Corporations embraced D.E.I. efforts after George Floyd’s murder, and now we’re seeing an about-face. Pavithra Mohan, staff writer for Fast Company’s Work Life section, joins host Krys Boyd to discuss the backtrack of corporate DEI efforts, how President Trump’s directives have cooled or eliminated programs put in place to attract or retain historically marginalized workers, and what employees think of shifting workplace values.
- +
Transcript
Krys Boyd [00:00:00] Within days after George Floyd’s murder by a white officer went viral on social media, millions of Americans were calling for change not only to disproportionate police violence carried out against people of color, but to the way certain identities seemed destined to shape our access to opportunity, regardless of work ethic or skills. Huge companies like target, Meta and Amazon very publicly committed to diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. And then almost as quickly as they ramped these efforts up recently, they ramped right back down again. From KERA in Dallas. This is Think I’m Krys Boyd. President Trump signed an executive order to end DEI requirements across the federal government, which has a knock on effect among federal contractors no longer required to meet those goals. But the pullback in corporate America extends well beyond organizations looking to do business with the government. And all that change leaves many people wondering why did companies go all in on DEI in the first place and why do they perceive so much risk with continuing now? Pavithra Moha is a staff writer for Fast Company’s Work Life section, where she’s been tracking the wide ranging retreat from DEI goals at U.S. workplaces Pavithra, welcome to Think.
Pavithra Moha [00:01:15] Thank you so much for having me. I’m happy to be here.
Krys Boyd [00:01:18] Just for a little background here, what is the historical link between contemporary programs that we call DEI and the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
Pavithra Moha [00:01:27] So I think, you know, a lot of these programs really are rooted in kind of the values of the Civil Rights Act. They really did grow out of those efforts to promote racial equity in the workplace. And actually, a good example of that is one of the executive orders that President Johnson had put in place that President Trump has, has now tried to revoke in one of his recent executive actions, that was a really critical order that addressed discriminatory hiring practices across federal contractors, and it was really critical to promoting racial equity. And so even kind of the the targeting of that specific executive order, I think, speaks to the link between the programs we see today and the Civil Rights Act, as you mentioned, and just how important it was to kind of formalize and codify the need to promote racial equity in the workplace as well.
Krys Boyd [00:02:18] And it’s not just racial equity, right. What are some of the identities besides race that might be acknowledged in programs designed to promote diversity, equity and inclusion?
Pavithra Moha [00:02:28] Yeah, absolutely. I mean, there’s, you know, religious diversity, there is disability disabilities that are accommodated by a lot of these programs. You know, the idea, I think, really has been to kind of expand beyond just racial equity, even if that is where a lot of this started. And I do think in the last decade or so in particular, we have seen a lot of these corporate diversity, equity and inclusion programs really try to be more expansive. But but I will say it has, I think, taken a while to get there. And I think gender equality and sort of racial diversity has been the primary focus of a lot of these programs. But we are seeing now that these, you know, it certainly extends to other identities, you know, military status, veteran status. I think all of that is really meant to be a part of, you know, what these programs are meant to do. And I think that often gets lost in the narrative around the focus being on sort of racial equity alone.
Krys Boyd [00:03:26] Does the demographic makeup of the federal government generally match the demographic makeup of the United States, however you want to slice that.
Pavithra Moha [00:03:33] I would say it’s largely no in the sense that we don’t necessarily have, you know, representatives in Congress that by and large, you know, represent the US population. I don’t know that I can speak to the demographic makeup of the federal workforce in particular, but I do think that these programs have been intended to really promote that right, to make the demographics of the federal workforce or of corporate workforces, akin to the actual makeup of the US population. And so I think that that’s certainly a goal of of programs like this.
Krys Boyd [00:04:07] Okay, for companies with government contracts. How were those contractors supposed to demonstrate their compliance with federal rules around employment equity?
Pavithra Moha [00:04:20] You know, I think historically, they’re all corporate entities have had to comply with certain anti-discrimination laws, right. They do need to kind of show that they are not discriminating against certain protected classes. And again, as we’ve discussed that and that can include, you know, both racial diversity. It can include religious diversity. All of that is protected under the Civil Rights Act. And, you know, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission also protects discrimination against those protected classes. But typically, you know, there is general compliance that’s expected with those programs. And, you know, you’re supposed to show that in your hiring and recruitment policies, right? And so that is all kind of baked into, I think, the way that both federal jobs and, you know, private sector jobs are structured. And so in many ways, I would say that the programs that we’re talking about now that are meant to kind of further promote racial equity or gender diversity or whatever the case might be, really diversity of many different kinds are meant to are really coming out of those programs. Right? And they are not intended to to exclude merit.
