Published June 1, 2026 in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion • 10 min read • 
Audio available
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
A new framework maps out how to move from surviving setbacks to reshaping systems, illustrated by Martine Roy's journey from forced military discharge to sustained institutional reform. ...
If your metrics don’t distinguish between the “D” and the “I” in DE&I, your efforts to become more inclusive will likely fail. Here’s how to use your existing data to get inclusion...
IMD, Media Trust, and Code For Good Now are building a coalition to shape how AI is developed, deployed, and governed, so it becomes a force for inclusive growth, responsible innovation,...
Leaders are tasked with measuring inclusion more rigorously than ever today – but are they measuring the wrong signals? ...
Explore first person business intelligence from top minds curated for a global executive audience