It appears that businesses are embracing inclusion because of their slick marketing campaigns, well-timed social media posts, and cleverly written slogans. However, beneath the surface, workers are becoming more aware that many businesses are just acting. Stanford and Inc. research reveals a remarkably similar trend: pledges increase when scandals break out, but senior-level data indicates little change. When inclusion is viewed as a performance, it becomes a very powerful branding tool, but workplace trust is greatly diminished.
One of the most obvious signs is tokenism. Employees report being promoted or interviewed more for attention than for real opportunities. According to a survey conducted by Lever, 62% of workers believed that their inclusion in procedures was done so only to satisfy diversity requirements. The number increased even further for candidates who were Black and Hispanic. Although it may appear to be a very effective way to create optics, this superficial inclusion makes people feel taken advantage of, which lowers team morale.
| Category | Details |
|---|---|
| Superficial Messaging | Inclusion often highlighted in campaigns but not reflected in structures |
| Tokenism | Diverse hires used for optics without meaningful empowerment |
| Lack of Transparency | Companies rarely publish clear DEI metrics or progress reports |
| Focus on Low-Level Roles | Diversity clustered in junior positions, absent at executive levels |
| Ignoring Systemic Issues | Preference for soft “belonging” talk instead of addressing bias |
| Inconsistent Commitment | DEI programs rolled back when facing backlash or cost pressure |
| External Pressure | Public statements issued mainly to appease criticism or trends |
| Profit Motive | Inclusion marketed to strengthen brand reputation rather than culture |
| Consequences | Distrust, disengagement, turnover, and innovation setbacks |
During difficult political or economic times, the discrepancy is more obvious. Target retracted its pledges after federal pressure turned against DEI, despite having promised billions of dollars in investments for Black-owned brands in the wake of George Floyd’s murder. Costco, on the other hand, resisted, continuing its initiatives despite political shifts. These opposing decisions demonstrate how a leader’s conviction can be very evident: businesses either uphold their values or reveal them to be conditional.
The boundaries of corporate sincerity are exposed by hiring data. According to a thorough Stanford study, diverse hiring rose by less than 1% after DEI scandals, primarily in low-influence or junior roles. In fact, there were decreases in senior leadership positions. The findings are especially striking: power structures are noticeably unaltered while superficial diversity is preserved for appearances. The promise of inclusion frequently turns out to be unfulfilling for workers who aspire to leadership positions.
This disenchantment is exacerbated by marketing strategies. About 44% of workers who responded to the survey believed that while they were highlighted in branding campaigns to increase diversity, they were disregarded internally when choices were being made. As a public relations strategy, this kind of DEI washing is especially creative, but it is harmfully obvious to those who are directly affected. When your face is praised on the outside but your voice is ignored on the inside, the message is very clear: inclusion is a catchphrase, not a norm.
The impact on a daily basis is very personal. To avoid prejudice, many candidates continue to hide their identities by deleting pictures from their resumes, changing their hairstyles, or stifling their accents. This defensive self-editing demonstrates that spaces that are promoted as inclusive are still insecure for genuineness. Campaigns to promote inclusion lose credibility when almost half of the workforce feels pressured to conceal important aspects of themselves. Workers have an innate sense of when care is performative.
Celebrity narratives are echoed by the contradictions. Hollywood consistently lacks diversity behind the camera, undermining its claims of progress and serving as a reminder that visibility does not equate to equity. Likewise, businesses that display slogans but oppose structural change only serve to increase cynicism. It has been shown by leaders like Satya Nadella that embracing vulnerability and owning up to mistakes can be a very powerful way to rebuild trust. However, a lot of executives would rather be safe with well-crafted statements than take the chance of open accountability.
This pretense has a significant cost to society. Being sensitive to hypocrisy, Gen Z rejects roles where inclusion seems fake much more quickly. Offers are rejected by nearly 40% when diversity promises are hollow. Because of this new generational norm, being dishonest is no longer only a moral failing but also a strategic error. Businesses that adhere to superficial DEI will experience turnover, disengagement, and a competitive disadvantage in fields where diverse viewpoints foster innovation.
Sincerity is possible, as evidenced by the bright spots. When auditions were anonymized, orchestras increased female participation by almost half, demonstrating the remarkable effectiveness of blind recruitment in reducing bias. Results in technology and finance have significantly improved as a result of structured hiring practices and open evaluation systems. These strategies show that, if leaders are prepared to integrate them into existing systems rather than promoting them as initiatives, change is not only feasible but also especially advantageous for performance.
So, persistence is the question. When public scrutiny increases, it is very effective to make inclusion commitments public, but it takes greater conviction to keep them during slower periods. When diversity councils are underfunded, when leadership narratives are unclear, and when DEI officers are among the first positions eliminated in layoffs, employees take notice. The message conveyed by these decisions is very clear: inclusion is a luxury. It is very hard to regain trust once it has been lost.
