Many of the traditional indicators of progress are now under heightened scrutiny, and legal teams are advising against certain metrics once considered standard. In that uncertainty, some organizations have paused measurement altogether.

But that can’t be the answer. If we stop measuring inclusion, we stop making progress. And failing to get inclusion right comes with significant organizational costs. Research shows where inclusion is low, employees experience 1.2 to 2.6 times more burnout, productivity drops by 18%, absenteeism rises 37%, and employees are 4.6 times more likely to leave within a year.

To address this dilemma, Seramount researchers have been hard at work identifying the right metrics to truly measure inclusion in the workplace today. Our goal: to move beyond traditional diversity indicators and provide organizations with tools that make inclusion measurable, actionable, and low-risk.

What Is Inclusion, Really?

Historically, inclusion has taken a back seat to diversity and equity when it comes to measurement. Representation goals and pay-equity analyses offered clear, quantifiable targets; inclusion, by contrast, has always felt more nebulous: harder to define, harder to measure, and harder to link directly to business outcomes.

That lack of clarity is one of the biggest barriers to progress. You can’t measure what you don’t first define, and inclusion has been defined in countless, sometimes conflicting,  ways across organizations and industries. Without a shared understanding of what inclusion is, even the best-intentioned leaders struggle to identify which metrics truly matter.

That’s why Seramount set out to bring greater clarity to the concept of inclusion itself. Through extensive research, including a meta-analysis of more than 20 years’ worth of academic and practitioner studies, Seramount has identified the core drivers of inclusive cultures within an organization’s control.

At its foundation, an inclusive workplace is one where employees:

• Feel psychologically safe on their teams
• Believe their contributions are valued
• See their identities reflected across the organization
• Trust that inclusive behavior is a cultural norm expected of everyone

These four experiences define what inclusion is, and, in turn, reveal what organizations should be measuring. They transform inclusion from an abstract ideal into something observable, actionable, and ultimately measurable.

How Can We Measure Inclusion Now?

Now that we have a clear definition of what inclusion looks like, the next question is how to measure it. Building the next era of meaningful metrics requires focusing on two complementary methods: employee metrics and organizational metrics.

1. Employee Metrics: Understanding the Experience

Employee metrics measure the lived experience of inclusion, or how employees feel, contribute, and interact within their teams. These insights often come from engagement or inclusion surveys, but too often, the right questions aren’t being asked.

Many surveys rely on proxies for inclusion (“Do you have a best friend at work?”) rather than assessing the behaviors and experiences that truly create it.

To measure inclusion effectively, organizations need to assess specific, observable behaviors tied directly to the four drivers of inclusion. These behaviors become clear indicators of inclusion, such as whether managers actively invite input from their teams, respond transparently to feedback, or consistently recognize diverse contributions. Seramount’s research team explores this in depth through our Pathway to Inclusion framework, a research-driven process designed to help leaders diagnose, prioritize, and operationalize inclusion. Want to dig deeper? Reach out to connect with one of our experts.

2. Organizational Metrics: Measuring Systems and Structures

While employee metrics reflect the day-to-day experience of inclusion, organizational metrics assess how deeply inclusion is built into your systems, policies, and programs.

For more than 40 years, Seramount has helped organizations measure and benchmark inclusion through tools such as our Talent and Inclusion Index and the 100 Best Companies application. These low-risk, confidential assessments evaluate inclusive workplace practices and family-friendly benefits to help organizations:

• Identify opportunities for improvement
• Compare results against those of their peers
• Inform board and executive reporting
• Demonstrate the business impact of inclusion

Each participating organization receives a complimentary scorecard that provides a clear snapshot of overall performance, highlighting strengths to celebrate and identifying areas for further development. Participants can also request confidential peer comparisons, detailed reports, and expert consultations to refine strategies that strengthen inclusion, benefits, and employee well-being.

In today’s environment , where traditional inclusion data collection is under scrutiny, these metrics provide a credible, compliant way to demonstrate real progress and organizational accountability.

The Bottom Line

The fact is inclusion has never been more important or more at risk. Seramount research shows that one in three employees still does not feel included in their workplace. Yet, at the same time, the work of advancing inclusion is under increasing scrutiny. If organizations can’t demonstrate impact, it becomes harder to defend, resource, and sustain.

That’s why finding a new, credible way to measure inclusion is so critical. A strong measurement strategy doesn’t just prove progress; it protects it. Seramount’s frameworks are built to help organizations identify what drives inclusion, measure it meaningfully, and translate those insights into action.

To continue the conversation, join us on November 6 for Measuring What Matters for People and Performance, Seramount’s member conference showcasing new research and practical execution strategies, including the latest insights on employee metrics and using data to drive meaningful change. Contact us to learn more about the event.

The post How Should We Measure Inclusion Now? appeared first on Seramount.

But these shifts haven’t just changed the work of inclusion; they’ve reshaped the role itself. As organizational priorities are realigned and reporting structures are shifted, inclusion leaders are finding themselves navigating new boundaries, expectations, and definitions of success. With so much in flux, many are asking a simple but urgent question: What now?

The New Priorities for Inclusion Leaders

As the role of inclusion leader evolves, so too must the strategies behind it. The same playbook that worked five years ago no longer applies. To stay effective and ensure their work endures, here are three areas for inclusion leaders to focus on right now:

1. Redefine what success looks like

Representation goals and hiring benchmarks have long been the backbone of inclusion work, but in today’s environment, those metrics have become politically charged.

This moment presents an opportunity: to step back and ask what really drives inclusion inside an organization and how we measure it. When everyone agrees on a shared definition of inclusion, we can finally measure the right things and track progress in meaningful ways.

Seramount’s latest research identifies four core drivers of an inclusive organization, defined as one in which employees:

• feel psychologically safe on their teams,
• believe their personal and professional contributions are valued,
• see their identities reflected elsewhere in the organization, and
• trust that inclusive behavior is a cultural normexpected of everyone.

That’s just the starting point. The hard work lies in figuring out how to measure these experiences and behaviors, something Seramount’s research team is actively exploring. Get a sneak peek in our webinar, Measuring Inclusion in Today’s Legal Landscape.

2. Stay close to the business

For many inclusion leaders, the biggest risk right now isn’t backlash; it’s irrelevance.

