How government DEI standards drive corporate diversity

One thing people may not fully appreciate: The government has always set a higher standard for DEI.

For years, companies that wanted government contracts had to comply with diversity reporting requirements—tracking workforce demographics and showing progress toward certain goals. This wasn’t just a “nice to have”—it was a requirement to secure contracts with guaranteed revenue.

So it’s probably not a coincidence that as soon as the government started pulling back on these requirements, the companies with the most at stake—Meta, Amazon, SpaceX—were the first to roll back DEI.

For everyone else, DEI was aspirational.

For companies that weren’t chasing government contracts, DEI goals were never legally mandated. They were aspirational targets—and the hard truth is, many companies never hit them.

Take women in tech, for example. If you look at engineering teams, has the percentage of women meaningfully changed over the last decade? Maybe by a percentage point or two—but nothing close to the ambitious targets many companies set.

So what now?

With DEI under scrutiny, companies are being forced to ask:

Why did we set these goals in the first place?

If we weren’t meeting them, what was missing?

Should we rethink the way we approach diversity and inclusion?

We don’t always agree with how these questions are being asked—or the motivations behind them. But we do think there’s an opportunity to reevaluate what actually works instead of just chasing numbers.

The bigger picture? The government used to set the tone for corporate DEI efforts. Now that it's pulling back, will companies continue to lead on their own—or will they follow suit?

DEI misconceptions & meritocracy debate

What do people think DEI Is?

We've had a lot of conversations where someone goes off about how DEI is:

The opposite of meritocracy

A form of reverse discrimination

Forced representation that doesn’t reflect the U.S. population

Here’s why those arguments don’t hold up.

“DEI kills merit.”

Companies that do DEI right aren’t ditching merit—they’re expanding access to it. We’ve talked to leaders who prove you can hire the best AND build diverse teams.

“DEI is reverse racism.”

This one always shocks me. Inclusion isn’t about exclusion. It’s about making sure talent isn’t overlooked just because it doesn’t fit a traditional mold.

“Companies are overcorrecting by hiring too many minorities.”

The U.S. is ~13.7% Black, yet corporate leadership is far lower than that. If anything, representation still lags behind.

But here’s a bigger question: Did companies roll out DEI too fast to be effective?

After 2020, we saw a massive rush—entire DEI programs launched in a quarter or two. Were those efforts given enough time to be intentional, well-implemented, and truly impactful?

We've seen DEI done deliberately and thoughtfully.

But when it’s rushed, it can create confusion or leave some people feeling uncertain about its purpose or value.

What do you think? We want to learn from you—if you have insights, experiences, or perspectives to share, just hit reply and educate us. We’re here to listen.

Are RTOs & anti-DEI pushes a cover for layoffs?

Are DEI and RTOs becoming corporate scapegoats?

One theory we keep coming back to:

Are companies using DEI the same way they use Return to Office mandates—as a distraction?

We’ve seen it before.

A company has a bad quarter, misses earnings, or faces internal turmoil—instead of acknowledging deeper business problems, they shift the blame.

“We didn’t hit our numbers because too many people were working remotely.”

“Our business is struggling because DEI took us off track.”

It’s an easy way for leadership to create a narrative that shifts attention away from structural or financial issues.

But here’s the interesting connection: RTO mandates and DEI rollbacks disproportionately affect the same groups.

Women are 3x more likely to leave after an RTO mandate.

High-skilled employees are more likely to quit when forced back into the office.

Companies that impose strict RTOs see higher attrition among diverse employees.

And yet, despite clear evidence that hybrid work is effective, many companies are still forcing employees back full-time.

So here’s the real question:

Are some companies scaling back DEI and enforcing RTO not because they truly believe it’s better—but because it’s a convenient way to reduce headcount and shift the narrative?

Is HR Tech broken?

Why do HR leaders think HR Tech has lost its way?

Over the last two months, we can’t tell you how often we’ve heard “Our HR tech sucks.”

At first, we assumed they meant performance review tools or engagement surveys. But every time we dig deeper, the answer is the same: “No, no—you don’t get it. All of it sucks.”

So, how did we get here?

Hypothesis #1: The last HR Tech cycle got lost in consolidation

From 2014 to 2020, HR tech saw a wave of new categories, real innovation, and actual value creation. But then? Big players went on a buying spree.

SaaS point solutions got scooped up, rolled into larger platforms, and rebranded as “all-in-one” HR suites. But most mergers fail. And instead of seamless integrations, we ended up with bloated, underwhelming tools—wrapped in great marketing but failing to deliver.

Hypothesis #2: The industry stalled chasing AI

Then came the GenAI hype wave. Overnight, AI became the future of HR tech. The problem? A year later, we’re still waiting for proof.

We talk to HR leaders every day—no one is using AI to truly innovate in HR. At best, teams are using it to level up their skills or work more efficiently, but the products themselves? Still underwhelming.

Hypothesis #3: The “shiny object” cycle never ends

HR tech vendors promise the world—and most HR leaders have been burned before. They’ve invested in “game-changing” tools that didn’t live up to the hype, and now? Skepticism is at an all-time high.

Meanwhile, the same products dominate the market, just under different brand names. Engagement surveys, nudges, pulse checks—remember when those were the hot new thing? Now they’re barely talked about.

The real problem? There’s no true innovation.

Walk around any HR tech conference, and you’ll hear the same pitches over and over. It’s not that there aren’t big ideas—it’s that the switching costs are so high, many game-changing startups never get a chance to scale.

What’s next?

HR leaders are frustrated. The tech isn’t delivering what they need.

So what does the next HR tech cycle look like? What will actually move the industry forward?

The world of work has changed—HR Tech hasn’t

The world of work has changed—HR Tech hasn’t.

Between 2020 and today, work has fundamentally shifted:

• More remote & hybrid teams
• New ways of communicating & running meetings
• Different expectations for perks & benefits
• A shift in how people want to work

But HR tech? It’s still built for the pre-COVID world—and it’s failing to support today’s workforce.

The problem: legacy tech can’t keep up.

HR leaders aren’t just frustrated with one system—they’re frustrated with all of them. Why? Because these tools weren’t designed for how work happens now.

We need an entirely new tech stack—one that enables leaders to actually support their people in a post-2020 world.

Right now, everything is being questioned—because we can’t measure or manage work the way we used to.

So what happens next?

We can either cling to the past—trying to force outdated systems to work—or we can reimagine how HR tech should function in today’s reality.

The challenge? The loudest voices online tend to thrive on resistance, hot takes, and sensationalism.

That makes it harder to focus on actual solutions.

So here’s our question:

➡️ What would the ideal HR tech stack for today’s world actually look like?

➡️ If we built it from scratch, what would change?

Go listen to the full episode: YouTube | Spotify | Apple​
​
See you next week!

P.S. If you like MPL, help us grow the show by giving us a 5 star rating on Apple or Spotify.