The End of DEI? The Evolution from Demographic Metrics to Potential, Synergy, and Inclusion

Listen to this article:

Abstract: Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) has become one of the most polarizing issues in contemporary organizational practice. While advocates argue that DEI enhances both fairness and performance, critics contend that current approaches undermine meritocracy and create new forms of discrimination. This analysis examines how the practice of DEI—often reduced to demographic representation—has diverged from its underlying principles, creating unintended consequences that harm both organizations and individuals. Drawing on recent academic research and practitioner evidence, this article proposes an alternative framework centered on Potential, Synergy, and Inclusion. This approach preserves DEI's core objectives while addressing its fundamental weaknesses. Potential emphasizes assessing individuals' capacity to create future value rather than past achievements alone. Synergy focuses on building teams with complementary capabilities and perspectives that extend far beyond demographics. Inclusion enables employees to voice ideas, challenge norms, and overcome structural barriers. Rather than redistributing organizational value toward particular groups, this framework aims to grow the pie for all stakeholders through evidence-based practices that enhance long-term organizational performance.

Few organizational initiatives generate as much controversy as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). The debate has intensified dramatically in recent years, moving from boardrooms and university committees into the political mainstream. In 2025, the landscape reflects deep polarization: some organizations treat DEI as a moral imperative and business necessity, while others view it as discriminatory ideology that must be dismantled entirely.

The stakes are considerable. Proponents argue that DEI widens recruitment pools, surfaces overlooked talent, and builds teams where diverse perspectives create superior outcomes. They point to widely cited research—particularly reports from consulting firms like McKinsey (2015, 2018, 2020, 2023)—claiming strong correlations between demographic diversity and financial performance. This narrative has driven substantial organizational investment: dedicated DEI departments, executive compensation tied to diversity metrics, mandatory training programs, and explicit hiring targets.

Yet the backlash has proven equally forceful. Critics challenge both the evidence and the practice. Recent academic scrutiny has questioned the robustness of popular diversity studies, with Green and Hand (2024) demonstrating that McKinsey's influential findings cannot be reproduced using the authors' own methodology and are highly sensitive to specification choices. More rigorous academic research typically finds no relationship between demographic diversity and performance, and sometimes identifies negative effects when diversity is mandated through quotas (Adams & Ferreira, 2009; Ahern & Dittmar, 2012; Eckbo et al., 2022).

Beyond empirical debates, practical concerns have emerged. Some organizations report that diversity quotas lead to hiring less qualified candidates, creating resentment among colleagues and stigmatizing the very individuals such policies aim to help. Legal challenges have proliferated: the U.S. Supreme Court struck down race-based college admissions in 2023, and federal courts have invalidated corporate board diversity mandates. Political leaders in multiple states have banned DEI offices and programs in public institutions, while major corporations have scaled back or eliminated DEI initiatives amid investor pressure and cultural backlash.

The Current State of Practice

How did we reach this impasse? The problems stem not from DEI's underlying principles but from their implementation. In practice, organizations have reduced a multidimensional concept to a single dimension: demographic representation. Government regulations focus on gender and ethnic composition of boards. Executive compensation is most commonly tied to demographic diversity metrics (CHRO Association, 2024). Investor voting policies and engagement practices center on demographic representation (ShareAction, 2024). Universities evaluate DEI success primarily through headcount statistics of specific demographic groups.

This narrow focus creates three fundamental problems. First, it ignores other critical dimensions of diversity—socioeconomic background, cognitive styles, neurodiversity, educational experiences, and even political viewpoints. Second, it treats diversity as sufficient for success, assuming that simply assembling a demographically diverse team will automatically enhance performance through an "add diversity and stir" approach. Third, it often neglects equity and inclusion entirely, reducing them to surface-level measures like gender-neutral language and awareness campaigns rather than substantive equality of opportunity and genuinely inclusive cultures.

The results have been predictably disappointing. Research by Edmans et al. (2025) demonstrates that demographic diversity shows little correlation with genuine inclusion or with financial performance, while broader measures of equity and inclusion do correlate with outcomes. The disconnect between practice and purpose has fueled the backlash, with opponents pointing to failed implementations as evidence that the entire concept should be abandoned.

A Way Forward

This article proposes that DEI must evolve—not disappear. The framework centers on three pillars: Potential, Synergy, and Inclusion. This is not merely semantic rebranding; it represents a fundamental reconceptualization of how organizations can build high-performing, equitable teams.

Potential recognizes that hiring decisions should assess future capacity rather than merely past achievements. While demographic background can provide valuable information about a candidate's trajectory and the obstacles they have overcome, it is only one of many relevant factors. Socioeconomic circumstances, educational environment, family structure, and countless other elements shape potential. Moreover, potential must be realized—organizations cannot simply recruit diverse talent and assume success will follow.

Synergy emphasizes building the best team, not merely assembling the best individuals. One source of synergy is cognitive diversity—different perspectives, experiences, and problem-solving approaches. Demographics contribute to cognitive diversity, but so do professional backgrounds, disciplinary training, and thinking styles. Critically, synergy also arises from complementary skills, resources, and preferences. Sometimes teams benefit from cognitive similarity rather than diversity, particularly when specialized expertise is paramount.

Inclusion ensures that potential and synergy translate into actual performance. Without genuine inclusion, talented individuals cannot contribute fully. But inclusion extends beyond making people feel welcome; it requires psychological safety to challenge prevailing views, voice dissenting opinions, and highlight blind spots. Paradoxically, some DEI approaches are themselves non-inclusive, suppressing perspectives that question diversity orthodoxy or come from politically conservative viewpoints.

This framework aims to depolarize DEI by shifting focus from whose interests are being served to how organizational and societal value can be created. Rather than viewing DEI as redistributing fixed resources toward particular groups—a zero-sum game that inevitably creates winners and losers—the approach seeks to grow the pie through better hiring, more effective teams, and cultures where everyone can perform at their best.

The remainder of this article examines current DEI practice and its consequences, then develops the alternative framework in detail, providing evidence-based guidance for organizational implementation.

