A Point of View: Diversity Bombing

We’ve seen it before. An organization reacts to an employee complaint about discrimination. In an effort to get ahead of the complaint, the leaders in said organization hire a DEI consultant, require a series of diversity trainings, and release a statement about supporting diversity in the workplace. However, once the dust settles, if one were to survey the outcomes of these events, they would find that the organization has returned to its former self. It is as if the previously-espoused commitments were never fashioned. It is often the case that more harm has been incurred and tensions may be even deeper than before. 

I call this phenomenon: Diversity Bombing.

“Diversity Bombing” happens when an actor floods their organization with “diversity” resources, concepts, or activities in response to complaints, changes in environment, or trends … only to resume the stance from which the harm originated. Their responses to issues of equity, justice, belonging, and inclusion are reactionary, lacking intentionality and care. Like with love bombing, a manipulation tactic seen in love relationships, their actions overwhelm their constituents and further marginalize the marginalized. In Diversity Bombing, these actors stir the pot, and then let it burn.   

To illustrate this event, there are four key characteristics that help to define and describe Diversity Bombing.

Misdirected and/or Ill-conceived Resources 

In an effort to respond quickly, and perhaps to do as much damage control as possible, some organizations find themselves compiling and disseminating information about diversity, equity, and inclusion topics. Organizations may even host trainings or speaker series to enchant displeased constituents. However, the organization hasn’t taken the time to explore the root of issues at hand, or curate resources that address the specific needs of those harmed. As a result, the resources provided may be irrelevant, use the wrong language, or appear performative.  

Overstated Expectations 

A prominent characteristic of Diversity Bombing is its bombastic nature — the big-talking, over-promising, and grandstanding that occurs in the face of the public gaze. Organizations under pressure from a publicized complaint may release a diversity statement espousing their value for and commitment to racial justice after a long history of institutionalized racism. Including photos of people of color and “cluster hiring” to lower ranks while executive and board leadership remain impenetrable to racial, gender, and ability diversity is more common than we’d like to think. Some organizations set themselves up for failure and their constituents for disappointment by setting high expectations for their in-the-heat-of-the-moment commitments … without doing the deeply critical work required to foster belonging and justice. 

Absence of a Clear Plan 

One of the worst kinds of Diversity Bombing is the kind in which there is no plan at all. Organizations that are reactive may find themselves operating with no direction and taking shots all over the place. Out of unplanned reactivity, they may produce a lot of busy work, make lots of mistakes, and often don’t consider or consult with the parties who have been harmed. In many cases they fail to act on pressing issues and respond to their constituents with meaningful, tangible solutions. This creates a dangerous situation in which a lot of harm can be done without much recourse. To make matters worse, there is no room for assessment or evaluation to prevent similar crises from recurring. 

Dispassionate Approach 

Because Diversity Bombing stems from a place of covering one’s caboose in the height of crisis, those doing the damage do so with an inevitable lack of compassion. Despite intention, the impact of a haphazard or hastily-constructed response to a DEI issue is deleterious, and perhaps traumatic.

Organizations that engage in Diversity Bombing can do more harm with their diversity agendas than if they had not initiated a new program at all. To reduce harm and avoid bombing constituents, a measured and mindful approach is necessary.  

When introducing new language, policies, and/or practices that recognize the systemic oppressions of marginalized communities and aim to make righteous concessions in response, organizations should be thoughtful and strategic. Their approach should include caring curiosity, analysis and assessment, and the participation/leadership/feedback of their constituents. Furthermore, organizations should be proactive in supporting employee resource groups, affinity spaces, and the like where constituents can build community. Finally, organizations must do better at being accountable by starting with, listening to, and believing their constituents.