Krys Boyd [00:05:31] Is the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission still in place? I’m curious about the role it might have moving forward.
Pavithra Moha [00:05:39] It is very much still in place, but I think we have seen that some of the changes that have been made since the Trump administration, you know, came into power over the last month, have certainly chipped away at the Equal Employment Opportunity commissions. I guess power, I would say to to sort of interrogate discrimination in the workplace. You know, Trump did let go of several commissioners, which is really quite unprecedented. Typically they, you know, have terms that are not necessarily aligned with the presidential terms. And there’s always been a practice of, you know, just allowing them to stay on and just sort of only replacing the kind of head commissioner. And so that is a bit unprecedented in and of itself. And it does change the majority on the commission, which will impact, you know, the kinds of discrimination cases they’re going after the new commissioner. Or I think it’s maybe the General Council has already said that, you know, they don’t really believe in sort of corporate DEI programs. And so I do think we are going to see the kinds of cases and investigations that the EEOC opens. You know, that might start to change. There have been a few areas that have been kind of a focus for the commission over the last few years. One is hiring discrimination specifically around sort of the use of AI. Another is pregnancy discrimination. Following the passage of the Pregnant Workers Paradise Act. And so, you know, there are some issues that I think are really important to them. Over the recent years that we may not see the commission now focus on. And I do think there will be an impact in terms of, you know, the types of employment discrimination cases that are brought to the EEOC and then, you know, pursued beyond that. But I think, you know, we’ll have to see what happens. But I do think we are going to see a shift there. Yes.
Krys Boyd [00:07:32] So this term, DEI, is still everywhere. You know, it kind of sprang up to many people’s awareness just a few years ago. Is there something about what we now call DEI that is different from earlier forms of sort of anti-discrimination efforts in the employment sector? Is there some is there some reason this term has become so radioactive?
Pavithra Moha [00:07:57] Yeah. No. You know, that’s that’s a great question. I mean, I think in so many ways it’s it’s a great example of how something that really should not be controversial, right? That the idea that you should want a workforce that represents, you know, the diversity and demographics of the U.S. population, it is rooted again. And in all of these anti-discrimination policies, the Civil Rights Act, everything we’ve talked about. I think the term has been sort of weaponized by conservative activists. I think there is a misunderstanding of what the DEI really means. And and again, it goes back to this idea that, you know, merit is is certainly still part of the hiring process, even if you are taking into account these, you know, DEI practices. But I do think that has been kind of twisted. And people don’t entirely understand what it means, right? They don’t necessarily know that. All it might mean is that you’re considering this as one of many factors when you’re bringing somebody on, or when you’re hiring someone or considering somebody for a role. And I think people also don’t understand that many of these practices were already in place. And so there’s this idea that you’re just, you know, you’re hiring somebody on the basis of their identity or background with without considering whether they’re actually qualified for the role. I think that’s kind of the perception a lot of people have of what does work entails. And so I think there’s a lot of misconceptions about that. And I also think it’s just it’s a good example of where this term DEI has just been kind of weaponized. And it’s turned into it’s gotten a life of its own. And I think many people don’t really know what it looks like to actually implement these practices in the workplace. And what kinds of programs tend to, you know, be a part of DEI programs and so on. And so I think it’s I think we’ve seen a lot of sort of political attacks that have turned this into a really fraught, loaded term. And I think one interesting thing we’re now seeing is that some companies are starting to kind of move away from the term DEI, and they’re using the language of. I would say that, you know, they’re using terms like inclusion and belonging to talk about, you know, what they’d still like in their workforce. You know, the fact that they still care about people feeling included at work and feeling like they can, you know, bring their whole selves to work. But we are seeing some movement away from the term DEI and I don’t think that’s, you know, a coincidence. I think people recognize that it’s become this really, really loaded term.
Krys Boyd [00:10:23] So President Trump signed this executive order January 21st, and it was called ending illegal discrimination and restoring merit based opportunity. I mean, you’ve just addressed some of those things a moment ago, but what sort of discrimination is Trump referring to here that he considers illegal?
