California Management Review
California Management Review is a premier academic management journal published at UC Berkeley
by Gleb Tsipursky
Image Credit | svetazi
In today’s evolving corporate landscape, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) have long been hailed as vital elements for creating thriving, innovative, and resilient organizations. However, recent years have seen a growing backlash against DEI programs, as well as notable political and cultural controversies that have put these initiatives under intense scrutiny. Major corporations—from retailers like Walmart and Tractor Supply to entire federal agencies—have scaled back or rebranded their DEI efforts. Critics argue that many DEI programs are overly politicized, superficial, or divisive, leading to a polarized debate that hampers their intended benefits.
Despite the controversy surrounding DEI, the underlying goals—improved hiring practices, fair promotions, and enhanced team collaboration—remain essential to any organization’s success. In response, many experts suggest a shift in focus toward decision-making frameworks grounded in scientific research and objective criteria. These frameworks aim to achieve the same benefits as DEI initiatives but do so by emphasizing fairness and merit-based processes that sidestep the ideological pitfalls currently associated with DEI.
Over the past decades, DEI initiatives have emerged as a cornerstone of modern organizational strategy. Initially, the goal was straightforward: to create work environments where individuals from all backgrounds could thrive equally. Companies invested in DEI training sessions, mentorship programs, and strategic hiring practices intended to level the playing field and enhance innovation by drawing on a diverse pool of ideas and perspectives.
However, as DEI programs became more visible, they also became embroiled in political and cultural debates. Critics argue that DEI programs, in practice, can sometimes come across as tokenistic or even divisive. They contend that these initiatives risk undermining meritocracy by emphasizing identity over performance, leading to perceptions of preferential treatment, resulting in backlash against DEI at corporations.
High-profile examples illustrate this trend. For instance, major corporations such as Tractor Supply have recently scaled back their DEI efforts, eliminating dedicated DEI roles and even withdrawing support for events like Pride Month in response to conservative critiques. Similarly, Walmart, a long-standing advocate for supplier diversity and inclusive business practices, has rolled back programs that prioritized minority and LGBTQ±owned businesses amid mounting external pressure.
The backlash is not merely an isolated trend within the private sector. Political leaders have increasingly targeted DEI initiatives as symbols of broader ideological battles. For example, remarks by Congressman Tim Burchett—who referred dismissively to government officials as “DEI hires”—and a series of executive orders by President Donald Trump’s administration that curtailed DEI efforts across federal agencies have significantly contributed to an atmosphere of contention. These actions have not only affected public institutions but have also sent a ripple effect through the corporate world, where leaders are now more cautious about embracing DEI initiatives that could attract controversy or legal challenges.
These rollbacks have serious consequences. Critics of DEI argue that such programs are divisive or unnecessary, but companies face significant risks when they retreat from their commitments. Employees who value DEI often feel betrayed or alienated, leading to higher attrition rates. Minority and GBTQ+ advocacy groups, and even employees within affected companies, have strongly condemned such decisions, showing that backlash against DEI rollbacks can be just as intense as opposition to the initiatives themselves.
Supporters of DEI point to the strong business case for inclusive practices. Research from McKinsey & Company, for example, has shown that companies with diverse leadership teams are significantly more likely to outperform their peers financially. Similarly, reporting from Deloitte indicate that inclusive cultures drive innovation and are particularly attractive to younger workers, including Millennials and Gen Z, who increasingly expect their employers to demonstrate a commitment to equity.
Thus, while the goals of DEI remain laudable and indeed critical for organizational success, the political and cultural context has rendered the DEI label itself a lightning rod for controversy. This growing polarization has led many organizations to question whether simply rebranding or scaling back DEI initiatives is the best way forward. Instead, a more sustainable alternative may lie in shifting the focus from identity-based initiatives to science-based decision-making frameworks that inherently promote fairness.
At its core, the purpose of DEI initiatives is not merely to achieve a particular image or comply with regulatory pressures; rather, the intent is to improve the quality of people decision-making within organizations. DEI efforts aim to remove bias from key processes—such as hiring, promotions, resource allocation, and conflict resolution—in order to build a more dynamic and innovative workforce.
