There is a great deal of hype and social pressure involved in the idea of diversity in the workforce. Unfortunately, many of the arguments are as disingenuous as the teen-ager who wants to stay out all night because "everybody's doing it". Examining the reasoning and background of diversity efforts reveals the ulterior motives for promoting a more diverse workforce-and the unspoken liabilities such slavish obedience to the concept creates:
First, workforce diversity was an offshoot of affirmative action. If affirmative action had been truly a society-driven concept where companies deliberately sought out a diverse workforce, it might have worked. Instead of allowing society to evolve to that point naturally, government yielded to pressure of special interest groups to enforce the concept under rule of law. Race and sex quotas are inherently unconstitutional, as government has no business making demands of private industry, particularly demands they are unwilling to fund.
Firms under government contract for any reason were especially subjected to pressure to hire a diverse workforce. In their haste to comply, many firms hired employees who were under-qualified, costing their shareholders and other workers a great deal. If corporations had taken the social demand of a diverse workforce seriously and attempted to hire minorities on the basis of skill, they would have had a far better chance of making it work. As it happened, many firms were so quickly bullied into hiring the unqualified that they are now stuck with unproductive employees who are a net loss to the bottom line. Then, to be able to terminate the under-qualified worker, they needed to employ a large number of the same race or sex in the same type of position-and document, document, document-to get rid of the non-performer. This usually results in other, high-performing non-minority employees losing their jobs.
A great many qualified minorities were hired under affirmative action: these people are an asset to the firm and it is about time they were no longer discriminated against by employers and allowed to contribute to society to the levels of their abilities. We must be grateful for the opportunities affirmative action created for minorities and, at the same time, see clearly what was wrong with the way this was implemented. The effects of this legislation created nearly thirty years of disruption in many of our employers' workforces, setting productivity back and opening the door further to the off-shoring of business to places where companies wouldn't be subjected to a quota or a court system prejudiced against the employer's right to choose his employees.
Once the barn door was opened by government decree and mandates, the flood of "diversity-generated excuses" rushed out. Now, employers not only had a valid reason for off-shoring many jobs, but they had a ready socially-acceptable excuse to in-source employees from third-world countries at lesser cost than native workers. Many of the same workers who benefitted from affirmative action now face job loss to another, foreign minority. Whether some of these foreign workers are more qualified is debatable on a case-by-case basis. That they are cheaper is a given: fraud and mis-representation in the work visa system assures they will likely be paid less than the average native worker. Continued loud promotion of the desire for a diverse workforce provides acceptable "cover" for those who wish to in-source cheap labor.
Another secret shame of the entire diversity fiasco is that these foreign minority workers often do not work well with the native workers. Poor language skills create an inability of these workers to participate fully in teamwork-oriented positions. Language disabilities also create a situation where the foreign worker cannot adequately explain or understand procedures and idiosyncrasies in complex systems. Because many of these foreign workers are in highly-technical fields, small failures to communicate can cost millions in reduced output. It is common for many foreign applicants to over-inflate their resumes and abilities to gain the job: their lack of English proficiency denies them the opportunity to learn on the job quickly once they get here and contributes to an uncomfortable workplace for them and lowered company productivity.
Further, cultural patterns of work are different in the home countries of many of these workers. Unacceptable ways of dealing with subordinates, verbal abuse and overt hostility toward native subordinates is common in many organizations; political correctness does not have the same power of control that it does with native workers. These concepts are heard to teach in the educational system of a foreign country, no matter how well educational principles are imparted, as a class-system of social interaction is deeply-ingrained into the entire culture. As a result, workers, both foreign and domestic, tend to form cliques of like-cultured workers, leading to a fractured workforce with many aspects of thinly-veiled hostility. Not all workforce tension can be blamed on native workers' resentments, although many employers try. Other cultural expectations may not fit well with the requirements of the business. An extreme example is the growing list of businesses who have been faced with demands from specific cultural groups for special treatment due to their race or religion. The recent case of Somali Muslim workers demanding extra breaks for prayer five times daily created an extremely fractured workforce and disrupted an around-the-clock corporate workschedule in a totally unacceptable and financially-damaging manner.
Hype and over-expectation is what has caused workforce diversity to be a losing proposition within many organizations. Human Resource personnel must work closely with management to make sure all involved understand the risks as well as the possible advantages of hiring for diversity. Diversity for the sake of political correctness is seldom a profitable proposition for any business.