As scrutiny around DEI has grown, many organizations have quietly rebranded their inclusion efforts, including retitling leadership roles. For example, a “Chief Diversity Officer” might now be a “VP of Culture and Belonging.” These shifts can seem like semantics, but they fundamentally change who gets access to decision-making and how close inclusion leaders remain to the center of power.

Similarly, Seramount research shows a small but noticeable trend of DEI functions moving under larger HR or Talent umbrellas. That structural change can also influence who’s in the room and who isn’t. In fact, 35% of inclusion leaders say being situated within HR has reduced their access to the CEO and C-suite.

The solution isn’t new, but it’s never been more important: Build relationships with intention. Stay close to peers across the business, understand their goals, and look for places where inclusion can accelerate them. Just as critically, keep a pulse on what senior leaders value most. Even hearing what’s top of mind for the C-suite can reshape how you frame your programs; leaders rarely cut what advances the priorities they care most about.

3. Make a new case for inclusion

This may be the most urgent shift of all. According to recent data, 53% of C-suite leaders expect their organization’s DEI commitments to decrease within the next year. To safeguard their programs, inclusion leaders must make the business case clear: Inclusion isn’t just a value; it’s a driver of shareholder value.

The challenge is that too few leaders feel equipped to make that case effectively. According to Seramount research, only one in five Chief Diversity Officers (CDOs) strongly agrees that they can influence their C-suite to support inclusion, and on average, CDOs spend just 20% of their time engaging senior executives. When influence is limited, so is impact.

The fact is that the old way doesn’t work anymore. Framing inclusion as “the right thing to do” or even “good for the business” isn’t enough in today’s environment. Leaders must connect inclusion to what matters most to their executives: specific, bottom-line business metrics.

That’s exactly what Seramount’s Science of Influence framework is designed to do. The framework outlines four steps to align inclusion goals with executive priorities:

• Identify a current business priority
• Build your singular and precise ask
• Curate relevant and convincing evidence
• Show the impact on the business sheet

With this framework, inclusion work gains clear, measurable outcomes that demonstrate its impact on the organization. It helps executives see that inclusion isn’t a separate initiative but a business advantage they can’t afford to lose.

What’s Next?

If the past nine months have proven anything, it’s that the pace of change isn’t slowing down. Policy shifts, organizational restructuring, and evolving expectations have already reshaped the work of inclusion—and more change is coming.

Inclusion leaders are becoming, by necessity, change-management experts. Whether it’s adapting programs to meet new realities, redefining your role within the company, or helping your organization respond to broader workforce trends (see our State of the Workforce research for more on that), navigating change will be a defining skill in the year ahead.

As the landscape continues to shift, inclusion leaders will need new tools, strategies, and allies to stay ahead. Seramount can help you navigate the evolving role of inclusion leader in 2026 and beyond, connecting you with the research, frameworks, and expertise to adapt and sustain your impact. Connect with our experts to learn more.

The post How the Role of Inclusion Leader Is Changing appeared first on Seramount.

Why Surveys without Strategy Strain Executive Trust in HR

Surveying without a strategy leaves workforce risks unresolved and weakens HR’s credibility with the C-suite. When culture or performance warning signals are missed in survey results, they quickly become costly business problems.

How Missed Talent Signals Can Escalate into Business Disruptions:

• Knowledge gaps stall succession and workforce planning
• Early signs of burnout go unaddressed, spiking disengagement
• Culture breakdowns lead to compliance failures or legal exposure
• Poor reputation makes it harder to attract top talent
• High attrition slows team performance and growth

The goal of employee listening is to inform business-critical decisions. C-suite leaders need HR to explain what current workforce signals mean, so together they can forecast future business performance. That’s why survey results must be tied to stakeholder-supported priorities. Otherwise, HR gets sidelined when their input could prevent future disruption.  

Here are two of the most common survey pitfalls HR leaders should avoid:

Pitfall 1: Too Many Surveys, Too Little Action

Many organizations launch survey after survey (e.g., quarterly pulses, culture snapshots, or well-being spot checks) to appear responsive to employee needs. They end up with dashboards full of overlapping data points that lack clear direction. If organizational or team leaders don’t make any meaningful changes based on survey results, it signals to employees that their voice doesn’t matter. That perception leads to:

• Employees viewing surveys as busywork
• Managers losing patience and disengaging
• Future participation and candor declining

Once survey participation drops, HR leaders are left making decisions with incomplete insight. Frequent surveys can create more noise for HR teams to decipher, not the depth of insight needed to make the effort and resources worthwhile—especially if feedback goes nowhere. Regardless of how many times you ask, employees focus on whether their last round of feedback led to change. The better approach is fewer, well-timed surveys designed to surface actionable insights and show employees how their feedback is implemented.

Pitfall 2: Great Data, No Direction

Even carefully designed surveys lose impact if no one can explain what the results mean. When HR shares a dashboard without a clear narrative, executives cherry-pick numbers that reinforce their instincts while underlying risks are overlooked.

Ideally, surveys should reveal what’s influencing employees’ beliefs and behaviors, not just how they feel on a given day. That’s what allows HR leaders to get ahead of sentiment shifts before they affect performance or retention.

To get there, survey design, framing, and analysis must all serve one purpose: help HR leaders see where to act and why it matters. Without that clarity, organizations risk investing in the wrong initiatives while bigger risks escalate. Presenting survey findings as a compelling story helps busy executives quickly understand the business impact of your recommendations. That’s how surveys become a strategic tool instead of an expensive reporting exercise.

How You Gather Employee Feedback Matters

• What to ask: Design questions that go beyond the surface to uncover drivers of performance and retention
• When to ask: Deploy surveys at pivotal moments in the employee journey (onboarding, promotions, reorganizations) to shape key experiences and outcomes
• How to ask: Choose formats that maximize psychological safety; anonymity is essential for candid input
• Who will ask: Use independent facilitators to increase candor and build trust, especially when employees doubt the privacy of internal channels

Making Employee Voice Actionable

It’s especially challenging to turn survey data into meaningful action without dedicated design, analysis, and change management resources. HR teams are already stretched thin, juggling compliance, culture, and development needs. Adding more surveys without the right support only compounds the problem.

