When CEOs Talk Tough, What Should HR Leaders Bring to the Conversation?

BY Emily McCrary-Ruiz-Esparza | July 22, 2025

Remember the days when CEOs spoke honeyed words about the irreplaceability of great talent and promised to shield workers from burnout and grinding daily trips to the office?

Now, however, the tone of employee relations has changed. One after the other, CEOs march through our news feeds, declaring that employees are acting entitled, resistant to change, and dispensable. 

Reddit’s CEO has accused employees of not working hard and Uber’s CEO recently joined a growing cohort of executives who have told employees to return to the office or beat it. Amazon CEO Andy Jassy, for his part, ordered workers back to the office five days a week, said AI will shrink the workforce, and that employees had better figure out “how to get more done with scrappier teams.” Earlier this year, Shopify’s chief executive told employees not to request new hires unless they can prove AI can’t do the job.

With prominent CEOs going rogue from the chorus of empathy, how can chief HR officers adapt to the new tone? To some degree, CEOs are being transparent about new economic realities. But when executives are feeling like they can shrug off pressure to consider worker well-being or make good on prior commitments, what is a CHRO to do? 

This is where CHROs can be caught in the middle. Their role is help promote organizational success, but part of that mission is to make their company a great place to work. CHROs occupy a vital role in the C-suite, serving as liaison between employers and the employed, and as a result, a cooperative CHRO-CEO relationship is required. In fact, a change in CEO leads to the exit of nearly three-quarters of CHROs, said Rosanna Trasatti, CEO at Eleva Executive Leadership Advisory, during Fortune’s recent Workplace Innovation Summit. 

For the newest generation of CHROs, part of the job is making top executives palatable to employees and to the public. The head of HR is “one of the few people at an organization who has both the legitimacy and the duty to provide feedback to the CEO when their behavior goes against stated organizational values,” Alex Kirss of Gartner told From Day One. Kirss, who leads the CHRO-effectiveness research team in Gartner's HR practice, added: “The CHRO’s role is not to be a disciplinarian, but rather a coach to help their CEO be the best version of themselves.” 

Unless there’s a clear ethical violation that a company’s board of directors needs to know about, Kirss said, feedback to the CEO should be private and confidential. Then, the CHRO should give the CEO some space to reflect and pick out what they’ll do next.

In many cases, CEOs will listen to feedback from their C-suite colleagues and employees at large. When the companies Klarna and Duolingo said they would begin replacing employees with artificial intelligence, the idea was so unpopular that both CEOs reversed course, at least in part. Earlier this year, JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon apologized for cursing in an in town hall meeting while expressing his annoyance at organized resistance to his RTO edicts. While high-profile CEOs may be vocal, but “our research shows that 95% of CEOs prefer to stay out of the limelight,” said Josh Bersin, the HR analyst and CEO of the Josh Bersin Co.

On the other hand, some notable CEOs have simply rejected dissent. Bloomberg columnist Beth Kowitt noted that quashing dissent has been added back into the playbook. Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon has reportedly ousted his critics of his leadership style and Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg is supposedly uninterested in hearing input from employees.

The CEO Class Already Has a Mistrust Issue With the Public

The viral reaction to a moment captured on video last week, when tech CEO Andy Byron was seen on a concert “kiss cam” embracing his chief people officer Kristin Cabot, underscored the rising public mistrust of C-suite leadership right now. When the episode prompted scrutiny of Byron's track record as a corporate leader, a checkered past emerged. As chief revenue officer for a previous employer, Cybereason, “multiple former employees said Mr. Byron would lash out against employees who disagreed with him, including threatening to fire them. ‘You couldn’t challenge him,’ a former employee who worked for Mr. Byron said,” as reported at the time in The Information, a tech-industry journal.

Indeed, part of the public response to the moment seemed to be fueled by a growing trust gap between corporate executives and the general public, Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a professor of management at Yale University, told the Wall Street Journal. “There’s a certain schadenfreude associated with this,” he said. “Here’s a takedown of the ‘haves’ versus the ‘have nots.’”

Where does this mean we stand in employee relations, between the cycle of threats vs. rapprochement? Some observers wonder if we’re witnessing the end of corporate empathy—at least for now. The balance of power is changing hands, and for the most part, employers are getting their druthers. “The shift in tone marks a shift in power now that companies are shrinking their white-collar staff. With jobs harder to find, many workers are seeing perks disappear and their grievances ignored,” wrote Chip Cutter in the Journal.

How new is the tough talk in corporate America? “I’m not clear how much changed in the first place,” said Alison Taylor, NYU professor and author of Higher Ground: How Business Can Do the Right Thing in a Turbulent World, in a call with From Day One. “I think what we’re really doing is speaking the quiet part out loud.”

