Daybreak - Merit vs diversity: The lines are being drawn. What side is your company on?

Episode Date: August 8, 2024

The search for an ideal workplace is a bit like finding El Dorado — that land of endless wealth and opportunities. Like El Dorado, 'the ideal workplace' also, well, seems like a myth. But that doesn't stop people from striving to find one. This is a conversation that goes right back to the birth of the modern corporation. From the civil rights movement in the US, to the evolution of trade unions in India – throughout history, people have fought for a fair and equitable workplace. One that has equal opportunities for everyone, where everyone feels seen and heard, and no one is treated differently because of where they come from or who they are.  Eventually, the century-long battle for the ideal workplace finally boiled down to  three core values – diversity, equity and inclusion or DEI. But here’s the thing about DEI – it comes and goes in waves. And it usually takes an extreme incident to trigger the pendulum to swing towards DEI. And when the pendulum swings to the other side, DEI’s alter ego, that has been lurking in the shadows all along, finally makes its entrance. Lately, its been popularly known as MEI — merit, excellence and intelligence. Right now, we are bang in the middle of yet another wave of the DEI vs MEI debate. In the last few weeks, giants like Microsoft, Google, Meta have majorly scaled down their DEI initiatives. Some have even laid off entire DEI teams. Naturally, many are of the opinion\ that DEI is on its deathbed.The repercussions of all of this are being felt here in corporate India where a watered down version of DEI was just about getting started. But now that it has hit a wall in the West, what does that mean for us? To find out hosts Snigdha and Rahel speak to two women who are trying to fix this broken system but in very different ways. Christina Dhanuja, author, DEI strategy consultant and the founder of Dalit History Month and Naiyya Saggi, the co-founder of The Good Glamm Group, a unicorn startup based out of India.Tune in. For feedback, write to us at [e-mail] is produced from the newsroom of The Ken, India’s first subscriber-only business news platform. Subscribe for more exclusive, deeply-reported, and analytical business stories.

Hi, this is Rohan Dharma Kumar. If you've heard any of the Ken's podcasts, you've probably heard me, my interruptions, my analogies, and my contrarian takes on most topics. And you might rightly be wondering why am I interrupting this episode too. It's for a special announcement. For the last few months, I and Sita Raman Ganesh, my colleague and the Ken's deputy editor, have been working on an ambitious new podcast. It's called Intermission.

We want to tell the secret sauce stories of India's greatest companies. Stories of how they were born, how they fought to survive, how they build their organizations and culture, how they manage to innovate and thrive over decades, and most importantly, how they're poised today. To do that, Sita and I have been reading books, poring over reports, going through financial statements, digging up archives, and talking to dozens of people. And if that wasn't enough, we also decided to throw in video into the mix. Yes, you heard that right. Intermission has also had to find its footing in the world of multi-camera shoots in professional studios, laborious editing and extensive post-production. Sita and I are still reeling from the intensity of our first studio recording.

Intermission launches on March 23rd. To get alert, as soon as we release our first video. episode, please follow intermission on Spotify and Apple Podcasts or subscribe to the Ken's YouTube channel. You can find all of the links at the ken.com slash I am. With that, back to your episode. You know, the search for an ideal workplace is a bit like finding El Dorado, right? The land of endless wealth and opportunities, the mythical land. The emphasis here being on myth. This is a conversation. No, scratch that. This is a full. blown battle that goes right back to the birth of the modern corporation.

From the civil rights movement in the US to the evolution of trade unions in India. Throughout history, people have fought for a fair and equitable workplace, an ideal workplace. One that has equal opportunities for everyone, where everyone feels seen and heard, and where no one is treated differently because of where they come from or who they are. But it was only in the late 1990s and early 2000s, when it came to a point where the tables really turned in the modern corporate world. Because we saw big, prestigious legacy companies like Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch being punished for discrimination. It was a bit like the story of David and Goliath.

Except instead of sling and stones, corporates were being attacked with lawsuits. These giants were finally being forced to rethink the workplace as they had created it from the perspective of their employees. Because if they didn't, they would have to pay a price. Billions of dollars. It hit them where it hurt the most. And with that, the modern workplace was introduced to DEI. Diversity, equity and inclusion. The century-long battle for the ideal workplace finally boiled down to these three core values.

And the early believers thought DEI was really their ticket to that Eldorado, the ideal workplace. And for some time, like we said earlier, it did work. Companies did get more diverse. Or, well, at least they tried to be. But, you know, here's the thing about DEI. It comes and goes in waves. And every time the pendulum swings closest to DEI,

it is usually when something extreme has happened. For example, what happened in the US in 2020. Once sweltering evening on the streets of Minneapolis, Yet another black man falls victim to police brutality. They murdered my brother. The killing of George Floyd has sparked outrage not only across America, but also across the entire world. Immediately after, unsurprisingly,

American companies doubled down on hiring to be more diverse by almost 100%. And as soon as that DEI conversation starts, you'll suddenly see company websites and brochures start looking a little bit like Bennett in commercials, you know, full of women, people of color. And then gradually, the pendulum swings again. And that's when DEI's alter ego

that's been lurking in the shadows all along finally makes its entrance. DEI about to be out the door. There's a new hiring framework coming to town. This one is called MEI, merit, excellence and intelligence. This debate is not new. As Indians, we know this. In our country, this debate isn't just restricted to the workplace.

