S2E3: Beyond the Checkbox: Reimagining DEI

(Transcripts may contain a few typographical errors due to audio quality during the podcast recording.)

[00:00:00] Abbey Mui: Hey, everyone. I’m your host for this episode, Abbey Mui, and you’re listening to Belonging at Haas, the B-School MBA podcast. This is a Berkeley MBA student-led podcast focused on diversity, equity, inclusion, justice, and belonging. That’s DEIJB for short. We’re here to share student perspectives and expert advice, tapping into new viewpoints and engaging in open, honest conversation that fosters a welcoming and inclusive environment.

Our goal is for students, alumni, and the Haas community to feel valued and empowered to succeed. Now, in this podcast, diverse perspectives are celebrated and differences are embraced. Belonging at Haas is part of the Race Inclusion Initiative at the Haas School of Business, and together we’re committed to creating a more inclusive and equitable community at Haas and beyond. Too often, diversity, equity, and inclusion, that’s DEI for short, gets reduced to corporate jargon.

This season, Beyond the Buzzwords takes a critical look at what DEI really means for leaders, organizations, and our community at Haas. Through candid conversations, we’ll cut through the noise to explore misconceptions, intersectional challenges, and the future of DEI in business and academia. If you missed the first two episodes, be sure to check them out.

In this final episode of the season, we’re taking a closer look at the question, “Where does DEI go from here?” We close the season by reimagining the future of DEI in academia and business, from potential rebranding to the risk of tokenism. Our guests share insights on how organizations can ensure their DEI efforts remain authentic, impactful, and future-ready. This episode, titled Reimagining DEI Beyond the Checkbox, aims to explore and deepen our consideration of DEI amidst rollbacks of DEI programs and backlash against it.

In the time since our first season of the podcast last year, we’ve seen the Trump administration issue executive orders aimed at ending “radical and wasteful” government DEI programs and preferencing, in the words of the White House. We’ve seen companies like Meta, Walmart, Target, and Google cut back, and sometimes even eliminate, their DEI initiatives entirely.

We’ve also seen the same happening in academia, including the University of Michigan shutting down its DEI office and our very own Haas School of Business here at UC Berkeley, undergoing restructuring to its DEI office as we speak. Many companies and academic institutions have scrubbed their websites of all DEI-related content, and the rollbacks have not been without risk.

Target’s DEI rollback resulted in nearly $500 million in missed Quarter 1 2025 sales expectations, a 12% stock decline, and 10 consecutive weeks of declining foot traffic, while Costco, who maintained their DEI commitments, saw an increase of 7% in foot traffic during the same period. Additionally, a recent survey showed that two in three business leaders said their company suffered consequences after cutting DEI programs, including boycotts and diminishing morale.

In a world where companies and institutions seemingly bend to political pressure whichever way the wind blows, when it comes to DEI, can we reimagine what DEI means to go beyond the checkbox? I’m excited to introduce you to our first guest, Eric Muñoz Hernández, an MBA student here at Haas, to delve into this discussion.

Alright, welcome to our podcast, Eric. It’s great to have you here with us today.

[00:03:14] Eric Muñoz Hernández: Yeah, thanks, Abbey. I’m really happy to be here. I’ve always really admired this podcast because it opens up honest conversations that we don’t always get to have in business school. DEI has meant a lot to me personally, not as a checklist of initiatives, but really as something that has shaped how I show up and also connect with others. And especially now, when a lot of schools, including Haas, are reexamining how DEI fits into their structure, I think it’s important to have these conversations about what belonging really looks like in practice.

[00:03:51] Abbey Mui: Well, let’s start off our conversation. Tell me a bit more about how you identify culturally and personally. What are some of those lived experiences that have shaped who you are today?

[00:04:01] Eric Muñoz Hernández: So, I’m Puerto Rican, born and raised, and that sense of community and connection is a big part of who I am. I also identify as neurodivergent, and that has shaped how I navigate academic and professional spaces that weren’t always designed for brains like mine. And so, growing up, I learned how to adapt to environments that are more neurotypical. But I also learned the value of empathy and creating environments where people don’t have to fight to belong.