That’s where a comprehensive partnership helps. Seramount’s Employee Voice Platform, Assess360, combines expert-led survey design, anonymous voice sessions, robust analysis, and change management support in one solution. Our experts help HR leaders interpret findings and identify what matters most. This keeps critical stakeholders aligned and ensures that employee insights drive visible, meaningful change.

Assess360’s framework for employee listening:

• Listen: custom surveys and anonymous voice sessions that capture broad feedback and uncover root causes of sentiment
• Diagnose: quantitative and qualitative findings translated into prioritized risks and opportunities
• Transform: expert-guided action plans that align stakeholders and move the right initiatives forward

Surveys become a true risk radar that helps leaders avoid costly surprises when findings are translated into clear action. Assess360 gives HR leaders decision-ready insights and the credibility to protect their organizations from preventable setbacks.

Want a deeper dive into why surveys stall, and how to fix them? Download The Survey Trap for practical ways to turn employee feedback into action your executives trust.

The post 2 Survey Pitfalls that Undermine HR Credibility appeared first on Seramount.

Today, there’s still a lot of uncertainty about what constitutes legal versus illegal DEI. Much of it remains undefined, creating a gray area for many organizations. One of the clearest signals so far has come from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which defines unlawful activity as any program that “unlawfully discriminates” or is “motivated, even in part, by protected characteristics.”

This guidance has led many organizations to take a closer look at their Employee Resource Groups (ERGs). At Seramount, we’ve received a growing number of questions from partners about how to ensure ERGs remain both effective and aligned with today’s legal expectations. That’s because ERGs continue to play a critical role in building connection, fostering community, and driving inclusion.

While ERGs are still widely considered low-risk, how they’re structured and communicated may need to evolve. Below, we dig into what the legal landscape means for ERGs and share three strategies to help ensure they continue to make an impact.

What New Legal Shifts Mean for ERGs

The most significant shift that organizations need to make is to ensure that all ERGs are open to all employees, regardless of whether someone identifies with the group’s focus. Importantly, these legal expectations extend to all workplace affinity spaces and informal groups, such as men’s clubs, book clubs, or other interest-based meetups.

This expectation doesn’t stop at general membership. It also applies to any programs, leadership roles, or opportunities associated with the ERG. That includes participation in mentorship or sponsorship programs, eligibility for ERG leadership positions, access to events or trainings, and involvement in planning or strategy.

Simply put: ERGs can center specific communities, but they cannot restrict membership, participation, or benefits based on identity.

Three Strategies to Adapt ERGs to the New Legal Landscape

Many organizations may find that their existing ERGs already embrace inclusivity in practice, welcoming allies and others outside the core identity group. In fact, in our experience, very few ERGs formally restrict membership based on identity. Still, it’s important to be proactive and intentional about these changes.

Here are three strategies to help you adapt your ERGs to thrive within this new legal environment.

1. Communicate that ERGs are open to all

It’s not enough to make the change; you need to communicate it clearly. Ensure ERG leaders, members, and non-members know that all ERGs are open to everyone. There’s no need to frame it as a major shift, particularly if it isn’t; simply emphasize that these are inclusive spaces welcoming all employees.

2. Share best practices for allyship

Support employees who join ERGs outside their own identity groups by creating simple allyship guides. Collaborate with ERG leaders to set clear expectations around behavior, language, and engagement. This helps ensure respectful participation and keeps ERGs welcoming for all.

3. Position ERGs as business-critical groups

To reinforce their value and ensure long-term viability, organizations should position ERGs as essential drivers of business impact. Consider formally transitioning ERGs into Business Resource Groups (BRGs), emphasizing their contributions to talent development, employee engagement, innovation, and market insights. This framing can help safeguard them against backlash and strengthen their standing within the organization.

The Bottom Line

Ultimately, the safest path to workplace inclusion right now centers on nondiscrimination, belonging, and standardized practices—all of which ERGs are uniquely positioned to deliver. In fact, ERGs may be better equipped than many other DEI efforts to withstand current and future legal challenges.

We’re already seeing this in practice, with many Seramount partners leaning heavily on their ERGs to support employees, especially those most impacted by recent political and legal shifts. That’s why it’s so important to structure and communicate about them in ways that ensure they can continue to exist and have impact.

If you’d like guidance on how to elevate your ERGs and maximize their impact, check out Seramount’s latest guide on taking your ERGs to the next level.

The post Three Ways to Evolve ERGs amid Legal Shifts appeared first on Seramount.

But in this uncertain environment, silence is a statement. Choosing not to show support for LGBTQ+ employees sends a clear message, whether you intend it or not. That’s why this Pride Month, doing nothing isn’t the safest path; it’s just the most unclear. The question isn’t whether to engage but how to do so meaningfully and responsibly.

Why Supporting Pride in 2025 Is More Critical Than Ever

LGBTQ+ employees are looking to their employers for visible, meaningful support this year, and for good reason. According to Seramount’s February 2025 Employee Voice Session, 93 percent of Chief Diversity Officers and DEI leaders said LGBTQ+ employees were the group most in need of safeguards and backing from private industry, more than any other demographic. That number is up from 84 percent just a few months earlier. In other words, concern is growing, not fading.

At the same time, many companies are quietly pulling back. In a recent Seramount survey, 31 percent of Chief Diversity Officers said public statements were the area most affected by the administration’s anti-DEI agenda. Some are even removing DEI language from websites, marketing, and other outward-facing materials.

This internal retreat is mirrored in the public sphere as well. After facing significant backlash in 2024, Target scaled down its Pride merchandise by 96 percent and limited it to select stores. Moves such as this show how quickly long-standing commitments can shrink under political and cultural pressure and how visibility is often the first thing to go.

In this climate, not showing up sends a message too. And it’s not just employees who are watching—consumers, partners, and shareholders are also holding companies accountable, as seen through the recent consumer boycotts, activist investor pressure, and employee-led protests.

Companies can’t claim to be inclusive if they act only when it’s easy. Pride 2025 may feel politically charged, but this is precisely when authenticity matters most. Pride campaigns have long contributed to stronger brand loyalty, employee trust, and public credibility. And while the current climate may be tense, it’s temporary. Values, however, are remembered. If companies disappear now, they risk being seen as performative or opportunistic when the pendulum inevitably swings back. The cost of standing still may ultimately be greater than the cost of standing up.

