What’s the problem with DEI anyway? Is it because we’re being forced into giving something to someone who doesn’t deserve it? Is it because it’s costing us money? Is it because we somehow lose something when we include it? Is it somehow unfair?

We insist on it in our sports teams. We require it in a corporation. We demand it for ourselves while questioning it for others. The need for diversity is understood. While the usefulness of inclusion is in nearly every management bible. It’s the equity where the problem shows itself.

In sports, we don’t want a baseball team that is made up of the best pinch hitters. No great pitchers, no amazing outfielders, just having the world’s best pinch hitters doesn’t do much for the team’s win/loss record. We certainly value diversity when picking team members. The idea of everyone having the same skills as everyone else is antithetic to creating a strong, resilient team.

We pay referees to ensure fairness during games. The cheats like Rosie Ruiz, Tom Williams of the Harlequins, Lance Armstrong, Tim Donaghy, or Hansie Cronje, are cast out or banned from sport entirely. The understanding is that everyone has to follow the rules, no one gets a mulligan unless everyone gets a mulligan, that’s equity.

Coaches and owners want all the team members to feel a bond with their team mates. It is understood that cohesion is what makes a winning team. All the team members, regardless of whether they’re a starter, or non-starter, must be treated in a way that helps them understand their value and their importance to the team effort. When they understand that they can fulfill their role in the most effective way possible. That’s called inclusion.

Now transfer those ideas to the corporate world. What would a company made up entirely of CFOs (Chief Financial Officers) look like? What would they make? It’s fairly obvious that corporations need a variety of jobs, with each job needing a unique skill set. An international company, for example, would need team members skilled in the languages and customs of all their counterparts that they do business with around the world. Who better to hire for those positions than someone who already has those skills and understands the corporation’s goals? There’s that diversity again.

Business cheats where they can, and equity is where they usually cheat. Fairness is something that corporations like to refer to but rarely pursue unless it’s in their interests. Whether it’s wages, pricing, competitive advantages, marketing, or market share, the goal of most corporate entities is to win. Fairness is not a consideration unless they can use it against their competitors, or if it is required by law.

There’s been a large push for inclusion in the corporate world. Many business coaches use sports analogies, terms, and practices as the basis for their team building efforts. The idea that inclusion is somehow a new goal in corporate environments ignores decades of corporations choosing employees on how they “fit” within the corporate culture. Corporate dress codes work like team uniforms. Corporate team building exercises for various departments are training camps used to promote unit cohesion. Whether it’s the sales department off on a team camping trip, or a company softball team, it’s all intended to create a feeling of inclusion as part of the business. Corporations know that their employee productivity rates increase the more the employees feel part of the team.

Back to the question at the top. What is the problem with DEI anyway? Since diversity only enhances profits or the chances of winning, that’s probably not the problem. Inclusion is actively pursued by both sports teams and corporations because it increases their chances of winning, or profiting in competitive environments. If it profits them then they’re not going to complain about it, so we can count that one out. That leaves equity, the call for following the rules, for not cheating, as the problem with DEI.

The problem with DEI is it expects fairness. No one likes it when the referee makes a call against their team, especially if it costs them the game. But if the call is made for their team that referee is one of the best referees ever. DEI doesn’t take anything away from anyone, any more than a referee calling a strike takes away a homerun. If the referee didn’t like players with red hair and routinely made bad calls when they were involved, that wouldn’t be fair and the referee should be removed. Now imagine one team knew that about the referee and used it to their advantage; winning because of it. In business, that would be considered smart, and good business. In sports, that would be cheating. DEI isn’t what costs us a job. It isn’t what leaves us feeling like we’ve been stepped on, and it isn’t why we aren’t paid a decent wage. The lack of fairness is the issue, and equity is what we sorely need.