While scrolling through my Facebook timeline recently, I encountered a post by Francis Gaitho offering a sarcastic post-mortem of a high-level female executive’s resignation from a prominent public company. What stood out was not the sarcasm itself, but the open hostility toward the idea that a woman could occupy senior leadership without being dismissed as a “DEI hire.” The comments section was less satire and more indictment — a window into how deeply contested Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) has become in corporate culture.
Gaitho is known for his satirical takes on politics and public life. But the reaction his post generated suggested something larger than one commentator’s provocation. It revealed how quickly conversations about women in power can devolve into suspicion about merit. The weaponization of “DEI” as shorthand for incompetence reflects a persistent belief that inclusion and excellence are mutually exclusive.
Evidence increasingly suggests the opposite.
A recent study by academics at Aalto University and University of Vaasa found that companies with policies designed to ensure their workplaces are inclusive of LGBTQ employees are more likely to be innovative than those without such frameworks.
The study draws on nearly 15 years of data from the Corporate Equality Index — a benchmarking tool evaluating corporate policies, practices and benefits affecting LGBTQ employees — alongside patent filings from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and other public sources.
It found that for every standard deviation increase in a company’s Corporate Equality Index score, the number of patents rose by 20%. LGBTQ-friendly firms also demonstrated an almost 25% increase in patent citations — widely regarded as an indicator of how valuable or influential those patents are to other companies. In other words, inclusivity was not merely correlated with activity; it was associated with impact.
While previous research has drawn links between diversity and profitability, this study is among the first to examine sexuality and gender inclusivity specifically as drivers of innovation.
These findings arrive at a politically fraught moment. Shortly after taking office, President Donald Trump issued executive orders aimed at restricting DEI programs across federal agencies and contractors, prompting some private companies to reassess or scale back their initiatives. References to diversity, equity and inclusion in Fortune 100 company reports have also dropped sharply. According to an analysis by Gravity Research, mentions declined by 72% between 2024 and 2025.
Yet surveys suggest corporate leaders remain pragmatic. A national survey conducted by Catalyst in conjunction with the New York University School of Law found that 83% of C-suite leaders and 88% of legal leaders believe maintaining or expanding DEI initiatives is essential to mitigating legal risk. The same survey showed that 77% of executives see a positive correlation between DEI and financial performance, while 81% believe it strengthens customer loyalty.
Importantly, the Finnish researchers used analytical methods to control for political bias and found that the link between inclusivity and innovation held across different political contexts. The results were only marginally stronger when conservative states were excluded and remained largely consistent when liberal states were removed from the sample.
For Kenya, this debate is not abstract.
As the country continues to court foreign direct investment, local firms must recognize that inclusion is increasingly embedded in global capital flows. International investors and multinational corporations are using Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) metrics to evaluate potential partners. Procurement decisions are no longer based solely on price and efficiency, but also on governance standards and social risk exposure.
A Kenyan firm that cannot demonstrate a credible commitment to equity — whether through accessible facilities for persons with disabilities, gender balance in management, or transparent anti-discrimination policies — risks being viewed as a higher-risk investment. Inclusion, in this context, is not ideology. It is risk management.
Another emerging frontier is neurodiversity. Globally, major employers have introduced targeted hiring initiatives for individuals with ADHD, autism and dyslexia, recognizing measurable gains in productivity and problem-solving capacity. By shifting from high-pressure, personality-driven interviews toward skills-based assessments, Kenyan companies could unlock a largely untapped talent pool. In a knowledge economy, cognitive diversity is a competitive asset.
DEI in Kenya should therefore not be framed as charity or compliance theatre. It is infrastructure for competitiveness. In an economy where capital, talent and ideas move fluidly across borders, exclusion is not just a moral failure — it is a strategic liability. Firms that treat inclusion as optional may soon discover that global markets do not.
Leave a comment