D&I Training Is Still Necessary For Future Proofing The Workplace
Over the years, there has been significant progress in incorporating diversity and inclusion into the workplace; however, the question of the need for Diversity and Inclusion (D&I)-specific training remains, amidst a turbulent year where pivots and pauses have become the new norm. As a practitioner regularly engaged in this work since 2015, I have seen the benefits of aha inclusion awareness moments that arise from courageous conversations in psychologically safe training environments. Those moments create more engaged employees, which is a positive outcome for the organization, as it leads to higher productivity. Nonetheless, the workplace doesn't have a consensus on the need for diversity and inclusion (D&I) training. This article will re-examine the importance of this training and why it remains a worthwhile investment in regularly upskilling the workforce.
Leaders play an important role in setting the stage for training success. getty
From the CEO on down, everyone in the workplace can benefit from attending and participating in D&I Training to build effective working relationships with colleagues, customers, vendors, and more that help achieve organizational goals. Leaders set the tone, so those at the top carry the responsibility of providing cues on how important training is to the organization. That task itself can be challenging, so training incubators can create a space for everyone to unpack answers to burning questions that help leaders show up authentically around diversity and inclusion. Keep in mind that inclusion lessons vary based on many factors, so collectively, we shouldn't assume that everyone has the necessary skills and tools to be inclusive.
Most, if not all of us, do not receive a primer on what each of us needs to engage and work together successfully in the workplace, but we gain relational insights as time progresses. These insights are likely one-dimensional (from the point of view of the workplace only), which could elongate or impact work outcomes. Therefore, organizations that invest in ongoing proactive skill-building efforts are ahead of the game in creating bridges to strengthen human awareness and understanding, fostering an inclusive workplace. Employees who feel their organizations value their authenticity are 2.4 times more likely to stay, says a Bias-free, Leadership, Inclusion, Safety, and Support Report.
AI will be a game-changer for all employees. AFP via Getty Images
The needs of the workplace are constantly evolving, and as such, training on diversity and inclusion must adapt accordingly. Take, for example, technology. Workers must learn efficient practices to complement work productivity. Just as employees must eliminate bias from hiring and talent management processes, they will also need to do so with new technologies. Training updates will be necessary to accommodate the diverse range of worker skill sets and create space for success.
The workplace community needs to attend and engage in training to implement a standard operating procedure for including people in the organization. Doing so helps avoid issues like favoritism and bias that can create friction and impede organizational success. Additional benefits include providing tools to navigate workplace conflict and increase team effectiveness. Among the top challenges for the workplace in 2025 are hybrid work requirements, a focus on employee wellness, and significant gaps in feedback between managers and employees. These challenges provide valuable input into the necessity of engaging in diversity and inclusion training, which is well-positioned to address key issues that impact how we work together.
If You Change Nothing, Nothing Will Change. Inspiration for the workplace and perspective around ... More ongoing D&I Training. getty Does the Workplace Need Diversity and Inclusion Training On An Ongoing Basis?
I once worked for an employer who asked us to recertify our understanding of sexual harassment annually. I surmised that this process existed to certify the organization's proactive approach to minimizing or eliminating cases of misconduct and mitigating any associated financial risks. The same scenario is applicable here. Just because we have one training around diversity and inclusion does not make us all experts. We require ongoing education to develop the skills necessary for appreciating the diverse identities that comprise the workplace, as well as for effectively incorporating this talent to remain competitive in our respective industries. If we had this all figured out, we wouldn't still be discussing it, and we'd be on to the next learning topic. In 2025, we still face challenges related to discrimination that undoubtedly impact fairness in the workplace, ultimately affecting organizational outcomes.
