ChatGPT’s New Ad Format Skips the Website and Goes Straight to the Chat
BY Ade Akin October 05, 2026OpenAI is testing a new advertising format that turns an ad click into a conversation with a brand’s AI agent, rather than sending users to an external website. The format allows advertisers to attach branded business agents directly to ads in ChatGPT. When a user clicks the call-to-action button that reads something like “Chat with us,” they are taken to a branded chat in ChatGPT, where they can interact with the seller’s AI agent, according to Digiday. The move represents OpenAI’s first real attempt at what it calls AI-native advertising: ads designed around how people actually interact with AI assistants, rather than funneling leads from search engines or social media.Wayfair is among the first advertisers testing ChatGPT’s click-to-chat advertisements. Morgan Brown, the company’s director of paid media, told Digiday the retailer is participating in what OpenAI calls its “Sponsored Agent” pilot.The launch of OpenAI’s sponsored agent pilot comes as advertisers are still determining whether ChatGPT’s new advertising model is worth investing in. The consensus among participating advertisers remains that the platform is promising but unproven months after ads first appeared in the chatbot. The development raises a question that From Day One has explored in its coverage of AI in marketing: As brands hand more of the customer conversation to AI agents, what happens to the human touch?For brands considering experimenting with click-to-chat ads, the opportunity is substantial, and the stakes are high. The format promises something current ad models don’t: a conversation that keeps consumers engaged rather than sending them away. Whether that exchange feels authentic or automated will determine if it becomes the next popular ad format or just another experiment that never scales.Ade Akin covers artificial intelligence, workplace wellness, HR trends, and digital health solutions.(Photo by Isasoulart/iStock)
Sydney Sweeney’s “Just Sports” Campaign Starts a Marketing Conversation Beyond Sports
BY Grace Turney September 17, 2026Novig, a sports prediction market, just launched its first national “Just Sports” campaign, starring Sydney Sweeney. The Euphoria star is not only the face of the campaign, but also a strategic partner and equity holder. One ad shows Sweeney posing with sports equipment just barely covering her nude body. Some female athletes have called it a step backward for how women’s sports are marketed.Novig’s marketing tactic isn’t anything new. Brands have long used shock value and celebrity endorsements to grab attention and generate buzz. But the visual language the company chose is doing more than catching the eye of sports fans who happen to like Sydney Sweeney. It’s become part of an ongoing conversation about how women’s sports are depicted in the media.In a press release announcing the campaign, Novig described it as a way to present its “Just Sports” message with “confidence, humor and a playful edge.” As Sweeney’s ad circulated widely online, backlash was swift. The overall consensus is that the ad has little to nothing to do with sports trading, and instead primarily highlights Sweeney’s body. Female athletes are among the loudest critics.Four-time Olympic gold medalist swimmer Ariarne Titmus called out Novig’s marketing for sexualizing women’s sports. “I can’t describe how infuriated I feel when I watch this,” she wrote on Instagram, per The Guardian. She added that the ad undermines every woman who has built her career on skill rather than image, and questioned why monetizing women’s bodies still passes as acceptable marketing.Former college gymnast Gracie Kramer also took to Instagram to criticize the ad. She posted a highlight reel of her own athletic career, captioning it with a line aimed squarely at the Novig campaign: “idk what Sydney Sweeney was doing, but this is what a woman in sports looks like.”This is not Sweeney’s first time facing controversy for a marketing campaign. Selling soap made from her bath water in a partnership with Dr. Squatch garnered criticism for what some deemed vulgar exploitation. Her series of short video ads for American Eagle similarly used her sexuality as a marketing ploy. In one clip, Sweeney said, “My body’s composition is determined by my genes.” The camera then panned down to her chest, and she said, “Hey, eyes up here.” For marketers, the Novig campaign offers a case study in a tactic that’s becoming increasingly common: using controversy as a way to drive engagement. Novig set out to build a reputation as a platform for serious sports fans, but the campaign has generated conversation well beyond the world of sports trading. Sweeney’s controversial American Eagle campaign and Novig’s latest campaign suggest a broader pattern in celebrity marketing: sex appeal can be an effective way to capture attention, while also creating reputational risk when the underlying message is perceived as regressive.The bigger risk for brands isn’t the backlash itself, but what the backlash reveals about audience trust. A campaign can rack up engagement and still erode the thing marketers actually need long-term: the sense that a brand understands and respects the people it’s trying to reach. As more companies lean on star power to break through a crowded feed, the Sweeney campaigns are becoming a reference point for what happens when a “bold” creative choice reads as out of touch instead.Grace Turney is a St. Louis-based writer, artist, and former librarian. See more of her work at graceturney17.wixsite.com/mysite.(Photot by ElenaMist/iStock)
Ghost Jobs Are About to Get Expensive for Employers
BY Grace Turney September 09, 2026Ghost jobs, online job listings for positions that do not actually exist or that a company has no immediate intention of filling, are becoming more than just an annoyance for job seekers. While eager applicants took the time to personalize and submit their resumes, portfolios, and cover letters, anxiously hoping for a call that could lead to their dream job, the company was really looking to build a talent pipeline, signify growth, placate current employees, or meet compliance rules. But ghost jobs may no longer help companies fulfill compliance requirements, and are turning into a compliance risk.New York’s Senate Bill S8877, which passed the state legislature in June and was delivered to Gov. Kathy Hochul, would fine employers $2,500 per publication or digital platform for failing to disclose real hiring intent. If the bill passes, it would have a major impact on the job market, for both hiring companies and job seekers alike.Ghost jobs have gone from an open secret to a measurable epidemic. Criteria Corp’s 2026 Candidate Experience Report shows that more than half, 53%, of job seekers experienced ghosting within the last year. That figure comes amid a three-year rise in employer ghosting: 48% of applicants were ignored by employers in 2025, up from 38% in 2024, according to Fortune. Pennsylvania’s proposed Ghost Job Postings Prevention Act and Ontario’s new job posting requirements (effective Jan. 1) indicate that this isn’t a one-state phenomenon. Other states, including California and New Jersey, are considering anti-ghost job legislation, as well.Meanwhile, employers are facing another challenge: application volume. Robert Half reported that 67% of HR leaders say AI-generated applications are slowing hiring. The volume problem that makes ghost postings tempting (pipeline-building, optics of growth) is intensifying, not easing.New York’s S8877 would require employers to state in job listings that the post is for a current vacancy with a specific fill date. If they don’t plan to fill the position within 90 days, they must specify that as a “no sooner than” date. Employers would also have to specify if the job is not for a current vacancy but the employer is seeking resumes for potential future openings. Employers and third-party advertisers must take down a job advertisement within two weeks after it’s filled. If companies advertise jobs violating the statute, they could be fined $2,500 for each publication or digital platform where the posting appears, with the fine doubling if the violation is not rectified within 30 days.For HR teams, that means ghost-job compliance could become an operational issue, not just a legal one. Employers would need to know exactly where each job posting is listed, distinguish active openings from pipeline postings, document intended hiring dates, and create processes for removing filled positions from every platform. A job posted simultaneously on a company careers page, LinkedIn, Indeed, and a third-party recruiting site could rack up multiple potential violations from a single stale posting.But the stakes go beyond fines. New research suggests that repeated negative experiences with the labor market can shape how people view work itself. According to a June 2026 NBER working paper, men’s labor-force participation is influenced by beliefs about the returns to working, which are shaped by their experiences with the labor market. Those effects can persist even when men move to different states, and the researchers argue that short-term declines in labor demand can produce long-term declines in labor supply.Ghost jobs are not the only factor influencing those beliefs, and the NBER study does not specifically examine ghost postings. But the implication for employers is worth considering: If workers repeatedly encounter jobs that appear available but never lead anywhere, they may learn that pursuing work is less worthwhile than they once believed.That matters at a time when the labor force is already under pressure. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the labor-force participation rate fell to 61.5% in June, while 6 million people who were not in the labor force said they wanted a job. And Lightcast projects that the U.S. could face a shortfall of roughly 6 million workers before the end of the decade.Ghost jobs are evolving from a convenient recruiting tactic into a serious liability with legal, operational, and potentially long-term talent-pipeline consequences. As the competition for workers intensifies, companies may want to think twice before asking candidates to invest their time and trust in a job that was never really there.Grace Turney is a St. Louis-based writer, artist, and former librarian. See more of her work at graceturney17.wixsite.com/mysite.(Photo by FangXiaNuo/iStock)
The Personality Traits That Can Help Workers Move Ahead
BY Ade Akin September 08, 2026For decades, candidates have suspected there’s more to acing interviews than their resume alone. Hiring managers have known it, and the data now supports it. Informal behaviors such as casual conversations, email communication, and rapport with administrative staff may carry more weight than an applicant’s qualifications.According to a recent survey conducted by The Harris Poll for Express Employment Professionals, 91% of U.S. hiring managers say a candidate’s personality is as important as their qualifications, while 86% say preferable personal attributes can compensate for a lack of specific skills. These findings highlight an evolving approach to talent acquisition. Foundational personality traits, like reliability, integrity, and adaptability, are becoming central to recruitment strategies as technical expertise becomes easier to teach and AI tools automate routine responsibilities. The First Conversation Is the Real InterviewThe research shows that initial interactions can significantly influence hiring outcomes. According to the study, around 87% of hiring managers say they decide whether an applicant will thrive at their organization based on their first discussion. Meanwhile, 61% of employers use informal touchpoints, such as pre- or post-interview small talk, messaging tone, and interactions with support staff, to evaluate candidates’ soft skills.Today’s job applicants are aware of this heightened focus on their personality traits. 61% of job seekers express concern regarding how their personal demeanor is perceived, and 94% report having their personalities assessed during the recruitment process through:Informal conversations (47%)Situational inquiry (46%)Behavioral questions (45%)Reference verification (43%)Structured personality assessments (37%)The Traits Employers Value MostHiring managers and job seekers largely agree on the personality traits employers value most. Reliability ranks first, followed by honesty, adaptability, flexibility, self-motivation, and work ethic.The survey cites that 94% of hiring managers and 91% of job seekers say personality shapes how performance is perceived once hired, additionally 99% of hiring managers believe a positive or approachable personality can directly accelerate career advancement, a view shared by job seekers. “Every employee has an effect on the workplace beyond the responsibilities listed in a job description,” Bob Funk Jr., the CEO, president, and chairman of Express Employment International, said. “The right personality can build trust, make change easier to navigate, and raise the standard for how a team works together.” At a time when skill demands are changing rapidly, this can be a positive development for job seekers. While technical skills may become outdated, qualities like reliability, adaptability, and strong work ethic remain valuable, giving candidates an opportunity to stand out by showing employers what they can bring beyond their resumes.Ade Akin covers artificial intelligence, workplace wellness, HR trends, and digital health solutions.(Photo by PixelsEffect/iStock)
Companies That Kept DEI Policies Have Fared Well, New Research Finds