Three Approaches for Companies to Support Pride in 2025

1. Listen to Your Employees

Before deciding how your company should show up for Pride in 2025, take the time to understand what your LGBTQ+ employees actually need. It’s easy to make assumptions, but those assumptions may be way off base.

For example, employees might not be focused on external visibility. Instead, they may be more concerned with safety, belonging, or legal uncertainty, especially in states where LGBTQ+ protections are being rolled back. In these cases, the most meaningful support might be practical: clearer nondiscrimination policies, updated employee protections, enhanced mental health benefits, or stronger manager training.

The only way to know is to ask. Host confidential listening sessions. Partner with your Pride ERG, if you have one. Create anonymous channels to gather feedback. Make it clear you’re not checking a box, but shaping your approach based on what employees say will actually make them feel seen and supported this year.

2. Focus on Internal Activities

While many companies are scaling back their external Pride efforts, that doesn’t mean you should scale back internally. In fact, internal activities can carry even more weight when done thoughtfully. This is your chance to show meaningful support where it matters most: within your own walls.

So, if your approach to Pride looks different this year, explain why, and reaffirm your commitment to inclusion.

Once you’ve set the context, think about tone. Many employees are craving moments of joy and connection amid a tense climate. Pride can still be celebratory. Thoughtful, human-centered experiences send a powerful message: We care, we’re listening, and we’re here for you.

Then focus on action. You don’t need a large budget to make internal support visible and effective. Partner with your ERG or DEI team to deliver support in ways that feel relevant and authentic.

Some examples:

• “How to Show Up for Pride 2025” Guide: A resource for all employees offering different ways to express support based on comfort and role. Framing it around “How will you show up for your LGBTQ+ colleagues?” makes it about inclusion, not performance.

• Ally Activation Kits: One-pagers, checklists, or mini workshops that equip allies with tangible behaviors and talking points.
• Resources Roundup: Share updated links to internal and external mental health, legal, or safety resources.

But don’t stop at programming. Review your policies, especially around anti-harassment and nondiscrimination, to make sure they’re up to date, easy to access, and actively enforced.

Done right, internal support isn’t a fallback; it’s where real inclusion shows up.

3. Localize External Support

Many companies are scaling back their involvement in large-scale Pride events, such as WorldPride or San Francisco Pride, due to the fear of public backlash. These high-profile events attract significant attention, and companies are increasingly wary of the potential for negative reactions. Instead, some are opting to focus on more localized or community-centered Pride initiatives.

For instance, while Comcast withdrew sponsorship for WorldPride and San Francisco Pride, they have redirected their efforts to support smaller Pride events in Oakland, Silicon Valley, and Sacramento. This shift allows companies to engage with Pride on a more localized level, where the impact may feel more personal and relevant to their employees and communities.

If your company does decide to participate in external events, it’s essential to conduct a risk mitigation exercise. Consider the potential risks of participating in these events: What could go wrong if you do participate? What could happen if you don’t participate? Are you prepared for the consequences either way?

Ultimately, the key is aligning your decisions with your company’s mission and values. If your support for Pride is rooted in these principles, it will be easier to stand by your actions and respond to any backlash, no matter what form it takes.

The Bottom Line

Navigating Pride in 2025 is a balancing act. Companies must stay true to their values while managing the risks of public backlash, not just to avoid being targeted, but to meet the expectations of your employees, customers, partners, and communities. The goal is to find a middle ground, one that upholds your values without putting your company at unnecessary risk.

Seramount can help you navigate this balance. Our experts can guide you in staying true to your principles while managing potential risks. Contact us today to learn how you can show meaningful support for your employees—not just during Pride month, but all year round.

The post How Should Companies Approach Pride 2025? appeared first on Seramount.

And this layer matters. The early moves of a new administration are shaping everything from labor regulations to DEI guidance to immigration policy, all of which have real implications for how we hire, support, and protect our people. In fact, three-fifths of working Americans believe federal policy changes will have a direct impact on them during the next year, and nearly half say they’re looking to HR to help them understand what it means.

That puts HR leaders in a uniquely tricky position: tasked with staying compliant and up to date on new policies, while also creating a stable, supportive environment for employees in a turbulent time.

It’s a lot. So here are five practical tips to help you stay grounded, strategic, and people-focused as the workplace changes continue to unfold.

1. Take time to strategize

The instinct to respond immediately to every headline or policy shift is real, especially in a time of rapid change. But now more than ever, HR leaders need to be measured, not reactive. There’s a lot of legal gray area right now, and rushing to make sweeping changes can do more harm than good.

For example, dismantling your DEI programs in response to an executive order or a viral news cycle would be premature and potentially damaging to your culture and workforce. On the other hand, taking proactive but measured steps such as ensuring your Forms I-9 are in order, reviewing job postings and recruitment processes for compliance, documenting your labor certification protocols, and confirming pay equity across US and foreign workers are smart ways to implement risk management.

You don’t have to figure it all out alone. Lean on your legal team, external counsel, or trusted policy partners to help you discern signal from noise. For ongoing insights, tools such as the Seramount Federal Policy Resource Center can help you stay informed and focused on what matters most.

2. Update your employee value proposition

Clearly, many parts of the business have been impacted by the new administration’s policies, and with so much legal gray area, it’s no surprise that many companies are choosing not to take a public stance on issues such as DEI. In fact, Seramount research found that 31 percent of organizations say public statements of support for DEI have been the most impacted area within their companies. But in moments like this, silence can speak just as loudly as words and may be interpreted as a stance in itself.

If you’re adjusting your public language in response to policy shifts, make sure you’re not quietly stepping back from commitments that matter. That’s where your employee value proposition (EVP) comes in. A recent report found that updating your EVP can help organizations support workers and adapt to change. Your EVP should clearly communicate who you are, what you stand for, and what employees can expect from your organization, not just what feels legally safe or politically neutral.

Because this isn’t just about politics; it’s about retention and trust. Nearly 40 percent of employees say they would quit if their organization took a political stance they disagreed with. Your EVP is your compass, and in uncertain times, people want to know where you stand.

