10 minute read
Shifting from defense to offence Measuring DEI results
Is your organisation’s diversity, equity, and inclusion work done as a form of defense against criticism? Or is it an active move to ‘go on the offence’ by making genuine improvements? by richard r. Smith and D. Jill Green
While many organisations are working to improve diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in their workforces, it is sometimes difficult to recognise progress. And though change takes time, we do sometimes wonder if diversity efforts are more of a “Defensive” move to avoid public or employee backlash. Some have argued that management mindsets are a reflection of societal values, which can take a generation to change. Too often we see organisations create grand statements of commitment, appoint a diversity officer, require diversity awareness training, and yet take very little tangible action or and fail to achieve meaningful results. We call this compliance-oriented approach a “Defensive” approach to diversity.
How do organisations shift from defense to offence when it comes to diversity, equity, and inclusion? To consider a shift in manager behaviour, we need only witness how organisations respond to financial results with publicly traded firms. CEOs and their teams work tirelessly to meet the expectations of shareholders and their performance is measured in common terms of earnings and financial return. What if a portion of this energy and focus was expended towards making an impact with what many managers might say is “Our most important asset” – people. Shifting from defense to offence requires the ability to keep score – hence the need for measuring results related to DEI.
Taking a data-driven approach
commitment across the organisation. After all, when first publishing a scorecard related to diversity, the numbers may not look so great. This can create a challenge for organisations that may wish to “wait until the numbers look better” before sharing specific data. However, this line of thinking does not help propel the organisation into a position of offence. Taking a data-driven approach is a significant commitment – especially in the early days of reporting some results that may not be so positive. Data empowers teams and leaders to make decisions, develop strategies, and change course when necessary. Measuring and reporting DEI efforts is no different and helps organisations foster trust with transparency and achieve results
through accountability. By taking this big first step, a strong signal is sent to the organisation and progress can begin in earnest.
Deciding what to measure
In deciding what to measure, organisations should begin with questions and clear goals. It begins with determining what diversity means in your organisation, industry, the customers you serve and what you want your organisation to look like. How diverse are your teams, your leadership, and what can you do to change the composition? Are you paying employees equitably? How and from where are you recruiting? What are your retention metrics—are your efforts having an impact? Examples of key demographic metrics include: • Hiring – attraction, selection, and acceptances of diverse talent • Retention – who stays and what development tactics have an impact • Advancement – promotions, raises, project assignments, etc. • Leadership – representation by level, by area, etc. • Pay equity review – by department, job classification, etc.
Diversity metrics are one part of the equation. Organisations must also measure inclusion, belonging, and engagement. This qualitative feedback is more difficult to capture but can include: • Surveys – annual and quarterly pulse checks • Tracking participation in
ERGs • Tracking mentorship • Accessibility review/ audit (bathrooms, parental leave, screens, close caption) • Regular exit interviews to uncover common themes or potential issues. • Conducting meeting audits to review who speaks, who gets interrupted, etc.
Dashboards and scorecards provide businesses with an overview of goals and progress. Quick access and transparency of data and goal progression helps organisations run more efficiently while increasing engagement and accountability. Seeing roadblocks and successes in real time leads to timely problem solving, course correction, and opportunities for recognition and celebration. In the US, many businesses have started using scorecards/ dashboards including the likes of Salesforce, Sodexo, Cigna, and Intuit. The findings from a recent Harvard Business Review Analytics Services found that higherperforming organisations work hard to monitor how equitable they really are and measure DEI progress across a wider range of metrics.
Creating action plans
With a scorecard in place, managers are more attuned to and accountable for DEI results. However, many may not be equipped to address the challenges surfaced by such data-rich scorecards. After reviewing the dashboards and processes across a number of firms, there are a few key actions that organisations can take to get started: 1. Start Small – Focus on a few key areas to get started. 2. Ensure Strong Sponsorship – The CEO or equivalent should serve as the sponsor 3. Ready the Management Support – Once the metrics are published, managers will likely need some level of support to help with the action planning 4. Drive Accountability -
To ensure companies achieve their DEI objectives; they must measure
what matters and hold themselves accountable. 5. Expand the Measures –
Once progress is noted and new norms are established, it is likely time to expand the metrics and perhaps create a dashboard
Companies around the globe have talked the talk around DEI for years, but it has taken recent societal events to propel more companies to make DEI a top priority. There has been an awakening and reckoning that past efforts to recruit diverse talent and train leaders and managers to greater diversity have failed to make the desired impact. Now, company goals and employee expectations around inclusion and belonging are supported by more effective ways of measuring and evaluating initiatives and outcomes. As more organisations shift from a defensive, compliance-based perspective to one of taking DEI as an offensive strategic priority, we expect to see DEI data driving more and better results.
ricHarD r. sMitH, PH.D. is a Professor at Johns Hopkins University where he also serves as Vice Dean, Education and Partnerships at the Carey Business School. JiLL GrEEn, J.D. is the Associate Dean of Student Experience and the Executive Sponsor of DEIB at the Carey Business School.
