Although the words “diversity” and “inclusion” have become nearly inseparable in our collective jargon, when it comes to measuring impact or creating initiatives, the vast majority of our attention falls upon diversity.
The main reason for this, is that diversity is very easy to measure and quantify, whereas inclusion is difficult to define, let alone measure. I have developed a way of defining inclusion that makes it measurable, and have argued that focusing on inclusion overcomes some of the negative aspects of focusing on diversity.
What I want to emphasize is that, although diversity is clearly linked to company performance, inclusion in some ways is more fundamental, as it can increase both the level diversity and the performance of a company.
Intuitively, it makes sense that inclusion would influence diversity. We can make a stronger statement, namely, that inclusion is a requirement to establish or grow diversity: if a company fails to be inclusive toward employees, especially those whose characteristics differ from the characteristics of majority employees, the company will find it hard both to recruit and to retain a diverse workforce. On the other hand, if a company has a strong reputation of being inclusive, it’s more likely that someone from a different background will be willing to start working there, even if the company is fairly homogeneous.
Of course, regardless of how inclusive a company may be, increasing its level of diversity is unlikely to happen if the company is completely homogeneous and if it does not actively recruit candidates from outside of its own network. Also, if a company is completely homogeneous, it is less likely that its leaders and employees will be truly inclusive to everyone.
Comments