DEI does not mean unqualified
Qualified applicants can be overlooked for reasons that have little to do with their skills. DEI efforts aim to reduce those barriers and give people a fair chance. A DEI label does not tell you whether someone can do the job.
DEI means diversity, equity and inclusion. These efforts take many forms, and they do not all work equally well.
On this page
Why these efforts exist
Imagine two applicants who meet a job’s requirements. If one is passed over because of their name or race, their skills may never get a fair hearing. Hiring studies show that equally qualified applicants can receive different treatment. Reducing those barriers is one reason for DEI efforts.
A fairer process can still have high standards
A job still needs people with the right skills. Employers can reach a wider range of applicants, ask everyone comparable interview questions and judge answers against the same job requirements. Research supports carefully planned interviews as a useful way to assess people; it does not show that every interview removes bias.
What hiring tests found
A review of US hiring experiments compared employers’ replies to applications with matching qualifications. In studies conducted since 1989, white applicants received 36% more positive replies, such as interview invitations, than Black applicants. For illustration, 36% more than 100 replies would be 136; those are not the studies’ actual counts. The research measured employer replies, not performance at work.
Programs need to be judged by their results
Different efforts have different results. A study of 3,016 employees found that a short diversity training changed some attitudes but had mostly limited effects on behavior. In a French experiment, hiding applicants’ names and other identifying information reduced minority applicants’ chances of interviews and hiring at the firms taking part. Neither result tells us how every DEI program works.
Qualifications and job performance are not the same thing
An older study in four US metropolitan areas found lower educational qualifications among some people hired through affirmative-action programs. Most groups did not show worse measured job performance. That finding does not prove equal performance everywhere, but it shows why a degree or test score is not the whole picture.
Judge someone by the job’s requirements and the evidence about their skills. A DEI label cannot replace that assessment.
Keep in mind
- Evidence of unfair hiring does not prove that every effort to fix it works.
- An invitation to interview, a degree and performance at work tell us different things.
- These studies cannot tell us whether a particular employee was qualified, favored or chosen over someone more capable.
What does “qualified” mean?
Meeting a job’s requirements is different from getting the highest score on one test.
To judge a particular hiring decision, you need to know what the job requires, how the candidates were assessed and how consistently the rules were applied. The mix of people hired cannot answer those questions on its own. These studies cover particular employers and years, not every employer today. The hiring review’s estimate of 36% more replies had a 95% confidence interval of 25–47%, showing uncertainty about the size of the difference.
Sources you can check
Publication links open in a new tab, so you can keep your place here.
Meta-analysis of field experiments shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time (opens in a new tab)
PNAS, 2017
The review covers 28 US experiments; its main comparison uses 24 studies conducted since 1989. It measures employers’ replies, not performance at work or how DEI programs work today.
Return to reading ↑Structured Interviews (opens in a new tab)
US Office of Personnel Management
This explains a way to assess candidates. It is not a new experiment or proof that every interview removes bias.
Return to reading ↑Revisiting meta-analytic estimates of validity in personnel selection: Addressing systematic overcorrection for restriction of range. (opens in a new tab)
Journal of Applied Psychology, 2022
Reassesses how well hiring assessments predict work performance. Predicting performance is different from showing that hiring becomes less discriminatory.
Return to reading ↑The mixed effects of online diversity training (opens in a new tab)
PNAS, 2019
Employees at one organization volunteered for the study and were followed for up to 20 weeks. Most measured behavior did not change. The study did not find that training caused a backlash.
Return to reading ↑Unintended Effects of Anonymous Résumés (opens in a new tab)
AEJ: Applied Economics, 2015
The firms volunteered to take part. The result does not show how anonymous recruitment works at every employer.
Return to reading ↑Are Affirmative Action Hires Less Qualified? Evidence from Employer–Employee Data on New Hires (opens in a new tab)
Journal of Labor Economics, 1999
This is an older study of four US metropolitan areas. Not finding a performance difference does not prove the groups were exactly the same.
Return to reading ↑Revisiting the design of selection systems in light of new findings regarding the validity of widely used predictors (opens in a new tab)
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2023
Explains how to use the revised findings and why results vary across settings. It is a follow-up to the 2022 paper, not another hiring-discrimination experiment.
Return to reading ↑
Detailed research notes and source data
Our longer notes explain how we checked the studies, including disagreements and documents we could not get.
Download the detailed research notes →Something unclear or missing?
You can save a feedback note to share with the site owner. The form saves a file on your device; it does not send it to us.
Save a feedback note →About this draft
These pages have not completed expert review.
Research checked: . Wording reviewed: 2026-10-07. Version: draft-3.
We revisit the page when new evidence or corrections change the answer. A public history of corrections is not available yet.