March 24, 2025 • 33 mins
Deloitte says “everyone is welcome”—but just scrapped its DEI goals, transparency reporting, and inclusive programming in the U.S. In this episode, Brittany and Karen confront the contradiction and ask: what happens when companies eliminate the very tools that make inclusion measurable?
From the quiet ban on pronouns in email signatures to inconsistent global policies (Deloitte UK is still all-in on DEI), we explore how these moves erode trust, fracture brand identity, and risk driving away top talent.
The conversation also tackles shady hiring tactics like fake-remote job listings used by some companies, and the broader question: can innovation thrive in a culture built on shaky ground? If trust is missing, what are we really building?
CONTINUED LEARNING
- The world’s biggest accounting firm is killing its DEI programs
- Are Deloitte UK & Deloitte US Doing DEI Differently?
- Deloitte US asks consultants to drop gender pronouns in email signatures
- Deloitte Culture Page
Stay With Us
- Watch and Subscribe to The E Word on YouTube.
- Follow Karen on LinkedIn and learn more at Colossal Work.
- Follow Brittany on LinkedIn and learn more at BND Consulting Group.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Karen McFarlane (00:01):
Hi Brittany, how are you?
I'm good.
I'm ready for another week onthe E-Word.
Brittany S. Hale (00:09):
No, it's the best part of the week.
Karen McFarlane (00:11):
I know, and we have a producer around as well.
Brittany S. Hale (00:17):
We do we do?
This is Mina.
She's dressed up, she's decidedto be quite.
Yes, she is the bell of theball.
Karen McFarlane (00:31):
Well, still lots going on this week.
Right, it's hard to know whereto start, but let's start off
with more DEI drama.
Brittany S. Hale (00:47):
Yes, yes.
So shout out.
There is a website, deiwatch,that I recently discovered,
where we can see the latestupdates, but it seems like every
time I speak to you, or everytime I text you, I'm just
texting you Another one, another, one, another one.
(01:07):
So I thought it'd be reallycool to add to the list.
But I will start off with goodnews.
Yes, okay, mckinsey which is avery well-renowned consulting
firm.
they confirmed that they aredoubling down on their DEI
(01:30):
efforts.
However, that came a few daysafter Deloitte announced that.
Initially, in an internal emailsent on February 10th, their
chief people officer said thatchanges were being made after a
(01:50):
detailed review of pertinentgovernment directives, to ensure
they comply with theirrequirements as a government
contractor, but also as aprivate enterprise, and so they
said that they started off bysaying everyone is welcome at
Deloitte and they're sunsettingtheir workforce and business
(02:14):
aspirational diversity goals.
They're sunsetting theirdiversity, equity and inclusion
transparency report and theirDEI programming.
Karen McFarlane (02:34):
But everybody's welcome.
Brittany S. Hale (02:36):
But everyone's welcome.
And so, yeah, just a bit ofbackground.
The president's son, donaldTrump Jr.
(02:59):
He's written about Deloittepreviously.
Maybe it's time for the GOP toend Deloitte's.
I'm reading this from BlackEnterprise, but also quoting the
Financial Times, that the firmannounced several DEI goals that
were projected to be reached in2025, including a spend of $200
million with Black-ledbusinesses.
And now again, as they said inthe email, everyone's welcome at
(03:49):
Deloitte, but consultants thatwork for the government through
Deloitte were asked to removepronouns that highlight their
genders from email signatures,particularly ones that are sent
to external entities, to quotealign with emerging government
client practices andrequirements.
I just said a whole bunch, butI'm curious to know what you
think.
Karen McFarlane (03:59):
Well, first of all, shout out to McKinsey for
doubling down so right there.
You know it's, you know,obviously it's disappointing,
but I just don't understand thismove.
From a business perspective,irrespective of politics we can
(04:28):
layer in the politics after, butjust from a business
perspective, if you remove yourtargets for any line of business
right, For any initiative, howdo you know where you're at and
where you need to go and howyou're doing?
And that's the part thatactually boggles my mind.
(04:53):
When you remove DEI goals, youhave a lack of accountability,
(05:16):
and you have a lack ofaccountability and you can't
measure your progress.
You are experiencing some sortof bump in those metrics.
That's the business case.
To continue Now, we've talkedabout this before that some
(05:36):
businesses have been, or still,on a journey of proper
measurement.
Right, Sure, but Deloittebasically said they're removing
or sunsetting their what theycalled aspirational goals.
So they had goals that theywere measuring against right and
they're eliminating them, Yetwith the contradictory statement
(06:00):
that everybody is welcome.
Well, how do you know ifeveryone feels welcome?
Brittany S. Hale (06:08):
Yeah, because you're getting rid of your
transparency report, right, yep?
And oddly enough, they're stillgoing to carry out Heritage
Month events, they're stillgoing to have internal ethnic
networks and what they callinclusion councils, and they say
(06:30):
that hiring practices will beimproved in order to make them
fair and non-discriminatory.
I don't know what thoseimprovements are that's not been
publicly shared.
Don't know what thoseimprovements are that's not been
publicly shared, but with theeradication of the EEOC and
(06:53):
rollbacks of legislation likethe Civil Rights Act of 1964,
both of whom's purported goal isto ensure hiring practices are
fair and non-discriminatory.