In summary, we still need diversity and inclusion training. Companies are in business to generate revenue, and to do so, they must have access to skilled talent. Talent must be valued; otherwise, it will exit the organization without contributing to bottom-line goals. A key lever in upholding this dynamic is providing education and appreciation for diversity and inclusion through ongoing training.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Jury awards over $240 million in damages against Tesla in Autopilot crash lawsuit
A Florida jury on Friday ordered Tesla to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to the victims of a 2019 fatal crash involving its Autopilot driver assist technology. The verdict which comes after a four-year long case could encourage more legal action against Elon Musk's electric car company. A Miami jury decided that Elon Musk's car company Tesla was partly responsible for a deadly crash in Florida involving its Autopilot driver assist technology and must pay the victims more than $240 million in damages. The federal jury held that Tesla bore significant responsibility because its technology failed and that not all the blame can be put on a reckless driver, even one who admitted he was distracted by his cellphone before hitting a young couple out gazing at the stars. The decision comes as Musk seeks to convince Americans his cars are safe enough to drive on their own as he plans to roll out a driverless taxi service in several cities in the coming months. The decision ends a four-year long case remarkable not just in its outcome but that it even made it to trial. Many similar cases against Tesla have been dismissed and, when that didn't happen, settled by the company to avoid the spotlight of a trial. 'This will open the floodgates,' said Miguel Custodio, a car crash lawyer not involved in the Tesla case. 'It will embolden a lot of people to come to court.' The case also included startling charges by lawyers for the family of the deceased, 22-year-old, Naibel Benavides Leon, and for her injured boyfriend, Dillon Angulo. They claimed Tesla either hid or lost key evidence, including data and video recorded seconds before the accident. Tesla said it made a mistake after being shown the evidence and honestly hadn't thought it was there. 'We finally learned what happened that night, that the car was actually defective,' said Benavides' sister, Neima Benavides. 'Justice was achieved.' Tesla has previously faced criticism that it is slow to cough up crucial data by relatives of other victims in Tesla crashes, accusations that the car company has denied. In this case, the plaintiffs showed Tesla had the evidence all along, despite its repeated denials, by hiring a forensic data expert who dug it up. 'Today's verdict is wrong," Tesla said in a statement, 'and only works to set back automotive safety and jeopardize Tesla's and the entire industry's efforts to develop and implement lifesaving technology,' They said the plaintiffs concocted a story 'blaming the car when the driver – from day one – admitted and accepted responsibility.' In addition to a punitive award of $200 million, the jury said Tesla must also pay $43 million of a total $129 million in compensatory damages for the crash, bringing the total borne by the company to $243 million. 'It's a big number that will send shock waves to others in the industry,' said financial analyst Dan Ives of Wedbush Securities. 'It's not a good day for Tesla.' Tesla said it will appeal. Even if that fails, the company says it will end up paying far less than what the jury decided because of a pre-trial agreement that limits punitive damages to three times Tesla's compensatory damages. Translation: $172 million, not $243 million. But the plaintiff says their deal was based on a multiple of all compensatory damages, not just Tesla's, and the figure the jury awarded is the one the company will have to pay. It's not clear how much of a hit to Tesla's reputation for safety the verdict in the Miami case will make. Tesla has vastly improved its technology since the crash on a dark, rural road in Key Largo, Florida, in 2019. But the issue of trust generally in the company came up several times in the case, including in closing arguments Thursday. The plaintiffs' lead lawyer, Brett Schreiber, said Tesla's decision to even use the term Autopilot showed it was willing to mislead people and take big risks with their lives because the system only helps drivers with lane changes, slowing a car and other tasks, falling far short of driving the car itself. Schreiber said other automakers use terms like 'driver assist' and 'copilot' to make sure drivers don't rely too much on the technology. 'Words matter,' Schreiber said. 'And if someone is playing fast and lose with words, they're playing fast and lose with information and facts.' Schreiber acknowledged that the driver, George McGee, was negligent when he blew through flashing lights, a stop sign and a T-intersection at 62 miles an hour before slamming into a Chevrolet Tahoe that the couple had parked to get a look at the stars. The Tahoe spun around so hard it was able to launch Benavides 75 feet through the air into nearby woods where her body was later found. It also left Angulo, who walked into the courtroom Friday with a limp and cushion to sit on, with broken bones and a traumatic brain injury. But Schreiber said Tesla was at fault nonetheless. He said Tesla allowed drivers to act recklessly by not disengaging the Autopilot as soon as they begin to show signs of distraction and by allowing them to use the system on smaller roads that it was not designed for, like the one McGee was driving on. 'I trusted the technology too much,' said McGee at one point in his testimony. 'I believed that if the car saw something in front of it, it would provide a warning and apply the brakes.' The lead defense lawyer in the Miami case, Joel Smith, countered that Tesla warns drivers that they must keep their eyes on the road and hands on the wheel yet McGee chose not to do that while he looked for a dropped cellphone, adding to the danger by speeding. Noting that McGee had gone through the same intersection 30 or 40 times previously and hadn't crashed during any of those trips, Smith said that isolated the cause to one thing alone: 'The cause is that he dropped his cellphone.' The auto industry has been watching the case closely because a finding of Tesla liability despite a driver's admission of reckless behavior would pose significant legal risks for every company as they develop cars that increasingly drive themselves. (FRANCE 24 with AP)
