top of page

A gap in DEI

Diversity, Equality, Inclusion.


In my work environment, DEI (or more often DIBs) occupies an increasingly important place

that is becoming the center of everything we do - it is not only a priority for the organization and the work environment that is created for its employees, but also a commitment that is reflected in platform features promoting fairness and reducing gaps to opportunities.


With several key political & social movements globally in the recent years, it has almost become a "must" for companies to invest in DEI to some extent, and indeed that's what many companies are doing. While I can see the importance of DEI and the list of benefits that come along with DEI initiatives, in reality, it could be difficult to execute and sustain.

And because DEI is being brought up in many occasions (along with DIBs, D&I etc), I started to ask myself, what does DEI really mean anyway? Is it just some written company policies or headcount ratio? Or should it be more of a conscious effort that we incorporate into our everyday lives as individuals? While there are so many variations and angles of defining DEI, this is what I believe...


It is a lifelong journey to not having (or minimizing) prejudice against others and showing empathy and consideration for people with backgrounds different than our own - that applies to both in and outside of workplace, and requires conscious effort and all-time awareness.


When I think of DEI in the context of workplace, it'd be about hiring candidates who are best fit for the role without discriminating against certain groups, and creating an environment where everybody feels included and comfortable working in this space. I'm a strong believer in equal employment opportunity for every candidate who possesses the necessary skills or the potential to upskill. However there seems to be an unclear boundary between meeting KPIs set to drive DEI, and taking a "non-discriminative" approach in decision making - I see the latter being more difficult to achieve consistently, and the outcome may not be how everyone perceives "diversity". True equality should be unbiased, and should naturally result in diversity, yet may not necessarily mean every social / ethnic background can be represented.


Think of a common scenario in the corporate environment: are there smaller ratio of women working as software engineer because of prejudice against women? or people who have the skills to be software engineers more often happen to be men?


At a broader level - if it happens that people with certain social / ethnic backgrounds perform better in certain roles, shall opportunities be given to people with different social backgrounds in order to achieve diversity goals? Inviting different perspectives / having people with diversified backgrounds certainly has its advantage, but is reserving opportunities for certain groups of people itself also a form of discrimination?


There probably are no absolute answers. It's more important to constantly awareness and understanding of how diversity, equality and inclusion are interconnected, as well as to review policies and initiatives periodically to ensure they are there to guide instead of to limit us.


When we think of diversity & inclusion, it's common to make association with gender, ethnicity, race, religions, disability, sexual orientation etc. One background that can be easily overlooked and not commonly discussed is criminal record. Shall people with criminal records be given equal opportunities to go through the recruitment process? Should they not be given an offer due to any or certain convictions (given they possess the skills needed)? If an offer is given, is the workplace ready to be inclusive towards people who have had criminal records?


Some employers in some countries might be moving faster in this journey, it is still far more common for employers to take a more conservative / risk averse approach when evaluating criminal background check.


It may be true that criminal records reflect a person's character & behaviour to a certain extent - often undesirable ones. But more often, the records simply tell a mistake a person made at some point in his/her life, or a belief he/she had held. Unfortunately, the stereotypical biases towards criminals or people with convictions are still unreasonably strong, reflecting how little we know, as a society, about our legal system (or the reality of it), as well as how conservative we (still) could be when putting DEI in action. And here's why I think criminal record should at least be considered to be part of the DEI conversation:

  1. Not all people with criminal records are "bad", while not all the freemen out there are "good" - I think this is not difficult to understand. Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world and our legal system can't be perfect. Innocent people could be convicted, and those who have done bad things could be acquitted - all powered by our legal system. How can we ever be so confident to judge a person solely based on the checkbox of criminal record?

  2. Since 2019, there has been an increasing number of people who are convicted due to political related accusations in Hong Kong, many are students, young talents, some are parents, who had ordinary lives just like me and you - going to school or working full time. The students especially, they play a crucial role in shaping the future of this society. Among them are some of the brightest individuals. I think it's safe to say that many continue to grasp opportunities to educate and upskill themselves even under the toughest circumstances, and hoping one day the public would appreciate what they are capable of, instead of labelling them with the word "criminal".

Hearing stories about candidates with criminal records being declined due to "company HR policies" makes me reflect where the boundary should be drawn. While it is not employers' responsibilities to offer opportunities to people with criminal record or to rehabilitate them (that is the government's responsibilities), candidates should not in any way be prejudiced due to the fact that they have a criminal record (which often can be difficult to eliminate even it is a spent conviction). These are the people who have gone through public trial in front of the judge and have already been punished by laws. When they have gone through rehabilitation and ready to reintegrate into the society, who are we to take away their chances to live like the rest of us again? Rehabilitation programs can really only be effective when the society is ready to accept this group of people back in the workforce.


There is no doubt DEI is sensitive and difficult area to manage in a corporate environment, and I think there are things we can try to practice as individuals - question stereotypes, embrace differences, listen actively to others - that will certainly start making small differences in our DEI journeys, and it's never too late to start!







Recent Posts

See All

Quarantine read - Fake Law

Another quarantine good read was "Fake Law" from the same author as "The Secret Barrister". A common theme that I see from these 2 books...

Comments


bottom of page