The Trump Factor in Executive Tone

Much of the current condescension among some CEOs seems licensed by President Trump, who has attacked the integrity and competence of his own workers, describing the more than 2 million federal workers as “replaceable.” This is not the tone CEO have traditionally embraced. “CEOs live pretty scripted professional lives. They’re trained to tell investors nothing, read prepared texts for town halls, and stick to talking points on TV,” the journalist Liz Hoffman wrote in a Semafor Business newsletter earlier this year. “Now they see Trump speaking freely, and with few consequences … corporate America is unshackled, and the mics are everywhere.”

The Trump factor has applied not just to tone but to substance as well. Take, for example, the very public tarnishing of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Since Trump signed an executive order prohibiting DEI programs in federal agencies and government contractors, many huge  companies, including Walmart and Target have scrubbed mentions of DEI from their career pages or publicly announced retirement of the programs. 

For many executives, however, DEI is problematic only in name. “In my experience, here’s what most CEOs believe to be true: a diverse and engaged workforce is good for business; talking about DEI externally is not,” wrote Fortune’s Diane Brady in the CEO Daily newsletter. “Though plenty of companies have publicly disavowed their DEI initiatives, other leaders are wondering how to quietly continue building a workforce that reflects their values in this climate.”

Cosmetics company E.L.F Beauty is doubling down on its DEI efforts, with CEO Tarang Amin appearing on CNN to talk about their commitment. And Dimon of JPMorgan, appears unintimidated by activist investors intent on challenging the company’s DEI programs. “Bring them on,” he said in an interview with CNBC at Davos this year.

In this environment, CHROs will need to choose their battles when it comes to managing their CEOs. Those HR leaders, Bersin said, will have to take “a more proactive role in executive coaching, crisis management, and internal communications.” Mitigating reputational risks will take stronger governance structures and messaging plans. His guidance: What CEOs say publicly should be well-considered about reflecting the company’s values. 

Since companies wield a great amount of influence in individuals’ lives, they will be called on to respond to a growing mix of economic, political, and environmental pressures. Responding in a careful way will call for new corporate initiatives and management skills. “These are still companies full of real human beings who are a mix of opinions and races and genders,” Taylor said. “Some of them are going to be affected by some of these decisions, and they’re going to be looking, in many cases, to their employer for protection, for advice, for policies–for all sorts of things.”

Emily McCrary-Ruiz-Esparza is an independent journalist and From Day One contributing editor who writes about business and the world of work. Her work has appeared in the Economist, the BBC, The Washington Post, Inc., and Business Insider, among others. She is the recipient of a Virginia Press Association award for business and financial journalism.

(Featured photo: Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi, who told his workers this year that they can go elsewhere if they don't like his RTO changes, at a conference in 2023. AP photo by Eric Risberg)

