Diversity, Equity and Inclusion has now become highly controversial – The US and EU are heading in different directions, and the UK is somewhere in between. The EU requires DEI reporting for companies with over 100 staff, (as opposed to 250 for the UK’s gender pay gap analysis). The US has Coke and Pepsi going in different directions…
In the UK, regulators give out mixed messages. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) announced they were dropping their ethnicity disclosure plans on 12 March – just six days later , the government launched a consultation for ethnicity and disability pay gap disclosure on the same basis as for gender, which has been in place since 2017 (again, if there are over 250 employees. )
As more and more corporate information will be thrust into the public domain, let’s look at the formal definitions of DEI elements.
UK law is unhelpful – the expression Diversity, Equity and Inclusion or its variants appear nowhere as a substantial concept in BAILII (register of legal decisions), or in the Employment Tribunal reports. The only reference is tangential, eg, “X was made to attend a diversity course”, which refers obliquely to an anti-racism course.
In a mathematical context:
Diversity – this has been examined extensively in academia – Professor Tom Leinster is a leader in this field – but I cannot find any references to it in my maths textbooks – including the ubiquitous Schaum series. In brief, there are a handful of popular measures – the Hill numbers – developed by Professor Mark O Hill – seem to be coming out favourite at the moment. I’ll expand on further on the main measures later.
Equity/Equality and Inclusion can best be investigated together, and in the context of a corporate in the terms of hierarchy.
With very rare exceptions, corporates operate via hierarchies. Every employee will report to someone, and some will have reports to them.
It’s simpler to look at Inclusion first. Every employee is paid a salary and receives benefits, each of which is a financial negative to the company, and positive to the employee. It is therefore logical to expect employees to reciprocate that situation, delivering corporate deliverables as specified. By doing this well, employees become more attractive to the employer, with the following results:
Increased job security, increased likelihood of promotion, and increased remuneration – bonuses in the short term, promotional increases in the longer term – all as a result of merit (see below).
This will clearly enhance their inclusion.
However, a standard definition is as follows:
Inclusion is the practice of including people in a way that is fair for all, values everyone’s differences, and empowers and enables each person to be themselves and achieve their full potential and thrive at work.
The task is to examine each of these, and consider them in terms of the employer/employee pact above – how does each relate to:
- We pay you
- You deliver work for us
My analysis will appear on this website shortly.
Equality/Equity (or nothing!) – This is always the most flexible element – some companies avoid the controversy, and just promote their “D&I”.
Equality/Equity (same source), have been defined as follows:
Some users of the term equality have associated it with the idea of ‘sameness – same access or treatment’. However, this is a grossly inaccurate interpretation, as sameness is akin to ‘colour blind’ approaches – which can be discriminatory. Equality is not the same as equity. Equity is concerned with the actions taken to achieve a state of equality of outcomes.
Our a) and b) analysis above will indicate an employer’s position on this. Equality of delivery is not mentioned – but should ensure fair reward. If actions under equity are effective, delivery quality should improve for poor performers.
Merit
Although this will obviously vary depending on the job, a professional definition might be as follows:
- Work delivered comprehensively (the whole job done)
- Work delivered accurately (minimal mistakes)
- Work delivered in a timely manner
- Work delivered independently (minimal need for support)
Focusing on these should mean each employee benefits as defined above.
The review of the “E” and “I” may seem non-mathematical – however, most of these issues are managed – in terms of job descriptions, seniority scales and remuneration – between corporate management and HR. We’ll review the effect of pay gap disclosure on various organisations – where information on current states is used to inform change plans – which have highly variable results, and prospects of success.
A word of warning. Diversity Maths interacts with employment law, but I emphasise I am not a lawyer, so cannot and do not give advice. Please consult a specialist employment lawyer to handle your employment issues. I’ll just make one more point – do it straight away. The law has tight deadlines on employment, which may surprise you. Treat any employment law issues as being urgent!
Check out the links below to see some examples of Diversity Maths applications…