Pavithra Moha [00:10:42] Yeah. You know, what’s interesting is I think a lot of people are asking that question. I don’t think it’s very clear what he means by that. And I think the risk there is that if anything could be seen as sort of illegal discrimination. Many of these companies are going to take a really kind of conservative approach, or they’re going to see that as, you know, license for the Trump administration to potentially come after them. And one thing I want to highlight is that Trump has also signed another executive order. I believe it’s a different one that explicitly says that federal agencies can and should go after private sector companies if they are engaging in this sort of illegal discrimination. Right. And so, again, I think there is a lack of clarity as to what that means exactly. I have to imagine that their idea of it as is people who are companies that are maybe bringing on workers solely on the basis of their identity, rather than considering whether they are qualified for the role. But again, I mean, we have laws in place that would would not allow you to do that in the first place. And so I think there seems to be quite a bit of confusion as to what that actually means, just having spoken to the DEI experts and some legal experts. I think many companies just don’t really know what that what that might mean. And also, I think there’s some questions as to whether Trump would even have the legal authority to go after private sector companies on that basis. But I think the the result of that is that we might see companies that take a very sort of conservative approach to DEI, or maybe entirely divest from these programs in response to that. Right to so they are not opening themselves up to potential legal attacks.
Krys Boyd [00:12:24] I mean, laws or not, it seems like it would be bad for private companies to go around hiring unqualified people solely on the basis of some identity that they possess. It doesn’t seem like it would be a widespread business practice.
Pavithra Moha [00:12:40] No. Absolutely not. And I think that, you know, most companies are certainly not doing that. I think the other, you know, thing to remember here is that these programs are already heavily vetted. Most of these large employers have, you know, pretty sophisticated legal teams in place that are already looking closely at these programs. And so certainly it would not be wise that wise for them to do that. But I think companies are not doing that. And again, I think this is where there is a misconception about what these programs actually are meant to do. I will say at the same time, I think there is a real fear of these potential legal attacks, right? Even if they’re just frivolous lawsuits. I think there are companies that just don’t want to be saddled with that. And so we are seeing companies take a harder look at their programs, doing a lot of auditing of some of these diversity programs. We’ve already seen some companies pull back on certain types of initiatives. And I should say, over the last two years, ever since the Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action, we’ve started to see this, this shift and in corporate DEI programs and how companies approach them. What types of initiatives they are sort of investing in. And it all it’s all sort of related. And so I think what we’re seeing now is really just kind of a continuation of what we’ve seen the last few years.
Krys Boyd [00:14:00] Pavithra how do employees of U.S. companies broadly feel about DEI initiatives that have existed at their workplaces, like, do half the people love it? Do 90% of the people hate it? What do we know about how employees feel about these efforts?
Pavithra Moha [00:14:17] Yeah, I mean, these programs have historically been quite popular. You know, there’s surveys that indicate that they’re still very popular with workers. I will say, I think the sentiment has changed a little bit in the last couple of years, and I don’t think that’s a coincidence, just given what we’ve seen in terms of the public narrative and conversation around the term DEI. But by and large, these programs are very popular with workers. You know, more than half of respondents in a recent survey by the Pew Research Center said that they believed the air was largely a positive thing. And, you know, you see this in in the workplace, right, that there’s so many companies at which employee resource groups, for example, and affinity groups have been really, really empowering for a lot of workers and have really shaped their experience in the workplace. And I think the same can certainly be said of a lot of, you know, more recent DEI programs as well. And so it’s certainly popular with workers. And the other thing I’ll just say is that I think workers notice what companies are doing, right. They see when a company is actually committed to this work, you know, they can tell when a company is truly invested in it and when what the company is saying externally kind of reflect is reflected internally or and when it’s not right. And so I know, for example, that, you know, LGBTQ workers are watching as some companies decide to stop participating in what’s a pretty well known survey by the Human Rights Campaign, which measures workplace inclusion for LGBTQ workers. We’ve seen a several companies actually pull out of this survey over the last year or so, and workers are watching that and taking note of that. So I would say, you know, the programs are quite popular with workers. And I would also just note that I think workers are watching what companies do in this moment, and I think that will influence their decision to, you know, either stay in a company or recruit with the company or so on. And I think that’s something that companies should keep in mind.
Krys Boyd [00:16:12] So if some of these companies are dropping DEI efforts at the moment without being specifically compelled by the government to do so, this big question is whether the leaders of those companies were actually sincere when they went all in on DEI in the first place, in the wake of the George Floyd murder. What can we know about this? I mean, I recognize that there’s a very diverse array of companies in this country, but are people feeling as if the initial effort was somewhat cynical, done for show?