Related Stories

5 Priorities for 2025: How HR Leaders Plan to Meet a New Wave of Change

In 2025, HR will be at yet another inflection point. With high levels of employee detachment, anxiety about the arrival of AI, and a huge demand for new skills, corporate CEOs are saying to their chief people officers (CPOs): We need you to fix these things. And by the way, restructure how your own HR operations run–and keep spirits high too!It’s a lot, but chief HR officers are gearing up for another wave of change, even after the incessant disruption in the five years since the pandemic arrived. The consulting firm Heidrick & Struggles interviewed 70 chief people officers around the world about what it takes to do the job. Jennifer Wilson, the co-head of the global HR-officers practice at the firm, wasn’t surprised by the substance of their findings—artificial intelligence, generational changes, and the need to adapt to a stream of curveballs are all priorities they expected to find. What surprised her is the urgency that CPOs expressed, and the evidence that CEOs are leaning so heavily on them for answers. CPOs are super-connectors, the report says, with demands on their attention coming from all sides. As a result, “progressive organizations are playing with their HR functional models,” Wilson said.From Day One spoke to HR leaders and the consultants who work with them about their plans for the new year. Among the myriad responsibilities on their plate, what will they focus on in 2025? This is what they told us they plan to do.Renew the Focus on Company CultureSpeculation about the future of work once conjured images of workers zipping around the office on hoverboards, said Dan Kaplan, senior partner at consulting firm Korn Ferry. Now, futurists train their focus on culture. “It should be the guiding light for companies,” he said, but “they’ve gotten away from that.”The percentage of U.S. workers who say they’re thriving in life has hit a record low: Just 50% of workers Gallup surveyed in 2024 are feeling good about their current life and future prospects, a figure that has declined in the past decade. Gallup also found that employees are detached from their jobs. The chief culprit: rapid organizational changes and the persistent uncertainty around flexible work schedules. If CPOs are still fighting with their CEOs and boards about workers returning to office in 2025, “then you’ve lost,” Kaplan said. The HR leaders who will win are those that can push executives closer to their employees, and inspire them to deliver.Elaine Becraft, the SVP of HR at global medical-tech company Siemens Healthineers, believes that company culture must connect workers to each other and to the mission of the business. Long gone are the days of clocking in and clocking out to collect a paycheck. In 2025, she’s going to focus on holistic employee care.Workers need a new relationship with their employers, and that responsibility has been handed to HR. “There is a recognition that the workforce overall is tired,” said Wilson at Heidrick & Struggles. “We’ve been through a lot over the last few years. The nature of work is changing. Mental health issues in the western world are more prominent than they’ve been in the past, and that’s really become a reality for chief people officers.”Get to the Next Steps on AIArtificial intelligence is unavoidable, but there’s a gap between expectations by CEOs and the actual embrace of AI by workers. “So far, employee adoption of AI in the workplace is lagging behind the hype,” Gallup reports. If your company isn’t an early adopter, it’s probably trying to catch up. Among the innovators is media agency VML, where the global head of organizational development, Loren Blandon, is prioritizing AI upskilling. “In our industry, it’s really critical that we position ourselves as a leader in integrative use, application, adoption, and innovation of AI. We need people fully embracing and using it,” she told From Day One.How do you get world-class creatives to adopt technology that poses an immediate threat to their jobs? “You have to show them that it’s going to amplify their work,” Blandon said. “Then you get them to understand that whether you accept this or not, it’s coming, and it’s in your best interest to start using it rather than fighting yourself into being obsolete.” She’s found that many who dig in their heels just haven’t experimented with AI yet. But when you invite them in and show them how to play, the wheels start turning, and suddenly it’s cool.Ninety-one percent of early-adopting firms report positive results with AI, including increased productivity and cost-savings, according to a report from the Institute for Corporate Productivity, or i4cp. And companies that operationalize AI will outpace their peers.Workforce concerns about AI will continue, with employees anxious about their being displaced or replaced. “That has landed in the CPO’s lap,” said Wilson. HR executives are responsible for equipping the workforce with AI skills, but with no precedents for use, it’s still not always clear when, where, how, or why they’re meant to apply those skills–at least not yet. Of course, HR has its own misgivings about AI encroaching on its territory, and CPOs will have to quell concerns from their own teams at the same time they upskill their colleagues.Invest in the Skills-Based WorkforceForget the traditional concept of a job. It’s a skills-based world now, with much more malleable definitions of roles and projects. And “until companies shift their cultures, efforts to scale skills-based marketplaces will stall,” i4cp’s report says.In a skills-based workforce, employees flow from one assignment to the next, pick up skills in fractional roles, dip into new teams with temporary projects, and volunteer their expertise in new departments. Ideally, all work is promotable and company tenure is no longer a deciding factor.  