What is that supposed to looklike?
What are we supposed to takefrom this?
Karen McFarlane (07:14):
I think it goes back to why some of these
things were created in the firstplace, because organizations
were not doing this work ontheir own right and there was an
accountability factor.
There were laws saying, hey,you can't discriminate, right.
And when all of thoseguardrails are removed or
(07:38):
relaxed or whatever comes aboutthem, then we're just relying on
individual businesses to do theright thing.
Are there organizations andpeople within those
organizations that will do theright thing?
Absolutely.
But again, if it's not beingmeasured or tracked, then how do
(08:11):
you make assurances around that?
And with zero transparency,there's no need to do it.
You can go back to doing theeasy thing.
A lot of the things that DEIrepresented weren't that easy to
implement, right, or to figureout how to measure or list all
the different factors.
But anything worth doing is notalways easy right.
(08:31):
This required some systemicchange and I think Deloitte, of
all people, in terms of the workthat they do, understands that.
So that's why I kind of go backto the business thinking and
(08:53):
strategy around removing goals,targets and all of that so is.
Is it because of the politicalpressure?
Brittany S. Hale (09:06):
Yes, I would say absolutely, and I wonder
what it looks like.
Of course you know they havegovernment contracts and so from
their perspective, theirleadership, saying okay, we have
to play ball, this is what thegovernment wants to see, we're
happy to oblige.
(09:26):
But I'm also thinking abouttheir private clients and what
happens if their private clientsare continuing these DEI goals
and the message that it sends tothose clients and also to their
internal teams Trust, I'm sure,has been fractured with this
(09:55):
communication that's been sharedwith news outlets.
To start off and say everyone'swelcome and, by the way, take
out pronouns.
Karen McFarlane (10:10):
You know I'm so frustrated by that right there,
Like why do you want to controlwhat people call themselves in
their email signatures, letalone in their lives, right, but
why do you as a company careabout that?
That, in some places, is just ameans like that.
(10:34):
The email signature is a way ofexpression and telling people
who you are right.
There also is a very practicalbenefit, separate from,
specifically, the LGBTQcommunity, which is a lot of
(10:55):
names are gender neutral, yes,and so having the pronouns helps
people communicate better.
Going forward, yep.
So again, a lot of these DEIpolicies, even if they seem to
(11:17):
be directed at a particulargroup, have benefits for other
groups as well.
They're rarely just singularlyfocused.
For other groups as well,they're rarely just singularly
focused, and so you've now madecommunication harder for no
reason, when we found a verysimple solution, which is tell
people who you are right.
So that just bothers me on somany different levels that even
(11:44):
that anyone points out and doesnot push back on for very
practical reasons, while I maynot agree with Deloitte's
approach to Sunset, I don't know, right All the factors that
make up their business.
I don't know what portion offederal contracts represent
(12:06):
their revenue, what targets theyneed to meet in order to
maintain profitability.
We don't know if this is atemporary situation or a longer
term situation.
There's a lot of things wedon't know when we talk about
this gender stuff.
Brittany S. Hale (12:21):
You can draw a line, okay, on email signatures
right right, because that isnot, it should not be in any way
determinative of your abilityto interact with this person.
So if, for example which I havedone really just kind of as a
test to see how people respondI've shortened my name to Brit
(12:49):
Brit Hale and, on its face,unless you go to my website or
LinkedIn, you don't necessarilyknow who's on the other side of
that email, Right yeah now.
(13:10):
We should not have to do that,right, I should.
My the response rate on myemails should not markedly
improve once I shorten fromBrittany to Brit, but it does.
Interesting Very, but I guessagain.
My my question what is the goalwith all this?
(13:34):
And as I understand it, this isgrounded in emotional
reactivity, more than anything.
More than anything, we have toplacate and play to the emotions
(14:03):
of people who are currentlyrunning the government, and the
challenge with that is thatemotions are subjective and they
vary.
Karen McFarlane (14:08):
Yeah subjective and they vary, yeah, but I
think also, too, is it'sstunning how.
It's stunning why people don'trecognize their own power.
Hmm, and I guess you knowpeople do not.
(14:31):
I guess people do need someoneto follow.
That's why we have leaders atcorporations, right, that set
the strategy, and presumably ourgovernment is in the leadership
role for the country, althoughI don't know what's going on
right now.
Right, but the people have avoice.
(14:52):
Now, the mechanisms that wetraditionally thought were in
place we're learning thatthey're not in place, but big
business still has a verypowerful role in how society is
shaped.
And it's stunning to me thatthese big time CEOs, right,
aren't asserting their poweragainst.
(15:18):
Well, I'm going to say this andthen I'm going to probably
answer my own question, which isagainst.
You know what's happening rightnow in the political climate,
but it also could be that theyjust agree with what's happening
in the political climate, butthen those are the CEOs and
leadership, but then there's apowerhouse engine behind these
(15:42):
big organizations.
There's thousands uponemployees, there's hundreds of
thousands, if not millions, ofcustomers behind all of this and
a good portion of them, let'sjust say roughly half right,
don't agree, and they're notasserting their power and using
their voice in a structured wayto move these leadership teams
(16:08):
in a certain direction.
These leadership teams in acertain direction?
Or is it that their positionisn't as powerful as the other
side?
I don't know.
