Generic DEI training is fading in favor of more targeted approaches, as employers confront deeper systemic bias and legal risk, expert explains
Even as formal DEI programs are reshuffled, renamed or dropped in parts of Canada, some employers are doubling down with more targeted, process driven approaches – a response Rekha Verma, founder of ValuesWork360, describes as a “positive spin on the pushback” that is reshaping how organizations think about inclusion
“I think whether it is DEI, whether it is the war on Gaza, or whether it is now what is happening between us, Israel and Iran, or anywhere else for that matter, I think it boils down to, do we have safe space in the organization?” says Verma.
She frames current DEI challenges in Canada against a backdrop of global conflict and social unrest, arguing that employers must decide whether they truly want employees to bring their full selves to work.
“Is there any concept of safe space, or are we expecting employees to come into work on a purely transactional basis, and then go back and deal with it,” Verma says. In her view, that expectation has become untenable since the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, which exposed how much pain many workers were carrying.
The BLM movement, she says, “allowed us and leaders to recognize that employees are hurting, and they do need some psychological safety, they need some safe space in the organization.”
From off-the-shelf training to targeted learning
To Verma, the pushback on DEI is real but uneven; bias in Canada is not as overt as in the states, but it exists more subtly, she says, “Either it has been dropped or it has been reshuffled or it has been renamed.”
One clear shift among employers who are maintaining their DEI strategies is away from broad or off-the-shelf training to more targeted approaches that address specific needs. In those environments, DEI tends to remain central, while others “have dropped it, were not very committed in the first place.”
For HR practitioners, that distinction is important, Verma stresses: organizations that treated DEI as a compliance exercise or branding tool are often the first to reverse course when external pressure rises, while those that tied it to strategy and community impact are more likely to adapt rather than abandon.
Within Canada, employer response to DEI pullback varies by sector, she adds, depending on the communities and stakeholders involved, as well as the individual values of each organization. She says these employers “have understood that there is an ROI to DEI that it is actually very, very important to them,” even if they now call it something else.
“O soff-the-shelf, generic DEI training has dropped,” she says. “What has deepened is targeted learning customized to the organization.”
Today, many employers want short, process-specific tools. For example, a ten-minute training module for hiring managers to review just before they go into an interview, or to brush up principles of bias when short-listing for a role, doing competency-based hiring, or negotiating salary.
“Bias mitigation ... which is specific to a particular talent process, is very different” Verma says.
“It is targeted, it is short, it is impactful. It has a high recall, and it is very compact, it doesn't talk about hundreds of other things. So these are the kinds of things that companies need and value, rather than generic things.”
Budget decisions and leadership development
Despite talk of cuts, Verma says some employers are increasing DEI spend where they see clear value, and are increasing what she says is the “rigor” of the work they are doing. This means the conversation is no longer about whether DEI exists on an org chart, but about how deeply it is embedded in day‑to‑day decisions, leadership behaviour and employee experience.
“Companies that are actually now invested in it, and they are doing it right and they're doing it for the right reason,” she says, citing a particular client that has “tripled their budget this year” into DEI, and “doubled down” on investment into leadership development.
“I see that as the positive spin on the pushback, that there is budget ... particularly for some of the disadvantaged groups, it’s the rigor of the work that is being done.”
That kind of move suggests a maturing phase, where DEI work is narrowed, but more deeply resourced in the areas that matter most. It also suggests a response to a longstanding capability gap where leaders have felt unable to address diversity and have difficult conversations due to lack of capacity.
For Verma, the priority is enabling leaders, if not to solve problems, at least to address them openly.
“In every organization, leaders feel the need to either pretend or wear a mask, that they've got everything figured out,” she says.
“It is about navigating those conversations so that the employees feel heard, they feel respected.”
That shifts the expectation from leaders having all the answers to leaders creating conditions where employees can safely express concerns and feel taken seriously, even when outcomes are constrained: “Managers need to just humanize experiences of employees, rather than avoid those conversations.”