The DEI Landscape: From Principle to Practice

Defining DEI in Contemporary Organizations

Diversity, equity, and inclusion emerged from distinct social movements and evolved into a comprehensive organizational framework. Diversity originally referred to representation across multiple dimensions—not only demographic characteristics like gender, ethnicity, and age, but also diversity of thought, experience, and perspective. Equity emphasized equal opportunities rather than guaranteed equal outcomes, recognizing that fairness requires addressing structural barriers some individuals face. Inclusion focused on creating environments where all individuals could contribute fully, speak openly, and bring their authentic selves to work.

In practice, however, these concepts have narrowed considerably. Contemporary DEI initiatives overwhelmingly prioritize demographic diversity—specifically gender and racial/ethnic representation. A 2024 analysis of executive compensation practices found that when companies tie pay to DEI metrics, demographic composition is by far the most common measure (CHRO Association, 2024). Investor engagement on human capital management centers predominantly on gender and racial representation data (ShareAction, 2024). Regulatory interventions, from Norway's 2003 board gender quota to California's 2018 and 2020 laws (subsequently struck down), have targeted demographic composition.

This focus reflects both practical and political considerations. Demographic characteristics are easily measured, creating clear accountability and enabling straightforward comparisons across organizations. The simplicity appeals to boards, investors, and regulators seeking quantifiable targets. Additionally, demographic diversity connects to broader social justice movements, particularly in the United States where DEI emerged partly from civil rights and women's rights advocacy. This heritage gives demographic diversity particular moral salience that other dimensions lack.

Yet the reduction creates significant blind spots. Socioeconomic diversity—perhaps the strongest predictor of different life experiences and perspectives—receives minimal attention. Cognitive diversity, neurodiversity, and personality variation are rarely measured or managed systematically. Even within demographic characteristics, some dimensions (age, disability) are substantially underweighted compared to gender and race. Equity becomes confused with equal outcomes rather than equal opportunities. Inclusion is reduced to superficial gestures—pronouns in email signatures, solidarity statements, awareness month celebrations—rather than substantive cultural change enabling genuine psychological safety and dissent.

State of Practice: How Organizations Implement DEI

Current organizational approaches typically follow a predictable pattern. Companies establish dedicated DEI departments or appoint Chief Diversity Officers. They set demographic representation targets for boards, senior leadership, and sometimes the broader workforce. Many implement training programs aimed at reducing unconscious bias. Executive compensation increasingly incorporates DEI metrics, almost always demographic in nature. External reporting emphasizes representation statistics, often benchmarked against competitors or population demographics.

This approach reflects several assumptions. First, that demographic diversity itself drives improved performance—a claim we examine shortly. Second, that visible commitment (dedicated roles, public targets, compensation linkage) signals organizational seriousness. Third, that bias training can meaningfully shift behavior. Fourth, that accountability mechanisms (targets, metrics, executive pay) will overcome institutional inertia.

The implementation creates unintended consequences. Some recruiters report receiving explicit or implicit "no white men" instructions; a 2023 LinkedIn survey of 1,148 recruiters found 20% had received such direction (Resources for Employers, 2023). A 2025 study found 10% of hiring managers avoid recruiting white men while 31% deprioritize non-diverse candidates (Resume Builder, 2025). Such practices, when they occur, directly contradict meritocratic principles and potentially violate equal employment laws.

Even absent explicit quotas, demographic targets can distort hiring. When CEO compensation depends on meeting diversity metrics, recruitment committees face pressure to prioritize demographics over other qualifications. Search firms pitch for business by advertising the demographic composition of their previous shortlists rather than candidate quality. Universities celebrate increased representation without examining whether recruitment genuinely focused on potential or whether included individuals have the support to succeed.

Meanwhile, equity and inclusion—the E and I in DEI—often become afterthoughts. Organizations focus on getting diverse individuals through the door but invest less in ensuring they can thrive once inside. This "add diversity and stir" mentality assumes representation alone generates benefits, ignoring the cultural, structural, and interpersonal factors that determine whether diverse perspectives actually improve decision-making.

The Evidence Debate: Does Demographic Diversity Drive Performance?

The business case for DEI rests heavily on claims that demographic diversity enhances organizational performance. McKinsey's series of reports (2015, 2018, 2020, 2023) has been particularly influential, with titles like "Diversity Wins" suggesting causal relationships. These studies report correlations between gender/ethnic diversity and financial metrics, sometimes claiming that "greater diversity leads to better financial performance" (McKinsey, 2020).

However, this evidence has faced substantial scrutiny. Green and Hand (2024) attempted to reproduce McKinsey's findings using the methodology described in the reports. They found the results were not reproducible and were highly sensitive to specification choices. Small changes in how diversity was measured, how performance was assessed, or which control variables were included produced dramatically different conclusions—sometimes even reversing the sign of the relationship.

More fundamentally, correlation does not imply causation. Even if diverse companies perform better on average, this could reflect reverse causality (successful companies can afford to prioritize diversity) or omitted variables (both diversity and performance might be driven by superior management quality). The most rigorous academic research, using natural experiments and careful identification strategies, typically finds no relationship between demographic diversity and performance.

Studies of board gender quotas provide particularly clean tests. Norway mandated 40% female board representation in 2003. Ahern and Dittmar (2012) found the mandate led to significant value destruction, while Bertrand et al. (2019) found minimal effects on women's labor market outcomes more broadly. Research on California's board diversity requirements similarly found negative or null effects on firm value (Greene et al., 2020). While these studies examine mandated diversity rather than voluntary approaches, they raise serious questions about whether demographic composition itself drives performance.

The strongest evidence concerns broader conceptions of diversity. Research consistently finds positive associations between cognitive diversity—variation in educational backgrounds, professional experiences, and expertise—and team performance (Edmans, 2025). But this bears little relationship to demographic diversity. An all-male team might have tremendous cognitive diversity if members bring different disciplines, industries, and thinking styles. Conversely, a demographically diverse team might suffer from groupthink if everyone attended the same universities and worked in the same sector.