For example, consider the hiring process. Traditional recruitment practices can be fraught with subjective judgments and unconscious biases. By establishing structured hiring practices that include standardized interview questions and scoring rubrics, organizations can ensure that all candidates are evaluated on a consistent and objective basis. This approach not only increases the likelihood of selecting the best candidate for the job but also creates an environment where employees feel they have an equal opportunity to succeed.
Similarly, decisions regarding promotions and career development are often influenced by subjective perceptions. An evidence-based approach that ties advancement to measurable achievements and clear competencies can help counteract favoritism and bias. When employees see that promotions are awarded based on objective criteria, trust in the fairness of the organization is enhanced—a benefit that extends far beyond the realm of DEI.
Even workplace policies such as parental leave or accommodations for caregivers, which are often framed as part of DEI initiatives, are rooted in the goal of creating an inclusive and supportive work environment. These policies are not controversial in their essence; rather, it is the politicized narrative around DEI that tends to cast them in a divisive light. The challenge, then, is to preserve the beneficial outcomes of these programs while stripping away the contentious rhetoric that has come to define them.
Some companies are attempting to sidestep the controversy by rebranding their DEI initiatives or reframing its value proposition. Walmart, for instance, announced it would phase out the term “DEI” in its corporate messaging while reiterating its commitment to fostering a sense of belonging and creating opportunities for all employees, customers, and suppliers. Similarly, other organizations have begun replacing “DEI” with less politically charged terms like “belonging,” “inclusion,” or even “culture-building.” These shifts are intended to avoid triggering backlash while still advancing equity and inclusion goals. However, this approach risks creating more problems than it solves.
For one, critics of DEI often see through these rebranding efforts and remain skeptical. To them, a simple name change does not alter the underlying programs, which they often perceive as unfair, ideologically motivated, or a violation of meritocracy. As a result, rebranding may fail to resolve the animosity DEI detractors harbor toward these initiatives.
At the same time, supporters of DEI—particularly employees who value workplace equity—view such rebranding as a betrayal of core principles. Many interpret the removal of the DEI label as a retreat in the face of political pressure, a signal that the company lacks a true commitment to its stated values. This perception can lead to significant internal dissent, with employees questioning whether their organization is genuinely invested in creating a fair and inclusive workplace. Given the importance of DEI principles to younger workers, particularly Millennials and Gen Z, such moves can harm employee morale, retention, and recruitment.
Ultimately, rebranding DEI initiatives without addressing the core grievances of either side risks alienating both camps. It creates the impression that companies are more concerned with optics than meaningful change, undermining trust among employees and stakeholders. Moreover, it opens organizations up to attacks from both directions: detractors see rebranding as dishonest, while advocates see it as cowardice. This double-edged backlash highlights the limitations of rebranding as a strategy to navigate the current political and cultural landscape.
Renaming DEI also fails to address the real source of opposition to these initiatives: the widespread misconceptions and misinformation that surround them. Opponents often frame DEI as synonymous with quotas, reverse discrimination, or efforts to enforce equality of outcomes at the expense of merit. These narratives, though largely unfounded, have taken root in public discourse and are reinforced by high-profile political rhetoric and media coverage. However, many DEI initiatives bear little resemblance to these caricatures.
Companies must adopt strategies that align with their values and business objectives while reframing the conversation around fairness, equity, and inclusion in a way that resonates with all stakeholders. One promising solution is decision-making science.
A compelling alternative to traditional DEI initiatives is the adoption of decision-making frameworks rooted in empirical research and objective criteria. These frameworks focus on embedding fairness directly into organizational processes, ensuring that decisions are made based on merit, measurable performance, and consistent standards rather than on subjective interpretations of identity or cultural fit.
Structured Hiring Practices
One of the most straightforward applications of decision-making science is in the area of recruitment. Traditional hiring processes are vulnerable to unconscious bias—a well-documented phenomenon that can disadvantage qualified candidates from underrepresented groups. By implementing structured interviews that use standardized questions and scoring systems, organizations can mitigate these biases. Research has consistently shown that structured interviews are significantly more predictive of job performance than unstructured ones. This method not only promotes fairness in hiring but also enhances the overall quality of the workforce.
