Karen McFarlane: 0:32

Hi Brittany, how are you? I'm good. I'm ready for another week on the E-Word.

Brittany S. Hale: 0:40

No, it's the best part of the week.

Karen McFarlane: 0:42

I know, and we have a producer around as well.

Brittany S. Hale: 0:48

We do we do? This is Mina. She's dressed up, she's decided to be quite. Yes, she is the bell of the ball.

Karen McFarlane: 1:02

Well, still lots going on this week. Right, it's hard to know where to start, but let's start off with more DEI drama.

Brittany S. Hale: 1:18

Yes, yes. So shout out. There is a website, deiwatch, that I recently discovered, where we can see the latest updates, but it seems like every time I speak to you, or every time I text you, I'm just texting you Another one, another, one, another one. So I thought it'd be really cool to add to the list. But I will start off with good news. Yes, okay, mckinsey which is a very well-renowned consulting firm.

Brittany S. Hale: 1:57

they confirmed that they are doubling down on their DEI efforts. However, that came a few days after Deloitte announced that. Initially, in an internal email sent on February 10th, their chief people officer said that changes were being made after a detailed review of pertinent government directives, to ensure they comply with their requirements as a government contractor, but also as a private enterprise, and so they said that they started off by saying everyone is welcome at Deloitte and they're sunsetting their workforce and business aspirational diversity goals. They're sunsetting their diversity, equity and inclusion transparency report and their DEI programming.

Karen McFarlane: 3:05

But everybody's welcome.

Brittany S. Hale: 3:07

But everyone's welcome. And so, yeah, just a bit of background. The president's son, donald Trump Jr. He's written about Deloitte previously. Maybe it's time for the GOP to end Deloitte's. I'm reading this from Black Enterprise, but also quoting the Financial Times, that the firm announced several DEI goals that were projected to be reached in 2025, including a spend of $200 million with Black-led businesses. And now again, as they said in the email, everyone's welcome at Deloitte, but consultants that work for the government through Deloitte were asked to remove pronouns that highlight their genders from email signatures, particularly ones that are sent to external entities, to quote align with emerging government client practices and requirements. I just said a whole bunch, but I'm curious to know what you think.

Karen McFarlane: 4:30

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 this move. From a business perspective, irrespective of politics we can layer in the politics after, but just from a business perspective, if you remove your targets for any line of business right, For any initiative, how do you know where you're at and where you need to go and how you're doing? And that's the part that actually boggles my mind. When you remove DEI goals, you have a lack of accountability, and you have a lack of accountability and you can't measure your progress. You are experiencing some sort of bump in those metrics. That's the business case. To continue Now, we've talked about this before that some businesses have been, or still, on a journey of proper measurement. Right, Sure, but Deloitte basically said they're removing or sunsetting their what they called aspirational goals. So they had goals that they were measuring against right and they're eliminating them, Yet with the contradictory statement that everybody is welcome. Well, how do you know if everyone feels welcome?

Brittany S. Hale: 6:39

Yeah, because you're getting rid of your transparency report, right, yep? And oddly enough, they're still going to carry out Heritage Month events, they're still going to have internal ethnic networks and what they call inclusion councils, and they say that hiring practices will be improved in order to make them fair and non-discriminatory. I don't know what those improvements are that's not been publicly shared.

Brittany S. Hale: 7:15

Don't know what those improvements are that's not been publicly shared, but with the eradication of the EEOC and rollbacks of legislation like the Civil Rights Act of 1964, both of whom's purported goal is to ensure hiring practices are fair and non-discriminatory. What is that supposed to look like? What are we supposed to take from this?

Karen McFarlane: 7:45

I think it goes back to why some of these things were created in the first place, because organizations were not doing this work on their own right and there was an accountability factor. There were laws saying, hey, you can't discriminate, right. And when all of those guardrails are removed or relaxed or whatever comes about them, then we're just relying on individual businesses to do the right thing. Are there organizations and people within those organizations that will do the right thing? Absolutely. But again, if it's not being measured or tracked, then how do you make assurances around that? And with zero transparency, there's no need to do it. You can go back to doing the easy thing.

Karen McFarlane: 8:46

A lot of the things that DEI represented weren't that easy to implement, right, or to figure out how to measure or list all the different factors. But anything worth doing is not always easy right. This required some systemic change and I think Deloitte, of all people, in terms of the work that they do, understands that. So that's why I kind of go back to the business thinking and strategy around removing goals, targets and all of that so is. Is it because of the political pressure?