Edmans et al. (2025) directly test whether demographic diversity correlates with genuine inclusion and with performance. They find demographic diversity shows minimal association with either outcome, while broader measures of equity and inclusion do correlate with performance. This suggests the mechanism matters: diversity might enhance performance when combined with genuine inclusion, but representation alone is insufficient.

Organizational and Individual Consequences of Current DEI Practice

Organizational Performance Impacts

The empirical evidence on demographic diversity and performance, discussed above, suggests neutral to negative average effects when diversity is mandated and weak positive effects from voluntary approaches that may reflect selection bias. But averages obscure important heterogeneity. Some organizations implement DEI thoughtfully, genuinely broadening recruitment pools and building inclusive cultures; others pursue box-ticking compliance that creates the costs of diversity without the benefits.

The costs can be substantial. Coordination challenges arise when team members struggle to communicate effectively across different backgrounds and perspectives. Edmans (2025) summarizes research showing that while diverse teams may generate more ideas, they can struggle to coordinate around selecting and implementing the best ones. If a cognitively diverse investment team produces 50 stock ideas rather than 10, they still must coordinate to actually select the winners—a task that becomes harder when members speak different analytical languages or come from incompatible methodological traditions.

Reduced affinity represents another potential cost. Homophily—the tendency to enjoy working with similar others—is a fundamental human characteristic, not inherently discriminatory. People naturally find it easier to collaborate with colleagues who share common reference points, communication styles, and social norms. Excessive diversity can reduce the informal bonds and trust that enable effective teamwork. This does not mean organizations should deliberately cultivate homogeneity, but it does suggest that diversity initiatives must address relationship-building explicitly rather than assuming diverse teams will gel automatically.

Weakened identity can occur when organizations become too diffuse in their capabilities and strategic focus. Some production functions benefit from concentration rather than diversity. A quantitative investment firm may perform best with a critical mass of statistical expertise rather than mixing quantitative and qualitative approaches. An academic department might generate more influential research by concentrating in a particular school of thought—behavioral economics, or Chicago-school price theory—rather than covering every subfield thinly. The optimal diversity level depends on the specific organizational context and production function.

Resentment and stigmatization emerge when diversity initiatives are perceived as unmeritocratic. If non-minority employees believe colleagues were hired primarily to meet demographic targets rather than based on ability, team cohesion suffers. Worse, the designated "diversity hires" themselves face stigma, even when their selection was genuinely merit-based. This problem intensifies when executive compensation is publicly tied to diversity metrics, as it signals that leadership has personal financial incentives to prioritize demographics.

Resource misallocation can occur when organizations invest disproportionately in supporting underperforming diversity hires rather than distributing coaching and development equitably. Edmans (2025) reports practitioner accounts of firms maintaining struggling employees far longer than normal because of diversity considerations, at the expense of other team members who also need mentoring.

Individual Wellbeing and Stakeholder Impacts

The consequences for individuals vary dramatically depending on their demographic characteristics and organizational position. For underrepresented groups, well-designed DEI initiatives can reduce barriers, increase opportunities, and create more inclusive environments. Women's networks provide mentorship and address challenges like balancing career progression with family responsibilities. Outreach to "target schools" expands university access for talented students from non-traditional backgrounds who might otherwise assume they have no chance.

However, current approaches also create significant harms for these same groups. The "diversity hire" stigma can be devastating, causing colleagues to discount contributions and undermining confidence. Even when individuals are hired purely on merit, they may wonder if others perceive them differently. Research shows this stigma can reduce job satisfaction, increase imposter syndrome, and ironically decrease the very inclusion DEI aims to create.

Additionally, excessive focus on representation can paradoxically reduce attention to inclusion. Organizations congratulate themselves for meeting demographic targets without examining whether diverse employees can actually contribute fully. Worse, some inclusion practices are counterproductive—treating women with lower standards under the guise of being supportive, which both signals lack of confidence in their abilities and prevents them from reaching their potential (Edmans, 2025).

For majority-group members, particularly white men, current DEI practice can create genuine disadvantages. When organizations implement explicit or implicit quotas, some qualified candidates are inevitably rejected based on demographics rather than merit. The 2023 LinkedIn survey finding that 20% of recruiters received "no white men" instructions, if representative, suggests this is not merely theoretical concern but lived reality for many job seekers.

This does not mean DEI initiatives inherently disadvantage majority groups—indeed, well-designed approaches benefit everyone by improving organizational performance and culture. But it does mean that unmeritocratic implementations create zero-sum competition, fostering resentment and political polarization rather than shared value creation.

For organizations broadly, the polarization surrounding DEI creates governance challenges. When DEI becomes a partisan issue, with progressive employees strongly supporting current approaches and conservative employees viewing them as discriminatory, finding common ground becomes difficult. Some DEI and HR departments, staffed predominantly by left-leaning professionals, may inadvertently create environments where conservative viewpoints are unwelcome, further deepening divides.

The business consequences of this polarization have become visible. Bud Light and Target suffered massive consumer backlashes after DEI-adjacent marketing campaigns that alienated conservative customers, with billions in market value destroyed. Fos et al. (2025) find that politically misaligned executive departures—such as a Democrat leaving a Republican-led company—cost firms an average of $200 million in market value, suggesting that political homogeneity (in either direction) creates blind spots that harm performance.

Evidence-Based Organizational Responses: The Framework of Potential, Synergy, and Inclusion

The concept of potential fundamentally reframes hiring and development decisions. Rather than focusing solely on past achievements—SAT scores, prior job performance, credentials—organizations should assess capacity for future contribution. This shift is not merely semantic; it has profound practical implications.

