DEI as a "Fitness" Program
Evolutionary fitness, that is. In honor of Darwin Day, a look at DEI initiatives from a cultural evolutionary perspective (including the far right's current attacks on DEI initiatives)
It's Darwin Day (February 12th), and according to the International Darwin Day website, we should use this day to inspire people to reflect and act on the principles of intellectual bravery, perpetual curiosity, scientific thinking, and hunger for truth as embodied in Charles Darwin.
To honor that call to action, as well as the man and his magnificent theory, I thought I'd take a brief look at diversity, equity, and inclusion from a cultural evolutionary perspective. It seems an appropriate topic given current events.
So we're all on the same page, cultural evolution, also termed cultural multi-level selection (CMLS), is an extension of general evolutionary theory. At a high level, CMLS recognizes that cultural traits (tools, buildings, clothing, intellectual traditions, policies, including DEI, etc.) and biological traits, in combination with the physical and social environments that we find ourselves in, are acted upon by natural selection and other evolutionary forces, determining our evolutionary fitness levels in the process.
Evolutionary fitness refers to how well we're adapted to the physical and social environments we occupy. The better adapted we are, the more evolutionary fit we are. And health and productivity (for individuals as well as groups and organizations) can serve as a proxy for the impacts on our evolutionary fitness. In addition to the recognition that cultural traits contribute to our evolutionary fitness, CMLS, as I've previously written,...
provides a framework in which natural selection and other evolutionary forces operate at all levels simultaneously – genes, cells, individuals, and groups of individuals. Sometimes environmental and social/cultural conditions are right for the evolutionary forces to be stronger at the level of the individual; sometimes these forces are stronger at the group level, resulting in highly cohesive groups. Uniformity among group members, high levels of cooperation, and functional integration become the hallmarks of successful groups.
Basically, CMLS as a theoretical framework seeks to explain how the selection, variation, and replication of cultural traits (along with biological traits) at multiple levels impacts our individual and collective short and long-term survival. But these interactions are complex. As I've also written before...
Traits (biological and cultural) or environments (physical and social) that are adaptive for individuals may negatively impact the fitness of the organizations they’re part of. Similarly, traits or environments that positively impact one aspect of individual health and productivity may negatively impact another aspect.
For example, while increasing ventilation levels might increase individual occupant health and cognitive functions (assuming the outdoor air quality is acceptable), this could negatively impact organizational fitness levels through an increase in utility costs (which would likely be offset by the organization benefits seen from increased occupant health and productivity). It would also negatively impact societal fitness levels (and the fitness levels of other species) relative to the increase in associated emissions, depending on the makeup of the building's energy sources.
Ventilation levels below minimum standards, in addition to negatively impacting individual health and cognitive functions (with their own associated organizational costs and fitness impacts), could also increase awareness of unpleasant body and food odors among building occupants. While the reduction in emissions may reduce negative climate impacts (positively impacting society's fitness levels), the potential increase in tensions and conflicts among occupants could negatively impact an organization's uniformity and ability of its members to cooperate (offsetting any reductions in an organization's energy costs).
While this is a fairly simplified explanation of CMLS, it should provide the general understanding necessary for this discussion. For those looking for a deeper dive, see the references at the end of the article.
Shifting gears, whether it's termed DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion), JEDI (justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion), or IDEA (inclusion, diversity, equity, and accessibility), research has pointed out the benefits of such programs to individuals and organizations (when implemented genuinely and not performatively). Below is a summary of key findings from multiple research papers, grouped under the headings of Benefits, Effectiveness, Example Metrics, and Improvements Needed (note that I used Copilot to help me with this summary). These research papers are included in the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Research References section at the end of the article. Tie-ins to CMLS are also made (in italics).