But one thing we know for sure is that the ideal workplace, or El Dorado, as we've called it earlier, means different things to different people. There is no one-size-fits-all. And right now, we are in the middle of yet another wave of the DEI versus MEI debate. In the last few weeks, giants like Microsoft, Google, meta, have majorly scaled down their DEI initiatives. Some have even laid off entire DEI teams. And many are saying that DEI is finally dying. And the repercussions of all this, maybe not directly, but in some way, are being felt here in corporate India, where a watered down version of DEI was just about getting started.

But now that it has hit a wall in the West, what does that mean for corporate India? So in this episode, we speak to two women who are trying to fix this broken system, but in very different ways. Christina Danoja, author and DEI Strategy Consultant and the founder of Dalit History Month and Naya Sagi,

the co-founder of Good Glam Group, a unicorn startup from India. Hello and welcome to another special episode of Daybreak. I'm Snigda. And I'm Rahil and every week we come together to talk about something in business and tech that interests the both of us. And it won't just be us. Depending on what we're talking about, we will bring a bunch of really interesting people onto the podcast. Stay tuned.

You pay a price as a Dalit person, as a caste marginalised person working in a mainstream work environment. That was Christina Dhanuja, who's worked around the world in some of the most well-known companies like Shell. she's also built a parallel career in social justice. Now we always assume that working in corporates and voicing your opinion on social and political matters just can't go hand in hand, right? It's considered dangerous for your career. We've seen big corporates fire people

for speaking about certain issues. Well, Christina has managed to do it, but it came at a price. The price that you pay as a caste marginalised person gets compounded because of the politics that you espouse and the politics that you're open about. So in my case, I think I paid both of those prices. And in many ways, my decision to not move back to India,

because I had an opportunity somewhere in between moving from the Netherlands to New York City, I had an opportunity to move back to India and to take up, you know, a role that would position me within the United. Indian landscape and it would have been a great role. But the reason why I did not, one of the many reasons why I did not make that choice was this was this chill that just went down my spine, you know, of one of having to go back into a space that would be so unfriendly and so aggressive and so devaluing. I think I would have put up with the microaggressions and and all of the other sort of explicit and implicit sort of discrimination

and, you know, stuff that happens. But I think what I was unable to put up with is the devaluing that came with working in India. After experience working in corporate India, Christina has made it her life's mission to build fair and equal workplaces across the world. But even though she is as pro-D-E-I- as. as they come, she recognizes that DEI in India is a whole different ballgame. And every time there is a conversation about DEI in India, there is always an elephant in the room that is never addressed, which is caste.

So, Christina, since you're in the US, let's talk about Kamala Harris. She's been in the news, a lot of people who aren't big fans of Harris have been calling her a diversity hire, a DEI hire. And like, that's so telling, right? you institute some sort of DEI initiative to increase diversity, but what ends up happening in the process is that when a woman or, say, someone from a backward caste or someone from the LGBTQI plus community actually rises to the top, actually gets those opportunities, they're immediately written off as, you know, quote unquote,

the diversity hire. Suddenly their skills, their merit, all of that is somehow just irrelevant. But I'm not surprised, right? I mean, essentially the argument that has been placed against DEI is that it is anti-merit and excellence and intelligence as the case may be. And this is not a U.S. specific thing. This is a very global sort of an argument. Like, everybody talks about this as, you know, if it's going to be DEI, then it has to be anti-merit. A couple of things that come to my mind is one.

I think DEI I'm going to call it DEI camp right I'm just going to assume for the sake of this conversation the camp that is the DEI camp and the MEI camp okay so

the first thing that comes to my mind is now just because the DEI camp talks about identity does not mean that the MEI camp is not aware of it is not talking about it or is not talking about it

or is not making decisions based on it. Both the DEI camp and the MEI camps are making decisions based on identity, are understanding identity in some way or the other. Either they are doing it explicitly or they are doing it implicitly. That's where I think both of these camps differ. And like in every other case, both DEI camp and MEI camp will have, have leaders and individuals who are meritorious, who are absolutely fantastic at what they do, they'll be intelligent, but also not so intelligent and not so excellent at what they do,

not so meritorious. So I think what is important to recognize is that here is the camp that's talking about identity, but they haven't, I mean, this is part of the problem with DEIification. It's a very, very flawed system. And deification, what it has done is we've become so obsessed with identity per se that we do not talk enough about the intersecting powers that is making that identity more visible, right? Why are we talking, why are we saying that Kamala Harris is the first female, first black and first Asian American vice president? Like, why are we saying that? We're saying that because, not because, not because. she's just like an absolute female or an absolute black person.

