Most people agree the best-qualified person should be hired
Alberta recently announced it will be “scrapping” DEI hiring decisions for public institutions.
With Bill 33, the proposed amendments to the Alberta Human Rights Act would ensure hiring and promotion decisions “are based on merit, not diversity, equity and inclusion policies,” said the government.
“Hiring decisions should be about who is best qualified for the job, and these changes will help ensure that fairness is at the heart of hiring,” said Premier Danielle Smith.
The bold headline is meant to grab people’s attention in promising a solution to an apparent problem. And it’s not a surprising approach from Alberta given its politics.
However, most people would agree with the premise that the person hired for a job should be the “best qualified.”
The problem is a lot of people have preconceived, and faulty, notions of what’s involved with DEI. I’ve faced the issue personally, with friends or acquaintances complaining about the preferential treatment promised by these programs.
What they’re not aware of, or not willing to admit, is that without some kind of focus on or appreciation of DEI, preferential treatment is an everyday practice. When a government like Alberta decides to “scrap” DEI to ensure a neutral contest based on skills alone, that’s not actually what’s going to happen.
Bias against the unfamiliar
That’s because people like to stick with what they know. People like the familiar, the similar, the tried-and-true. So, they’re often going to pick a job candidate who is comforting that way, whether from the same university or the same race, gender or culture.
And this has been proven. Consider the earlier work of UBC economist Philip Oreopoulos, who sent thousands of fake résumés to job postings in Toronto, changing only details like the applicant’s name. Swapping an English-sounding name for an Indian, Pakistani or Chinese one cut the chance of a callback by roughly 28 per cent, even for applicants educated and experienced in Canada.
Extra credentials didn’t close the gap. Listing multiple languages, a better university or a master’s degree did not raise callback rates for foreign-named applicants.
Or how about the work of U.S. academic Lauren Rivera, Peter G. Peterson professor of corporate ethics and professor of management and organizations at Kellogg Northwestern, who found that it's often not the best worker that employers want to hire, but a friend to hang out with.
According to her research, people often value their personal feelings of comfort, validation and excitement instead of identifying candidates who have superior cognitive or technical skills.
As a result, employers don’t necessarily hire the most skilled candidates.
"Of course, employers are looking for people who have the baseline skills to effectively do the job," Rivera said back in 2012. "But, beyond that, employers really want people who they will bond with, who they will feel good around, who will be their friend and maybe even their romantic partner."
ROI of DEI
It’s these attitudes and this behaviour that DEI practices are trying to curtail. This preference for the familiar, this bias against the unfamiliar – that’s what can lead to homogenous hiring with a lack of much-needed diversity.
DEI programs are designed not only to ensure the disadvantaged have a fair chance but to see the benefits of innovation and business success that have been proven to accompany greater diversity.
Boston Consulting Group, for example, studied more than 1,700 companies in eight countries and found those with above-average diversity in leadership earned 45 percent of their revenue from innovation, compared with 26 percent for firms with average or below-average diversity.
And 2023 analysis by McKinsey of more than 1,200 companies in 23 countries found executive teams who were in the top quartile for gender diversity were 39 percent more likely to financially outperform those in the bottom quartile.
Improving DEI programs
That’s why well-designed DEI practices such as structured interviews, a consistent criteria and broader hiring panels are used to level the playing field - and end up boosting business results.
That’s not to say the whole area of DEI is perfect. Research has also shown that diversity training can have a limited impact, that people don’t like being told who they can and can’t hire, that it can spark backlash.
But the same research found that other approaches do work, such as targeted recruitment, mentoring programs and voluntary training.
That's why it's important to keep evaluating these programs, to keep fine-tuning the efforts — especially when a majority (60 per cent) of HR professionals in Canada have DEI initiatives in the works, only a few (22 per cent) are actually measuring the effectiveness of their programs.
Is there really a problem?
Finally, do we even know there is a problem? Does the Alberta government have proof that unqualified candidates are being hired?
Sure, it’s possible some people don’t make the grade, but does that have to do with DEI initiatives? And are there enough to justify complete bans?
Despite this extreme approach, I’m heartened by a report last year from the Future Skills Centre and the Diversity Institute at Toronto Metropolitan University which found that 54 per cent of Canadian workers view EDI favourably, while 27 per cent were neutral, and 16 per cent viewed it negatively.
Despite the major pushback against DEI south of the border, and the preference from many in Alberta to join the U.S. or at least embrace its right-wing politics, Canada overall seems firmly in favour of pushing for greater diversity.