3. Prioritize employee well-being

Between policy shifts around DEI, immigration uncertainties, economic pressure, and general political noise, your employees are feeling the impact, even if they’re not talking about it out loud. This is a moment where HR and Talent leaders can make a real difference by prioritizing well-being, not just as a program but as a mindset across the organization.

Start with transparency. Even when there’s uncertainty, employees appreciate honesty, and silence often leads to anxiety. If layoffs aren’t on the table, say that. If your DEI strategy is shifting, explain why and how. Clarity, even when it’s imperfect, helps build trust and psychological safety.

You should also be proactive about promoting the resources you do have, whether that’s access to mental health support, employee assistance programs, flexible work arrangements, or time-off policies.

You won’t always know what employees need most. Your ERGs can be a powerful resource here, offering insight into what’s really going on across teams and communities. Partnering with them to co-create or promote well-being initiatives can make your efforts more targeted, trusted, and effective.

4. Reassess your recruiting practices

In the early days of the new administration, one of the most significant actions was President Trump’s Executive Order 14173, titled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.” This order rescinds affirmative action and nondiscrimination requirements under Executive Order 11246 and mandates that federal contractors and grantees certify they don’t operate any “illegal” DEI programs.

While the full scope of what constitutes “illegal DEI” is still unclear, it’s critical to understand that discrimination in hiring has always been and will remain illegal. The key takeaway here is that HR leaders need to carefully navigate the line between promoting diversity and staying compliant with the shifting regulations.

Now is a great time to reassess your recruiting practices to ensure they are still inclusive, but also legally sound. For example, expanding your talent pipeline through strategic partnerships with organizations that support underrepresented communities, such as first-generation college students or local community groups, can help broaden your reach without stepping into legal gray areas. Additionally, consider revisiting how you advertise job openings, ensuring they’re visible on platforms that attract diverse talent pools without setting up quotas or mandatory diversity requirements that might be challenged.

Remember, inclusivity doesn’t have to mean “mandatory representation”; it’s about ensuring that your recruitment process is fair and accessible to all qualified candidates.

5. Double down on protecting your historically excluded talent

Many of the new policies disproportionately impact certain communities, and that impact doesn’t stop at the office door. From civil rights rollbacks to changes in workplace protections, historically excluded talent (HET) is facing increased uncertainty, stress, and in some cases, direct threats to their well-being and belonging at work.

For example, more than 400 anti-LGBTQ+ bills have been introduced across the country, alongside federal actions that specifically target transgender individuals. These policies create fear and send a message that inclusion isn’t guaranteed. That’s why now is the time for companies to step up. HR leaders should ensure that inclusion is not just a value but a visible part of everyday policies and practices, from health care coverage and dress codes to safety protocols and grievance procedures.

Historically, the private sector has played a leading role in advancing workplace equity, particularly when government protections fall short. That legacy continues now. Whether it’s reaffirming protections for LGBTQ+ employees, reviewing policies that affect immigrant workers, or ensuring women are equitably supported and represented, your commitment matters. Seramount’s latest guide outlines key policy shifts and how they affect HET and how employers can respond with purpose.

Looking Ahead

Policy shifts have defined the start of 2025, and while no one can predict exactly what’s next, it’s clear that HR and talent leaders will continue to play a critical role in helping organizations navigate what comes. Balancing compliance with a people-first mindset means staying informed and leaning on experts to help guide your strategy through the gray areas.

The good news? Employers have the power to fill in where the federal government may fall short. Those who stay informed, centered in their values, and focused on employee needs will be better positioned, not just to weather the uncertainty, but to emerge as trusted, forward-looking employers of choice.

The post 5 Things HR & Talent Leaders Should Do After the New Administration’s First 100 Days appeared first on Seramount.

For HR, legal, and business leaders, the conversation is no longer about whether compliance considerations should shape workplace policies but rather how legal expertise can be embedded into broader people strategies from the outset. Organizations that take a forward-thinking approach, integrating legal guidance with HR and business strategy, will not only mitigate risk but also sustain long-term commitments to workplace equity and inclusion in an evolving regulatory environment.

The Legal Landscape Is Changing—Are You Ready?

The Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard & UNC significantly altered the legal framework surrounding race-conscious policies. While the ruling directly addressed higher education admissions, its implications are extending into corporate hiring, promotion, and supplier diversity programs. In a concurring opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch signaled that private-sector employment policies could face legal challenges under Title VII if they are perceived to favor certain demographic groups.

Since then, state attorneys general and advocacy groups have scrutinized corporate hiring and advancement practices, issuing formal inquiries and lawsuits targeting perceived imbalances. Some organizations anticipated these shifts and engaged their legal teams early to refine their policies. Others, caught off guard, are now responding to increased external pressure.

At the federal level, new executive actions are further reshaping expectations:

• Executive Order 14173: Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity restricts federally funded organizations from implementing certain workplace policies related to hiring and advancement. Contractors must reassess their internal processes to ensure compliance.
• Executive Order 14151: Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing eliminates DEI-related roles and policies within the federal government, potentially influencing how private-sector practices are evaluated in regulatory reviews.

For organizations that rely on federal contracts or operate in highly regulated sectors, these shifts introduce new compliance considerations. A strong legal foundation is no longer optional—it’s essential.

Proactive Strategies: Lessons from Leading Companies

Forward-thinking organizations have long recognized that compliance and inclusion are not opposing forces but complementary elements of a sustainable workforce strategy. Several companies have successfully integrated legal into their HR planning to navigate regulatory uncertainty and maintain their commitments.

• Global Policy Compliance: A leading multinational corporation recognized the complexities of collecting self-identification (self-ID) data across different jurisdictions. By working with regional legal experts, they developed a compliant and culturally sensitive self-ID framework, allowing them to maintain robust data collection practices while adhering to local regulations.
• Fair Pay and Hiring Audits: Companies that have conducted proactive internal pay audits with legal oversight have been able to address potential disparities before regulatory scrutiny arises. One major technology firm has repeatedly reviewed its compensation structures to ensure fairness across demographics, setting a precedent for how businesses can align compliance with their workplace equity goals.
• Internal Councils with Legal Representation: Organizations that have established advisory councils—including senior legal and compliance leaders—have been able to adjust policies in response to emerging legal risks without compromising their broader workforce well-being efforts. This collaborative approach ensures that any policy changes are legally sound while staying true to the company’s values.