Table 1: Empirical Studies and Frameworks in DEI Research

Author(s)	Year	Study Subject	Key Findings/Metric Analyzed	DEI Dimension Explored	Performance Impact (Inferred)
McKinsey & Company	2015, 2018, 2020, 2023	Diversity matters; Delivering through diversity; Diversity wins	Reported strong correlations between gender/ethnic diversity and financial performance.	Demographic	Positive
Edmondson	1999	Psychological safety in work teams	Study of 5,000 employees; teams with higher psychological safety delivered superior outcomes.	Inclusion	Positive
Edmans	2025	Cognitive diversity in asset management	Positive associations between cognitive diversity (education, experience) and team performance.	Cognitive	Positive
Edmans et al.	2025	Inclusion and financial performance	Demographic diversity shows little correlation with inclusion or performance; broader equity/inclusion measures do correlate.	Demographic and Inclusion	Positive (for Inclusion), Null (for Demographic)
Martins et al.	2012	Cognitive diversity and psychological safety	Educational diversity only improved performance when psychological safety was high.	Cognitive and Inclusion	Positive
Nemeth et al.	2004	Debate vs. Brainstorm cultures	Teams encouraged to debate and criticize generated significantly more and better ideas.	Cognitive and Ideological	Positive
Goldin & Rouse	2000	Blind orchestra auditions	Removing gender visibility increased female hiring by correcting for implicit bias.	Demographic	Positive
Green and Hand	2024	Reproduction of McKinsey diversity studies	Results were not reproducible and highly sensitive to specification choices; questioned robustness.	Demographic	Null
Eckbo et al.	2022	Norway's board gender-quota law	Revisited valuation effects of mandated diversity; typically finds no relationship.	Demographic	Null
Adams & Ferreira	2009	Women in the boardroom	Impact of gender diversity on governance and performance; found no relationship.	Demographic	Null
Greene et al.	2020	California board diversity requirements	Evidence from Senate Bill No. 826 on firm value; found negative or null effects.	Demographic	Negative/Null
Fos et al.	2025	Political polarization of corporate America	Politically misaligned executive departures cost firms an average of $200 million in market value.	Ideological	Negative
Ahern & Dittmar	2012	Mandated board gender quotas in Norway	Impact of female board representation on firm valuation; found significant value destruction.	Demographic	Negative

Broadening Assessment Beyond Current Metrics

Traditional meritocracy often equates to selecting candidates with the highest current performance indicators. Universities admit students with top SAT scores and GPAs. Companies hire applicants with the strongest resumes and interview performances. Awards recognize past achievements.

However, organizational and educational objectives center on future contribution, not past accomplishment. A university does not benefit from a student's high school performance per se; it benefits from their future research, teaching, and knowledge creation. A company does not profit from an employee's previous job performance; it profits from their future value creation.

Potential recognizes that past performance imperfectly predicts future contribution because individuals' trajectories differ. One applicant may have a lower SAT score but greater potential because they overcame substantial obstacles—poverty, family instability, inadequate schools—that suppressed current performance but developed resilience, creativity, and determination that will fuel future growth. Another may have achieved less because they were systematically discouraged from particular subjects or career paths.

Elite universities increasingly run "target schools" programs, reaching into state schools and disadvantaged areas to identify talented students who might assume they have no chance of admission. These initiatives do not lower admission standards; they expand the pool of applicants considered. By correcting information asymmetries—helping promising students understand that elite universities are accessible and affordable—they surface potential that would otherwise remain hidden.

Similarly, professional services firms and corporations have established pathways from non-traditional universities and backgrounds. Rather than recruiting exclusively from Ivy League institutions or through elite networks ("the old boys' club"), they cast wider nets. When done well, this expands rather than constrains meritocracy, identifying high-potential candidates whose backgrounds differ from historical norms.

Correcting for Structural Barriers and Implicit Bias

Demographic characteristics can be informative about potential because they correlate with obstacles faced. Female applicants in STEM fields may have encountered subtle discouragement—teachers overlooking them for opportunities, classmates excluding them from study groups—that depressed observable performance while building determination. Certain ethnic minorities may have attended under-resourced schools or faced stereotyping that created additional challenges.

Critically, this does not mean that all members of underrepresented groups faced greater obstacles than all majority-group members. Some minority candidates come from affluent, supportive backgrounds; some white males grew up in poverty with minimal educational resources. The point is that demographic characteristics provide some information about likely trajectories, which can be combined with other background factors to assess potential more accurately than current performance alone.

Additionally, implicit biases may distort assessment of current performance itself. Goldin and Rouse (2000) famously demonstrated that blind orchestra auditions increased female hiring, suggesting that evaluators unconsciously favored male musicians when gender was visible. Similar biases may affect evaluation of job candidates, academic papers, or promotion decisions. Correcting for these biases—through techniques like blind review—ensures that assessments reflect actual quality rather than stereotypes.

Symphony orchestras that implemented blind auditions—where candidates perform behind screens—saw substantial increases in female hiring (Goldin & Rouse, 2000). The practice does not advantage women; it removes the disadvantage created by bias. Similarly, academic journals increasingly use double-blind peer review, where neither authors nor reviewers know each other's identities. This reduces bias based on author prestige, institutional affiliation, or demographics.

These interventions maintain meritocracy while removing distortions. The goal is not to prefer certain demographic groups but to ensure assessments reflect genuine quality and potential rather than stereotypes.

Realizing Potential Through Development and Support

Hiring for potential is necessary but insufficient; organizations must help individuals realize their potential. This requires moving beyond "add diversity and stir" approaches that assume representation automatically generates benefits.

Development includes formal mechanisms—training, mentoring, stretch assignments—but also informal factors like inclusion (discussed below), feedback quality, and expectations. Edmans (2025) reports that junior women sometimes receive less rigorous feedback than male peers, with seniors accepting lower-quality work under the guise of being supportive. While perhaps well-intentioned, this prevents skill development and signals lack of confidence in potential. High standards, combined with appropriate support, better enable everyone to reach their potential.

Management consulting firms like McKinsey have long employed apprenticeship models where junior consultants work closely with senior partners on client engagements. This creates intensive learning opportunities through real-world problem-solving, immediate feedback, and exposure to expert thinking. The model works because it combines high expectations with substantial support—juniors are stretched beyond their current capabilities but receive the coaching needed to meet new demands.

When applied inclusively, such models help realize the potential of diverse talent. However, inclusion matters: if senior partners unconsciously favor mentoring demographically similar juniors (e.g., male partners spending more time developing male consultants), the apprenticeship model can inadvertently perpetuate inequality despite its meritocratic design. Organizations must monitor and address such patterns.

