In a time of deep political and cultural divides, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DE&I) issues have become flashpoints. How do leaders make progress when every side is suspicious and values are weaponized? In a recent webinar with the IMD Inclusive Leadership Community, we explored how shareholders, investors, and leaders can raise DE&I concerns in ways that foster accountability and dialogue – even when polarization threatens to shut it down.
Consider the case of Kristin Hull, founder and Chief Investment Officer of US-based Nia Impact Capital, which held Tesla stock for years, specifically because of its environmental mission of accelerating the world’s transition to sustainable energy. Despite supporting this vision, Hull had consistently raised concerns about workplace discrimination, its forced arbitration clauses that silenced employee grievances, and governance practices lacking meaningful board oversight. Between 2020 and 2024, she filed multiple shareholder resolutions calling for greater transparency and accountability on labor rights and human capital management.
By July 2025, the landscape had shifted dramatically. Elon Musk had served briefly in the Trump administration’s newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) – an office established by executive order in early 2025, where his exact authority and formal status remained unclear – while continuing to run his multiple companies, and his public rhetoric had become increasingly political and inflammatory. Tesla’s board independence remained questionable, with the Delaware Chancery Court voiding Musk’s $56bn compensation package as excessive. The company faced mounting legal challenges over workplace conditions, including allegations of systemic racial harassment at its Fremont factory.
Each option carried risks – to Nia’s reputation, to Hull’s personal safety given Musk’s tendency to target critics, and across the broader impact investing community, watching how one of their own would navigate this moment.
When webinar participants were asked which terms they would include in a shareholder resolution today, the results revealed stark divisions. Governance and market fundamentals language found the strongest support, with more than nine in 10 participants (92%) willing to include it, and nearly three-quarters (72%) backing market underperformance arguments.
Support dropped significantly for workforce wellbeing (56%) and plummeted for DE&I terminology – only a quarter (25%) of participants would include reference to “DEI” while 47% would avoid it entirely. Gender equity fared marginally better at 44% support, while social justice saw just 53% support despite 26% remaining uncertain. The poll results illustrate how charged certain terms have become, forcing leaders to weigh authenticity against strategic effectiveness.
“Progress requires pushing forward without triggering defensive reactions that shut down dialogue entirely.”
The Nia case reveals tensions familiar to many leaders today: how to advance diversity and inclusion goals while carefully picking their way through an increasingly hostile environment. Rather than treating these as trade-offs with clear either-or choices, leaders should frame them as paradoxes where both sides remain true simultaneously. This leads to three core tensions:
1 – Using your voice yet protecting safety and credibility.
Leaders must speak up on issues that matter without losing their ability to influence outcomes. This requires navigating the risk of either remaining silent or speaking in ways that trigger backlash, potentially compromising both personal safety and professional credibility. In an online poll during the  webinar, half the participants said this best reflected their approach to conversations about DE&I.
2 – Acting with integrity yet staying strategically effective.
This tension asks whether authentic advocacy requires using explicit social justice language, or whether reframing issues represents strategic necessity rather than values compromise. As one participant explained, caring about social justice doesn’t eliminate the ability to make governance and market arguments – wanting return on investment remains logical for impact investors. The question becomes whether being strategic about language constitutes selling out or a pragmatic approach.
3 – Advocating for change yet sustaining engagement and trust.
Progress requires pushing forward without triggering defensive reactions that shut down dialogue entirely. Another participant emphasized that on a longer timescale, and from a situation of privilege that many of us carry, values like social justice and wellbeing cannot be abandoned.
The world today operates in paradoxes rather than trade-offs. When leaders frame these as either-or choices, they become unable to solve the problem since it is not a unique problem to solve. Kristin Hull exemplifies this: as an activist investor committed to social justice, she needs to use her voice while protecting both her safety and credibility. If she completely changes her language, she risks alienating the asset owners who invest with her specifically because she’s committed to a gender and social justice investment lens.
The question isn’t whether to act with integrity or be strategic, whether to advocate for change or sustain engagement. The challenge is managing both simultaneously – wanting to push Tesla to change while recognizing that certain language choices mean people stop listening entirely before the message registers.
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.
Communities of like-minded leaders provide essential support for managing tensions that feel increasingly difficult to sustain alone.
DE&I conversations aren’t about convincing anyone. They’re about staying in dialogue long enough for learning to happen.
This requires recognizing that explicit DE&I language now triggers resistance, while still maintaining commitment to workplace equity and inclusion. Leaders must recognize that values and strategy need not conflict – that maintaining integrity while choosing strategic language represents sophisticated leadership rather than compromise.
Consider Hull’s six-year engagement with Tesla. She didn’t win the most votes. Over that period, support for her resolutions dropped from 46% to 16%. Yet her language made it into Tesla’s 10-K filing. That’s not victory through persuasion – it’s influence through strategic persistence in dialogue.
Communities of like-minded leaders provide essential support for managing tensions that feel increasingly difficult to sustain alone.
The paradoxes remain. But leaders can develop the capacity to hold multiple truths simultaneously – advancing inclusion goals through whatever language creates space for genuine dialogue in increasingly polarized times. The question isn’t, “Will this conversation work?” but rather, “Am I staying in conversation in a way I can sustain? Am I creating conditions where learning becomes possible over time?”
That consciousness and deliberate choice about when and how to engage is leadership in polarized, paradoxical times.
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