• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to footer
Greentarget

Greentarget

  • Our Culture
    • How We Work
    • Vision & Values
    • Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Belonging
    • Careers
      • Internships
  • Industries
    • Professional Services
    • Legal
    • Accounting
    • Commercial Real Estate
    • Financial Services
    • Management Consulting
  • Services
    • Earned Media Influence
    • Research & Market Intelligence
    • Content & Editorial
    • Digital & Analytics
    • Crisis Communications
    • Executive Positioning
  • Insights
  • Our Manifesto
  • About Us
    • Meet the Team
    • Awards
  • Connect

Jennifer Smith

February 8, 2024 by Jennifer Smith

How should professional services organizations talk about DEI at a time when even the acronym itself has become a lightning rod for controversy?

DEI programs in business and academia have been under the magnifying glass since the Supreme Court struck down race-conscious admissions at Harvard and the University of North Carolina last year. The watershed ruling emboldened DEI critics who equate efforts to increase racial diversity in the workplace with reverse discrimination.

Now the backlash is dominating headlines as corporate leaders backpedal recent commitments and DEI becomes a culture-war football in a contentious U.S. election year. It is a striking reversal of the climate just a few years ago, when George Floyd’s murder and nationwide protests over racial injustice unleashed a flood of diversity-related statements and pledges from corporate America.

This moment presents a two-fold challenge for leaders. It complicates efforts to advance diversity, equity and inclusion at their own organizations—an issue that many legal and professional services firms have struggled with for decades, particularly when it comes to representation among upper management and executive ranks. It also has ramifications for firms’ service offerings and counsel to clients on DEI-related issues, including those tied to ESG, a growing business area for legal, accounting and consulting firms.

In what follows, we’ll discuss how professional services firms can communicate effectively, and authentically, to stakeholders about DEI. Those audiences include current and future talent, as well as clients and potential clients—who may well be wrestling with similar questions themselves.

The current DEI landscape

As companies and law firms scale back DEI initiatives or quietly retool them to avoid mounting legal challenges, it’s worth considering the broader impact of the Supreme Court’s decisions on affirmative action.

From a recruitment perspective, some experts expect it to reduce the pool of diverse talent from law schools and universities, based on what’s happened in California and Michigan after state universities there eliminated affirmative action. The broader pushback could also impact corporate DEI initiatives, such as diversity fellowships for historically underrepresented groups.

While the anti-DEI movement may pose heightened risk, companies and boards should understand how current laws apply to DEI measures at their organizations before deciding to shift course. Retreating from earlier commitments could also have consequences, from impacts on talent recruitment and retention to reputational harm.

Here’s how Nell Haslett-Brousse, director of diversity, equity and inclusion at consulting firm Point B, put it in a LinkedIn post soon after the Supreme Court rejected affirmative action in college admissions last June:

“Values have been and should continue to serve as a company’s north star… In a landscape where performative DEI+J [diversity, equity, inclusion and justice] has already drawn sharp criticism, any company that’s pulling away from its bold statements or goals will be hard-pressed to find near-term benefit, let alone long-term gains from reacting so quickly.”

Understand your DEI motivations

Caution is understandable. But there’s not much to be gained from walking back a previous commitment to DEI—you risk appearing disingenuous, or worse. As my colleague Steve DiMattia has  noted, in moments like these it’s important to “draw on well-defined organizational values—what you stand for, and how you demonstrate and encourage behavior that lives up to it.”

Organizations navigating this increasingly polarized environment must reflect on why they are pursuing their DEI path. Have those drivers or goals changed? How might the more fraught political and legal environment affect your firm’s chosen approach?

After all, many see DEI both as a social issue and a business imperative, and firms have a right to decide for themselves what steps to take to ensure the long-term success of their businesses. It’s important to consider what those efforts signify to critical constituencies, such as clients and current or potential talent.

“Diversity is the most important issue facing the accounting profession because it is essential for its sustainability and success in the global economy,” Anoop Natwar Mehta, immediate past chairman, AICPA & Association of International Certified Professional Accountants, told Accounting Today. “I also believe increasing diversity will also help our pipeline challenges.”

Clients are hungry for DEI counsel, too. Greentarget and Zeughauser Group’s State of DEI Content Report (released six months before the Supreme Court’s rulings on affirmative action) found that executive decision makers want more guidance on DEI from the law, accounting and consulting firms they hire, with 69% of law firm chief marketing officers ranking DEI as the topic that attracts the most attention from clients.

As a result, organizations are unveiling service offerings directly related to DEI counsel. For example, some law firms are launching DEI-focused practice groups to help field the recent flood of queries about racial equity audits and legal challenges.