Evidence-Based Promotions and Career Development
Similarly, when it comes to promotions and career advancement, decision-making frameworks that rely on objective criteria can transform the process. By tying promotions to clearly defined competencies, measurable achievements, and transparent performance metrics, organizations can reduce perceptions of favoritism and ensure that all employees have an equal opportunity to advance. This approach not only improves employee morale but also strengthens the organization’s reputation as a meritocratic institution.
Inclusive Collaboration Processes
Another critical area is the facilitation of team collaboration and decision-making. When diverse perspectives are solicited in a structured manner, organizations can avoid the pitfalls of groupthink and benefit from a wider array of ideas. For instance, implementing processes that encourage managers to gather input from multiple stakeholders before making a decision can lead to more innovative and effective outcomes. These practices help create an environment where all voices are heard, and decisions are made based on objective assessments rather than subjective preferences.
Resource Allocation and Conflict Resolution
Beyond hiring and promotions, decision-making frameworks can be extended to other aspects of organizational operations. Whether it’s the equitable distribution of resources—such as training opportunities, project assignments, or budget allocations—or the resolution of workplace conflicts, structured processes can ensure that fairness is maintained across the board. By codifying these processes into everyday operations, companies can create a self-sustaining system of accountability and transparency.
One of the key strengths of science-based decision-making frameworks is their ability to be integrated into the very fabric of an organization. Unlike standalone DEI workshops, which are often one-off events and might be ineffective if not done well, decision-making frameworks are designed to be scalable, sustainable, and embedded in daily operations.
Institutionalizing Fairness
Embedding fairness into every level of decision-making means that organizations no longer need to rely on periodic training sessions to address bias. Instead, fairness becomes a structural feature of all organizational policies—from recruitment to performance reviews, from resource allocation to conflict resolution. This systematic approach helps ensure that every decision, regardless of the context, is made with objectivity and transparency.
Practical Applications Across the Organization
Sustaining Long-Term Impact
The durability of decision-making frameworks is another major advantage over traditional DEI programs. While DEI training sessions can be sporadic and may lose their impact over time, a well-implemented decision-making system becomes part of the organizational DNA. To ensure ongoing effectiveness, companies should invest in regular training for leaders, continuous measurement of outcomes, and periodic reviews of the decision-making processes themselves. Such an approach not only maintains the integrity of the framework but also allows for adjustments in response to new research and evolving best practices.
One of the most significant challenges faced by DEI initiatives is the perception among critics that these programs impose ideological views or favor certain groups over others. Decision-making frameworks, by contrast, emphasize objectivity and merit. By basing key decisions on clear, measurable criteria, these frameworks address concerns about preferential treatment while still supporting the goal of creating an inclusive workplace.
Neutrality and Meritocracy
Critics often argue that DEI initiatives undermine the principle of meritocracy by placing too much emphasis on identity factors. Decision-making frameworks respond to this critique by ensuring that all decisions are firmly anchored in data and performance metrics. Whether it’s hiring, promotion, or resource allocation, the focus remains on what the candidate or employee can demonstrably contribute to the organization, rather than on subjective assessments of cultural or identity fit.
Building Internal Trust
For employees—especially those from historically underrepresented groups—the transparency and fairness of decision-making processes can be a source of reassurance. When employees see that their organization has adopted systems that consistently apply the same objective criteria to everyone, it builds confidence in the fairness of the system. This, in turn, can enhance employee morale, reduce attrition rates, and contribute to a more collaborative and engaged workplace culture.
Reinforcing Organizational Values
By shifting the conversation from politically charged DEI rhetoric to universally accepted principles of fairness and objectivity, decision-making frameworks help depoliticize the process. This neutral positioning appeals to a broad range of stakeholders—from employees and investors to customers and regulators—allowing the organization to maintain its commitment to equity without becoming entangled in ideological disputes.