We are saying that because as a female person, you are undergoing, you are being subjected to this power called patriarchy. You're being subjected to misogyny. You're being subjected to patriarchy, which is why her female identity becomes important to talk about. Why are we saying she is black? Of course she is black and she wears that identity with a lot.

lot of pride. But that identity is very important within the context of DEI because there is white supremacy at play, because there is racism at play, right? So I think this evolution within the DEI camp, this evolution of an argument within the DEI camp has to happen. We have to move on from a place of identity and start talking about why our identities are so visible and so important to have a conversation about. And why? Because it's because of the power systems that are at play rather than absolute identities. But these two sort of M-E-I versus DEI is very interesting within the India context.

Because in India, what happened was, and this is something that Janta Subramaniam talks about in her book, The Cast of Merit, it's an excellent book to read that really helps us understand how the, you know, the DEI camp and the MEI camp things. And within the context of India, how upper castes became synonymous with merit and lower caste or Dalits and Adivasis became synonymous with caste. And it's a fantastic evolution to sort of see happening within the Indian context. And to the point that right now, anyone who is Dalit and Adivasi by default means that they are Dalit and Adivasi and nothing else,

and they can't be meritorious. And the rest of the world who happen to be either Apercast or specifically Brahmin or whatever, by default, are meritorious, regardless of whether they really are or not. Right. But Christina, you know, talking about what's happening in India, earlier you were saying something around the lines of how we've just been copy pasting the Western DIY model, no? So it is a fact that corporate culture in India, to an extent, at least has been shaped by companies that have come in from the West. And they're not going away anytime soon.

In fact, we are actually at a stage where we want more and more of them to come and work and invest here in our country. So this is not something that is going to stop. It's going to continue. So in that case, isn't it, don't you think it's too idealistic to say that we will somehow build our own version of DEI here in India? Yeah, I mean, idealistic, yes, but we definitely need to move because only by saying that we will build our own versions of DEI, can we talk about caste? You know, if we, A, we can learn a lot from these MNC systems for, you know, for all their flaws, these MNCs have great learning and development content around DEI. You know, they have, they've developed, you know, systems, processes, all kinds

of models that work and that that have worked, right? Like they've, for example, how do you go about recruiting? How do you do blind recruitment? How do you talk about affirmative action without really talking about reservation or a percentage of reservation? You know, they've really figured out a whole bunch of stuff. So there's been a lot of labor that has gone into it. There's a lot of content that already exists as far as MNC author DEI is concerned. And we must make use of it. So that's where I think that by saying we will create our own versions of DEI,

we are not necessarily reinventing the wheel, right? Like we'll use what has already happened and we will build on that. Okay, but Christina, when we say we don't have to do away with the entire structure itself, you know, that also means that it's working, right? But right now, the way it's looking like it really seems like it's broken, you know? So shouldn't we be first looking at why it's breaking? Why is it not working? Why is there such a big pushback?

Why is a company like a microsystem? soft so blatantly being able to drop its entire DEI team, you know, how is it, how has it become acceptable? Right. Well, I think this is where it's, it's important to stay within, keep nuance, you know, part of the conversation, right? But I agree with you. It is a broken system.

It is a flawed system. DEIification has its problems. And as I mentioned earlier, the DEI. camp tends to over obsess about identity without really talking about powers that are at play. All of these are problems with DEI. But DEI also works, right? Like we've had the other day we, I was just looking at, you know, the different types of things that have happened because of DEI measures. Like, you know, sales revenue has increased, you know, the typical statistics of why DEI is good for business.

And it has happened. But is that the only direction that we need to go into? No, not at all. I mean, we need to agree with you that we need to look into why the system is broken. How can we move on from the very typical arguments that we are making and move to a place where we are talking about actual systems that are at play when somebody comes to work and why are they not being valued despite DEI measures? We have to get into the nitty-grisers. We have to get into the nitty-gritty-gris. of it. And DEI as an imagination, as a system itself, has been designed for it to work with and for capitalistic systems, right? Like, that's all that, like, for them, it's just a nice to have thing. It's something that you, that you have because you want to protect yourself from lawsuits or like a whole bunch of other things. I mean, that's another conversation. And so we have to start talking about, A, what's wrong with the system itself and how to improve it. And B, why does it exist?

And are there better reasons for it to exist instead of just protecting companies, instead of just buffering the discrimination that happens? And thirdly, now that we recognize what's broken with the system and why it exists, let's create something entirely, not entirely new. let's create something new and something better and something that is refreshed and transformed from where we are. And one way to do it within the Indian context is to look at caste as a system. And I truly do believe, as far as India is concerned,

the way to transform DEI is to start talking about it from the perspective of caste, is to start understanding different systems of power from the place of caste. And I think that is the route to transforming DEI in India. You know, we were talking about nuance and how nuance is so important in the conversation about DEI.

But the bottom line is, is there room for nuance in, you know, in corporations in MNCs that are so concerned about the bottom line, right? At the end of it, for a lot of them, that's all that matters. Does it make money?

You know, are our DEI initiatives making money? Is DEI good for business? And that's where, that DEI versus MEI debate kind of really goes to a whole other level because a lot of people who are critical of DEI claim that when you're hiring for diversity as opposed to merit, which we know it's not an either or, somehow business takes a beating. Is that true? Is DEI bad for business? No, that's not true at all. I mean, if that is the kind of criticism that MEI wants to place against DEI.

