#DEIgest 62: We need to talk about equity

DEI, or Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion - has become more commonly adopted by organisations over the past few years, adding the "E" to the previous "D&I". However, mostly driven by the USA, equity has become the latest battleground between the "anti-woke" who see this as nothing but positive discrimination, and the DEI supporters who argue that it is essential to creating a fair and equal society.

So this week, let's take a look at how I believe equity should be defined, and whether it has a future in the workplace.

A complex concept

In my experience, the term equity isn't commonly used - outside of financial meanings like having "equity" in a house or other asset. Most people relate more to "equality" - and indeed in France the concept of "égalité" is firmly enshrined in the national motto, with "équité" being much less widely used or understood.

The complexities and nuances between equality and equity are often not on the radar of the majority of the population, and indeed in common usage one might consider them interchangable, so it is understandable that people might misunderstand or misinterpret what is meant when these terms are used.

Let's take a look at the definitions and some commonly used illustrations of the concepts to explore it a bit further:

Equality: the state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability. Dictionary.com

Equity: the policy or practice of accounting for the differences in each individual’s starting point when pursuing a goal or achievement, and working to remove barriers to equal opportunity, as by providing support based on the unique needs of individual students or employees. Dictionary.com

Notice the difference? Equality seeks to make things the same, whereas equity accounts for differences to give equal opportunity.

Let's take a look at a commonly cited illustration of the difference

In this illustration - we see Equality as everyone being given the same thing, but this leads to different outcomes, and giving resources (boxes) to those who don't need it. In the equity example, we see different resources (boxes) given based on the person's need.

This is an incredibly simplified illustration of the concepts, and it works to a certain extent - however personally I find it has some limits, especially when applied to the real world.

Equity ≠ Guaranteed Outcomes

The main criticism I hear about "equity", especially in business, is that by taking this approach, we are trying to guarantee outcomes. There is a view that resources will be given and decisions taken in favour of minorities until a predefined outcome is achieved, rather than just creating a level playing field on which to compete based on skills/ability so that the best candidate succeeds.

This is further compounded by some countries introducing legislative quotas to "reserve" jobs or university places for applicants from certain backgrounds. This I agree IS positive discrimination - but it isn't equity.

For me - equity is more akin to the starting positions in a 400m race. The starting positions are staggered, as the circumference of the track is bigger as you move out from the centre. By staggering the starts, it ensures each competitor runs 400m. If everyone started in "the same place" - in a straight line - those further out would be disadvantaged and be required to run a longer distance than those in the centre lane.

In my opinion, this is a better representation of what DEI teams and programs should be trying to achieve. The way society has historically functioned had everyone in a straight line, appearing equal, but those in the outside lanes - minorities, marginalised groups - had invisible extra distance to run to win the race. By implementing equitable adjustments or interventions - we can ensure everyone can compete with an equal chance of winning, based on their skills.

So much of the anti-DEI sentiments argue that everything should be merit based, but how can it truly be merit based if some people have extra distance to run, whilst others ALWAYS get the shortest lane?

However, what DEI teams, and managers within the business should not be doing - is giving unfair advantage or shortcuts to try and guarantee an outcome. Levelling the starting blocks is one thing - but giving some competitors a headstart is totally different. This is where I disagree with quotas, or even talent development programs where no alternative is open to colleagues not part of a certain group. Equity is about addressing individual needs - and that includes the needs of those who might be considered the "majority" - my view is that if we aren't careful we risk tipping the balance too far the other way, where white, heterosexual, males DO become discriminated against unfairly - which isn't the goal of equity.

Quotas vs Targets

So far I have mentioned quotas in passing. This is another common area of DEI contention, and also another commonly confused concept with targets.

Often the argument is used that equity is a cover to hit quotas - to ensure X amount of Y people are in Z positions (workforce, management, board members etc.)

In my experience, quotas are extremely limited, and are only legal when imposed by law - such as the reservations system in India which allocates jobs/places in government, education, and legislatures specifically for those from certain designated backgrounds. These quotas also often only apply to government institutions, not private businesses or organisations - so any business that is applying this approach is likely breaking the law.

Targets on the other hand - are just that, targets. There can be legislative targets, such as the Rixain Law in France which requires 30% of women in VP roles and 40% in Executive Leadership by 2029, or company set targets which are agreed internally by the leadership. The difference between a target and a quota is that - it could be missed.

Whilst efforts should be made to work towards a target, especially legislative ones as there are usually penalties, it is possible to not achieve it. Indeed with many legally required gender representation laws - if a company doesn't meet it, the first thing they have to do is explain WHY, and show how they are working to remedy this. The laws also require standards to be enforced to ensure those appointed to the roles have the relevant skills and knowledge - to avoid improper appointments to hit the target.

Targets can be effective means to ensure DEI is taken seriously across a business, rather than a nice to have - after all, what gets measured, gets done. Targets can encourage organisations to look at how they are recruiting, where they are sourcing their candidates, if they can make their employee compensation and benefits packages more inclusive/attractive to more diverse populations - none of this is about hiring or promoting a person with certain characteristics regardless of their skills or abilities over a more qualified person who doesn't have that characteristic. To use another metaphor - if you only fish in one pond, you will continue to catch the same fish. Targets can encourage companies to try fishing in different ponds.

Targets are not without their issues though. Humans will be humans - so when you have a target which may be linked to your performance rating and/or compensation - people may be tempted to do shadey things to achieve the goal no matter what. That is where process and monitoring becomes critical. Businesses must ensure proper processes are in place to ensure fair treatment of all candidates for recruitment, promotion, and development opportunities - otherwise poisitive discrimination can manifest where people are treated with unfair favour based on their characteristics.

Equity is about ensuring everyone has what they need to have a fair shot at reaching the bar - not lowering the bar.

Personally, I still think equity has a place in the workplace and society - if done right. Equity must be about levelling the playing field, to create a meritocracy - I don't believe the two are mutually exclusive. However we must be vigilant that any interventions, programs, or initiatives are proportional, regularly reviewed, and based on sound data - so as to avoid swinging too far the other way into positive discrimination.