And so, in my career and now at Haas, I’ve noticed that inclusion isn’t just about who’s in the room, but about whether people feel safe being themselves once they’re there. And so, I believe those lived experiences have really influenced how I think about leadership and culture today.

[00:04:49] Abbey Mui: Well, as we know, there has been a lot of conversation around DEI and what that means. In your words, what does DEI mean to you?

[00:04:56] Eric Muñoz Hernández: Yeah. So, for me, DEI is about how power and opportunity are distributed. It’s not just programming or language, it’s really about creating access and accountability. I think it’s about asking who gets heard, who gets supported, and it’s also about making sure that inclusion doesn’t sit in one office but shows up in every decision we make. And so, when diverse environments have been created or DEI has been prioritized, I’ve felt a sense of belonging and that my experiences have actually mattered.

So, at Haas, that’s especially relevant right now. I think that the DEI office is going through restructuring, and a lot of us are still processing what that means. And so, I think, that challenge and the opportunity are to make sure integration doesn’t mean invisibility, and the values are still here. The question is how we embed them and how they actually shape how we hire, teach, and also lead. So, DEI should feel lived and not labeled.

[00:05:59] Abbey Mui: Great response, Eric. When people hear the words DEI, they may not immediately think of the intersectionality of multiple identities that make up who you are. Can you share more about how you think about belonging when it comes to some of your identities?

[00:06:13] Eric Muñoz Hernández: Yeah. So, neurodiversity is often left out of DEI conversations, but it’s such an important part of belonging. So, when we talk about inclusion, we usually really think about race, gender, or identity. But cognitive disability affects how people learn, collaborate, and even communicate. So, for me, belonging means being in spaces that can recognize that difference instead of trying to smooth them out.

And so, I think that can look as simple as flexible deadlines, quieter spaces, or professors checking in differently. But it can really have such a significant positive impact on those with different needs. And so also, I’ve found that when organizations make space for different ways of thinking, creativity goes up for just about everyone. So, for me, belonging in the context of neurodiversity is about really moving from how we fix people to how we fix environments so people can really thrive.

[00:07:12] Abbey Mui: That makes sense. There’s also been a lot of conversation about DEI as a checkbox or compliance activity rather than genuine change. Have you seen examples at Haas or in past workplaces where DEI efforts felt genuine and impactful? What about times when they felt more like checking a box?

[00:07:30] Eric Muñoz Hernández: Yeah, I’ve definitely seen both. So, as an example, when I worked at Accenture, I co-led two employee resource groups, one for the LGBTQ employees and another for the Hispanic and Latinx professionals. And so, what made it genuine was that leaders showed up, listened, and really put budget behind ideas that came from employees. And so, that, kind of, commitment really builds trust and shows companies really want to support and hear from diverse voices.

And so, on the flip side, I’ve also seen DEI used as, for example, marketing. And I think that’s the kind where companies celebrate diversity in a press release, but it doesn’t really change how decisions are made. And so, that’s what people mean by checking a box. And so, at Haas, it seems like we may be at a crossroad. The restructuring could either make DEI everyone’s responsibility or make it easier for people to assume someone else is handling it. So, what really keeps it genuine is accountability and having clear ownership, transparency, and also following through.

[00:08:40] Abbey Mui: So, from your perspective, what do you think the future of DEI looks like, whether it is here at Haas or in the corporate world, as you think about returning to the workforce next year? If you could design the next generation of DEI efforts, what would that look like?

[00:08:54] Eric Muñoz Hernández: So, I think the next generation of DEI has to focus on design, not really slogans, because we’ve done the awareness phase. Now it’s really about systems. So, how are we designing recruiting, classrooms, and even also classrooms so that inclusion is built in and not added on? So, across the country, some schools are rebranding DEI as belonging or community. While the words might change, the purpose shouldn’t.