BY Ade Akin August 26, 2026Following President Donald Trump’s executive orders ending DEI programs within the federal government, some of the country’s largest companies, including Google and Target, quickly scaled back or scrapped their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) commitments amid threats of federal scrutiny. Others, including Costco, Apple, and Delta Air Lines, stood their ground and maintained their commitments.New research shared with The Guardian reveals that companies that maintained commitments to DEI didn’t see a direct financial penalty. The study found that S&P 500 companies that kept their DEI policies intact performed about as well financially as companies that rolled them back, reports The Guardian.Jacob Grumbach, an associate professor at UC Berkeley’s Goldman School of Public Policy, analyzed how firms performed after President Trump’s executive order, using what economists call “abnormal returns,” a metric that represents the variance between a stock’s projected performance and its actual market outcome. Grumbach’s analysis found no measurable difference in financial performance between companies that retained their diversity and inclusion programs and firms that eliminated them. His findings challenge the “go woke, go broke” narrative that gained momentum in 2023 following conservative boycotts of Bud Light and Target for its Pride merchandise. Grumbach tracked corporate DEI initiatives by analyzing news coverage, anti‑DEI shareholder proposals and votes, and data from DEI Watch, a corporate accountability tracker. “No matter how we measure DEI in companies, we find the same answer,” Grumbach said. Holding on to DEI promises had no measurable impact on financial performance, according to the study. The broader implication extends beyond DEI. Grumbach says the findings show how organizations fare when they resist political pressure. “This shows that large U.S. corporations really do have leeway and the ability to sort of do non-compliance to executive branch pressure and end up fine,” he told The Guardian. While some executives may still fear regulatory retaliation, such as less favorable treatment from the executive branch, delayed merger approvals, or aggressive tax auditing, the market itself does not appear to punish firms that stay the course. Changing course on DEI in response to political pressure can carry its own risks. When Target dropped its DEI programs in January 2025 amid backlash, for example, the retailer faced renewed calls for a boycott from shoppers. The episode illustrates the broader challenge companies face when navigating competing pressures. As former Medtronic CEO and author Bill George said during a fireside chat at From Day One's Minneapolis conference, “It’s easy to follow your true north, follow your values, your purpose, until you get under pressure, and you have to decide between two options. And that’s the real test. Where there may be sacrifices you have to make, do you have the moral courage to step up and follow what you believe, or do you back down?” George noted that leaders who stand firm, like Costco CEO Ron Vachris, whose company saw shareholders reject an anti-DEI proposal by an overwhelming 98% margin, suggest that “having a moral center is actually good for business.”Ade Akin covers artificial intelligence, workplace wellness, HR trends, and digital health solutions.(Photo by ZenSaBi/iStock)
For Influencers, a Free Brand Trip Can Come With a Price
BY Erin Behrens August 20, 2026Scroll through TikTok for a few minutes and you’re almost guaranteed to see content from a brand trip. These highly curated getaways for influencers have become a staple of brand marketing, giving companies a way to put their products directly into the feeds of engaged audiences.At their best, these trips can generate thousands of views and create the kind of aspirational content that traditional advertising struggles to replicate. Dairy company Kerrygold found that formula with a trip to the Irish countryside, bringing along a seemingly hand-selected group of content creators, including chef Hailee Catalano, whose connection to food gave the trip a natural fit with the brand. Catalano’s posts from the trip quickly drew comments from followers expressing envy over the experience. The stakes are particularly high with this form of marketing since so much of the experience is meant to be visible. Unlike a traditional brand event, where much of the experience happens behind closed doors, nearly every element of them becomes content. When these trips don’t strike the right balance of people or place, viewers notice. Like in the case of OpenAI’s “Summer Camp,” a Hudson Valley influencer getaway in early August. The trip took place at the luxury resort Wildflower Farms in Gardiner, NY, and included activities like beekeeping, farm-to-table outdoor dinners, and OpenAI product tutorials. The AI company invited tech and lifestyle influencers to enjoy and post about their weekend upstate. But the posts didn’t go to plan, immediately sparking a wave of criticism that prompted some influencers to disable comments or delete their posts altogether. The posts that remain online are flooded with critical comments, with a common theme emerging: How could a company whose technology is contributing to environmental harm choose a retreat so immersed in nature as the setting for its brand? And how could these influencers participate in it?It can be argued that any press is good press, so as OpenAI remains in the news weeks after the trip, it’s still getting attention for the company. The company walks away largely untouched, while the influencers who used their own judgment to decide whether to participate are facing a different reality.Commenters on influencer Grace McCarrick’s still-active posts write that her participation was “tone deaf.” The commentary fits into a larger cultural criticism of AI, especially voiced by Gen Z. McCarrick took to LinkedIn saying “I genuinely had no idea that people were this anti-AI.” Other attendees from the trip still have their comment sections disabled, likely in response to the criticism.When a brand trip goes wrong, influencers are often the ones left to absorb the shock. The brand can move on from a poorly planned itinerary, but creators have to return to their audiences and explain what happened. Their credibility is part of what brands are paying for in the first place, which means a trip that misses the mark can put an influencer’s reputation at risk. For creators, one lesson from this trip is that accepting the invite also means accepting some of the risk. A free trip may come with a price that isn’t visible until the content goes live.Erin Behrens is an associate editor at From Day One. (Photo by Andrii Iemelyanenko/iStock)
Brands Want More From Their Hollywood Partnerships
BY Erin Behrens August 12, 2026A celebrity in a commercial is nothing new. But increasingly, brands aren’t just putting famous faces in ads to sell products. They’re finding new ways to make entertainment part of the ad itself.The reason appears to be fairly simple: attention has become harder to buy. Brands are looking for ways to create campaigns that feel less like interruptions and more like something audiences actually want to watch.Take Gap, which just launched a campaign with scream queen actress Inde Navarrette, recognized for her role in Obsession, and emerging musician Malcolm Todd. Navarrette is a relatively new face on the scene but has quickly expanded her profile across entertainment and fashion, while Todd brings his own music audience to the campaign, titled, “Denim On Your Own.”“With this campaign, Gap continues to serve as a platform for the next generation of creative voices, championing emerging artists who are shaping culture through music, art, and self-expression,” said the campaign announcement.The ambassador choices reinforce the idea that it’s no longer just about who appears in an ad, but what the entertainment itself can do for a brand that an ad alone can’t. The campaign features Todd’s rendition of Robyn’s hit “Dancing On My Own,” turning the partnership into a piece of music and entertainment.Patrón is going a step further, bringing Hollywood’s creative talent directly into the making of the advertising itself. The tequila brand tapped the Oscar-winning director of Frankenstein and Pan’s Labyrinth, Guillermo del Toro to direct and star in its 2026 campaign, “The Perfect Pour.” The campaign puts del Toro’s distinctive visual style at the center of the brand’s storytelling. “Both born in Jalisco. Both obsessed with Mexican craftsmanship. Experience The Perfect Pour,” the campaign reads. These campaigns illustrate a broader shift in how brands can think about entertainment. A celebrity can bring an existing fan base, but the more valuable proposition may be the ability to create something people encounter as culture first and advertising second. The result isn’t necessarily that brands are becoming Hollywood studios. It’s that they are increasingly trying to borrow Hollywood’s ability to create attention and cultural relevance, and make it work for the brand.Erin Behrens is an associate editor at From Day One(Photo by AscentXmedia/iStock)
What Does Return-to-Office Look Like Now?
BY Erin Behrens August 11, 2026TikTok is bringing most of its U.S. workforce back to the office five days a week, adding another major technology company to the growing list of employers moving away from hybrid work.Beginning in September, most U.S. employees who currently work hybrid schedules will be expected to work from the office every day, Business Insider reported this week. The policy will apply across functions including product, marketing, and advertising sales.The move represents a significant escalation from the hybrid schedules that became standard across much of the tech industry after the pandemic. Companies including Amazon, JPMorgan Chase, and Goldman Sachs have maintained five-day office policies since 2025, pointing to company culture, collaboration, and effectiveness as reasons for bringing employees back. Meanwhile, some companies are framing return-to-office mandates as a way to improve employee well-being. Monique Scroggins, VP of HR total rewards and operations at Lloyds Banking Group, and her team have launched a cost-containment strategy centered on wellness programs. “We focused on return-to-office engagement and having people on site teaching you how to eat clean and healthy, and encouraging you to take walks on your lunch break,” she said during a panel discussion at From Day One’s June virtual conference.The shift suggests that for some organizations, the office is increasingly being positioned as more than a place to work. While the five-day work week hasn’t become the universal standard yet, with 10% more workers still working from home than in 2019, for HR leaders, the growing divide creates a strategic question: What does an employer gain by requiring employees to be in the office, and is that benefit worth the tradeoff in flexibility?Data from Gallup finds that five in 10 full-time U.S. employees have remote-capable jobs, about one-third prefer fully remote work, and less than 10% prefer to work on-site. The same study found that hybrid workers feel strongly about the benefits they experience from their schedule. “In fact, six in 10 remote-capable employees who work exclusively remotely now say they’re extremely likely to look for a new job if remote flexibility is taken away,” the report states.That gap between employer priorities and employee preferences could make RTO policies a retention issue as much as a workplace strategy. If employees view flexibility as a meaningful part of their compensation, taking it away could push some workers to look elsewhere, particularly as hybrid and remote jobs remain available at other companies.For HR leaders, the challenge is making the case for why employees need to be in the office rather than simply mandating that they be there. If collaboration, culture, learning, or well-being are the goals, companies will need to show employees what they gain from being on-site.Erin Behrens is an associate editor at From Day One(Photo by skynesher/iStock)
The Marketing Lessons Worth Taking From the 2026 World Cup
BY Erin Behrens August 03, 2026Now that the 2026 FIFA World Cup has wrapped up, marketers are taking a closer look at the brands that won the battle for attention, and what their success says about today’s marketing landscape. While official sponsors enjoyed unmatched visibility, some of the brands that generated the most conversation weren’t necessarily the ones that paid for the most prominent logos. Instead, they won by tapping into fan culture and creating content people actually engaged with. On Fox networks, World Cup advertisers averaged an attention index of 121, according to iSpot, meaning their ads performed 21% better than the average ad. The metric was based on the percentage of viewers who completed watching the full ad message.Here are three lessons from the brands that captured attention across the screens of viewers, the arenas where players competed, and the billboards that turned the tournament into a global marketing stage. Opportunities Exist Beyond the Main EventThis year’s tournament highlighted the power of shared experiences, as fans traveled across continents, explored new cultures, celebrated victories, and shared in the heartbreak of losses together. The cities hosting matches became part of the story, with fan experiences and local moments filling social media feeds throughout the tournament, like in the case of the Boston beer-shortage.The brands that stood out recognized that fans weren’t just watching the games, they were traveling, discovering new cultures, and becoming part of the global experience surrounding the tournament.Airbnb brought this idea to life through its “The World Is Meant to Meet” campaign, which centered on the connections and cultural exchanges that happen when people travel. Rather than focusing only on the competition itself, the campaign highlighted the people, places, and experiences that bring a global event like the World Cup to life. The company even offered rewards for those who signed up to host during the event. By celebrating the communities and connections formed around travel, Airbnb showed how brands can create relevance by becoming part of the cultural moments happening beyond the stadium.Marketing That Feels Interactive, Not DistractingMichelob ULTRA, a brand that calls itself “a superior light beer brewed for the social athlete,” built its World Cup marketing around fan participation. The brand introduced the Superior Player of the Match award, selected through fan engagement, giving viewers a role in recognizing standout performances. It also created fan-focused experiences designed to bring the tournament atmosphere beyond the stadium.“For more than twenty years, Michelob ULTRA has connected with its fans during the occasions they love. The brand’s playbook has been simple and relentless: invest, learn, and execute as the Official Beer Sponsor of America’s most prominent sports and active-lifestyle moments from Team USA to the NBA to the upcoming FIFA World Cup 2026™ and LA 2028 games to a 30+ year partnership with the PGA Tour. This approach has turned Michelob ULTRA into an absolute rocket ship, and we’ve got tremendous opportunity ahead of us,” said Kyle Norrington, chief commercial officer at Anheuser-Busch. Strong marketing doesn’t interrupt the moments people care about; it becomes part of them and invites them further into it. The success shows in the sales, as the beer continues to be the best-selling beer by volume, in America. Becoming Part of the CultureThe brands that make a lasting impression find ways to become woven into the event itself, creating products or experiences that fans recognize and remember. Adidas demonstrated the power of turning a sponsorship into a cultural asset that everyone recognizes. As the official match ball provider, the brand had a presence in every game, but it went beyond simple visibility by making the ball itself a centerpiece of the tournament experience. The design and storytelling created around the ball helped transform a piece of equipment into a symbol of the competition. The lesson: brands can earn lasting attention when they create something audiences naturally associate with a cultural moment, not just something they see during it.Erin Behrens is an associate editor at From Day One(Photo by peterschreiber.media/iStock)
Target’s Buff Santa Is Back. Can He Deliver the Brand From Its Troubles?