Building Teams Around Synergy and Complementarity

Synergy shifts focus from individual quality to collective performance. The best team is not necessarily the one composed of the individually strongest members; it is the team whose members complement each other most effectively.

Cognitive Diversity: Beyond Demographics

The business case for diversity most commonly emphasizes cognitive diversity—different perspectives, experiences, and problem-solving approaches that enable teams to make better decisions, generate more creative solutions, and avoid groupthink. This is a compelling rationale, but it is often incorrectly equated with demographic diversity.

Psychological research does find some average differences across demographic groups. Studies suggest men and women may differ in traits like overconfidence, risk preferences, or communication styles (Deaux & Emswiller, 1974; Lundberg et al., 1994). Different ethnicities may bring distinct cultural values or life experiences. However, variation within demographic groups far exceeds variation between groups. An all-male team might have tremendous cognitive diversity if members bring different disciplines (engineering, psychology, economics), industries (technology, healthcare, finance), and cognitive styles (detail-oriented vs. big-picture, quantitative vs. qualitative).

Conversely, a demographically diverse team might lack cognitive diversity if everyone attended similar elite universities, worked in the same industry, and approaches problems identically. Research by Edmans (2025) finds that educational and professional diversity—variation in undergraduate majors, industry backgrounds, functional expertise—correlate more strongly with performance than demographic diversity.

Scientific breakthroughs increasingly come from interdisciplinary collaboration. The development of CRISPR gene editing required insights from molecular biology, biochemistry, and computational biology. Understanding climate change demands integration of atmospheric science, oceanography, ecology, and economics. Effective teams for such problems need members with complementary expertise who can translate across disciplinary languages.

Demographic diversity may contribute to such teams—for instance, if certain fields have historically attracted particular demographic groups—but the key driver of synergy is the disciplinary complementarity itself, not the demographics. A team of five white male professors spanning biology, chemistry, physics, economics, and computer science will likely outperform a demographically diverse team of five biologists, regardless of gender or ethnic composition.

When Cognitive Similarity Creates Synergy

While cognitive diversity receives most attention, some contexts reward cognitive similarity. When a production function has a "max" rather than "min" structure—where performance depends on excelling at one dimension rather than being adequate across all dimensions—concentration beats diversification.

A quantitative hedge fund may perform best with critical mass in statistical modeling rather than mixing quants and fundamental analysts. An academic department might generate more influential research by concentrating scholars in a single paradigm (behavioral economics, experimental methods, Chicago-school theory) that enables cumulative knowledge building. Some of the most groundbreaking academic contributions came from homogeneous teams: Black and Scholes developing option pricing theory, Modigliani and Miller establishing capital structure irrelevance, or Diamond and Dybvig modeling bank runs (Black & Scholes, 1973; Modigliani & Miller, 1958; Diamond & Dybvig, 1983).

This does not mean organizations should cultivate groupthink, but it does mean optimal diversity depends on context. When deep expertise matters more than broad perspective, concentration may outperform diversification. When the task requires integrating multiple viewpoints or skill sets, diversity becomes essential.

Investment management illustrates both patterns. Some highly successful firms specialize narrowly—Renaissance Technologies focuses almost exclusively on quantitative statistical arbitrage, while Baupost Group pursues value investing with a consistent philosophical approach. These firms benefit from cognitive alignment, enabling team members to build on shared frameworks and accumulated expertise.

Other successful investors, like Bridgewater Associates, deliberately cultivate diverse perspectives through "radical transparency" and structured disagreement. Employees are expected to challenge each other's views regardless of seniority, and the firm systematically brings together different analytical approaches. This diversity creates synergy by surfacing blind spots and forcing more robust decision-making.

Neither approach is inherently superior; effectiveness depends on the investment strategy, organizational culture, and production function. The key is matching diversity level to context rather than assuming more diversity is always better.

Complementary Skills, Resources, and Preferences

Synergy extends beyond cognitive diversity. Teams often perform best when members bring complementary skills—different capabilities that together create more value than separately. A soccer team needs goalkeepers, defenders, midfielders, and strikers, even if these positions rarely exchange ideas. A construction project requires electricians, plumbers, and carpenters with distinct technical skills. A startup benefits from partners with complementary capabilities—one focused on product development, another on business development, a third on operations.

Similarly, team members may contribute complementary resources—capital, networks, information, or time. In early-stage ventures, one partner might provide funding while another contributes industry expertise and customer relationships. In established organizations, colleagues may belong to different professional networks, expanding collective access to opportunities and intelligence.

Finally, effective teams often balance complementary preferences and values—different goals that together create healthier outcomes than any single objective pursued alone. One leader might emphasize bold innovation while another ensures prudent risk management. One focuses on long-term vision; another on near-term execution. These are not cognitive differences (different ways of thinking) but motivational differences (different priorities), yet they create valuable synergy.

Successful technology startups frequently have founding teams with complementary skills and preferences. Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak at Apple illustrated this pattern: Wozniak brought engineering brilliance and product design; Jobs contributed vision, marketing genius, and business acumen. Neither could have built Apple alone, but together their complementary capabilities created transformative value.

Similarly, many startups balance a "product person" focused on user experience and innovation with a "business person" emphasizing monetization and scale, and an "operations person" ensuring execution. These complementarities create synergy regardless of demographic composition.

Fostering Genuine Inclusion

Inclusion is the mechanism that converts potential and synergy into realized outcomes. Without inclusion, talented individuals cannot contribute fully, and diverse perspectives remain unexpressed. However, inclusion is frequently misunderstood and poorly implemented.

Psychological Safety and Voice

The foundation of inclusion is psychological safety—the shared belief that team members can take interpersonal risks without negative consequences (Edmondson, 1999). In psychologically safe environments, individuals can voice concerns, admit mistakes, challenge senior colleagues, and propose unconventional ideas without fear of humiliation, marginalization, or career damage.

Research demonstrates that psychological safety enhances performance across diverse settings. Edmondson's (1999) study of 5,000 employees found teams with higher psychological safety delivered superior outcomes. Crucially, psychological safety particularly benefits cognitively diverse teams: Martins et al. (2012) showed that educational diversity only improved performance when psychological safety was high. Without it, diverse teams suffered coordination problems and conflict without gaining the benefits of different perspectives.