So, the real future of the work is collaboration between students, faculty, and even the industry to try to create environments that reflect the diversity of the world we’re preparing to lead in, and specifically at Haas. I’d love to see that spirit continue. The restructuring is unsettling for a lot of us, but it’s also a reminder that belonging doesn’t depend on an office. It depends on all of us really showing up, especially consistently. I think compassionately and especially with the courage to question the status quo while really staying beyond ourselves.

[00:10:02] Abbey Mui: Thank you so much, Eric, for coming into our podcast and sharing your real and authentic stories with us today. It’s been an enlightening conversation. Eric brings up some great points about being authentic in a corporate setting that can be very difficult. So, to help us explore these issues further, we are thrilled to welcome our expert guests, Lex Glaude and Alex Figueroa, who have extensive experience researching in the DEI space.

Lex and Alex, thank you so much for joining us today. Before we dive in, can you share a bit about yourself and your backgrounds?

[00:10:30] Lex Glaude: Yeah, thanks, Abbey, so much for having me. My name is Analexis Glaude. I go by Lex. I am a fourth-year Ph.D. candidate here at Haas in the Management of Organizations group. I’m actually graduating in May, so this is my final year, which is exciting, light at the end of the tunnel. I am biracial, Black and Puerto Rican, and I use she/her pronouns.

[00:10:53] Alex Figueroa: Hi, I am Alex Figueroa. I’m a postdoc in Micro MORS, in the same lab that Lex is in. I am also Puerto Rican, and I’m from Orlando. So, I was born there. Some call me a “Boricua,” if you’ve heard that before. 

[00:11:07] Abbey Mui: Great, welcome. We’re really excited to have you as we continue the conversation after we heard Eric’s story and experiences. The overarching question is, where does DEI go from here? Can you both briefly share your research focus and how it intersects with DEI, especially in the current climate?

[00:11:25] Lex Glaude: Yeah. So, I study creativity and innovation, specifically looking at how people perceive creativity and innovation within themselves and within other people. And the driving force behind my work really is asking the question, when we think of who is creative and who is innovative, which identities are we thinking about? Which identities do a pretty typical creative or innovative person possess?

And then, with my findings here, I find that we have some race and gender differences where different races and different genders are perceived differently in terms of their creative and innovative abilities, especially within domain. And my main connection here for the workforce is looking at how recruiters or hiring committees might perceive creativity or innovation in a potentially biased way, which can limit their overall talent pool and really affect things like compensation or overall hiring practices if we’re looking for specific traits that we may not think everyone has. So, really looking at these race and gender aspects in creativity.

[00:12:28] Abbey Mui: What about you, Alex?

[00:12:29] Alex Figueroa: So, I primarily study morality, like individual morality, and how we decide what’s good in the workplace. Lately, I’ve been thinking a lot about how our morality informs whether or not we think DEI is good, and what types of individual ideologies can guide that decision. Actually, right now I’m working primarily on trying to understand political ideology, given what’s happening in the world and these major political shifts that we’re seeing.

And so, to, kind of, put all of that together, one of the big questions that I’m thinking about right now is how does our political ideology drive the way that we think about how DEI functions in the workplace, and whether or not it’s something that’s worth doing? I also think a little bit about how the values of our workplace can influence our support or influence backlash toward these types of initiatives.

[00:13:26] Abbey Mui: Great. So, it sounds like your work focuses a lot on the authenticity of DEI efforts as well. So, can you tell me how organizations can avoid being tokenistic or performative in their DEI work? And can you also speak to what it means to be tokenistic or performative, as opposed to authentic, for our audience?

[00:13:44] Alex Figueroa: I’d be happy to. I’ve been thinking a lot about authenticity as a type of moral attribution, and it’s actually a pretty tricky topic. The research on organizational values indicates that there are a few things that we use to decide if an organization is being true to themselves when they talk about the things they’re committed to, especially DEI. These are pretty intuitive. They’re things like, did the organization spend money on this initiative? Is it profuse throughout a lot of its different processes? How consistent have they been over time?

