The phrase “a wolf in sheep’s clothing” is from one of Aesop's Fables: a wolf disguises itself in a sheep’s skin to blend in with, and ultimately prey on, a flock . The story serves as a moral lesson about deceit and the danger of those who pretend to be something they are not, often to cause harm. Nowhere does the phrase apply more aptly than with “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” policies in organisations.
Within the DEI framework we are led to believe that ‘diversity’, in itself, is an inherent good where businesses with a diverse workforce will somehow be magically better: the ‘diversity dividend’ rather than a workforce chosen on merit, on competence. It does not seem to occur to proponents that diversity can also be a neutral (of no benefit) or just bad, e.g., additional training is required because people have not been chosen on merit, or bad ideas are introduced into an organisation by people not chosen on ability with consequent waste of time and money. If the ‘diversity dividend’ were a real thing, then we would see the collective benefits in diverse cultures; rather, we see the opposite: ‘low trust’ cultures developing in organisations and even at national levels, often resulting in conflict and a breakdown of harmony and efficiency.
We are also led to believe that ‘equity’ is a good thing. Many people, particularly ‘Generation Z’, don’t know the difference between equity and equality. Equality means giving everyone the same resources, rights or opportunities. For example, in education, equality means all students receive the same textbooks, lessons and time with the teacher, regardless of their different learning needs. Equity, unlike equality, seeks to provide individuals with tailored resources to achieve equal outcomes and recognising that people face different challenges. In education, this might involve giving struggling students extra tutoring or tools to help them perform at the same level as their peers. In the workplace, it could mean offering less-skilled employees additional support to meet the same output as others.
While this sounds fair in theory, it raises important questions: why should businesses hire individuals who require extra training and resources to do a job when someone else can already do it without additional support? It is not the role of a business to hire less-qualified people and then prop them up to perform, as this undermines productivity and efficiency. In fact, diverting resources from top performers to those who need more assistance risks dragging down high achievers.
Moreover, equity empowers a select few to decide who is ‘disadvantaged’ and deserving of extra resources. This means that those in charge may make these decisions based on personal bias, favouritism or even for their own advantage. What qualifies these individuals to determine who should succeed and who should be held back? Historically, those in power often act out of self-interest or ideological motives so the assumption that they are best equipped to pick winners and losers is deeply flawed.
Furthermore, when some individuals cannot meet the desired outcomes despite the extra support, equity often results in lowering standards to give the illusion of success. In many cases, this not only artificially elevates some but also requires pulling others down, eroding fairness and stifling exceptionalism.
When equity is combined with a focus on diversity, organisations that consistently apply both policies will inevitably hire less-qualified staff thereby weakening their level of achievement and productivity. First, the hiring pool shrinks, excluding some highly qualified candidates. Second, with an equity focus, DEI hires will need extra support and may still struggle to perform. The organisation’s overall ability to function effectively diminishes, leading to substandard performance.
The final pillar of DEI policies is ‘inclusion’. Proponents argue that fostering an inclusive environment, where all voices are heard and respected, strengthens teamwork and innovation. However, like diversity and equity, the value of inclusion depends on how it is applied. While it’s important to ensure that everyone feels they belong, inclusion can become problematic when it undermines merit and competence. Prioritising accommodating all viewpoints and backgrounds can be problematic as it doesn’t consider the individual’s relative ability to contribute effectively to the organisation and it increases the time required to make good quality decisions. Again, this risks lowering the overall standard of performance.
Inclusion, by its nature, undermines meritocracy. A clear example is professional sports, where physical attributes are critical to success. A player who is 1.5 metres tall, no matter how skilled, would struggle to compete effectively in a game dominated by athletes who are over two metres tall. Merit, skill and inherent attributes often determine success and inclusion policies lead to lower standards. As an example, when $350 million was given to NZ media to keep it afloat during Covid (an initial 50 million and then another 300 million to the Public Interest Journalism Fund) it came with strings attached, with specific requirements to bolster Māori and Pasifika content and representation, e.g., hiring more Māori and Pasifika journalists in order to appear more ‘inclusive’. It is difficult to see what improvements this has wrought, as the NZ media industry continues to struggle. TV3 has been closed down, there are calls for TV1 to be privatised and Radio NZ listener numbers continue to drop.
A related issue is ‘groupthink’, which occurs when a group of people prioritise consensus and harmony over critical thinking and individual opinions. Members often suppress dissenting viewpoints, avoid conflict and make decisions without objectively considering alternative ideas.
Characteristics of groupthink include:
· Illusion of invulnerability: becoming overly optimistic and ignoring potential risks or warnings.
· Suppression of dissent: those who hold differing opinions feel pressured to conform and to avoid conflict.
· Stereotyping outsiders: the group may develop an ‘us versus them’ mentality, seeing those outside the group as less capable or informed.
· Rationalisation: the group may downplay concerns or negative feedback by rationalising questionable decisions.
· Belief in inherent morality: believing their actions are morally superior, leading to unethical decisions.
Groupthink can arise in business, politics and social groups and lead to poor outcomes by suppressing creativity, independent thought and constructive criticism. Many organisations, especially within the civil service, are prone to groupthink. For example, the prevalent view that the Treaty of Waitangi is a ‘partnership’ reflects a groupthink mentality.
When groupthink is paired with DEI policies then the outcomes will inevitably be suboptimal and resistant to change. Groupthink gives people or organisations a belief that their morality is inherently better than others and this gives them the right to deny others a platform. An example is university administrations disallowing speakers that do not affirm their beliefs about sex and gender. Our supposed bastions of truth and free speech have become echo chambers of DEI groupthink.
Therefore, one observes with concern the following job advert:
Particularly when there is a requirement for those applying for the role to show:
· The employer is demanding that you demonstrate adherence to DEI ideology.
· It represents a deliberate hiring bias rooted in ideology and is immoral and probably illegal.
It highlights how government hiring policies have shifted away from merit and instead require candidates to ideologically conform. It is a DEI wolf that cares not for the success and survival of the organisation, which is the mandate of the HR department, but would rather promote DEI within the organisation. The ultimate outcome of these policies will be a department with individuals having congruent views (which is not ‘diversity’) and fostering an entrenched and harmful culture of groupthink.
Not only should this advert be withdrawn but the HR department responsible for the policy should be restructured, as they are obviously not seeking the most qualified people for a role that is supposedly important enough to command $200k per annum.
New Zealand has a systemic DEI problem. These hiring practices exist in universities, city councils and many companies, driving down standards of service quality. People deserve competence. We cannot command that DEI policies be overhauled in private companies, the market will inevitably take care of that, but we should demand change within the public service that we pay for.