Pavithra Moha [00:16:45] Yeah, I mean, that’s a great question. And I think it’s one that people have been asking for quite some time because as I said, I think what we’re seeing now has been happening for a few years. It’s really been happening since 2020, since we saw those really public proclamations in support of DEI. I think many people asked even in that moment, you know, how much of that was genuine, just because there was so much public pressure for companies to say something. And I think not all of those commitments were, you know, very sort of they either didn’t have money behind them or they just, you know, they made them in the moment because the company felt the pressure to do so. But I think people have been asking this question for a while as to, you know, how many of those commitments were really kind of legitimate and how many companies actually invested in those in those programs after coming out and saying they were in support of them? And so, you know, at Fast Company, we actually did take a look at this about a year after many companies had made those initial commitments, and we were kind of unsurprisingly, we saw that many companies had not really made progress on a lot of the commitments they had made at the time. There were several tech companies that had talked about, you know, promoting black employees into leadership positions, or they had put, you know, dollar amounts behind some of these DEI initiatives. And a year later, they didn’t necessarily have much to show for it. And I would also say, having reported on these, you know, DEI and also spoken to a lot of DEI professionals over the last few years, there has definitely been a significant shift, even at the companies that did care about doing the work and maybe were showing more of a commitment to it in 2020. There’s been a shift away from it. I think there’s, you know, been a divestment. People have called their DEI teams, and a lot of that precedes what we’re what’s happening right now with the executive orders. And so I think there are a lot of questions as to how, you know, meaningful those commitments were in the first place that I think it’s hard to speak in generalities because each company is different. I think there were some that really did show a true commitment and others that didn’t. But but to your point, I think it’s a fair question to ask, how many of those commitments were legitimate and meaningful in the first place? Given what we’re seeing now.
Krys Boyd [00:19:03] For the sake of this conversation, let’s take a company that we assume or that we could demonstrate had a sincere commitment to DEI goals. There’s this other set of questions around whether DEI programs, efforts, trainings have the intended effect. What is research shown about what changes at a company when they really lean into DEI goals?
Pavithra Moha [00:19:30] Yeah, I mean, I think one thing that’s hard when we’re talking about DEI programs is that, you know, first, there’s so many different types of programs. And another thing that you’ll hear from a lot of DEI professionals is that even as people who do the work who are, you know, very much supportive of the work, they recognize that there are some programs that are less effective, or there are types of programs that that you know, are not conducted as well as they could be. One type of DEI training that has gotten a lot of attention over the last decade or so, I would say, is unconscious bias trainings. And, you know, initially that that was one of the things that many tech companies in particular put into place in like 2014, 2015, when they started to get a lot of public pressure over their lack of diversity. And over time, you know, there’s there’s been research that indicates that those programs are not necessarily particularly effective, that they can actually highlight bias or draw attention to it, rather than kind of addressing the implicit unconscious bias that tends to be present in a lot of workplaces. And so another thing that I would say was given a lot of importance at tech companies in particular, was representation goals. So specifically, you know, looking at the number of women, the number of people of color, particularly underrepresented people of color at tech companies, and really setting some, some goals for those groups of workers. Year after year. And then also setting, I would say, leadership goals. So you know how many women are in leadership positions. So those types of goals are are also something that I’ve, I think become a little less popular. And we saw a number of companies recently. I believe Meta is one of them that have done away with those goals. And I think at first blush it might seem like that is, you know, a pull back on DEI or that they’re rolling back their DEI policies. But I would also say that having spoken to some experts, I think some of those some of those goals were again, well intended but didn’t necessarily promote, you know, true inclusion in the workplace. If you’re only looking at the number of people that you’re hiring or retaining. I think you’re you’re sometimes missing, you know, whether those employees really feel that they’re being supported in the workplace. You might not be looking at attrition rates, right? So looking at whether certain employees are more likely to leave a company and what that might say about their experience there. And so I think it depends on what kinds of programs we’re talking about. When we when we talk about the value of, you know, certainty initiatives in the workplace. But I think there’s been some research that indicates that certain programs might be less effective, but that there are many DEI efforts that I think have really helped promote more diversity in the workplace and have really changed the experience of, of many employees. And so hopefully that answers your question.
Krys Boyd [00:22:20] Yeah. What do we know specifically about what tends to work for you know, promoting the ability of people to move up in the ranks in a company, sort of whatever identity they have, notwithstanding, just based on their abilities to contribute to the company?
