Why “Diversity Hires” Aren’t the Problem
“I don’t want the job because I’m a woman. I want it because I deserve it and can do it.”
I hear this sentiment often—from women, from people of colour, from members of the LGBTQ+ community. And I get it.
No one wants to feel like a token. No one wants to be second-guessed. And no one wants their competence overshadowed by the assumption that they’re there because the company needed diversity hires.
But that assumption? It’s rooted in bias.
In majority-male environments, I often hear some version of:
“I’ve seen so many incompetent women get hired just to meet a quota—men who could actually do the job missed out.”
What usually follows is a story about a woman who didn’t last in the role. Stories like these stick. They’re passed around as “proof” that diversity efforts lower the bar.
But the many, many women hired through affirmative action who were exceptional in their roles? We rarely hear about them. Their success doesn’t become the story—failure does.
In the early 2000s, I heard about a team that hired two women who couldn’t lift a ladder onto a truck—an essential part of the role. No adjustments were made. No innovation considered. They were fired, and their story became a cautionary tale against hiring women.
This completely overlooks the systemic factors that set people up to fail. Early gender equality efforts often lacked structural support and awareness of inequality. That legacy still influences how we perceive diversity today.
The Confirmation Bias Trap
In one workshop, a participant told me, “I’ve only had trouble from female employees, so I won’t take that risk again.” When I asked for an example, he described a woman he hired 20 years ago who hadn’t disclosed her pregnancy. He didn’t consider the barriers she might have faced—just that he felt deceived.
That’s how confirmation bias works. We remember the one story that supports our belief and ignore the rest.
Bias and discrimination are so deeply embedded in our systems that it’s remarkable we’ve made any progress at all. And one of the reasons we have seen progress in some sectors is the use of diversity targets.
What Targets Really Do
Targets don’t lower standards—they raise expectations. They compel leaders to look beyond familiar hiring patterns, to search more widely, and to evaluate potential, not just past experience.
Let’s be clear:
Targets don’t mean hiring people who can’t do the job.
They mean working harder to find the right people.
They uncover talent we’ve historically overlooked.
They hold leaders accountable.
Yes, some people from marginalised groups may worry about being seen as a token hire. That discomfort is real. But it’s also part of challenging the status quo. Progress rarely feels comfortable.
Use Targets Intentionally
As the WGEA targets come into play, we have an opportunity—but also a responsibility. Without an intersectional lens, these targets may mostly benefit white women, reinforcing existing inequalities.
And while I support the intent behind diversity targets, I’m not an advocate for blanket, organisation-wide quotas—especially in large organisations. I haven’t seen them drive meaningful change.
What works better are context-specific targets that are owned by leaders and tied to real outcomes. For example:
Increasing the number of women of colour interviewed for construction roles
Lifting the number of men taking parental leave
Ensuring at least 80% of employees with disability have the access they need to flexible work
These targets are grounded in the actual makeup of the workforce and the real barriers people face. They’re specific, measurable, and most importantly—actionable.
So yes, set your WGEA targets. But don’t stop there. Make them meaningful. Make them intersectional. And make someone accountable for delivering on them.
Because it’s not diversity that threatens performance—it’s bias that limits potential.
Interested in learning more and implementing this knowledge into your DEI initiatives? Book a call with Bree today
You may also like…
