The Growing Trend of Companies Abandoning DEI Practices: Insights from the NCRI Report

Walmart has become the latest big American employer to announce it is abandoning DEI. This follows on from similar announcements from employers like Amazon and Twitter/X. So, what is going on?

A recent report by the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI), The Unintended Consequences of DEI Pedagogy: A Study on Hostile Attribution Bias, sheds light on how some DEI programmes might inadvertently foster intergroup hostility and bias, rather than resolve these issues.

To start with let me look at the NCRI study and what it did. The study examined the psychological and social impacts of DEI programmes, particularly focusing on those which followed anti-oppression narratives. These programmes aim to reduce prejudice and promote inclusivity; however, the report highlights several unintended consequences:

1. They could induce a Hostile Attribution Bias DEI training materials, especially those centred on anti-racism and anti-oppression, can lead to participants developing a hostile attribution bias. This means even when they are presented with neutral scenarios, they were more likely to interpret them as discriminatory or unfair.
2. They could engender Increased Punitiveness It was observed that participants exposed to DEI content demonstrated a higher willingness to endorse proactive and punitive measures against perceived oppressors, even when evidence of wrongdoing was absent.
3. They could inculcate a Heightened Perceptions of Racial and Religious Bias In studies focusing on anti-racist and anti-Islamophobia training, participants who engaged with DEI materials were more likely to perceive bias and unfair treatment in neutral scenarios involving race and religion.
4. They found bias effects arising out of Caste Sensitivity Training A similar pattern to the one above was observed in caste sensitivity training. Participants exposed to anti-caste narratives went on to perceive greater caste-based bias and supported punitive actions against individuals portrayed as part of the oppressing group, even when there was no cause to do so.

This has serious implications to any HR person faced with having to deal with an accusation of bias within their organisation.

With this overview of their findings I will now look at the study design and findings in more detail.

The NCRI research used a series of experimental designs to measure the effects of DEI content on participants’ perceptions and behaviours.

• Their Race Study was run at Rutgers University, 423 undergraduates were divided into two groups. One group read an essay by prominent DEI scholars Ibram X. Kendi and Robin DiAngelo, while a control group read an essay on corn production. Both groups were then asked to review a fictional scenario. It was later found that the DEI-exposed group perceived more racial bias and supported punitive measures against a fictional admissions officer in a scenario with ambiguous evidence of discrimination.
• Their Islamophobia Study involved 2,017 participants and examined perceptions of fairness in trials involving individuals convicted of identical terrorism charges. Those participants exposed to anti-Islamophobia content were then found to perceive the trial of a Muslim individual as less fair compared to that of a non-Muslim individual, despite identical evidence.
• In their Caste Study, involving 847 participants, one group read an anti-caste essay by Equality Labs, while the control group read a neutral essay on jāti and varna (Indian social classifications). Those exposed to the anti-caste content perceived greater caste bias and were more punitive toward a fictional admissions officer accused of caste discrimination, even in the absence of clear evidence.

I would argue that the NCRI findings have far-reaching implications for companies navigating the complexities of DEI programmes. In particular I would argue that the following three warrant careful consideration.

Firstly, that despite the obvious good intentions there are clearly unintended consequences to this training. The research suggests that some DEI initiatives, particularly those framed around anti-oppressive narratives, may, inadvertently, increase intergroup suspicion and unjustified punitive attitudes. These outcomes clearly could exacerbate workplace tensions rather than alleviate them.

Secondly that, given the first point, there is an increased risk of some form of backlash. DEI is unpopular in some quarters and as organisations grapple with these findings, they will probably face further political and public scrutiny. For instance, critics of "woke capitalism" might, justly or unjustly, use these results to argue against corporate DEI initiatives altogether. Corporate response to this may end up complicating efforts to maintain public trust.

Lastly there is an increasing need for transparent, evidence-based processes and procedures. To ensure effectiveness, companies must rigorously evaluate their DEI interventions. Programmes should not only be designed with measurable objectives and regularly assessed to identify and mitigate potential negative effects, but open to external audit to ensure the potential for an intrinsic bias is kept to a minimum.

There is a way forward, but it must be built upon balancing intent and impact. The NCRI report clearly identifies problems and challenges within current DEI practices, it also underscores the importance of refining these efforts to achieve their intended goals. To do that companies should consider the following strategies:

1. Focus on Measurable Outcomes All DEI initiatives need to be grounded in evidence and designed to deliver tangible results. Using metrics such as employee retention, engagement, and representation would be a good place to start.
2. Adopt Inclusive Frameworks The training materials used should emphasise common ground, shared humanity and collaboration rather than solely focusing on narratives of “oppression”. This can help reduce intergroup hostility and foster constructive dialogue.
3. Evaluate and Adapt Undertake a regular evaluation of current DEI programmes with particular emphasis on outcomes can help organisations identify and address any unintended consequences, ensuring that their initiatives align with broader goals of equity and inclusion.

To conclude the NCRI’s research highlights the complexities of implementing effective DEI practices. While DEI initiatives are intended to reduce bias and foster inclusivity, some approaches have been shown to unintentionally increase hostility and suspicion. As companies navigate the challenges of maintaining DEI commitments in a politically and economically charged environment, an outcome focused, data-driven and adaptive approach is essential. By learning from this and other research and refining their strategies, organisations can ensure that DEI efforts truly promote equity and harmony in the workplace.