Pavithra Moha [00:22:40] Yeah. I mean, I think there’s programs that are meant to be kind of focused on mentorship or career development for certain communities that have been effective at companies. I think a lot of the focus has now shifted from not just the hiring and recruitment piece, which I think, again, was was one of the main sort of goals, especially in the tech industry early on, was just getting those numbers up. I think there has been a shift from the focus solely on hiring recruitment into kind of inclusion, and we’ve seen this in the language that many of these companies use as well when they’re talking about DEI. But I think the programs that are really looking at, you know, are people staying at the company. So Google is a good example of a company that has looked closely at attrition rates and, you know, specifically looked at which groups have been more likely to leave, you know, whether they’re seeing higher rates of attrition among women or people of color. So I think focusing more on the experience of employees once they get into the workplace, those are the kinds of programs that I think have been more effective. I think trainings can certainly be effective if implemented correctly. I would say employee resource groups, again, have been really, really valuable for a lot of workers. But I think the one thing I would mention there is that, you know, employee resource groups don’t replace the efforts necessarily. So I think it’s important to remember that those are usually sort of volunteer positions. And while they can be really important for the employee experience, you do also need, you know, true sort of DEI investment in the company. Another thing I would say has been really important at many companies is pay equity audits. Really looking at whether people are being paid equitably across, you know, titles and across different employee groups. And doing that on a consistent basis to ensure that, you know, there aren’t any disparities at the company. So yeah, that’s I would say those are a few examples of what has worked. But I think the overall trend has been toward kind of focusing more on whether once you get certain employees into the workplace, are they being supported? Are they being promoted? You know, looking at whether there’s sort of a promotion track for employees who are brought into these positions and looking at kind of the the numbers and leadership, I think is still really important. So, yeah.
Krys Boyd [00:24:57] Before we move on, you mentioned employee resource groups. I think some people know exactly what these are. Some people may work for companies that don’t have these. Can you just explain that term and what an employee resource group does?
Pavithra Moha [00:25:07] Yeah. Yeah absolutely. So again there’s sometimes called affinity groups as well. But typically they are formed around some kind of shared identity. Many companies will have an employee resource group for black employees for Latino employees. Maybe there’s one that’s just sort of for employees of color. You’ll also see sometimes, you know, parent employee resource groups. So it can it can be around a number of different types of identities. But these are pretty common at a lot of companies. And I would also say that again, they can be a really valuable resource, I think, for employees and in certain settings.
Krys Boyd [00:25:45] A few minutes ago, Pavithra, you mentioned, you know, companies maybe having goals to get the numbers up of certain kinds of employees on the payroll. What’s interesting about this is that this kind of thing is like quantifiable data, right? Assuming that employees disclose what their identities are of them, companies can check off. You know, we’ve hired X number of people from this group, X number of people from that group. Companies love data. But to the point that you made earlier. The numbers don’t tell the whole story, right. They don’t necessarily reveal whether employees from a historically marginalized or underrepresented group actually feel like they are a vital part of an organization.
Pavithra Moha [00:26:27] Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. And I think we saw a big focus on data, especially in the tech industry, pretty early on. And I think that was because there was just very little data, you know, companies weren’t collecting data on their workforces. And so I think it was important that they did start doing that. But you’re right that it does not tell the full story. And I think, again, we’ve seen this in so many reports from employees and also having spoken to a lot of people who are working on DEI, I think there that that’s something they’re very aware of is that it doesn’t necessarily reflect the employee experience. And, you know, your company can be quote unquote, diverse without necessarily ensuring that employees of color or employees were disabled or, you know, given the kind of support that they need to progress at the company. So, yeah, that’s just one part of the story. But I do think it’s important to collect data and to kind of use the data effectively. And I think maybe that second piece is, is where companies still have some work to do in terms of not just getting the data, but also looking at it and, and kind of parsing it in a way that actually shapes 30 programs.
Krys Boyd [00:27:39] Since we’re parsing data. Is there evidence that companies with a true commitment to what’s sometimes called DEI? We may find a different name for it. Does that harm the prospects of historically more privileged groups like, let’s just take white, cisgender, heterosexual men. Are they harmed by working at a company with a commitment to die?
Pavithra Moha [00:28:00] I don’t think there’s any evidence that, you know, but the white man is, you know, being harmed by working at a company that exhibits this commitment to the idea. And I think that’s borne out just by the data on how many white men are still employed at these companies. Right? I mean, as much as we talk about companies making progress on this, on the value of DEI, I think the reality is that this progress has been really slow at most companies, even the ones that have been doing this for a long time. And I think that’s one of the difficult things to talk about sometimes when we’re talking about the is that these programs are really important. You know, companies should continue investing in them. But the reality is that it takes a long time to make these changes. It can take years. And we haven’t necessarily seen significant progress that a lot of companies. So so as much as, you know, the kind of conservative talking points around DEI might lead you to believe that white men are at a disadvantage or that these programs are harming other sort of privileged groups. I don’t think there’s any sort of evidence of that. And I think you can look at public diversity reports from a number of companies and see that, you know, the vast majority of employees are still white, if not white men or, you know, from these historically privileged groups.