There’s a large share of the workforce that may be attracted to the fluidity of skills-based work. Sixty-five percent of workers feel stuck in their current roles, according to a Glassdoor survey, a situation that can breed resentment. “It used to be that you stepped into a defined job with tasks, and that was your role all the time. Now it’s more project-based,” said VML’s Blandon. For one team you might be the brand leader, and for another you’re the project manager. “I think jobs need to be fundamentally redesigned to tap into people’s ‘gig desires.’ They want to bring more skill sets to the table. They want to explore more things, and I think we can be savvy in leveraging that.”Maintain a Commitment to DEI, But Change the LanguageDespite recent high-profile changes in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs by the likes of Walmart and Ford in the face of anti-DEI activists, the overall corporate commitment to DEI’s principles isn’t dead. “Activists are overstating the surface-level changes many companies are making to get rid of the heat,” CNN reported this week based on a review of company policies. “Nearly all the largest companies in America still say they are committed to promoting DEI.”Companies are motivated to persist with the principles of DEI because, in an increasingly diverse population, it has been proven to be good for the bottom line, as well as employee retention and motivation. That said, companies still want to avoid the political flak, so they have shifted the emphasis of their language, focusing more on inclusion and belonging. The values have already been operationalized and, in some cases, leaders have asserted that they have not abandoned those values, but are waiting to see what the temperature will be under a second Trump Administration before speaking out more.How can HR make sure thier companies evolve their practices, and not just the labels? The NeuroLeadership Institute’s DEI Impact Case recommends three actions that organizations can take to maintain their investments in DEI, no matter what they’re calling it, as Fast Company reports: “prioritize diversity by aligning it with specific business goals, habituate inclusion through targeted learning and performance tools that integrate it into daily practices, and systemize equity by examining policies and procedures to embed and sustain fairness throughout.”Reshape Organizational StructuresThe new skills-based economy is shaking up corporate structures, and companies are “delayering” their organizations, removing expensive middle managers believed by some to stymie productivity, while companies are also trying to teach managers to be more effective. Blandon says we’re due. “When was the last time we truly thought about reframing that? Manager, subordinate. It hasn’t been really tweaked in a long time, and people are questioning it.”Some companies are delayering to usher in the next generation of executives. Baby Boomers in the C-suite are retiring, and “you’ve got to get that next layer ready,” Wilson said. As vacancies open en masse, “how do you make sure that you don’t have business disruption from that newness?”Kaplan hopes that a shallow hierarchy will shrink the distance between the CEO and the rank and file–and motivate the workforce. “The CEO should be the most inspiring leader in the company,” he said, and by bringing workers closer to their leader, they may feel more connected to the company.At many comppanies, the HR department is getting a reorganization of its own. The traditional “centers of excellence” model, in which HR segments specialize in narrow disciplines, is on its way out, and a cross-functional model, in which HR teams are multi-skilled and capable of working with all departments, is gaining popularity. People ops no longer waits for requests, but goes problem-solving on its own. “We’re seeing agile teams form and disband for specific organizational issues,” said Wilson.Experiments abound. Some companies have moved all administrative tasks to a general shared-services center, leaving HR to “focus entirely on talent, leadership, succession, bench strength, organizational design, and [organizational development].” And, according to Wilson, this could be “a smart way to get HR out of the administrative chains that it’s been under for so many years.”Maybe it’s time for HR and people operations to get a new name? “Talent operations,” Wilson suggested, but then paused. Even that suggests the team is doing more admin than it really does, and the discipline continues to grow. “Maybe talent advisors?” Whatever the name, she said, it should demonstrate that talent is at the center of its responsibilities.“We’re like the lookout on a boat,” Becraft said about her team at Siemens Healthineers. “We see issues, challenges, and opportunities coming toward the company, and it’s our responsibility to bring those to the right people and make sure they understand what’s going on out there.”Emily McCrary-Ruiz-Esparza is a freelance journalist and From Day One contributing editor who writes about work, the job market, and women’s experiences in the workplace. Her work has appeared in the Economist, the BBC, The Washington Post, Quartz, Business Insider, and Fast Company.(Featured image: Photo by Kobus Louw/iStock by Getty Images)