And even things like, was this a risky statement to make? Because those things feel more authentic to us. However, we’re in, kind of, a unique time right now. And this is something that I’ve been collecting data on all summer. Skepticism for DEI policies is, kind of, at an all-time high, and so my current findings are indicating that we’re becoming a lot less sensitive to things like monetary spend on these efforts, and we’re becoming more influenced by our ideological leanings rather than attributes of the actual signal.

So, what I’m finding in this research is probably the most consistent thing that is predictive of authenticity attributions is consistency over time. And so, when we think about what makes these DEI efforts feel authentic, it seems like across the ideological spectrum, most people are looking for that consistency metric, especially when things are becoming a little bit more difficult or in times where consistency might be a little bit riskier.

[00:15:20] Abbey Mui: That’s a great point. We’ve definitely seen a rise in public skepticism and even legal rollbacks of DEI programs. So, what’s your take on where this backlash is coming from?

[00:15:29] Alex Figueroa: Well, we have a pretty good idea of where it’s coming from. The research on backlash for DEI indicates that backlash is largely driven by zero-sum perspectives, or the perspective that DEI policies somehow take away resources from majority groups. When people see things in life as zero-sum, they’re much more likely to resist change, and that includes DEI policies that are, you know, shifting the organization toward more equitable practices. And the research shows that this reaction or this perspective is largely driven by fear.

When the world around us feels unsafe or unstable, we have these emotions arise, and we’re much more likely to see any, sort of, change as a potential threat to our well-being and safety. So, that could be part of it. Relating back to my prior comment about consistency, I’ve also been looking at the effect of rollbacks this past summer to see how it’s influencing our perceptions of authenticity and the degree to which we might want to work for these types of organizations, what we call in our field “organizational attraction.”

It turns out that rollbacks are seen as highly inauthentic, that’s unsurprising. But for this reason, even those who don’t agree with DEI in the first place are less likely to want to work at this type of organization compared to an organization that has recommitted to DEI values. What this is telling me, to reiterate, is that maybe organizations are focused too much on trying to make everyone happy rather than staying true and authentic to their values. And that individuals, even more than whether or not they agree with everything that an organization does, are really looking for consistency in the values of the places where they work.

[00:17:13] Abbey Mui: Wow, that’s very interesting. Lex, from an innovation and hiring lens, how can companies design DEI systems that actually improve outcomes and not just exist as policies, while staying authentic to their corporate identities?

[00:17:28] Lex Glaude: Great, yeah. I actually think this starts with the job description, when you’re making job posts, when organizations are seeking applicants, really reading through the job description as recruiters, as hiring staff, and asking, what do I mean by these words that I’m using? What do I mean by these buzzwords that I’m using? For example, a lot of job descriptions use buzzwords like “creativity,” like “innovation,” like “hard worker.” But if you really think about it, these words can mean so many different things in so many different contexts to so many different people.

So, I would encourage companies to find a sense of common ground on, okay, when we mention certain words, what, kinds of, applicants are we actually looking for? And is there any bias in terms of the, kinds of, people that we’re looking for? And how we define terms, is that going to limit our talent pool at all, based on our more constricted definition, or having a more open definition? And I think that this would result in having a more ideal match in terms of really opening yourself up to diverse candidate pools by, kind of, having these definitions that are really representative of what you want the career to be.

And I think, as a secondary point of this, is observing talent in ways that talent hasn’t been observed before. I mean, performance reviews and things like that are so common in the workplace, but really looking at what items are actually on the performance review, and also looking at what items aren’t on the performance review. If we’re taking creativity, for example, a lot of the literature says that creativity takes a while. Actually, coming through and having time for this brainstorming session to come up with these new or novel ideas takes time.

Is that something that’s rewarded in performance reviews in organizations? Or are you rewarding people that maybe don’t go through the creative process and are more adept at actually just making tangible goods? And I think everyone has different strengths and talents, and I think it’s important that we look at these different traits, be a little bit more inclusive in how we define and look at performance management, and look at what items people might be doing but maybe aren’t being measured to the extent, or valued to the extent, that they actually bring to the company.