Fast Company
8 minutes ago
- Fast Company
In uncertain times purpose-driven brands have the winning edge
Whether you're sitting at your desk at work or shopping at the grocery store, you can feel it: the shared sense of uncertainty in the air. Economic indicators are shifting; tariffs have impacted trade flows, and experts predict the nation's growth rate may be cut in half. Combined with broad geopolitical instability, this sense of economic uneasiness has seen consumer sentiment dip to its second-lowest point since 1952. In this challenging climate, even industry giants like Target, Walmart, and Apple are forecasting declines in profits and sales. Yet, history shows that periods of uncertainty often spark innovation and resilience. Brands that can adapt, communicate clearly, and build trust with their customers are well positioned not just to endure, but to lead. So, what can business leaders facing such turbulence do to persevere? Return to the compass that always points to a way to growth: delivering for the consumer. Showing up consistently, adapting with purpose, and becoming the steady heartbeat in their customers' increasingly chaotic world. The Power of Purpose in Uncertain Times As a counterbalance to all the bad news, resilient brands can become a source of strength and reassurance by understanding their consumers and delivering positive impact. In times of uncertainty, brands can improve their customers' day-to-day by bringing moments of joy and meaning into their lives. What's more, they can also deepen those consumer connections by demonstrating alignment with customer values and aspirations for the future. New research supports this call to action: 86% of consumers say brands play an important role in delivering a positive human future. But only 15% of companies are actively investing in efforts aligned to that purpose, a gap that speaks volumes. Consumers are quite willing to reward brands they see as positive difference-makers. They're nearly three times more likely to pay a premium, try new products and services, and even forgive mistakes from brands they think are working towards a better world. This is especially true among Gen Z consumers and younger generations, who prioritize brands that align with their ethical and social principles. So, what does it really mean to deliver a 'positive human future,' and how can brands demonstrate the commitment consumers are seeking? It doesn't mean you have to solve every global issue—you just have to show consumers that you understand their challenges and respond in ways that align to their values. When a single headline can shake markets and communities, consumers are looking for something steady to latch onto, and brands have the opportunity to hold strong. Think Big with Small Gestures For brands, this doesn't require a complete overhaul of business strategy or major new investments. It can start with a simple challenge: how can you show up in small, meaningful ways to brighten consumers' days and give them something to look forward to? Consumers today are seeking more than transactions; they want relationships. Nearly 50% of U.S. consumers are willing to pay more for brands that understand and respond to their needs—brands that listen, learn, and use what they hear to deliver amazing experiences. Take Little Spoon, for example. The baby food company didn't build trust by making grand gestures, but instead took the time to collaborate with parents and scientists to ensure parents have a voice in their child's health. They put their money where their mouth is to provide consistent engagement with parents through its ' Is This Normal ' community platform. They created a winning product that reflects real needs and values, showing up consistently for their customers when and where they needed them. They've successfully become more than a packaged good—they're a partner in parenting, building ardent fans through shared values. To follow in similar footsteps, there are several actions brands can take, starting with active listening and reliability. By using customer insights to understand what matters most, brands can reflect those priorities in their messaging and offerings and then communicate those priorities regularly and consistently. This requires ongoing dialogue and genuine responsiveness to customer feedback and changing needs. By ensuring consumers feel seen and heard, brands will not only build a customer base but also a community. This alignment becomes particularly powerful when economic pressures mount, and consumers are making more deliberate choices about where to spend their money. Above all, it's those small moments of joy that will make all the difference. Positive experiences don't require massive budgets, but they do require intentionality. Whether it's unexpected customer service excellence, community-building initiatives, or simply consistent, reliable communication, these moments transform into lasting relationships. Building Tomorrow's Resilient Brands The businesses that struggle during volatile times often share common characteristics: They become reactive rather than proactive, focus inward rather than on customer needs, or stop innovating to avoid risk. It's more important to show up for customers during times of turbulence than when the waters are calm. Every interaction becomes an opportunity to build trust. Every product decision becomes a chance to show values alignment. Every communication becomes a moment to provide clarity and reassurance. In a world where headlines shift by the hour, brands can emerge as a steady beacon. The brands that thrive aren't necessarily the biggest or the loudest, but those that prioritize real connection with their consumers; those that are able to deliver impact in their day-to-day, and in the world they inhabit. When purse strings tighten, brands that build real relationships, spark joy in the uncertainty, and support a positive human future will build the kind of consumer loyalty that pays dividends through good times and bad.