Emily McCrary-Ruiz-Esparza December 18, 2024

Wading Into the Culture Wars, Corporations Fortify Themselves with ‘Social Issues Working Groups’

When Hamas launched its attack against Israel last week, the mobilization that followed was not only a military one, but a corporate response as well. Global businesses moved swiftly to protect their employees in harm’s way, sending workers home, donating medical supplies and food, and setting up relief funds. Many also made public declarations of their position on the war. “We stand with our employees, their families and the people of Israel during this time of great suffering and loss,” said JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon. Condemning the war but acknowledging that the underlying conflict is politically fraught, Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon told employees in a memo: “The dynamics in the Middle East have always been difficult and complex. But these attacks are terrorism and violate our most fundamental of values.”While the attack was a tragic surprise, the phenomenon of corporations being compelled to take a stand on complicated issues, both at home and abroad, is becoming almost routine. In handling these situations, the stakes can be high. Household brands with solid reputations–like Disney, Bud Light, and Target–can be suddenly cast in a different light among large groups of stakeholders.Corporations now see these spectacles as major risks to be prepared for, like natural disasters, so many of them are creating a new kind of corporate function that brings together leaders from multiple departments including HR, communications, and diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). The emerging role is the “social issues working group,” which can go by different names but is essentially a way to pull together an organization’s experts to anticipate emerging issues and help the company formulate the best possible response when situations escalate and headlines break out.How do they work in action? When the Human Rights Campaign issued an emergency declaration this summer following a wave of anti-trans legislation in the U.S., the accounting firm  Baker Tilly was quick to consider its employees’ safety. Their advisors travel all over the world, including to states where anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment was deepening, so the company convened its Societal Issues Management Working Group, a cross-functional team of representatives tasked with responding to social issues.“Our first task was to send a note to our LGBTQ+ team member network, Pride, to let them know that we were aware of the emergency declaration and how we aimed to respond,” Shane Lloyd, the group’s leader, told From Day One. “Our second task was to update our travel policy to include information to allow our team members to ascertain travel risk as a component of their planning. Our last task was to inform our leaders to ensure they were aware of how to support team members who raised any safety concerns surrounding work-related travel.”The response was swift: The team had already been monitoring public events, and the infrastructure to care for its employees was well established since forming the group in 2022.Both consumers and employees have come to expect companies to weigh in on a wide range of public events and socio-political issues – like voting rights, climate change, racial equity, pay equity, support for the LGBTQ+ community, and reproductive healthcare access – a plethora of issues that have become politicized enough to divide people into principled, even enraged factions.But highly public fiascos have some companies approaching such matters with caution. In every corporate blunder is a cautionary tale about how to engage in this kind of discourse. The goal of these new task forces is to prevent public backlash and respond quickly, thoughtfully, consistently, and firmly. Here are some guidelines for how they operate:Approach Social and Political Matters with CautionMotivating corporate involvement in public matters is what Wharton School of Business professor Stephanie Creary calls “‘social authorization,” or outside forces that license a company to take action on an issue. It’s what spurred Nike to back pro football player Colin Kapernick in his protest against racial injustice and Gillette to run an ad campaign espousing the values of the #MeToo movement.Social authorization has been an especially motivating force since the summer of 2020 – when workers and consumers looked to businesses to change the way they interact with society amid racial justice movement and the spread of Covid – but responding to external pressure is not without complication, risk, and incredible stress on the part of corporate leaders. Some that have waded into the unpredictable waters of socio-political discourse have faced an angry public, and it has cost them the trust of their employees and their customers. In 2021, Georgia-based companies Delta Air Lines and the Coca-Cola Co. faced pressure from both the left and the right to take a firm position on a state voting rights bill. When the companies publicly opposed, Senator Marco Rubio accused them of being “woke corporate hypocrites.”Companies that pledged to cover abortion access following the Dobbs decision in 2022 were caught in both the culture wars and legal battles.In April, when Bud Light sponsored one Instagram post and one Instagram story from Dylan Mulvaney, a transgender social media influencer, the brand’s partnership with a member of the LGBTQ+ community enraged far-right Bud Light drinkers, and the demographic vowed to boycott the beer in videos encouraging violence against queer people. In response, Anheuser-Busch’s CEO Brendan Whitworth released a public statement distancing the company from Mulvaney, betraying the trust of the LGBTQ+ community and its allies. In June, retailers Target and Kohl’s were caught in a similar battle over the display of Pride Month merchandise.In July came a precedent-shattering case that employers are still processing: the Supreme Court’s decision ending affirmative action in higher education. Thirteen state attorneys general responded by sending a letter to CEOs, warning them against using DEI in hiring decisions. The corporate landscape is riddled with mines. In attempting to save face with one segment of consumers, companies alienate another and become entangled in a war between cultural, social, and political opinions.Take a Position and Stand FirmlyAlison Taylor, clinical associate professor at New York University’s Stern School of Business and the author of the forthcoming book: Higher Ground: How Business Can Do the Right Thing in a Turbulent World, believes that some CEOs lean on public statements only to stave off reputational risk. Executives often feel pressured to take on political matters for PR, responding to the loudest agitators on social media. The result is often shallow and poorly coordinated positions.Taking a position and then reneging, or even gently backing away, is how companies get in trouble, Taylor told From Day One. “It’s not necessarily that you made the call in the first place and experienced the backlash. It’s if you then look like you have no moral compass, and you’ll respond to whoever’s yelling at you – that’s how you make the situation worse.”Some companies choose to stay out of politicized issues to avoid being accused of “virtue signaling,” or paying lip service to vulnerable groups for the PR boost, which is what happened to many companies that made public statements about systemic racism in 2020.Increasingly, employees and consumers expect employers to enter public discourse on thorny matters. Public trust for business is greater than its trust for NGOs, government, and media, according to Edelman’s latest trust barometer report. And though trust for businesses is highest, people say they still want more involvement from businesses on issues like climate change and economic inequality.Yet the public is obsessed with corporate hypocrisy, said Taylor. Once a position is taken, that position must be defended. “You’re going to have to answer questions about political spending and decision making and your internal commitments. It’s very dangerous to say something about the end of Roe v. Wade if you don’t have a robust diversity strategy and you’re not providing reproductive rights.”Though there is some debate about whether rage against corporate involvement is damaging to businesses long-term, ABC News reported that after months of dipping sales, Bud Light lost shelf space at retailers like Walmart and 7-Eleven, “demonstrating the longevity of an anti-trans consumer movement that erupted in April.” In July, the company laid off roughly 380 workers. The drama surrounding Target and Bud Light led the Wall Street Journal to write in June that “companies that embraced social issues are having second thoughts.” But many leaders aren’t having second thoughts. The people who lead DEI and ESG initiatives do so often because they care deeply about these issues.Those who don’t want to stand back are steeling themselves before backlash happens, even before newsworthy events occur, with their newly emerging social issues working groups designed to respond to public events quickly and consistently. Don’t Wait to React. Anticipate Controversy as It BrewsIn 2021, the consulting firm Deloitte set up the Responsible Business Practices Working Group, a cross-functional team of 20 representatives from across the company – including HR, DEI, the general counsel’s office, risk, crisis communications, client services, government relations, and from Deloitte’s foundation.