However, psychological safety is often confused with comfort or the absence of challenge. Edmondson and Kerrissey (2025) emphasize that psychological safety does not mean protecting people from being told they are wrong or shielding them from rigorous standards. Rather, it means that being wrong does not carry stigma—individuals can make mistakes, express unpopular views, or admit ignorance without social penalty.

Research by Nemeth et al. (2004) divided students into teams and asked them to solve problems. Some teams ("Brainstorm") were instructed: "Most research suggests the best way to come up with good solutions is to come up with many solutions. Don't be afraid to say anything that comes to mind. However, you should NOT criticize anyone else's ideas." Other teams ("Debate") received different guidance: "You should debate and even criticize each other's ideas."

The Debate teams generated significantly more and better ideas than Brainstorm teams, a finding replicated across U.S. and French cultures. This does not contradict the value of psychological safety; rather, it shows that true safety enables robust disagreement. Team members feel secure enough in their relationships to challenge each other's thinking, knowing that intellectual combat strengthens outcomes and does not threaten social bonds.

Many organizations claim to value inclusion but actually reward agreement and conformity. Employees learn that voicing contrarian views, especially ones that contradict senior leadership or popular narratives, carries career risks. This dynamic is particularly problematic in organizations with strong DEI cultures: employees may fear that questioning DEI orthodoxy will be interpreted as discriminatory, even when critiques aim to improve implementation.

Political and Ideological Inclusion

A particularly challenging dimension of inclusion concerns political and ideological diversity. Research suggests corporate environments and especially DEI/HR functions tilt heavily toward progressive political perspectives. This ideological sorting can inadvertently exclude conservative viewpoints, creating blind spots that harm organizational performance.

High-profile examples illustrate the business costs. Bud Light's partnership with a transgender influencer and Target's Pride merchandise both sparked massive conservative backlash, destroying billions in market value. Fos et al. (2025) document that politically misaligned executive departures cost firms an average of $200 million. In each case, more politically diverse leadership might have anticipated and avoided costly missteps by understanding how initiatives would be received across the political spectrum.

Beyond specific incidents, lack of political diversity can stifle innovation and problem-solving. If conservative employees believe their perspectives are unwelcome, they will self-censor, depriving organizations of valuable viewpoints. Some employees have filed lawsuits claiming discipline or termination for expressing conservative views. The chilling effect extends beyond the individuals directly affected, signaling to others that certain opinions are forbidden.

Universities face particularly acute challenges around ideological inclusion. A 2022 study found that only 11% of UK academics identify as right-wing, while 76% identify as left-wing (with 21% far-left) (Legatum Institute, 2022). This imbalance creates environments where conservative perspectives may be marginalized, potentially affecting research questions pursued, methodologies accepted, and conclusions drawn.

The journal Nature's 2023 editorial stating it would reject scientifically accurate papers that "could reasonably be perceived to undermine the rights and dignities" of certain groups, even consulting "advocacy groups" on decisions, illustrates how inclusion can paradoxically become exclusionary. By prioritizing ideological comfort over scientific inquiry, such policies exclude research that might offer inconvenient truths.

The charity Stonewall's "no debate" policy on transgender rights—criticized even by its former chief executive (Summerskill, 2025)—similarly prevents inclusion of relevant scientific perspectives. When organizations declare certain topics beyond discussion, they abandon genuine inclusion in favor of enforced consensus.

Removing Structural Barriers While Maintaining Standards

Inclusion also involves identifying and removing structural barriers that disproportionately affect certain groups. Some barriers are straightforward to address: wheelchair-accessible facilities, flexible working arrangements for parents, mental health support, or accommodations for neurodiversity. These interventions create equality of opportunity without compromising standards.

However, inclusion initiatives can drift from removing barriers toward lowering expectations. If women receive less rigorous feedback than men, ostensibly to be "supportive," they are denied opportunities to develop (Edmans, 2025). If mental health considerations prevent any criticism of underperformance, standards erode and high performers become resentful. If "inclusion" means inviting everyone to every meeting regardless of relevance, it wastes time and dilutes decision-making.

The challenge is distinguishing between barriers that prevent people from performing to their potential (which should be removed) and standards that define high performance (which should be maintained). Wheelchair ramps remove barriers; allowing substandard work in the name of inclusion lowers standards. The former grows the pie; the latter redistributes it while shrinking total value.

Progressive organizations increasingly offer generous parental leave, flexible working, and childcare support. When well-designed, these policies remove barriers that disproportionately affect parents (especially mothers) without compromising performance standards. Employees can balance family and career while still delivering high-quality work.

However, implementation matters. If colleagues perceive that parents receive special treatment—working fewer hours for the same pay and promotion opportunities—resentment emerges. If expectations genuinely differ, talented non-parents may leave for environments that reward their greater availability. The key is ensuring policies remove barriers (making it possible to succeed while having children) rather than simply redistributing outcomes (guaranteeing identical career trajectories regardless of time invested).

Some companies, like Netflix, address this through "radical responsibility": employees have complete flexibility in when and how they work, but are held accountable for results. This removes barriers (anyone can take time for family, health, or personal needs) while maintaining standards (everyone must deliver excellent outcomes). The approach works when output is objectively measurable; it becomes more challenging in roles where time investment directly determines value created.

Building Long-Term Capability and Organizational Resilience

Embedding Potential Assessment in Talent Systems

For the Potential framework to move beyond rhetoric, organizations must systematically integrate future-oriented assessment into talent decisions. This requires rethinking recruitment, performance evaluation, and succession planning processes.

Recruitment process redesign begins with expanding sourcing beyond traditional channels. Rather than recruiting exclusively from elite universities or established networks, organizations can develop relationships with broader institutions, including state schools, community colleges, and international universities. Professional services firms increasingly partner with non-traditional universities to identify talented students early, provide mentoring, and create pathways to employment.