But it goes deeper. Our research also shows that executive decision makers want their service providers to make progress as well as provide counsel on inclusion and diversity—and in-house counsel rate their law firms’ DEI execution as mediocre, saying there’s more work to be done. That’s something to keep in mind when considering adjustments to DEI programs and communications.

Be transparent about what—and how—you’re doing when it comes to DEI

Diversity, equity and inclusion is a long game. Reactive pivots and retreats can signal a lack of authentic commitment that could do more damage over time, both reputationally and to your DEI goals, than staying the course. Consistency and communication matter.

Think about your audience—especially when it comes to talent. As Bloomberg reported in September: “While most baby-boomers don’t consider a company’s focus on DEI when applying to jobs and accepting offers, almost three-quarters of Gen Z workers want their employer to consider it a priority, according to a new global study by consultancy Ernst & Young LLP.”

Track your efforts and share where you are and what needs improvement. As Point B’s recent research on DEI+J maturity shows, “While companies have invested heavily in top-down initiatives like workforce development and recruitment, many have yet to implement the deeper, structural changes and policies needed to make a lasting impact.” Consider what metrics may be most effective to assess progress—and which ones could expose your firm to risk in the current environment. Tying DEI programs to specific business outcomes may be a safer bet than setting quotas or diversity targets, for example.

For its part, the New York State Bar Association’s Task Force on Advancing Diversity advises private employers—corporations and law firms—to communicate a continued commitment to the organization’s DEI principles, but also to evaluate how employees and external stakeholders perceive those efforts and programs. What’s more, the group recommends keeping a close eye on DEI-related communications and disclosures and ensuring that people making employment decisions understand the key legal principles that govern DEI programs.

But it’s important to note that, as DEI and corporate governance lawyers told Fortune recently, despite the headline-grabbing lawsuits alleging reverse racism, firms are more likely to be sued by employees or job seekers from historically underrepresented groups.  

DEI is here to stay

Despite the well-documented blowback, most organizations remain committed to DEI. According to new research from employment law firm Littler, 57% of the more than 300 C-suite executives surveyed say their companies have expanded diversity-related initiatives over the past year. And while nearly six in 10 (59%) say anti-DEI backlash has increased since the Supreme Court rulings, three-quarters of respondents say the decisions haven’t changed their approach. Of the 6% who did scale back DEI efforts, concerns around general legal liability and costs were the primary factors.

“We’re seeing many employers maintain—or even double down on—their commitment,” said Jeanine Conley Daves, Littler shareholder and member of the firm’s IE&D [inclusion, equity and diversity] Consulting Practice. “Demonstrating that IE&D is part of their core values, many organizations are taking the prudent step of auditing and assessing their current initiatives, rather than eliminating them amid the challenges in today’s political and legal environment.”

The stakes are high, and the challenges are real. If you’re looking to start a smarter DEI-focused conversation in a post-affirmative action world, the team at Greentarget is here to help.

About the Executive Positioning Practice

Exemplifying Greentarget’s commitment to being a trusted advisor to clients, our Executive Positioning team provides C-suite executives (managing partners, CEOs, executive committees, and boards) with insights to anticipate, understand and respond to important global and social developments, analyzing key issues that can impact reputation and compel leaders to communicate.

August 17, 2023 by Jennifer Smith

Journalists have long seen themselves as members of the fourth estate—watchdogs whose work informs the public, shines a light on injustice and holds power to account. But in recent years, Americans’ trust in the media has plummeted amid deepening political polarization and the rampant spread of misinformation and disinformation online.  

That’s why in 2020 and 2021, Greentarget conducted research to understand the toll that so-called “fake news” is taking on seasoned journalists—and offer guidance for how PR professionals and business leaders can help stem the tide.  

Since then, the challenges facing journalism have only deepened, from widespread media layoffs to technological shifts like the explosive growth of generative artificial intelligence (AI) that could automate some reporting and writing tasks—and potentially further undermine journalism jobs. Those developments prompted a different approach to our ongoing research.  

For our latest iteration, we surveyed young reporters and journalism students to understand the following: 

  • Why they’re committed to pursuing the profession 
  • Their outlook on the future of journalism 
  • Their perspectives on AI, social media and fake news 

We’ll publish the full report in the coming weeks. In the meantime, here’s a glimpse at why up-and-coming journalists are optimistically jumping into the arena, and how they view factors that are changing the industry in real time. 

1. To Provide Credible, Fact-Based Information 

Nearly all the up-and-coming journalists we surveyed believe traditional media should be impartial. And a majority said a key reason they’re entering the field is to provide accurate information that the public can rely on to make informed decisions—reflecting respondents’ faith in the role of the press as an arbiter of truth and accountability.  