I mean, there's a whole bunch of statistics that will prove otherwise, right? And McKinsey keeps doing this sort of reporting pretty much every other year. And we keep seeing that, you know, companies with diverse teams obviously, you know, arrive at above average profitability. In fact, I think their latest statistics was that, you know, companies in the top, in the top quartile for executive gender diversity, where 25% more likely to generate greater profits. I mean, that's a given.

DEI is good for business, and we've proven this over and over and over again. Obviously, right, if you're going to have a diverse workforce population, then they're going to be able to think about things that you have not thought about. They're going to be able to appeal to customers better. And there's going to be a better employee morale. and lack of DEI will obviously have a bottom line impact. I mean, just because the MEI has a claim, has an opposite claim, doesn't mean it's true.

It's absolutely not. Okay. So let us get to the other criticism that exists about DEI right now. Okay. For example, people from the other side, they keep citing this example of how diversity training or awareness programs, which is one of the major ways in which corporates implement DEI, right? They say that these don't really work. And in fact, they go on to say that these programs have actually got the opposite effect.

Because, you know, they focus mostly on controlling managers because the managers are in charge of hiring, right? And what happens is that, you know, it kind of feeds into the bias rather than getting rid of it. Because they say it is human nature. When somebody tells you, you have to do this, you just want to say no. and because you feel that it is something that is being imposed on you. There is no free will. So what happens, they say, is that since you're controlling managers, it kinds of feeds into the bias rather than getting rid of it.

What do you think of this, Christina? Well, I think A, I agree that is one of the many things that needs to be changed in the way DEA is being implemented and it is being thought about and the way it is being realized within institutions. But I do not necessarily agree with this whole bit around policing and the tendency to say no to it, and therefore it is not effective. I think it's not effective because people are just, you know,

people have just gotten used to living within hierarchies and benefiting from that. So obviously a Brahmin manager, if he's being told that, hey, listen, you need to have a recruitment system in place that looks into A, B, and C, and not be recruiting someone who looks like you and who you can gel with and who you can touch the shoulder and see that they too are wearing the sacred thread. Like, if all of these, you know, mandates are being interpreted as policing, then that is not a reflection of whether the deed. system is effective or not. That is a reflection of how caste is the manager is. So that is definitely one pushback I will place. The second thing is that it's not like managers and employees are not policed in with respect to other things. Right. Like there is definitely a code of conduct in place.

Most institutions have. Like for example, you cannot use a race-based slur. If you use a race-based be a slur, you will be fired. These days, people don't even provide a warning. There is the code of conduct in place, and that code of conduct necessitates that you do not cross a certain line, because that is going to make another person feel unsafe. And the fact that that line exists is a win in many ways, right? Because maybe a decade ago, that line did not exist. You could get away with a lot, saying a lot of stuff on social media.

media, you know, in the actual workplace and there'd be no repercussions. But I guess now there is a certain amount of accountability that, you know, DEI initiatives have instituted in that sense. Yeah. But yeah. And it has been and it has been codified, right? Like, which is why I think Snigda, I'll just finish with this point is that. DEI needs to be codified. Like, it's not just about somebody like walking up to a manager and be like, hey, don't be,

don't be like this. Okay. Like, just be a nice person. Like, it's that, that's not how DEI should work. That's not how these changes will happen. You have to codify it. You have to put it down in the code of conduct. And you have to say, listen, if you will use a caste-based slur,

then you will be fired the next day. Right. You know? So unless you codify it, people are going to be saying things like, oh, I'm being policed and I'm not going to be, you know, I'm going to act against these things. And that is a problem with DIA.

You can't just do awareness trainings and expect people to expect to change hearts and minds. That's not how it's going to happen, as we've seen. But Christina, this is what exactly critics have been pointing out, right? Like I mentioned this earlier also, that, you know, this whole system where things are made compulsory. Like, for example, if you don't do this or you don't follow our diversity initiative, this is the price you're going to pay. Like, for example, you'll be fired or you'll be benched. They're saying that this actually has a negative impact. on people, right? These people are saying, like, for example, somebody who's been being hired

through DEI, somebody who belongs to a different race or gender or minority group, these people will actually suffer backlash for this. So it's actually harming the whole progress of DEI in a way. You know what I'm saying? So I think this is the way things have to happen, right? You have to strategize between a carrot and a stick. Sometimes a stick will take up more of a role, and sometimes carrot will. You provide incentives. Like, for example, and DEI has done different kinds of things,

which is why I think there's definitely a lot of content there that is useful for us to learn from and useful for us to build upon, right? There was a time when people said, listen, if you're able to bring in these many female candidates or if you're able to increase representation of female workforce, of female individuals within your team, then this is the bonus that you will be getting. So in a way, you're embedding DEI mandates and DEI goals within your personal career goals, so to say. So that's a carrot mechanism. A stick mechanism would be that, you know, you're going to discriminate against someone based on their race or color or caste or sex or

whatever, then you face a redressor, then you face some sort of, you know, a penalizing, you will be penalized in some way or the other. That's a strict mechanism. So obviously, you know, as we have to play this game and we have to play this balance and that's how things have happened in the past and that's how things are happening. right now. In my personal opinion, I think it's time that we start playing with the stick a lot more than with the carrot because it's obviously come to a point where where people are, you know, feeling like, oh my God, I'm being policed simply because I said a young end word or whatever.