BY Emily Nonko November 14, 2025Can a hunky Santa deliver relief from Target’s enduring struggles? For a second year in a row, the $106 billion national retailer is hoping the character can at least be a warm and welcoming messengar though the holiday season.This fall, Target announced its Step Into the Holidays campaign with a big emphasis: “Kris K. is back.” The company launched the campaign last year showcasing a youngish, dashing Santa. As a woman in last year’s ad put it: “It was Santa Claus. And he’s, like, weirdly hot.” The ad got attention everywhere from Tik Tok to the New York Times, so he was due for an encore. This time, ads show a fuller view of Kris’ personality, as he highlights his top gifts, watches football, sings karaoke and goes on dates.“Kris K. from Target captured hearts last holiday season,” Michelle Mesenburg, Target’s SVP for creative and content, said in a statement. “He embodies the playful joy, ease and inspiration that define the Target experience — helping you find the perfect gifts, celebrate every moment and make the season shine a little brighter.”Target has been in the midst of a new strategic plan on “creating today's Tarzhay, offering everyday discovery and delight for millions of families and ensuring Target is a consumer favorite for years to come,” then-CEO Brian Cornell said earlier this year. That has included a huge investment in marketing efforts, including this multi-pronged holiday campaign. Sarah Nesheim, a brand expert and co-founder of the social-media driven branding firm Crafted, isn’t convinced that marketing alone can fully correct course on the company’s recent struggles. She traces Target’s branding issue to 2023, when the company removed some displays celebrating Pride Month from store shelves after social media posts about its “woke” merchandise and threats against the safety of its workers, then faced further backlash from LGBTQ+ and human rights groups who said Target wasn’t standing by the community.This January, Target joined a number of other U.S. companies in dropping its diversity, equity and inclusion goals. Black shoppers responded with a well-publicized, 40-day boycott over its decision to cave to right-wing pressure on diverse hiring goals. While CEO Brian Cornell tried to re-emphasize Target’s commitment to diversity and inclusion, Target announced his resignation in August.Flip-flopping rarely works to cement a retailer’s brand identity and build customer loyalty. “It dilutes the brand identity and confuses customers,” Nesheim told From Day One. Consistent messaging of a brand like Costco — which sticks to customer value, even promising not to raise the price of its famous $1.50 hotdog — is a more effective strategy, she adds. Costco also stuck with its DEI programs, along with companies like Levi Strauss & Co.Target’s identity crisis strained already-existing retail challenges. “It’s made them less resilient to pressures like tariffs and Americans spending less,” Nesheim added.So while shopper boycotts rarely hurt major companies’ bottom line, the one in January did. Sales at Target, which has almost 2,000 stores across the U.S., fell more than expected in the first quarter of 2025. This summer, executives candidly included the DEI boycott in the list of reasons why the sales were down: “This was remarkable because a concession like that does not happen often,” NPR business correspondent Aline Selyukh said at the time.Sales from both physical stores and online channels had also been flat or declining in nine out of the past 11 quarters, PBS reported in August. In October, the Wall Street Journal reported that the company planned to lay off around 1,000 global corporate employees and eliminate 800 open positions. So will a hot Santa usher in some actual magic? “It’s a cute campaign,” Nesheim acknowledges, “but it still doesn’t tell me anything about what Target stands for.” Still, there’s effort by the retailer to make bigger changes. The new chief executive, 20-year Target veteran Michael Fiddelke, starts in February. He has outlined three immediate priorities: rebuilding Target’s merchandising strategy, improving the in-store experience, and investing in technology. The holiday campaign is meant to emphasize the brand’s store experience and value. Target also just made news for its new directive asking store employees to smile, make eye contact, and greet or wave when a shopper comes within 10 feet of them. “Heading into the holiday, we’re making adjustments and implementing new ways to increase connection during the most important time of the year,” Chief Stores Officer Adrienne Costanzo said in a statement.The company found that key consumer metrics rose when shoppers were greeted or acknowledged. The company will also work to improve in-stock levels, spruce up its stores, and host in-store demos and events throughout the holidays.And in the social-media world, Target hopes Kris K. can help kindle a new vibe. A video on Target’s official Instagram page, reports USAToday, shows a buff, “charismatic store team member” dressed as Santa, lifting weights (two red baskets filled with store items), which prompted one social-media user to muse, “Will there be one in every store?” In her two-decade career, Emily Nonko has written about social justice, urbanism, real estate and housing as a freelance journalist based in Brooklyn, New York. In 2020, she co-founded Empowerment Avenue, a nonprofit supporting creative work from incarcerated people, and oversaw its writing cohort, where the group supported hundreds of stories publishing in mainstream media outlets from incarcerated writers around the country.(Featured image courtesy of Target)
Why AI Is Forcing Companies to Rethink What a Job Is
BY Emily McCrary-Ruiz-Esparza October 22, 2025The rapid maturity of AI is changing the question HR leaders ask when they’re talking about jobs. Where leaders once asked, “Who can do this job?,” they’re now asking, “What combination of human and AI can do it best?”This is a natural next revolution of the “skills-based hiring” model that shifted job paradigms away from role descriptions and toward equipping workers with specific capabilities the organization needs. And that goes for AI agents too. One of AI assistant Claude’s new features is actually called “skills.”Headlines make it sound like AI is wiping out jobs by the thousand, but “there’s a lot more at play there,” says Lisa Highfield, the principal director of HR tech and AI at the consulting firm McLean & Company. Some companies are going through typical reorganizations while others are simply responding to market downturns. “We’re not seeing the masses of AI job reduction that a lot of these headlines sometimes indicate.”While displacement is not yet widespread, companies are experimenting with augmenting workers–and sometimes replacing them, yes–with AI. Startups like Artisan and Viven are building “AI coworkers” and “digital twins,” and attracting tens of millions of dollars in venture funding. Yet few are forecasting human irrelevance. Even Artisan CEO Jaspar Carmichael-Jack, whose company is probably best known for its provocative “Stop Hiring Humans” marketing campaign, told TechCrunch that he doesn’t believe AI will replace most human labor. “Human labor becomes more valuable when you have the AI content,” he said. In fact, the company has been hiring all year. It’s more likely that we will see more human-AI partnership in the workplace.How far up the ladder could this go? Hanneke Faber, CEO of global tech manufacturing company Logitech, says that she would entertain the idea of an AI agent joining her board of directors. “We already use [AI agents] in almost every meeting,” Faber told the audience last week at Fortune’s Most Powerful Women conference. “As they evolve—and some of the best agents or assistants that we’ve built actually do things themselves—that comes with a whole bunch of governance things. You have to keep in mind and make sure you really want that bot to take action. But if you don’t have an AI agent in every meeting, you’re missing out on some of the productivity.”Many leaders are putting faith in AI as a productivity booster. A leaked message from a Meta executive told workers that they should be working five times faster, thanks to AI. Even companies just dabbling in automation are using AI to handle repetitive tasks like data entry and reporting, while augmenting others, like analysis and strategy. Employees are reporting time savings. At HR tech company Deputy, employees using AI tools report saving five to ten hours per week. At media company Scripps, 20% of newsroom workers using AI for just one or two hours per day say they save roughly 20 minutes of total work time.Nascent AI practices are not without their problems, of course. Employees are frustrated by the amount of “workslop,” or AI-generated content void of substance, being served up, forcing humans to clean up after the machines. It’s become so common that colleagues are reportedly losing trust in each other. “We think [AI] will reduce our workload,” said Sue Cantrell, a work futurist at Deloitte. “But in reality, many workers are finding it increases their workload. It can also increase feelings of loneliness when they’re working more with AI than with their colleagues.”Yet thanks to AI, workforce planning is becoming more nimble. Cantrell recently met with a company developing a tool that lets managers click a button to see who, or what, has the right skills for a given task. That could mean a full-time employee, a contractor, or even an AI agent. With that data, managers can more accurately forecast headcount, fill roles, and seek out needed skills. HR already has a wealth of information about employees and their skills, and applying some smart AI can help compile skills ontologies and find workers who have them. Highfield believes that, aside from cost efficiency, this is the greatest opportunity AI has afforded so far.Companies are using technology that can deconstruct jobs into skills, then assess workers for skills, and match the two. But this model, so far, breaks down when it comes to work that requires higher-level thinking. Cantrell said that some skills–like creativity, empathy, and strategic thinking–can’t be cleanly parsed from the people who have them, and atomizing such work can kill not only the nuance, but also the joy. “Tasks are the actual activities underneath the job, and skills are the actual capabilities that workers bring,” Cantrell parsed. Not all work can, or should, be chopped into its component parts.In some organizations, the lines between people and technology are blurring at the structural level. Cantrell points to companies, like Moderna and Covisian, that have merged their HR and IT departments. IT’s role is to figure out how to perform work with technology, one leader told her, while HR’s role is to figure out how to perform work with people. Now companies are experimenting with bringing the roles together, though at least one leading HR thinker calls it a “senseless” endeavor. Stay tuned for more on that one.Work performed by both humans and machines, in parallel or in concert, may define the next revolution of business transformation. Think beyond efficiency, Cantrell said. Companies often think of AI as task replacement, but she believes “it’s an opportunity to reinvent the way we’re working.”Emily McCrary-Ruiz-Esparza is an independent journalist and From Day One contributing editor who writes about business and the world of work. Her work has appeared in the Economist, the BBC, The Washington Post, Inc., and Business Insider, among others. She is the recipient of a Virginia Press Association award for business and financial journalism. She is the host of How to Be Anything, the podcast about people with unusual jobs.(Featured image by Gremlin/iStock by Getty Images)
From Day One Hosts Its 75th Live Conference Today
BY the Editors September 30, 2025When From Day One hosts its conference today in San Francisco, it will mark a major milestone for the company: its 75th live and in-person conference since the company’s founding. Speakers at the Fort Mason Center will include Michael Walters, the CHRO of Samsung Semiconductor, and Bernard Bedon, CHRO of Levi Strauss & Co. Among the moderators leading these timely conversations will be Michal Lev-Ram, a contributor for both CNBC and Fortune.At a time of economic and political tumult, From Day One is bringing together leaders in HR and related fields to share ideas about how to bring positive change. This was the original mission of three founders of From Day One—Nick Baily, Erin Sauter and Steve Koepp–when they launched, exactly seven years ago this month, the organization’s very first event, a one-day conference of hundreds of business leaders at BRIC House in Brooklyn. From the start, it was designed to be something different.The idea was that the country needed a “forum on corporate values,” a gathering of professionals to talk about the relationship between companies and their employees, their customers, and their communities. The founders felt certain that they didn’t know the answer to these pivotal questions, but they felt equally certain that there were many people with inspiring, practical insight on these topics, and that bringing them together into the same room would be a positive first step.From Day One in Minneapolis at the McNamara Alumni Center (photo by Sarah Morreim for From Day One)Since then, From Day One has hosted more than 18,100 participants at its live conferences and nearly 105,000 attendees in all of its events, including virtual conferences and webinars. The total number of corporate leaders, authors and other experts speaking at the events has reached nearly 2,450. Among the locations visited in-person are Atlanta, Austin, Boston, Brooklyn, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Manhattan, Miami, Mountain View (Silicon Valley), Philadelphia, Salt Lake City, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, D.C.Some highlights of the year so far include fireside chats with Daniela Proust, the SVP and head of people & organization at Siemens in D.C., Lori Knowles, SVP and CHRO at Memorial Hermann in Houston, and Tarsha LaCour, chief people officer for the Dallas Mavericks in Dallas. Across the country, executive panelists shared insights on topics ranging from empowering women in leadership, to leveraging AI, employee well-being, and much more.Next week, the site of From Day One’s 76th live conference happens to be Philadelphia, not by design but by fortuitous coincidence. Among its speakers will be the chief people officer of Lincoln Financial Group, as well as leaders from Comcast, Burlington Stores, Cigna, and many more. Leading the conversations will be several journalists from the esteemed Philadelphia Inquirer.From Day One's 2024 Philadelphia conference at the Union League of Philadelphia (photo by Brandon Peszko for From Day One)Right around the corner, on Jan. 28, From Day One will be kicking off its new vertical focusing on values-based marketing with a full-day conference at Atlanta's breathtaking Georgia Aquarium, with speakers from Honeywell, Warner Bros. Discovery, SAP, and more.(Featured photo by David Coe for From Day One)
American Eagle: Can Wordplay Carry Historical Baggage?