Benefits
DEI initiatives can lead to better financial performance (increased evolutionary fitness) by contributing to more inclusive, equitable, and welcoming work environments (physical and social), attracting diverse talent, fostering innovation, enhancing creativity, improving decision-making processes, increasing workforce adaptability and agility, improving morale and commitment among employees, and enhancing competitiveness (increasing evolutionary fitness increases competitiveness).
DEI initiatives can improve team effectiveness, cohesion, collaboration, and innovation by promoting diverse perspectives, fostering a culture of inclusion and respect, as well as by promoting empathy and understanding among team members (increasing team and organizational evolutionary fitness).
DEI initiatives can improve employee mental health and wellbeing (and therefore evolutionary fitness) by fostering a sense of belonging and psychological safety, improving morale, reducing stress, increasing job satisfaction, and creating a more inclusive and overall supportive work environment.
Effectiveness
DEI initiative have contributed to increasing representation, providing support to underrepresented groups, a more diverse workforce, increasing awareness and promoting behavioral change, and creating more inclusive and equitable workplaces (increasing individual and organizational evolutionary fitness in the process).
However, the effectiveness of such initiatives (and their ability to increase evolutionary fitness) varies widely depending on the program's design, quality of implementation, and degree of maturity. The most mature programs tend to be the most effective, resulting in the highest return on investment. Organizations need to be truly committed to such efforts. Poorly designed and/or superficially enacted initiatives are not only ineffective at improving diversity, equity, and inclusion, they can result in a) minorities feeling even less welcome, included, or safe, b) increases in animosity among employees, and c) giving DEI initiatives a bad name. Poor design and implementation decrease the adaptability, or alignment, of the social and physical environment to the biological and cultural traits of various individuals in the minority, negatively impacting their evolutionary fitness as well as team and organizational fitness.
Employee enablement and training are necessary for effectiveness. Regular training and discussions on all of the necessary topics increases transparency, increases trust among employees that leadership is committed to DEI, and are necessary for transformational impacts. Enablement and training are necessary for modifying the social environment to increase its adaptability, or alignment, to the needs of various individuals in the minority.
There is also a need for clear and consistent metrics that demonstrate the value and effectiveness of DEI initiatives. And organizations must make use of such metrics to hold themselves accountable, starting from the top. Otherwise organizations will likely become distracted by other issues. Measurement, verification, and accountability help ensure that enabled employees and leadership can mindfully maintain the needed social and physical environment's adaptability, or alignment, to the needs of various individuals in the minority.
Example Metrics
Number of grants submitted and/or manuscripts published (for relevant organizations). Tracked data.
Workforce pathway outcomes such as hiring, promotion, pay equity, access to professional development opportunities, and retention. Tracked data and gathered perceptions via interviews and self reports.
Occupant / employee performance metrics: creativity, innovation, satisfaction, morale, engagement, workplace attachment, commitment, sense of belonging, perception of inclusion and equity, etc. Tracked data and gathered perceptions via observations, interviews and self reports.
Organizational success metrics: financial metrics, employee retention / turnover, client retention / repeat work, employee engagement and satisfaction (examined organization-wide), etc. Tracked data and gathered perceptions via observations, interviews, and self reports.
Workforce diversity metrics: representation of diverse groups at various levels within an organization. Tracked data and gathered perceptions via interviews and self reports.
Training metrics: participation rates, employee ratings, achievement of other goals set (such as increasing workforce diversity). Tracked data and gathered perceptions via interviews and self reports.
Physical environment assessments: flexibility, inclusiveness (accounting for physical capabilities, neurodiversity, other needs not reflective of the majority, availability of needed space types), accessibility (not just physical, but the impacts that power differentials have on accessing such spaces), etc. Tracked data, measured environmental conditions, and gathered perceptions via observations, interviews, and self reports. See the last two references in the list of DEI research references below for additional information.
Living Future's Just label provides specific metrics to use and a means for organizations to transparently hold themselves accountable. This can increase trust among employees (and prospective employees) that leadership is committed to DEI.