No, you better not say it. You're not supposed to say it because it is making another person feel extremely unsafe and it's taking back to the dark ages. Christina and how do you get to a point where you get companies in India to actually care about something like caste? Because also just adding to that, Christina, there have been so many senses like surveys that have been done where we know that management and all, you know, positions of powers are dominated by upper caste people, right? So how will these people make these decisions? I know. I mean, that is, you're asking a very, very pertinent question, right? I mean, how do you get these people to care? And how do you get upper-cast people to make decisions

when you know very well that they don't have any carriage from it or they don't have any incentive from it? I think I do believe the state needs to mandate something. And by mandating, I'm not just saying that they need to have affirmative action in private. sector, right? Like, that is what it, that is what these conversations end up delving into, like, you know, oh, you're asking for affirmative action, you're asking for quota within private sector or whatever. While it's not so bad at all, I think it will be great if we have a reservation system in

place for private sector as well. But beyond that, I think the state needs to be involved in some manner or the other to say that, hey, if you happen to be a company that is operating out of South Asia, then you need to keep in mind that such and such caste based discrimination or car space microaggression or car space recruiting or whatever, whatever will not be tolerated. Another way to do it is that usually almost always, at least as far as multinational corporation goes, as far as multinational nonprofits go, they all have a western base somewhere, right? Or in the case of Singapore, in the case of Southeast Asian, you know, companies, they are all headquartered outside of India. So what are some of the strategies that we can deploy in having these

conversations with these, you know, headquarters? Like, you know, how do we get them to see that, hey, listen, this is a problem in India, and they are not willing to put this as part of their Code of Conduct. What can you do? How can you mandate it as part of a company-wide policy, which will then invariably apply to the Indian institution or the Indian branch as well? So that's another way to do it. This is why I think this was something that came up during a conversation I had with the Boston Study Group a couple of weeks ago, is that this is why we need to have more interventions. We need to have more, you know, initiatives that are going to be advocacy groups, right? Like, for example, in the U.S., we have somebody like Equality Labs.

We have other sort of groups for African American worker groups, right? Like, likewise, if you remember when our people were part of government institutions, I think it's still the case. If you're going to be working for a public sector, there used to be an SESTA workers union, SESD workers union. Right. So people were really, you know, scared of these unions because these unions held a lot of power

because they were together and they were united. They had a set of asks and they would say, like, you know, if you're not going to meet these asks, then we're not going to work. So unionizing is definitely, one of the ways to go. And it may not be something that people have, people have heard about as far as Gen C populations go. And they don't perhaps know how to do that within a private sector. But this is one of the ways forward. If you're going to be part of the caste based, caste based intervention within the workspace kind of thing, then how do we get to a place where we have these initiatives that are going to

help people within these companies unionize, help these people create some sort of a furor and some sort of a pushback within these companies and outside too, like if you're going to be an advocacy organization or something. But you know, Christina, like talking about unionization, there is so, there's such a big price that people are paying for, even for that. Look at what happened at Amazon, right? People were fired left, right and center for unionization. Right. And when when Indian employees look at companies, things like that happening at a company like Amazon, they wouldn't even consider it, right? Absolutely.

So how, I mean, doesn't, that's what I'm like, like, what can we do realistically, you know, like right now in this moment? Realistically, what can we do right now in this moment is what people are already doing, right? Like we are having interventions from a DEI perspective. We are calling them out on social media. We are having conversations with different kinds of company heads and saying like, hey, you need to talk about caste and you need to find a way to do this. You know, else these are some of the problems. We are writing think pieces where we are talking about how caste can actually impact corporations

and have a bottom line impact. We're talking about that. Now, all of these are realistic things and people are doing it and people are working on it. And the example that you brought up about people being fired, left, right and center simply because they're unionized is just because that happened doesn't mean that that is not a good in our strategy. I mean, that's how power works, right? It will have a backlash. Hi, how are you liking this episode so far? Do you love it?

Do you hate it? Whatever it is, we want to know. So please write to us at podcast at the ken.com with your thoughts and your feedback. In the next segment, we were joined by Naya Sagi, the co-founder of Good Glam Group and also the founder

of Baby Chakra. Naya is a graduate from the Harvard School of Business and she gave us an insider's view of corporate India through the lens of diversity, equity and inclusion. Stay tuned. So Naya the all-male panel,

the manel is officially back. Yes, it's 2024 and the manel is back. For context, about a couple weeks ago, there was this really well-known platform for startups that announced that they were organizing a conference for founders and investors, right? So they shared this lineup of speakers. They were about 40 of them,

pretty standard social media, promotional content, all of that. This was in Bangal, by the way. Yeah, this was in Bangalore. Now, what's strange is that that lineup of 40 speakers, it was all men. There wasn't a single woman in that list of speakers. And the scary thing is this isn't a one-off, right? Apparently now it's cool to leave women out of the conversation again.

