“No, this is NOT Performative Allyship!”: An introduction to the point–counterpoint exchange on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives

Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives have become central to organizational strategies across various sectors. These initiatives, aimed at fostering a more inclusive and representative workplace, have sparked considerable debate among practitioners and scholars (Hellerstedt et al., 2024; Opoku-Dakwa & Rice, 2023; Prasad & Śliwa, 2024; Thomason et al., 2023). While some scholars are of the belief that DEI is a beneficial necessity for organizations, others have questioned how effective DEI initiatives really are and if they have any real long-term impact. Recently, tensions around these debates have risen and despite research advances, many challenges remain (DiTomaso, 2024; Roberson et al., 2024; Thomason & Sitzmann, 2023). In this point–counterpoint exchange, we present two compelling perspectives on the current state and the future of workplace DEI programs.

In the first article, “DEI Programs' Emphasis on Symbolism: Causes and Consequences,” Ariel Levi and Yitzhak Fried examine the proliferation of DEI programs through a critical lens. The authors argue that societal pressures have driven organizations to adopt symbolic measures of diversity, such as mission statements and DEI units, which often focus more on appearance than substantive change. This symbolic emphasis, they suggest, results in unintentional adverse outcomes, such as allegations of insincerity and the recurrent establishment of progressively unattainable diversity objectives. The authors also highlight the risks of prioritizing visible diversity (e.g., race, gender) over deeper aspects of diversity (e.g., expertise), potentially undermining the true benefits of a diverse workforce. They champion a more circumspect approach to DEI program development and implementation.

The counterpoint article, “Despite the Haters: The Immense Promise and Progress of DEI Initiatives” by Christine Nittrouer, David Arena Jr., Elisabeth Silver, Derek Avery, and Mikki Hebl, promotes the positive impact and promise of DEI initiatives. They emphasize the historical roots of DEI initiatives and the significant progress that has been achieved. In the face of pushback and blowback by “the haters,” the authors underscore the empirical evidence supporting the effectiveness of DEI programs. They discuss various successful DEI initiatives that focus on both representation and inclusion and highlight the long-term benefits that emerge from such initiatives. By engaging in responsible science and gathering trustworthy data, the authors contend that the long-term benefits of DEI initiatives outweigh the possible short-term risks, presenting a hopeful outlook for the future of organizational diversity efforts.

The introduction of this counterpoint article begins with a quote by Voltaire that warns against allowing perfectionism to stand in the way of what is good. When I read this quote, I could not help but be reminded of the spirited scholarly debate in JOB surrounding the value of emotional intelligence (Daus & Ashkanasy, 2005; Landy, 2005), which is still ongoing many years later (Dasborough et al., 2022). This notion of quickly cutting down something new because the desired results are not yet clear is something I think we should be wary of. As the authors of the counterpoint article argue, by not allowing the idea of perfect DEI evidence to shut down DEI initiatives, we can use the incremental knowledge gained to keep developing and improving the scientific evidence for DEI initiatives.

There is still so much to be learned about DEI given the various blind spots that still exist. In addition to learning about the impact of DEI on financial performance, we also need to examine the impact of DEI initiatives on organizational social performance and ethical outcomes (Van Bommel et al., 2024). To do this, we need more high quality intervention studies that demonstrate valid evidence for DEI initiatives (see, for example, Kazmi et al., 2022; Lau et al., 2023). Moving forward, we also need to carefully study the impact of technological advances on DEI outcomes. Recent developments have led to both optimism (e.g., Chao et al., 2024) and fears (e.g., Abdelhalim et al., 2024), especially about the impact of artificial intelligence on DEI outcomes.

In this point–counterpoint exchange, our goal is to encourage dialog and empirical research on how best to promote genuine diversity, equity, and inclusion within organizations. It is too early to say that DEI initiatives should “go the way of the do-do bird, destined for extinction,” as Antonakis called for with respect to the concept of emotional intelligence (Antonakis et al., 2009). I predict that just like that debate, the current skepticism around DEI initiatives will spur the development of new DEI initiatives in the future. With well-respected scholars providing evidence-based suggestions for helping organizations implement DEI practices (e.g., Burnett & Aguinis, 2024), and a belief that an inclusive society is good for everyone (DiTomaso, 2024), there are reasons to be optimistic despite the challenges.

There is no conflict of interest.