BY Erin Behrens August 01, 2025Does controversy sell? In a campaign that has launched a thousand hot takes on the internet, American Eagle featured actress Sydney Sweeney, best known for her roles on Euphoria and The White Lotus and, more recently, for being at the center of several questionable marketing ventures, one of them involving her bath water. She has the star power and relevance to connect with the shoppers American Eagle is targeting, but the new campaign elicited a very different response.In a series of short video ads, Sweeney wears American Eagle denim while reciting various riffs associating her persona with the product, each ending with a voiceover declaring she has “great jeans,” a double entendre that plays on both her denim and her “great genes.”The campaign quickly sparked backlash online. Some of the comments on American Eagle Outfitters’ latest TikTok ads read along the lines of: “Levi’s here I come,” “How diverse is your team?” and “So disappointed in this. Won’t be shopping here again.” Some viewers are accusing the brand of leaning into eugenics-adjacent messaging by highlighting Sweeney’s blond-haired, blue-eyed appearance in a way that seems to conflate whiteness with idealized beauty. “Genes are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair color, personality, and even eye color. My jeans are blue,” Sweeney says in one of the videos.Others call the campaign regressive in its treatment of women. In one clip, Sweeney says, “My body’s composition is determined by my genes.” The camera pans down to her chest, to which she says “Hey, eyes up here.” While the line plays as a joke, it draws attention to the tone of objectification. To critics, the moment comes off more like a nod to the male gaze than a subversion of it, possibly misaligned for a campaign selling women’s clothing.Reading Between the LinesGiven the current political warfare over issues of diversity, and the fact that President Trump has used similar race-science language, referring to immigrants as having “bad genes,” and a rally crowd of mostly-white Minnesotans as having “good genes,” it’s difficult to ignore the ad’s echo of racial hierarchies and the association of “good genes” with whiteness. Viewers have pointed out that such a prominent ad doesn’t exist in a vacuum; it reflects and relies on the cultural and political climate it’s venturing into.In being facile with its language about genetics, the company underestimated its power, and the misguided associations between certain genes and superiority. American history includes a dark chapter in which a cadre of pseudo-scientists argued that certain nationalities were inherently inferior, as author Dan Okrent chronicles in his book The Guarded Gate, and used that thinking to keep generations of immigrants out of America. The belief in “good” or “bad” genes wasn’t just abstract; it had real, devastating consequences.The Sydney Sweeney campaign has also been receiving comparisons to Brooke Shields’ controversial Calvin Klein campaign from the 1980s, though the issues differ. Shields’ campaign was criticized for its overtly sexual tone involving a minor, raising concerns about age-appropriateness. In contrast, the issue with the Sydney Sweeney campaign isn’t about age, it centers on supposed ethnic superiority. Yet in both cases, the underlying strategy feels similar: rather than creatively selling the quality, value, or innovative style of the product, both campaigns lean on shock value, cultural obliviousness, and dad-joke wordplay to grab attention.Rethinking Shock Value in MarketingIn terms of marketing lessons, what does this tell us about the cultural moment we’re in?Today’s consumers are quick to pick up on subtext in our politicized culture. When brands advertise a particular kind of aesthetic, especially at a moment when conversations around diversity and representation are front, center and under-pressure, it’s worth asking what values are being amplified.The American Eagle campaign also speaks to the challenge of breaking through the constant noise of modern marketing. With ads everywhere we go, popping up on phones, between our playlists, on public transit, and more, the American Eagle team went for something that would prompt double takes. The campaign “was a company figuring out how to break through in a world where everyone is screaming and saying, ‘Look at me, look at me!’” Allen Adamson, co-founder of brand marketing firm Metaforce, told NPR. But the reaction to the campaign shows that some audiences aren’t just paying attention, they’re holding brands accountable for what they put out into the world. Erin Behrens is an associate editor at From Day One. (Photo by Christa Boaz/iStock)
CEOs Like Their Chief Marketing Officers, But Want Them to Move Faster
BY Stephen Koepp March 26, 2025While CEOs tend to like and trust their chief marketing officers, they have declining confidence in the ability of the CMOs to drive business growth, according to a new report from Boathouse, a marketing-performance consultancy. The report asks: “Are CMOs too busy being popular and not enough of a profit driver?”The report, based on a survey of 150 CEOs from top U.S. companies, shows patterns from four years of data collection about the role and performance of CMOs. On one hand, 66% of CEOs view marketing as more relevant than three years ago, the report said. But the execution of their departments is often falling short. “While 79% of CMOs are now involved in financial goal setting, many remain on the periphery of growth strategy, limited by a focus on metrics that don’t directly tie to the metrics that CEOs prioritize. To elevate their strategic role, CMOs must deepen their financial fluency and align marketing metrics with business outcomes,” the report said.“Increasingly, we are seeing the CMO is in no-man’s-land,” said John Connors, CEO of Boathouse, as reported in Ad Age, noting the divergence between the CMOs’ grades and the understanding of what the department accomplished. “CMOs are getting smarter about how to build a better relationship with CEOs but marketing overall is losing credibility.”The report’s statistics make the point in showing rising relevance for marketing, but lack of confidence in results. “As CMOs align more closely with CEOs and Boards (e.g., 76% show commitment to the C-Suite, up from 44% four years ago), you’d expect this proximity to better channel CEO strategy to marketing teams. Instead, the gap between CMOs’ performance (45%) and marketing’s overall capability (37%) suggests a breakdown in execution,” the report said.In its analysis of how CMOs can do better, the report suggests that they can help bridge the gap between the CEO focus on financial results and the need to foster a corporate culture that can produce growth. “Data shows 87% of CEOs acknowledge their transformation strategies have not fully succeeded, with top private concerns including employee morale, culture, and reputational risk—areas which are often sidelined in favor of financial metrics,” the report said. “Marketing leaders have a unique opportunity to bridge this gap by aligning brand messaging with internal culture, fostering employee engagement, and brand integrity as pillars of sustainable growth.”In other findings, the survey found that marketing departments are missing the boat when it comes to AI because of an ambivalence about embracing it. “CEOs are enthusiastically adopting AI across their organizations, but marketing lags behind functions like customer service and operations,” the report said. “Marketing must leverage AI for efficiency, insights, and innovation—or risk losing ground to more agile functions. In a technology-led economy, CMOs who don’t lead with AI will watch others claim the spotlight.” Boathouse CEO Connors noted that many marketers are talking about pilot programs, but none are making “bold bets on AI,” he told Ad Age, which is leading CEOs to think their CMOs play it too safe.Stephen Koepp is From Day One’s editor in chief.(Featured illustration by Creatival Images/iStock by Getty)
The Demonization of DEI: 10 Questions About What Went Wrong and What Happens Next
BY the Editors February 11, 2025When disaster strikes, the traditional way for leaders to respond is to mourn the victims, praise the first responders, and call for patience while experts figure out the cause. But in America’s culture wars, such forbearance is gone. One common suspect is targeted in calamity after calamity: the pursuit of diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, the relatively recent approach to addressing inequities and structural racism going back centuries in the U.S.The accusations have become reflexive. Anti-DEI activists and politicians have blamed DEI for the tragic airborne collision in Washington, D.C., the California wildfires, a toxic train derailment, a major bridge collapse, the Silicon Valley Bank failure, and more. No evidence has emerged to support those theories, yet the rising chorus of accusations have turned DEI into a radioactive term. The assault reached a crescendo last month when President Trump veered from somber, prepared remarks about the DC tragedy into a half-hour attack on “woke” elements and diversity as the underlying cause. How could he prove the connection? “It just could have been,” he said. “Because I have common sense. OK? And unfortunately, a lot of people don’t.” His supporters have been more explicit, making the case that competent white males have been overlooked in favor of incompetent DEI hires, an alleged pattern of reverse discrimination.While the backlash against DEI has been building for more than two years, the momentum picked up steam when the president launched his second term with a sweeping attack on DEI in the federal government, academia, the scientific community, corporate America, and beyond. Calling DEI “nonsense,” Trump told financial leaders at Davos last month that “America will once again become a merit-based country.”Wielding his executive power over the federal workforce, which employs more than 3 million people, Trump ordered all DEI-focused offices to shut down, put their workers on leave, and ordered them to report any coworkers trying to “disguise these programs by using coded or imprecise language.” Failure to do so “may result in adverse consequences,” the administration told workers, which created a prospective new persona: the DEI snitch. Workers were told to scrub personal-pronoun preferences from their email signatures, and the Pentagon announced that the military would no longer “use official resources” to celebrate commemorations like Black History Month.How did the cause of DEI become vulnerable to such vehement and often misleading attacks that even many of its advocates are losing the will to fight? Why are some major corporations backing away from their wholehearted embrace of DEI, while others are sticking to their commitments? Can advocates of DEI learn from its excesses and pursue their principles by other terms or other means? Should the term DEI simply be dropped?These questions need to be energetically explored, since the war on DEI has created a perilous landscape for HR leaders and corporate America in general. Companies will have to balance stakeholder interests, employee expectations, legal vulnerabilities, and their public reputation. They need to consider the impact of their DEI-policy decisions on recruiting and employee engagement, especially among younger and more diverse workforces who may view such retreats as a step backward. As we head into four years of a new administration that’s bent on escalating the backlash, how should HR leaders continue to build inclusive organizations? From Day One asked experts and sampled the latest surge in reporting on the DEI wars. Among the issues:Which employers are backing away from their DEI commitments, and why?In the racial-justice movement that arose after George Floyd’s death in May 2020, corporate America rushed to build programs and put money behind the cause of DEI. Yet within three years, the zeal flagged in the face of a U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down affirmative action in higher education, attacks and lawsuits by anti-DEI activists, and financial constraints. Many DEI advocates questioned whether corporations were ever really committed, but the headwinds became undeniable.And the threats keep growing. Many types of DEI programs could draw new lawsuits accusing them of “illegal D.E.I.,” a term that has caused widespread confusion and has lawyers scrambling to interpret what it might mean. “We’re in a brave new world. People are freaked out,” Jon Solorzano, a lawyer who counsels corporations on DEI, told the New York Times.The trigger effect: Among President Trump’s barrage of executive orders was one that struck down a 1965 executive order by LBJ banning discrimination by federal contractors, which had inspired them over the decades to set up programs favoring marginalized workers and subcontractors. Trump’s executive order tells each federal agency to identify “up to nine potential civil compliance investigations” for companies pursuing such practices, like giving jobs or promotions to specific groups based on their race. No company wants to be among the nine called out.Even before this new legal threat, a parade of household-name companies had publicly dialed back their DEI efforts. Walmart, Ford Motor, Lowe’s, Harley-Davidson, John Deere, Amazon, Google, Target, and others have all announced cutbacks. Among the programs: DEI spending, labeling, diversity goals, and participation with partners who monitor DEI progress. While not long ago companies were often accused of “rainbow-washing,” or being performative about their commitments to DEI, now they’re “rainbow-hushing” by cutting or reframing their DEI programs.Walmart, which employs 1.6 million workers in the U.S., said it won’t renew a racial-equity center that was established through a five-year, $100 million philanthropic commitment from the company. Ford told employees it will no longer participate in an annual survey from an LGBTQ advocacy group, the Human Rights Campaign. After showing little reluctance to support DEI causes in recent years, many corporate leaders now tend to acknowledge that they’re feeling the heat. “We are mindful that our employees and customers hold a wide range of beliefs,” Ford CEO Jim Farley told employees in an email. “The external and legal environment related to political and social issues continues to evolve.”Which companies are sticking with their commitments—and why?Costco, which ranks No. 11 on the Fortune 500 and has more than 300,000 workers, has made headlines by bucking the trend. Its board of directors unanimously urged its shareholders to vote against a proposal by a conservative think tank that would require Costco to issue a report on the financial risks of maintaining its DEI program. The group criticized Costco “for possible ‘illegal discrimination’ against employees who are ‘white, Asian, male, or straight,’” as CNN reported.Costco’s response, in a statement to investors, echoed what many corporations has given as the purpose behind their DEI support: “Among other things, a diverse group