I'm curious to know how we got here. Because it's kind of hard to believe that this was a mistake, right? 40 men and like not even one like token woman. What? So the first reason people typically give is that there's not enough female founder. was not enough female investors. And that is a reason I've been hearing right from when I started building, which is 2014, which is now completely not fact.

You know, I myself have worked with, you know, a couple of publications and a couple of, you know, a lot of female founders as well to bring out reports on the top 100 female founders building out of India, the top 15 investors who are women leading from the front in India. You're seeing a lot more women at leadership roles now in boardrooms, for instance, in corporate into your play out thanks to, you know, the whole change in, you know, the structure of the board as well, which was illegally mandated, you know, a scenario that the government came out with. So there's enough and more women, I would say the leadership level. So that first reason that people had earlier, which is that they're not enough women, I mean, really does not hold true. The second, therefore, it comes down to is that you're not executing with intent, right? So, you know, you might be looking cursorily for women. You're not able to find maybe, or, you're you're saying you're not able to find women, but not executing with the intent to actually find a material source of women to actually fit into your panels or to fit into your boardrooms, right? And that's where it comes down to saying, and I think a consciousness now, which is in our favor in some sense,

that the person who's doing this act is probably behind the times, right? Does not have a network of women founders or women leaders he or she can reach out to, does not hobnop enough with women, get to know where they're heading, right? Understand what are the trends of the new businesses being built by women, right? Because over the last six years, we've seen the landscape changing extensively, right? A lot more women founders now building amazing companies. So this person is or whoever that person is, is probably behind the times. And I think that is a narrative we're kind of leading with,

that if you're not really building in representation, in conversations, and in a leadership setting, you're going to be left. behind. Naya, you know, you are, you know, the founder of a unicorn company. They're like a little more than 100 companies, unicorn companies in India, and you're the founder of one of them. And so if we were just to go by pure merit, you know, you are pretty much the gold standard. You've studied at the best universities in India.

You have an MBA from Harvard. You've worked at some of the best companies in the world. You have basically everything it takes for someone to be heard, right? And as a founder, you must be like you were talking. about, you know, being in boardrooms, being part of so many groups, foundations, organizations, panels, where you are interacting a lot with your male counterparts, right, other CEOs and founders. Are there still instances that you deal with where you feel like you're being excluded because you're a woman or like you're not being taken seriously?

So, you know, what is exclusion? So, you know, this is one of my favorite topics, actually, Snicka, thanks for raising it. It's not only about being included, right? So, for instance, I could be part of a board meeting or I could be part of a leadership team meeting. And, you know, I could be that one woman there or part of like five other women there or of a group of 10. But am I really feeling included? I think that's the litmus test. I'll give you an example. Recently, I was on a board slash leadership committee where there were two women, two of us.

and we were contemplating inducting another woman amazingly accomplished woman again with all the pedigree you talk of and more perhaps Nika and one of the people on the board basically had a business

acrimanous relationship with that person and did not want that person to join right and it was interesting right because you could see kind of the old boys network at play where all the other male members of the board were like, yeah, okay, if you're uncomfortable with this person joining,

then we shouldn't have this person join. And eventually it was down to me and the other woman on the board to basically say, hold on, let's get that now. Let's talk logic, right? This is how we want to build an institution. On what grounds are we excluding this amazingly accomplished woman from joining this particularly accomplished woman from joining this particular committee just on the grounds of, you know, not having a good relationship or good business understanding with one of our men.

members is that the norms we are setting, in which case there should be the precedent for how we make decisions going forward. If not, then we don't use this as a norm and this does not therefore become a precedent, right? So at some level, it's also about finding the comfort that, you know, I found, for instance, and having another woman with me on that board, and she probably found in me to have that argument debated on logic, debated on facts, and kind of fight the case for having this third woman inducted into this pretty, I would say in some context, important committee, right? So I think it's a matter of both having numbers, but also having a feeling of inclusion and

knowing that your voice matters, your voice is heard, and that you're in a place where, you know, once you argue things on logic and fact, it is taken seriously, right? Which to give that committee credit, it was then taken into account, right? So that's how we- You still have to fight for it, right, Naya? Every day. So basically someone as accomplished as you are, or even this woman that you were talking about, Naya,

who was also very accomplished, women like you who represent the epitome of the idea of merit are dealing with this. What does that mean? It was never just about merit, right? Because that is the biggest criticism of diversity initiative that these people, you know, they hold the opinion that you should just look at merit, right?

In fact, they say that automatically, they even go on to say that automatically, that will ensure diversity. Just keep looking at merit and you will have a diverse workplace. But then look here. Here is an example of how merit alone does not ensure you a place at the table. Yeah, I mean, so it's never been about merit really, right?

And I think that, but the point is this, right? So, you know, you can argue on fact and you can argue on, I think, almost like a perception, right? So at the very beginning and any debate that you start of, right, when you start, you start typically arguing on fact until you convince the person and then you argue on perception.

Right, that's genuinely the trajectory. Most debates and most changes actually in any scenario take on, right, from my experience. There were a lot of conversations out there which were like, where are the women? I don't see any women. there are no women in leadership position. There are two few women in leadership position.