Search processes should explicitly assess trajectory, not just current achievement. Interview questions can explore how candidates overcome obstacles, respond to setbacks, and learn from failure. Reference checks can probe growth potential rather than merely validating past performance. Case studies or work samples can reveal problem-solving capacity rather than credentialing.

Performance evaluation should incorporate both current contribution and future potential. Microsoft's shift from stack-ranking to growth mindset evaluation illustrates this evolution. Rather than purely rating current performance against peers, reviews assess learning velocity, response to feedback, and capacity to tackle increasingly complex challenges. This approach better identifies who will create future value rather than who has created past value.

Succession planning requires distinguishing between "ready now" candidates and "high potential" candidates. The former can step into senior roles immediately based on current capabilities; the latter may need development but have superior long-term potential. Organizations that focus exclusively on readiness may promote individuals who have plateaued over those still on steep growth trajectories.

Creating Structures That Enable Diverse Perspectives

Synergy does not happen automatically; it requires organizational structures that surface and integrate different viewpoints. This involves both formal mechanisms (decision-making processes, team composition) and informal factors (culture, norms).

Decision-making processes can be designed to force consideration of multiple perspectives. Bridgewater Associates' "radical transparency" systematically elicits dissenting views through recorded meetings, public debate, and algorithmic analysis of past decision quality. Amazon's "narrative memos" require structured written analysis before meetings, preventing charismatic presenters from dominating discussion and enabling thorough evaluation of different approaches.

Team composition should be intentionally designed around the specific synergies needed. For complex strategic decisions, teams might deliberately include members with different functional backgrounds (finance, operations, marketing), analytical approaches (quantitative, qualitative), and time horizons (long-term, short-term). For specialized technical work, teams might concentrate expertise in a narrow domain. The key is matching composition to task rather than assuming one-size-fits-all diversity.

Rotation and cross-functional exposure help individuals develop broader perspectives. Companies like General Electric and McKinsey historically rotated high-potential employees through different business units and geographies, building cognitive flexibility and preventing siloed thinking. While this approach has costs—reduced specialization, disrupted relationships—it creates leaders who can integrate diverse perspectives and navigate organizational complexity.

Institutionalizing Inclusive Cultures

Inclusion cannot be delegated to DEI departments or achieved through isolated training programs. It must be embedded in organizational culture through leadership behavior, accountability systems, and daily practices.

Leadership modeling is perhaps most critical. When senior leaders publicly welcome dissenting views, acknowledge their own mistakes, and visibly change decisions based on subordinate input, they signal that challenge is valued. Conversely, when leaders punish messengers, surround themselves with agreeable advisors, or dismiss contrary evidence, they signal that inclusion is merely rhetorical.

Ray Dalio at Bridgewater exemplified inclusion through leadership behavior. He encouraged junior employees to challenge his views publicly, recorded meetings where he was overruled, and created systems that forced him to confront disagreement. This modeling legitimized dissent throughout the organization, enabling genuine diversity of thought.

Accountability systems should measure genuine inclusion, not just demographic representation. This might include employee surveys assessing psychological safety, analysis of speaking patterns in meetings (do all voices get heard?), examination of whose ideas get adopted, and tracking of dissent (are minority views surfaced and seriously considered?). These metrics are harder to quantify than headcount but better capture substantive inclusion.

Daily practices around meetings, communication, and decision-making determine whether inclusion is real or performative. Do meetings have clear purposes with relevant participants, or do organizations invite everyone regardless of contribution? When someone voices an unpopular view, do colleagues engage substantively or dismiss it? Are decisions explained with reasoning, enabling people to understand why their input may not have been adopted? These micro-interactions cumulatively determine culture.

Conclusion

The current state of DEI represents a failure of implementation, not of principle. By reducing diversity, equity, and inclusion to demographic representation, organizations have created initiatives that are simultaneously ineffective and divisive. They fail to deliver promised performance benefits, generate resentment among those excluded, and stigmatize the very individuals they aim to help. The resulting backlash, while sometimes excessive, reflects genuine concerns with unmeritocratic practices, lowered standards, and ideological homogeneity.

However, abandoning DEI entirely would be equally mistaken. The core insight—that organizations benefit from identifying overlooked talent, building complementary teams, and creating cultures where everyone can contribute fully—remains sound. The solution is not to eliminate DEI but to evolve it.

The framework of Potential, Synergy, and Inclusion offers a path forward:

• Potential broadens assessment beyond current achievement to future capacity, recognizing that demographics inform trajectories but so do countless other factors including socioeconomic background, educational environment, and obstacles overcome. It emphasizes not merely hiring diverse talent but enabling people to realize their potential through high expectations combined with appropriate support.

• Synergy focuses on building the best team rather than the best collection of individuals, acknowledging that optimal diversity depends on context. Cognitive diversity enhances performance in some settings; cognitive similarity in others. Complementary skills, resources, and preferences create synergies that extend far beyond demographic variation.

• Inclusion ensures that potential and synergy translate into outcomes through psychological safety, voice, and removal of structural barriers. It means creating environments where people can challenge prevailing views, surface unpopular perspectives, and overcome frictions—while maintaining high standards and objective accountability.

This approach depoliticizes DEI by shifting focus from whose interests are served to how value is created. Rather than viewing diversity as redistributing fixed resources toward particular groups—a zero-sum game that creates winners and losers—it emphasizes growing the pie through better hiring, more effective teams, and cultures enabling peak performance.

Implementation requires moving beyond surface metrics and performative gestures. Organizations must systematically integrate potential assessment into talent systems, design structures that surface diverse perspectives, and institutionalize inclusion through leadership behavior and daily practices. This work cannot be delegated to DEI specialists or HR departments; it requires commitment across all functions and levels.

The stakes are substantial. Companies that effectively harness potential, synergy, and inclusion will outperform competitors still fighting culture wars or pursuing box-ticking compliance. Universities that broaden recruitment while maintaining rigor will produce more impactful research and better-prepared graduates. Societies that create genuine equality of opportunity will tap human potential currently constrained by structural barriers and biases.

