Have Google and Meta really abandoned DEI?

Meta and Google have caused a political stir for publicly ditching their diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs lately. But is it, in fact, a storm in a teacup?

DEI is a topic that, understandably, generates strong views in both its advocates and its critics. It’s particularly keenly felt when it comes to hiring.

At the heart of the issue is fairness. On the one hand, marginalised groups – including women (in certain sectors, of which tech is undoubtedly one), ethnic minorities, disabled and neurodiverse people, and others – rightly feel that they should be considered for roles on an equal basis to white, able-bodied men, without biases, conscious or unconscious, holding back their chances of landing a job. DEI initiatives – particularly quota-based hiring and leadership targets – are viewed as being central to ensuring this fairness by traditional DEI advocates.

Opponents to DEI, however, argue that it undermines the principle of fairness. Hiring quotas are a particular source of controversy. DEI critics argue that it’s impossible to select the best candidates for jobs if targets mandating a certain level of representation from marginalised groups are applied; they argue that the best person for the job should be selected, and that their ethnicity, gender or (dis)ability shouldn’t factor, one way or the other. 

This debate has always been political at heart, and that’s been underscored by the reaction of many companies to Donald Trump resuming the US presidency. Along with close advisor Elon Musk, Trump is a prominent opponent of DEI initiatives and has mandated that government contractors risk legal action if they deploy them.

Before wading any further into controversy, then, let’s make it clear here that there’s an obvious parallel between both sides: both believe that diversity characteristics shouldn’t influence employability; that meritocracy and competence should define who gets which job.

We agree. The question and the debate, as we see it, is over the best way to achieve this in practice. 

With that in mind, let’s have a look at what’s happened to Google and Meta’s DEI programs in recent weeks. We’ll then return to the question of DEI initiatives in general in light of the changes they’ve made, and explore how significant a shift 

What were Meta and Google’s DEI initiatives?

Google has, for many years, been a prominent voice in corporate DEI initiatives. In 2020, Sundar Pichai, CEO of Google’s parent company Alphabet, set targets to increase the proportion of its leadership from underrepresented groups by 30%. At the time, 96% of its US leadership were white or Asian, and globally just under three quarters were men. 

That followed a 2018 target to increase its US workforce diversity to match what it called “market supply”.

Meta committed to various DEI initiatives in 2019, including doubling the number of black and hispanic employees in its US workforce and the number of women it employed globally by 2024; by the time its 2022 Diversity Report was published, it had already exceeded both goals. 

Like Google, Meta also set a target, in 2020, to increase the number of leaders in its organisation by 30% in five years.

(How) have Google and Meta replaced their DEI programs?

Both Google and Meta have stepped back from DEI initiatives this year.

Axios reported on 10 January that Janelle Gale, Vice President of Human Resources at Meta, had circulated a memo within the company announcing an overhaul to many of its existing DEI initiatives.

Changes included wrapping up the company’s dedicated DEI team, replacing existing equity and inclusion programs with new ones focusing on “fair and consistent practices that mitigate bias for all, no matter your background”, and ending efforts to choose diverse businesses as suppliers.

Most notably, perhaps, the memo announced an end to representation goals and the “diverse slate” approach to candidate pooling, meaning that it would no longer mandate a diverse pool of candidates for selection from any role.

"We believe there are other ways to build an industry-leading workforce and leverage teams made up of world-class people from all types of backgrounds," said Gale. 

DEI expert Doug Melville argues in Forbes that Meta’s DEI programs haven’t been eliminated, but rather “repositioned, reorganized internally and updated under different language”. Cutting through the language in Gale’s memo, you can see his point. The importance and benefits of a diverse team are still emphasised in phrases like “from all types of backgrounds” and “fair and consistent practices that mitigate bias”; these could come straight out of the DEI textbook.

In that sense, Meta hasn’t erased its DEI initiatives, but has repackaged and rewritten them for a changing environment. 

Google’s retreat from its DEI initiatives was more direct. In part, it has to be; unlike Meta, Google is a US government contractor, and as such falls under the remit of Trump’s mandate that federal organisations unwind their DEI initiatives. 

That didn’t prevent a tone of disappointment creeping into the email that Fiona Cicconi, Chief People Officer at Alphabet sent to staff:

"In 2020, we set aspirational hiring goals and focused on growing our offices outside California and New York to improve representation… but in the future we will no longer have aspirational goals."

Does DEI improve recruitment?

Whether Google and Meta have actually ditched their DEI programs or not is debatable. So too, though, is the question of whether or not DEI programs are effective on their own terms.

In June, Harvard Business Review (HBR) cited several studies suggesting that some of the most common DEI practices correlate negatively with diversity outcomes. 

“We found the relationship between how often management practices are implemented in organizations and their effectiveness in attaining diverse representation is negative and strong at -.48,” said the report. “This negative correlation indicates that organizations are commonly implementing practices that are ineffective at — and in some cases even harmful to — increasing diverse representation while less commonly implementing practices that positively impact diverse representation.”

In the UK and the US, it’s illegal to discriminate actively in hiring decisions, so the main role that DEI plays is in trying to eliminate unconscious bias. Put simply, that means ensuring that recruitment decision-makers are genuinely picking the best candidate for the job, rather than letting subconscious preconceptions around ethnicity, gender or ableism influence the decision.

Here, there’s surely a common ground. Proponents and opponents of DEI initiatives alike can all agree that hiring decisions should be based on meritocracy; the best person for the job should get the job, regardless of their gender, ethnicity or other characteristics. The difference of opinion is over how that outcome is best achieved. 

One side argues that overcoming conscious or unconscious biases can only happen through measures like hiring quotas.

The other argues that these are themselves discriminatory. Gale’s memo to Meta acknowledged that “the term 'DEI' has also become charged, in part because it is understood by some as a practice that suggests preferential treatment of some groups over others”.

A White House fact sheet on Trump’s executive orders against DEI initiatives frames the critique more aggressively:

“In the private sector, many corporations and universities use DEI as an excuse for biased and unlawful employment practices and illegal admissions preferences, ignoring the fact that DEI’s foundational rhetoric and ideas foster intergroup hostility and authoritarianism.”

Conclusion: What’s Next for DEI?

The debate is highly charged at the moment, and arguably has been ever since the killing of George Floyd in 2020. That event prompted even Elon Musk’s Tesla to ramp up its DEI initiatives, including opening its Listen to Understand series in direct response to the event.

“During our first DEI Recruiting Summit, we shared tools and best practices with the entire global organization for scouting and landing the best talent from underrepresented communities,” read Tesla’s 2020 Impact Report. “Now all employees are introduced to our DEI principles on Day 1 of their employment in New Hire Orientation and have the opportunity to continue their DEI learning journey throughout their career at Tesla.”

It’s hard to imagine a Musk business taking this kind of line now. Tesla has moved faster than other big tech firms in distancing itself from DEI over recent years. It serves, though, to underscore the fact that even individual leaders’ understanding of meritocracy is constantly evolving. 

Whether or not Meta and Google’s recent rowbacks on DEI represent a genuine fundamental shift on how tech firms approach hiring and teambuilding, or simply the next iteration in a constantly-evolving drive for improvement, remains to be seen. 

Oho believes in connecting the world’s greatest innovators regardless of background or identity. Contact us now to find out how we can help grow your team or your career.