At ODLC, we’re always watching the shifting tides around equity and leadership—and this fictional yet incredibly timely Harvard Business Review case study had us leaning in.
In “Should We Drop Our Board Diversity Goals?” a national company’s board is facing external pressure to reverse its long-standing commitment to diversity. With an IPO on the horizon and membership fears stoked by a letter from a shareholder questioning its policies, the board is divided. Some want to hold the line. Others fear backlash—or worse, legal scrutiny.
The piece culminates in two compelling opinion pieces: one arguing for staying the course with conviction, the other proposing a nuanced walk-back to protect the company’s interests. One of the opinions is written by the former CEO of Medtronic, who provides interesting food for thought.
And the case begs some bold questions that I’d invite you to consider:
- Where have you seen similar “make or break” moments unfold?
- What are the risks of catering to opponents of diversity, equity, and inclusion?
- Did the board chair make an error in judgment?
- How can leaders and executives better engage legal and communication experts early in the process?
- Is there ever a “strategic” way to pivot without losing your core values?
Whether you’re a leader in academic medicine, the med tech industry, or a national professional society, this scenario might feel familiar. Many of you are navigating these tensions: safeguarding your values while responding to growing scrutiny and challenges.
Remember to lean into the tailored strategic services that ODLC offers —from confidential coaching with senior leaders to organizational diagnostics, stakeholder mapping, and board-level strategy—to help you move forward with clarity, alignment, and courage.
Let’s work together to keep purpose and progress at the center of your leadership.
✉️ Contact us here to schedule a consult.
Insightfully Yours,
Dr. Erica Taylor
Click the image below to read the full HBR case study:
When Margot Ellis joined the board of an Atlanta-based supermarket chain, the membership lacked racial and ethnic diversity. After she ascended to chair, the directors agreed to hire a recruiting firm to diversify their group, asking that only female and non-white candidates be brought to their attention. Three years later, 40% of directors come from underrepresented demographics, but now, an activist shareholder has accused the board of discrimination and is threatening to call for a shareholder vote on its diversity mandate. Did Margot and her colleagues err in so aggressively pursuing diversity goals? What’s the next step?
