Why we should cherish women over 50
Multigenerational teams bring competitive advantages. It’s vital to tap into the wisdom and experience of older workers, urges Shelley Zalis....
Audio available
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Beating the backlash: A cohesive vision for the future of D&I
Published June 1, 2026 in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion • 10 min read • 
Audio available
In an era of political polarization, organizations can no longer afford to engage in ‘performative’ inclusion. Luca Condosta offers four essential ways to build strategic cohesion to avoid virtue signaling and drive performance.
                                                                                                                         
We’re at a crunch point on diversity, equity, and inclusion. In 2023, we saw the backlash hit fever pitch in the US with the Supreme Court ruling against affirmative action on race. Many (but not all) of the biggest players in corporate America got in line, rolling back well-established programs, representation goals, and inclusive language.
Europe has taken a different stand. There has been a slew of new pay transparency regulations and European Sustainability Reporting Standards that mandate the disclosure of diversity and inclusion data – efforts that underscore European support for equity across the fault lines of race, gender, and identity.
It is ironic that inclusion has become a lightning rod for division. Yet here we are. And, for organizations, sitting on the fence is not an option. With regulations and directives on both sides of the Atlantic driving visibility, it has never been easier to assess and compare pay gaps, inclusion strategies, and sustainability policies. What firms say and do is in the public domain. At the same time, geopolitical tensions and social polarization are no longer background noise but powerful forces shaping employee expectations, talent attraction, and organizational trust.
The pressure is on organizations to articulate a stance on D&I. Failure to do so carries risks, from reputational damage and the loss of customer, employee, stakeholder, or investor trust to compliance and legal exposure. Navigating this politicized arena can feel like crossing a minefield.
So, what can organizations do? It isn’t my goal here to urge you to champion the cause of DE&I, nor is it my ambition to defend inclusion to doubters. After all, the business case and evidence for organizational diversity – the innovation, problem-solving, competitive, and market-share gains – are crystal clear. Rather, I intend to share effective practices I have seen in my work with organizations that reframe D&I from “diversity ideology” to “business necessity” and that recognize why inclusion matters to their customers, employees, and stakeholders. What I have consistently observed among the organizations that make this work is that, when properly managed, inclusion is always cohesive. It is never fragmented nor performative.
The key to navigating D&I effectively is to build the strategy and processes to ensure that what you do internally mirrors what you say externally. Your goal is to elevate all minorities without creating unintended inequality gaps, resistance, or resentment. The organizations that succeed remain laser-focused on what works for all of their people, all of the time. They resolve conflict proactively and never virtue signal their “values” or their “commitment”. They integrate inclusion into every aspect of their business, including AI, as a success criterion – not as an afterthought or performative box to be ticked.
Getting D&I right (or wrong) can be mapped in terms of “visibility” and “cohesion”. By visibility, I mean the extent to which organizations communicate internally and externally and share data about their D&I efforts. Cohesion refers to how well organizations sustain trust, fairness, and execution under pressure. I see this as a matrix in which the balance between visibility and cohesion shifts to create different outcomes. Getting this balance right is crucial to deliver the benefits of D&I for your organization and its stakeholders, and to manage the evolving challenges of regulatory and political environments.
The D&I cohesion matrix
- Fragmented D&I: at low levels of visibility and cohesion, organizations operate in a state of fragmentation. Initiatives are siloed, inconsistently applied, and disconnected from core business decisions.
- Performative D&I: if visibility increases without a corresponding investment in cohesion, the organization’s external signaling, public commitments, and data disclosure are not matched by internal alignment. This gap can lead to confusion, resistance, or backlash. This is the danger zone.
- Strong inclusion systems: some organizations build strong internal trust, fair processes, and inclusive environments while remaining cautious in external communication. This quiet cohesion can be effective in the short term but can become fragile as transparency requirements and stakeholder expectations rise.
- Strategic cohesion: when high visibility is matched by strong internal alignment, accountable organization operating systems, and leadership capable of explaining decisions and managing tension. Inclusion, trust, and performance reinforce one another, enabling organizations to operate with credibility and resilience under scrutiny. This is the green zone.
Four D&I practices for organizations
How can organizations achieve the “green zone” of strategic cohesion in their D&I practices? In my work with companies, I’ve observed four practices that successful firms prioritize: maintaining cohesion, keeping communication coherent, managing conflict, and reframing AI. Let’s look at each in turn.
