I believe deeply in equal opportunity. But equal outcome as a target can sometimes miss the mark. In my experience, the way DEI has been applied in certain corporate settings has created real challenges. I’ve seen businesses evaluated not on performance or capability, but on whether they met specific diversity metrics. Well-intentioned? Absolutely. But over time, the focus shifted from building strong, skilled teams to simply meeting percentages. On paper, we had diverse teams. But when individuals weren’t properly trained or supported, or didn’t have the background needed to succeed, the business—and those individuals—suffered. It became more about checking boxes than creating sustainable, effective teams.

I truly believe representation matters. But we can’t fix it at the point of hire alone. Especially in complex fields like financial services, the work has to start earlier—through mentorship, education, and exposure for underrepresented groups. We need to build pathways into these careers, not just hope to fill roles at the final stage.

I’ve sat on interview panels where the pressure to hire “diverse” candidates came with little regard for readiness or fit. In too many cases, those hires were placed on performance plans within months. That’s not inclusion—it’s a missed opportunity on all sides.

We can do better. DEI, when done right, creates stronger teams, positive discourse and better outcomes. When done poorly, it can backfire and erode trust. So here I am, offering a perspective that may not be universally popular, but I hope it contributes to a deeper and more balanced conversation—because thoughtful disagreement is its own kind of diversity.