So where does their credible information come from? Respondents said they research and/or vet stories using tried-and-true techniques from the reporter’s toolbox, including: 

  • Doing first-hand field reporting 
  • Reviewing top-tier publications 
  • Reaching out to academics, experts, and/or think tanks 
  • Looking at information from government agencies/organizations 

Respondents had a complex relationship with social media, which they used to generate story ideas and/or vet information—but to a lesser degree than the above methods. That may be due to next-gen journalists’ view that social media is a key spreader of false or misleading information. However, they also see social media as valuable for distribution and measurement.  

AI-enabled tools from ChatGPT to Google Translate are also gaining ground for some tasks, including data analysis, research, writing and editing. But some respondents expressed concern about how AI could impact the industry in the future, citing the potential for inaccuracy and/or misinformation, as well as fears that technology could replace some human journalists.   

Whatever the tools, they reported taking several steps to verify that the information they publish is trustworthy, including: 

  • Contacting the source directly 
  • Securing multiple sources 
  • Searching for corroborating sources 
  • Using fact-checking sites (e.g., PolitiFact) to avoid spreading false information 

2. To Shine a Light on Injustice and Social Issues 

Gen Z (those born between the late 90s and early 2000s) may be the most progressive, technologically savvy, and socially-minded generation yet, and share many values that Millennials also prioritize. It’s no wonder, then, that this generation views a career in journalism as a way to tell the truth about what’s happening in the world around them and, in some cases, advance the social change they want to see. 

Many of the reasons respondents cited for deciding to pursue journalism reflect those concerns, including: 

  • To expose injustice 
  • To make a difference in the world 
  • To hold governments and institutions accountable 

Next-gen journalists also said that diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) is a significant concern, both in newsrooms and in terms of coverage. Many respondents believe that diversity in the profession across racial, gender, and economic categories is foundational for good reporting, and note that lack of representation could lead to narrow coverage, “social imbalance” on topics in the news—and the loss of public trust. 

3. To Combat the Spread of Fake News 

Students and NextGen journalists aren’t naive about the challenges they’ll face as a result of misinformation (information that is false) and disinformation (information that is intentionally fabricated). In fact, many respondents expected the problem to worsen, with social media cited as a leading factor.  

But they also don’t hold a purely doom-and-gloom view. Rather, they’re passionate about the opportunity to combat misinformation and disinformation in their sphere of influence. In fact, nearly half of our survey respondents said fighting fake news is one reason they want to be journalists. 

As digital natives, Gen Z could be uniquely qualified to take up this battle cry. A marked rise in media literacy education means members of this generation may be more likely to know how to ask critical questions about the media they consume, spot misleading or false claims, and avoid manipulation.   

Despite Challenges, Gen Z Looks at the Future of Journalism With Optimism 

In our last Fake News Report, only 14% of journalists said they believed their own efforts had an impact on the fight against misinformation and disinformation. According to our survey, Gen Z holds a more upbeat view, responding that their outlook for the next decade is at least somewhat positive.   

At Greentarget, we’re optimistic about the future as well. And in large part because of what we’re learning from the next generation of journalists, we continue to believe that traditional media will play a crucial role in inspiring and leading smarter conversations.  

We’ll delve more deeply into the reasons for that optimism when we release our full report later this year. 

April 12, 2022 by Jennifer Smith

Nervous about being interviewed by a reporter? 

I know the feeling. As a journalist, I spent more than two decades on the other side of the notebook, pressing executives and politicians for answers on some of the biggest news of the day.  

It’s quite another matter to have the spotlight turned on you – even when it’s just to promote your own work or to discuss a new role, such as the position I recently took at Greentarget.   

Speaking to the press means putting yourself out there. Will what you say be taken out of context? What should you do when an interviewer charges off in a direction you weren’t prepared for, or brings up a topic that you can’t – or don’t wish to – address?  

The urge to hide behind a press release is tempting. But engaging with the media in a thoughtful and substantive way can reap significant dividends for both sides. Preparation is key, from mapping out the most important points you want to make to anticipating tough questions and how you’d respond.  

Why Join the Conversation? 

Experts educate journalists and the broader public on important issues, such as rising cybersecurity risks or the economic impact of sanctions and export controls. At the same time, they’re gaining exposure for themselves and their organizations as authoritative sources of information. That’s valuable currency in a period of intense global upheaval, as propaganda and misinformation rocket around the internet in record time.  

People and businesses are seeking guidance to help them navigate uncharted waters, from Covid-19’s seismic impact on public health, education and the workplace to the economic repercussions and humanitarian toll of Russia’s war on Ukraine.   