New York Times
25 minutes ago
- New York Times
Economy Updates: After a Weak Jobs Report, Trump Fires That Agency's Commissioner
President Trump said on social media on Friday that he had directed his team to fire Erika McEntarfer, the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. President Trump unleashed his fury about weakness in the labor market on Friday, saying without evidence that the data were 'rigged' and that he was firing the Senate-confirmed Department of Labor official responsible for pulling together the numbers each month. In a long post on social media, Mr. Trump said he had directed his team to fire Erika McEntarfer, the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, who was confirmed on a bipartisan basis in 2024. Emily Liddel, an associate commissioner for the bureau, confirmed late Friday that Dr. McEntarfer had been fired and that William Wiatrowski, the deputy commissioner, would serve as acting commissioner. The president fired Dr. McEntarfer after the bureau released monthly jobs data showing surprisingly weak hiring in July and large downward revisions to job growth in the previous two months. Economists widely interpreted the report as evidence that Mr. Trump's policies were beginning to take a toll on the economy, though the president insisted in a subsequent post that the country was 'doing GREAT!' Lori Chavez-DeRemer, the labor secretary, echoed Mr. Trump's concerns about Dr. McEntarfer in a post on social media. 'So you know what I did?' Mr. Trump later told reporters, as he claimed the numbers were 'phony.' 'I fired her, and you know what? I did the right thing.' Dr. McEntarfer was appointed to her post by President Joseph R. Biden Jr. in 2023 after a long career at the Census Bureau and other agencies, where she served under presidents of both parties, including Mr. Trump. Among the Republicans who voted to confirm her as commissioner was Vice President JD Vance, who was then an Ohio senator. The firing prompted swift criticism from economists, former government officials and others, who said the removal would further erode trust in government statistics and make it more difficult for policymakers, investors and businesses, who rely on having dependable data about the economy to make decisions. In addition to the monthly jobs numbers, the Bureau of Labor Statistics is responsible for producing data on inflation, wages and other aspects of the economy. William W. Beach, who led the bureau during Mr. Trump's first term, criticized the move to fire Dr. McEntarfer on Friday. 'It's unfortunate,' he said. 'This could set a precedent where bad news on many different fronts is a reason for dismissing a person.' Mr. Beach, who was appointed by Mr. Trump in 2019 and remained in the role for the first two years of the Biden administration, said he had never felt pressure to manipulate the data under either president. Even if there were such pressure, he said, there is 'no way' the commissioner could interfere in the revisions process, which is conducted by career employees. Erica Groshen, who led the agency under President Barack Obama, called the decision 'a terrible precedent.' 'I hope will be reversed because it undermines the integrity of our statistical system and really all of government data and science,' she added, calling it 'a very sad day.' Dr. McEntarfer's tenure got off to a rough start last year when the agency made a series of missteps in which Wall Street firms had access to data before the general public. But none of those incidents involved issues with the statistics themselves. Mr. Trump and his top aides have made a habit of attacking government agencies, researchers and watchdogs when they have produced findings that the president does not like. That has led to concerns that Mr. Trump could seek to interfere with the operations of the Bureau of Labor Statistics and other statistical agencies, particularly if the economy begins to take a turn for the worse. Until now, however, most experts on the statistical system said they remained confident in the data produced by the agencies and had seen no evidence of political interference in their operations. Current and former agency staff members consistently echoed that message — in part, they said, because they trusted Dr. McEntarfer and her counterparts at the other major statistical agencies to protect their independence. 'If that pressure got too great, you would see people resigning rather than shape the numbers,' Mr. Beach said. Economists across the ideological spectrum said Mr. Trump's move to oust Dr. McEntarfer was likely to erode public confidence in the data published by the administration. 