The argument was that businesses that had already embraced diversity in the c-suite were more successful than their conventional counterparts. It didn’t translate because most of the companies that supposedly “embraced DEIB” only did so as window dressing and didn’t actually change their culture.
In my experience, execs seemed to think “embracing DEIB” equated to hiring one VP DEIB, giving them zero resources, ignoring their input and expecting the mere act of having a VP DEIB (without doing any real work) would change their culture and foster a welcoming place for diverse talent to thrive.
Inverted causation? Companies with good inclusive professional culture, an eye for talent, know how to find undervalued labor, and promote based on talent do well. As a result, they had diverse staff at high levels.
Hiring diverse staff at high levels, however, doesn't get you the other 4 things.
diverse and not. ive had leaders, peers and led teams of both. diversity in background = diversity in perspectives and invariably leads to strategic outcomes CEOs want to see! And for the last 15 years!
outcomes are not driving this claw back; theyre cutting operating costs and this is the excuse