Brittany S. Hale: 9:37

Yes, I would say absolutely, and I wonder what it looks like. Of course you know they have government contracts and so from their perspective, their leadership, saying okay, we have to play ball, this is what the government wants to see, we're happy to oblige. But I'm also thinking about their private clients and what happens if their private clients are continuing these DEI goals and the message that it sends to those clients and also to their internal teams Trust, I'm sure, has been fractured with this communication that's been shared with news outlets. To start off and say everyone's welcome and, by the way, take out pronouns.

Karen McFarlane: 10:41

You know I'm so frustrated by that right there, Like why do you want to control what people call themselves in their email signatures, let alone in their lives, right, but why do you as a company care about that? That, in some places, is just a means like that. The email signature is a way of expression and telling people who you are right. There also is a very practical benefit, separate from, specifically, the LGBTQ community, which is a lot of names are gender neutral, yes, and so having the pronouns helps people communicate better. Going forward, yep.

Karen McFarlane: 11:39

So again, a lot of these DEI policies, even if they seem to be directed at a particular group, have benefits for other groups as well. They're rarely just singularly focused. For other groups as well, they're rarely just singularly focused, and so you've now made communication harder for no reason, when we found a very simple solution, which is tell people who you are right. So that just bothers me on so many different levels that even that anyone points out and does not push back on for very practical reasons, while I may not 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 of federal contracts represent their revenue, what targets they need to meet in order to maintain profitability. We don't know if this is a temporary situation or a longer term situation. There's a lot of things we don't know when we talk about this gender stuff.

Brittany S. Hale: 12:52

You can draw a line, okay, on email signatures right right, because that is not, it should not be in any way determinative of your ability to interact with this person. So if, for example which I have done really just kind of as a test to see how people respond I've shortened my name to Brit Brit Hale and, on its face, unless you go to my website or LinkedIn, you don't necessarily know who's on the other side of that email, Right yeah now.

Brittany S. Hale: 13:41

We should not have to do that, right, I should. My the response rate on my emails should not markedly improve once I shorten from Brittany to Brit, but it does. Interesting Very, but I guess again. My my question what is the goal with all this? And as I understand it, this is grounded in emotional reactivity, more than anything. More than anything, we have to placate and play to the emotions of people who are currently running the government, and the challenge with that is that emotions are subjective and they vary.

Karen McFarlane: 14:39

Yeah subjective and they vary, yeah, but I think also, too, is it's stunning how. It's stunning why people don't recognize their own power. Hmm, and I guess you know people do not. I guess people do need someone to follow. That's why we have leaders at corporations, right, that set the strategy, and presumably our government is in the leadership role for the country, although I don't know what's going on right now. Right, but the people have a voice.

Karen McFarlane: 15:23

Now, the mechanisms that we traditionally thought were in place we're learning that they're not in place, but big business still has a very powerful role in how society is shaped. And it's stunning to me that these big time CEOs, right, aren't asserting their power against. Well, I'm going to say this and then I'm going to probably answer my own question, which is against. You know what's happening right now in the political climate, but it also could be that they just agree with what's happening in the political climate, but then those are the CEOs and leadership, but then there's a powerhouse engine behind these big organizations. There's thousands upon employees, there's hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of customers behind all of this and a good portion of them, let's just say roughly half right, don't agree, and they're not asserting their power and using their voice in a structured way to move these leadership teams in a certain direction. These leadership teams in a certain direction? Or is it that their position isn't as powerful as the other side? I don't know.

Brittany S. Hale: 16:51

I'm also thinking about the fact that, to your point, this organization has power and they're global. Other global centers Deloitte UK, for example is not doing this Right.

Karen McFarlane: 17:09

Which is fascinating.

Brittany S. Hale: 17:12

Incredibly so. Incredibly so Because, from a leadership perspective, even from a marketing perspective right, the whole point of having a brand is to extend a sense of security and consistency to your client. Is it not in how you'll show up, which is presumably with excellence and insight and laudable decision-making?

Karen McFarlane: 17:49

Yeah, absolutely, Just like. Well, we talked about this when we're talking about McDonald's, right?

Brittany S. Hale: 17:55

Yes, the Big Mac in.