of employees helps bring originality and creativity to our merchandise offerings, promoting the ‘treasure hunt’ that our customers value. We believe (and member feedback shows) that many of our members like to see themselves reflected in the people in our warehouses with whom they interact.”Apple, too, pushed back against a similar proposal. DEI hasn’t been a passing fancy for the company. Apple has had a supplier-diversity program since 1993, hired its first VP of DEI in 2017, and among its employees now has 67 “diversity network associations.” Apple said the proposal “inappropriately attempts to restrict” and “micromanage” the company.Speaking at Davos, Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, said, “We are going to continue to reach out to the Black community and Hispanic community, LGBT community, and the veteran community. ... Now if you point to something we’re doing that’s wrong, I’d change it. But we’re very proud of what we’ve done, and what we’ve done is lift up cities, schools, states, hospitals, countries, companies, and we’re gonna do more of the same.”Yet it was the National Football League that delivered the most well-timed defense of its DEI programs: on the eve of the Super Bowl. While the NFL had struggled to navigate the politics of Black Lives Matter and earlier social-justice waves, it more solidly committed after the murder of George Floyd. “We got into diversity efforts because we felt it was the right thing for the National Football League, and we're going to continue those efforts because we've proven to ourselves that it does make the NFL better,” the league’s commissioner Roger Goodell told reporters. “We're not in this because it's a trend to get into it or a trend to get out of it.” In terms of hiring decisions, he added, “There are no quotas in our system. This is about opening that funnel and bringing the best talent into the NFL.”Did DEI advocates overreach—and how?While standing up for their basic values, many DEI advocates admit that the cause committed some self-sabotage. “Undoubtedly, there has been ham-fisted DEI programming that is intrusive or even alienating, making workers feel that they are being told what to think or how to feel. But, for the most part, it is a relatively benign practice meant to increase diversity, while also sending a message that workplaces should be fair and open to everyone,” writes Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, a professor of African-American Studies at Princeton, in the New Yorker.Indeed, many experts in the field of corporate training say that part of the DEI backlash was triggered by poorly designed programs and overly righteous practitioners, not core values. “You cannot be inclusive by being exclusive and the way DEI has been operationalized over the last few years gives the appearance of being exclusive, rather than common-sense principles that uplift everyone,” Janine Yancey, CEO and founder of Emtrain, told From Day One.The current DEI movement gained momentum after the murder of George Floyd in May 2020. A memorial to police-shooting victims sprang up near the site of his death in Minneapolis (Photo by Stephen Koepp/From Day One)“The current model of diversity needs a shift,” said Stefanie Christmas, global head of DEI for Inizio, a Dublin-based, life-sciences company. “We’ve defined it too narrowly, associating it only with ‘minorities’ instead of embracing the full spectrum of human differences. This leaves many—especially straight, cisgender men—feeling they have nothing to contribute.”“Decades of research shows clear problems with status-quo DEI,” writes inclusion strategist Lily Zheng in Harvard Business Review. “Despite their widespread prescription, DEI trainings often fail to change bias or reduce prejudice. Popular strategies for communicating the value of DEI can paradoxically both hurt marginalized communities and decrease leadership support for DEI. Common initiatives intended to create better workplaces for all might instead activate backlash, increase burnout, and fail to improve outcomes for underserved groups. DEI needs a reset,” wrote Zheng, who offers a prescription for responding to the backlash.What is the continued rationale for keeping up the fight for DEI programs?Backing up their DEI initiatives, organizations typically have made both a moral case (it’s socially just) and an economic case (it’s good for business), in various measure and emphasis, but always with a sense of inevitability about it. “Saying diversity is dead is like saying gravity is ending. Ridiculous,” said a diversity professional who didn’t want to be quoted by name given the crossfire of the moment. “Ask yourself, ‘Are you building the types of teams that are better for business?’ Managers are underprepared to get the best work out of diverse employees, whether we’re talking about neurodiversity, gender, LGBTQ+, accessibility. Most employers know they need to do and say the right things to keep and attract those new generations. It’s a math problem, a business issue, a growth issue.”Surveys of the workforce indicate steadfast support for DEI issues, despite the blitz coming from Washington. “Continuity of DEI as a value driver in the workplace doesn’t make the news. Pushback is part of the news cycle, but the commitment to DEI endures,” said Ripa Rashid, managing director of Seramount, which advises companies on building more inclusive workplaces. According to Seramount’s nationally representative 2024 survey of more than 3,000 U.S. white-collar and frontline employees across dimensions of diversity, geography, and political affiliation, 76% of employees agreed with the statement: “I am committed to helping my company fight racism and injustice within the organization” and 78% indicated that it is “very important” for their company to be an inclusive organization.The pronounced whiplash in corporate support for the LGBTQ+ community strikes some experts as financially self-defeating. “Inclusion is a driver of the business. Those businesses backing away from their support of the LGBTQ+ community will fall behind their competition who continue to show up for the community, Mita Mallick, author of Reimagine Inclusion: Debunking 13 Myths To Transform Your Workplace, told From Day One. “According to LGBT Capital, the estimated purchasing power of the global LGBTQ+ community is $4.7 trillion. Belief-driven buying consumers are on the rise, and they will continue to vote with their wallet and walk away from brands and companies they feel no longer match their values.”Did DEI programs make any measurable progress toward their own stated goals?Not all that much, at least in numerical terms, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of 13 million workers at S&P 500 companies. In the four years since George Floyd’s murder launched the wave of DEI programs, “the workforces of the biggest public companies have become slightly less white, and Asian and Hispanic employees have made modest games,” reported the Journal. “The picture is more lopsided in the upper ranks of these companies. White men have lost a little ground but still occupy half of all senior manager roles. White women—a bigger focus of corporate diversity efforts before 2020—have experienced the least change since then. The share of senior managers who aren’t white, meanwhile, rose to 26% from 22%.”Amazon, which said in a memo to employees in December, that it’s halting some of its DEI efforts, has one of the most diverse workforces, the Journal noted. With hundreds of thousands of workers in warehouses and other operations, “about 69% of its roughly 1 million workers were people of color in 2023, compared with nearly 67% in 2020,” the Journal said. Though its senior management remains largely white, “Amazon embarked on a pandemic hiring spree and made a push to hire more Black executives into high-level roles. Over four years, the share of nonwhite senior managers nearly doubled, with those of Asian descent rising the most.”And at the top of the C-suite, the number of women CEOs running Fortune 500 companies was at 52 last year, more than double the number of six years ago—and a 2,500% increase from 1998, when only two Fortune 500 companies were led by women. One of the current women CEOs, Citigroup’s Jane Foster, is making a case for sticking with inclusive policies that benefit everybody, such as flexible work schedules and parent-friendly policies.Can DEI programs avoid the flak and focus their mission by changing their terminology?Many companies have shifted from standard DEI terminology to focus more on terms like just inclusivity and belonging, with the implication that no employee is left behind. This is reflected in job titles as well. For example, top leader Mark Brown of Starbucks, who has a background in both talent acquisition and DEI, since 2023 has carried the title of SVP of global talent and inclusion. “We want to represent the communities that we serve, and we want to innovate for all our different audiences,” he told a From Day One audience last year. “And if we don’t have more voices in the conversation and more backgrounds in the conversation, we can’t continue to create a sense of belonging and warmth in our stores, which is core to what we do.”Of course, anti-DEI advocates are wary of organizations doing a rebranding of such efforts without a more wholesale capitulation to dumping DEI, hence the warning from the Trump administration to anyone who might “disguise these programs by using coded or imprecise language.”Despite the high-profile statements from famous companies, however, surveys of U.S. corporations taken in recent months indicate that “these programs aren’t dying; they’re morphing,” according to DEI legal experts Kenji Yoshino and David Glasgow, writing in the Los Angeles Times. “The ‘DEI in the dustbin’ narrative is utterly unsupported by the data. The companies that have formally backed away from their diversity programs represent a tiny minority of corporate America. The conservative Heritage Foundation recently conceded that 486 out of the Fortune 500 still have inclusion statements or commitments on their websites,” they write. “This data jibes with our experience as scholars who study DEI. A vast majority of the hundreds of major organizations with which we have interacted over the last year or two are still deeply committed to these values. They are just doing the work more quietly and carefully than before, to avoid unwanted scrutiny and lawsuits.”What can DEI advocates do better, by whatever name they go by?Many DEI advocates assert that workforces and other communities need to dig even deeper into emthathy and brave conversations, rather than retreating into opposite camps based on identity or political affiliation. “If DEI reframes to focus on everyone's consciousness and intentionality—thinking about what each person needs to feel respected and a sense of belonging so they can deliver their best work—that gets the behaviors needed to foster DEI,” said Emtrain’s Yancey.“To create change, we need to highlight—through personal stories and self-reflection— privilege’s sliding scale and the impact of exclusion,” said Inizio’s Christmas. “Once people can understand what it feels like to lack privilege or be excluded, they’re more likely to empathize with other marginalized communities and drive real change.”Are liberals and progressives all on the same page in advocating DEI programs?No, a thoughtful cohort of thinkers and leaders on the left are skeptical of DEI programs, saying they’re a distraction from attacking economic inequality—and sometimes even get in the way. People in this camp “prefer activism that focuses on class rather than racial or gender and sexual identity. They tend to see labor unions and worker-led organizing as a more effective solution to inequality,” writes labor journalist Noam Scheiber in the New York Times.Faiz Shakir, a Democratic activist and former manager of Senator Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign, told Scheiber that DEI programs often serve to divide the working class and “soften the actual confrontation with corporate power we need in society.” Workplace DEI policies essentially buy off workers on the cheap, he said, adding: “You get a penny for your efforts. A little trinket here or there, that should mollify you.” In that view, DEI is essentially a tool of management, rather than one that empowers employees.What are the stakes in terms of who else is hurt when DEI programs are dropped?The case has been made that the fallout will affect people ranging from women and minority contractors to rural poor communities. In late January, Target announced that it was concluding its three-year DEI goals and its Supplier Diversity team would be renamed Supplier Engagement. Pernell. “The announcement from Target, just a week before the start of Black History Month, hit Black entrepreneurs particularly hard. The company had created an infrastructure that helped Black-owned start-ups even before the 2020 protests, [coffee entrepreneur Pernell] Cezar said, and then set a goal of featuring about 500 Black-owned brands in its stores by the end of this year,” the New York Times reported. Since the entrepreneurs behind such startups tend to have less startup capital and fewer connections than their competitors, “It’s definitely the wild, wild West of the haves and have-nots if you don’t have institutional knowledge,” Cezar said.One of Trump’s executive orders also took aim at “environmental justice,” eliminating positions and assessing spending on projects, including those aimed at poor, rural communities, CNN reported. The order cancelled many financial grants designed to help small communities, including everything from wastewater-treatment plants to tornado shelters for schools in poor communities. The thinking behind such grants is that the effects of climate change fall disproportionately on poor communities. “Environmental justice is not affirmative action. It’s not DEI [to have] the right to breathe clean air, drink clean water and the right to have environmental laws to be enforced equally across the board,” said Robert Bullard, an environmental-justice pioneer.Employers, too, could face legal trouble from abandoning DEI principles by exposing themselves to more discrimination lawsuits by workers, experts said. While reverse-discrimination lawsuits do occur, they’re vastly outnumbered by those filed by members of marginalized communities. “Many common corporate policies that fall under the DEI umbrella, such as auditing pay practices, requiring diverse pools of job candidates, and ensuring that promotions are awarded fairly, are crucial tools for employers to ensure compliance with state and federal laws banning workplace discrimination,” lawyers and other experts told Reuters.Will corporate American start to deny diversity, either as a fact or value?Even the statements by leaders whose companies announced pullbacks in DEI programs seemed to be hedging their bets, from leaders of Tractor Supply Co. to Meta, the parent of Facebook. In a companywide meeting after Meta ended its DEI and fact-checking programs, CEO Mark Zuckerberg sought to reassure his workforce that the company’s values hadn’t changed, despite the new regulatory regime in Washington. “I mean, it’s a little crazy that we need to say this,” Zuckerberg said. “We continue to believe that diversity is a strength.”Reported by Jenny Sucov, independent journalist, and Stephen Koepp, editor-in-chief of From Day OneFor further reading, here's a selection of more than 200 stories on DEI by From Day One.(Featured photo by FG Trade/iStock by Getty Images)