“We make sure that we take care of our people first,” Deloitte’s chief purpose and DEI officer Kwasi Mitchell told From Day One. “Be that through specific evaluation of our policies or outreach to those communities directly. We also think about the people who have been impacted in society, so we might make a donation to an organization that is helping those directly impacted. And lastly, we are thoughtful with respect to our communications with our employee resource groups that may be impacted.”Though they are prepared to be reactive, the hallmark of social issues working groups like Deloitte’s is that they are proactive, ever-studying what’s going on in politics, social matters, health, and law. If you’re not working this way, said Mitchell, it’s easy to fall into traps that so many companies do.“We have not been in any situations where someone can say ‘We didn’t think about that,’” said Lloyd at Baker Tilly. “I like the emphasis on process, because there’s an assumption that companies are responding to all manner of societal issues.” But it’s impossible to respond to every controversy, he said. There’s enough going on in the U.S., and multinational companies will be pulled in all directions.Lloyd, who is also the company’s head of DEI and societal impact, believes that some issues that have been highly politicized still require a company to take a stand. Earlier this year, the company sponsored a report by the think tank Coqual about gender in the workplace, which specifically addresses the physical and psychological safety of transgender people.Devise a Repeatable Process for Responding to Every Issue and EventDeloitte’s process is rigorous as well, a five-question framework adapted from a Harvard Business Review article: What would our internal stakeholders think? What would our external stakeholders think? What is the overall cost to society? Would the company’s core values be challenged if we did not act? And finally, can we actually influence the issue? The question of influence is one corporate leaders are grappling with. The expectation that businesses will involve themselves in public debate is still new, and many companies are still trying to figure out how, and if, they have the weight to change anything. “When you think about the history of business and the history of separating business from societal issues, the fact that companies are starting to hire someone called a director of employee activism helps us to understand that this is a tide that is turning,” Wharton’s Creary said in a 2022 interview. There are matters to which Deloitte has chosen a light touch, like voting rights. The team decided that it might sign a public letter or make a donation, “but we haven’t put the infrastructure in place to impact that issue longer term.” Mitchell learned through multiple surveys that politics is a topic Deloitte employees prefer to leave outside the office, so their involvement in political matters has been lean.In considering an issue, Mitchell’s team answers each question in the HBR story and awards an overall score, then debates the course of action with the CEO. With a diverse group and systematic analysis, they present better proofs for their decisions. “As we analyze things and put it in front of our CEO and his core leadership team, they can see that we brought the full perspective of the firm,” he explained.That formula seems to leave most people satisfied with the process, even if some don’t get the result they hoped for. At least everyone feels heard and there is consensus reached on how the decision was made. “What’s been really interesting is that people say, ‘I don’t necessarily agree with where we landed, but I understand where we landed,” Mitchell said.He estimates the team has worked on 40 or 50 topics over the last two years, including voting rights and reproductive rights. Before the working group was formed, Mitchell said opinions came from all directions, and it was difficult to understand if it was a reflection of the whole community, or just a vocal minority. “You also have a fair number of people who don’t feel that empowered, who might have a distinct [point of view] who would not necessarily elevate that to leadership right away.”Take a Position You Can Support Inside and Outside the OrganizationThat these groups are cross-functional indicates maturity in corporate coordination. Corporate America has developed dozens of functions – PR for messaging, HR for culture, government affairs for lobbying – but it’s a mistake to separate these functions, said Taylor. “If you’re going to commit to something like transgender rights, then you’ve got to be prepared to reflect it in your culture, your HR decisions, and your leadership. If you’re being discriminated against, it’s not just political, it’s personal. It’s about culture. It’s about HR. It’s about political spending. It’s about values.”Look for Outside Help When You Need ItWhile some companies assemble internal teams, others look outside the organization to bolster response plans. One such organization is Open to All, a nonprofit coalition of businesses that commit to inclusion of all people.Calla Rongerude, Open to All’s managing director, estimates that one-third to one-half of Open to All members have internal DEI councils, but attrition in DEI teams has driven leaders to their organization. “DEI budgets are shrinking, roles and departments are shrinking, and so are resources both in staffing and budget, but then you have this really heightened, polarized political environment. ​​I’ve been working on nondiscrimination for almost 20 years, and I’ve never seen it this volatile before,” she said.Open to All is set up to act quickly. When a new law is passed or a Supreme Court decision handed down, the organization assembles its policy contacts to brief members on the implications and dispel bad information stirred up in the chaos.“We also have our coalition of nonprofit organizations that can come in when there is a big moment – whether it’s Pride backlash, anti-trans legislation, affirmative action, or Dobbs – and talk about how companies can meet the moment,” said Rongerude. “They’re not just guessing in a conference room. They can actually talk to people who are doing this work on a public policy level.”Members of Open to All come together for purpose, setting aside business matters. “We have Gap and Levi’s and American Eagle. They’re all selling jeans, but when they’re working with us, they’re talking about how they can revamp their loss prevention policies so they’re eliminating bias at the returns counter. They put the competition aside.”Acknowledge the Limits of Social Issues Working GroupsAs effective as these task forces can be, and as reassuring it may feel to have one, there are limits. A social-issues working group can’t eliminate risk, Mitchell is emphatic about that. “Large organizations will always wade into some aspects of risk with respect to the way they operate their businesses or how they respond to a specific issue,” he said. “What this group helps you do is be thoughtful on a wide range of the risks that you might wade into.”The processes these groups exercise produce confidence and consistency, Mitchell said. It compels the business to ask how its decisions will affect employees, clients, and public stakeholders. “We try to have it framed from all of those lenses, just to make sure that we’re consistent in our actions on a daily basis.”Emily McCrary-Ruiz-Esparza is a freelance journalist and From Day One contributing editor who writes about work, the job market, and women’s experiences in the workplace. Her work has appeared in The Washington Post, the BBC, Quartz, Fast Company, and Digiday’s Worklife, among others.(Featured photo by Leo Patrizi/iStock by Getty Images)