Five Workplace Biases
to Break in 2022
What workplace biases are leaders taking aim at this year? We asked industry leaders what biases they are striving to eliminate for greater inclusion in 2022 by People Matters editorial team
Bias, both unconscious and conscious, has often been a stubborn deterrent to progress in the space of diversity, equity and inclusion. Even if people do not realise it, bias affects people management decisions in the workplace, from recruitment to promotion, from compensation to recognition. Some are favoured because of bias; others, less fortunate, are discriminated against.
Despite multiple efforts in this direction, workplaces continue experiencing both subtle and significant hindrances to becoming truly diverse, equitable and inclusive. It is important for employees and leaders alike to recognise their own internal biases in order to expand their personal growth in a professional environment. This is not just about progressing in a workplace setting; it's about breaking mental barriers and challenging your own personal views to become a better person.
This month, People Matters asked industry leaders about the workplace biases they want to break in 2022. Here are some of the false beliefs and resulting biases that they flagged out.
False belief that women are less productive
Many workplaces are plagued by the false belief that women will not be able to fully contribute or be productive once they have children. Even when this belief is not consciously acted upon, it creates a bias against women that has severe negative impacts on women's promotions, compensation, and even new opportunities. It holds them back from advancing into leadership positions, sometimes across entire industries.
What can organisations do?
Review people management practices and processes to ensure that women are not being unfairly disadvantaged. Critically, leaders and managers need to be educated that this issue is real and important, as they have the greatest direct impact on whether bias is stopped or worsened in the workplace.
False belief that women should be caregivers
The above bias goes hand in hand with yet another false belief, that caregiving responsibilities should rest mainly upon women. All too often, this belief is unconsciously held even by women themselves. The resulting combination of external pressure and internal assumptions creates additional bias against women that pushes them out of their careers at the time when they should be in the prime of their lives.
What can organisations do?
Again, review people management processes to ensure that women are not being disadvantaged. At the same time, caregiving benefits such as parental leave should be extended fairly and equally to men as well, and they should be encouraged to use these benefits.
False belief that flexibility is unproductive
Productivity is all too often falsely equated with rigid workplace norms, leading to a bias against flexibility that adheres even after two years of the pandemic proved that teams can give their best without being glued to their office desks. This bias even extends to discrimination against people who seek flexible work arrangements. It does far more harm than good, often working against the well-being of employees
and counteracting efforts to improve diversity.
What can organisations do?
Recognise that employees have diverse needs and priorities that are each valid, and give them the autonomy to manage their own schedules in a way that allows them to do their best work. The last two years showed clearly that this approach will prove its own value.
False belief that experience automatically means higher pay
Years of experience are very commonly used as a proxy for gauging someone's contribution to the organisation and thereby the compensation they receive. But in reality, experience is only one of multiple markers. It just happens to be the easiest one to measure. The resulting bias works against people with less experience, and also against those with many years – they are assumed to be more expensive to hire, or overqualified. This places needless constraints on organisations' talent options.
What can organisations do?
Re-examine hiring processes to ensure that candidates are being assessed in a more rounded manner, and also look at whether performance management and retention practices are accurately matching evaluations to contributions.
Misunderstanding that numbers can substitute for diversity
When organisations first move towards diversity, they may set a goal of having so many percentage women or minorities among their workforce. A good first step, this nevertheless can result in the misunderstanding that the numbers are the end game. It may lead to existing biases not being properly addressed, or even inadvertently create new biases based upon meeting the numerical target, thereby skewing the hiring, performance management, and retention process.
What can organisations do?
On the one hand, focus on hiring and advancing people based on their fit for the job; on the other hand, ensure that 'non-traditional' candidates are given equal opportunities, whether in hiring or in access to advancement and exposure. This again requires work on the organisation's part to remove bias from the hiring and performance management processes.