'If you want people to stop trusting the numbers coming out of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, firing the person who is confirmed by the Senate to make sure those numbers are trustworthy is a real good way to do it,' said Martha Gimbel, the executive director of the Budget Lab at Yale, who served in the White House under Mr. Biden. Dr. McEntarfer could not immediately be reached for comment. On Friday morning, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released data showing that employers added only 73,000 new jobs in July. It also notably revised data for the previous two months, reducing the number of jobs created by 258,000. While revisions to previous months are common, it was an unusually high number that came as a surprise. It suggested the labor market was not as resilient as it had seemed earlier this summer. Shortly after the numbers were released, Stephen Miran, the chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, offered an explanation for the jobs revision that was much different from Mr. Trump's. On CNBC, he said much of the change was the result of 'quirks in the seasonal adjustment process' and even the president's own policies, particularly on immigration, potentially affecting hiring numbers for May and June. He made no mention of any concerns about manipulated data as he sought to recast the slowdown in July as a 'pretty decent' jobs report. By evening, Kevin Hassett, the director of the National Economic Council, sought to frame the firing as an attempt to restore 'trust' at the statistics agency. Unlike Mr. Trump, who described the revisions as politically motivated, Mr. Hassett said its jobs figures had been 'awful' for some time. 'I think it is a good time for a fresh set of eyes to look at what the heck is going on,' he told Fox Business. In his social media posts on Friday, Mr. Trump provided no evidence that Dr. McEntarfer had injected political bias into her agency's data. And his criticisms contained contradictions and inaccuracies. Mr. Trump complained about not just the latest jobs numbers but also a set of revisions from last year. The bureau, like other statistical agencies, routinely updates its figures to incorporate data that wasn't initially available or to reflect information from more authoritative sources. Last August, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said employers had added roughly 818,000 fewer jobs over a 12-month period than previously believed. That announcement was part of a normal annual revision process, although the change was unusually large. (It was also preliminary — the final figures were revised down by just under 600,000 jobs.) In a social media post on Friday, Mr. Trump said the revision was made 'right after the election.' In fact, the announcement was made roughly two and a half months before Election Day. Indeed, Mr. Trump posted about the revisions at the time, calling them a 'MASSIVE SCANDAL.' To the agency's defenders, however, the twin revisions show that it operates without political bias and was willing to announce politically inconvenient news under presidents of both parties. 'President Trump is completely wrong in asserting there's been any sort of anti-Trump bias in the labor market data,' said Michael Strain, an economist at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. 'I think that assertion is wholly unsupported.' Mr. Strain said that government data is revised frequently, and that doing so reflected a 'standard' practice to ensure its quality. In this case, he acknowledged that the change was 'historically large' but 'doesn't smell fishy.' Federal statistical agencies have faced mounting challenges in recent years as Americans have become more reluctant to respond to the surveys that are the basis for much of the nation's economic data. Shrinking budgets have made it harder to make up for falling response rates, and to develop new approaches to replace surveys altogether. Those concerns predate the current administration, but have grown worse since Mr. Trump returned to office. The statistical agencies have struggled with staff attrition as a result of the president's freeze on federal hiring, combined with the buyouts he offered early in his term. The president's budget also proposed further staff and funding cuts. In June, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said it was reducing its collection of data on consumer prices in response to resource constraints. Economists warned that, over time, such cuts could erode the reliability of the inflation data that Federal Reserve policymakers rely on when setting interest rates, and that determine cost-of-living increases in union contracts and Social Security benefits, among other uses. Asked about those cuts on Wednesday, Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, said policymakers were 'getting the data that we need to do our jobs.' But he stressed the importance of the federal statistical agencies. 'The government data is really the gold standard in data,' he said. 'We need it to be good and to be able to rely on it.' Sydney Ember contributed reporting.
