Over a period of five years, I interviewed, analyzed responses, and wrote about gender equity from the viewpoint of men. I leaned on my natural curiosity and journalism training to ask men questions about gender, I listened to their perspectives and I did additional research. I am not a man, but I certainly studied what the men said and what research said about them. Men, in particular white men, are the least studied group among a diverse representation; however, this group is in the most powerful position to influence change.
DEI in the News, Not for the Right Reasons
Just as Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives have gained momentum, so too has resistance to the pursuit of equity. Starting with removing Affirmative Action at Land Grant universities, the trend is spreading to other institutions. This week alone, I read these two articles on MSN.com that drew my attention the demise of what seems the right thing to do:
I have worked in corporations, “Corporate America,” for over thirty years. I have seen a lot of progress regarding gender equity and I have seen and experienced the impacts of biases in the workplace. In my mind, however, these two headlines are concerning and movements in the opposite direction of progress. This pushback has manifested in various forms, from legislative measures to social and media campaigns, aiming to curb what some perceive as overreach in the realm of DEI.
Men-In-The-Middle
Understanding this pushback is what drove me to interview and research men. At Fortune 500 companies, I had gone through well-executed diversity and inclusion training with many men who I respected and admired. These men who I sat next to in training, could articulate the business case for diversity as easily as I could; that is, in the training room. Outside of the corporate classroom, the men were silent about gender equity. My curiosity led me to hire a professional researcher, enlist a friend, and together we interviewed men.
The reason I called the book Men-In-The-Middle is in deference to the bell-shaped curve. Most of the men fell in the middle, a group I call the silent majority, a named earned based on my initial observation. The men were willing to participate in a 1 on 1 interviews – I have hours and pages of the transcripts to prove it – AND, at the same time, they were silent – did not speak – at the office about gender equity.
Within the middle, I found two distinctions among perspectives: 1) Gender Blinders, characterized by meritocracy, the idea that we should put a bag over people’s heads when we interview them so that we get the best qualified candidate, regardless of differences and 2) Silent Supporters, those who seem to believe in the idea of equity, based on direct experiences via a mom, wife, daughter or exceptional female boss, but they stay silent.
Based on my research and the strong business case for diverse leadership teams, I am drawn to read and study efforts to stop DEI efforts. The MSN articles refer to the phenomenon as “conservative resistance to DEI often revolves.” Here are some key arguments:
· Critics argue that DEI initiatives can lead to reverse discrimination, where the focus on increasing representation for marginalized groups comes at the expense of merit-based hiring and promotion.
· There's a sentiment that these initiatives can stifle free speech, forcing employees to conform to a particular ideological stance or risk being ostracized or penalized.
· Some have pointed to instances where DEI programs have been linked to divisive practices, such as mandatory bias training that some employees find uncomfortable or accusatory.
· They argue that these initiatives, rather than fostering unity, can create new divisions within the workforce, pitting groups against one another based on race, gender, or other identity markers.
· Economic downturns and cost-cutting measures make DEI or D&I a “nice to have” versus a priority as companies focus on immediate financial gains over sustained cultural change.
Recent laws have sought to prohibit mandatory DEI training or to curtail the use of race or gender as factors in hiring decisions.
Root Cause of Resistance: Understanding Perspectives of Men
Men who occupy middle management or senior leadership roles often serve as gatekeepers or facilitators of organizational culture. Their buy-in or resistance can significantly influence the success or failure of DEI initiatives. The numbers are on the side of the men. More than 75 percent of C-Suite positions, at least in Corporate America, are held by men, therefore, they are in position of influence.
At the same time, this influential group does not talk about gender equity at the office.
The challenge, then, is how to engage these men in a way that addresses their concerns while also advancing the goals of DEI. Men-In-The-Middle suggests that the key lies in framing DEI not as a zero-sum game but as a strategy that benefits everyone, including those who may initially feel threatened by it. This requires a nuanced approach that acknowledges the fears and anxieties that some men may have about DEI, such as the fear of losing status or being unfairly accused of bias.
By positioning DEI as a tool for enhancing team performance, innovation, and overall business success rather than merely as a moral or social imperative, it becomes easier to bring men on board. This involves transparent communication, continuous education, and the creation of safe spaces where men can express their concerns and learn from others' experiences without fear of judgment.
Strategies for Moving Forward
Given the increasing polarization around DEI, it is essential for organizations to adopt strategies that address these challenges head-on. Here are a few approaches based on the principles of Men-In-The-Middle and the current landscape:
1. Redefine DEI as a Business Imperative: Frame DEI initiatives in terms of their impact on the bottom line. Research has consistently shown that diverse teams perform better and are more innovative. By emphasizing the business case for DEI, organizations can appeal to a broader audience, including those who may be skeptical of its social or moral dimensions.
2. Foster Inclusive Leadership: Train leaders, particularly men in middle management, to understand the value of DEI and to model inclusive behavior. This includes providing them with the tools and support they need to navigate the complexities of DEI and to lead by example.
3. Encourage Open Dialogue: Create forums where employees can discuss DEI issues openly and without fear of retribution. This helps to address misconceptions and build a shared understanding of the goals and benefits of DEI initiatives.
4. Balance Merit with Representation: Ensure that DEI initiatives do not undermine the importance of merit. This can be done by setting clear criteria for hiring and promotions that consider both an individual's qualifications and their potential to contribute to a diverse and inclusive workplace.
5. Address Fears and Anxieties: Recognize that some employees, particularly men, may feel threatened by DEI initiatives. Address these fears through education and by demonstrating that DEI is about expanding opportunities for everyone, not taking them away.
6. Monitor and Adjust: Regularly assess the impact of DEI initiatives and be willing to make adjustments as needed. This ensures that the programs remain relevant and effective and that they continue to align with the organization's goals.
Conclusion
The battle over DEI in corporate America is far from over, and the conservative pushback represents a significant challenge for those committed to building more inclusive workplaces. However, by engaging men in leadership positions, addressing their concerns, and framing DEI as a business imperative, organizations can navigate these challenges and continue to make progress toward greater equity and inclusion.
Incorporating the principles from Men-In-The-Middle into these efforts can provide a roadmap for how to do this effectively. By positioning men not as adversaries but as allies in the quest for inclusion, we can build stronger, more resilient organizations that are better equipped to thrive in an increasingly diverse world.
Comments