DEI metrics track inputs like representation and training completion ("who is in the room"). In contrast, belonging metrics measure the output: whether every employee can perform at their best. This provides a direct link to productivity, innovation, and retention that input metrics miss.
Related Insights
Go beyond analyzing the founding team by treating the entire employee base as a key asset. By measuring metrics like employee retention rates, hiring velocity, and geographical or role-based growth, investors can build a quantitative picture of a company's health and culture, providing a powerful comparative tool.
Average belonging scores are misleading. A company with a 72% mean score found belonging dropped 34% for specific groups when data was disaggregated by intersectional factors like role, race, and tenure. This gap analysis pinpoints exactly where culture is failing and predicts future turnover.
DEI progress will only accelerate when it's treated as a core business objective, not a philanthropic one. If missing DEI targets impacted a leader's bonus as much as missing financial targets, organizations would see rapid, meaningful change.
True effectiveness comes from focusing on outcomes—real-world results. Many people get trapped measuring inputs (e.g., hours worked) or outputs (e.g., emails sent), which creates a feeling of productivity without guaranteeing actual progress toward goals.
Most HR metrics are lagging indicators like turnover or financial results. Research identifies employee connection as the key *leading* indicator that creates a causal chain: strong connection drives higher engagement, which improves retention, and that stability ultimately leads to greater profitability.
True DEI measurement goes beyond representation metrics ('butts in seats'). It assesses whether diverse employees feel valued enough to contribute their unique cultural insights to core business functions, like marketing strategy, thereby directly impacting business outcomes.
A company with 78% engagement scores was hemorrhaging high-potential talent. Exit interviews revealed the cause: employees were engaged in their work but were exhausted from trying to "fit in." This shows that engagement and belonging are not the same and must be measured independently.
Belonging is not solely the company's burden or the employee's task. The "50-50 framework" posits that the organization must provide clarity and support, and the individual must reciprocate with effort and engagement. This mutual exchange creates a sustainable, high-performance environment.
Solely measuring a team's output fails to capture the health of their collaboration. A more robust assessment includes tracking goal achievement, team psychological safety, role clarity, and the speed of execution. This provides a holistic view of team effectiveness.
Abstract values like "celebrate diversity" are useless for driving behavior. A value is only effective if it's tangible enough to be used in a performance review. Instead, use an observable action like "include all perspectives," which you can coach and evaluate.
