Whose ‘diversity’ are we talking about?

It’s not like choosing your favourite chocolate, writes Debra Yearwood.

What’s your favourite diversity? Diversity has become the newest buzzword to flit around business conferences and not-for-profit discussions. It may not be quite as popular as “innovation” in its reach, but close, especially when people work out that diversity comes with more innovation and a host of other benefits.

As an older black businesswoman, I should feel thrilled with this evolution in thinking. After all, I’m a walking hat trick of diversity and yet I’m not just skeptical of the discussion, I’m worried about it. When you treat diversity as a box of chocolates in which you get to choose your favourite flavours, it’s easy to perpetuate exclusion and feel proud while you do it.

Not long ago, I was discussing a diversity project for a client who asked that one of the illustrated figures in their pamphlet be made more slender. Did I mention that the project was one of diversity? Yet to the client, diversity meant gender, not weight. A similar disconnect happens when the government, business, and what seems like half of the posts on social media, want to support women. The support seems almost exclusively focused on young women. If a woman is over 50, she somehow becomes invisible. Embracing particular types of diversity while rejecting others undermines the whole diversity conversation.

For diversity to take hold requires a cultural shift in behaviour and thinking. Labelling practices as diverse or creating diversity-training programs without looking at the structural supports to accommodate diversity is like putting out rainbow flags during Pride Month but ignoring homophobic behaviour the rest of the year.

For example, a longitudinal study of more than 700 companies in the U.S. found that implementing diversity-training programs had had little positive effect and may even have decreased the representation of black women. The problem with implementing policies without introducing real cultural change is that even in the face of obvious discrimination, a policy can operate as a disclaimer or, worse still, a free pass.

Quotas for hiring are equally ineffective and may even undermine the groups they are trying to support. Who wants to be hired because of their gender or ethnicity? Worse still, who wants everyone to assume that’s the only reason they were hired? To truly embrace diversity, we have to look at everyone, not just those who happen to be “popular” at the moment. As a first-time entrepreneur, I have continually been dismayed at how often I’m invited to participate because of my expertise, but then ignored because of my gender or age.

I’m not alone in my observations. A BMO study conducted in 2018 found that the innovations of women entrepreneurs are often inhibited by lack of access to capital for startup and growth, and ageism, sexism and harassment from investors and clients.

I look at myself and think, I can’t separate out all the parts of me that are open to bias. Will I be accepted because I’m a woman, rejected because I’m not skinny? Accepted because I am black and rejected because I’m over 50? Or is it the other way around? Or do I not stand a chance of success because I hit too many diversity challenges? If we want to embrace diversity, we have to embrace everyone and not pick and choose from some obscure menu our particular diversity du jour.

Yearwood is an Ottawa communications professional and the COO of Top Sixty Over Sixty (T60 Strategies), a social enterprise that offers thought leadership, consulting and training on age inclusion. https://www.topsixtyoversixty.com.