Universal Principles of Fairness
At the heart of decision-making frameworks is the idea that all individuals deserve to be evaluated based on their performance, abilities, and contributions. This principle of meritocracy resonates not only with progressive advocates of inclusion but also with conservatives who champion the idea of fairness and equal opportunity. By centering on these universally accepted values, organizations can sidestep the divisive rhetoric that has plagued DEI initiatives and foster an environment where everyone feels that they are subject to the same objective standards.
Measurable Outcomes Over Ideological Debates
Decision-making frameworks prioritize tangible, business-relevant outcomes. For instance, studies have consistently shown that companies with structured hiring practices and clear performance metrics enjoy better financial performance and greater innovation. When organizations focus on measurable outcomes—such as improved employee retention, higher levels of innovation, or increased customer satisfaction—the conversation shifts from ideological debates to discussions about tangible success. This emphasis on results can help defuse cultural controversies and build a compelling business case for inclusive practices.
Addressing Political Pressures
In politically charged environments, initiatives that are seen as ideologically driven often become targets for backlash. Decision-making frameworks, by virtue of their scientific grounding and objectivity, are less likely to be perceived as political statements. This neutrality not only protects the organization from external criticism but also provides a stable foundation upon which inclusive practices can be built. By distancing themselves from the politicized language of DEI, companies can focus on what truly matters: making decisions that benefit the organization and its employees.
Transitioning from traditional DEI initiatives to decision-making frameworks involves more than just a change in rhetoric—it requires a concerted effort to redesign the organizational processes that underpin everyday decision-making. Here are some practical strategies for implementing these frameworks successfully:
Train Leaders and Managers: Equip leadership with the tools and knowledge necessary to implement objective decision-making processes. Training should include an understanding of bias mitigation, the use of standardized evaluation criteria, and the importance of data-driven decision-making.
Standardize Processes Across the Organization: Develop and codify processes for recruitment, performance evaluations, promotions, and conflict resolution. By standardizing these processes, companies ensure that every decision is made on the same objective basis, reducing opportunities for bias or favoritism.
Measure and Monitor Outcomes: Establish metrics to track the effectiveness of the new decision-making frameworks. Metrics might include employee engagement scores, retention rates, diversity in leadership positions, and overall business performance. Regular monitoring allows organizations to identify areas for improvement and make necessary adjustments.
Solicit Regular Feedback: Create channels for employees to provide feedback on decision-making processes. This feedback can be used to refine practices over time and ensure that the systems in place are perceived as fair and transparent.
Commit to Continuous Improvement: Recognize that the implementation of decision-making frameworks is an ongoing process. Periodically review and update policies to incorporate the latest research findings and to respond to the evolving needs of the organization.
Integrate Technology and Data Analytics: Leverage technology to support objective decision-making. Tools that analyze performance data track hiring and promotion trends can help ensure that decisions are grounded in reliable metrics, thereby reinforcing the integrity of the process.
The controversies surrounding DEI have left many organizations searching for a way to achieve inclusivity without becoming entangled in ideological battles. Decision-making frameworks offer a promising pathway forward—one that emphasizes fairness, objectivity, and measurable success. By embedding these principles into every facet of organizational life, companies can create a culture where equity is not just an aspirational goal but a concrete, operational reality.
In the long term, the adoption of decision-making frameworks can help build an organizational culture that is resilient in the face of political and social fluctuations. When fairness and transparency are built into the system, employees are more likely to trust that their contributions will be recognized and rewarded, regardless of external controversies. This trust is critical for attracting and retaining talent, particularly among younger workers who increasingly demand both inclusivity and clear, merit-based advancement.
Innovation thrives in environments where diverse perspectives are valued and where decisions are made on the basis of objective criteria. Decision-making frameworks not only help to level the playing field but also foster an environment where creativity and innovation can flourish. When every employee is given a fair chance to contribute and succeed, organizations benefit from a broader range of ideas and solutions that can drive growth and competitiveness.
Perhaps the most compelling advantage of a decision-making approach is that it balances the need for inclusivity with the imperatives of objective performance measurement. This balance is crucial in today’s polarized climate. Organizations that succeed in integrating these elements can avoid the pitfalls of overly politicized initiatives while still maintaining a robust commitment to fairness and diversity in practice.