Emily McCrary-Ruiz-Esparza October 11, 2023

Corporate Empathy: Where It Went and Why It Matters

It certainly seems like a bleak moment to be a worker in America. Scroll the news or social media and a picture forms of an uncaring, turbulent, and miserly workplace.Why is this so striking? Empathy, or the ability to understand and be sensitive to others’ feelings and experiences, became a fashionable trait in business just a few years ago. For a while, employers were getting really good at responding to the needs of the workforce. Some companies even traded on it. Empathy, as well as its more active cousin, compassion, took many forms. As more attention focused on how some demographic groups were often left on the sidelines, employers said OK, let’s find ways to level the playing field, and they set hiring goals and stood up mentorship programs. When Covid lockdown closed schools and day-care centers and quarantined babysitters, companies told workers to take care of their families and welcomed Zoom cameos from kids. When employees needed a reprieve from expensive cities and long commutes, companies converted to remote work and hybrid work. When burnout and loneliness pressed on our minds, employers started footing the bill for therapy.The year 2025 feels really different. Much of change in the weather has to do with what the Trump administration and Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency are doing to the federal workforce, gutting it haphazardly and villainizing the civil service—and how companies in the private sector are playing follow-the-leader. Meta appeared to ingratiate itself to the incoming administration by axing its DEI programs. And when President Trump ended federal DEI programs, Google and Amazon ended some of theirs. When Elon Musk fired “low performers” from the federal government, so did Meta and Microsoft. Public sector followed private sector in ending remote and hybrid work. First Amazon, AT&T, and Boeing called workers back to the office in late 2024, and the president did the same on inauguration day. Underscoring the dramatic shift: All of this is happening as we arrive at the fifth anniversary of Covid lockdowns in the U.S. In some ways, all those revolutionary changes to the way we work seem to be dissolving. To be sure, many employers insist that employee well-being is still a priority, but surveys show that most workers aren’t feeling it. According to Gallup, the percentage of employees who believe their organization cares about their well-being plunged to 21% in early 2024. At its peak in May 2020, that figure was 49%.These stories and statistics certainly make it seem like employers are pulling the plug on empathy. But while the big tech and banking companies that have toughened up their workplace policies employ a lot of people, as does the federal government, they don’t employ everyone. Do these stories really reflect what it’s like to be a worker in 2025? Is corporate empathy dead? I started asking around.When the Reality Doesn't Match the MessageAs I was working on this story, Lauren Branston, CEO of the UK-based nonprofit Institute of Business Ethics, sent me an email. “I have been hearing people I trust saying they are seeing more and more ‘campaigns’ saying empathy is bad, etc. Which I find worrying,” she wrote. “People are campaigning against a core human value. We aren’t ready for this as an institution or in society because we have assumed these topics to be settled.”For decades, she later told me in an interview, people have operated with the belief that undergirds much of Western political democracy: that those with power can largely be trusted to use that power for good, and if they don’t use it for good, then accountability, in the form of ethics or regulations, will come for them. Now, it’s not clear whether either of those things is enough to stop the rolling tide.“It’s fundamentally challenging, she said. “It’s a moment where your values and beliefs are shaken, and it’s a moment where you have to sit and recalibrate what’s going on. What you see when people’s values are challenged is engagement and collaboration and connection. People organize and get organized. And I think that might happen.”As a reporter, I talk to senior HR leaders and executives every day, and some of them I know well. It’s clear to me that a lot of these people who work in HR are, as individuals, genuinely concerned about the well-being of their colleagues. And some are really pushing for change.In February, I moderated a From Day One panel of senior talent-acquisition leaders, and all of them were insistent on providing a good candidate experience even as they introduce AI into their hiring process and navigate an unwelcoming labor marketplace. In fact, they were most concerned with finding ways to provide feedback to individual applicants, even those who don’t get the job. Comcast, which might get a thousand applications for a given role, learned that what applicants want most is feedback, so its TA team is finding ways to provide that.But when what the company says is not what the company does, a lot of HR leaders are really troubled by this. Lori Osborne is one of them. She has spent her 20-year career in HR, mostly working for corporations and startups, plus a brief stint with a non-profit organization, before leaving in 2024 to be a fractional CHRO for startups. Hypocrisy is why she left corporate HR, after finding that values and behavior just didn’t add up. Publicly, leadership would say, “‘We want you to go on a run at lunch. We want you to go to your kids’ school play. We want you to do this thing that you have a personal passion for, even though it’s during work hours,’” Osborne told me. But behind closed doors, the same leaders debated whether to promote employees who went on lunchtime runs or left early to make the school play. Taking them at their word was a trap. But this didn’t happen in the new, colder environment, it happened years ago, when it was in vogue to be a support-everyone kind of company. Which tends to confirm the worker suspicion that many companies never believed in empathy at all.What It Feels Like When the Vibe ShiftsEven so, I found employees who wanted me to know that they don’t believe corporate empathy is dead. One of them works in product development at a large, U.S.