Brittany S. Hale (16:20):
I'm also thinking about the fact that, to
your point, this organizationhas power and they're global.
Other global centers DeloitteUK, for example is not doing
this Right.
Karen McFarlane (16:38):
Which is fascinating.
Brittany S. Hale (16:41):
Incredibly so.
Incredibly so Because, from aleadership perspective, even
from a marketing perspectiveright, the whole point of having
a brand is to extend a sense ofsecurity and consistency to
your client.
Is it not in how you'll show up, which is presumably with
(17:11):
excellence and insight andlaudable decision-making?
Karen McFarlane (17:18):
Yeah, absolutely, Just like.
Well, we talked about this whenwe're talking about McDonald's,
right?
Brittany S. Hale (17:24):
Yes, the Big Mac in.
Karen McFarlane (17:26):
Paris, exactly that's tailored to where you're
at, but you, it's going to be aconsistent experience.
So the fact that you're goingto have inconsistency across
Deloitte is a really powerfulstatement, or weird statement,
in a way.
What does that mean?
(17:48):
What does that look like?
I mean, especially withsomething that's so, that's
supposed to be so universal,which isn't just inclusion right
, I mean whether you want to usethe words diversity, equity,
inclusion, but this whole senseof belonging is supposed to be
universal throughout theorganization.
But there's differentdefinitions of it, uk versus US.
(18:08):
That's just so odd to me.
Yeah, but it'll be interestingto see how that plays out, to
hear, hopefully, about customerexperiences across the pond,
correct?
Brittany S. Hale (18:23):
Correct and whether there are going to be
lateral shifts.
Right, if you are someone whodoesn't fit a norm in the States
, are you going to search forother roles?
Right?
If you're a non-binary personfor whom pronouns are absolutely
essential to provide contextupon engaging with them?
(18:46):
Yeah, I think it will rise tothe point where it's so
uncomfortable that you say youknow, I'd probably rather be
somewhere else.
Karen McFarlane (18:57):
There's definitely a domino effect.
That's going to happen, right?
So I'm going to presume they'vethought about these things,
right?
I don't know, I'm going topresume it, but this is a very
short period of time that thesethings have been put into place,
unless they were talking aboutit way before the election.
But that domino effect ofcustomers retreating of
(19:21):
employees, quiet quitting untilthey're able to retreat or leave
the productivity, that will beaffected because people are
disenfranchised, right, and thatextends into the customer base.
Because if I'm not feelingpositive about this organization
as an employee, then how am Iinteracting with customers and
(19:46):
exuding some exuberance for thecompany if I'm feeling
disenfranchised in theenvironment?
And I know sometimes thosethings are hard to quantify, but
every company pretty much knowswhat it takes in terms of
(20:06):
dollars and cents inproductivity time to onboard
somebody right, to hire onboardand then lose somebody and all
of the intelligence, right, theinstitutional intelligence that
you're losing as well.
(20:28):
And so there to be calculatedin the culture that you are
creating for your organizationand the type of talent that
you're going to attract andretain and expect innovation
(20:49):
from going forward.
There'll definitely be somepeople that sit there and just
collect a check.
Right and that doesn't doanything for your organization,
right.
Brittany S. Hale (20:59):
Right, because the people who clock out at
four, 59, 59, you know, or we'llsay okay, I've met my billable
hours, I will do no more, noless.
Right, and I don't thinkorganizations accurately
(21:20):
understand just how damagingthat is To have someone, or even
someone who was engaged, let'ssay someone who was very active
within these communities, toreceive this email, to feel
demoralized and to say, well,I'm now going to shut down.
Karen McFarlane (21:42):
Yeah.
Brittany S. Hale (21:43):
It's a perceptive.
You know it's a huge shift.
Karen McFarlane (21:48):
Yeah, and I'm sure many people have already
shut down.
Whether they pipe back up is adifferent story, but in the
aftermath of getting this email,they're not talking about how
to be better within theorganization.
They're talking about their ownlivelihood and whether they
should stay Sure, lots of peopleare asking themselves that
(22:12):
question and in evaluating thatguess what they're doing,
they're looking at what's outthere fascinating and somewhat
(22:36):
terrifying, which was maybe.
Brittany S. Hale (22:37):
A chief data officer was talking about the
recruitment process and said weadvertise the role as remote, we
take the candidate through theinterview process and then, once
we send the offer letter, welet them know that it's required
that they be in person.
This isn't deception, thisisn't lying, this is strategic.
(23:03):
And their whole point was well,very few people actually
decline upon hearing that, sowe're going to keep with it and
this bait and switch again thatyou're, you're seeing.
So I said, okay, what I wouldlearn, what I would take from
(23:23):
that and this, coming from asenior person within the
organization, is that lying isokay, deceit is okay, as long as
I can get you emotionallyinvested in whatever it is that
(23:44):
I initially promised you.
That's just so wrong.
Karen McFarlane (23:52):
I don't even understand how that works,
because let's just say, the jobis based in Utah.
Yep, picking Utah, becausethat's the last thing I read
somewhere right.
And you have candidates from NewYork, new Jersey, florida,
wherever right.
And, by the way, a lot of theadvice is not to put where
(24:15):
you're from on your resumes now,because that's really just used
to figure out how much to payyou.
