Speaking up and staying strategic: DE&I engagement in polarized times

Six strategies for difficult conversations

Based on research and practical experience, I shared six approaches for navigating charged DE&I discussions.

1 – Ask before you argue.

Rather than assuming hostile intent, leaders should lead with genuine curiosity. When someone objects to DE&I language, asking, “What concerns you?” Or, “Help me understand what worries you about this,” can reveal underlying anxieties that differ significantly from assumed motivations. One effective pattern: validate what you genuinely can, then redirect to shared interests. For example, “I hear you’re worried about ideology driving decisions. My concern is reducing our litigation risk from discrimination claims.” This creates space for reframing conversations around shared concerns.

2 – Name the tension, not the person.

Labeling individuals as problematic typically triggers defensiveness and shuts down dialogue. Instead, identify the impact or feeling created by the conversation. Acknowledging, “I realize we’re talking past each other,” or “This conversation feels stuck, can we try a different angle?” focuses on the dynamic rather than attacking character, creating opportunities to reset and reconnect. An advanced move: name your own reaction first. “I’m feeling defensive right now, which tells me I’m not really listening. Let me try again.” This models emotional awareness and often de-escalates the other person.

3 – Reframe to shared goals using “and” or “yet” instead of “but”. The word “but” negates everything preceding it, signaling concerns haven’t been heard. Compare, “Your political concerns are valid, but we need to consider inclusion,” with “Your political concerns are valid, and we also need to address workplace discrimination.” The linguistic shift acknowledges multiple truths simultaneously: “We value efficiency, yet we also need inclusive practices,” holds complexity rather than erasing it, modeling paradoxical thinking required in polarized environments.

Strategic reframing can preserve substance while adapting language. One participant suggested focusing on “American workers suffering” rather than using politically charged terms like “woke” – aligning with current sensibilities while advancing the same substantive goals. Another emphasized returning to fundamentals: if DE&I terminology triggers immediate rejection, governance language can open doors that social justice language closes. The message remains consistent even as strategic adaptation occurs.

4 – Share personal impact without attributing intent.

In psychologically safe environments, describing how specific situations or comments affect you personally can build understanding. However, this strategy requires careful judgment about context and audience receptivity. For example, “When diversity goals were removed from performance reviews, it sent a signal to my team that this isn’t a priority” is harder to dismiss than, “You don’t care about diversity.” In hostile environments or with power imbalances, use third-party language instead.

5 – End with a forward question.

When conversations stall on philosophical disagreements, shifting to action often breaks through the impasse. Questions like, “What small step could we take forward?” “Where do we agree?” or “What would make this workable?” move from abstract principles to concrete possibilities, reducing pressure while maintaining momentum. After a tense exchange about language in a report, try: “We’re both trying to get this right. What if we drafted two versions and tested which lands better?” This positions you as a problem-solver rather than an ideologue – reputationally protective in polarized environments. Critically, this only works after genuine listening.

6 – Know when to exit.

Not every conversation serves a productive purpose. When discussions become vitriolic or threaten psychological or physical safety, protecting oneself takes priority. Sometimes the appropriate response is, “Let me think about that and we’ll talk later,” or simply removing oneself from hostile situations entirely. The reframe: your job isn’t to change every mind. It’s to choose battles strategically and preserve capacity for fights where you have actual leverage. Exiting doesn’t mean abandoning values; it means choosing the time, place, and conditions under which you’ll advocate for them.