1 – Maintaining cohesion: one policy for all
Hiring, recruitment, and promotion practices such as quotas, while well-intentioned, can be provocative. They can be seen as anti-meritocratic if they assert “group identity” over individual talent or contribution and penalize those who don’t belong to that group. Successful organizations purposefully avoid narrowly framed “in-group” D&I models that advocate solely for their own needs. Their inclusion efforts are geared toward lifting all minorities within the organization and, ultimately, the entire workforce.
- Silo-busting: designing policies that scale fairly across the organization. This means moving from highly specialized, group-specific benefits toward more flexible frameworks that respond to diverse needs without creating unintended imbalances. For example, several companies I have supported have introduced gender-neutral parental leave policies that apply equally to births and adoptions. This not only promotes equity across genders but also better reflects the reality of modern families, including single and same-sex parents. One organization I consulted with was set to introduce comprehensive insurance coverage for gender transition. This well-intentioned move would have cost the company more than $1.5m annually, despite affecting only a single-digit number of employees. A better approach would be to enact case-based flexibility and governance, supporting individuals as needed.
- Monitoring unintended signals: inclusion policies point to what the organization prioritizes. When a highly visible initiative focuses on one group, other employees may, consciously or not, question where they stand. Organizations that manage this well actively monitor employee sentiment, listen across different groups, and position each initiative within a wider, coherent approach to inclusion. Qualitative insights from an engagement survey in one multinational revealed that disproportionate visibility given to one minority group had created the perception that other groups were less valued. By rebalancing the representation of different perspectives, the organization was able to strengthen inclusion more holistically and build greater cohesion across its global workforce. The objective is not to avoid targeted action, but to ensure each intervention strengthens cohesion rather than unintentionally fragmenting it.
Questions for HR and senior leaders:
What does inclusion look like in our organization? Do we run programs that (unintentionally) favor one group over another?
What measures do we have to capture workforce feedback, conflict, or grievances? How do we measure cohesion across minorities and employees? Do we listen to the interests of all groups?
How often do we take stock of our D&I interventions to ensure they remain equitable and fair for everyone?
The key to navigating D&I effectively is to ensure that what you do internally mirrors what you say externally.
2 – Communicating coherently
External campaigns, public commitments, or participation in high-profile events can be perceived as merely symbolic if they are not supported by tangible internal change. Joining public initiatives or awareness moments, such as Pride events or diversity-focused campaigns, without having first established clear policies, employee resource groups, or leadership accountability mechanisms risks the perception of “social washing”.
- Build first, communicate second: organizations that invest first in systemic changes, such as inclusive policies, structured employee listening, and strategic commitments, build trust internally. When they later communicate externally, employees recognize the authenticity of the message and are more likely to act as credible ambassadors. A global manufacturing company I worked with chose not to participate in Pride parades until its internal policies had been meaningfully strengthened. This deliberate sequencing signaled that the organization’s commitment was substantive rather than symbolic, anchored in action before visibility.
- Maintain the focus on alignment (not communication): forward-thinking companies focus on strengthening organizational inclusion through leadership capability, fair processes, and consistent employee experience, while limiting, delaying, or even avoiding external signaling. Examples include redesigning talent and performance processes to ensure fairness, investing in inclusive leadership development, and strengthening governance around people’s decisions internally first. These interventions may not be immediately visible externally, but they create the conditions for long-term credibility and resilience.
Questions for HR and senior leaders
Are we increasing visibility faster than we are building cohesion? When transparency rises, through pay reporting, AI, or public commitments, do trust and belonging rise with it, or do tensions escalate?
Can we explain our people decisions to those who disagree with them? If an employee challenges a pay, promotion, or talent decision, do managers have what they need to respond credibly?
Do we adapt our cohesion and visibility strategy to the social and legal realities of each market?
Are we calibrating how transparent and vocal we are, and how we build cohesion, based on local norms, risks, and expectations?
Would our practices hold up under full public scrutiny?
But organizational theory tells us that when variance is high, and change is faster than planning cycles, adaptation beats optimization every time.