So I don't understand howefficient that is.
I don't get it, unlesssomewhere in the process, they
have vetted where you're fromsomehow, some way.
I don't know.
(24:35):
Maybe they're using AI tofigure that out.
I have no idea, but that seemsso disingenuous and you're
wasting people's time and peopleneed to also value their time.
They're basically relying, likeyou said, emotionally invested,
but also relying on in manycases I can't think of a better
(24:58):
word but people's.
You know they're desperateMaybe not desperate for a job I
can't think of a better word butyou know they need or want a
job, right, and you're playingon that need to manipulate them.
Brittany S. Hale (25:15):
Correct, and so I think that's where we are,
and my question to listeners isis this leadership?
I would say absolutely not.
This is not the tone that youwant to set before someone walks
through the door or opens thatfirst Zoom or Teams room on
their first day first Zoom orTeams room on their first day.
Karen McFarlane (25:40):
I'm so disturbed by that.
But, you know, for some peoplethat's fine, right, it's totally
fine.
I recall so many years ago butI left my job at HBO, which was,
like you know, traditional inmany ways, and I went to this
startup and it was like a bigloft or warehouse type feel with
(26:00):
rows, like, if you think aboutschool, right, just rows of
desks and we all had our desk inone of the rows, our spot.
I don't even know how I'veremembered what was my spot
because everything was uniformand it was just an odd, sterile
(26:22):
culture, right, that didn't fitme.
But there were a bunch of otherpeople for which it was fine,
right, for whatever theirpersonal reasons were.
For me I left after three months.
I couldn't be in thisparticular environment.
So I guess if you, whateveryour culture is, you're going to
(26:45):
find people that are cool withwhatever that structure is, and
there's going to be people thatare not that's why it's so
important to understand that arenot.
That's why it's so important tounderstand, and the definition
of leadership changes, I guess,based on that.
But lying is not a tenant ofleadership.
Brittany S. Hale (27:11):
No, because you don't want to be lied to,
right?
So, for example, if this personcomes in, they say, okay, great
, you know I'll come in.
You don't want them to thentake on another remote role.
There's a give and take andthere's a way to set the example
(27:39):
.
You don't want them to lieabout the deliverables, you
don't want them to lie about thevalue that they're bringing to
your organization and yet you'relying about what you have to
offer them.
And so I think we have to bevery careful that we're not,
especially given the tone thatthe newest administration is
setting, we have to be carefulthat we're not just regressing
(28:05):
back to it's almost, you know,the early 1900s, which is, you
know I have money and you know Ican do whatever to you and I
can just nakedly exploit youwithout any regard for you as a
human and it's like a reallygood point.
Karen McFarlane (28:25):
I mean, like, where are we going as a country?
Because, um, this, like yousaid, this administration has a
different as they, as they hadsaid in the last cycle a
different relationship with thetruth, right, and is what's
(28:47):
happening today a byproduct ofthat right?
Have we been affected of thatright?
Have we been affected thosefour years?
Have we been affected by that?
And we think it's okay because,I mean, we really want to go
down a rabbit hole.
I know we don't, but there areshades of lying in all
(29:10):
organizations, right, and mostof the quote unquote lying is
through omission, right, wetailor the communications that
we want to deliver to preventrisk or prevent whatever various
situations, and so is what thisperson doing just another layer
(29:34):
of that, because he's alsobeing very transparent by
posting it on LinkedIn, right,like, oh, this is fine, whereas
people might've been doing itbefore.
Brittany S. Hale (29:44):
And being instructive, right, like, here's
what you can do and we've hadrelative success.
And again, I don't want to putthe organization out there, but
it's not a huge organization.
To put the organization outthere, but it's not a huge
organization.
I understand why this personcould do a bait and switch,
because most of the peopleapplying are in the same city
(30:07):
that this company is based.
However, what's the angle andhow far do we take?
Karen McFarlane (30:22):
that.
That's the best question there.
Brittany S. Hale (30:28):
We said we offer parental leave.
Karen McFarlane (30:31):
Actually, we've decided we're not going to.
Well, the truth is, as long asit's not against the law, right,
they can change their policiesat any time.
Right, we're at will employeesin that in that regard, right?
So, um you, in order for you togo somewhere, you have to take
those, those leaders, thatcompany and those leaders at
(30:55):
their word.
And if their word means nothing, then the trust is not built up
and you're never comfortable inthat environment.
Brittany S. Hale (31:05):
Right.
Karen McFarlane (31:05):
So I guess the question for leaders is what
kind of environment do you wantto create?
What levels of trust do youwant to build?
How comfortable do you wantyour employees to be, and how
does that relate to your own?
How do those factors relate toyour own productivity and growth
?
You know we, always we talkabout.
(31:26):
You know we want people to notbe scared to fail to be
innovative.
You know creative.
How do you create thoseenvironments when trust is not
at the heart of it?
Brittany S. Hale (31:40):
How do you create those environments when
trust is not at the heart of it?
It's a great way to wrap.
I don't think there's anythingelse to say.
That was pretty perfect.
Karen McFarlane (31:51):
Well, I think, matt, we'll learn some lessons
from Deloitte and their choices.
You know, actually I think it'sa this is a really in a sense,
from just a observer point ofview to see the differences in
how the UK and the US navigatethese changes, and, you know,
(32:14):
it's a pretty cool control groupto watch.