Improvements Needed
We need more long-term outcome measurements (with standardized metrics and evaluation methods for the short and long-term evaluations) and greater institutional support to sustain and enhance DEI efforts. Greater institutional support will come by improving the adaptability, or alignment, of our larger political, social, and economic "environments" with organizational diversity, equity, and inclusion cultural traits. Otherwise these traits (initiatives) are selected against (as we are currently seeing now in the U.S. as a result of presidential executive orders).
Organizations should set specific, clear, and measurable DEI objectives to guide initiatives and promote inclusive leadership to enhance the effectiveness of DEI initiatives. Again, this is ultimately about aligning an organization's physical and social environment with, or making it more adaptable to, the biological and cultural traits of various minority individuals.
Organizations should focus on continuous evaluation and adaptation of DEI policies to ensure they remain effective and relevant. Organizations should also shift their focus from individual knowledge to actual organizational change. Regular (longitudinal) training and discussions are a necessary component of this. Again, this is ultimately about aligning an organization's physical and social environment with, or making it more adaptable to, the biological and cultural traits of various minority individuals
There is a need for ongoing efforts to identify and dismantle systemic, multi-level barriers as well as promote a culture of inclusion within society. Again, this requires improving the adaptability, or alignment, of our larger political, social, and economic "environments" with organizational diversity, equity, and inclusion cultural traits. Otherwise these traits (initiatives) are selected against (as we are currently seeing now in the U.S. as a result of presidential executive orders).
It's important to point out that increasing the adaptability, or alignment, of the social and physical environment to the biological and cultural traits of minority individuals doesn't have to mean decreasing the adaptability for the majority (and decreasing their evolutionary fitness). When done correctly, this actually improves the adaptability of the physical and social environment for everyone (case in point, designing for neurodiversity is actually designing for everyone). But again, it does take commitment. And unfortunately, if organizational DEI cultural traits aren't well adapted to, or aligned with, the larger political, social, and economic environment (as we are starting to see now in the U.S.), then an organization's evolutionary fitness will decrease in the short term. DEI cultural traits are then essentially selected against (more on that below).
From an evolutionary perspective, why would a diverse workforce improve an organization's competitiveness, ability to innovate, creativity, and financial bottom line? Basically, it boils down to variation being the fuel for the engine of natural selection. Without variation in biological or cultural traits, there's nothing for natural selection to act on. A diverse staff increases the variation present in perspectives, life experiences, world views, talents, ideas, passions, etc., for an organization to draw upon as it works to achieve its mission and compete with other organizations. A lack of variation leads to stasis, atrophy, and contraction, decreasing an organization's evolutionary fitness. And achieving a diverse workforce requires an organization address equity, inclusion, and accessibility.
CMLS can also offer insights into the development and implementation of DEI initiatives as well as why their successful implementation benefits organizational operations. We know that these can be difficult to implement, to get buy-in among leadership and some employees, to avoid resentment, encourage genuine discussions, and to monitor and nurture over the long-term. Poor DEI programs and/or implementation can create disruption and cause divisions among employees. A process is needed to work through these difficult conversations, get buy-in form the beginning, align everyone's interests into a common set of DEI goals, and monitor / maintain the process long-term.
The building blocks of such a process were discovered by Elinor Ostrom, a political scientist/sociologist and Nobel Economics prize winner who discovered eight core design principles (CDPs) of cooperation listed in the image below. These principles, common to our species, evolved among our ancestors who lived in small groups, primarily as a means to protect access (within and between groups) to a variety of common pool resources, increasing the evolutionary fitness of these small groups and their members. As I've written previously:
Having spent so much of our history in small groups, these social control mechanisms [principles of cooperation], aligned with aspects of our individual psychologies, became part of our cultural toolkit to survive and thrive in the world. Individuals able to cooperatively live together within a community [and protect access to critical common pool resources] became a defining aspect of being human (even while simultaneously competing against other groups).