The end of DEI—understood as the current narrow, polarizing, demographic-focused practice—creates space for something better: organizations and institutions that identify and develop talent regardless of background, build teams whose diverse capabilities create superior outcomes, and foster cultures where everyone can perform at their best. This is not a compromise between competing political factions but a recognition that the apparent trade-off between fairness and performance is false. Properly implemented, the pursuit of potential, synergy, and inclusion advances both.

References

1. Adams, R. B., & Ferreira, D. (2009). Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and performance. Journal of Financial Economics, 94(2), 291–309.

2. Ahern, K. R., & Dittmar, A. K. (2012). The changing of the boards: The impact on firm valuation of mandated female board representation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127(1), 137–197.

3. Baker, A. C., Larcker, D. F., McClure, C. G., Saraph, D., & Watts, E. M. (2024). Diversity washing. Journal of Accounting Research, 62(5), 1661–1709.

4. Bertrand, M., Black, S. E., Jensen, S., & Lleras-Muney, A. (2019). Breaking the glass ceiling? The effect of board quotas on female labor market outcomes in Norway. Review of Economic Studies, 86(1), 191–239.

5. Black, F., & Scholes, M. (1973). The pricing of options and corporate liabilities. Journal of Political Economy, 81(3), 637–654.

6. CHRO Association. (2024). Center on executive compensation exclusive: DEI metrics. Retrieved from https://www.chroassociation.org

7. Deaux, K., & Emswiller, T. (1974). Explanations of successful performance on sex-linked tasks: What is skill for the male is luck for the female. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29(1), 80–85.

8. Deaux, K., & Farris, E. (1977). Attributing causes for one's own performance: The effects of sex, norms, and outcome. Journal of Research in Personality, 11(1), 59–72.

9. Diamond, D. W., & Dybvig, P. H. (1983). Bank runs, deposit insurance, and liquidity. Journal of Political Economy, 91(3), 401–419.

10. Eckbo, B. E., Nygaard, K., & Thorburn, K. S. (2022). Valuation effects of Norway's board gender-quota law revisited. Management Science, 68(6), 4112–4134.

11. Edmans, A. (2021, August 20). No, boardroom diversity does not mean higher profits. The Telegraph.

12. Edmans, A. (2023a). The end of ESG. Financial Management, 52(1), 3–17.

13. Edmans, A. (2023b). Applying economics—not gut feel—to ESG. Financial Analysts Journal, 79(2), 16–29.

14. Edmans, A. (2024). Rational sustainability. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 36(1), 8–15.

15. Edmans, A. (2025). Cognitive diversity in asset management: The power of diverse thinking. The Diversity Project.

16. Edmans, A., Flammer, C., & Glossner, S. (2025). (Diversity) Equity and inclusion. Working paper, London Business School.

17. Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.

18. Edmondson, A. C. (2008). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. Wiley.

19. Edmondson, A. C., & Kerrissey, M. J. (2025). What people get wrong about psychological safety. Harvard Business Review, 103(3), 56–63.

20. Financial Reporting Council. (2021). Board diversity and effectiveness in FTSE 350 companies.

21. Fos, V., Kempf, E., & Tsoutsoura, M. (2025). The political polarization of corporate America. NBER Working Paper 30183.

22. Fried, J. M. (2021). Will Nasdaq's diversity rules harm investors? Harvard Business Law Review Online, 12, 1–15.

23. Frijns, B., Garel, A., & Liao, S. (2025). Employee demographic diversity and firm performance. Financial Management, 54(1), 305–330.

24. Goldin, C., & Rouse, C. (2000). Orchestrating impartiality: The impact of "blind" auditions on female musicians. American Economic Review, 90(4), 715–741.

25. Gorte, J. (2024). The business case for diversity and inclusion. IMPAX Asset Management.

26. Green, J., & Hand, J. R. M. (2024). McKinsey's Diversity Matters/Delivers/Wins results revisited. Econ Journal Watch, 21(1), 5–34.

27. Greene, D., Intintoli, V. J., & Kahle, K. M. (2020). Do board gender quotas affect firm value? Evidence from California Senate Bill No. 826. Journal of Corporate Finance, 60, 101526.

28. Legatum Institute. (2022). Is academic freedom under threat?

29. Lenney, E. (1977). Women's self-confidence in achievement settings. Psychological Bulletin, 84(1), 1–13.

30. Lundberg, M., Fox, P., & Punchchar, J. (1994). Highly confident but wrong: Gender differences and similarities in confidence judgments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 114–121.

31. Martins, L. L., Schilpzand, M. C., Kirkman, B. L., Ivanaj, S., & Ivanaj, V. (2012). A contingency view of the effects of cognitive diversity on team performance: The moderating roles of team psychological safety and relationship conflict. Small Group Research, 44(2), 96–126.

32. McKinsey & Company. (2015). Diversity matters.

33. McKinsey & Company. (2018). Delivering through diversity.

34. McKinsey & Company. (2020). Diversity wins: How inclusion matters.

35. McKinsey & Company. (2023). Diversity matters even more.

36. Modigliani, F., & Miller, M. H. (1958). The cost of capital, corporation finance, and the theory of investment. American Economic Review, 48(3), 261–297.

37. Nemeth, C. J., Personnaz, B., Personnaz, M., & Goncalo, J. A. (2004). The liberating role of conflict in group creativity: A study in two countries. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34(4), 365–374.

38. Resources for Employers. (2023). 'No white men' policy: What you can & can't do in diversity hiring.

39. Resume Builder. (2025). 1 in 10 companies with DEI programs avoid hiring white men.

40. ShareAction. (2024). Voting matters: 2024 study.

41. Summerskill, B. (2025, April 30). Stonewall's policy of 'no debate' on trans rights was a mistake. The Guardian.

---

Jonathan H. Westover, PhD is Chief Academic & Learning Officer (HCI Academy); Associate Dean and Director of HR Programs (WGU); Professor, Organizational Leadership (UVU); OD/HR/Leadership Consultant (Human Capital Innovations). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.

---

Suggested Citation: Westover, J. H. (2026). The End of DEI? The Evolution from Demographic Metrics to Potential, Synergy, and Inclusion. Human Capital Leadership Review, 30(1). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.30.1.2