Key Considerations for HR, Legal, and People Leaders

As legal frameworks continue to evolve, organizations must take deliberate steps to align compliance with their broader workforce strategies. Here are some suggestions on how to accomplish that collaborative effort:

• Integrate Legal Early: Before rolling out new hiring initiatives, compensation models, or inclusive procurement practices, engage legal counsel to assess potential compliance risks and ensure policies are structured for long-term viability.
• Conduct Routine Reviews: Employment, discrimination, and government contracting laws are shifting rapidly. Regular legal check-ins can help organizations adjust before policies become liabilities.
• Prepare for Scrutiny: Companies should have a legal response plan in place for potential regulatory inquiries or litigation. A proactive crisis strategy ensures that legal and HR teams can respond swiftly and strategically when challenges arise.

Interested in Learning More About the Shifting DEI and HR Landscape in 2025?

Do You Have a Collaborative Approach to Compliance and Inclusion?

The future of workplace equity will be shaped by those who can balance compliance with fairness. The companies best positioned to navigate these changes are the ones embedding legal expertise into their workforce strategies now—rather than waiting until challenges arise.

By taking a proactive and informed approach, HR, legal, and business leaders can work together to build sustainable, legally sound policies that support long-term employee well-being. The key is not to retreat in the face of change but to evolve with it. While legal risk exists in implementing workplace equity initiatives, there is also significant risk in abandoning them altogether. Recent lawsuits, consumer boycotts, and employee backlash highlight the potential consequences of scaling back DEI commitments. Legal teams play a crucial role in helping organizations navigate this balance—mitigating risk while maintaining policies that foster inclusion, retain talent, and support business resilience. By embedding legal strategy into HR decision-making, organizations can move beyond reactive compliance and build workplaces that are both legally sound and future-ready.

The post Beyond Compliance: How Legal Strategy Strengthens HR and Employee Well-Being appeared first on Seramount.

Employees are no longer quitting in droves, but they aren’t fully invested in their work either. They are disengaging and quietly checking out. Instead of rapid-fire resignations, stress from workplace disruption has evolved into a silent productivity drain known as The Great Detachment. According to Gallup, “seven in ten employees (73%) say their organization has experienced some level of disruptive change in the past year. The more disruption that employees have experienced, the more likely they are to feel burned out today.”

Even with this growing disconnection, organizations continue to rely on the same outdated engagement strategies—primarily surveys—to listen to their workforce. The problem? Increasing survey frequency has done little to move the needle on actual engagement. Without meaningful follow-through on employee listening efforts, organizations risk losing top talent or paying a hefty disengagement tax as more employees adopt a mindset of doing the bare minimum.

Employees Need an Outlet—But Fear Keeps Them Silent

Today’s workforce is carrying a massive emotional burden. Stress from workplace disruption, economic uncertainty, and shifting employer-employee dynamics have created an environment where employees have more to say than ever—but don’t always feel safe saying it.

Many employees want to share their concerns, frustrations, and ideas, yet their experiences with traditional feedback mechanisms have left them skeptical. Surveys, AI-powered analysis, and passive listening tactics are falling short because employees don’t believe their voices actually lead to change. A 2024 Seramount study found that:

• Only 30% of employees believe their company acts on survey results.
• 40% of employees don’t provide feedback at all because they fear retaliation.
• Of those who do respond, 34% admit they aren’t fully candid.

These numbers paint a troubling picture. Employees aren’t disengaging because they don’t have opinions—but because they don’t trust the system that’s supposed to listen to them. When workers don’t see follow-through on their feedback, many decide it’s not worth it to share again in the future. Others self-censor, offering sanitized responses instead of candid comments that could lead to real improvement. Employees need to know that:

• Their feedback won’t disappear into a black hole.
• Action will be taken based on what they share.
• They can speak honestly and anonymously without fear of repercussions.

Why the Status Quo Misses the Mark

The heart of the problem is a fundamental misunderstanding of what employees want from their employers. Organizations need more than surface-level data to understand individual experiences and overall workplace culture. And while engagement surveys provide valuable snapshots of employee sentiments, they rarely uncover the “why“ behind the responses.

This leads HR leaders to guess at solutions, rather than implement precise, effective interventions. Even more concerning? Many HR executives admit their surveys lack a clear path to action—meaning they collect data but struggle to translate it into meaningful improvements. Without a structured plan for turning insights into impact, HR leaders are left with a pile of numbers but no real change.

Research shows that companies with high engagement levels experience:  

• 18% higher productivity
• 23% greater profitability
• 21% lower turnover

Breaking Free from the Survey Trap

Organizations that successfully engage employees don’t just listen—they act. Reengaging employees requires more than just asking how they feel. It demands a holistic approach that prioritizes trust, transparency, and action. Here’s how HR leaders can break free from the survey trap:  

• Rebuild Trust through Transparency: Employees must believe that their feedback is valued.Ensure confidentiality and demonstrate a commitment to acting on feedback.
• Establish Clear Action Plans: Surveys should lead to specific, measurable actions—not vague promises. Regularly update employees on what is being done in response to their concerns. If employees don’t see change, they won’t engage.
• Monitor Progress and Adapt: Continuously assess how new initiatives impact workplace sentiment and adjust as needed.

HR leaders must move beyond surface-level assessments and shift toward a proactive listening model that gets to the root causes of disengagement before more of their workforce detaches or disappears altogether. Employees don’t just want to be heard—they want to see real, tangible action that validates their concerns. That’s why forward-thinking organizations are reimagining employee listening by combining the scale of engagement surveys with the depth of focus groups—giving HR leaders real diagnostic power to drive cultural change.  

The time for passive listening is over. It’s time to take action. Learn how your organization can listen differently and uncover what really matters to your employees with Assess360.

The post Federal Shake-Ups, Corporate Wake-Ups: How to Rebuild Employee Trust in 2025 appeared first on Seramount.

The pandemic forced an overnight shift to remote work, and in the years since, organizations have grappled with what the future of work should look like. Now, five years later, with the federal government mandating a full return to office (RTO), this conversation is gaining new urgency as companies weigh whether to follow suit.

