Making diversity trainings work

The demand for diversity trainings has increased markedly over the last decade, at least partly because top-level executives fear that employees may be discriminated against due to their race, age, gender, religion, or other cultural characteristics, which can have legal consequences. However, organisations exist whose main objective is to help employees learn how to connect better with others, or effectively communicate in the workplace. Whatever the reasons, goals, or meanings behind it, diversity training is perceived as having the potential to make a positive impact towards learning how to deal with difference and overcome prejudice.

However, most diversity trainings fail to achieve their goals, whether it’s teaching people to respect others with different cultural characteristics, challenging the prejudices and biases they hold about different cultural groups, or decreasing discriminatory behaviour within the company. In fact, they might even backfire. In this post, based on research findings and my own experiences in the field, I discuss some of the reasons why a diversity training might not work and even increase biases and prejudice, as well as what can be done to tackle this issue.   

The term ‘diversity’ is currently used very narrowly

When someone mentions the term diversity, you might be inclined to think they are referring to cultural differences based on ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or gender. Although this is true, it can also be limiting, especially in the applied context. To provide a broader focus, we should encourage people to perceive diversity as encompassing not only cultural differences, but also other differences such as differences in personality characteristics. Although such aspects would be referred to as individual differences in the psychology literature, when it comes to diversity training programs, I’d argue that a broader focus would help practitioners shape the aim and content of interventions to be more effective. For instance, rather than solely emphasising different categories, as I discuss more below, a wider focus can broaden the scope of a training and ensure that it is built around skill development, such as how to effectively communicate with people with different personality characteristics.

There is too much focus on categorisation

Trainers love exercises which require participants to form small groups based on  characteristics such as gender, sexual orientation, religion, or ethnicity. Although categorisations help us make sense of our world generally, they have the potential to trigger negative emotions such as contempt and even hatred and decrease our respect toward a given group. The more we focus on categories, the more we solidify the idea of categories, and hence prejudice. It’s critical to acknowledge the fact that as humans, we are more than any single characteristic. It could be more effective to show people the importance of perceiving one another as fellow human beings. Despite our individual and cultural differences, we all have a common denominator: we are human beings. Trainings should be built around this notion and avoid labels or reducing people to certain categories. This doesn’t mean we don’t acknowledge that someone is Jewish or gay or white. However, the key point is that when we define people in terms of such categories, we fail to see their individuality. Training sessions need to foster an understanding of each individual’s sense of uniqueness as a person, rather than which category they belong to. Forget about categories and show some data on why diverse teams and groups are better in terms of collaboration, creativity, and success.

 We can’t change biases by issuing commands

We are wired to resist external forces seeking to limit our autonomy. We don’t like to be told what to believe or what to do. This has implications for helping people work on their biases and prejudices. That is, even when you issue commands, when you blame and shame, you can’t make people stop believing what they believe in. On the contrary, these actions lock people into their positions and make them defend their beliefs more. Try to force people to adopt a certain behaviour and you will only trigger resentment. So what is the alternative? Helping people with their perspective-taking, communication, empathy, respect, and acceptance skills is deemed to be much more useful and effective than directly asking them to change their beliefs. Teach them how to recognise other viewpoints, ask challenging questions, debate, and have a decent conversation with others.

Similarities are very much ignored

Human beings come in different shapes and sizes. It’s amazing to see how we differ from each other in many aspects. And we love to notice and show each other these differences. However, despite these differences, we’re also similar in many respects. In fact, contrary to popular belief, we have more similarities than differences. For example, contemporary research shows that gender differences in intelligence or certain abilities are less profound than we might think. Basic emotions are universal, and social relationships are the source of happiness all around the world. One of the reasons why diversity trainings have a poor reputation among participants and why they fail is that they ignore similarities among people and focus too much on differences. Diversity matters, but so does human universality.

 There should be more focus on skill building

Because most diversity trainings tend to focus on categorisation, as discussed above, they fail to address what is actually the most important aspect: the skills we need to effectively connect with people from diverse backgrounds. The most important of these skills are communication and empathy, acceptance and positive regard. These concepts have roots in humanist psychology, which emphasises the individuality of every human being. We can teach people perspective-taking so that they can better understand others’ point of view. We can teach them how to have effective conversations with people who have difficult personalities. We can teach them how to practice acceptance of other people’s diverse traits. Trainings that help people convert humanist values into practical skills might prove more effective in the long run.

Mandatory trainings don’t really work well

Despite their good intentions, organisations often fail to consider one of individuals’ basic psychological needs – autonomy – and make diversity training obligatory. When our motivation to attend something is to avoid punishment (such as a warning or disapproval), our sense of agency is diminished, creating a feeling of displeasure. This is likely to result in a lack of interest and limits the value we can get from the session. When it comes to diversity trainings, a mandatory attendance policy generally gives the message that the organisation’s motive is to avoid possible legal problems. This motive is not bad in itself, but it’s not meaningful for many employees. In addition to raising the quality of the trainings, as discussed above, we can also increase employees’ motivation by making attendance voluntary and advertising the individual benefits of the training in a way that catches people’s interest. What strategies will the participants learn to practice perspective-taking? How can they become more empathic? What are some practical skills for communicating with people from diverse backgrounds? Try focusing on making what the attendees will get out of the training relevant and attractive.

Diversity training needs to be part of a bigger initiative

Diversity trainings should help institutions turn diversity principles into overall values within the organisational culture. A couple of hours a year won’t achieve much. Trainings must be more comprehensive and delivered throughout the year, serve the unique needs of a given organisation’s employees, and encourage managers to hire people from diverse backgrounds. When diversity training is complemented by other initiatives, there will be bigger effects in the long run. It’s not easy to change people’s attitudes and help them replace old habits with new ones. Organisations should focus on the big picture, realising that such initiatives should be conducted over a significant period of time and require effort and commitment. Leadership support is also crucial for this point. If the leadership does not understand what diversity means, why it is important, the best ways to facilitate it in the workplace, and what kind of initiatives can address employees’ needs in this context, diversity programs are bound to fail. Additionally, organisations should evaluate whether the trainings actually work by keeping in touch with employees who attend the trainings, checking institutional records to see whether any relevant incidents (such as discrimination, bullying, etc.) happened, check who is promoted and who is not, and keep an eye on the organisational situation for minority groups (in terms of age, gender, education level, health status, etc.).

In summary, in order to create a more accepting and tolerant society, I recommend taking a broader, multifaceted perspective on others’ characteristics. You don’t have to adopt all the new approaches you come across or do everything that others are doing. What your organisation and your employees need might be completely different from others. Every organisation has its own culture in terms of how people like to learn. Therefore, choose a tailored approach rather than off-the-shelf programs.  

And avoid doing diversity for the sake of doing it. If you don’t believe in what you’re doing as a leader, then nobody will.

References

Bezrukova, K., Spell, C. S., Perry, J. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2016). A meta-analytical integration of over 40 years of research on diversity training evaluation. Psychological Bulletin, 142(11), 1227–1274. 

Chang, E. et. Al. (2019). The mixed effects of online diversity training. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2019). DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1816076116.

Kalinoski, Z.T., D. Steele-Johnson, E.J. Peyton, K.A. Leas, J. Steinke, and N.A. Bowling (2013). “A Meta-analytic Evaluation of Diversity Training Outcomes.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 34(8): 1076–1104.