Note that these don't just benefit group members' ability to cooperate in conserving common pool resources - they benefit the ability to cooperate in achieving any goal. But that ability to cooperate is negatively impacted by such things as implicit biases, institutional racism, sexism, bigotry, inequitable accessibility, classism, microaggressions, etc. While these various inequities impact all CDPs, one can definitely see how they undermine principles 2 (equitable distribution of contributions and benefits), 3 (fair and inclusive consensus decision-making), 6 (conflict resolution - perceived as fast and fair), 7 (authority to self-govern), and 8 (collaborative relations with other groups) in any organization.
But if these CDPs are firing on all cylinders within an organization, then the actions that benefit individuals of majority groups at the expense of minority individuals (and the organization overall) become less likely to occur (holding everything else equal). It is an outcome of the focus on equity, human plurality, shared purpose, shared survival, and long term, group level factors that are embedded within these principles. DEI initiatives, when effectively designed and implemented, can help ensure these principles within an organization aren't undermined by the various societal inequities that still plague society.
Ostrom's work (supercharged by CMLS), when used to determine the best contextual version of these principles (along with potential auxiliary principles relevant to a particular organization in the context of DEI), can also help the successful design, implementation, and ongoing monitoring/tweaking of DEI initiatives for a given organization. ProSocial.World, combining Ostrom's work with CMLS and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), has developed a process to help the members of groups and organizations (regardless of type and size) do the following:
Build a context for change: Establish project aims, clarify key success criteria, manage authority and power relations, prioritize - come together, listen, discover and understand differences, discover shared values and goals around a given concern, issue, or initiative, etc.
Develop awareness and communication skills: Empathize, examine the perspective of others, work on emotional self-regulation, develop psychological flexibility, understand the dynamics of goals / values / needs, etc.
Build sense of shared vision, identity, and purpose: Imagine better possible futures, make it safe and rewarding to dream together, engage in community and system mapping as well as deliberative dialogue, etc.
Explore aspects of prosocial governance: Define groups, define the commons, ensure effectiveness within groups, balance individual and collective interests, establish appropriate relationships with other groups (if relevant), etc. The CDPs should be structured around the intent of aligning the outcomes of selection with the agreed to prosocial goals.
Qualify opportunities: Identify and prioritize opportunities for action to improve group effectiveness internally and/or externally.
Action research and evaluation: Pursue the fittest participatory action, test which methods serve the group best, and learn and adapt based on the results. Recognize that what works in one context might need to be tailored to work in other contexts.
This process provides a larger, science-based framework and set of methods that could be combined with existing DEI frameworks to tailor initiatives and their implementation to a given organization's context. It's likely that some practitioners have already done this. Exploring the ProSocial.World website may uncover some examples. I also recommend revieiwing the articles at This View of Life magazine and taking a look at Prosocial: Using Evolutionary Science to Build Productive, Equitable, and Collaborative Groups.
In the above discussion I addressed the perpetual curiosity, scientific thinking, and hunger for truth portion of the International Darwin Day call to action (at least that was the intent). Now lets spend a little time on the principle of intellectual bravery.
Globally, coinciding with the rise of the far right and authoritarianism, we're seeing a backlash against various progressive and prosocial agendas, ideas, policies, standards, and legislation, and that includes DEI. In the U.S., directly as a result of Trump's executive orders and statements, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi "directed the Justice Department to 'investigate, eliminate, and penalize' private companies and universities that have 'illegal' diversity, equity and inclusion programs." While Bondi's direction may have limited impacts (according to Bloomberg), a general atmosphere of fear has been created by these actions and statements (as well as other executive orders). We've now seen PBS close it's DEI office, Google significantly curtail its DEI efforts, and many other organizations begin abandoning the DEI ship. Universities are also accelerating their DEI dismantling efforts.