And are people receiving lower evaluations because they aren’t producing tangible work, but maybe they’re spending more time in this idea generation phase, and more of this long-term aspect? And then asking corporations, ″Do you want to reward the process of creativity? What does it look like for different teams, for different people?”

And I think, just to summarize here, it’s important to really be clear on what you want certain applicants to have, and then identify bias that’s in those terms while you’re defining them. Really, ask yourself, is there a little bit of bias in these terms that I’m using in my job descriptions that might be preventing certain communities from applying, or might be a little bit too stringent in terms of who you’re looking for?

[00:20:24] Abbey Mui: Thank you so much for painting that picture. So, we oftentimes hear terms like “belonging,” “inclusion,” or “culture add” replacing our more traditional terms like diversity, equity, and inclusion, DEI for short. Is this rebranding helpful, or does it dilute the message? What do you all think?

[00:20:43] Lex Glaude: Yeah, I think Alex is the expert on this one. But if I’m speaking from a, sort of, outsider perspective, I think there’s already a lot of pushback on DEI, especially with the current political administration, and lots of rollbacks have been happening. And I’m not entirely convinced that using new terms will be perceived differently. For people that are against DEI, I’m not sure that people really see a difference there.

People will still know that they’re DEI policies at the root, and therefore, there may still be some of the same pushback that we’re currently seeing. But I’ll hand it off to Alex, who’s the actual expert in this topic.

[00:21:19] Alex Figueroa: I mean, I think Lex is right. I think that people who are resistant to these types of policies will still be resistant when we call them “culture.” And at the same time, you may actually get more skepticism from the people who would’ve benefited from these types of policies, because you… I think I talked a little bit about riskiness at the beginning of this podcast, and when we see our organizations trying to make their statements more vanilla, it may feel a little bit less authentic because they’re trying to avoid risk.

At the same time, I think people… I don’t know because we don’t have data on this, but my intuition is that people are sensitive to the fact that we’re in a very unique time and that some of these offices might just be trying to survive. So, if the option is to close your DEI office or rebrand it as “culture,” maybe that’s preferable. However, we really should think about how these authenticity attributions are made in the first place. We often make authenticity attributions about our organizations in the same way that we make them about people.

And when people are willing to stand up for their values, even when it’s risky or when times are hard, we’re much more likely to see those values as indicative of the type of person that they are. And the same is true for organizations and the types of places that we want to work. We want to see our organizations as being strong and committed to the cultures that they claim to create.

So, I think that this is a sticky situation, and Lex is right, these organizations may not actually even see benefits from doing these types of things, and they may be harming perceptions from people who would’ve supported them in these values in the first place.

[00:22:57] Abbey Mui: Yeah, that’s a very good point. And so, looking ahead, what is your vision for the future of DEI, including pitfalls to avoid and opportunities to seize both in academic institutions like UC Berkeley and Haas, and in the corporate world?

[00:23:12] Lex Glaude: I think there’s so much academic research that shows the importance of diversity both in the workforce and in academic institutions. And I ask… this is more of a hopeful statement for me, I hope that the future includes making these findings more palatable for the public. I think as academics, there could be more of an effort to really share these findings with the corporate world that can actually be applied in the workforce settings that we’re mentioning in our papers.

A lot of academic research does tend to be jargony and a little bit confusing for perhaps the general audience, so I think an effort for this work to be translated into nice, bite-sized pieces would be really amazing for the future of work. Taking this academic, scientific research and actually applying it to an organizational setting that is experiencing diversity, or lack of diversity, and how the workforce could be improved by recruiting a more diverse workplace.

And I think this is already being done in some aspects. We have some field experiments where we have actual companies partnering with academic institutions like UC Berkeley, and they’re able to, kind of, join forces with the corporate world and the academic world, and I think that’s what needs to happen. I think we just need to join forces as these two different worlds coming together to really enforce the fact that diversity is important, and that fact won’t change.