Krys Boyd [00:29:18] Another fundamental question in all this Pavithra is whether companies, whether your employer, is the best place to sort of educate yourself about the problems that we have with inequity in this country. I mean, is it reasonable to push back on this idea that it’s one thing to create mechanisms that ensure that the hiring and promotion process is fair, and another thing to think that work will be where people learn values around these things.
Pavithra Moha [00:29:49] Yeah. You know, I think what’s hard as we spend a lot of time at work, right? I don’t I don’t know that work is the best place to learn these things. But I also think the reality is people spend, you know, the majority of their time in the workplace. And it’s sort of impossible to, you know, work with people from different backgrounds and, and not kind of address this issue. So while I think it would be better if we weren’t relying on our workplaces to kind of educate us on these issues, I think it makes sense. And it’s absolutely necessary for companies to see themselves as part of that, and to see that as part of their role as an employer, just to ensure that you know that they’re Promoting certain practices in the workplace, and they’re making sure that people are are feeling supported and not being discriminated against in the workplace. And so I think. I also think if our federal laws around this were more effective, you know, maybe this would be less of an issue. But I think as long as we’re still seeing employment discrimination and discrimination in the workplace, and it’s not necessarily being addressed adequately by, the federal agencies that are supposed to handle it. I think we still do need these programs in the workplace.
Krys Boyd [00:31:02] But broadly speaking, how were private employees doing DEI programs before George Floyd was killed, before suddenly everybody temporarily perhaps saw this as something that was important.
Pavithra Moha [00:31:16] Yeah, I think it depended a little bit on sector. I do think in sectors like tech and finance, we were seeing quite a bit of focus on these programs even prior to 2020. And again, I think that has something to do with the amount of public pressure they had faced. You know, there was a lot of discussion of the lack of gender diversity, in particular in tech and finance. And I think there was this kind of movement in tech to really push companies to publish data to, you know, address this issue. And so starting from about 2013, 2014, I would say we started to see tech companies investing in this work and then in finance. Similarly, I think there’s been more pressure on, you know, the JPMorgan’s and Morgan Stanley’s to really promote more women and to promote racial equity in the workplace and specifically in leadership positions. And so I think it it does depend on the sector, but we were seeing a lot of these programs already. I think that in 2020 there was just this, you know, groundswell of support for them. And I think we saw companies either double down on their existing commitments, as was the case in many tech companies, or we saw companies that had maybe not previously invested much, at least to make these kind of public commitments, but it’s certainly not, you know, new I mean, we’ve seen these programs sort of dating back to the 70s and 80s in different iterations, but the kind of recent wave of DEI programs and the, I guess, the the new iteration of DEI work, I would argue, has we’ve seen for quite some time, but certainly was more prevalent in some sectors than others.
Krys Boyd [00:32:54] I’m going to read a list I found in time magazine of companies that are retreating from DEI efforts that they had just within the last couple of years, Target Meta Platforms, which is the parent company of Facebook and Instagram. Amazon, McDonald’s, Walmart, Ford, Lowe’s, the home repair company Harley-Davidson, Brown-Forman, John Deere, Tractor Supply. How surprising is it to you that these enormous companies that were very, very publicly touting their DEI commitments are now pretty publicly touting the fact that they’re not going to do it so much anymore.
Pavithra Moha [00:33:34] Yeah. You know, I have to say, it’s not all that surprising from certain companies, I think. Again, we saw these commitments in 2020 that didn’t necessarily have, you know, much behind them. But I also think in the tech industry in particular, you know, we’ve seen companies that have said they care about DEI, have given it a lot of lip service, but have not necessarily shown that progress in, you know, their numbers and in the kinds of programs are implementing and the resources they’re putting behind them. And so I think seeing this pullback from many different companies and many different, I should say, many different types of companies and different industries is not all that surprising. But I do also want to point out that one thing that’s hard is we’re seeing these public statements from these companies, and it’s easy to sort of paint all of them as having retreated from DEI. And I think the the reality is a little bit more sort of nuanced. And when you talk to die experts, they’ll tell you some of the changes that are being made or a little bit more surface level. Or maybe they’re about kind of the language that the companies are using. And so there’s a few examples of, you know, Disney recently said that they will no longer tie diversity programs or diversity goals, I should say, to executive compensation, which was a practice that became quite common at a lot of companies to, you know, hold executives to these DEI goals. And they’re no longer going to be doing that, they recently announced, but they will still be considering talent strategy, which will still include, you know, DEI practices. And so I would argue that’s maybe more a shift in language than anything else. And I think there’s several examples of that. When you when you look at some of these companies that have seemingly retreated from DEI. So I do think it is a little bit more nuanced, and it’s sometimes hard to understand that from the outside, because all we’re seeing is what, you know, these companies are saying publicly. But if you were to talk to people internally, or you were to talk to the AI consultants that are working with these companies. I think they’d tell you that it’s maybe not a full retreat. Maybe they are reconsidering certain programs, or maybe they’re just changing the language of the programs. Or maybe they’re just folding the DEI work into a different department. So I think it’s a more kind of complicated picture than than what we’ve seen in a lot of headlines, I would argue.
