As much as we would love to say DEI became a business concern for many companies because they believed in the power of diversity, equity and inclusion, we can’t. Initially, leaders began improving company policies from a position of fear of reputational and financial damage, following a series of high-profile lawsuits from the late 1990s to 2010s. For instance, Morgan Stanley paid $54 million and Merrill Lynch over $100 million to settle sex discrimination claims. A few years later, Morgan Stanley faced a new class action that cost the company $46 million. And again, just a few years later, Bank of America Merrill Lynch settled a race discrimination suit for $160 million. Cases like these brought Merrill’s 15-year payout to nearly half a billion dollars across two decades.

“Over the last few years, DEI has become increasingly political and moralistic, which has resulted in a whole lot more division than connection,” states Deborah Choi, Entrepreneur and Co-founder of Founderland. “DEI in 2024 instantly polarizes. I think there is something wrong with that.”

Deborah’s observations are valid. Around the same time as these lawsuits, the phrase “political correctness gone wrong” came into circulation, and a general resistance to DEI in the workplace emerged, despite more and more HR and business leaders pushing to implement changes that would create more inclusive work environments (and let’s be honest, also cover their backs). There are a number of reasons for this increased resistance to DEI initiatives, for instance:

1. Perceived threat to meritocracy: Some employees may feel that DEI initiatives undermine merit-based promotions and hiring practices, and are worried that DEI efforts prioritise demographic characteristics over qualifications and performance.
2. Resistance to change: DEI initiatives often require changes to existing norms and practices, and those comfortable with the status quo may resist these changes, viewing them as unnecessary or threatening to their own status or privileges.
3. Misunderstandings and misinformation: There’s sometimes a lack of understanding about the goals and benefits of DEI, and misconceptions about what DEI entails or misinformation about its impact can fuel negative reactions.
4. Fear of backlash: In some cases, employees might fear that discussing DEI topics could lead to social or professional repercussions, creating a tense environment around these issues.
5. Implementation challenges: Poorly implemented DEI programs can lead to dissatisfaction. For example, if DEI training is perceived as superficial or if diversity goals are not matched by tangible outcomes, it can result in scepticism and resistance.

This resistance, and the fact that fear was the initial driver for many DEI initiatives, can be felt in the statistics (though note that finding specific data and statistics on how long it takes for DEI initiatives to be rolled out is challenging, as the time frame varies significantly depending on the organisation, the scope of the initiatives, and the resources allocated to them). For instance, if everything runs smoothly, the planning phase can take anywhere from 3 to 12 months, implementation from 6 months to several years, and full integration and sustainable use of practises can take another 2-5 years(information from both McKinsey and Gartner studies). That’s a lot of time.

“Along the way, we’ve forgotten that […] seeking equity is not about taking from one group to give to another. Rather, inclusion work sometimes involves centering those who have historically been excluded, but it should also be about fostering a shared sense of belonging,” Choi expressed, “we’ve lost sight of its true purpose: to create environments where everyone can thrive.”

So what can we do to improve DEI initiatives in the long run?

Stop making assumptions that simply making the workforce more diverse will lead to positive results

In their article for Harvard Business Review, Robin J. Ely and David A. Thomas write that “Increasing the numbers of traditionally underrepresented people in your workforce does not automatically produce benefits. Taking an “add diversity and stir” approach, while business continues as usual, will not spur leaps in your firm’s effectiveness or financial performance”.

Increasing diversity does not, by itself, increase effectiveness; what matters is how an organisation harnesses diversity, and whether they are willing to reshape its power structure.

Similarly, DEI initiatives need to stop forcing those who fall into the DEI category to be the DEI examples or faces for DEI initiatives. This rather has an adverse effect for both minority and non-minority groups: those who do not look like the ‘DEI face’ might not connect to the topic, and those who do could perceive this as a tokenistic effort, ultimately leading to disengagement throughout the organisation.

Personalise DEI programmes, and adapt them to both the organisation and current cultural climate

Director of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion at Bard College Berlin, Lauren Gaillard, shared with us that: “We should be willing to change up our approach when promoting DEI depending on the level of external or internal pushback and pressure we are getting – from global political shifts, economic change, and social movements to the everyday difficulties of getting company leadership buy-in and facing interpersonal or interdepartmental challenges”.

Interesting research backs up Gaillard’s reflection that generalised DEI training simply isn’t effective. An article in Harvard Business Review highlights that, while people are easily taught to respond correctly to a questionnaire about bias, they soon forget the right answers. The positive effects of diversity training rarely last beyond a day or two, and a number of studies suggest that it can activate bias or spark a backlash. Nonetheless, nearly half of midsize companies use this ‘cookie cutter’ DEI training, as do nearly all the Fortune 500.

While, according to BCG research, companies with diverse leadership teams, which are often a result of successful, tailored DEI strategies, report a 19% higher revenue due to innovation.

Define what DEI means to your company context, and set realistic goals

Often we forget that everyone is on their own journey with DEI – from those with little understanding to DEI professionals who live and breathe the topic, and are then excited to roll out picture-perfect initiatives based on differing examples. This is where we so often hold resistance, as those with no experience often feel frustrations at being – in their eyes – forced into an exercise they have no interest in. But, as Gaillard shared with us, “I think those of us who understand the importance of DEI sometimes need a reminder to slow down and meet people in the middle who are giving us resistance, perhaps by first actively listening followed by moral reframing of our position.”

“To do this,” she continued, “we must come together first to ensure that we are all on the same page regarding the purpose of DEI in the workplace. Then we must determine what aspects of DEI are priorities for the company and feasible to execute every few years. The key here is first aligning with one another on the purpose of DEI. I fear that this is sometimes overlooked in companies”.

We need to remember that things will not change overnight, as there is a systemic problem at play, and one organisation won’t solve it overnight. However, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try. Pick small areas where improvements and start to make changes there. It’s also key to track progress. Gaillard finished by stating: “DEI experts and teams in companies should do regular or annual reviews of our DEI action plans, assessing if they align with our objectives, and then examining what the obstacles were that they may have faced in meeting these goals or identifying what’s preventing us from achieving them. Be honest with yourselves and do not exaggerate what you have or have not achieved.” Remember, DEI is meant to build bridges. Honesty is a key part of this.

Let’s start using positive language, and avoid the heaviness that often comes with DEI

One of the reasons that many firms see adverse effects from DEI programmes is that three-quarters use negative messages in their training. Negative language will lead to a negative sentiment, and an emotional connection to believing DEI is a heavy, negatively loaded subject.

We know now from our article research series, that DEI has so many positive effects, so “[by] shifting the conversation from one of guilt and blame to one of shared responsibility and opportunity, we can create lasting change” (Deborah Choi).

In summary, DEI is not necessarily being done wrong within the organisation, but there are still significant perception barriers we must overcome so we can be even more impactful with the work. From shifting language to be more positive so that broader society has more positive associations with the topic to taking a hyper personalised approach to the topic, there are plenty of places to start improving our daily DEI work.

What positive examples of DEI initiatives have you experienced? We’d love to find out, so let us know in the comments. For more updates, follow us on LinkedIn, subscribe to our newsletter, and check out our YouTube channel.

Written by Emily Hoffschmidt-McDonnell, researched by Rachel Bolte, and edited by Sophie Webber.

See our references here