So first, as women, we came together and said, okay, here is a repository of 100 women. Here's a repository of 50 women. Here's a repository of the next 20 leaders. Here's a repository of the next 50 leaders, right? So at least you have the facts in place. So if nothing else, the people who are kind of using facts, I'm using quotes, by the way, you can't see my hands move, but I am.

Right? We're using facts to kind of, you know, argue their case that this is the reason why they're not able to represent or have diverse voices or inclusive voices rather in their leadership teams, at least you set that to bed, right? So you start with facts and that's the second piece of perception. It's been a lot of storytelling and a lot of evangelism. I think all of us individually as female founders, but also institutions are doing and talking about the success stories of women. And of course, that is further bolstered by reports like a McKinsey or a BCG or even like a LinkedIn has come out with, which says that women, that companies that have

have women in leadership roles, right? Or women like 35% 40% plus in their exec committees tend to do way better than companies in pure sets which don't have women in their leadership roles. Right. But now we aren't just talking about women in leadership roles, of course. We're also talking about women who are, you know, still working their way up that corporate ladder. How do they ensure that their voices are heard, right?

For some of them to get a seat at the table, there has to be some semblance of a level playing field. Right? We hear that a lot, level playing field. But is that really even possible? Is it too utopian an idea? So, you know, again, it starts with having equal representation or at least equitable representation where he did, right? I mean, you look at the Paris Olympics, 50%, 50% men and women. It's a pretty big milestone for all of us, right? And a couple of years back, if you had asked us, is that going to ever be, is that ever going to happen? I don't think we would have assumed that the Olympics would be as equal. and as equitable as it is today, right, in some sense. Now, I think the broader point, however, goes back to saying that you're, we're currently in a state of limbo. I'll give you an example.

Iceland in 1975, right? Today, it, you know, has a, it's top leaders are women. It is one of the most equal countries. Of course, a small, small country. But in 1975, all the women went on strike. Everybody, like every single woman in that country went on strike. saying that we are underpaid, we're not acknowledged as an equal part of society. And it took that kind of almost like a shove, like almost like a punch in the gut

for that country to wake up and realize that they couldn't do without the women. And that their women meant business, right? And then they made the changes that they did. Okay, that's so interesting because even though you and Christina, whom we spoke to yesterday, have really different views about the subject, what you're saying is ultimately quite similar to what she had said, right? Because maybe not in the same words, but she was talking about unionization. So what I'm very interested to ask you now, Naya, is as a founder who runs a business in India,

what is the meaning of diversity to you here in a country like ours, you know, with all its diversity? So the starting point is to say that do we as an employer of choice make both the men and women in our group, feel that they're supported, not just at work, but also with their personal commitments, right? That's a starting point. The big point, of course, from there goes on to saying that are we, first of all, of course, including an equal number of resumes or women in every role that we hire for, right? It requires a lot more work from our HR teams, from our talent acquisition teams, but then that is what it sometimes does need, right, to make a change, to make a shift.

So that's the second piece. It's more of an input metric that goes in, right? Then the other metric we look for is that when people join our teams, what is the equity in the pay and the bonus and the hikes and the appraisals that men get versus women, right? Are we seeing a disproportionate tilt in some departments to men getting more of a hike, more of a raise, more of that promotion, right? More of that corner office seat than women are, right?

And if so, the metrics tell us this, right? It's not about like some assumption that we are driving from, you know, some conversation, you know, at a corner. It's like it's literally we're tracking this on a quarterly basis and then basis that we take action to understand really what's happening there. And I think the fourth pieces, and these are all, of course, input metrics is saying, are we creating an inclusive experience, right? And then apart from that, the experience itself is what we then track, right? So we conduct quarterly surveys where we ask anonymized, in an anonymous session, right? How, like, and we ask a whole set of questions, right? How included are you feeling in a team decision?

How included are you feeling in team outings, right? Because, again, there could be ways where people could feel excluded. And that's a very important part of the team bonding experience and a career progression experience. Right. So we ask all these questions. We get as many quantitative as well as qualitative answers to help then therefore understand what is working where and what is not working where, right? And then when we find out best practices,

that's the other very, very critical piece of successful DEY. And I'm not saying we're successful. I'm just saying we're attempting, right, as well. But the important piece then is to then talk about the success stories, put them, you know, pull out those teams as almost like change models and talk about those in town halls with the other teams and talk about why, how important that is. So that is how we approach.

inclusion and diversity in our context. Of course, there are many other ways to also classify diversity. I won't even get into that because that will open up a whole new conversation as well. Actually, why not, Naya? Let's talk about it, you know, because the AI, as we know it, is some sort of a copy wasted thing from the West, right? But even in the West, diversity just does not mean gender or including more women in the workplace.