So let's pay attention and seeif we learn some more in the
next few months.
Brittany S. Hale (32:26):
Mina and I will certainly be keeping our
eyes peeled, for sure.
Karen McFarlane (32:31):
Awesome.
Good luck Deloitte.
Brittany S. Hale (32:36):
Mina's watching.
Karen McFarlane (32:39):
Mina's watching , listen, she, just she suffers,
no fools all right, we'll beback next week to report on some
more drama and leadership andprovide leadership advice.
See you next time, brittany.
Hi Brittany, how are you?
I'm good.
I'm ready for another week onthe E-Word.
Brittany S. Hale (00:09):
No, it's the best part of the week.
Karen McFarlane (00:11):
I know, and we have a producer around as well.
Brittany S. Hale (00:17):
We do we do?
This is Mina.
She's dressed up, she's decidedto be quite.
Yes, she is the bell of theball.
Karen McFarlane (00:31):
Well, still lots going on this week.
Right, it's hard to know whereto start, but let's start off
with more DEI drama.
Brittany S. Hale (00:47):
Yes, yes.
So shout out.
There is a website, deiwatch,that I recently discovered,
where we can see the latestupdates, but it seems like every
time I speak to you, or everytime I text you, I'm just
texting you Another one, another, one, another one.
(01:07):
So I thought it'd be reallycool to add to the list.
But I will start off with goodnews.
Yes, okay, mckinsey which is avery well-renowned consulting
firm.
they confirmed that they aredoubling down on their DEI
(01:30):
efforts.
However, that came a few daysafter Deloitte announced that.
Initially, in an internal emailsent on February 10th, their
chief people officer said thatchanges were being made after a
(01:50):
detailed review of pertinentgovernment directives, to ensure
they comply with theirrequirements as a government
contractor, but also as aprivate enterprise, and so they
said that they started off bysaying everyone is welcome at
Deloitte and they're sunsettingtheir workforce and business
(02:14):
aspirational diversity goals.
They're sunsetting theirdiversity, equity and inclusion
transparency report and theirDEI programming.
Karen McFarlane (02:34):
But everybody's welcome.
Brittany S. Hale (02:36):
But everyone's welcome.
And so, yeah, just a bit ofbackground.
The president's son, donaldTrump Jr.
(02:59):
He's written about Deloittepreviously.
Maybe it's time for the GOP toend Deloitte's.
I'm reading this from BlackEnterprise, but also quoting the
Financial Times, that the firmannounced several DEI goals that
were projected to be reached in2025, including a spend of $200
million with Black-ledbusinesses.
And now again, as they said inthe email, everyone's welcome at
(03:49):
Deloitte, but consultants thatwork for the government through
Deloitte were asked to removepronouns that highlight their
genders from email signatures,particularly ones that are sent
to external entities, to quotealign with emerging government
client practices andrequirements.
I just said a whole bunch, butI'm curious to know what you
think.
Karen McFarlane (03:59):
Well, first of all, shout out to McKinsey for
doubling down so right there.
You know it's, you know,obviously it's disappointing,
but I just don't understand thismove.
From a business perspective,irrespective of politics we can
(04:28):
layer in the politics after, butjust from a business
perspective, if you remove yourtargets for any line of business
right, For any initiative, howdo you know where you're at and
where you need to go and howyou're doing?
And that's the part thatactually boggles my mind.
(04:53):
When you remove DEI goals, youhave a lack of accountability,
(05:16):
and you have a lack ofaccountability and you can't
measure your progress.
You are experiencing some sortof bump in those metrics.
That's the business case.
To continue Now, we've talkedabout this before that some
(05:36):
businesses have been, or still,on a journey of proper
measurement.
Right, Sure, but Deloittebasically said they're removing
or sunsetting their what theycalled aspirational goals.
So they had goals that theywere measuring against right and
they're eliminating them, Yetwith the contradictory statement
(06:00):
that everybody is welcome.
Well, how do you know ifeveryone feels welcome?
Brittany S. Hale (06:08):
Yeah, because you're getting rid of your
transparency report, right, yep?
And oddly enough, they're stillgoing to carry out Heritage
Month events, they're stillgoing to have internal ethnic
networks and what they callinclusion councils, and they say
(06:30):
that hiring practices will beimproved in order to make them
fair and non-discriminatory.
I don't know what thoseimprovements are that's not been
publicly shared.
Don't know what thoseimprovements are that's not been
publicly shared, but with theeradication of the EEOC and
(06:53):
rollbacks of legislation likethe Civil Rights Act of 1964,
both of whom's purported goal isto ensure hiring practices are
fair and non-discriminatory.
What is that supposed to looklike?
What are we supposed to takefrom this?
Karen McFarlane (07:14):
I think it goes back to why some of these
things were created in the firstplace, because organizations
were not doing this work ontheir own right and there was an
accountability factor.
There were laws saying, hey,you can't discriminate, right.
And when all of thoseguardrails are removed or
(07:38):
relaxed or whatever comes aboutthem, then we're just relying on
individual businesses to do theright thing.
Are there organizations andpeople within those
organizations that will do theright thing?
Absolutely.
But again, if it's not beingmeasured or tracked, then how do
(08:11):
you make assurances around that?
