Last month, motor-giant Ford became the latest in what some are seeing as a worryingly lengthening line of employers deciding to scale back their diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts.
The carmaker joins the likes of Harley Davidson, Lowe and John Deere in making such announcements – all in the last few months.
Ford now says it will no longer participate in an annual best-employers-style league table [the ‘Corporate Equality index’], run by LGBTQ advocacy group, Human Rights Campaign.
It added that it would not use quotas for its dealerships and suppliers.
In explaining the move, Ford CEO Jim Farley sent an internal email to staff saying: “We are mindful that our employees and customers hold a wide range of beliefs.” He added: “The external and legal environment related to political and social issues continues to evolve.”
Interestingly, Farley sits on Harley-Davidson’s board, while John Deere CEO, John May, sits on Ford’s board.
For many, this is yet more evidence of a much touted ‘anti-DEI backlash’.
It’s one that’s against a political backdrop of more emboldened CEOs wanting to make a stand against what they see as ‘wokeism’; and a legislative backdrop too – where the Supreme Court last year banned affirmative action [the process of actively seeking minority groups at the expense of others], at college level.
The impacts of both have been far-reaching. Since 2023, a total of 81 anti-DEI bills that target programs at colleges have been introduced in 28 states and in Congress, according to a tally by the Chronicle of Higher Education. Eight have been signed into law, in states including Texas and Florida.
HR professionals have been left somewhat awkwardly in the middle – caught between a younger employee base that expects a more diversity-supportive workplace culture, but also powerful conservatism elements that want to protect social norms and is anti- the notion (for instance) that someone who is biologically male can self-identify as female (and have others address them as a female).
Evidence of this hit against DEI is now becoming noticeable. Between 2019 and 2022, chief diversity and inclusion officer roles grew by 168.9%. But this backlash saw attrition rates for DEI roles outpace those of non-DEI roles at more than 600 US companies that laid off workers since late between 2020-2023.
Moreover, a recent Pew Research Center study found employees’ opinions about DEI vary considerably along demographic and political lines.
So, with the US presidential election looming, and one that’s promising to be even more divided along DEI grounds than ever before [Donald Trump has promised to reverse the Biden administration’s “woke equity” programs] – is the state of DEI in a parlous place?
To try and debate some of these issues, TLNT recently sat down with Anu Gupta.
Gupta is a human rights lawyer, scholar of bias and author of new book ‘Breaking Bias’ which is published today (17 September) – and in his view, the way HR does DEI has a lot to answer for:
Q: “The Ford announcement is starting to create a long list of companies seemingly ditching their DEI credentials. Is this a ‘bad look’?
A: “It’s definitely not a ‘good look’. The message this pulling back gives to the market is one that says ‘we’ve succumbed to outside pressures, and we’re afraid of political backlash, and so we’re going to retreat.’ It’s terrible for a number of reasons: It’s shows that profit wins over people; and I feel it loses people’s internal support. Worse than this, I think it makes employees feel unsafe. It’s a PR debacle.”
Q: “Playing devils advocate though – Ford (et al) are not saying they don’t care about diversity or that they don’t want to protect certain groups. Isn’t it more that they’re just not wanting to be a part of league tables that can misrepresent them. Isn’t this fair enough?
A: “I hear this a lot – that companies fear talking part in these league tables, because a low ranking is reputationally bad for them – and sometimes they get this low ranking despite doing all they can to hire more diverse groups. But in my experience, these ranking don’t tent to prioritize hiring anyway. The danger of pulling back on DEI is that companies are impacting the way they secure their overall pipelines of talent. Pulling back impacts establishing partnerships with schools and/or under-representing groups.”
Q: So is it just the reputation of DEI that’s the issue, not actually the ambitions it has?
A: “I’ve long held the view that there is definitely something in the way DEI is conducted that doesn’t help its aims. It tends to induce shame and that gets people’s defenses up, because people are made to feel guilty if they possess certain learned biases that may not be the same views everyone shares. At the same time, many diversity conversations are quite nuanced – such as around transgender and self-identity – and companies don’t want to get into the nuances of having to explain this to their customers or stakeholders. And so the easiest thing is to pull back. The trouble is, the backlash against DEI means it’s not working for many people. I say the bigger project is to understand the root causes of why corporate DEI training is turning so many people off.”
Q: What might this involve, do you think?
A: “I object to the very chastising part of DEI training. For so many organizations, DEI is an hour-long module, and that’s it. We need to re-configure the way DEI is delivered. We need to make it far more shame-free and playful. We need to challenge misinformation; and changing our perceptions. Bias is a learned habit, and so it can just as effectively be unlearned. To do this, companies need to create empathy and compassion. We need to bring the science into what DEI means. But companies are just rooted in fear.”
Q: Talking of fear though – isn’t it also the case that they fear legal reprisals if they are seen to be favoring one group of people over an other; and that rather be caught up in this, companies want to return to the mantra of just hiring the best person for the job – whoever they are?
A: “I think the employment law element has been slightly overplayed. I think HR/companies are succumbing to a narrative that they might be sued – and part of this is the overall fear about this whole area. But to pull back on DEI just because one group makes them feel uncomfortable [such as transgender people, for example] – doesn’t quite seem right, and it worsens things for everyone else.”
Q: “Isn’t another reason that many companies also fear another ‘Bud Light’ boycott situation? Research finds less than 4 in 10 US adults believe businesses should take public stances on highly controversial areas.
A: “If they fear another Bud Light, then that’s unfortunate. The whole disaster there – I feel – was more how Bud reacted. It just wasn’t prepared. Bud Light was bullied. It was unfortunate.”
Q: But isn’t it something when even the Society for Human Resource Management even decides to drop ‘equity’ from DEI – saying it’s divisive?
A: “The SHRM dropped the ‘E’ precisely because of the backlash/fear we’ve been talking about. To be honest, I wasn’t really as shocked about this as maybe I should have been. It all goes back to the shame, blame and guilt that comes with traditional DEI training. I feel it’s a reaction more against the way DEI is being carried out still. In one respect though, I was happy, because they at least kept the most important elements: D and I.”
Q: It sort of feels like a lot of HR folk are just waiting to see what happens in the upcoming election. Is this a fair point do you think?
A: “With the Ford decision, I do wonder if it’s political, but I don’t want the election to be the story of DEI’s evolution. My hope – and sincere belief – is that this DEI backlash is more of a temporary blip. I think that deep down, everyone respects the aims of DEI. DEI will come back, because companies need people and they need to market themselves to different people. There’s only going to be ‘more’ diversity as we go forward, so we all better get used to it. DEI is not moribund. It’s the way of the future.”
To order Breaking Bias – click here.
