In defence of DEI

The consequences of these rollbacks are staggering—all the benefits we stood to gain from building diverse companies, teams, and leadership structures are now at risk of being lost. Studies by McKinsey and BCG show that companies with diverse leadership outperform their peers by 25 percent, and those with inclusive management teams see 19 percent higher revenues from innovation. In 2020, a Glassdoor survey found that 76 percent of job seekers prioritise diversity when evaluating potential employers. A Deloitte study revealed that inclusive workplaces are eight times more likely to have better business outcomes, with employees feeling valued and engaged. According to the International Labour Organisation, closing gender gaps could add $5.8 trillion to the global GDP.

A new acronym — MEI

There have been calls to replace DEI with MEI, which stands for merit, excellence, and intelligence, although the latter concept is not new. It is a given across corporates and intrinsically embedded in performance management frameworks. After all, isn’t meritocracy what businesses are supposed to be built upon? But come to think of it, this is also the basic philosophy on which DEI has been founded. The core of DEI is centered on making sure that everyone gets a level playing field based on merit, excellence, and intelligence, not influenced by their color, caste, gender, religion, ethnicity, being differently abled, or sexual orientation. So, what is the problem?

It’s a man’s man’s world

The 1960s song got it right. The reality is that women entered the workforce late and are still adapting to an arena built by men, for men, and one that continues to be led by men. Imagine if women had been part of the workforce since day one—wouldn’t lactation rooms and parental benefits be considered standard?

Because of their late entry, women face unique challenges where perceptions and preferences have been shaped by historical experience. Biases and stereotypes strongly influence how capabilities are assessed and opportunities are allocated.  Women are told that certain jobs are “too tough” for them, they won’t be “able to travel” or “work late” and frequently, the decision is made for them without offering them a choice. As a result, opportunities are often taken away before they even get the chance to prove themselves.

The cycle continues during performance appraisals when male team members—who were given these opportunities—are recognized for excelling in them. Managers celebrate their ability to handle tough assignments, work late, and travel extensively. But, is it fair to consider their performance superior when women on the team were never even given the opportunity to prove themselves?

Biases also exist within talent management frameworks especially when defining leadership competencies and traits. The persona of a senior executive, a successful leader, is modelled on decades of studies carried out by male authors on male subjects. For most of corporate history, women weren’t even in the room! It is not surprising that leadership traits naturally associated with men like assertiveness, risk-taking, and decisiveness are rewarded and those associated with women – collaboration, emotional intelligence, and adaptability are often undervalued and stereotyped.

The biased workplace conditioning also exists in the form of informal networks that center around areas that were historically of male interest - after office drinks, cricket matches, smokers’ groups, and even casual conversations filled with wife-bashing jokes.  While technically free to join, women remain as outsiders in such spaces. The exclusion is subtle and unintended, but real, and hinders access to mentorship and networking opportunities, both of which are critical for career growth.

“MEI versus DEI” or is it “MEI and DEI”?

MEI cannot thrive in a biased system. The issue is not with MEI itself—it is with the system and how ingrained biases prevent certain groups, like women, from fully demonstrating their merit, excellence, and intelligence. Without an opportunity to shine, talent cannot.

Mature organizations recognize that hiring, retaining, and growing talent is paramount to their success. They also recognize that talent has no gender, but biases do. For them, eliminating bias is never about meeting quotas but creating an environment where every individual regardless of their background has an equal shot at success.

It is never about replacing merit with representation, but ensuring representation is not systematically denied by structural biases.

One of the biggest takeaways from the current and persistent DEI backlash is that clarity of purpose matters. Efforts that are focused heavily on output quotas and that seek to ‘fix the numbers’ can become easy targets for criticism. I would say the criticism comes equally from women because this short term focus detracts from and disrespects their merit and capability. I know enough women who respectfully decline a ‘diversity’ role.

The onus now is on corporates and organisations to take a long term approach on their talent management strategy. With technology taking over many of the process-based roles, the focus is shifting to quality of people versus number of hires. Are we hiring people who are best fits for our jobs? Do we have the best managers? How effective is the management team? These questions have nothing to do with gender. But the perception of who is best and effective is strongly colored by our biases.

The real conversation is not about choosing between DEI or MEI. It’s about accessing the best talent and creating workplaces where talent—regardless of gender, race, or background—has the same shot at success. To build a culture where talent and the accompanying merit, excellence and intelligence can prosper, free of labels and stereotypes. If we get that right, the rest will take care of itself.

(Nupur Garg is Founder of Winpe.)

Views are personal and do not represent the stand of this publication.