Karen McFarlane: 17:57

Paris, exactly that's tailored to where you're at, but you, it's going to be a consistent experience. So the fact that you're going to have inconsistency across Deloitte is a really powerful statement, or weird statement, in a way. What does that mean? What does that look like? I mean, especially with something that's so, that's supposed to be so universal, which isn't just inclusion right, I mean whether you want to use the words diversity, equity, inclusion, but this whole sense of belonging is supposed to be universal throughout the organization. But there's different definitions of it, uk versus US. That's just so odd to me. Yeah, but it'll be interesting to see how that plays out, to hear, hopefully, about customer experiences across the pond, correct?

Brittany S. Hale: 18:54

Correct and whether there are going to be lateral shifts. Right, if you are someone who doesn't fit a norm in the States, are you going to search for other roles? Right? If you're a non-binary person for whom pronouns are absolutely essential to provide context upon engaging with them? Yeah, I think it will rise to the point where it's so uncomfortable that you say you know, I'd probably rather be somewhere else.

Karen McFarlane: 19:28

There's definitely a domino effect. That's going to happen, right? So I'm going to presume they've thought about these things, right? I don't know, I'm going to presume it, but this is a very short period of time that these things have been put into place, unless they were talking about it way before the election.

Karen McFarlane: 19:45

But that domino effect of customers retreating of employees, quiet quitting until they're able to retreat or leave the productivity, that will be affected because people are disenfranchised, right, and that extends into the customer base. Because if I'm not feeling positive about this organization as an employee, then how am I interacting with customers and exuding some exuberance for the company if I'm feeling disenfranchised in the environment? And I know sometimes those things are hard to quantify, but every company pretty much knows what it takes in terms of dollars and cents in productivity time to onboard somebody right, to hire onboard and then lose somebody and all of the intelligence, right, the institutional intelligence that you're losing as well. And so there to be calculated in the culture that you are creating for your organization and the type of talent that you're going to attract and retain and expect innovation from going forward. There'll definitely be some people that sit there and just collect a check.

Karen McFarlane: 21:26

Right and that doesn't do anything for your organization, right.

Brittany S. Hale: 21:30

Right, because the people who clock out at four, 59, 59, you know, or we'll say okay, I've met my billable hours, I will do no more, no less. Right, and I don't think organizations accurately understand just how damaging that is To have someone, or even someone who was engaged, let's say someone who was very active within these communities, to receive this email, to feel demoralized and to say, well, I'm now going to shut down.

Karen McFarlane: 22:13

Yeah.

Brittany S. Hale: 22:14

It's a perceptive. You know it's a huge shift.

Karen McFarlane: 22:19

Yeah, and I'm sure many people have already shut down. Whether they pipe back up is a different story, but in the aftermath of getting this email, they're not talking about how to be better within the organization. They're talking about their own livelihood and whether they should stay Sure, lots of people are asking themselves that question and in evaluating that guess what they're doing, they're looking at what's out there fascinating and somewhat terrifying, which was maybe.

Brittany S. Hale: 23:08

A chief data officer was talking about the recruitment process and said we advertise the role as remote, we take the candidate through the interview process and then, once we send the offer letter, we let them know that it's required that they be in person. This isn't deception, this isn't lying, this is strategic. And their whole point was well, very few people actually decline upon hearing that, so we're going to keep with it and this bait and switch again that you're, you're seeing. So I said, okay, what I would learn, what I would take from that and this, coming from a senior person within the organization, is that lying is okay, deceit is okay, as long as I can get you emotionally invested in whatever it is that I initially promised you. That's just so wrong.

Karen McFarlane: 24:23

I don't even understand how that works, because let's just say, the job is based in Utah. Yep, picking Utah, because that's the last thing I read somewhere right.

Karen McFarlane: 24:37

And you have candidates from New York, new Jersey, florida, wherever right. And, by the way, a lot of the advice is not to put where you're from on your resumes now, because that's really just used to figure out how much to pay you. So I don't understand how efficient that is. I don't get it, unless somewhere in the process, they have vetted where you're from somehow, some way. I don't know. Maybe they're using AI to figure that out. I have no idea, but that seems so disingenuous and you're wasting people's time and people need to also value their time. They're basically relying, like you said, emotionally invested, but also relying on in many cases I can't think of a better word but people's. You know they're desperate Maybe not desperate for a job I can't think of a better word but you know they need or want a job, right, and you're playing on that need to manipulate them.