When Disaster Strikes: How HR Leaders Can Help Employees Recover
BY Emily McCrary-Ruiz-Esparza and Erin Behrens January 17, 2025Until not long ago, corporations thought mainly of themselves and their operations when it came to natural disasters, focusing on their business-continuity plans (BCPs). But the Los Angeles fires, the pandemic, and other recent calamities have persuaded employers to build the well-being of their workers and their communities into those plans and responses as well. The Los Angeles fires that began in early January have decimated entire communities, killed more than two dozen people, and displaced more than 180,000 people. Companies including Netflix, Disney, Google, and NBCUniversal have collectively pledged tens of millions of dollars in the form of donations and relief programs for their employees and local citizens affected by the destruction. Among the creative ways to help: Disney opened up its wardrobe warehouse to offer clothing to employees and their families who lost their homes. With natural disasters becoming more frequent, employers are cementing their role in disaster-relief efforts as part of their increasingly holistic support of employees in their lives outside the workplace, offering programs ranging from mental healthcare to financial well-being programs. The overall goal: to be a source of stability in times of turmoil. From Day One asked HR leaders and benefits providers how they’re stepping in to help, and what others can do to pitch in. Their responses:Prioritize Employee Safety and Basic NeedsFirst, ensure employees can evacuate safely, have food and water, and can find a place to stay. Those immediate needs are what Jolen Anderson, chief people officer at the coaching platform BetterUp, calls “level one.” Employers themselves aren’t often capable of furnishing these things directly, but they can connect employees with disaster relief organizations that are ready to help.The emergency-grant platform Canary helps with immediate needs, including temporary housing, food, or lost income. “We are able to stand up new programs for companies and their affected employees very quickly in response to events like the LA wildfires,” said Canary’s head of marketing, Catherine Scagnelli. For DoorDash, Canary created a relief specifically for Dashers affected by the fires in LA, and Canary is extending opportunities to qualify as the disaster continues and many are unable to work.Reach Out to Employees Affected“Show up with empathy and understanding of what’s happening across your organization,” said Anderson. These messages of support should come from both HR and line managers, who are closer to individual workers and their needs. Executives can do the same. Disney CEO Bob Iger told the New York Times that he’s been calling employees affected by the fire, saying, “I want them to know that people at the top of the company are looking after them, that we care.”Tap All Your Benefits ProvidersChristopher Smith, VP of benefits at Universal Music Group, whose HQ is in Santa Monica, told From Day One he and his team are combing through every benefit and program they offer. “I am diving into all of our benefits, carriers, vendors, and partners, and saying, ‘What can we do? What phone numbers can we provide?’ It may not be a benefit, per se, but what resources can we put forward that can help people and potentially save lives? When you look at it from that angle, you become very creative.”Assets like “EAPs, well-being coaching, and time off” that companies can directly supply are what Anderson at BetterUp calls “level two” resources.Establish Clear Communication ChannelsMake a plan to communicate with your employees about where they can find help. Aggregate and organize a list of websites, portals, phone numbers, and relief organizations, and include company paid time off and leave policies. Make the list available to the entire organization so employees who are affected know what’s available–and those who aren’t directly affected can help get their colleagues back on their feet.One CEO told Employee Benefits News that her company, Emergenetics, is using every form of communication possible–like phone trees, text messaging, and internal platforms–to stay in touch with their workers. “Create an email address for inquiries related to the wildfires, so you can build a repository of questions, which helps build internal FAQs that can be continually updated as the situation evolves,” she said.Equip Your Employees to Help Each OtherEmployees not affected by the disaster may be eager to step up and help their colleagues. HR can point them toward disaster relief organizations and donation funds as well as programs for donating paid time off.E4E Relief, which provides emergency financial relief to workers through their employers and colleagues, is currently working with companies including Disney to get financial grants distributed to those affected by the wildfires, and help their colleagues contribute to the relief efforts.Make Mental Healthcare Readily AvailableMental healthcare resources are key for employees who experience climate disasters, who can suffer lingering effects. Mental health first aid in the form of EAPs or counseling is a quick way to supply help quickly, but employers should also prepare for future needs.Jyoti Mishra, associate director at the University of California Climate Change and Mental Health Council, has studied the effects of wildfires on mental health. The impacts can last for years, according to her research, and those who experience fire disasters have higher levels of anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress. “Our work has shown that it’s hard to pay attention to a singular thing when everything around you feels like it’s threatening you.” she said in an interview with CNN.BetterUp’s Anderson recommended that employers train managers to have conversations with their employees about what they need. And Duke University professor of psychiatry Robin Gurwitch told EBN that “employee resource groups, training leadership in psychological first aid, and other types of company-based programs can make a difference in how employees get through and recover from their ordeal.”Remember That Families Are ConnectedEven if your employees aren’t located in the Los Angeles area, they may have family and friends who are. Give your staff the time, space, and resources to help their loved ones. “Although our systems tell us who may be individually impacted, I don’t necessarily know who has a family home in that area, who has grandparents in that area, who has extended relatives in that area, or who has friends in that area,” Anderson said. She taps line managers for this information.Use What You HaveCompanies can use the resources and real estate they already have to support their staff and community members. Gap Inc. worked with DirectRelief to provide free N95 masks at brick-and-mortar stores across Los Angeles County, and Starbucks is handing out free coffee to first responders.Know Your Lane, Respect Your Limits Britt Barney, the head of client success at the financial-wellness platform Northstar, has been working with her team to gather resources for their clients in the wake of the LA fires. In the short-term, she said, people need help filing insurance claims and finding temporary housing. That’s not something her company can help with directly, but because Northstar can see all the benefits available to their clients’ employees, “what we can do is help people understand what benefits they have access to,” whether that’s mental health or short-term leave or backup childcare. Barney said her company is getting ready to provide services down the road, like helping people access their emergency funds, rework their budgets, and find the money they need through assets like company equity. “In the long term, people are going to need a ton of financial help,” she said.Prepare for Next Time“Given recent times, organizations have had to develop a playbook on how they approach these situations,” BetterUp’s Anderson said. Such playbooks and disaster readiness plans are cross-functional projects, requiring HR, communications, legal, and business leaders to ensure employees are kept safe and the business can function.“The evidence supporting corporate leaders’ being proactive, which we see again and again, is the volume of inbound requests just after a disaster has devastated a community,” said Matt Pierce, CEO of E4E Relief. “The Los Angeles wildfires represent the most recent example, but our team fields these inquiries from all over the world regularly.”Anderson reminds employers that these plans have to be tested with tabletop exercises and scenario planning. “Your managers have been empowered and enabled with the right sense of empathy and resiliency,” she said. “You can never fully predict a crisis, but certainly investing in organizational-development resources, planning, and capability-building—so that you’re as prepared as one can be—is increasingly and incredibly important.”Emily McCrary-Ruiz-Esparza is a From Day One contributing editor whose work has also appeared in the Economist, the BBC, the Washington Post, and Fast Company. Erin Behrens is an associate editor at From Day One.(Featured photo: A wildfire burns in the hills north of the San Gabriel Valley community of Glendora, Calif., on Jan. 16, where authorities ordered the evacuation of homes. AP Photo by Nick Ut)
In Women’s Health, a New Coalition Aims to Keep Up the Progress
BY Abigail Abrams July 17, 2024Women’s health care, long neglected by medical researchers and tech innovators in the U.S., is starting to get its due. A new coalition of digital health companies aims to harness the energy around women’s health to boost the accessibility and affordability of their care by working with employers to improve corporate benefits and workplace support.The group, called the Women’s Health Coalition for Digital Solutions, combines the mental-health platform Talkspace and the family-health company Ovia Health with other startups aimed at everything from fertility to menopause to nutrition and fitness.In its first year, the collective is focused on awareness and de-stigmatization efforts as well as using its members’ influence to advocate for workplace health equity. In future years, the coalition’s founders say they would like to encourage more investment in women’s health technology and enhance the patient experience by exploring integration among their many services.The idea for the group came about when Talkspace, which has expanded its business-to-business offerings in the last few years, was looking for partners, and executives saw a growing customer need in the realm of women’s health.“Women are busy. We manage our homes, we manage our work life, we’re managing our own personal happiness,” said Natalie Cummins, chief business officer at Talkspace. “What we’re hearing from our customers is that three barriers that still exist are stigma, access, and affordability.” She and other coalition partners are quick to note stats that show while women live longer than men, they spend 25% more time in “poor health” and they pay $15 billion more per-year in out-of-pocket health care costs than employed men. So Talkspace sought out other virtual health providers who shared their goal of helping people access care remotely, and intentionally put together a group that serves each point in a woman’s life cycle. In addition to Talkspace and Ovia Health the founding members include Conceive, which offers fertility and pregnancy support; Evernow, which offers menopause care; Nurx, a telehealth company that prescribes birth control, acne treatment, and other medications; FitOn, a fitness app; and Nutrium, which provides nutrition counseling. The coalition is part of a growing trend of employers prioritizing fertility and other family-building benefits in the last few years. The percentage of U.S. organizations offering such benefits increased from 30% in 2020 to 40% in 2022, according to the International Foundation of Employee Benefits Plans. The focus has expanded to include menopause, which has been poorly understood and little-discussed in the workplace. About 15% of companies surveyed by Mercer in 2023 provided menopause-specific benefits—up from just 4% in 2022. “We are seeing people respond to us in a way that is really taking menopause seriously as they should,” says Donna Klassen, a clinical social worker and co-founder of advocacy group Let’s Talk Menopause. She is particularly eager to see efforts aimed at changing the culture and policies around menopause in the workplace, as research has shown that menopause symptoms–and the stigma around them–can negatively impact both women and employers. Researchers at Mayo Clinic found that menopause symptoms cost the U.S. $1.8 billion in lost work time per year, for example. “When people have support at work, they are less likely to feel that they want to leave,” Klassen said. She emphasized the importance of trusted information as more women and their employers address menopause publicly. “People want their questions answered, and doctors don’t always have the time,” she said. “So let’s make sure you’re getting your information from credible sources.” Let’s Talk Menopause offers workshops and other educational programs to individuals and companies seeking to learn about menopause.That kind of education is key to the new coalition’s goals too. It’s “really an opportunity to drive some of the thought leadership with people who have been in this industry for a while and who are invested in improving the lives of women,” said Corrinne Hobbs, general manager and VP of enterprise and strategic partnerships at Ovia Health.Corrinne Hobbs, general manager and VP of enterprise and strategic partnerships at Ovia Health (Photo courtesy of Ovia Health)As the group develops, Hobbs says she sees the coalition companies being in a good position to provide services, advice, and research for companies that want to improve their benefits or policies in ways that support women’s health. Their effort comes as the U.S. continues to see the consequences of the Supreme Court’s decision overturning the federal right to abortion, which has led to other restrictions on reproductive health around the country. Cummins, Hobbs, and other coalition partners say they are not wading into national politics, but are focused on enhancing access to women’s health care for as many people as possible. They were pleased to see President Joe Biden’s executive order expanding research on women’s health earlier this year, for example, and are hoping this is a sign of progress. “For many years, women were thought of as tiny men and weren’t really required to be in clinical research,” said Lauren Berson, CEO and founder of Conceive, the fertility-support app that’s one of the coalition’s founding members. As part of the effort from the federal government, the National Institutes of Health will focus new research on menopause and an array of other health issues that affect women, including Alzheimer’s and conditions like endometriosis and fibroids.Conceive is especially focused on equipping its users with the science and information they need to navigate the experience of getting pregnant. “There’s just so much more we can do together when we think about the lack of research and the lack of infrastructure,” Berson said.The members of the new coalition say they have already heard from companies who want to join the group, but they know there is still a long way to go. Some first steps for employers looking to support women’s health, they say, are to design benefits plans that reduce the out-of-pocket costs for women, remove barriers to seeking care, and ensure benefits cover the full spectrum of employees’ experiences. “Ensuring that your workplace supports women is crucial,” says Hobbs of Ovia Health. “So what does that look like? Improving the parental leave policy, flexible work initiatives, ERGs to really understand the needs of employees and then also minimizing the caregiver burden at home.” Abigail Abrams is a health writer and editor. Currently she is the senior manager of content operations for Atria. Previously, she was a staff writer on health and politics for TIME magazine. Her freelance work has appeared in the Washington Post, the Guardian, and other publications.(Featured photo by SDI Productions/iStock by Getty Images)