This is what I was referring to above - the larger political, social, and economic environment has changed. Organizational DEI cultural traits, for the moment, are no longer adaptive to an organization within these larger environments - in fact they're maladaptive, potentially contributing to an organization's demise via varying combinations of financial and legal pressures. The net evolutionary fitness to organizations contributed to by DEI cultural traits is now in the negative (at least perceived that way among the leadership of many organizations), and as a result they're being selected against.
I'm not unsympathetic to organizations making these decision, particularly small businesses and non-profits dependent on federal funding. The existence of these businesses and organizations is often important to their local communities and/or critical for supplementing various public services. And no organization wants to lay off their staff. I'm currently on the board of a non-profit making use of federal funds, and we are struggling to find a path forward that balances achieving our mission while being true to the principles underlying DEI (that frankly are also part of our mission).
However, these actions of self-protection also convey a message of abandonment to minority groups (and in many cases it's more than just a message). Their quality of life will be reduced, along with the opportunities they have access to, the support they may have felt, and their access to healthcare and public services. The othering they've experienced will increase along with the threat of verbal and physical violence, decreasing their mental health in the process. It already has. Both of my kids are part of the LGBTQ+ community. I see it in their eyes and hear it in their voices.
All of this (attacks on DEI and vulnerable minorities, elimination / erosion of public services, the increasing wealth gap, etc.) reduces social trust. It isolates people and organizations. It others people and organizations. It permeates a perception of scarcity. It makes us more susceptible to mis- and disinformation. It pits people, groups, employees, leadership, organizations, etc., who should be allies and working together, against one another. That's by design (though with varying degrees of intent). From a CMLS perspective, it attacks the uniformity and functional integration necessary for larger coalitions to stand against the Trump administration, authoritarianism, and other far right influences.
When that happens, the dominant level of selection shifts downward to the level of individual organizations - competition is no longer between this hypothetical larger coalition and the Trump administration. Relative to the culture wars, competition primarily then occurs at the level of individual businesses, universities, non-profits, etc., who feel separate and isolated, who are operating in a climate of fear under a perception of scarcity. In such an environment, structured by the Trump administration and other far right forces, dumping DEI initiatives is how you survive.
But that doesn't mean we're passively subject to the whims of evolutionary forces. We can mindfully change the physical and social environment to better align them with where we want to go - that's what Prosocial.World is all about. That's what I've discussed many times before with regards to the built environment. But in this case, what do we do?
The various images out there of smaller fish banding together to eat a larger fish have been on my mind a lot lately. There's strength in numbers. That allows us to pool our resources within the common - financial, legal, emotional support, distribution of risk, wide varieties of expertise and knowledge, etc. But how do we come together and build a larger coalition around more prosocial ideas, including DEI (which I believe more humans than not support)? It likely involves a diverse range of organizational leaders coming together to act - corporations, universities, school districts, non-profits / NGOs, professional organizations, community leaders, progressive politicians (or frankly any politician who still believes in democracy and human dignity), etc. At the same time there's likely a strong grass roots element to it, and we must find the stories that resonate with people.
The specifics though, are beyond my pay grade, but ProSocial.World leaders and members will have good ideas here. They've been focused on scaling the process. And I'm sure many others have some good ideas to try as well. Look for those people and share their ideas. Get involved in their implementation.
One simple, collective action that we know has had some positive impact is calling our Senators and Representatives in Congress. If we keep calling them in mass, it might help them evolve a spine. The 5 calls app can help you do that. Do it daily.
And whatever we keep doing, or new thing we try, it will require some bravery.
Cultural Evolution / Cultural Multi-Level Selection (CMLS) References
Cultural evolution: Where we have been and where we are going (maybe)
Multilevel cultural evolution: From new theory to practical applications
Designing cultural multilevel selection research for sustainability science
Does Altruism Exist? Culture, Genes, and the Welfare of Others
Blurring the Line Between “Others” – A Practical Application of Cultural Multilevel Selection Theory