But instead of rehashing the familiar pros and cons of remote, hybrid, and in-person work, let’s focus on something just as important: how to make these decisions in a way that is inclusive, equitable, and supportive of employees at all levels.

Here are three key considerations for HR and talent leaders as they navigate the path forward.

Consideration #1: The Impact of RTO on Employee Well-Being

For employees who have been working remotely for years, returning to the office, even a few days a week, can be a difficult adjustment. Many may have concerns about work-life balance, fears of maintaining productivity in a new environment, or anxieties about workplace interactions. Without thoughtful planning, an abrupt RTO can erode engagement and create unnecessary stress.

Employees of color, for example, may have experienced fewer microaggressions—like unsolicited comments about their hair or overhearing insensitive political discussions. It has also reduced the pressure of code-switching and given employees more control over their environments.

Beyond inclusion, there’s also the simple reality of time: The average one-way commute in the US is 26.8 minutes—meaning RTO asks employees to give back nearly an hour of their day without necessarily improving productivity or collaboration.

A poll from last year found that three out of four workers say their mental health at work is negative. The stress of RTO—whether due to commute fatigue, social pressures, or a loss of autonomy—can make this even worse, leading to disengagement, burnout, and even higher turnover. If returning to the office feels like an added burden rather than a benefit, employees may start seeking opportunities elsewhere.

Instead of assuming employees will adjust, organizations must take an intentional approach to easing the transition. This could mean rethinking office layouts to accommodate different work styles, offering commuter benefits or free lunches on in-office days, or training managers on psychological safety and civility in the workplace. Employee listening is critical; gathering direct feedback through surveys or focus groups can help organizations understand what’s working and what’s not.

The risk of mishandling this is real. A study of S&P 500 firms found that companies enforcing strict RTO policies saw significantly higher turnover—especially among women, senior employees, and highly skilled workers. By prioritizing flexibility, inclusion, and well-being, organizations can make RTO a smoother transition rather than a breaking point.

Consideration #2: The Disproportionate Impact on HET Groups

RTO policies don’t affect all employees equally. Historically excluded talent (HET) groups—including people with disabilities, working parents, and caregivers—face unique challenges that often go overlooked in these decisions. Without careful planning, a one-size-fits-all approach to in-person work can create barriers that disproportionately impact these employees.

For example, one in five US employees has a disability, yet many workplaces remain ill-equipped to provide adequate accommodation. Research shows that nearly three-quarters of individuals with disabilities who request accommodations have at least one request denied, highlighting a significant gap between policy and practice. For many employees with disabilities, remote or hybrid work is not just a preference but a necessity that enables them to work effectively and equitably.

Similarly, working parents, particularly mothers, often experience a “parenthood penalty.” One study found that mothers were rated 10 percent less competent than equally qualified non-mothers, exposing the deep-seated biases they encounter.

A blanket RTO policy can unintentionally disadvantage employees who rely on remote or hybrid work to perform at their best. Being proactive about accommodations—whether through hybrid options, adaptive workspaces, or schedule flexibility—ensures that no group is disproportionately impacted. The best way to get this right? Engage directly with affected employees to understand their needs and build policies that support them equitably.

Consideration #3: The Potential Backlash of an Unpopular RTO Decision

Not every RTO decision will be well received. Employees may be frustrated, skeptical, or even resentful, and leaders need to prepare for that reality rather than ignore it.

Employee pulse surveys can be a valuable tool, but only if leadership is prepared to act on the results. If feedback won’t influence policy, sending out a survey may do more harm than good. Keeping surveys short (no more than 10 questions, five minutes max) and focused on improving the employee experience—rather than re-debating the decision itself—can help shape effective support strategies.

Leaders also set the tone. When executives share how remote work has impacted their own work-life balance—both positively and negatively—it builds credibility. Acknowledging challenges and demonstrating an authentic commitment to finding balance moving forward fosters psychological safety and trust. Role modeling from leadership, including following the same in-person requirements they mandate for their teams, can go a long way in helping employees navigate the transition.

Another critical partner in this process? DEI teams and ERGs. As discussed earlier, RTO disproportionately affects HET groups. Leveraging DEI leaders and ERGs allows organizations to better understand these challenges and design inclusive, flexible support for employees. ERGs can also help leadership stay connected to employees at all levels and provide valuable insights on how to smooth the transition.

Striving for a More Inclusive Workplace

Whether your approach is in-person, remote, or somewhere in between, the goal is to create a workplace ecosystem rather than a monolith that encourages a human-first culture, including flexibility and relationship-building in a new workplace landscape. Companies that build a reputation for supporting work-life integration and flexibility gain a competitive edge in today’s talent market.

Seramount has helped hundreds of companies and talent leaders navigate evolving workplace expectations. Our expertise can support your organization in building a more inclusive, adaptable, and future-ready work environment. Contact us to connect with an expert.

The post Federal RTO Mandate Sparking Debate? Key Considerations for an Inclusive Return to Office appeared first on Seramount.

Perhaps the most consequential of these actions is the Executive Order titled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.” This order mandates that all federal contracts include provisions requiring contractors to certify that they do not operate any DEI programs that could be interpreted as violating federal antidiscrimination laws. Furthermore, within 120 days of the order, the administration aims to identify and investigate “the most egregious and discriminatory DEI practitioners” across various sectors, including publicly traded corporations, large nonprofits, and higher education institutions with significant endowments.

This aggressive crackdown has sent shock waves through public and private sector organizations alike that have invested in DEI efforts. With increased legal scrutiny and heightened political backlash, many leaders are now faced with a difficult question: Should they rename their DEI programs to sidestep political and legal attacks while continuing to uphold their commitments to diversity, equity, and inclusion?

Why Rename DEI?

While this move may sound reminiscent of SHRM’s controversial decision to remove “equity” from DEI—a move viewed by many as a step backward.

Times have changed drastically since last summer. Though DEI faced backlash before, the current political landscape has only heightened scrutiny. The administration has gone so far as to dub DEI programs “radical and wasteful government preferencing.”

Read our expert analysis of what the new administration’s latest executive orders mean for DEI here.

