Good afternoon.
In 2020, corporate diversity and inclusion were largely reactive. In 2024, diversity heads must be fully responsive. That was one of countless takeaways from a wide-ranging conversation with leading Fortune 500 diversity chiefs hosted by FleishmanHillard last month.
Attendees acknowledged that a critical failure of the DEI function is that many are unclear about what exactly these leaders do and, subsequently, the extensive benefits they bring to an organization, from talent acquisition to increased productivity and profitability. Still, they said, the heightened focus (read: criticism) on the role provides a ripe opportunity for CDOs to redefine their role, reconsider how they tie DEI to the business strategy, ensure that their work extends past surface-level performative tasks and metrics (think: events and cultural moments), and prioritize long-term sustainable change, which is far from flashy in the short-term but has a greater lasting impact.
Moreover, attendees said that today’s diversity heads must be forward-looking, able to peer ahead to see what’s coming around the corner, and then recognize and strategize how it will affect future business conditions—case in point: the 2024 U.S. presidential election.
Campaign vitriol has already begun and will only intensify in the coming months. The duty falls to diversity chiefs to prepare their workforce and fortify their company against internal disruption and division, which is already unfolding over geopolitical matters. To be sure, a win on either side could result in radically disparate futures. “The CDO role must have a legislative affairs component,” stressed one attendee. As it stands, she said, diversity heads are being “out-strategized with legislation that will hit them in 10 to 20 years, removing funding, access, and space for DEI even more than we see now.”
Diversity leaders must lay the groundwork by, for instance, creating a policy playbook that presents a united front across industries. They should be scouring the legislative agenda daily, looking for potential ramifications on their line of work. They should engage the CEO in these discussions and be deeply immersed in scenario planning—that is, preparing for the many outcomes of the 2024 election and what those outcomes portend in 2025 and beyond.
Other CDO tactics discussed include monthly meetings with the company’s government affairs team, consistent discussions with their general counsel to prepare for potential DEI-related litigation from states and organizations, and, especially for large organizations, placing a team on Capitol Hill that includes representatives from the DEI function.
Lastly, CDOs should have a global outlook. While the 2024 U.S. election will almost certainly be consequential, they should be mindful that voters in over 64 countries will head to the polls in 2024— more elections than any other year in history—and many of those elections may foment legislation that can present danger for underrepresented communities.
Ruth Umoh
@ruthumohnews
ruth.umoh@fortune.com
What’s Trending
Breaking news. ABC News president Kim Godwin, the first Black woman to run a broadcast news division, will step down after a rocky three-year tenure. AP
Sayonara. U.S. companies are quietly ridding the use of “DEI” in their communications in an effort to rebrand the now hotly politicized three-letter acronym. WaPo
Curriculum vitae. MIT is eliminating a requirement for faculty applicants that tasked them with writing statements about how they’d enhance the university’s diversity. NYT
Taxing turnaround. The IRS said it will take steps to address the disparity in audit rates between Black taxpayers and other filers. Fortune
Damning dismissal. Berkshire Hathaway shareholders overwhelmingly rejected diversity proposals at the annual meeting, which Warren Buffet and the board also opposed. Reuters
The Big Think
Are white women okay? It’s a question posed by writer Nellie Bowles in an Atlantic piece exploring the explosion of anti-racism courses post-George Floyd, which are often led and subscribed to by well-meaning white women. Bowles recounts her experience at a popular but “try-hard” dinner series that charged $625 a head for white women to talk about their racism.
“White women specifically seem very interested in these courses, perhaps because self-flagellation is seen as a classic female virtue,” she writes. “The hated archetype of the anti-racist movement is the Karen. No real equivalent exists for men.”