-based tech company. He wanted me to use a pseudonym—we’ll call him Terry—so he could speak candidly.Terry likes his work, which he says is creative and challenging. He also likes that expectations are clear and good work is rewarded. There have been two rounds of layoffs and a reorganization since he arrived, but Terry believes the matters were handled as well as they could have been.Primarily, he told me, empathy is evident in the fact that executives are so accessible. For two years, and especially lately, employees have asked executives during town hall meetings whether they’ll stick with DEI. The answer has always been yes. They ask whether workers will be called back to the office. The answer is no, remote and hybrid work will stay in place. As far as ratcheting up productivity expectations, the company now attaches bonuses to performance, but Terry doesn’t believe that’s meant to hector workers. It’s just what happens when revenue flattens out.But something weird happened. Recently, Terry’s new boss told him to provide weekly status updates, a requirement that sounds suspiciously close to Elon Musk’s ominous email to federal employees, ordering them to list five accomplishments for the week. I asked Terry, does that give you pause? It does, so he’s going to ask his manager why. Is he not trusted? Many workers may be harboring the same concerns, but aren’t confident enough to speak up. “Senior leadership can’t make people ask questions,” Terry told me, “but they can create an atmosphere where you can ask questions in front of everyone, or silently Slack the leadership.” So that’s what he’s going to do.What Does Empathy Have to Do With Business?It may be worth asking ourselves where we expect empathy in the workplace to come from: the executives in the C-suite who represent the business, or the colleagues we interact with on a daily basis?One employee who was recently let go from the Department of Education wrote on LinkedIn about how her colleagues went out of their way to help when she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. One tech worker told me how much their manager was a mentor. Federal workers at the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Commerce have told me how they’re banding together to share resources and support. Go looking for empathy, and you’ll find it.What some employees are getting from their employers cannot be dismissed: bullying and badgering, threats and ultimatums. Really big sticks and no carrots to speak of. People are really angry about layoffs. Most people would agree this is really bad humanity. Some would argue really bad business too.Business Insider’s Aki Ito reported on how Meta’s harsh performance reviews may backfire and damage productivity rather than improve performance. “CEOs may think they’re creating a meritocracy,” Ito writes. “but in reality they’re marching their companies straight into a trap of sunken morale, high turnover, depressed profits, and reduced innovation.”There’s evidence that corporate empathy really does affect dollars and cents. Among my favorite examples is a study by a group of researchers in Switzerland and the UK. They examined 510 CEO conference calls by 448 U.S.-based companies on the Russell 3000 stock index that took place in the earliest stages of the pandemic. They found that the more CEOs made statements, even vague ones, that signaled their human concern for employees, customers, or clients, the better those companies’ stock prices fared when overall share prices plunged in March 2020. The researchers call them “human care statements.”We’ve seen the opposite happen in 2025. Tesla’s stock price has been dropping precipitously, for nine straight weeks. Much of that may be politically inspired, but Musk’s gleeful lack of empathy for workers hit by DOGE cutbacks, with references to wood chippers and chain saws, gained viral infamy.The opposite kind of behavior appears to be demonstrably beneficial and stabilizing. “Follow-up explorations unveiled a negative association between CEO human care statements and stock volatility, meaning that market participants discounted these companies’ future earnings less,” the study reads. “Our explorations suggest that it pays off for CEOs to go beyond mere financial information and show some humanity.”Emily McCrary-Ruiz-Esparza is an independent journalist and From Day One contributing editor who writes about business and the world of work. Her work has appeared in the Economist, the BBC, The Washington Post, Inc., and Business Insider, among others. She is the recipient of a Virginia Press Association award for business and financial journalism.(Featured photo by Miniseries/iStock by Getty Images)

Emily McCrary-Ruiz-Esparza March 19, 2025