The current administration has already used DEI as a scapegoat for national issues. After a tragic crash in Washington, DC, President Trump falsely implied diversity requirements at the Federal Aviation Administration may have been the cause for a midair collision over the Potomac River. Additionally, his administration has directed the attorney general’s office to submit recommendations for how the White House can “encourage the private sector to end illegal discrimination and preferences, including DEI,” signaling that efforts to scale back DEI in the private sector could be forthcoming.

The version of DEI that the new administration and critics oppose is not the real DEI. They have built a straw man, misrepresenting DEI efforts as a collection of quotas that reflect a lack of meritocracy, along with other misconceptions. In truth, DEI has always been about fostering opportunity, fairness, and inclusive workplaces. If preserving this mission means adjusting terminology, it may be a necessary step.

The most important thing to remember is that this work matters—not just to the practitioners who make these efforts day in and day out but also to employees across all industries. In fact, Seramount research shows that 78 percent of employees find it extremely or very important for their company to be an inclusive organization.

So, while some may feel like renaming DEI is hiding behind a new name, it is essential to keep the goal in mind rather than the label. The objective remains the same: creating more inclusive workplaces. If a new title allows this work to continue, then it ensures progress is still being made.

The Risks to Consider When Renaming DEI

Renaming DEI programs is not without risks. In today’s charged environment, external stakeholders, including consumers, investors, and advocacy groups, as well as employees and even fellow practitioners, may view these changes with skepticism. Some may see rebranding as a dilution of commitment rather than a necessary adaptation.

Employees, in particular, place significant value on workplace inclusion, and nearly 40 percent have said they would leave their jobs if their employer took a political stance they disagreed with. A sudden shift in DEI branding could be interpreted as exactly that. If organizations fail to communicate the reasoning behind these changes, they risk damaging trust and engagement among their workforce.

This is particularly important given that some companies are actively scaling back DEI efforts altogether. Organizations that reframe their programs for sustainability risk being mistaken for those abandoning them entirely. The challenge lies in ensuring that a name change does not come across as an attempt to distance the organization from DEI principles but rather as a means of securing their longevity.

Transparency is key. If organizations are renaming their DEI programs to ensure sustainability rather than abandoning them, they must clearly communicate their continued commitment—both internally and externally. Whether through continued investments in DEI initiatives, clear messaging from leadership, or ongoing engagement with employees and stakeholders, organizations must ensure that renaming does not equate to retreating.

Beyond perception, there are also legal considerations. While DEI initiatives encompass far more than compliance, they remain connected to Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) laws and other workplace protections. The current political changes have not removed legal responsibilities related to anti-discrimination policies, affirmative action, or equitable hiring practices. Branding may shift, but obligations—and potential liabilities—remain. A name change shouldn’t mean a change in action, and organizations must ensure any rebrand aligns with their legal commitments and workplace protections.

How Other Companies Are Rebranding DEI Programs

Sixty percent of CDOs are at least somewhat supportive of renaming DEI work, recent Seramount research found. As organizations look to adjust their DEI programs, many are transitioning to broader, more flexible language that maintains a focus on inclusion and fairness, while avoiding the political backlash tied to the DEI label.

As organizations look to adjust their DEI programs, many are transitioning to broader, more flexible language that maintains a focus on inclusion and fairness, while avoiding the political backlash tied to the DEI label.

For example, some have embraced terms such as “Inclusion” or “Culture and Belonging,” which emphasizes the importance of creating an environment where all employees feel seen, heard, and valued. Others are using “Equity and Impact” to highlight their ongoing commitment to fairness while focusing on measurable change in the workplace. Companies are also experimenting with creative labels such as “Workplace Well-Being” or “Opportunity and Access” to reflect a more holistic approach to organizational development that encompasses both diversity and other employee-centric initiatives. Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) programs have even made a comeback in some industries, signaling a return to the more traditional but still relevant frameworks of fairness and antidiscrimination practices.

Another approach gaining traction is shifting DEI initiatives to departments such as Legal, Marketing, Operations, or Strategy—teams DEI already collaborates with closely. This integration embeds DEI more deeply into the organization’s broader business strategy while also helping to reframe it beyond just hiring practices, a misconception frequently weaponized by critics and reinforced in recent executive order.

Ultimately, whatever term an organization chooses, whether sticking with “DEI” or rebranding, the key is to ensure that the language resonates with the broader organization. Seramount’s research has shown that word choice can significantly impact how employees perceive and connect with these efforts. For example, in developing our foundational DEI training program, we found that terms such as “allyship” and “psychological safety” can feel unrelatable or overly academic to some employees. By reframing these concepts as “taking care of each other” or “bringing your best self to work,” organizations can make DEI more accessible without compromising its intent.

This can be especially important in reaching employees who might not initially see themselves reflected in DEI efforts. Research shows that an “all-inclusive” approach—one that emphasizes that diversity includes all employees, not just specific groups—is most effective at garnering support from employees of all backgrounds. The more inclusive the language, the more people will understand that DEI is not about a select few; it’s about creating a workplace where everyone thrives. By making these connections clearer, organizations can gain broader support and engagement, even from those who may not have initially seen themselves reflected in DEI efforts.

The Era of “Quiet DEI” Begins

While it might seem like DEI is being pushed into the background, this evolution represents not a retreat but a strategic adaptation. DEI has experienced fluctuations before—from the heightened corporate focus in 2020 to the backlash of 2024. What we’re seeing emerge now is something more nuanced: “Quiet DEI,” where organizations continue their commitment to inclusive workplaces through thoughtful, strategic approaches that prioritize impact over public declarations.

The highest priority during this phase is authenticity. If organizations have been genuine in their DEI efforts from the outset, a change in terminology shouldn’t significantly affect the outcomes. The goal remains the same: to foster diversity and inclusion within the workplace. If renaming DEI programs helps maintain that focus under a less politically charged banner, then it’s a small but necessary step to ensure progress continues.

Ultimately, renaming DEI programs is a strategic decision that will depend on the unique circumstances of each organization. As we move forward, the most important question remains: How can we ensure that the outcomes of our DEI work, regardless of the label, are truly transformative for the workforce?

The post Is It Time to Rename Our DEI Programs? appeared first on Seramount.