‘If you’re consistent with your values, you’re not as worried about transparency’: why integrity and consistency matter more than spin when explaining DEI decisions to staff
When Ottawa released its draft 2026–2029 Federal Sustainable Development Strategy, it put issues like systemic discrimination, gender-based violence and Indigenous prosperity firmly on the national agenda and underscored expectations that institutions will be transparent about how they tackle inequity.
For employers, that raises a hard question: how do you talk to employees about changing diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) priorities when some believe the whole project has gone too far?
According to Claude Balthazard, PhD, former HRPA registrar and director of leadership research at CIBC, the tension showing up in workplaces is often where opportunity feels most personal.
“A good number of people feel that it just went too far,” Balthazard says.
“Especially in hiring and career opportunities, and when people think or feel that they’ve been passed over or haven’t had the same opportunities as somebody who would have been in one of those groups. That’s where the issue comes in.”
Employers: ask what is really driving DEI decisions
The federal strategy acknowledges long-standing inequities and sets targets to narrow them, including reducing the share of Canadians who report discrimination and closing gender and Indigenous employment gaps.
Inside organizations, Balthazard says, employees do not want surface-level messaging – they want to know what problem leaders are trying to solve with DEI programs and how specific policies link back to fairness, rather than to vague ideas about “making up for the past.”
The federal plan leans heavily on transparency, data and accountability; Balthazard argues that if employers treat DEI pullback as a messaging issue, they risk ignoring the underlying issue.
When employers pull back on DEI, “it’s not a communication problem. It’s, why did you do it? And are you honest with yourself as to why you did it?” he says, stressing that trying to please everyone will only dilute the message and come across as shallow.
“They know that the message has been massaged too much, as opposed to just standing up for what you believe is correct,” Balthazard says.
“Whatever you do, you should stand behind. If you use too many waffle words, it means that you’re really not truly committed.”
For HR leaders, that means testing proposed DEI communications against motivations and decisions: do the explanations line up with what is actually being done, and would they hold up if employees had full visibility into promotions, hiring and resource allocation?
Connect trade-offs, budgets and values
The federal strategy discusses decades of unequal access to education, income and opportunity. For Balthazard, that reality creates a difficult situation for employers attempting to address deep systemic problems at the hiring stage.
“By the time you reach employment, in many ways, it’s too late,” he says.
“You can’t fix the 20 years of disadvantage that have led for them to not be as qualified today.”
This isn’t a reason to de-emphasize DEI in the workplace, however; he points out that employees quickly notice when organizations respond to financial pressure by cutting only DEI initiatives.
“So, what programs are you going to cut? What did you use as a method for cutting?” Balthazard says.
“Because if all of a sudden everything that’s cut is the old DEI programs or existing DEI programs … did you really apply a fair standard in terms of what’s cut, what survived? It’s more a matter, to me, of integrity.”
Hold to values, even when it costs something
The federal strategy ties social goals to concrete targets and timelines, from reducing discrimination and gender-based violence to improving Indigenous prosperity. For Balthazard, the parallel inside organizations is that values are only meaningful when they are tested.
For HR and communications teams, he says, that means the most effective DEI communication will often be the most straightforward: explain what is changing and why, be honest about trade-offs and constraints, and make sure decisions and budgets line up with the values on paper.
“Companies now and then have bad years, and sometimes they have to cut back on things like bonuses,” Balthazar says.
“They just simply cannot have the same discretionary room for that, but it has to be applied fairly.”
Consistency before transparency
Balthazard says employees are quick to spot when organizations reverse course on DEI without a credible explanation. There’s a lot of focus on “transparency” in communication, but in his view, transparency problems are often symptoms of deeper misalignment, between stated values and actual decisions.
“If it’s a bad idea, now, why wasn’t a bad idea, two years ago when you introduced it?” he says.
Rather than making executive-level decisions that will be difficult to explain, then spinning the message to appear transparent, employers should instead focus on consistent adherence to values, even when it costs money.
“The reason you’re not transparent is because you think that they will put one and two together and see that you’re not true to your values, or that you say one thing and do another,” Balthazard says.
“If you’re consistent with your values, you’re not as worried about transparency.”
Stakeholders can contribute feedback on the Draft 2026-2029 Federal Sustainable Development Strategy until May 12, 2026. Information can be found here.