That volatility is driving strong demand for authorities who can break down complex issues using straightforward language. Many organizations are now producing their own content to get their message out there, and some experts have gained significant followings through adept use of Twitter and other social media.  

But the most visible, and credible, platform for that authority remains traditional media, especially if you want to reach key business leaders and decision makers. Despite some recent erosion of public trust in the media, about six in ten U.S. adults say they have at least some trust in information from national news outlets and three-quarters feel that way about information from local news organizations, according to the Pew Research Center.    

Business executives in particular view traditional outlets as the gold standard for trust, credibility and value. Eighty-two percent of C-suite respondents said they valued traditional media above all content sources, followed by trade publications covering industry news, according to Greentarget’s most recent State of Digital & Content Marketing Survey. And 79% of in-house counsel ranked traditional media the highest, followed by publications covering their professions and trade outlets.   

Earning Credibility.   

Good journalists vet their sources, fact-check their stories and go to great lengths – often on tight deadlines – to ensure readers get the most accurate representation of what’s happening in the world. That rigor can make for tough interviews and sometimes tense exchanges, especially when reporters and editors push back or challenge a subject’s point of view.  

It’s also why decision makers place greater trust in what they read in top-tier outlets. Anyone can publish an opinion on something these days. An expert voice that makes it through the scrutiny and editing process at a reputable publication tends to carry more weight, and confer greater authority. From a business standpoint, both C-suite executives and in-house counsel say recommendations from trusted sources matter most in researching firms for potential hire. 

As a reporter specializing in explanatory journalism, I sought out reputable sources who could serve as trusted guides for me and for my readers on everything from global shipping bottlenecks to soaring law-firm billing rates to groundwater pollution. I prized experts who could clearly and accurately unpack why something was happening, why it mattered and how organizations and communities could prepare for what might come next. 

Build Authority by Delivering the Essentials—and Engaging in Debate.  

My best sources were able to distill their perspectives into simple and effective language that helped me put news developments in context. Sometimes that took a fair amount of discussion, going back and forth until I felt confident that I understood the points being made and how they connected to the broader topic and to the concerns of my readers. Even if just one sentence made it into a story, such conversations informed my reporting. They also helped build relationships with people who I might end up regularly turning to for insight and analysis.  

That’s one reason many journalists prefer live interviews. E-mailed Q&As and statements tend to be bland and sometimes don’t speak directly to the subject at issue. Ever wonder why a canned quote didn’t make it into a story? Chances are that it was boring, it repeated a point another source made more eloquently elsewhere in the piece, or it just didn’t say anything new.  

Of course, journalists also wade through reams of written material to get up to speed on an issue when time permits. White papers, blog posts and published articles in academic journals and trade publications can provide useful context and point reporters toward potential sources.  

But those materials can be dry, dense and difficult for non-specialists to digest, especially when time is short and news is coming at you fast. Jargon is also one of the fastest ways to lose a reader.  

By contrast, a focused conversation with a skilled and knowledgeable practitioner can yield vivid quotes and examples that grab a reader’s attention and help illustrate what’s really at stake. Authorities don’t need to deliver an encyclopedic manifesto on any given topic, or have the ultimate answers to tough problems in their back pockets. But they do need to think about what time-starved readers and decision makers really need to know, and the most efficient way to convey that.  

Consider Laurel Cutler, a top advertising executive whose trenchant insights often landed her in the Wall Street Journal. According to WSJ’s obituary last year: 

Ms. Cutler, who died Nov. 28 at the age of 94, was frequently quoted in The Wall Street Journal, partly because she could be relied upon for a strong opinion, expressed concisely. In 1990, she told the Journal that automotive advertising aimed solely at women was “patronizing and condescending.” 

A car tire maker once showed her a pink tire designed to appeal to women. She informed the client that women were looking for safety and reliability from their tires, not bright colors. 

True authorities balance the demands of accuracy and accessibility. That means delivering succinct, lucid analysis and using concrete examples to help make abstract or complex concepts easier to understand.  

Some people are born explainers-in-chief. But most need a little help to get there – even those of us who do it for a living.   

Footer

Connect with us

To reach us by phone, call 312-252-4100.

close
  • We take your privacy seriously. We do not sell or share your data. We use it to enhance your experience with our site and to analyze the performance of our marketing efforts. To learn more, please see our Privacy Notice. Would you like to receive digital marketing insights in your inbox? We'll send you a few emails each month about our newest content, upcoming events, and new services.
  • Our Culture
  • Industries
  • Services
  • Insights
  • Our Manifesto
  • About Us
  • Connect
  • Privacy Notice
Close
Close