Skepticism usually comes from those that have not directly felt excluded based on discrimination tied to the characteristics that have traditionally been the focus of diversity and inclusion initiatives (race, gender, LGBTQIA+, etc.). Therefore, it’s important up front to connect and broaden the initiative to a larger concept like “Belonging.” Belonging is a universal need (studies have shown that the need to belong is on par with the need for love) and can provide an entry point for those not comfortable speaking about diversity or those who are unclear of what “inclusion” means for them.

If the skeptics are leaders of the organization, two things help. First, it is vital to make a connection between the initiative and the overall objectives of the organization. Diversity and Inclusion have to be seen as essential to advancing the strategy the leaders have set. For example, I worked with a global trade organization that was trying to expand its membership by attracting new members from the industry. There was a clear link between the leaders’ objectives of attracting new members, who happened to be younger and more racially and gender diverse, and diversity and inclusion initiatives.

Second, data, when used well, is a powerful tool to overcome skepticism. I have worked with executives that have shown little compassion when told stories of favoritism of one race in a hiring process, who have leaped into action when presented with very clear visuals of statistically significant advantages of one group over another.

We successfully addressed resistance to diversity and inclusion by making the initiative about verifiable structural competence, not abstract social metrics. The conflict is the trade-off: abstract DEI talk creates a massive structural failure in trust among the ranks; success requires anchoring the discussion to non-negotiable job-site performance.

Our strategy was the Hands-on “Zero-Defect Structural Audits.” We immediately traded abstract policy discussions for mandatory, measurable peer audits on complex heavy-duty jobs. We paired veteran skeptics with new, diverse crew members for a two-person, verifiable structural inspection of the final work. The output was a single, shared, binary metric: Pass or Fail.

This worked because it forced the skeptics to see that the new crew members delivered identical or superior structural integrity and often possessed different, valuable hands-on problem-solving skills the veteran lacked. The resistance dissolved when the verifiable data proved that competence was structurally indifferent to background. We transformed skeptics into advocates by enforcing the law of the job site: structural integrity is the only metric that matters. The best strategy is to be a person who is committed to a simple, hands-on solution that prioritizes verifiable competence in solving structural problems as the foundation for inclusion.

One strategy that really made a difference was inviting resistant team members to share their concerns in a safe, non-judgmental setting. I remember running a small group discussion where someone expressed worry that new diversity policies might mean losing their own sense of belonging; listening and addressing those concerns, while highlighting stories of improved team support, helped shift their perspective. The consensus here is that open dialogue made resistance feel less like a threat and more like a shared learning experience.

You know, at PlayAbly people push back on diversity work until they see it in action. So we started having team members from different groups lead our creative sessions. It was a game changer. We started getting genuinely new solutions, not just the usual stuff. The team got more invested because they were actually being heard. Don’t tell them why it matters. Let them experience it for themselves.

Resistance decreased once we linked inclusion to customer needs across multilingual markets. Our customers come from diverse backgrounds requiring nuanced communication. Teams realized inclusion strengthens our brand connection significantly. That understanding replaced reluctance with responsibility.

We implemented training programs celebrating cultural differences within our workforce. Engagement increased because representation felt authentic rather than symbolic. Skeptics appreciated the practical business impact. Real alignment produced long-term advocacy organically.

When we first began considering the concept of diversity and inclusion at LAXcar, we received some, although very mild, backlash from some who appeared fatigued by the entire situation. Some felt that this was just another of those corporate exercises, and it may not even be relevant to an already difficult business to manage. Instead of implementing policies one after the other, I chose what I felt was the most rational approach, and that was to continually engage with people of different races, cultures, and backgrounds. The fusion of results and the inclusion of all were achieved. The absence of communication was one of the key results we were able to articulate, which led to an awareness of improved outcomes from our communications and the awareness of a system that was able to assist in serving a greater number of clients more comfortably.

I’ve found that most resistance comes from fear. Fear of lowering standards or adding complexity. I addressed it by keeping things practical.

One strategy that worked was showing how small changes (wider sourcing, clearer criteria) led to better hires, not weaker ones. I involved skeptics directly in the process and let the results speak. Once they saw stronger candidates and better outcomes, they stopped pushing back and started supporting it on their own.

We addressed resistance by building diversity into creative experimentation and giving every idea space to grow. Our team encouraged employees to test concepts shaped by different cultural influences so they could see how these ideas performed in real situations. One example came during a visual design sprint when a member questioned the value of alternative color palettes suggested by a teammate.

When those palettes outperformed the original choice in A/B tests, they understood the strength of perspectives they had not considered before. They later pushed to include similar tests in future campaigns because the results showed what diverse thinking could unlock. This experience helped our team see diversity as a practical driver of better outcomes. We learned that experimentation lowered barriers that often block new ideas.

Back when we were first growing Dirty Dough Cookies, some people were skeptical about how we were building our team, worried it would be a distraction. Then our bilingual team member helped us land a new franchise partner. That deal was all the proof we needed. In my experience, showing the concrete results people bring is more convincing than any policy. For us, that’s what mattered.

At Mission Prep, we started a mentorship program pairing staff from different backgrounds. The skeptics weren’t buying it until we started sharing actual stories and data during our all-hands meetings. Talking about the real changes happening in teams got people to listen more than any policy ever did. Showing the actual results was what finally made it click for everyone.

I learned to let the skeptics design how we celebrate wins. When they help create the process, they actually buy in. On our sales team, the guy who complained the most about recognition is now the one making sure everyone gets a fair shot. He’s constantly nominating people who might otherwise get overlooked. It works every time.