Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
Yes—in the sense that persistent representation and advancement gaps now coexist with greater political and legal scrutiny of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs. But the evidence does not show that every technology company is abandoning those efforts, or that tech diversity is declining everywhere.
What has changed—and what has not?
The clearest answer is that two problems are happening at once: longstanding disparities in who enters and advances in technology, and a more contested environment for the programs intended to address them. The available figures come from different countries, surveys and definitions of the technology workforce, so they should not be combined into a single global trend line.
In September 2024, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) reported that women, Black workers and Hispanic workers remained substantially underrepresented in high-tech employment. It found very little change in Black representation and virtually no change in women’s representation between 2005 and 2022. The report also found that the share of high-tech workers over 40 fell from 55.9% in 2014 to 52.1% in 2022.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems2Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute3Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsThe figures for women use two different workforce definitions: women made up 22.6% of the high-tech workforce across all industries, but 4% of the high-tech workforce in the high-tech sector. Those percentages are not interchangeable; the EEOC reports them for distinct populations.
In the UK, a Department for Science, Innovation and Technology report published on 26 June 2025 identified underrepresentation across ethnicity, gender, neurodiversity, disability, sexual orientation, age and socioeconomic background. It also highlighted disparities in leadership and access to funding. The report’s findings are UK-specific and are not a direct measure of U.S. employment.
Are women and Black workers losing ground in technology?
The available evidence supports a more qualified conclusion than a simple yes or no. The EEOC’s historical comparison shows little improvement in representation for women and Black workers over 2005–2022, rather than establishing a recent, across-the-board decline. The cited evidence identifies persistent underrepresentation and barriers to advancement; it does not establish that every group is losing ground at every employer.
Rank #2
- Summary: A brief look at the book
- Chapter Listing: See what's inside
A separate global survey points to the gap between recognizing a problem and acting on it. ISACA surveyed 7,726 technology professionals in 2024. Its results describe respondents’ views and businesses’ reported programs, not a census of the global technology workforce.
| Measure | Finding | Source and scope |
|---|---|---|
| Perceived underrepresentation of women | 87% of respondents believed women were underrepresented. | ISACA, 2024 global survey of 7,726 technology professionals. |
| Businesses with programs to hire more women | 41% had such programs. | ISACA, 2024; reported by survey respondents. |
ISACA Chief Membership Officer Julia Kanouse said, “More needs to be done to increase the representation of women in the IT and technology sector—and more needs to be done to welcome their leadership and influence.”
Are companies rolling back DEI?
There is evidence of pressure and adaptation, but not proof of a universal retreat. The Conference Board’s 2024 findings combine two separate U.S. samples: 1,345 workers surveyed in August and 73 senior executives surveyed in March. Worker responses show that many employees considered their organization’s effort appropriate, while a smaller group wanted more. Executive responses indicate that political scrutiny was affecting how some companies described or managed the work.
| Question or measure | Finding | Source and sample |
|---|---|---|
| Was the organization devoting the appropriate effort to DEI? | 58% of workers said yes; 21% said efforts were insufficient. | The Conference Board, August 2024 survey of 1,345 U.S. workers. |
| Would the respondent avoid an employer that did not take DEI seriously? | 49% of women and 56% of Black respondents said they would not work for such a company. | The Conference Board, August 2024 survey of 1,345 U.S. workers. |
| How challenging was the political climate for DEI? | 63% of surveyed executives called it very or extremely challenging. | The Conference Board, March 2024 survey of 73 senior executives. |
| What did executives expect about scrutiny? | 69% expected scrutiny to persist or increase. | The Conference Board, March 2024 survey of 73 senior executives. |
| Had the company changed its DEI terminology? | 53% of surveyed executives said it had. | The Conference Board, March 2024 survey of 73 senior executives. |
Changing terminology does not, on its own, show that a company has ended hiring, promotion, accessibility or retention efforts. Nor do the survey results show that every employer changed its approach. They do show that leaders were navigating scrutiny while employees continued to place value on DEI. The Conference Board’s Principal Researcher Allan Schweyer said, “DEI values and initiatives are essential for many US employees and continue to receive strong, positive feedback.”
Rank #4
- Used Book in Good Condition
Why is diversity work contested?
Organizations face competing expectations. Employees may want fair access, advancement and a workplace where they belong; leaders may also face political and legal scrutiny over how programs are designed, described and measured. The Conference Board’s executive survey captures the political pressure and terminology changes, while its worker survey shows that a substantial share of employees—especially the women and Black respondents reported above—say they would reject an employer that did not take DEI seriously.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →One practical tension is how to set and communicate representation goals. Targets can help an organization monitor whether access and advancement are improving, but some employees may interpret them as quotas. Leaders should explain what a target measures, how it will be assessed, and how the company will pursue equitable outcomes without obscuring the criteria used for employment decisions. The survey evidence supports clear communication; it does not establish that any one target design resolves legal or employee concerns.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What should a technology company do?
Focus on measurable barriers and outcomes rather than slogans alone. The EEOC recommends that high-tech employers proactively examine barriers affecting women, older workers, Black workers and Hispanic workers. ISACA respondents highlighted role models, mentors, networking organizations and attention to pay inequality. Together, these point to work across the employee lifecycle, not recruitment alone.
- Measure representation and advancement. Examine who applies, gets hired, receives development opportunities, is promoted and leaves. Disaggregate results where lawful and appropriate, and state clearly which workforce and time period each measure covers.
- Review pay and progression. Investigate pay inequality and whether promotion processes or access to high-visibility work create barriers. Track changes over time instead of relying on a one-time snapshot.
- Support development and networks. Make mentoring, role models and professional networking accessible, and connect those efforts to career progression rather than treating them as standalone activities.
- Include accessibility and belonging. Consider disability, neurodiversity and other barriers alongside gender and ethnicity; the UK government report identifies these as dimensions of underrepresentation in UK tech.
- Explain goals and decisions. Tell employees what is being measured, why it matters and how progress will be reviewed. Be precise about whether a goal concerns outreach, applicant pools, retention, promotion or representation.
- Review programs as conditions change. Political or legal scrutiny is a reason to ensure that program design and communications are careful and transparent—not evidence, by itself, that the underlying disparities have disappeared.
A credible approach should be judged by whether it improves representation and advancement, can withstand scrutiny, uses transparent measures, supports belonging and retention, and addresses hiring, promotion, pay, accessibility and leadership rather than relying on public-facing language alone.
How strong is the evidence?
The strongest quantified evidence here comes from U.S. and UK sources, and the studies use different definitions of “high tech,” “technology sector” and “IT professionals.” The EEOC’s workforce comparisons, ISACA’s global professional survey and The Conference Board’s U.S. employee and executive surveys answer different questions. They establish persistent disparities and a contested policy environment; they do not prove that every technology employer has cut diversity efforts or that a particular intervention guarantees better outcomes.
Recommended Free Tools
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
