Why Affinity Groups Have It all Wrong

Not long ago I spoke with the leader of a small professional firm about diversity and inclusion concerns within her organization. She — like many of her peers — are baffled at why their firm appears largely unchanged after implementing countless diversity programs and affinity groups, including one for women, another for the LBGT employees, another for African American employees and more. All well-intentioned efforts, but making little difference.

Here’s why affinity groups aren’t working

As the firm’s principal continued to lay out their affinity groups — connecting African American employees with other African American employees, connecting women with other women, and connecting LBGT employees with others like them — I thought of SeedsOfPeace.com. This is a program that sends teenagers from communities in conflict (i.e. Israeli teenagers and Palestinian teenagers) to camp together to build respect, relationships and leadership skills.

Rather than continue in the silo-ed thinking so pervasive in corporate America today — and represented by these affinity groups that are entirely lacking diversity within— organizations would do well to follow the example of Seeds of Peace.

It is always the cross-polination of ideas and respect — only born from relationship and interaction— that begins to erode the real enemy to corporate diversity and inclusion: unconscious bias. Affinity groups do the opposite, actually encouraging people to flock together in a group designed to eliminate diversity. Working further against true inclusion, these groups define members by their “qualifier:” woman, gay, black, instead of by their skills, interests, achievements or even corporate role. While strong relationships and unity are built within each affinity group, the divides between these groups can actually deepen.

As pointed out by Taub in her recent New York Times article “United we Stand. Threatened, We Revert To Groups,” these affinity groups appeal to an innate evolutionary method of survival: tribalism. Our ancestors would look for people who looked and acted like themselves in order to feel safe. From an evolutionary vantage point, we can see that it is when human beings feel threatened, we revert to same-same groups.

Affinity groups cleaved in gender, orientation or race — while well intentioned — were created in this defensive same-same posture. To this end, we could make the assertion that affinity groups are actually a result of fear, a response to threat which places members in defensive mode, and reinforcing biases in an “us vs. them” structure.

So, is it any real wonder that affinity groups are dividing instead of uniting?

What You Should Do Instead of Affinity Groups

Tribal think is an evolved method of survival, but human beings also crave connection and relationship, the very keys to eradicating prejudice and bias. So, my simple suggestion to organizations evolved enough to embrace radical inclusion is to create opportunities for real connection, that defy the qualifier. This means no more women’s circles and no more groups defined by race or orientation within your corporation. Instead, create affinity groups based on — well— affinities. A group that loves broadway. Another committed to crossfit. Another passionate about art.

These affinity groups will attract a broad range of your employees, building relationships that bridge divides and begin to erode unconscious bias. Cross-pollination of ideas will make your organization stronger and more unified. Widespread, seemingly effortless, diversity and full inclusion will become the norm as these new connections are made.