The
current wave of posting workforce diversity data began in the early
2010s, with a group of tech firms. Then, in 2020, prompted by the
resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement in the wake of the murder
of George Floyd, and by growing shareholder pressure to disclose
diversity numbers, firms across the economy began to set goals and post
data. By September 2021, 55% of Russell 1,000 companies had posted workforce gender, race, and ethnicity data, up from 32% in January. By then, more than 70 big companies had set public gender-diversity targets for 2025 or 2030, including Airbnb, Bank of America, Bloomberg, Coca-Cola, GE, Intel, McKinsey, TaskRabbit, and Xerox.
It’s
not a given that all of this goal setting and progress reporting will
help firms to diversify their workforces. For data reporting and goals
to be effective, they must be detailed to create transparency; shared with insiders and the public to induce accountability; and accompanied by action plans to
promote change. When companies have followed these principles, they’ve
seen notable increases in women and people of color in management.
But
not all companies are using the strategies that work. Many don’t use
detailed data. While more than half of Russell 1,000 companies were
reporting data by September 2021 less than one in 10 — among them Ford
Motors, Allstate, CVS, Colgate Palmolive, Intel, Lowe’s, Lyft, and UPS —
was reporting the detailed EEO-1 data that they prepare for Washington,
which are broken down by gender, race, and ethnicity for 10 job
categories. The reports that companies provide for public consumption,
moreover, elide key information, by lumping together all non-white
employees, workplaces, or jobs. Companies that do this aren’t maximizing
awareness and accountability, which are prerequisites for effecting
change.
Coming Clean About the Numbers
Consider the case of Nike, the world’s biggest footwear company. In its 2021 Impact Report,
Nike reported that its workforce in 2020 was 49.5% women, and it
announced a goal of reaching 50% by 2025. Director-level leaders were
42.4% women, and the target was 45%. That feels promising, because those
goals seem within reach. But the numbers on women in Nike’s workforce
are not broken down by race or country, much less workplace, and without
those numbers, it’s impossible to know if, for example, women are only
entering lower-paying locations and positions. So we’ve got a situation
in which awareness is partial, accountability is weak, and change will
be difficult to assess.
The
Nike report, like many others, also collapses people of color into one
group, further sapping the power of transparency to promote change. Nike
reported that 27% of its U.S. leaders were nonwhite in 2020, and it set
a 2025 goal of 30%. But the underlying numbers, posted in the appendix,
told a less sanguine story. Only 6% of leaders are Black and 6% are
Latinx, compared with a population that is 13% Black and 18% Latinx.
When companies paper over the severity of the problem in this way, they
foster complacency, which is the opposite of accountability and the
enemy of change.
Many
more firms collect detailed data than actually share them. Today, all
medium and large employers have to report data every year to Washington
on the composition of their workforce, and federal contractors have to
set goals. Firms have these data, but in most cases only a handful of
executives and federal regulators see them, because by statute they are
confidential. In such firms, diversity managers tell us these numbers
are “tucked away in a drawer.”
Coming
clean about the numbers makes it possible for a firm’s prospective
employees, investors, customers, and, most important, its own managers
to know how things are going. Thus, after some restructuring in 2015,
Microsoft was able to detect
a decline in the numbers of women it had in its management ranks.
Because the company reports its numbers by business unit, it easily
traced the decline to downsizing at Nokia, which Microsoft had recently
acquired and which had had lots of women leaders. The company was also
able to figure out why it had seen an increase in women managers a
couple of years earlier — the increase coincided with its purchase of
Nokia, with its many women managers, and was not a harbinger of wider
improvements in gender equity.
Diversity
managers we interviewed told us that sharing the numbers helped them to
get individual managers on board. The diversity chief at a Georgia food
firm told us that the area surrounding its headquarters has a diverse,
highly educated population, and that managers at the company need to
know when its workforce demographics don’t match the local demographics.
Monthly metrics allow her to see when and where the firm is losing
ground — when, for instance, managers are neglecting large pools of
Black professionals in the area — and get out in front of the problem.
