept, the company could lose money.

2. Circumventing the minimum qualifications for the role could potentially hurt ALL the other diverse candidates in the long run. Even a candidate like that in Scenario 2, who is equally qualified (or even more qualified) might be seen in the same light as the underperforming candidate in Scenario 3. Essentially, there is an assumption that if the standards were lowered for one candidate in a particular demographical category, it was done for all of them.

The only way to prevent this is to ensure that a hire like that in Scenario 3 never occurs, regardless of how attractive it would be to meet the diversity quota.

Things we aren't allowed to say...

The trouble with making hiring decisions based on demographical characteristics, is that we have to admit all demographics bring something important to an organization. Including straight, white, middle aged men. Thus, a company with an all black female board of directors is lacking something by the very absence of a white man. The reasoning must hold; if black women bring something unique to a board of directors, simply by being black and women, then white men bring something unique to board directorship by virtue of being white and men. Therein lies the issue with modern day diversity hiring, it narrowly focuses on the identity characteristics of individuals (or what they "represent") rather than any fundamental values they could bring to a business place. Diversity in viewpoints, perspectives, and talents should be more important than diversity in genitals, skin colour, or sexual preference.