Exploring the paper Mazzucato, M., 2018. Mission-oriented innovation policies: challenges and opportunities. Industrial and corporate change, 27(5), pp.803-815.
Blog two of five, in a series by Dr Chrissi McCarthy.
When we position work around EDI, we usually make one of two choices: the business case or the value case. The business case is that EDI, although in most cases specifically diversity, is good for the business. The social case is that it’s the right thing to do. These two positions have been argued for decades, but how useful are they? I mean, really, what happens in practice?
The business case: diversity doesn’t fail
Creating cultures where people thrive is central to an effective and productive business. However, I do believe that the business case for diversity has been demonstrated. That might sound a bit contradictory, so let me explain.
The business case is generally centred on diversity claims, and it has a few central ideas that tend to repeat.
- Diversity is the key driver
- All EDI work works
- All EDI work has a good outcome
So let’s look at each of these in detail
Diversity is the key driver.
The premise here is that if there is representation, there will be business improvement. Which has some truth in it, but that is only half the story. Diversity without power is still oppressive; look at industries like catering and cleaning. Incredibly diverse sectors, but I would call it a stretch to say people are treated well overall in those sectors. Long hours, low pay and poor treatment are rife. Sometimes diversity is the result of exploiting those in need rather than a healthy work environment.
Of course, that’s not to say there aren’t catering and cleaning companies that treat their people well; there are, but a look at the bigger picture shows something different.
Diversity needs to be well managed to bring benefits; poorly managed or unmanaged diversity is found to cause conflict. So, positioning diversity as the main event is flawed. When diversity alone is the key driver, it often results in a policy-practice gap, where lofty statements of change fail to materialise in practice.
All EDI work works
The second premise is that practice is transferable across sectors and organisations. However, depending on a host of factors, including fairness climate, EDI maturity, and resources, an initiative that succeeded in one place might be doomed to failure in another.
Let’s use employee networks led by organisations as an example.
To be clear, I love a good organisationally led employee network; they can bring change, strengthen policy and provide support.
However, in specific environments, they might well be making things worse.
In organisations with a high perception of unfairness, where employees are more likely to react against marginalised groups, they can act more as a spotlight than as support.
If you add to that a lack of organisational support for EDI, not only is there little to help employees if they are targeted, but some of that targeting may well come from those in power.
To be clear, it’s not that employee networks don’t work; they do, powerfully so in the right environments. But EDI work is contextual, and without the right foundations, the wrong initiatives can be damaging.
A predetermined position
Too often, EDI work is considered to be without risk, so much so that in my nearly 20 years of practice, I’ve rarely seen risk analysis applied to EDI initiatives.
I find that extraordinary.
We covered this in our earlier blog series on unintended consequences.
What’s perhaps more startling about EDI practice is not that risk analysis isn’t undertaken; after all, workloads are a problem, and things get missed.
It’s that it’s not even considered.
The resounding belief seems to be that all outcomes of EDI work are good.
As with any business improvement measure, things can go wrong; how could they not when dealing with so many variables? Without a genuine consideration of risk, how can we expect those at the board level to take us seriously?
EDI has been around long enough for those risks to have been seen and felt.
Without acknowledging and addressing them, we end up with tick-box exercises, as risk is managed through alternative approaches such as reducing work in this area.
Confronting and managing risk is an essential step for business improvement. If we want to demonstrate the value of EDI, we need to show we fully appreciate the change management processes involved.
If we don’t, we make it very difficult for senior leaders to adopt a serious program of work.
What’s the outcome
When we position EDI work through a business-case lens, we can exacerbate these challenges.
- Policy practice gap
- Resistance to EDI
- Difficult for leaders to adopt
Don’t get me wrong, we needed the business case. It got us from A to B and helped us position EDI within organisations.
It was vital.
But it was flawed.
To be clear, I’m not saying that EDI isn’t helpful to business, but in the words of the Fun Boy Three and Bananarama, “it’s not what you do, it’s the way that you do it, that’s what gets results”.
The biggest challenge in EDI right now is how we position it.
To get to the next step, we need an approach that has learnt from the lessons before it, can consider the research, practice and organisational reactions, and leads us to something greater.
We now need to take the next step.
In the next blog we will consider the social case before thinking about mission-oriented solutions
