In a new study challenging the common criticisms of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, researchers argue that these programs are falling short not because they are overly political, but because they avoid politics altogether. Published in the academic journal Work, Employment and Society, the research examines DEI practices in three Australian organizations and reveals a pattern of superficial implementation that fails to address deep-seated workplace inequalities. The findings come at a time when right-wing populists worldwide, including in Australia, have targeted DEI as a symbol of radical left agendas infiltrating workplaces.
The study, conducted by a team of academics, focused on a national sports organization with around 100 staff, a technology services company employing more than 500 people, and a community liaison agency with 70 employees where DEI forms the core mission. These groups were chosen for their reputations as leaders in equality efforts, having received awards and serving as models for other businesses. Yet, across all three, the researchers found that DEI programs often amounted to what one participant described as mere "window dressing."
"We have the window dressing […] but behind the scenes, I can tell you, it’s nothing like that," the participant told the researchers, highlighting the disconnect between public-facing initiatives and internal realities. Australia, one of the world's most culturally diverse nations, continues to see leadership roles dominated by white men, with many minority workers reporting feelings of unsafety when voicing concerns at work.
The research identifies several key problems with current DEI approaches. First, these programs tend to treat individuals as isolated categories—such as "woman," "Indigenous," "LGBTQ+," or "people with disability"—oversimplifying complex identities and often ignoring the role of class. Managers, according to the study, rely on superficial understandings of diversity, steering clear of the political dimensions that shape employees' experiences. This can perpetuate stereotypes rather than dismantle them.
One striking example came from the only Indigenous person in a leadership role at one of the organizations. "Most of [my male peers] are smug arseholes who look down at me […] I don’t get treated with the same respect as my peers by some of them and partly it’s obviously I’m Black, partly it’s I’m a woman," the leader shared. Such intersecting discriminations, the study notes, are rarely addressed in standard DEI training, leaving marginalized employees to navigate biases without institutional support.
Another issue is the commodification of DEI, where organizations purchase off-the-shelf training packages and hire consultants to check compliance boxes, but these efforts seldom alter power dynamics. Workers from diverse backgrounds reported feeling compelled to conform to the dominant culture to advance. In one case, women in senior positions were accepted only if they behaved like "one of the boys," as a participant explained, underscoring how DEI can reinforce rather than challenge existing hierarchies.
The study also points to a reluctance to discuss power explicitly. Inequalities are embedded in everyday workplace structures—from promotion decisions to whose ideas are valued—yet organizations often portray themselves as inclusive while stifling challenges to the status quo. When one employee raised concerns about the lack of racial diversity among senior women, she noted the backlash: "There’s been a lot of these things where I’ve spoken up [… but…] we’re seen as troublemakers."
This avoidance of power-related conversations creates an illusion of progress, the researchers argue. Management may believe equality is advancing simply because DEI activities are underway, but without confronting who holds influence and who benefits from the system, real change remains elusive. The organizations studied, despite their awards for best practices, exemplified this gap, with minority voices limited in their ability to push for structural reforms.
Right-wing critics, who often decry DEI as "woke" overreach threatening traditional values or providing unfair advantages to minorities, may find little support in these findings. The research suggests that current DEI rarely disrupts the establishment; instead, it safeguards hierarchies by sidestepping the tough questions of equity. "DEI fails when it offers the comfort of visible action while preventing the structural transformation genuine equality demands," the authors write.
To illustrate broader context, Australia's workplace diversity landscape has evolved significantly since the 1980s, when affirmative action policies began gaining traction amid growing immigration from Asia and other regions. By 2023, the Australian Bureau of Statistics reported that nearly 30% of the population was born overseas, contributing to a multicultural fabric that contrasts sharply with corporate boardrooms, where women hold just 27% of executive positions and Indigenous representation remains below 1%, according to government data.
The studied organizations reflect this national trend. The national sports body, with its 100 employees, promotes inclusivity in public campaigns but struggles internally with gender and racial biases in coaching and administration roles. The tech services firm, boasting over 500 staff, invests in DEI workshops yet sees promotion rates for women and minorities lagging behind their white male counterparts, as internal audits reportedly show.
At the community liaison agency, where DEI is central to its 70-person operation, the mission to bridge cultural gaps in local communities clashes with its own leadership makeup, predominantly white and male. Participants in the study emphasized that while training sessions abound, discussions about redistributing decision-making power are rare, fearing disruption to operations.
Looking ahead, the researchers propose a more "political" DEI that directly tackles power imbalances, asking who is excluded and how to redistribute opportunities. This could involve mandatory audits of promotion criteria, amplifying marginalized voices in policy-making, and integrating class analyses into diversity frameworks. Such shifts, they contend, would require bravery from leaders, many of whom hail from privileged backgrounds and benefit from the status quo.
The implications extend beyond Australia. Similar critiques have emerged in the U.S. and U.K., where companies like Google and Barclays have faced lawsuits and backlash over DEI shortcomings. In Australia, recent political debates, including calls from conservative figures to defund public sector DEI programs, underscore the timeliness of this research. As one expert not involved in the study noted in a separate report, without addressing power, DEI risks becoming "just another HR checkbox."
Ultimately, the study challenges organizations to move beyond optics toward substantive change. If workplaces are to reflect Australia's diversity—from its Indigenous heritage to its immigrant vibrancy—DEI must evolve into a tool for justice, not compliance. As the researchers conclude, the real question is not whether DEI is too political, but whether leaders are willing to embrace the politics needed for true equality.