The Google Firings: a Signal of a ‘Course Correction’ on Corporate Dissent
BY Emily McCrary-Ruiz-Esparza May 03, 2024Corporate America’s historic experiment in free speech appears to be reaching a turning point. For a time, big employers showed a growing tolerance of workers speaking out on social and political issues–with even company leaders making bold pronouncements on emerging issues.In 2017, for example, workers spoke up about sexual harassment as part of the #MeToo movement. In 2020, they made their opinions known about racial justice after the murder of George Floyd. In response, many employers made changes to the status quo, updating hiring policies, investigating misconduct, setting up employee resource groups (ERGs), and holding discussions on world events. Some even formed “social issues working groups” to respond thoughtfully to emerging controversies.But the latest cultural flashpoint, the Israel-Hamas war, has not settled in quite the same way. Rather than spurring policy changes and public forums, the tension around this issue has prompted in-office protests and arrests. The politics that moved into the office in 2017 never moved out, but the tenor of today’s conflict–at least in the workplace–is different.In a signal event last month, Google fired 50 employees who took part in sit-ins to protest the company’s contracts with the Israeli government. Nine of them were arrested for trespassing. Google CEO Sundar Pichai sent out an email to staff declaring that work is not a place to “fight over disruptive issues or debate politics.” In another high-profile case, long-tenured National Public Radio reporter Uri Berliner accused the platform of imbalanced reporting on the conflict in a published essay. Berliner was suspended and later resigned.One implication of the corporate response is that the organizational embrace of dissent, especially on polarized issues, is reaching its limits. John Higgins, who researches and writes about employee activism, believes employers are giving the public an “X-ray” of their corporate culture. “I find it fascinating how [Google] created a corporate culture where a sit-in was the only way that the employees thought they could be heard, and the only management response they could imagine was to fire everybody,” Higgins told From Day One. “Everybody’s been talking about dialogue in organizations for decades, and that is not dialogue. That is a straight power play. The question is, where will this end?” The trend so far, notably among tech companies who earlier made a point of projecting their progressive values, is that “we’re seeing a course correction across the board,” Fortune editor-at-large Michal Lev-Ram told CNBC this week.Confrontations in corporate America are mirrored on college campuses, where disagreements have turned violent to the point of stealing media attention from the underlying crisis in Gaza. As students and faculty members demand that universities divest from their interests in Israel, as well as cut ties with organizations that do business in Israel, several universities have responded aggressively, which has affected not just students but also the people who work there.Nadia Abu El-Haj, a professor at Barnard College and Columbia University, believes that by asking New York City police to intervene with pro-Palestinian protesters on campus, Columbia’s administration lost the confidence of its own faculty. “That decision was the last straw: it galvanized faculty who otherwise not only had no involvement in pro-Palestine politics but in some cases actively disagreed with the students,” she said in an interview with the New York Review.There have been reports of faculty arrests at Stony Brook University, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Virginia Tech, Washington University, and California Polytechnic Institute, not to mention student arrests across the U.S., which now number in the thousands. At Emory University, at least one professor was handcuffed, while a teacher at Dartmouth College described her arrest as “brutal.”Where Will the Crackdown Lead?“The firings at Google, I think, are a sign of the zeitgeist,” said Alison Taylor, a clinical associate professor at New York University’s Stern School of Business and author of the new book Higher Ground: How Businesses Can Do the Right Thing in a Turbulent World. In 2024, companies don’t need workers as desperately as they did just a few years ago. Job openings in the U.S. sank to a three-year low in March and quit rates declined as well. As power shifts from employees back to employers, many companies are clawing back power.Overall, the evidence is mounting that it doesn’t benefit companies to get involved in public discourse that’s going to split their stakeholders, Taylor told From Day One. “My strong impression is that people running companies are somewhat regressing because [getting involved] looked very convenient when it was Trump and climate change and immigration, but when it’s reproductive rights and Gaza, it is much less convenient.”“How quickly the pendulum swings,” wrote journalist and author Joanne Lipman in a post on LinkedIn. Lipman, who is currently a lecturer in political science at Yale, underscored the marked change in employer-employee relations. “Just a few years ago, in the wake of #MeToo and George Floyd’s murder, companies accommodated and sometimes supported protesting employees. Contrast that with today, when companies have had it with restive workers, and are cracking down on them instead.”Lipman has been a front-line witness to the about-face. As she continued on LinkedIn: “I happened to be at Google’s headquarters to give a talk on Nov. 1, 2018, the day of an historic company walkout to protest sexual harassment and workplace culture. The crowd was massive, permitted to assemble, and the company ultimately met some ... of its demands. A very different vibe last week, when Google fired 50 employees involved in a far smaller protest.”Of course, an exact comparison can’t be squarely drawn. The case could be made that employers can exert a greater impact on sexual harassment or discriminatory practices in their own workplace than on war overseas. The Economist made the case that even if major universities were to divest from their interests in Israel, the effect would be largely symbolic and have little to no effect on the actions of the Israeli government, Google’s Nimbus Project being an obvious exception.The events on college campuses and in tech-company offices reflect the coarser political climate writ large. Polarization in public is bleeding into polarization in the workplace. “The inability to seek out compromise and to seek out dialogue within Google is in itself a parallel process with the wider political discourse within the country,” said Higgins. ‘It Was Clear That Things Were Going to Get Pretty Messy’As early as 2018, Taylor was warning that the corporate-activism trend would not end well. “Scapegoating is inevitable,” she wrote for Quartz. By being outspoken advocates of one thing or another, companies were casting themselves in the role of public officials–and, alongside public officials, were blamed for polarization, terrorism, privacy violations, racism, and extremism. The problem is that businesses can’t necessarily do much about, say, terrorism.At the time, “short-term controversy around a political issue [was] a small price to pay for overall approval from the public and media,” she wrote. That’s no longer true. Backpedaling from overt involvement in public discourse, companies are now more likely to comment only on matters they can directly influence. But the precedent has been set, and workers are taking out their frustration on businesses. Transparency, once the mantra of companies and their publicly charismatic executives, has often been their undoing, especially when words do not reflect actions.How inevitable was this clash? Precipitating events, like the Oct. 7 attack in Israel, aren’t necessarily predictable, at least by business leaders. But if it weren’t this particular event, it would be something else, Taylor argues. “Once companies have opened up this avenue of activism, an avenue of leaders speaking up, an avenue of leaders taking positions on things, then it was clear that things were going to get pretty messy, pretty quickly,” she told From Day One.How Companies Might Better Handle Differences of OpinionBy firing the sit-ins, the message was clear, Higgins said: Don’t tell us anything we don’t want to hear in a way we don’t want to hear it. “What Google has reinforced is very traditional command-and-control.” In his estimation, the company would be better served to ask, How can we all live with our disagreements?“Businesses do not operate in a vacuum,” Higgins said, and they should stop behaving as if they do. Unless they are willing to engage with their workers–sans terminations and law enforcement–leaders will trap themselves in their own echo chambers and ultimately drive discontent underground. “People will become extremely skilled at telling senior management what they want to hear. Meanwhile, they will get on with doing what they need to do.” As the leadership team grows increasingly out of touch with its workforce, discretionary energy will be funneled into maintaining a placid façade rather than innovating. Volcanic activity, of course, begins underground.Taylor doesn’t envision a return to an earlier time in which battles over politics were fought only in the political arena, no matter how much employers may want it. “Younger generations do not see the world this way, and then [companies] opened up Pandora’s box. It’s pretty hard to go back to the way things were.”Companies would be ill-advised to dismiss the agitations of younger generations, who are the harbingers of change. “They tell you about what’s shifting in social attitudes, and that tells you what your customers are going to value,” said Higgins. Instead, workers and employers must become comfortable with disagreement.“If two people never disagree, it means at least one of them is not thinking critically or speaking candidly, and that means both of them are failing to learn from the exchange that might happen between them,” organizational psychologist Adam Grant told Anne McElvoy on The Economist Asks podcast in 2022. “I think a lot of us are taught to argue to win; I think what we ought to be doing is arguing to learn.”Coloring the culture wars is “binary bias,” in which the people who agree with you are good and those who don’t are bad. “I think that’s really interfering with progress,” Grant said on the podcast. Where there are only good guys and bad guys, compromise is as bad as capitulation—and neither side wants to be defeated.In his Free Press essay, Berliner lamented that “diversity of thought” was unimportant in the NPR newsroom. This, he argued, has cost the institution the trust of the public.It could end this way, Higgins estimates: Companies continue to sort themselves into “red” companies and “blue” companies and workplaces will become more homogenous and further entrenched in their beliefs. “By and large, people will increasingly join companies that align with how they view organizations fitting in the world: those companies which see themselves as having a social role and those that say, ‘We are explicitly not going to play that game.’”But the only way out, he said, is curiosity. “How this will end, I hope, is that if people are serious about engaging with collective intelligence, if people are serious about taking organizational agility seriously, they have to double down on learning how to walk toward contention and difference.”Emily McCrary-Ruiz-Esparza is a freelance journalist and From Day One contributing editor who writes about business, work, and women’s experiences in the workplace. Her work has appeared in the Economist, the BBC, the Washington Post, Quartz, and Fast Company.[Featured photo: Tech workers from Google, Meta and Amazon protested against Big Tech supplying Israel with intelligence tools outside Google offices in Manhattan on April 16. Photo by Cristina Matuozzi/Sipa USA via AP Images]
From Day One Celebrates Its Fifth Anniversary
