Big excitement, small effect. This is probably the best way to summarize the reactions on social media to topics such as the quota for women. Some consider quotas to be imperative in order to achieve gender equality in the economy. The others throw up their hands and say it has to be based on performance and not gender. Who is right?
New figures show that if women continue to be filled in senior management positions at the current snail’s pace, they will not be represented equally in top management until 2052. Against this background, the debate about the pros and cons of the women’s quota is an example of how the entire diversity discourse is conducted in social media: in outrage mode, which largely leaves us in place.
The nature of the discussion is obviously not conducive to the goals that the debate is intended to achieve. The public discussion about diversity, equity and inclusion completely ignores the reality of life, especially in companies. If something is to change in the long term, the diversity discourse must be de-emotionalised.
In the past few months, I have been able to gain a lot of experience advising companies on diversity issues. One thing in particular was noticed again and again: There is a big discrepancy between the diversity bubble in social media and the relevant questions and challenges in companies. On Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn and Co., topics such as “quotas” or “gender-appropriate language” are buzzing. Complex relationships are often drawn in black and white – young versus old or man versus woman are played off against each other. The reason for this is obvious: excitement attracts attention.
Top jobs of the day
Find the best jobs now and
be notified by email.
Waves of indignation damage the cause
In companies, on the other hand, the reality is very different. Of course, the “right” gender is always a concern here, but only marginally. Much more important are concrete starting points for improving the professional situation of women, for questions of feasibility and, most importantly: measurability. In order to successfully anchor diversity in companies, the associated positive consequences must be measurable, i.e. verifiable.
Of course, quota targets also appear here, for example. But not as a means of outrage, but as an instrument for the implementation of concrete goals. Because what cannot be measured will not be done.
There are two reasons why the waves of outrage on social media are actually damaging to the cause of diversity and ultimately preventing changes in companies. On the one hand, the topic can be fearful. You have to be careful of every false tongue move if you don’t want to run the risk of being stigmatized as die-hard. Also: The more people of different ethnic groups or social origins sit at a table, the smaller one’s own place can become in self-perception.
This is a fallacy, but such diffuse fears often trigger insecurity. So if we continue to leave the discourse on social media to those who deliberately use outrage to stoke fears, the cause of diversity will be done a disservice. On the other hand, waves of indignation trigger ill-considered defensive reactions – activism follows activism. It is not uncommon for companies to react to a shitstorm with more or less pointless measures – for example the hasty founding of a women’s network or an immature mentoring program.
We have to move away from pure activism
However, such hectic reactions do not change the structure of the company. So as long as a purely activist discourse prevails, there can be no real changes in companies. Outrage is therefore counterproductive across the board. A de-emotionalization of the debates about diversity, equity and inclusion therefore seems almost imperative. This is of course easier said than done.
Nevertheless, we have to move away from pure activism and towards an objective discourse, which of course should not rule out critical statements in the future either. Pure “Manels”, for example – (almost) only men sit in discussion groups – should once and for all be a thing of the past. Overall, the appeal for emotional disarmament is not about imposing new muzzles. Instead, you have to ask: When do decision-makers get involved in more diversity?
>> Read here: From the support program to the free MBA: This is how management talents advance in Germany’s largest corporations
Only if it is clear what advantages this will bring for you, your environment and the company. When it comes to other strategic issues, too, the question always arises: What do I personally gain from standing up for this or that issue? This is currently very clear when it comes to the innovative power of companies. Decision-makers are committed to innovations at the moment when they strengthen the company. What applies to innovation also applies to diversity – especially since there is a causal connection between the two topics.
Don’t repeat the same mistakes over and over again
With its study “Diversity Wins – How Inclusion Matters” from 2020, the management consultancy McKinsey proves that companies with a high proportion of women have better chances of being successful above average. The more diverse a team is, the more opinions and experiences flow together in a project. The repetition of the same mistakes, which homogeneous teams tend to make much more than heterogeneous teams according to empirical findings, can thus be avoided.
There is no question that achieving a good result in diverse teams, where different opinions collide, is more strenuous than in homogeneous teams – but in the end the result will be better and more promising. US researchers found, for example, that students from lower social classes perform better in teamwork than their socially better off fellow students.
Why? Because they are more cooperative. Decision-makers who are aware that they are more economically successful and that their team performs better if they promote diversity no longer need quota debates. A measurable increase in diversity means more profitability and a more promising strategy. This is precisely why measurability is so important in companies. Because it is synonymous with tangibility. And at the end of the day, tangible successes are more convincing than any wave of outrage on social media, no matter how big.
To come back to the question asked at the beginning: Who is right? Neither side, neither the quota supporters nor the quota opponents. Rather, one has to call out to them: in the interest of all of us, finally disarm yourself emotionally when it comes to gender and the entire diversity discourse! And also rhetorically!
About the author: Tijen Onaran is CEO of diversity consultancy Global Digital Women.
More: 100 women who advance Germany