Debunking The Research Behind Diversity, Equity & Inclusion Initiatives
The subject of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) within organizations has been a topic of considerable argument, debate, and interest in recent years. Woke advocates argue that fostering a diverse and inclusive work environment not only creates a more equitable society but also contributes positively to an organization's performance and bottom line. However, the integrity and validity of the research supporting these claims have come under legitimate scrutiny, as evidenced by a recent academic paper published in Econ Journal Watch.
This new comprehensive study challenges previous research, notably that conducted by the consulting firm McKinsey & Company (a firm penalized significantly for its role in the opioid crisis) which has been pivotal in promoting DEI initiatives within corporate and governmental entities.
In light of this new comprehensive study, it is wise for us to examine the implications of this new critique, scrutinize the original claims made by McKinsey, explore the rebuttal presented by two business professors, and otherwise weigh the broader impact on the DEI movement and corporate America.
LISTEN TO A BONUS AMERICA’S THIRD WATCH SEGMENT
McKinsey's Influence on DEI Advocacy
Starting in 2015, McKinsey released a series of reports asserting a direct correlation between a company's financial performance and the racial and ethnic diversity of its staff. These studies proposed that companies with more diverse teams, especially at the executive level, tend to outperform their less diverse counterparts in terms of profitability.
This line of argument has been a cornerstone for proponents of DEI initiatives, who view such policies not only as a moral imperative but as a strategic business advantage. The now-proven false assertion that inclusivity can lead to better financial outcomes has made a compelling albeit false case for organizations to adopt DEI practices, influencing a wide array of so-called “stakeholders” from business leaders and academics to government agencies and the media.
However, the robustness of McKinsey's findings has been questioned by two business professors who, upon attempting to replicate the results, discovered significant discrepancies.
Their research, published in Econ Journal Watch, indicates that McKinsey may have distorted its findings, with the professors finding "no evidence of any statistically significant" link between diverse executive teams and improved financial performance:
“Our findings lead us to two main conclusions and an emphasis. First, we conclude that caution is warranted in relying on McKinsey’s findings to support the view that US publicly traded firms can deliver improved financial performance if they increase the racial/ethnic diversity of their executives – not only because we are unable to replicate the same statistically reliable association between firm financial performance and executive race/ethnic diversity as they report, but also because the structure of McKinsey’s tests are such that by measuring firm financial performance over the four or five years leading up to the year in which they judge the race/ethnicity of firms’ executives, the default direction of causality that McKinsey capture in the positive correlation they report is that better firm financial performance causes firms to diversify the racial/ethnic composition of their executives, not the reverse.
“Second, we conclude that in light of the prominence of the connections between firm financial performance and the racial/ethnic composition of their employees, not just in the US but around the world, there is great value in future research that would seek to empirically test for the presence, sign, magnitude, and direction of any causal relations that exist. Such longitudinal and causality-oriented studies may also help bring into sharper focus the identities and sizes of the costs and benefits, as well as the risks and returns, that are associated with higher or lower racial/ethnic diversity, not only in firms’ executives but in their Boards of Directors and rank-and-file employees. In this regard, we believe that our own work, published in a separate paper to this, represents a useful beginning.”
These revelations are significant, as they directly challenge one of the key arguments used to justify the implementation of Woke and debilitating DEI policies in the business world.
The Wider Impact of Faulty Research
McKinsey's research has been among the most cited and influential in the realm of DEI advocacy, shaping the policies and practices of numerous corporations, academic institutions, and government bodies.
For instance, in 2017, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence referenced McKinsey's studies to bolster the case for diversity within US intelligence agencies, asserting a tangible link between diversity and "measurable improvements in business performance."
Such endorsements highlight the considerable influence of McKinsey's research on the broader DEI discourse and the implementation of related policies; policies that routinely see ability and merit taking a backseat to skin color and ethnic origins; policies that are, at best, intrinsically racist at their core.
Ideological Biases, Woke Activism & Contempt For The Truth
Critics of DEI initiatives often point to ideological biases underlying the push for more diverse workplaces, suggesting that such efforts are motivated more by social and political agendas than by empirical evidence of their efficacy. These criticisms are more fact than opinion.
An employee who co-authored the McKinsey studies underscored this perspective in 2020, arguing against merit-based hiring on the grounds that it inherently disadvantages minority groups due to systemic biases. This stance reflects a broader ideological commitment to DEI principles among many Woke Marxist-Progressives, who view these practices as not only beneficial for business but also essential for “social justice.”
The revelation that McKinsey's influential research may be deeply flawed is unlikely to significantly hinder the momentum of the Woke movement’s DEI initiatives. For many Woke advocates, the commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion transcends empirical evidence and usurps truth, their beliefs rooted in the deep-seated but baseless moral righteousness of these policies.
As such, disingenuous and destructive efforts to promote the false virtues of DEI within American society and beyond are more likely than not to continue – especially if the political pendulum swings to the Right next November – albeit in a more muted tone, but nevertheless driven by a conviction in the inherent value of race-based (read: racist) diversity and inclusivity.
Time To Replace Racist Ideology
With Colorblind Meritocracy
The challenge to McKinsey's research on DEI and financial performance raises serious questions about the “factual foundations” underpinning the push for more diverse workplaces.
While McKinsey's initial findings offered a compelling narrative linking diversity to business success, the inability of subsequent researchers to replicate these results calls for a complete re-evaluation of the whole of the DEI concept and its initiatives.
Despite these new and damning revelations, the Woke community’s commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion remains strong among many who place importance on virtue signaling above the facts and the truth, reflecting a disturbing and much broader cultural and ideological shift towards race-based decision-making; on apathy and ignorance which values diversity not just as a means to an end, but as an end in itself, regardless of how it damages our society’s ability to thrive and advance.
As the conversation around DEI continues to evolve, it will be crucial to balance the aspiration for a more inclusive society with a rigorous examination of the strategies employed to achieve that goal and a reinstitution of meritocracy across the board, promoting those best suited for “the job” because of their abilities rather than their skin color.
To acquiesce to DEI as it stands today is to embrace a contemptible form of retributive racism and one only a shallow Neandrothalic culture could embrace.
Take Back Your Mind
Think For Yourself