And with zero transparency,there's no need to do it.
You can go back to doing theeasy thing.
A lot of the things that DEIrepresented weren't that easy to
implement, right, or to figureout how to measure or list all
the different factors.
But anything worth doing is notalways easy right.
(08:31):
This required some systemicchange and I think Deloitte, of
all people, in terms of the workthat they do, understands that.
So that's why I kind of go backto the business thinking and
(08:53):
strategy around removing goals,targets and all of that so is.
Is it because of the politicalpressure?
Brittany S. Hale (09:06):
Yes, I would say absolutely, and I wonder
what it looks like.
Of course you know they havegovernment contracts and so from
their perspective, theirleadership, saying okay, we have
to play ball, this is what thegovernment wants to see, we're
happy to oblige.
(09:26):
But I'm also thinking abouttheir private clients and what
happens if their private clientsare continuing these DEI goals
and the message that it sends tothose clients and also to their
internal teams Trust, I'm sure,has been fractured with this
(09:55):
communication that's been sharedwith news outlets.
To start off and say everyone'swelcome and, by the way, take
out pronouns.
Karen McFarlane (10:10):
You know I'm so frustrated by that right there,
Like why do you want to controlwhat people call themselves in
their email signatures, letalone in their lives, right, but
why do you as a company careabout that?
That, in some places, is just ameans like that.
(10:34):
The email signature is a way ofexpression and telling people
who you are right.
There also is a very practicalbenefit, separate from,
specifically, the LGBTQcommunity, which is a lot of
(10:55):
names are gender neutral, yes,and so having the pronouns helps
people communicate better.
Going forward, yep.
So again, a lot of these DEIpolicies, even if they seem to
(11:17):
be directed at a particulargroup, have benefits for other
groups as well.
They're rarely just singularlyfocused.
For other groups as well,they're rarely just singularly
focused, and so you've now madecommunication harder for no
reason, when we found a verysimple solution, which is tell
people who you are right.
So that just bothers me on somany different levels that even
(11:44):
that anyone points out and doesnot push back on for very
practical reasons, while I maynot agree with Deloitte's
approach to Sunset, I don't know, right All the factors that
make up their business.
I don't know what portion offederal contracts represent
(12:06):
their revenue, what targets theyneed to meet in order to
maintain profitability.
We don't know if this is atemporary situation or a longer
term situation.
There's a lot of things wedon't know when we talk about
this gender stuff.
Brittany S. Hale (12:21):
You can draw a line, okay, on email signatures
right right, because that isnot, it should not be in any way
determinative of your abilityto interact with this person.
So if, for example which I havedone really just kind of as a
test to see how people respondI've shortened my name to Brit
(12:49):
Brit Hale and, on its face,unless you go to my website or
LinkedIn, you don't necessarilyknow who's on the other side of
that email, Right yeah now.
(13:10):
We should not have to do that,right, I should.
My the response rate on myemails should not markedly
improve once I shorten fromBrittany to Brit, but it does.
Interesting Very, but I guessagain.
My my question what is the goalwith all this?
(13:34):
And as I understand it, this isgrounded in emotional
reactivity, more than anything.
More than anything, we have toplacate and play to the emotions
(14:03):
of people who are currentlyrunning the government, and the
challenge with that is thatemotions are subjective and they
vary.
Karen McFarlane (14:08):
Yeah subjective and they vary, yeah, but I
think also, too, is it'sstunning how.
It's stunning why people don'trecognize their own power.
Hmm, and I guess you knowpeople do not.
(14:31):
I guess people do need someoneto follow.
That's why we have leaders atcorporations, right, that set
the strategy, and presumably ourgovernment is in the leadership
role for the country, althoughI don't know what's going on
right now.
Right, but the people have avoice.
(14:52):
Now, the mechanisms that wetraditionally thought were in
place we're learning thatthey're not in place, but big
business still has a verypowerful role in how society is
shaped.
And it's stunning to me thatthese big time CEOs, right,
aren't asserting their poweragainst.
(15:18):
Well, I'm going to say this andthen I'm going to probably
answer my own question, which isagainst.
You know what's happening rightnow in the political climate,
but it also could be that theyjust agree with what's happening
in the political climate, butthen those are the CEOs and
leadership, but then there's apowerhouse engine behind these
(15:42):
big organizations.
There's thousands uponemployees, there's hundreds of
thousands, if not millions, ofcustomers behind all of this and
a good portion of them, let'sjust say roughly half right,
don't agree, and they're notasserting their power and using
their voice in a structured wayto move these leadership teams
(16:08):
in a certain direction.
These leadership teams in acertain direction?
Or is it that their positionisn't as powerful as the other
side?
I don't know.
Brittany S. Hale (16:20):
I'm also thinking about the fact that, to
your point, this organizationhas power and they're global.
Other global centers DeloitteUK, for example is not doing
this Right.
Karen McFarlane (16:38):
Which is fascinating.
Brittany S. Hale (16:41):
Incredibly so.
Incredibly so Because, from aleadership perspective, even
from a marketing perspectiveright, the whole point of having
a brand is to extend a sense ofsecurity and consistency to
your client.
Is it not in how you'll show up, which is presumably with
(17:11):
excellence and insight andlaudable decision-making?
