As the nation inches closer to this fall’s pivotal presidential election, the political climate appears to grow more divisive by the day. Central to the divides are topics connected to diversity, equity and inclusion—for instance, there was an “anti-woke” theme threaded throughout the recent Republican National Convention, while the Democratic Party is poised to nominate its first-ever woman of color for president, whom some Republicans have since called a “DEI hire.”
After President Joe Biden announced this weekend that he would drop out of the race, it became certain that a new leader will occupy the Oval Office come January. If it’s former President Trump, corporate DEI efforts could face “significant challenges” in 2025, says Amira Barger, executive vice president and head of DEI Advisory, Health Communications at Edelman.
For instance, Barger points to Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation-written policy document for a conservative presidential transition that Trump has sought to distance himself from, but which critics say his campaign backs. Among the policy proposals, Barger notes, are “drastic changes that could hinder DEI programs,” such as rolling back federal DEI programs, a ban on the collection of demographic data and the reshaping of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
“These measures could prevent organizations from recognizing and addressing disparities in representation,” Barger says, “thereby perpetuating systemic inequities.”
The potential for a starkly different federal administration comes at a time when corporate DEI as it has been known over the past four years is already in flux.
For instance, hiring for chief DEI officers fell by 48% from 2022-23, after a significant spike following the 2020 murder of George Floyd, according to industry analyst Josh Bersin. Recently, Tractor Supply Co. announced it was not only letting go of its DEI staff but also walking back community investments and partnerships and would no longer pursue stated DEI goals. Similarly, John Deere dropped support for DEI-related community programming and removed all “socially motivated messages” from internal company documents.
Both companies were targeted by conservative activists, whose messaging is common in Trump’s campaign.
“There is clearly a big ‘anti-woke’ and ‘anti-DEI’ theme in the Trump/Vance thinking, and some simply feel like this is a push toward people taking responsibility for their own lives,” says Bersin, a keynoter at the upcoming HR Tech Conference. “Many leaders—Elon Musk, for example—choose to use ‘DEI’ as an insult, such as calling a person a ‘DEI candidate.’ ”
Figures like Trump and Musk are far from the original, or only, purveyors of this mindset, however.
The backlash against corporate DEI picked up immediately following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling banning the use of affirmative action in college admissions—a move that conservative lobbyists and law firms had been pursuing for years.
“All this stems from DEI turning into a social activism movement, instead of a business strategy—and that, to me, is where DEI went astray,” Bersin says.
Bersin says the purpose of corporate DEI was originally to reduce bias in how candidates and employees are hired, promoted, paid and treated. Yet, in the last few years, some organizations have shifted their DEI functions’ focus to attempt to “change society as a whole,” driving up political pushback.
Many DEI leaders who attempted to transform their role into a “social justice job” are no longer in that job, Bersin recently noted on his podcast, while others are “moving back to a focus on improving the employee experience, performance, psychological safety and management skills of their companies.”
SHRM, ‘equity’ and the future of DEI
The focus of DEI leaders isn’t the only thing changing. Earlier this month, SHRM—the membership organization representing more than 325,000 HR professionals—faced intense backlash after announcing it was dropping the word “equity” from its DEI strategy.
In a LinkedIn announcement that has garnered nearly 1,000 comments, the organization stated that by pivoting to focus on “inclusion first,” SHRM was seeking to address the “current shortcomings of DE&I programs, which have led to societal backlash and increasing polarization.”
Barger calls the move a “travesty of logic” and says SHRM is the latest example of what she calls the “Red Rover Effect”—where well-intentioned solidarity “turns to apathy” when pushback arises.
“By removing the very element that addresses systemic disparities—equity—SHRM is giving in and sidestepping the uncomfortable and necessary work. This move weakens DEI initiatives and will erode their credibility with practitioners,” Barger says. “An organization with this level of impact and audience has the ability to cause harm—and I believe in this case, they certainly have and will continue to.”
The SHRM tumult represents the misunderstandings and misconceptions about what DEI really means, Barger says.
“Inclusion is about participation and creating space for our individual differences; equity is about fairness that comes from systems change when we acknowledge barriers and prioritize removing them,” she says.
Too often, Bersin adds, the concept of equity is linked to imagery of “disadvantaged” people being “raised up” to the same level as others.
“This is what was stricken down by the Supreme Court,” Bersin says. “So, if we just go back to the dictionary definition, ‘equity’ means fairness, justice and meritocracy—which is what every company and employee wants.”
Practically, Bersin adds, he doesn’t envision the SHRM redefinition trickling down to many employers.
“I think SHRM’s move means little to nothing, to be honest,” Bersin says. “Many people are protesting it.”
Preparing for a new context for corporate DEI
Despite “all the noise” of protests against corporate DEI and the potential of different federal leadership, Bersin says that nearly every “well-run company” he’s interacted with recently is continuing to invest in DEI work and push an anti-bias agenda.
“Companies like John Deere and Tractor Supply are very rare, and I think they’ll come back to this over time,” Bersin says.
That tracks with recent data, such as a study of 300 C-suite leaders by law firm Littler that found more than 60% of their organizations increased their DEI activity in the last year; just 1% rolled back DEI initiatives.
However, the context in which organizations are pushing their corporate DEI agendas forward may look markedly different after the presidential election. It’s up to HR to prepare now, Barger says.
Lean into the company’s DEI commitments, ensuring they are embedded in corporate values and mission, she says, and modeled by senior leadership. Such commitments can be reinforced through DEI training and by leveraging ERGs, as well as by partnering with community advocacy organizations pushing back against anti-DEI efforts.
On a practical level, HR should consult with legal experts to evaluate how a change in federal administration will affect corporate DEI strategies. Even if demographic reporting requirements change, Barger adds, HR should continue to prioritize the collection and analysis of such data internally.
“This will help maintain a focus on equity and inclusion,” she says.
Keeping corporate DEI visible can also serve as a means of support for employees struggling with the instability of today’s political climate. For instance, Edelman’s 2024 Brands and Politics report found that nearly 80% of those surveyed said their top fear at the moment is election outcomes—specifically, that leaders would take the country in the wrong direction.
“With over half of the globe in an election year, we are united in our fear,” Barger says. “After all, election outcomes are so tightly connected to all other fears and vulnerabilities.”
Credit: Source link
