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 â 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 worldâs 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 administrationâs newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) â an office established by executive order in early 2025, where his exact authority and formal status remained unclear â while continuing to run his multiple companies, and his public rhetoric had become increasingly political and inflammatory. Teslaâs board independence remained questionable, with the Delaware Chancery Court voiding Muskâs $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 â to Niaâs reputation, to Hullâs personal safety given Muskâs 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 â only a quarter (25%) of participants would include reference to âDEIâ 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.
âProgress requires pushing forward without triggering defensive reactions that shut down dialogue entirely.â
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 doesnât eliminate the ability to make governance and market arguments â 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 sheâs committed to a gender and social justice investment lens.
The question isnât whether to act with integrity or be strategic, whether to advocate for change or sustain engagement. The challenge is managing both simultaneously â 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, âWhat concerns you?â Or, âHelp me understand what worries you about this,â 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, âI hear youâre worried about ideology driving decisions. My concern is reducing our litigation risk from discrimination claims.â 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, âI realize weâre talking past each other,â or âThis conversation feels stuck, can we try a different angle?â focuses on the dynamic rather than attacking character, creating opportunities to reset and reconnect. An advanced move: name your own reaction first. âIâm feeling defensive right now, which tells me Iâm not really listening. Let me try again.â This models emotional awareness and often de-escalates the other person.
3 – Reframe to shared goals using âandâ or âyetâ instead of âbutâ. The word âbutâ negates everything preceding it, signaling concerns havenât been heard. Compare, âYour political concerns are valid, but we need to consider inclusion,â with âYour political concerns are valid, and we also need to address workplace discrimination.â The linguistic shift acknowledges multiple truths simultaneously: âWe value efficiency, yet we also need inclusive practices,â 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 âAmerican workers sufferingâ rather than using politically charged terms like âwokeâ â 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, âWhen diversity goals were removed from performance reviews, it sent a signal to my team that this isnât a priorityâ is harder to dismiss than, âYou donât care about diversity.â 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, âWhat small step could we take forward?â âWhere do we agree?â or âWhat would make this workable?â move from abstract principles to concrete possibilities, reducing pressure while maintaining momentum. After a tense exchange about language in a report, try: âWeâre both trying to get this right. What if we drafted two versions and tested which lands better?â This positions you as a problem-solver rather than an ideologue â 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, âLet me think about that and weâll talk later,â or simply removing oneself from hostile situations entirely. The reframe: your job isnât to change every mind. Itâs to choose battles strategically and preserve capacity for fights where you have actual leverage. Exiting doesnât mean abandoning values; it means choosing the time, place, and conditions under which youâll advocate for them.
Communities of like-minded leaders provide essential support for managing tensions that feel increasingly difficult to sustain alone.
DE&I conversations arenât about convincing anyone. Theyâre 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 â that maintaining integrity while choosing strategic language represents sophisticated leadership rather than compromise.
Consider Hullâs six-year engagement with Tesla. She didnât win the most votes. Over that period, support for her resolutions dropped from 46% to 16%. Yet her language made it into Teslaâs 10-K filing. Thatâs not victory through persuasion â itâs 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 â advancing inclusion goals through whatever language creates space for genuine dialogue in increasingly polarized times. The question isnât, âWill this conversation work?â but rather, âAm I staying in conversation in a way I can sustain? Am I creating conditions where learning becomes possible over time?â
That consciousness and deliberate choice about when and how to engage is leadership in polarized, paradoxical times.
While support for workplace LGBTQ+ programs has dropped to just 38% globally, cities with strong inclusion policies demonstrate four times higher human capital performance and double the innovation scores than their less...
While some organizations retreat from inclusion commitments under political pressure, the path to lasting transformation lies in embedding diversity deeply within core values rather than treating it as a compliance issue. Leaders...
As Pride Month celebrations fade, sobering data reveals the persistent workplace challenges facing LGBTQ+ employees globally. From the âgay glass ceilingâ blocking executive advancement to six in 10 LGBTQ+ Europeans hiding their...
In an interactive online panel organized by IMD and IMD's Inclusive Leadership Alumni Community, business leaders from various industries shared strategies for maintaining authentic LGBTQ+ inclusion in order to create inclusive, resilient...
Explore first person business intelligence from top minds curated for a global executive audience