Karen McFarlane (17:18):
Yeah, absolutely, Just like.
Well, we talked about this whenwe're talking about McDonald's,
right?
Brittany S. Hale (17:24):
Yes, the Big Mac in.
Karen McFarlane (17:26):
Paris, exactly that's tailored to where you're
at, but you, it's going to be aconsistent experience.
So the fact that you're goingto have inconsistency across
Deloitte is a really powerfulstatement, or weird statement,
in a way.
What does that mean?
(17:48):
What does that look like?
I mean, especially withsomething that's so, that's
supposed to be so universal,which isn't just inclusion right
, I mean whether you want to usethe words diversity, equity,
inclusion, but this whole senseof belonging is supposed to be
universal throughout theorganization.
But there's differentdefinitions of it, uk versus US.
(18:08):
That's just so odd to me.
Yeah, but it'll be interestingto see how that plays out, to
hear, hopefully, about customerexperiences across the pond,
correct?
Brittany S. Hale (18:23):
Correct and whether there are going to be
lateral shifts.
Right, if you are someone whodoesn't fit a norm in the States
, are you going to search forother roles?
Right?
If you're a non-binary personfor whom pronouns are absolutely
essential to provide contextupon engaging with them?
(18:46):
Yeah, I think it will rise tothe point where it's so
uncomfortable that you say youknow, I'd probably rather be
somewhere else.
Karen McFarlane (18:57):
There's definitely a domino effect.
That's going to happen, right?
So I'm going to presume they'vethought about these things,
right?
I don't know, I'm going topresume it, but this is a very
short period of time that thesethings have been put into place,
unless they were talking aboutit way before the election.
But that domino effect ofcustomers retreating of
(19:21):
employees, quiet quitting untilthey're able to retreat or leave
the productivity, that will beaffected because people are
disenfranchised, right, and thatextends into the customer base.
Because if I'm not feelingpositive about this organization
as an employee, then how am Iinteracting with customers and
(19:46):
exuding some exuberance for thecompany if I'm feeling
disenfranchised in theenvironment?
And I know sometimes thosethings are hard to quantify, but
every company pretty much knowswhat it takes in terms of
(20:06):
dollars and cents inproductivity time to onboard
somebody right, to hire onboardand then lose somebody and all
of the intelligence, right, theinstitutional intelligence that
you're losing as well.
(20:28):
And so there to be calculatedin the culture that you are
creating for your organizationand the type of talent that
you're going to attract andretain and expect innovation
(20:49):
from going forward.
There'll definitely be somepeople that sit there and just
collect a check.
Right and that doesn't doanything for your organization,
right.
Brittany S. Hale (20:59):
Right, because the people who clock out at
four, 59, 59, you know, or we'llsay okay, I've met my billable
hours, I will do no more, noless.
Right, and I don't thinkorganizations accurately
(21:20):
understand just how damagingthat is To have someone, or even
someone who was engaged, let'ssay someone who was very active
within these communities, toreceive this email, to feel
demoralized and to say, well,I'm now going to shut down.
Karen McFarlane (21:42):
Yeah.
Brittany S. Hale (21:43):
It's a perceptive.
You know it's a huge shift.
Karen McFarlane (21:48):
Yeah, and I'm sure many people have already
shut down.
Whether they pipe back up is adifferent story, but in the
aftermath of getting this email,they're not talking about how
to be better within theorganization.
They're talking about their ownlivelihood and whether they
should stay Sure, lots of peopleare asking themselves that
(22:12):
question and in evaluating thatguess what they're doing,
they're looking at what's outthere fascinating and somewhat
(22:36):
terrifying, which was maybe.
Brittany S. Hale (22:37):
A chief data officer was talking about the
recruitment process and said weadvertise the role as remote, we
take the candidate through theinterview process and then, once
we send the offer letter, welet them know that it's required
that they be in person.
This isn't deception, thisisn't lying, this is strategic.
(23:03):
And their whole point was well,very few people actually
decline upon hearing that, sowe're going to keep with it and
this bait and switch again thatyou're, you're seeing.
So I said, okay, what I wouldlearn, what I would take from
(23:23):
that and this, coming from asenior person within the
organization, is that lying isokay, deceit is okay, as long as
I can get you emotionallyinvested in whatever it is that
(23:44):
I initially promised you.
That's just so wrong.
Karen McFarlane (23:52):
I don't even understand how that works,
because let's just say, the jobis based in Utah.
Yep, picking Utah, becausethat's the last thing I read
somewhere right.
And you have candidates from NewYork, new Jersey, florida,
wherever right.
And, by the way, a lot of theadvice is not to put where
(24:15):
you're from on your resumes now,because that's really just used
to figure out how much to payyou.
So I don't understand howefficient that is.
I don't get it, unlesssomewhere in the process, they
have vetted where you're fromsomehow, some way.
I don't know.
(24:35):
Maybe they're using AI tofigure that out.
I have no idea, but that seemsso disingenuous and you're
wasting people's time and peopleneed to also value their time.
They're basically relying, likeyou said, emotionally invested,
but also relying on in manycases I can't think of a better
(24:58):
word but people's.
You know they're desperateMaybe not desperate for a job I
can't think of a better word butyou know they need or want a
job, right, and you're playingon that need to manipulate them.
