Author: Helena Morrissey, Chair of Diversity Project UK
As the anti-DEI storm continues to gather force, I find myself in an unexpected position – feeling remarkably calm and genuinely hopeful about the future of true diversity and inclusion. This isn’t naive optimism but a conviction born from having weathered similar (if smaller) storms before.
Make no mistake – there’s absolutely no room for complacency. Emerging from this challenge not merely intact but stronger and more effective will demand extraordinary care, unwavering determination, and perhaps even a rebranding.
A business leader recently shared with me how he had overcome a seemingly insurmountable challenge with what he called “remorseless enthusiasm.” I was struck by the phrase. To his winning formula, I would add “the willingness to listen and learn” – particularly from those who disagree with us.
History teaches us that no meaningful social or organisational change has ever followed a straight line. Resistance and missteps aren’t just inevitable; they’re essential elements of lasting transformation. What appears as setback often creates the opportunity for necessary course corrections.
Those of us who believe in the demonstrated benefits of diversity and inclusion must now listen to objections with genuine openness, consider critiques thoughtfully (even when uncomfortable), and adapt our approaches intelligently.
But as we reflect and recalibrate, we must never allow anyone to diminish our fundamental intent or distract us from the prize we seek: genuine meritocracy, opportunity for everyone with talent, and demonstrably better business results.
If we rise to meet today’s challenges effectively, we will emerge with a more compelling case and a broader coalition of support than we’ve ever had before.
There’s always been scepticism around what started simply as ‘diversity’ initiatives. Fifteen years ago, when I founded the 30% Club campaign for more gender balanced UK company boards, a colleague complained, ‘Women have never had it so good’. Perhaps, but at that point men occupied over 90% of FTSE350 board seats.
It was hardly as good as it gets.
The strength of opposition to a reasonable goal amazed me then. I received hate mail, was shouted at by the chairman of not one but two FTSE100 firms for ‘destroying British business’ (incredible what a few women on boards might do) and acquired a misogynistic stalker.
Those who couldn’t care less were more frustrating. They couldn’t be bothered to find out about the 30% Club’s approach – voluntary business-led change, working with men to improve boards.
They assumed that all diversity efforts were motivated by political correctness. It was hard to understand their dismissiveness after the global financial crisis had just demonstrated the cataclysmic risks of groupthink.
We listened to the objections and misunderstandings, and tacked to meet every new challenge but throughout, applied that ‘remorseless enthusiasm’ and kept our eyes on the prize. Yes, it was exhausting and demoralising. But as the sceptics saw they were on the wrong side of history – or witnessed firsthand the benefits of different perspectives in their own boardroom – they went quiet, with some even joining the movement.
Today women make up over 40% of UK board directors and people expect approximate gender balance on company boards. I’m not suggesting the backlash then was in any way comparable to the scale of today’s, but it was a good test of resolve.
So let’s first reflect on how we find ourselves here – including acknowledging our own mistakes. Some DEI efforts have played into the eye-rollers’ disdain, with facile mandatory training, simplistic statements, exclusionary language, virtue-signalling, and a lack of tolerance of certain viewpoints.
In short, some things have been done in the name of diversity or inclusion that have actually been the exact opposite. Many – including some powerful ‘un-diverse’ characters – understandably felt excluded, threatened or annoyed. These missteps have given President Trump and Elon Musk ammunition to portray DEI as anti-merit, anti-civil rights and pro-discrimination. Again, the opposite of what was intended.
So it’s time to return to first principles. Not merely to reclaim the narrative but to ensure that all diversity and inclusion efforts genuinely promote fairness, merit, inclusion and opportunity.
This a second chance for diversity and inclusion efforts to reflect what was originally intended.
Next, let’s look at the nature of the threat. There’s been an understandable emotional reaction to some of the more bizarre pronouncements – but let’s look behind the tough talk at what’s at stake. President Trump is seeking to outlaw programmes which might contravene the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and be discriminatory (against white men). He is not and cannot, outlaw hiring and developing the best talent, or make our values illegal. Even Winston in Orwell’s ‘1984’ had those few cubic centimetres inside his skull.
Obviously, we need to check that everything we do is in line with those values and could not be construed as preferential treatment. That doesn’t mean lessening our focus on underrepresented groups, but adopting different tactics. We need a broader ‘opportunity for all’ plan, including encouraging those who may feel especially threatened at the moment. We may not be able to set targets but we can set out our intent clearly.
But it’s not all one-way. In the UK, the Labour government is moving diametrically opposite to the US, consulting on mandatory ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting and strengthening worker protections (including for vulnerable groups such as pregnant women) in the Employment Rights Bill.
European business leaders may have received ominous diktats from President Trump demanding compliance with his anti-DEI stance but he doesn’t have extraterritorial jurisdiction. And clients outside the US will continue to expect us to make progress: all-male teams, for example, seem old-fashioned.
While businesses might prefer to sit out this controversy, that’s simply not an option for global, Asian or European firms. They have to navigate increasingly divergent legal, regulatory and political frameworks.
This is a time when lobby groups and campaigning organisations can step in to help. Individual businesses or their leaders may – understandably – not want to put their heads above the parapet in such a complex, risky and fast-moving environment. There are accounts of US law firms which have particularly promoted DEI being targeted to the point of potential bankruptcy.
The Diversity Project is on the case for the investment and savings industry. We have created a task force to address the challenges, which will no doubt continue to evolve. It builds on existing work: the Diversity Project commissioned a rigorous study last year to re-examine the business case for diversity and inclusion, focusing on the linkage between cognitive diversity and the performance of investment teams. (Cognitive diversity in the broadest sense, where people bring different ideas and perspectives because of differences in experience, education or background).
Rather than prove that there is a business case, we asked Professor Alex Edmans of the London Business School to simply see what the evidence said. That report will launch in June. I am confident it will restate a nuanced business case for diversity and inclusion done well, rather than simplistic ‘add diversity, then stir’. It will offer practical suggestions for leaders and managers, again based on a thoughtful, values-based approach to creating diverse meritocracy.
We are also holding a series of webinars and roundtables, all on a confidential Chatham House basis, starting with a C-suite discussion in April. We know many are leading with courage and empathy around these issues. They are committed to their values while taking care to ensure compliance and create broader buy-in to reposition diversity as a strategic intent.
CEOs don’t tend to ‘do DEI’, they lead people, and know that the range of talent they attract and retain will influence profits, firm culture and the future of their business.
We will hold a webinar in May for employees unnerved by what is happening, who will be able to ‘ask us anything’ confidentially beforehand. We hosted such sessions for employees during Covid, when some felt they could not approach their own managers with their challenges.
Then after Professor Edmans’ report is published we plan roundtable discussions for deeper dives into practical implications for managers and their firms.
My optimism that we will find a way through is based on the common ground we share with those opposed to DEI. The harshest critics agree that businesses should be looking to hire and develop the best talent to create the best-performing teams.
It is the how that is the point of contention – along with the messaging.
So what shall we call DEI 2.0? (Not that!) The backlash focuses on ‘equity’. Contextualised hiring aims to level the playing field rather than favour those from certain backgrounds, but – sadly – that is the accusation and the point of vulnerability for our efforts.
I like JP Morgan’s adoption of ‘opportunity’ and new ‘DOI’ acronym, which makes it clear that the intent is opportunity for all.
But simply moving to ‘inclusion’ may be even better. Indisputable for meritocracy and linked to good culture and everyday behaviours, not special initiatives.
Long live inclusion! And all the intent behind it. I am confident we will prevail.
