Does DEI have a messaging problem?

NYU marketing professor Scott Galloway claimed that diversity, inclusion, and equity initiatives result in a ‘certain amount of reverse racism’ at the Association for Data-driven Marketing and Advertising’s (ADMA) global forum in Sydney.

His comments were a reference to the US Supreme Court ruling in 2023 against race-conscious admission programmes at colleges and universities across the country. This ruling eliminated the ability of these institutions—both public and private—to consider race as a factor in admissions decisions.

The below commentary is a response to Galloway's comments.

---

Contrary to Scott Galloway's opinion, I believe DEI positions and initiatives are necessary. DEI has opened doors that were once closed to people from marginalised groups, and having these voices and perspectives benefits businesses and society. But I will admit that those of us who advocate for DEI are losing the messaging battle.  

The US Supreme Court ruling to limit DEI efforts may be unique to America’s history on race and gender, and one might think it is irrelevant to other countries, particularly in the Asia Pacific.

What concerns me most is the grassroots opposition that eventually drives legislation or court decisions. The anti-DEI message is compelling because it tells the majority in any country that there is not enough of the ‘pie’ to go around if all these other groups start getting what is perceived as preference.  

When Barack Obama won the presidency in 2008, his administration inherited the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. He ran on the promise to save the US economy. 

His administration got to work and did just that. In two years, Americans had better access to healthcare, improved infrastructure, better consumer protections, and more regulations, and he saved the US auto industry and the countless jobs and industries it supports. 

Then, the midterm elections came, and voters chose to go in a different direction. Why? The opposition message effectively played on fears and tropes. They convinced enough voters to vote against their best interests and bring a Republican majority to Congress. 

I remember how the liberal media criticised the administration for poor messaging despite all the evidence that life was improving for Americans in ways that mattered. 

The Republicans were able to ask their voters, ‘Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?’ The voters chose the message that scared them instead of the policies that helped them. 

If they're not doing so already, DEI leaders need to hyper-focus on creating a culture of belonging to ensure their people are entirely on board with DEI initiatives. They also need to show shareholders ‘the money’. 

They must move on from PR programmes and get to the heart of what business leaders care about. DEI leaders must show that their efforts increase profits, productivity, and innovation. That is all that matters in business; we can't forget that. I know it is cold and heartless, but if you want warmth, you have to put money on the table, so you make the case that if diversity goes away, so do the economic benefits. 

Tactics are important, but we are being pulled into boogeyman arguments like reverse racism that distract from the real issues and don’t offer solutions.  

The McKinsey ‘Diversity Matters’ series shows that having diverse leadership teams is a smart business move, regardless of industry or region. Over the years, the data has become even more explicit: companies with more women and people from different ethnic backgrounds in leadership roles tend to perform better financially. 

For example, businesses in the top quartile for gender diversity are now 39% more likely to see financial success, and the same goes for those with substantial ethnic diversity. 

Conversely, companies lacking diversity pay a higher price, with those in the bottom quartile being 66% less likely to outperform their peers. What’s more, the benefits of diversity extend to boardrooms, where companies with more diverse boards see better financial results. 

It is a potent reminder that diversity isn’t just good for society—it’s good for business too. Emerging economies, in particular, stand to gain a lot by increasing diversity in their leadership. 

The DEI message has been a lot of ‘fluff’, focusing on stylised graphics meant to tug on heartstrings and gain social media likes.  

We have worried too much about hurting feelings if employees feel that numbers are the only thing that matters. We can find a balanced message that speaks to profits and people.

The message needs to be 'we invest in diversity because it has increased profits by ‘X’. We create a level playing field to the exclusion of no one, which has opened the door for new perspectives. We invested in social-emotional learning to ensure our diverse teams work together effectively. These efforts have led to improving existing products, creating new ones, entering new markets, and increasing profits by ‘X’. 

From there, you can discuss inclusion programmes and all the likes from your LinkedIn and Facebook posts to add a few sprinkles or toppings. But the only thing that will incentivise leaders to fight for diversity against the anti-DEI factions and make it a priority will be if the numbers on the graph line are going up.  

So, when the messaging from the other side says DEI is dangerous and harmful for society, DEI professionals can ask the decision makers: ‘Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?’

---

Rafael P. Soriano is a partner at Akitsu Consulting.