Here is a key paragraph (with some comments from me interspersed):
>However, actions and programs that are diversity- or inclusion-focused do not always result in equitable outcomes. As an illustration, many organizations have developed leadership programs for…
Here is a key paragraph (with some comments from me interspersed):
>However, actions and programs that are diversity- or inclusion-focused do not always result in equitable outcomes. As an illustration, many organizations have developed leadership programs for women in pursuit of more gender diversity in senior leadership roles. These programs often are intended to promote diversity and enable a culture in which the program participants feel included. Yet, many organizations may not update systemic processes, such as internal mobility or performance management practices, that may serve as barriers to equitable advancement.
OK, so far, nothing really objectionable, though it's unclear what these "systemic processes" in need of "updating" might be.
>A focused program does not guarantee equity for those program participants. Instead, equity acknowledges that the organization as a system is designed to give everyone—with both consideration for and regardless of identity—equitable opportunities to thrive.
Still pretty OK, though "consideration for ... identity" gives me pause. But let's go on to the last sentence of the paragraph:
>While the representation of women in the workforce may be increasing globally, the fact remains that for every 100 men who are promoted, only 87 women are promoted—and women leaders are still leaving organizations at higher rates than men.
Now they have given away the real game. Having a promotion rate for women that is 13% below the promotion rate for men is taken as evidence that something is wrong, that the organization is not working hard enough to achieve "equitable outcomes".
So in the end, only quotas matter. This is the true goal of DEI programs, always revealed at the end, after you push through the chaff.
So I googled "DEI equal outcomes". This was the top hit:
https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/focus/human-capital-trends/2023/diversity-equity-inclusion-belonging.html
Here is a key paragraph (with some comments from me interspersed):
>However, actions and programs that are diversity- or inclusion-focused do not always result in equitable outcomes. As an illustration, many organizations have developed leadership programs for women in pursuit of more gender diversity in senior leadership roles. These programs often are intended to promote diversity and enable a culture in which the program participants feel included. Yet, many organizations may not update systemic processes, such as internal mobility or performance management practices, that may serve as barriers to equitable advancement.
OK, so far, nothing really objectionable, though it's unclear what these "systemic processes" in need of "updating" might be.
>A focused program does not guarantee equity for those program participants. Instead, equity acknowledges that the organization as a system is designed to give everyone—with both consideration for and regardless of identity—equitable opportunities to thrive.
Still pretty OK, though "consideration for ... identity" gives me pause. But let's go on to the last sentence of the paragraph:
>While the representation of women in the workforce may be increasing globally, the fact remains that for every 100 men who are promoted, only 87 women are promoted—and women leaders are still leaving organizations at higher rates than men.
Now they have given away the real game. Having a promotion rate for women that is 13% below the promotion rate for men is taken as evidence that something is wrong, that the organization is not working hard enough to achieve "equitable outcomes".
So in the end, only quotas matter. This is the true goal of DEI programs, always revealed at the end, after you push through the chaff.
Sounds right.