Introduction

The key premise of Maneethai and colleagues (Reference Maneethai, Johnson, Atwater and Witt2025) is that diversity training will be more effective by appealing to employees’ sense of morality. I applaud Maneethai’s emphasis on strengthening the effectiveness of diversity initiatives but also question whether diversity training is currently the optimal approach for advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Training programs do not operate in a vacuum but are part of a multilevel system whereby societal and organizational values affect employees’ motivation to learn (Sitzmann & Weinhardt, Reference Sitzmann and Weinhardt2018). For the moral framing of training to influence training effectiveness, employees must approach the course with the motivation to learn the training content (Noe, Reference Noe2008). However, at least some employees are likely to approach diversity training with resistance, given that DEI support is variable at the societal level. As such, relying upon managerial practices with a proven track record for increasing diverse representation may be more fruitful until societal values progress toward greater openness to diversity initiatives.

Training programs do not function independently but are part of a broader sociopolitical context that has implications for firms’ approach to DEI (Sitzmann & Campbell, Reference Sitzmann and Campbell2021). Societies are currently witnessing a resurgence of exclusionary attitudes and behaviors, and the ongoing backlash against DEI is striking (Follmer et al., Reference Follmer, Sabat, Jones and King2025). Executive Order 13950, issued by President Trump (Reference Trump2020), cast diversity training and education as “anti-American” and “designed to divide us and to prevent us from uniting as one people.” Similarly, the Don’t Say Gay and Stop W.O.K.E. Acts seek to eliminate DEI efforts and limit DEI education. Twenty-two states have enacted legislation or created policies to roll back DEI initiatives in universities (Bolstad, Reference Bolstad2024). Similarly, organizations have retracted DEI initiatives and eliminated positions for advancing marginalized workers (Walk-Morris, Reference Walk-Morris2024). For example, Harley Davidson responded to DEI backlash on social media by discontinuing its internal DEI function, including rescinding hiring quotas and diversity spending goals (Meyersohn, Reference Meyersohn2024). Indeed, Maneethai and colleagues (p. 3) note that diversity and inclusion are often “weaponized.” Megathreats occur outside the workplace but can spill over, affecting employees’ reactions to organizational diversity initiatives (Leigh & Melwani, Reference Leigh and Melwani2022).

The broad context—beyond training—must be considered when deciding whether employees are ready for training (Noe, Reference Noe2008). Given the ongoing DEI backlash, it is likely that at least some employees will approach diversity training with resistance, and in regions of the country where DEI backlash is pervasive, most employees may not be open to diversity training. Yet, pretraining motivation to learn is a prerequisite for training to increase employees’ knowledge and skills (Noe et al., Reference Noe, Clarke and Klein2014). If employees are resistant before attending training, diversity training will not affect employees’ attitudes and behaviors, negating the value of training (Brown & Sitzmann, Reference Brown, Sitzmann and Zedeck2011). Employees will either click through an online course as quickly as possible, sit through classroom instruction with minimal cognitive engagement, or fail to complete the course, such that organizations may be wasting resources by developing diversity training if employees are not motivated to learn the content (Sitzmann & Weinhardt, Reference Sitzmann and Weinhardt2018). If employees resist training participation, it is unlikely that the training framing matters for most employees. Indeed, “a primary focus on the design features of diversity training may be insufficient for engendering behavior change;” training can have unintended negative consequences, including “defensiveness, blowback, and lack of behavioral change” when the broader context suggests that employees are not ready for diversity training (Roberson et al., Reference Roberson, Moore and Bell2024, pp. 346, 345, respectively).

Furthermore, Maneethai and colleagues recommend improving knowledge of diversity-focused laws as part of DEI training. Scholarly evidence indicates that DEI training focused on legal repercussions “poison[s] the well” (Dobbin & Kalev, Reference Dobbin and Kalev2022, p. 26). Employees utilize training to learn how questionable their behavior can become before being subjected to legal scrutiny (Sitzmann & Schwartz, Reference Sitzmann and Schwartzin press). After legal-based DEI training, employees view cross-race and cross-gender relationships from a contentious, legal standing, which undermines perspective taking and the positive attachments crucial for cross-group friendships (Dobbin & Kalev, Reference Dobbin and Kalev2022; Ragins & Ehrhardt, Reference Ragins and Ehrhardt2021).

As managerial scholars, we have the potential to shape organizations’ strategic approach to DEI, ensuring that organizational leaders rely upon interventions that will engender meaningful progress toward diverse and inclusive workplaces. Diversity training is among the most frequently implemented DEI interventions, such that nearly all Fortune 500 companies and half of midsized U.S. companies offer diversity training (Dobbin & Kalev, Reference Dobbin and Kalev2022; Roberson et al., Reference Roberson, Moore and Bell2024). Although diversity training results in a sustained increase in knowledge (i.e., cognitive learning; Bezrukova et al., Reference Bezrukova, Spell, Perry and Jehn2016), diversity training ranks 14 out of 16 managerial practices for increasing managerial diversity, resulting in a three percentage-point decrease in managerial diversity (Dobbin & Kalev, Reference Dobbin and Kalev2022; Sitzmann & Schwartz, Reference Sitzmann and Schwartzin press). By contrast, chief diversity officers, diversity task forces, formal mentoring programs, employer-paid childcare, parental leave, and recruiting diverse employees result in an average of an eight percentage-point increase in managerial diversity (Sitzmann & Schwartz, Reference Sitzmann and Schwartzin press). Some of these management practices fall outside the diversity realm, but leveling the playing field for all employees increases diverse representation. Thus, organizational leaders may still be able to compel meaningful progress toward diverse and inclusive workplaces, regardless of the ongoing DEI backlash. Indeed, Maneethai and colleagues (p. 3) provide an example of an organization that implemented training with “nothing in the title about DEI … and people don’t even realize they are getting DEI training as part of it.” Notably, Maneethai and colleagues (p. 3) indicate the training received “great feedback.”

Importantly, I am not arguing that the moral framing of training will never affect training effectiveness, but rather, Maneethai’s scholarship may not be opportunely timed, given the ongoing DEI backlash. Strategic change toward diverse, equitable, and inclusive workplaces is inherently challenging because societies are multilevel systems with individuals’ values, organizational norms, laws, and social systems influencing whether DEI progress or regression occurs (Amis et al., Reference Amis, Brickson, Haack and Hernandez2021). As part of this system, societies occasionally undergo intense DEI resistance and regression, typically followed by progress toward more inclusive language, greater wage equality, and more diverse representation (Sitzmann et al., Reference Sitzmann, Bassani and Stansifer2024). Despite the ongoing DEI resistance, organizational leaders can take strides to level the playing field for all employees, setting the stage for diverse and inclusive workplaces.