3 – Managing conflict proactively
Conflict avoidance is a risk because it creates space for resentment to fester. When groups or individuals feel aggrieved and have no recourse or formal mechanisms to articulate and address their grievance, ill feelings can grow and infect others. The goal isn’t to be conflict-free, but conflict-capable
- Explain decisions, don’t just report numbers: invest in clear decision frameworks and equip leaders with consistent language to explain trade-offs, constraints, and priorities. This shifts transparency from exposure to understanding. Let’s say you decide to publish data on pay gaps in the organization. You must also make it a priority to furnish your managers with what they need to explain the drivers – and what your organization intends to do about pay gaps. Take the recent backlash on D&I. Many organizations faced internal tension in reconciling diverse viewpoints while maintaining a clear stance. Accenture, for instance, communicated its position externally before aligning internally across leadership layers. This weakened its impact: in some regions, conflicting messages persisted, creating confusion and undermining cohesion.
- Embrace the tension: organizations that proactively surface and address disagreement build stronger, more sustainable cohesion over time. This means moving from reactive communication to structured listening and testing. For example, at a global manufacturer I have supported, employee resource groups aren’t just communities of support; they are early feedback platforms for testing policies and identifying unintended consequences before decisions are finalized. Employee surveys and pulse checks can be leveraged to detect differences in experience across groups, helping leaders assess whether inclusion efforts are strengthening or undermining cohesion. By embedding these practices, organizations shift from avoiding conflict to designing for it, so tension becomes a source of insight rather than fragmentation.
Questions for HR and senior leaders:
Do we handle conflict or avoid it?
When difficult social or workplace issues arise, do we have a shared way to navigate disagreement?
What mechanisms could we implement to manage conflict better while ensuring fair and equitable outcomes?
The goal isn’t to be conflict-free, but conflict-capable.
4 – Reframing AI
AI is rewriting the rule book, accelerating and amplifying decision-making. While a lot of focus has been given to monitoring and addressing bias within AI algorithms, forward-thinking organizations are looking to design AI systems that proactively reinforce fairness and transparency. I have seen a number of innovative emerging practices that are yielding encouraging results.
- Recruitment and inclusive AI: smart companies use AI to generate shortlists or opportunity matches but require managers to validate decisions against defined criteria and communicate the rationale to candidates, ensuring that outcomes are not only fair, but explainable. Unilever has applied AI in recruitment to reduce bias in candidate evaluation, combining data-driven screening with structured assessments and monitoring of outcomes.
- Career development and inclusive AI: others deploy AI-driven internal talent marketplaces that surface roles, projects, or stretch assignments to employees across geographies and functions, reducing reliance on informal networks and broadening access to opportunities. At Salesforce, the AI-powered Career Connect platform has increased internal mobility by highlighting opportunities that employees might not have accessed through traditional networks.
- Performance reviews and inclusive AI: a third approach is to make AI use explicit and governed, for instance, by informing employees when algorithmic tools are used in performance reviews or talent decisions and providing escalation or review mechanisms where outcomes can be questioned. Workday embeds transparency and governance in its AI-driven talent systems by providing built-in explainability of recommendations and applying risk assessments with human oversight for decisions that affect employees.
The objective is not just to make AI fair – to guard against and mitigate the very real issue of bias. It’s about making the use of AI as comprehensible and legitimate as possible in the eyes of employees: a shift that requires close collaboration among D&I, HR, data, and technology leaders.
Questions for HR and senior leaders:
Is AI strengthening trust or quietly eroding it? How can we tell?
Do employees understand how AI is used in our people decisions?
Do they perceive those decisions as fair and human-accountable?
One thing is clear, the organizations that effectively leverage D&I to strengthen their businesses will not be those that shout the loudest, but those that build the deepest capacity for cohesion.
Authors
Related
The longevity-equality dividend: Reshaping women’s career paths
As women live longer, society must rethink careers and leadership to unlock a longevity-equality dividend that enables women to contribute and lead at every life stage....
- Audio available
The value of LGBTQ+ inclusion in today’s uncertain DE&I landscape
Companies gain performance advantages through LGBTQ+ inclusion, yet nearly nine in 10 Swiss firms lag. Here’s how leaders can close the gap....
Speaking up and staying strategic
When talk of diversity triggers backlash, leaders face a paradox: how to advance inclusion goals while choosing language that keeps dialogue alive in hostile environments....
Learn Brain Circuits
Join us for daily exercises focusing on issues from team building to developing an actionable sustainability plan to personal development. Go on - they only take five minutes.
Â
Explore Leadership
What makes a great leader? Do you need charisma? How do you inspire your team? Our experts offer actionable insights through first-person narratives, behind-the-scenes interviews and The Help Desk.
Â
Join Membership
Log in here to join in the conversation with the I by IMD community. Your subscription grants you access to the quarterly magazine plus daily articles, videos, podcasts and learning exercises.
Â