Establishing performance metrics for the advancement of women and minorities is not always well-received. Overcoming leadership resistance to accountability does not begin with issuing order, however. It starts with a socialization process to deepen understanding of DEI value.-By Debra Jenkins

Companies make bold public commitments to diversity, equality, and inclusion (DEI), but achieving parity for minorities in promotions takes more than a commitment. It requires strategic planning, including establishing and tracking performance metrics to improve visibility and accountability. Even that is not enough, though, because a scorecard does not convince stakeholders that the advancement of minorities in the organization should be a priority. Inevitably, there will be leaders who resist the establishment of formal performance metrics for the advancement of minorities and women. The reasons vary from bias or feeling coerced to concern that it will be difficult to meet goals due to factors out of their control. Bringing stakeholders onboard does not begin with ordering them to support diversity, equity, and inclusion. It starts with socialization that deepens understanding of personal reasons for resistance, the work experiences of diverse employees, and the value that the advancement of diverse employees brings to the workplace.

Too Many Reasons to Resist

Understanding the many reasons why resistance to performance standards develops is crucial to overcoming that resistance. Resistance to performance metrics for developing and advancing minorities in the organization can come from different directions – employees, suppliers, partners, etc. When leaders resist, little progress will be made, and whether or not they are vocalized there will be many reasons.

For example, bias or a fear of not having control over meeting performance expectations in advancing minorities can derail the entire effort to diversify the leadership pipeline and move minorities into positions where they become role models. It is often a simple matter of educating and involving leaders in establishing the standards so they recognize that all leaders are held accountable for progress and understand their roles– from the CEO to the frontline supervisor. This makes it easy to identify who or which function is creating roadblocks and avoid placing responsibility on the wrong person, which is a common fear among managers.

Sometimes, however, resistance is based on a lack of knowledge. There is unconscious bias directed at both minorities and women that says the performance metrics are not achievable because the diverse employees are incapable or not good choices for leadership positions. This is a generalization, but the perspective persists in organizations. Perhaps the manager feels coerced by the establishment of performance standards that impact compensation, strengthening resentment on the basis that ensuring the inclusion of minorities and women in leadership development depends on too many factors that are not measurable or reasonable.

Scaffolds of Resistance

Yet another reason for resistance is a perception that DEI efforts are superficial and more for show than a reflection of organizational values. Performance scorecards operate as “finger pointers”, to make it easier to lay blame for lack of progress when organizations are held accountable for not meeting public commitments.

In the article Are Your Organization’s DEI Efforts Superficial or Structural? Tsedale Melaku, sociologist; assistant professor of management at the Zicklin School of Business, Baruch College (CUNY) and Christoph Winkler, Endowed Professor and Founding Program Director, Hynes Institute for Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Iona College, discuss the fact that DEI is not a “thing” like a program, office or title. “For too many organizations, DEI ends up a mere scaffold that does little to bring about actual, substantive change. And scaffolds are additive, instead of becoming integral parts of the existing organizational structure.” The performance scorecard becomes a “scaffold” that creates an “illusion of inclusion”, so stakeholders resist accountability. To overcome the scaffolding process, a set of questions leaders should ask themselves is proposed.

One question is, “Are we providing equitable access to career opportunities?” The authors explain that effective performance scorecards for diversity combine the “numeric value of representation” with ways to measure the actual experiences of individuals. Adding methods to measure the real experiences of minorities and women in the workplace can contribute to the socialization process for overcoming leadership resistance to the performance scorecards. Gaining a deeper understanding of what diverse people experience day-to-day, such as microaggressions and voice silencing on project teams, can turn leader resistance into allyship and support.

Socialization Takes Many Forms

Ordering people not to be biased does not work. Depending on how the performance scorecard is set up, failure to meet diversity performance standards could lead to punishment in some form, such as loss of a bonus payment or not getting promotion opportunities. That links a negative to diversity, however. It is more effective to help people with positive reinforcement that raises DEI. People do not want to be “fixed,” and resistance strengthens when they feel that way. Instead, as Sonali D’silva, Founder of Equality Consulting, says, focus on behaviors and language that raise inclusion and humility, call bias training something else like a “workshop to ignite inclusions and spark innovation, and ending a “us vs. them” narrative by helping people understand the repercussions of bias and discrimination. Matching a leader with a minority or woman as a mentor or sponsor is a powerful way to deepen understanding of work experiences and talent. Socialization is a process for humanizing diversity and inclusion. Instead of presenting the business case, help managers recognize that their behaviors do not always match expressed values. They must question assumptions made about people, such as assuming diverse people feel as free to speak up at meetings as non-diverse employees. Attending diversity-focused ERGs and communicating with people face-to-face is a powerful way to help leaders overcome resistance to accountability for advancing DEI through performance standards.

Through DEI, performance metrics stop being compliance metrics and become meaningful metrics for creating organizational value. Rewarding managers who lead with inclusivity also promotes acceptance of performance metrics. These behaviors are identifiable, i.e., team member feedback indicates the manager ensures everyone is heard.

Why, How, and What

It is not only organizational leaders who can resist diversity performance standards. For example, suppliers for example may resist performance metrics in the supplier relationship management process in the belief that they create too much outside control of decision-making concerning the workforce. Though the specific strategies to get these external stakeholders onboard may differ from internal ones, the process for overcoming resistance is based on socialization in every case. People need to understand why performance standards are necessary, how they were established, and what the benefits are for them personally, the workforce, and the organization as a whole.