Brittany S. Hale: 25:46

Correct, and so I think that's where we are, and my question to listeners is is this leadership? I would say absolutely not. This is not the tone that you want to set before someone walks through the door or opens that first Zoom or Teams room on their first day first Zoom or Teams room on their first day.

Karen McFarlane: 26:11

I'm so disturbed by that. But, you know, for some people that's fine, right, it's totally fine. I recall so many years ago but I left my job at HBO, which was, like you know, traditional in many ways, and I went to this startup and it was like a big loft or warehouse type feel with rows, like, if you think about school, right, just rows of desks and we all had our desk in one of the rows, our spot. I don't even know how I've remembered what was my spot because everything was uniform and it was just an odd, sterile culture, right, that didn't fit me. But there were a bunch of other people for which it was fine, right, for whatever their personal reasons were.

Karen McFarlane: 27:08

For me I left after three months. I couldn't be in this particular environment. So I guess if you, whatever your culture is, you're going to find people that are cool with whatever that structure is, and there's going to be people that are not that's why it's so important to understand that are not. That's why it's so important to understand, and the definition of leadership changes, I guess, based on that. But lying is not a tenant of leadership.

Brittany S. Hale: 27:42

No, because you don't want to be lied to, right? So, for example, if this person comes in, they say, okay, great, you know I'll come in. You don't want them to then take on another remote role. There's a give and take and there's a way to set the example. You don't want them to lie about the deliverables, you don't want them to lie about the value that they're bringing to your organization and yet you're lying about what you have to offer them. And so I think we have to be very careful that we're not, especially given the tone that the newest administration is setting, we have to be careful that we're not just regressing back to it's almost, you know, the early 1900s, which is, you know I have money and you know I can do whatever to you and I can just nakedly exploit you without any regard for you as a human and it's like a really good point.

Karen McFarlane: 28:56

I mean, like, where are we going as a country? Because, um, this, like you said, this administration has a different as they, as they had said in the last cycle a different relationship with the truth, right, and is what's happening today a byproduct of that right? Have we been affected of that right? Have we been affected those four 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 are shades of lying in all organizations, right, and most of the quote unquote lying is through omission, right, we tailor the communications that we want to deliver to prevent risk or prevent whatever various situations, and so is what this person doing just another layer of that, because he's also being very transparent by posting it on LinkedIn, right, like, oh, this is fine, whereas people might've been doing it before.

Brittany S. Hale: 30:15

And being instructive, right, like, here's what you can do and we've had relative success. And again, I don't want to put the organization out there, but it's not a huge organization. To put the organization out there, but it's not a huge organization. I understand why this person could do a bait and switch, because most of the people applying are in the same city that this company is based. However, what's the angle and how far do we take?

Karen McFarlane: 30:53

that. That's the best question there.

Brittany S. Hale: 30:59

We said we offer parental leave.

Karen McFarlane: 31:02

Actually, we've decided we're not going to. Well, the truth is, as long as it's not against the law, right, they can change their policies at any time. Right, we're at will employees in that in that regard, right? So, um you, in order for you to go somewhere, you have to take those, those leaders, that company and those leaders at their word. And if their word means nothing, then the trust is not built up and you're never comfortable in that environment.

Brittany S. Hale: 31:36

Right.

Karen McFarlane: 31:36

So I guess the question for leaders is what kind of environment do you want to create? What levels of trust do you want to build? How comfortable do you want your employees to be, and how does that relate to your own? How do those factors relate to your own productivity and growth? You know we, always we talk about. You know we want people to not be scared to fail to be innovative. You know creative. How do you create those environments when trust is not at the heart of it?

Brittany S. Hale: 32:11

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 anything else to say. That was pretty perfect.

Karen McFarlane: 32:22

Well, I think, matt, we'll learn some lessons from Deloitte and their choices. You know, actually I think it's a this is a really in a sense, from just a observer point of view to see the differences in how the UK and the US navigate these changes, and, you know, it's a pretty cool control group to watch. So let's pay attention and see if we learn some more in the next few months.

Brittany S. Hale: 32:57

Mina and I will certainly be keeping our eyes peeled, for sure.

Karen McFarlane: 33:02

Awesome. Good luck Deloitte.

Brittany S. Hale: 33:07

Mina's watching.

Karen McFarlane: 33:10

Mina's watching, listen, she, just she suffers, no fools all right, we'll be back next week to report on some more drama and leadership and provide leadership advice. See you next time, brittany.