Skip to content

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The management case for diversifying the Congressional workforce

The management case for diversifying the Congressional workforce
Getty Images

Bradford Fitch is the President and CEO of the Congressional Management Foundation and a former congressional staffer.

The recent Supreme Court decision outlawing affirmative action programs in college admissions has already spurred questions about other programs in the private sector aimed at improving diversity in the workplace. The Washington Post headline read, “Affirmative action ruling places a target on corporate diversity programs.” And The New York Times story was similar: "Affirmative Action Ruling May Upend Hiring Policies, Too.” It's not too far a stretch to imagine that the next battleground will be the public sector, including the U.S. Congress.

The Congressional Management Foundation has been working with the Congressional workforce for almost fifty years, providing nonpartisan guidance and training on management and hiring practices. In recent years we've seen a new focus on diversifying congressional offices – more than at any other time in congressional history. The House Office of Diversity and Inclusion has provided outstanding assistance to offices seeking to enhance their operations through diversity. Groups like the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies have correctly shined a light on the glaring imbalance of people of color working in Congress compared to the general U.S. population. And through its Staff Up Congress initiative, the National Association of Latino Elected Officials has provided professional and leadership training to young Hispanic staffers.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

While there are moral and ethical arguments for diversifying the congressional workforce, the Congressional Management Foundation puts forth an additional reason: diverse organizations PERFORM BETTER than less diverse ones. A McKinsey and Company report examining 1,000 businesses in 15 countries was unequivocal in its finding: "Our latest report shows not only that the business case remains robust but also that the relationship between diversity on executive teams and the likelihood of financial outperformance has strengthened over time." A Canadian study of mergers and gender diversity in corporate executive teams and boards found that each additional female director on the board increased the acquiring company’s stock return by approximately three percent.

Each Congressional office is its own independent organization functioning with its own set of practices, policies, and legislative goals. While Congress is assuredly not a for-profit entity, the translation of research from the private sector to government work is logical: diversity in staff leadership will lead to better decision-making on public policy issues. In our work with Congressional offices, we have seen the positive impact of staff diversity firsthand. One office has staff who can answer constituent calls in ten different languages, while others have drawn on staffers’ experiences to understand the impact of legislation on their district.

One governmental organization which has seen tremendous success with diversifying its workforce is perhaps unexpected: The United States Army. And within the Army the leader in this effort has been the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. This graduating 2023 class of officers is the most diverse in history with 36 percent of graduates who are non-white. And, just as the business community makes the business case for diversity, the military makes the case based on their operational needs. In heralding the military benefits of diversity, Col. Drew Deaton wrote in an Association of the U.S. Army Newsletter: "Maximizing the strengths of diverse team members is key to success in leadership and amplifying a unit’s ability to accomplish its mission most effectively…. Our different life and career experiences, ways of thought and lifestyles were not sources of conflict or discord. Rather, they gave us exceptional insights to complement one another’s styles and cover each other’s blind spots.”

It is lamentable that the topic of diversifying a workforce falls prey to partisan squabbling. Organizations seeking to improve should be guided by good management principles, not political ideology. Yet it would be a significant setback in the effort to improve and modernize the Congress if this Supreme Court decision was used to scale back the movement to diversify the staff of the Congress. The management research is clear: decision-making from diverse teams is more creative, profitable, and responsive to their stakeholders. Achieving the goal of creating a workforce that looks more like America will not only give Congress greater moral authority in its decisions, it will result in better public policy.

Read More

Donald Trump and J.D. Vance

Vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance, standing next to former President Donald Trump at the Republican National Convention, said President Biden's campaign rhetoric "led directly to President Trump's attempted assassination."

Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

Assassination attempt will fuel political extremism

Khalid is a physician, geostrategic analyst and freelance writer.

President Joe Biden’s initial response to the attack on Donald Trump, calling it “sick” and reaching out to his stricken adversary to express support, was commendable. Statements from other prominent Democrats, including former President Barack Obama and Vice President Kamala Harris, as well as notable Republicans like former President George W. Bush and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, echoed this sentiment of unity and concern.

In contrast, the response from some on the right — engaging in finger-pointing and blaming Democrats for their heated rhetoric — proved less productive. Vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance, for instance, asserted that Biden's campaign rhetoric "led directly to President Trump's attempted assassination," seemingly in reaction to recent comments from Biden suggesting, "It’s time to put Trump in a bullseye." This divisive rhetoric only exacerbates the political tension that already grips the nation. Instead of fostering unity, such accusations deepen the partisan divide.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hands coming together in a circle of people
SDI Productions/Getty Images

Building a future together based on a common cause

Johnson is a United Methodist pastor, the author of "Holding Up Your Corner: Talking About Race in Your Community" and program director for the Bridge Alliance, which houses The Fulcrum.

As the 2024 presidential campaigns speed toward November, we face a transformative moment for our nation. The challenges of recent years have starkly revealed the deep divisions that threaten our societal fabric. Yet, amidst the discord, we are presented with a pivotal choice: Will we yield to the allure of division, or will we summon the courage to transcend our differences and shape a future founded on common cause and mutual respect?

Keep ReadingShow less
People protesting laws against homelessness

People protest outside the Supreme Court as the justices prepared to hear Grants Pass v. Johnson on April 22.

Matt McClain/The Washington Post via Getty Images

High court upholds law criminalizing homelessness, making things worse

Herring is an assistant professor of sociology at UCLA, co-author of an amicus brief in Johnson v. Grants Pass and a member of the Scholars Strategy Network.

In late June, the Supreme Court decided in the case of Johnson v. Grants Pass that the government can criminalize homelessness. In the court’s 6-3 decision, split along ideological lines, the conservative justices ruled that bans on sleeping in public when there are no shelter beds available do not violate the Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

This ruling will only make homelessness worse. It may also propel U.S. localities into a “race to the bottom” in passing increasingly punitive policies aimed at locking up or banishing the unhoused.

Keep ReadingShow less
silhouettes of people arguing in front of an America flag
Pict Rider/Getty Images

'One side will win': The danger of zero-sum framings

Elwood is the author of “Defusing American Anger” and hosts thepodcast “People Who Read People.”

Recently, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was surreptitiously recorded at a private event saying, about our political divides, that “one side or the other is going to win.” Many people saw this as evidence of his political bias. In The Washington Post, Perry Bacon Jr. wrote that he disagreed with Alito’s politics but that the justice was “right about the divisions in our nation today.” The subtitle of Bacon’s piece was: “America is in the middle of a nonmilitary civil war, and one side will win.”

It’s natural for people in conflict to see it in “us versus them” terms — as two opposing armies facing off against each other on the battlefield. That’s what conflict does to us: It makes us see things through war-colored glasses.

Keep ReadingShow less