Trends in Diversity and Inclusion within Tech CSR

It's true that organizational inclusion efforts are adapting to meet the demands of the evolving legal, political, and social landscape. But it's not true that all change is bad. Here are three positive trends I'm seeing: FROM: General diversity training 👎 TO: Skills-based learning 👍 We've known for years that general diversity training - ie, we bring everyone into a room and talk about why diversity = good and unconscious bias = bad - isn't particularly effective. Still, a lot of organizations have wanted to host these types of programs, even recently. What we're seeing now is a significant shift towards skill-based learning. The most popular content in our learning platform falls into 2 categories: (1) Skill-building for managers. We're seeing a lot of use of microlearnings on themes like leading effective meetings, giving performance feedback, managing 1:1s, and more. Companies are increasingly focused on equipping managers with skills for fostering healthy, high-performance, and inclusive cultures. (2) Learning that helps people work better together. We're seeing an uptick in the use of microlearnings that help people understand the range of different identities, perspectives, and working styles their colleagues may have. This includes themes like neurodiversity, social mobility, working across generations, and mental health at work. FROM: Performative, check-the box efforts to earn badges for a website 👎 TO: Improving talent practices to promote more consistent, objective, meritocratic, and fair outcomes 👍 Our clients are telling us that they're actually relieved to no longer feel obligated to spend time applying for various badges and external markers of inclusivity, and that they're instead shifting that time to focusing on actually creating an inclusive culture internally. One area that's getting some much-needed attention? Talent practices. Many of our clients are focused on partnering with people teams to audit and improve talent processes to promote more objective decision-making. This isn't just more inclusive, it's also going to produce more merit-based outcomes. FROM: Representation goals (meh) TO: Goals to achieve consistent outcomes at every stage of the talent lifecycle ( 😍 ) Over the last decade, representation goals have been one of the most common ways organizations have held themselves accountable. It's how they've answered the question "are we fair and inclusive?" But representation is a lagging indicator - the result of many things that can go right or wrong in an organization. I don't hate these goals (and certainly think they should be legal), but don't love them. Instead, I'm seeing some organizations shift to a focus on leading indicators - considering whether outcomes are consistent for different groups at each stage of the talent lifecycle. This is better way to hold yourself accountable *and* to communicate that what you care about is fairness, not hitting arbitrary numbers.

I’m not at all surprised by this EEOC data that shows the representation of women in high tech roles has hardly budged from 2005 (22% ➡️ 22.6%). My own experience driving DEI in the industry has taught me several things about how current efforts are failing not just women but all underrepresented groups. 1️⃣ The vast majority of actions taken by tech companies are performative. Millions of dollars are being wasted hosting celebrations, branding activities, and similar events while there remains little to no appetite to change deeply corrosive cultures, address systematic bias in people/HR systems, and enhance manager capabilities. 2️⃣ The unspoken truth is that much of tech HR are woefully underskilled and incapable of supporting true DEI efforts. I’ve been in rooms of HR leaders from various tech companies who admit confidentially that they think DEI is unnecessary and that trying to diversify the workforce will only lower standards. How can we make progress when the people responsible for shepherding talent believe the same false narrative about DEI as managers and leaders? 3️⃣ Few DEI leaders in tech are empowered to drive change. Many DEI roles in tech are figurehead positions with minimal true authority. The teams are adequately funded so they have lots of resources to engage in busy work, but few are given the authority or access to senior leaders to influence appropriately. Many Chief Diversity Officers never meet with their CEO or the C-suite in general. 4️⃣ Discrimination, bias, intimidation are still rampant in most of tech. My own analysis of workforce data has shown the women and all POC (Black, Latine, AND Asian) are must perform at higher levels for longer periods of time to get promoted over white men. Pregnancy and childcare bias still exist for women. 5️⃣ And finally, here is the third rail of tech that no one wants to touch. In the US, a fair number of technical managers are foreign-born, and foreign-educated men who come from countries that have deeply regressive views about women. These managers unconsciously (or consciously) bring those views to their management of women here. Nobody wants to address it because it can appear xenophobic. But it absolutely plays a significant role in the experience women and other underrepresented people have. https://lnkd.in/gyJB3WRB

The rollback of DEI initiatives by companies like Target, Walmart, and Meta, as highlighted in the New York Times article, reflects a shift in how corporations will address cultural issues in 2025. Under pressure from political and activist groups, many companies are retreating from overt DEI commitments, such as participating in external surveys or publicizing diversity metrics. Target’s Chief Community Impact and Equity Officer, Kiera Fernandez, stated, "As a retailer that serves millions of consumers every day, we understand the importance of staying in step with the evolving external landscape." These trends align with the 2025 trend theme "Inclusion Counter-Reformation," from our 2025 Trend Themes report, examining how critiques of DEI reshape its role in corporate strategy. These shifts are not regressions but part of a reformation reframing DEI as a foundation for systemic change driven by data and accountability. This rebranding risks reducing DEI to performative virtue signaling. By stepping away from public benchmarks, companies may appear to prioritize optics over substance. Target’s decision to stop sharing diversity data with organizations like the Human Rights Campaign highlights a move away from transparency. Similarly, companies like Tractor Supply and John Deere rolled back DEI programs under boycott pressures and political activism. These actions reveal vulnerabilities like polarization and reliance on superficial metrics, deepening divisions and eroding trust among employees and consumers who prioritize equity. However, these shifts present opportunities to reimagine diversity and inclusion. This counter-reformation offers pathways to integrate DEI principles into broader cultural frameworks. Grassroots reformists and employee resource groups advocate embedding equity in organizational DNA, moving beyond standalone initiatives. Companies like JPMorgan, which refuse to retreat from DEI commitments, provide a compelling counterpoint. CEO Jamie Dimon stated, "Bring them on," addressing activists opposing the company’s diversity programs. Reframing DEI as a key component of corporate culture enables businesses to better navigate pressures while maintaining their commitment to inclusion. In the long term, the trend signals suggest transformative potential for corporate culture but with some evolving risks. By focusing on transparency, measurable outcomes, and inclusive leadership, companies can move beyond symbolic gestures to build resilient systems fostering innovation and relevance. Target’s earlier $2 billion commitment with Black-owned businesses demonstrates how systemic equity efforts can catalyze meaningful change. While these shifts may appear as setbacks, they could serve as the foundation for a more enduring and impactful approach to equity. This year will compel companies to address culture as a broader strategic issue. https://nyti.ms/42ojAwO https://lnkd.in/dhBY4dh