BY Stephen Koepp September 20, 2023Half a decade ago, the news was erupting daily in an avalanche of headlines about Corporate America. A lot of those headlines were about scandals. About mistakes and injustice. These were not just mainstream media headlines, but also major stories emerging from digital media and social media. In fact, it seemed like for the first time everyone suddenly had a voice, and many of these voices were shouting. Many people within these companies were already committed to making positive change. But corporate values issues are often complex. They are typically interwoven with other business priorities, history, or plain old inertia. “Companies were being held accountable for their behavior in new and important ways, and it seemed like there was real, and possibly permanent change happening,” recalls From Day One CEO Nick Baily. “But then what? Even once you agree on a new set of values, there’s a lot of work to do in making them real.” This was the historical turning point the three founders of From Day One were contemplating when they launched, exactly five years ago this month, the organization’s very first event, a one-day conference of hundreds of business leaders at BRIC House in Brooklyn, a place not previously known for business conferences. From the start, it was designed to be something different.The idea was that the country needed a “forum on corporate values,” a gathering of professionals to talk about the relationship between companies and their employees and communities. In other words, their stakeholders, rather than just their stockholders. The founders–Baily, Erin Sauter, and me–felt certain that we didn’t know the answer to these pivotal questions, but we felt equally certain that there were many people with inspiring, practical insight on these topics, and that bringing them together into the same room would be a positive first step.The first event was a hit. Speakers from companies including IBM, NBCUniversal and Condé Nast offered fresh ideas on “building a more purposeful team” and “setting your values and following them.” Sponsors ranged from AT&T to Con Edison to Eileen Fisher. Attendees, for their part, asked: What will you be doing for an encore?The three founders decided to bring the Brooklyn-bred idea to Chicago, Boston, and beyond. Five years later, From Day One has hosted 45 one-day conferences from Seattle to Miami. The pandemic produced an existential moment of doubt for the company, but necessity proved inspirational. From Day One has hosted more than 60 virtual conferences and 220 webinars. All told, more than 72,000 professionals in HR and related fields have attended From Day One’s events. This year, Inc. magazine recognized From Day One as one of America’s 5,000 fastest-growing companies. The audience at a From Day One conference in Atlanta; featured photo: a panel onstage in Seattle (Photos by From Day One)Since the company has taken a journalistic approach to its conversations, it has never lacked for topics. History-making events of the past five years provided fuel for conversations that From Day One’s founders never could have expected. To start with, the pandemic brought the remote-work revolution. As Harvard professor Tsedal Neeley told our virtual audience: “I am 100% convinced that, if we do this hybrid right and with courage, and we set our policies based on need and not fear, we’re preparing for the digital revolution that’s right around the corner.” She was prophetic about the challenge of getting it right.The murder of George Floyd inspired a push for racial justice in Corporate America that would prove to be fitful, but the conversation was groundbreaking. “All of a sudden, I was talking about this, and our employees’ eyes were opened. We’ve never really talked openly about racism before at work,” Hoai Scott of NBCUniversal told our audience in Los Angeles. As the pandemic eased, the pent-up demand for more rewarding and meaningful work triggered the Great Resignation that sent companies into a frantic search for talent, which has only somewhat eased. “Comparing where we are now to where we were pre-Covid, I think the employee is going to retain a lot of power,” AT&T executive Ben Jackson told our Dallas audience last year. In turn, the need to retain workers inspired a major push among companies for better learning-and-development programs. “Our vision is–and it’s very lofty–we want to redefine what education means in this country, full stop,” Walmart’s head of L&D said in a From Day One fireside chat.What may be the most consequential development of From Day One’s short life is a debate about not only the future of work, but the meaning of work in our lives. To be sure, our colleagues at Harvard Business Review, which celebrated its 100th anniversary last year, have been at this awhile. But recent years have turned this philosophical question into a competitive news beat for business reporters and thinkers like Anne Helen Petersen, who has spoken to From Day One’s audience about both of her recent work-focused books. She was early in raising the prospect that a flexible approach to work arrangements “could actually help us decenter work, just slightly, from its place of prominence in our world.”To offer such a vigorous schedule of events to talk about these issues, From Day One now has a team of 18 full- and part-time employees who’ve developed diverse areas of expertise in finding inspiring speakers, developing an engaged audience, staging well-run events, and helping sponsors grow their businesses.What’s next? From Day One is planning a rich assortment of live and virtual events for the rest of 2023 and all through 2024, including a conference next week in our neighbor borough of Manhattan. We hope you’ll join us for the next chapters of our story.Steve Koepp is From Day One’s chief content officer.
The Supreme Court and the Diversity Backlash: How Employers Can Respond Now
BY Andrea Sachs July 05, 2023The backlash against diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in corporate America is now in full swing. Conservative politicians have turned DEI programs into a campaign issue under the banner of anti-wokeness, with an increasing number of red-state legislatures seeking to ban DEI efforts altogether. Consumer boycotts have shaken name brands. Many corporate DEI budgets have been cut in the name of austerity, while surveys of employee sentiment show a rising tide of “diversity fatigue.” Many DEI leaders, who were given a mandate to help corporations “do better” in the realm of racial justice after the murder of George Floyd three years ago, have grown dispirited in their roles. In this environment, the U.S. Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision on June 27 striking down affirmative action as unconstitutional in higher education came as another blow to advocates of DEI efforts to make the U.S. a more equitable country. With the addition of three conservative justices by President Trump, the court’s action was widely anticipated by the academic community. But it was not only universities that were gearing up for the ruling. The business community was also expecting such a ruling; an impassioned friend-of-the court brief was filed by dozens of major technology, finance, and health care companies who support DEI efforts. Ranging from American Express to Walgreens, they pleaded with the high court not to come to the result that the majority ultimately did, because the named companies rely on “racially and ethnic diverse student bodies” to find their future workers.It is certain that there will be major workplace ramifications from the affirmative-action decision, even though that case applied to higher education rather than in the business world. (College admissions are governed by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, whereas private employment is covered by Title VII.) Immediate questions arose in many workplaces about the consequences of the court’s ruling. Will DEI programs now be weakened or banned? Can race still be considered in employment decisions? And will an activist Supreme Court look for a suitable case in which to extend its controversial educational dictates to the workplace?Though the answers to those questions are not entirely clear at this point, legal and HR experts advise advocates of DEI to be proactive. Here are five essential steps that corporate leaders can take in this new, post-affirmative action world:Remind Stakeholders Why DEI Is Beneficial to EmployersThe corporate rationale for DEI has been twofold: not only is it morally right, but it brings benefits to corporate culture and the bottom line. “Study after study demonstrates that, across organizations, diversity enhances critical thinking, creativity and collaboration, as well as productivity, profitability and performance,” wrote Ford Foundation CEO Darren Walker last week in the New York Times. “It is a national tragedy that diversity is now a contested issue rather than a common interest.” Make Sure Your DEI Programs Aren’t in Conflict With Current LawsIt’s definitely time to review your current DEI framework in consultation with your legal team and employment-law experts. “Be sure your policies and programs don’t unintentionally run afoul of anti-discrimination laws and recognize that quotas and preferences–as well as perceived unfairness–can create legal problems,” advises the Fisher Phillips law firm. “You should also review your employee handbook and other written policies to ensure they are up to date, aligned with your goals, and legally sound.” New York University legal experts Kenji Yoshino and David Glasgow, authors of a new book on how to talk about DEI in the workplace, offer easy-to-follow instructions for a “self-audit” of current DEI initiatives to avoid unwanted legal exposure. They suggest using codes to sort programs as red (high risk), yellow (medium risk), and green (low risk). But they discourage making knee-jerk semantic changes to terms like DEI or diversity: “We think it is unnecessary to revamp the language in this field. Although the court held that the universities’ interests in achieving a diverse student body did not justify a race-conscious admissions policy, companies are still allowed to strive for a diverse workforce.” Take Prudent Steps to Avoid the Possibility of a Reverse Discrimination LawsuitThe number of corporate DEI programs surged after the 2020 murder of George Floyd and the social-justice movement that followed. The result has been a fierce legal backlash, with conservative politicians, right-wing activists, and red-state legislators working strenuously to challenge them. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s new ruling, this trend is expected to intensify. Andrew Turnbull, a partner at the Morrison Foerster law firm who represents companies in labor and employment litigation, told Axios, “When people hear affirmative action has been overruled, they may say, ‘Well, why is my company still doing diversity programs?” The decision is also expected to embolden conservative activists. Will Hild, the executive director of Consumers’ Research, a right-wing advocacy group, told the Washington Post that the ruling “will put the wind in the sails of groups like ours, who want to get the woke, racially based hiring and promotion schemes out of corporate America.” America First Legal, a group headed by former Trump adviser Stephen Miller, has recently filed complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), asking it to investigate corporate diversity and hiring practices at major companies such as McDonald’s and Unilever. And in June, a federal jury in New Jersey ordered Starbucks to pay a white former manager $25.6 million, finding that she had been fired became of reverse discrimination.Although reverse-discrimination cases are not a new phenomenon, the potential risk of these claims may be increased by the Court’s shift in position, as well as the political ferment. Employers now should educate themselves about state legislation targeted at restricting DEI initiatives, as in Florida and Texas and brace themselves for possible challenges. This is an area that may well benefit from a lawyer’s trained eye. Alvin B. Tillery, Jr., director of the Center for Study of Diversity and Democracy, cautions against overreacting. Tillery told the New York Times, “I do worry about corporate counsels who see their main job as keeping organizations from getting sued—I do worry about hyper-compliance.”Explore New Ways of Growing Your Job Candidate PoolCorporate America has become dependent on higher education to provide a pool of job-ready, diverse candidates. That flow is certain to be stanched in the future by the court’s affirmative-action decision. “I don’t believe that there’s a dispute that university demographics will become more homogenous and less diverse,” said Janine Yancey, founder and CEO of Emtrain, an inclusion-and-belonging consultancy. This will lead to “a smaller talent pipeline,” she told From Day One. It has measurably occurred already in the nine states that have banned race-conscious affirmative action policies, generally through ballot initiatives.This has been particularly true in Michigan and California. After California voters enacted a ban on affirmative action in 1996, the number of Black students at the elite University of California campuses in Berkeley and Los Angeles plummeted. Likewise, since Michigan voters ended affirmative action in 2006, the number of Black students at the University of Michigan has dropped dramatically.Employers will need to cast a wider net now to secure a diverse workforce. Rhonda V. Sharpe, the founder and president of a think tank on equity, the Women’s Institute for Science, Equity, and Race, sees a silver lining to such a result. Said Sharpe, “I will not shed a tear for affirmative action but will rejoice in the possibilities for Historically Black Colleges … and Hispanic Serving Institutions.” In fact, the impact of affirmative action was mostly in elite universities. “The majority of Black and Hispanic students attend universities that accept more than three-quarters of their applicants,” wrote academics Richard Arum and Mitchell L. Stevens in the New York Times. “The current opportunity to bring racial equity to American higher education lies in a collective re-commitment to the quality and success of more accessible institutions.” Many DEI experts recommend that corporate HR leaders look even further upstream, investing in programs to develop underserved youth long before they make a decision about higher education. Put More Stress on Employee RetentionWith a less diverse candidate pool, experts see more problems retaining a racially or ethnically representative workforce. “No one wants to work in an environment where they are ‘the only,’” Janice Gassam Asure, the founder of BWG Business Solutions, a consultancy designed to help organizations create more inclusive environments, wrote in Forbes. She warns that the affirmative-action decision “will not only make it more challenging to retain the employees you already have, but it will likely be more difficult to attract new talent from underrepresented communities.”It is important to pay close attention to employee sentiment in the immediate aftermath of the affirmative action decision. Y-Vonne Hutchinson, the CEO of ReadySet, a DEI consulting and strategy firm, asserts that some employees may be unsettled by this decision: “Your employees, particularly those from historically marginalized backgrounds, may be experiencing anxiety, stress, sadness, fear, and disappointment right now. They may be struggling to process what this all means–for them, and their families.” Hutchinson urges companies to both “provide space” for those employees and provide support such as employment resource groups (ERGs) or extra mental health resources.Stalwarts like Iesha Berry, chief diversity and engagement officer and head of people experience at DocuSign, have no intention of giving in to the current political pressure against DEI. “It doesn’t change our focus,” said told the Wall Street Journal. Diversity is “not a stand-alone, and it’s not something that is the flavor of the day, but critically important to the business and the business success.” Andrea Sachs, a graduate of the University of Michigan Law School, began her career as a lawyer in Washington, D.C., at the National Labor Relations Board, then spent nearly 30 years in New York City as a reporter at Time magazine. She is currently the editor of The Insider, a weekly digital publication.