Krys Boyd [00:35:51] I see so it’s not a binary necessarily. It could be the difference between saying you’re going to follow a low carb diet versus the Mediterranean diet. You know, that’s going away from the low carb diet doesn’t mean that you’re suddenly eating only candy and and fast food.
Pavithra Moha [00:36:07] Yeah. And I would also say it’s not a new shift. Right. We’ve been seeing some of this over the last couple of years, as these conservative activists have kind of gone after companies in the private sector and public sector organizations, where companies have been changing some of the language around their DEI programs, like we’ve seen this at banks and finance companies that. Programs that were previously for underrepresented groups. They’ve now sort of opened them up to anyone. And so some of that, I think, is a response to the legal attacks that many companies have been seeing or being, you know, become the direct target of. And so, you know, unsurprisingly, we’re seeing some of these changes now in the finance sector as well. Like this week, the Wall Street Journal reported that Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan and Citigroup have all started altering their language on DEI in their public filings. And so, again, I think that’s kind of an extension of what many of these companies were already doing. And it’s not necessarily a clear retreat. And I, I think, you know, there’s a conversation to be had about whether doing all of this kind of watered down the value of DEI work or if it sends the wrong message, right, to see all these companies that are making these changes. But I wouldn’t necessarily paint all of them as as a full retreat on the eye.
Krys Boyd [00:37:34] Have you heard about companies, though, that now perceive that openly perceiving DEI. Maybe even using that term will somehow harm their business prospects, make it harder for them to make money, which is ultimately why they’re in business.
Pavithra Moha [00:37:50] Yeah. You know, I think what’s interesting is that there’s kind of the legal argument here, and then there’s sort of the social argument. Having spoken to DEI experts, I think many companies are not actually very concerned about it harming their business or about, you know, potential legal attacks. Again, I don’t think any company wants to deal with frivolous lawsuits, but in many cases, I don’t know if that’s actually the primary concern. I think the bigger question is, what do they sort of risk if they keep these programs or if they completely, you know, pull back on them? I think both extremes could potentially harm these companies, right? I mean, we’ve seen a number of organizations that I think folded on on some of their DEI programs, in part because they were facing this kind of public blowback. And so, in some ways, I think the social consideration is more important. And to your point, like, yes, there are business considerations as well. I think if you’re worried about people boycotting your products or no longer wanting to work for your company because you have either continued supporting these programs or have pulled back on them.
Krys Boyd [00:38:55] I do want to note here, sometimes we talk about DEI as if it’s, you know, some kind of gift or handout or special bonus for members of historically underrepresented groups. I mean, can you talk a little about how DEI programs, whatever they are called, can affect a company’s ability to attract and retain top talent?
Pavithra Moha [00:39:17] Yeah, I mean, I think, again, not having these programs can actually really hurt companies if they’re not showing any sort of willingness to, you know, attract a more diverse workforce if they have not shown that they are interested in hiring women or, you know, sort of promoting women, creating an environment that is conducive to people having children and continuing to work full time. Right. I think we often talk about, you know, how DEI efforts can maybe harm a company, but I think the opposite is absolutely true as well, that not investing in these programs can actually really hurt a company that’s trying to attract a certain kind of workforce. Right. And just again, from a legal perspective, I would also say that when companies don’t invest in these programs, I think they are also opening themselves up to more traditional discrimination lawsuits, right from underrepresented people who feel that they have not, you know, gotten a fair shake at these companies. So I think there’s actually quite a bit that you lose when you don’t show a commitment to this work. I think it really does affect how people view a company. As I talked earlier, you know, I think workers are paying attention to that. And I don’t think DEI programs are are hurting companies in that regard. I actually think it’s more likely that a company that is not investing in these programs is being harmed by that, and that they’re not showing that they, you know, necessarily care to bring a more diverse workforce and or cultivate a more diverse workforce and, you know, invest in really promoting those types of workers. But there’s also always this question of, you know, what is the company kind of doing internally, and how is that reflected in their public messaging on it? And I think that’s a harder thing for workers or for the public to kind of understand, is how genuine is the commitment that a company is making.
