Beyond a "Whites Only" Workforce Strategy

Research shows that companies that are racially diverse are both more productive and profitable. Research also shows that racial discrimination against Black employees has not changed in over 25 years. These two competing realities collide in the conclusion that companies should stop making a business case for diversity. Overrepresented employees feel replaceable because wage disparities make more qualified competition cheaper. Simultaneously, underrepresented employees feel objectified with a benchmark designed to “prove” their worth. Ultimately, the business case for diversity demonstrates that companies are more willing to lose money than to hire and retain Black employees. 

On September 20th, 2020, a Twitter post by Pam_Boy read, “Beyonce can find 24 black trombone players, but your company cannot find a single black intern, associate, or board member?” Renditions of this statement have been one of the most popular events in Black HR meme history. Its popularity is not because it smacks of irony, but because it hits at the irrelevance of diversity initiatives that attach failure to an untruth. Contrary to popular belief, yes, there are qualified Black candidates for all of the roles that were recently posted. The problem that most companies face is that their recruitment strategy is invested in categories of evaluation that were created in a time when “whites only” signs dictated spaces where Black people were excluded. In 2023 “whites only” spaces have evolved to the degree where past signs are no longer necessary. Where someone lives, access to quality education, and gainful employment are dictated by past segregation.

“Whites only” spaces were created to devalue Black labor. Black people have been excluded from juries, historically white colleges, and political participation well into the middle of the 20th century. Today, “whites only” is still a tool that legitimates outcomes for white people at the cost of non-whites. Racial disparity impacts homeownership, education, and occupation is maintained through the use of values inspired when segregation was a boundary that insulated resources and success. Outcomes from segregation also determine how white decision-makers place value on people based on where they are from, their educational outcomes, and previous work history. Value, in this case is used as a measure of racial similarity that simultaneously under and over-qualifies non-white candidates that do not fit within white cultural measures for success. Over time, standards of racial exclusion that no longer need signs use racially coded language removed from racial signifiers. The color-blind legacy of segregation now impacts how people are treated based on durable racial codes and expectations. 

The history of Black labor in America is rooted in fighting against systems that seek to devalue it. During the Civil Rights Movement, the devaluation of Black labor meant that constitutional equality was seen as a threat to the freedoms stakeholders of white spaces were ready to fight to protect. The prequel to this narrative was the Civil War. Historically, when white spaces become sustainably inaccessible to non-whites, those spaces (and characteristics attributed to those spaces) are seen as more valuable to whites. This includes categories that evaluate potential. Education and years of experience qualifications are two of the most popular categories that are used to measure a candidate’s potential on the job market. A Cengage Group report found that 62% of companies require a bachelor’s degree for entry level roles. This college degree qualification simultaneously sets a default for what an entry-level employee looks like by standardizing racial disparity in graduation rates. 

The overrepresentation of Whites in the corporate world is a direct result of a continued history of racism that devalues Black labor. This is done through the evolution of the “whites only” strategy. In a 1981 interview, Lee Atwater called this evolution the Southern Strategy. Today, we understand this strategy as one that hinges on racial undertones being weaponized to fuel white anxiety. These dog whistles are used to direct color-blind decision-makers toward safe and trustworthy (read no Black in sight) spaces. This candidate is overqualified for this role. That candidate’s answers to the interview questions were too perfect, they must have cheated. The other candidate was much more polished with a stronger executive presence. This, that, and the other excuses not to hire qualified Black candidates stem from resumes and interviews being read and reviewed (un)intentionally to confirm racial perceptions of proficiency and trust. 

Deficient and untrustworthy are two intersecting narratives that impact both hiring and retention. These two categories read as someone having too much (or not enough) of a “good” thing or someone else seeming to be better because they are seen as safe, and trustworthy. This allows a measurement of candidacy for hiring and promotion to draw inspiration from a candidate or employee self-reflection of desirable characteristics that subconsciously rationalize existing employee demographics. That same self-reflection also repels stretch assignments away from and attracts busy work to Black employees. Ultimately, racial stereotypes impact white decision-making in a way that uses contemporary “whites only” measurements of value. This employment practice is also rooted in a history of undervaluing Black labor. Lest we forget that most Black people entered this country as free labor. 

According to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, 47% of all jobs evaluate previous work experience as a qualifying category. Years of experience is a weak measurement for work readiness. Examples of what someone did and outcomes of their work provides greater insight. Years of experience has historically been used as a tool to manufacture “whites only” space by using years as a marker of expertise in place of markers that measure outcomes of expertise. This arbitrary measure then uses secondary categories like executive presence, polish, and culture fit to determine value. All these subjective categories of measurement fall within a “whites only” historical guiding post. This means that Black people are stacked against a white imaginary list of characteristics that are associated with whiteness. This also translates into professional networks. 

A LinkedIn study revealed that 85% of jobs are found through professional networks. Referrals and reliance on familiar career paths suggest value being placed in categories that reproduce disparity. Many companies that have not taken the time to take an active role in healing historical harm. Their diversity initiatives are traditionally regressive attempts substantiating harm. Acronyms aside, if diversity initiatives (or a lack there of) do not intentionally correct Black underrepresentation in hiring, promotion, and/or overrepresentation in attrition, the outcomes of those initiatives will produce sustainable harm. Failure to hire and retain Black employees is a direct result of using “whites only” recruitment and retention strategy. 

Whites only never meant that Black and white people did not share space. Whites only meant exclusionary social, economic, and political control over spaces that had a high social, political, and economic value. Those lunch counters, pools, polls, and [add infinite item of white] spaces where decisions were made absent Black participation reproduced value in categories that promote racial disparity. Recruitment pipelines, executive suites, and boards that are absent Black representation reflect a continued history of Black exclusion. Categories like education, years of experience and referral networks dictate value and overrepresent white people.Those categories are also tools in producing a whites only space.  When whites only get hired and promoted, or are overrepresented within measured categories, it is important to be willing to discard them along with their “whites only” past.