[00:24:35] Alex Figueroa: I think Lex said it perfectly. The research has been pretty consistent in showing that diverse organizations are more innovative, more creative, to speak to her research, but they also typically are more profitable. That is the same for organizations that are more equitable and more inclusive. When you’re able to represent a broader spectrum of voices, organizations just tend to do better, especially when your workforce feels equally safe in the working environment.

 However, I think as DEI professionals and as researchers, we made a lot of assumptions about shared values when we were starting to do this research. I think we underestimated, as I mentioned earlier, the potential fear that comes with changing the workplace so drastically and shaking up practices and traditions that have been instilled in our organizations for a really long time, you know, in the hopes of making them more justice-oriented.

I think we’ve also triggered some feelings of fear. So, I think as we are going forward in this space, we need to do a better job of communicating the “why” behind these policies, because in reality, equitable organizations are better for everyone.

[00:25:42] Abbey Mui: Great. Well, we only have time for one more question, and so to wrap up, in a world where DEI faces skepticism, what’s the one thing organizations and individuals need to prioritize to make meaningful change? Lex, we’ll start with you.

[00:25:56] Lex Glaude: Cool. I know this is definitely easier said than done, but keeping a strong commitment to DEI policies. It’s easy nowadays to say everyone else is rolling back on DEI, everyone else is taking out these policies or altering these policies, so why can’t I also do that? And I think authenticity here is important. I think this also speaks to what Alex has been mentioning throughout the podcast, actually.

I like to think optimistically that this fight against DEI will eventually dissipate, and companies will reinstate DEI policies, because, as I mentioned, it’s been shown so many times in so many different ways that DEI is important, and at some point, the facts can only be ignored for so long. So, I think that DEI will win in the end. And I think it’s important for companies that are already enforcing DEI and keeping strong in their commitments to maintain that stance.  I think it’ll be beneficial in the end for them, that they’re going to be consistent throughout time, even when things have gotten tough.

They’ve maintained their commitment to DEI, and I mean, maybe again I’m overly optimistic here, but I do think that things will eventually even out. And culture takes a long time to build. So, if you maintain your strong culture, you don’t have to rebuild once things change, once the political administration changes. You don’t have to change with the ebbs and flows of whether or not diversity is “cool” or “not cool.” If you maintain your stance with diversity, you don’t have to keep rebuilding your culture. And overall, I think that speaks to Alex’s work on the authenticity of the organization.

[00:27:34] Abbey Mui: Thank you, Lex. Alex?

[00:27:36] Alex Figueroa: I agree with everything that Lex said. I think she’s spot on. If you can’t tell, I’m a huge proponent of consistency when we’re talking about culture. As Lex mentioned, consistency over time is one of the most key indicators for how we make attributions about an organization’s culture.

And I think that Lex is probably right, maybe we’re too optimistic here, but I think that things will change, as they do over time. The external environment will shift again, and if your organization is perceived as just following what’s popular at the time, that’s not a powerful indicator of culture. So, I think that that is one thing that organizations should think seriously about before they make these big shifts.

[00:28:18] Abbey Mui: And that’s our time for today. To close out, thank you to Eric, Alex, and Lex for your time. Thank you to JC Chen for the research and production of this episode. This has been such a meaningful conversation. Just reflecting briefly on what we’ve heard today from our guests, one of the biggest takeaways is the importance of authenticity and consistency when it comes to being committed to DEI, whether it’s companies, academic institutions, or even ourselves.

For our listeners out there, I would challenge you to consider authenticity and consistency when evaluating the DEI efforts of an organization, whether it be here at Haas or wherever you end up going from here. And most of all, I challenge you to be authentic and consistent in your own efforts as well, as you are the ones with the power to impact the future of DEI and create meaningful change in the world today.

And that concludes our episode for today and our second season of Belonging at Haas, Beyond the Buzzwords. Thank you to our listeners for tuning in, and be sure to join us next time as we continue to explore the diverse perspectives within the Haas community.