Sharing data with the public also turbo charges accountability. Research
that we’ve conducted with Carly Knight has shown that when pressured to
improve their diversity, companies make changes where the public is
inclined to notice them and avoid changes where it’s not.
Firms
that use data to draw up action plans can ensure that awareness and
accountability are channeled productively. In doing so, managers can
shape diversity strategies for employees at different career stages. An
HR manager from a San Francisco–based beverage company explained to us
how they share diversity numbers and goals with their recruiting staff,
and regularly reevaluate where and how they post job announcements, “to
ensure that we are equally representing every diverse or protected class
that we have.”
When
it comes to layoffs, firms can easily lose ground if they don’t look at
the numbers. One manager described to us how scrutinizing data helped
his team to see where layoffs might turn back the clock on diversity.
“We were pretty careful to do adverse impact studies with every
layoff,” he said. “For example, when I was eliminating 26 engineering
positions — okay, let me make sure that I am not just automatically
wiping out every female we hired in the last five years.”
The Way Forward
How
do we know that transparency, accountability, and strategies for change
can make goals effective? Because in the 1970s, nudged by federal
guidelines, many big firms tried these approaches, and they worked. For
transparency, detailed annual progress reports specified how each
workplace was doing for each group in each broad job category; for
manager accountability, reports were shared across the firm; and for
planning, goals were specific and pegged to the relevant labor market,
and hiring and promotion strategies were spelled out by job level and
group.
While
it’s too early to know whether recent converts to the approach of data
disclosure and goal setting will see progress, data from the past
experience of big firms suggest that this is a promising approach. The
U.C. Berkeley economist Jonathan Leonard has found
that federal contractors — which reported workforce diversity in
detail, set detailed goals and timetables for change, and spelled out
action plans — saw rapid change in the 1970s. Those firms increased the
representation of Black men, Black women, other minority men, and other
minority women, significantly faster than their peers who had no affirmative-action plans.
We’ve
done research on hundreds of firms that have written plans with goals,
either because they were federal contractors or because they wished to
move the needle on diversity. Looking at firms that did so between 1971
and 2002, we ran statistical analyses that in effect compared these
firms to themselves, before and after they set goals, and we found small
but significant gains. Compared to where they would have been without
having set goals, firms that set goals saw increases during a seven-year
timeframe that ranged from 3% to 8% for white and Latinx women, and
Black, Latinx, and Asian American men. Additionally, one of us
(Alexandra), after studying 300 firms that downsized, found
that those that did not look at the numbers and share them with their
managers lost 12% of their white women managers, whereas firms that
looked at numbers avoided those losses.
All
of those changes predate the new wave of public goal setting and result
reporting, so we have a chance to make considerably more progress,
assuming firms can get these things right.
Finally,
it’s worth noting that many firms are now collecting data on groups
that have previously been ignored, including LGBTQ workers, people with
disabilities, members of religious minority groups, and older workers.
Since 2006, for example, IBM has invited LGBTQ+ employees to self-identify
in their human-resources record, which only selected people have access
to, and today employees in 40 countries, covering almost 90% of IBM’s
workforce, can voluntarily identify. Going forward, IBM and companies
that are similarly expanding their focus will be able to track trends
and set goals for more people and groups than ever before.
The
lesson in all of this is clear: Reporting and sharing detailed data,
setting detailed goals, and spelling out action plans can help firms to
promote, and sustain, workforce diversity. And the more companies there
are that do it right, the more there will be that join in.
Was this article helpful? Connect with me.
Follow The SUN (AYINRIN), Follow the light. Be bless. I am His Magnificence, The Crown, Kabiesi Ebo Afin!Ebo Afin Kabiesi! His Magnificence Oloja Elejio Oba Olofin Pele Joshua Obasa De Medici Osangangan broad-daylight natural blood line 100% Royalty The God, LLB Hons, BL, Warlord, Bonafide King of Ile Ife kingdom and Bonafide King of Ijero Kingdom, Number 1 Sun worshiper in the Whole World.I'm His Magnificence the Crown. Follow the light.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.