Inclusion: Are there any downsides to including everyone?

     A business (AA) sells products. Because of the views of the owner of the company, they decide that they will only sell to 40% of the possible clientele. Another business (BB) is willing to sell to everyone without restriction. Which business do you think will do better?

     A development company (CC) decides they will only hire people who meet a specific set of criteria. Only about 40% of the possible new hires meet this set of criteria. Another development company (DD) interviews everyone to see if they will add value to the company. Which company is most likely to bring new, well designed, products to the marketplace?

     The above scenarios are simple ones. Yet they are the scenarios that most often apply when people try to push for exclusion policies. Inclusive policies for hiring and selling make better products and better profits. I cannot think of any situation where a company benefits from not selling to people who can afford, and properly use, their product.

     Ah, but some of those being excluded for employment are not as “good’ as those who are being included in company AA or BB. Really? Is there a way to prove this if they are not included? Actually, there is. Have companies of the nature of AA or CC in the marketplace. Have companies of the nature of BB or DD competing in the marketplace. Which ones do better overall? If AA/CC companies do better then exclusion works best. If BB/DD companies do better then inclusion works best.

     So, what is the answer? I have no facts at my fingertips to back up an answer so I cannot say “See! This answer is obvious” (though I do have my strong opinion based on profit patterns that changed during the 1960s and 1970s as segregation was reduced). But, I don’t need to prove one answer over another. The market will do it.

     Why would there ever be a desire to force the issue? To say “yes, you shall include”. Well, humanity has a long history of not doing what benefits them if it conflicts with the status quo. That is, people and companies really dislike change, in general. Policies that mandate inclusion (or exclusion) put all companies “on a level playing field”. If the policy proves beneficial, it continues. If the policy proves non-beneficial it may change (with the strong attraction of the status quo still in effect).

     Ah, but how can a company be proven to be inclusive? A typical method is via quotas. If 20% of the population has characteristics G, then the company should have 20% of its employees with characteristics G. And that has problems — for the person hired and for the people not hired. How can it be proven that the person hired is truly qualified (even “best” qualified) for the job? As it is, it really cannot and that is the semi-rational excuse (it is still often really based on historical beliefs about qualifications rather than true qualifications) for bitterness from the not-hired.

     So, do “blind hiring”. Real names are hidden from the interviewer (because they often give hints about ethnicity/”race”/gender). Live interviews happen via web interviews with no video and disguised speech. Eliminate identifying aspects as much as possible. There still may be aspects such as speech patterns, familiarity with the interview language, and so forth that cannot be obscured — but the interviewer would have to work hard to get past the blinds. Elimination of passive bias can be greatly reduced.

     What about after-hiring? Promotions? People in powerful groups, etc.? If you can get rid of the bias at the hiring point then it is reasonable that the same percentages should maintain as one goes through the corporate structure. If they do not, there is likely to be active biases and prejudices involved.

     What about there still being fewer people in certain groups being hired? Isn’t a quota still necessary? Otherwise, won’t the composition of levels in society stay stagnant and less-represented groups stay that way? It is possible to do it without quotas but it may take decades or generations for underlying social inequities to change. Doing it with quotas, blind hiring can still enforce the concept of qualified hires but it can still create bad feelings within those who were previously preferred.

     Is there a complete answer? On selling to — yes. On employment, not with society the way it presently is. The status quo always means that some do better and some do worse — and those who do better will struggle to remain in that situation.

     And there probably is not an answer to that. We do not have a perfect world or perfect people in it.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber by following this link and scrolling to the end.