Let's start with a truth bomb: Diversity isn't a "nice to have," nor just another HR KPI.
It's a strategic imperative.
And if you're not designing for it, you're defaulting against it.
But while everyone's busy preaching the gospel of inclusion, most hiring processes are still running on 2012 logic: "Let's just hire the best person for the job." (Translation: someone who looks, thinks, and talks like whoever made the first hire.)
We've been fed a steady diet of culture fit. Of "gut feeling" hires. Of teams that hire for diversity but onboard for conformity.
Enough.
It's time to go beyond the diversity theater and build systems that actually work. And no, that doesn't mean adding a token woman to your panel or launching a DEI committee with no budget. It means changing how you hire, how you lead, and how you think.
Culture Fit Is Dead. Long Live Culture Add.
Let's talk about one of the biggest BS metrics in hiring: "culture fit."
As Lars Schmidt says, "culture fit" has morphed into shorthand for homogeneity. It reinforces bias by encouraging teams to hire people who "feel familiar," often unconsciously prioritizing shared backgrounds, interests, or even hobbies over diverse perspectives that actually challenge and evolve the culture.
Want to build resilient, adaptive teams? Hire for culture add instead. Ask:
What perspectives, experiences, or values does this person bring that we don't already have?
Otherwise, you're just hiring mirror images and calling it cohesion.
We've all seen the stats:
Racially diverse teams outperform by 35% (Lorenzo, Rocío, TED)
Diverse teams make better decisions 87% of the time (Phillips, Katherine W., Scientific American, 2014)
They're more innovative, adaptable, and profitable.
But if you're still making the "business case" for diversity in 2025… it's time to evolve.
As Robin J. Ely and David A. Thomas argue, "Enough already with the business case." You don't justify diversity like it's a new SaaS tool: you treat it as a fundamental operating principle. One rooted in fairness, equity, and building better systems from the ground up.
If your hiring process systematically advantages a narrow set of candidates, then it's not meritocratic. It's just lazy design.
HBR's research on inclusive companies shows that the ones that move the needle:
Set explicit, public diversity goals tied to leadership performance
Share transparent data about hiring, promotions, and pay equity
Empower employees to flag bias without fear of retaliation
Treat inclusion as a design function, baked into every decision, not bolted on later.
That's how you get lasting change, not LinkedIn statements or "Diversity Day" events.
Bias isn't a bug in your hiring process. It is the process, unless you're actively designing against it.