Brittany S. Hale (25:15):
Correct, and so I think that's where we are,
and my question to listeners isis this leadership?
I would say absolutely not.
This is not the tone that youwant to set before someone walks
through the door or opens thatfirst Zoom or Teams room on
their first day first Zoom orTeams room on their first day.
Karen McFarlane (25:40):
I'm so disturbed by that.
But, you know, for some peoplethat's fine, right, it's totally
fine.
I recall so many years ago butI left my job at HBO, which was,
like you know, traditional inmany ways, and I went to this
startup and it was like a bigloft or warehouse type feel with
(26:00):
rows, like, if you think aboutschool, right, just rows of
desks and we all had our desk inone of the rows, our spot.
I don't even know how I'veremembered what was my spot
because everything was uniformand it was just an odd, sterile
(26:22):
culture, right, that didn't fitme.
But there were a bunch of otherpeople for which it was fine,
right, for whatever theirpersonal reasons were.
For me I left after three months.
I couldn't be in thisparticular environment.
So I guess if you, whateveryour culture is, you're going to
(26:45):
find people that are cool withwhatever that structure is, and
there's going to be people thatare not that's why it's so
important to understand that arenot.
That's why it's so important tounderstand, and the definition
of leadership changes, I guess,based on that.
But lying is not a tenant ofleadership.
Brittany S. Hale (27:11):
No, because you don't want to be lied to,
right?
So, for example, if this personcomes in, they say, okay, great
, you know I'll come in.
You don't want them to thentake on another remote role.
There's a give and take andthere's a way to set the example
(27:39):
.
You don't want them to lieabout the deliverables, you
don't want them to lie about thevalue that they're bringing to
your organization and yet you'relying about what you have to
offer them.
And so I think we have to bevery careful that we're not,
especially given the tone thatthe newest administration is
setting, we have to be carefulthat we're not just regressing
(28:05):
back to it's almost, you know,the early 1900s, which is, you
know I have money and you know Ican do whatever to you and I
can just nakedly exploit youwithout any regard for you as a
human and it's like a reallygood point.
Karen McFarlane (28:25):
I mean, like, where are we going as a country?
Because, um, this, like yousaid, this administration has a
different as they, as they hadsaid in the last cycle a
different relationship with thetruth, right, and is what's
(28:47):
happening today a byproduct ofthat right?
Have we been affected of thatright?
Have we been affected thosefour years?
Have we been affected by that?
And we think it's okay because,I mean, we really want to go
down a rabbit hole.
I know we don't, but there areshades of lying in all
(29:10):
organizations, right, and mostof the quote unquote lying is
through omission, right, wetailor the communications that
we want to deliver to preventrisk or prevent whatever various
situations, and so is what thisperson doing just another layer
(29:34):
of that, because he's alsobeing very transparent by
posting it on LinkedIn, right,like, oh, this is fine, whereas
people might've been doing itbefore.
Brittany S. Hale (29:44):
And being instructive, right, like, here's
what you can do and we've hadrelative success.
And again, I don't want to putthe organization out there, but
it's not a huge organization.
To put the organization outthere, but it's not a huge
organization.
I understand why this personcould do a bait and switch,
because most of the peopleapplying are in the same city
(30:07):
that this company is based.
However, what's the angle andhow far do we take?
Karen McFarlane (30:22):
that.
That's the best question there.
Brittany S. Hale (30:28):
We said we offer parental leave.
Karen McFarlane (30:31):
Actually, we've decided we're not going to.
Well, the truth is, as long asit's not against the law, right,
they can change their policiesat any time.
Right, we're at will employeesin that in that regard, right?
So, um you, in order for you togo somewhere, you have to take
those, those leaders, thatcompany and those leaders at
(30:55):
their word.
And if their word means nothing, then the trust is not built up
and you're never comfortable inthat environment.
Brittany S. Hale (31:05):
Right.
Karen McFarlane (31:05):
So I guess the question for leaders is what
kind of environment do you wantto create?
What levels of trust do youwant to build?
How comfortable do you wantyour employees to be, and how
does that relate to your own?
How do those factors relate toyour own productivity and growth
?
You know we, always we talkabout.
(31:26):
You know we want people to notbe scared to fail to be
innovative.
You know creative.
How do you create thoseenvironments when trust is not
at the heart of it?
Brittany S. Hale (31:40):
How do you create those environments when
trust is not at the heart of it?
It's a great way to wrap.
I don't think there's anythingelse to say.
That was pretty perfect.
Karen McFarlane (31:51):
Well, I think, matt, we'll learn some lessons
from Deloitte and their choices.
You know, actually I think it'sa this is a really in a sense,
from just a observer point ofview to see the differences in
how the UK and the US navigatethese changes, and, you know,
(32:14):
it's a pretty cool control groupto watch.
So let's pay attention and seeif we learn some more in the
next few months.
Brittany S. Hale (32:26):
Mina and I will certainly be keeping our
eyes peeled, for sure.
Karen McFarlane (32:31):
Awesome.
Good luck Deloitte.
Brittany S. Hale (32:36):
Mina's watching.
Karen McFarlane (32:39):
Mina's watching , listen, she, just she suffers,
no fools all right, we'll beback next week to report on some
more drama and leadership andprovide leadership advice.
See you next time, brittany.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!