Krys Boyd [00:41:07] How do companies that have or did have DEI programs, maybe now they have a different name? How do they set goals to measure the effectiveness of those programs? I’m just really curious to know. You know, it’s it’s always interesting when when you run a company and you’re responsible for deciding how well some function within your company is actually working.
Pavithra Moha [00:41:32] Yeah. I mean, I think that is why many companies have invested in these teams that are dedicated to these efforts, right? To make sure they are kind of measuring these programs and looking at their efficacy. And I think that’s that’s something that we’re starting to see companies maybe look at a little bit more closely in this moment actually, is how effective have some of these programs been. But I think there’s a number of areas that companies typically look at. I mean, certainly hiring and recruitment is a big one. And so DEI functions often sit within the larger kind of people, part of an organization. And in some cases, you know, DEI leaders might actually report up to the, you know, CHRO, the head of human resources or the head of people. And so that’s, you know, a big part of this work is certainly looking at the workforce and how it’s shifting Another one that we’ve talked about a little bit is just kind of looking at the promotion pipeline, looking at who is given those opportunities to advance at a company. And then I think there’s a lot of investment in trainings, you know, either sort of manager trainings, making sure that managers are well equipped to kind of support different types of workers. There’s also the sort of more traditional, like anti-discrimination bias kinds of trainings. And then I would also say beyond that, I think we see companies putting money behind these programs that maybe help them bring on more diverse vendors, right? If they’re contracting their work out. That’s that’s another thing that I think companies would look at and would be measuring. But I think we are now kind of in a moment where I think companies will start to take a harder look at some of these programs. You know, maybe there are things they were investing in that weren’t necessarily yielding the results that they wanted. Right? Or maybe there were programs that were very expensive or they were higher risk and they might now sort of reconsider their commitments to those programs. And, and just, you know, consider how effective they actually were. Another thing I should mention is just fellowships and things like that that are sort of meant to uplift or offer opportunities to underrepresented groups. I think we see a lot of those programs, and I would imagine companies are certainly measuring, you know, the the effect of those programs as well.
Krys Boyd [00:43:46] The Trump administration has explicitly ordered federal agencies not only to stop their DEI efforts, but to not rename them and do the same functions under a different name. I am curious, though, if you think that companies that do still have a commitment to the principles of what has been called DEI like, if a new term for this will emerge that people find more palatable.
Pavithra Moha [00:44:13] You know, I’ve wondered that I’ve asked DEI experts how they feel about that as well. And I do think unfortunately, there isn’t a term that’s going to be kind of palatable to everyone, right? I think there’s always been attacks on this type of work. I think we use different terms for it. DEI itself is is sort of an evolution of what was originally just kind of called diversity work. You know, it turned into diversity, equity and inclusion because people understood that the focus shouldn’t be just on bringing diversity into the workplace. It should also be, you know, ensuring that people were actually included and supported once they were there. And so DEI is very much a evolution of, I think, the earlier terminology that people used. And again, like so much of this as we’ve talked about, is rooted in compliance with these federal laws, right? It really sort of grew out of that. And now these programs have turned into these much more expansive things. Belonging is another term that you’ll see a lot of. And so I think we already have a lot of terms that are used to apply or to refer to DEI work. And I think we’ve seen an evolution in terms of the language that’s used, and I’m just not sure there’s anything that will really be more palatable. I think it’ll just be, you know, there will be a new thing that that I think it’s targeted or it’s sort of weaponized. So I’m not sure that shifting the language will necessarily solve this problem in the long run. But I do understand why, if, you know, this term has become so loaded, why companies might want to move away from it.
Krys Boyd [00:45:49] Pavithra Moha is a staff writer for Fast Company’s Work Life section, where she’s been tracking the retreat from the AI goals at some U.S. workplaces. Pavithra, this has been really informative. Thank you for making time to talk.
Pavithra Moha [00:46:02] Thank you for having me. This has been great.
Krys Boyd [00:46:05] Think is distributed by PRX, the Public Radio Exchange. You can find us on Facebook, Instagram and anywhere you get podcasts or at our website think.kera.org. Again, I’m Krys Boyd. Thanks for listening. Have a great day.