It also has a lot to do with race. It has to do with ethnicity. But when you talk about DEI here in India, every conversation about it is restricted to women or maybe max to LGBTQI community. But nobody is talking about caste. It is like the big elephant in the room. So I actually disagree a little bit, Snickda, on the fact that we are templatizing and copy-pasting models of DEI from the West. I think India is actually a lot.

a lot more progressive when it comes to DEI. Interestingly enough, you know, just starting off with something as simple as a maternity benefits act, right? We have a six months' leave policy. The US has, what, three months and best. You know, it starts with that. I'm just giving you an example, right? Then you move on to something around, like, and I talked about like the social fabric,

you know, by the way, in a previous life, it feels like I was a lawyer. What I also see play out is how in some beautiful ways, legislation is following the changes in our social fabric as well. Caviard, of course, there's a lot more work to be done as well. I think it goes without saying. But a few examples there. Now, coming to your point on caste again, right? India was one of the first countries to talk about caste in its constitution.

Right? you know, when we talk about caste, there's a lot of layers to unpack there, including, you know, economic parity, including, you know, societal acceptance in different contexts. I mean, there's so much to unpack in just that one word. Now, when it comes to DEI, I hear you. I think it is just, you know, there's so many complex issues to solve. I think we're still getting our heads around. How to even solve? for what has become a starting point of DEI, which is having women represented and included, right? So it's almost like how many battles can one fight, and while these battles are being fought, I don't see any really definitely won yet. So I think a big, if you win, for instance,

the battle on any one of these, right, I think the other very important mandates, will also then get some sort of a tailwind. Okay. So, you know, coming back to the other big, in fact, actually the most widespread perception about diversity initiative, is that it is bad for business. And, you know, Naya, nobody can answer this better than you.

What do you say to people who have this opinion? So today, if you look at fund flows, right? A lot of your pension funds, a lot of your endowments are now looking at investing in stocks, which have a very high ESG ranking. In fact, they're mandated to as well. So as a result, a lot of the public listed companies, both in India and the US, are now really focused on their ESG scores and DEI is actually an integral part of a DSG score, right? So I think it's now kind of playing out to a point where it is not only being seen as something

that is being done for the goodness of it all, but it's being done because it creates shareholder value for all the stakeholders of the company as well. Right, that makes sense. But again, going back to what we spoke about a little while ago, what about the people who still come back and say, you know what, you're throwing merit out of the window, essentially. But when you're hiring for diverse teams,

it doesn't mean you're not hiring for merit. I think that's the first part. Exactly. Exactly. Yeah. That's the first part that needs to be kind of, you know, just people need to be told that. Because when you're widening the pool, that's all you're doing. You're widening the pool.

You're not diluting your standards. I mean, if you don't have women in your leadership roles, if you don't have women in your middle management, right? You don't have a pulse of your customer. So what are you doing? If you don't have a pulse for your customer as a company, then you're kind of, again, you're not being fair to creating shareholder value. So it comes down to that. I mean, I find this argument so frustrating sometimes, sorry,

but diversity does not mean that you're saying no to merit. It doesn't mean you're diluting standards by any stretch of the definition. It actually means that you're casting your net wider and you're bringing in capable candidates, but you're looking for capable candidates from different backgrounds. That's all. Okay. Now, our last question, you know, while talking to Christina yesterday, she was of the opinion that one should push for kind of a very strict model code of conduct at the workplace where if people are being casteist or sexist or racist towards their colleagues, they should be fired. You know, there's no two ways about it.

So as somebody who runs such a huge company, what do you think of this? I mean, we've seen sort of the posh complaint piece play out already, right? I mean, you have a posh committee. I mean, I'm talking about like a specific example that's played out in a certain context. And I'm talking about something as extreme as sexual harassment, right? So you do see penalties and you do see, you know, punitive action have a certain outcome in behavior change. But I don't think that's really the way personally I would think about taking things forward. I think there's something very, very powerful about storytelling,

there's something very powerful about this, you know, and therefore creating role models of people who behave well. You know, we are human beings at the heart of it all, right? Whether we work in corporates or whether we work as families. And if you see, you know, if you reward good behaviors, good behaviors thrive. So I think there's something very, very powerful about storytelling and setting examples and, you know, role models and rewarding positive role models,

I think that is the way I would go. If you stuck around earlier, thank you so much for listening to us. Now, to wrap up this conversation, Christina and Naya both believe in DIA, right? But both of them have very different approaches to it. To make it work, one of them believes in the stick approach

and the other one in the carrot approach. Irrespective though, the one thing that stood out to us during our conversations with both of them is that they both believe, contrary to popular belief, that DEI is far from dead. In fact, it's just getting started.

Also, there is no middle ground in the MEI versus DEI School of Thought. These narratives cannot coexist in the workplace. One will win and the other will become obsolete at some point. But merit and diversity as core independent values can coexist. In fact, they already do.

Daybreak is produced from the newsroom of the Ken, India's first subscriber-focused business news platform. What you're listening to is just a small sample of our subscriber-only offerings. A full subscription unlocks daily long-form feature stories, newsletters and podcast extras. Head to the Ken.com and click on the red subscribe button on the top of the Ken website. Today's episode was hosted and produced by Rahal Philippos and I, Sinkda Sharman. and it was edited by Rajiv Sien. Also a huge shout out to Aditi and Kavipriya and the rest of our fantastic design team here at the Ken

for the amazing artwork that they make for every Friday special episode of Daybreak.