Guidelines for Measuring the ROI Impact of Inclusion

“Inclusion” is Big Business

Workforce Diversity and Inclusion is a concept that appears to have taken hold in companies worldwide. According to a survey conducted by SHRM, 55% of respondents say their organizations “strongly promote” Diversity and Inclusion. However, the interpretations of the phrase and the methods used to achieve and measure this goal vary widely among companies and regions. In companies with the most successful Diversity programs, the impetus and tone emanate from the most senior ranks of the organization. According to SHRM, sixty percent of respondents to the survey say the main advocates for Diversity and Inclusion in their organizations are the CEO and top management, followed by heads of HR (42%). Most companies recognize that “Diversity” and “Inclusion” are closely linked; Inclusion helps to ensure that employees from diverse backgrounds are able to contribute, remain with the company and flourish (SHRM Report: Global Diversity and Inclusion: Perceptions, Practices and Attitudes).

These facts notwithstanding, how can a diversity executive report to the CEO or Board of Directors that the organization is now 5 percent more inclusive than the year before and quantify what effect that statement has on the bottom line? In the absence of direct measures, it’s often necessary to rely on indirect observations to determine if goals are being achieved. Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s) such as engagement scores, retention rates, productivity measures and diversity representation at various tiers often must be combined as an “Index value” to create a broader picture of an inclusion strategy’s impact on the overall organizational culture.

Creating Evidence-based Measures

I recommend that in order to effectively create an “evidence-based” measure of “inclusion”, a multi-faceted approach must be used. There are several prerequisites:

To measure inclusion, diversity executives should:

1) Review their current definition of Inclusion and drivers behind the organization’s inclusion initiative to make sure they describe the desired cultural effect as well as the employee behaviors expected to achieve the desired results. Establishing a behaviorally-specific definition for inclusion that spells out measurable elements and is understood across the entire organization can maintain focus and help develop analytics that influence organizational performance.

2) Align the organization’s inclusion definition and drivers with strategic organizational goals. If the organization needs to improve its talent pipeline, weave inclusion initiatives into existing talent management functions. If increasing innovation is critical, promote inclusion programs that will facilitate knowledge sharing. Both of these goals may require raising awareness of the employment brand by competing to become an employer of choice.

3) As organizational goals help to develop drivers, and drivers help to develop programs to support those goals, be sure to evaluate the business and Diversity ROI impact to ensure programs are having an effect. Select or develop metrics that circle back to align with the original drivers. By carefully articulating outcomes, organizations can define measures that assess the impact of their inclusion strategy. For a concept as ephemeral as inclusion, multiple qualitative, quantitative, effectiveness and efficiency metrics may be required to imply success or indicate the need for a course change.

Sample Inclusion Items

Here are a few sample items from one of our Hubbard & Hubbard, Inc. Inclusion surveys that reflect these ideas:
1. I can be fully myself around here without having to compromise or hide any part of who I am.
2. In a group, I am able to be fully part of the whole while retaining a sense of authenticity and uniqueness which reflects who I am.
3. Different views and opinions are valued in decision-making.
4. It is generally safe to say what you think.
5. I feel safe, trusted, accepted, respected, supported, valued, fulfilled, engaged, and can be authentic in my working environment

Use Even-numbered Response Scales

I have found it helpful to use an “even numbered” response scale that encourages the respondent to determine if this item ‘is’ or ‘is not’ true for them rather than somewhere in the middle. You can use “even numbered” scales such as:

1. Strongly Disagree
2. Disagree
3. Mildly Disagree
4. Mildly Agree
5. Agree
6. Strongly Agree

This also guides you towards a more definitive action plan that is firmly rooted in addressing specific problems and opportunities.

Inclusion Definitions Must be Behaviorally Specific

In order to measure the ROI of Inclusion, the definition of Inclusion that is used must be crafted in behaviorally-specific terms that are measurable. This aligns your work to show the “chain-of-impact” that links the change to your initiative’s outcomes. Here are a few examples of Inclusion definitions that imply a measurement connection:

I define Inclusiveness this way… (I have separated elements of the definition such that you can see some of the measurable components):

• “Inclusiveness is the act or process of utilizing the information, tools, skills, insights, and other talents that each individual has to offer which results in the measurable, mutual benefit (and gain) of everyone.
• It also includes providing everyone with opportunities to contribute their thoughts, ideas, and concerns.
• Inclusiveness results in people feeling valued and respected.”

Wikipedia defines Inclusion as: “practice of insuring that people in organizations feel they belong”. Thus, in order to measure the impact of inclusion you must begin by defining what it means to “belong” in behaviorally specific terms.

Miller and Katz (2002) present a common definition of an inclusive value system where they say, “Inclusion is a sense of belonging: feeling respected, valued for who you are; feeling a level of supportive energy and commitment from others so that you can do your best work.”  (Book: “The Inclusion Breakthrough” by Frederick Miller and Dr. Judith Katz)

Another definition from Wikipedia discusses Inclusion, when applied, it creates

• A shift in organization culture. The process of inclusion engages each individual and makes ‘people feeling valued’ essential to the success of the organization.
• Individuals function at full capacity, feel more valued, and included in the organization’s mission. This culture shift creates higher performing organizations where motivation and morale soar.

From a measurement point of view, using this Wikipedia definition would require metrics and processes that track and evaluate shifts in organizational culture, engagement, individual perceptions of value, levels of individual functioning, etc.

These few examples highlight some of the requirement to accurately start to report the ROI of Inclusion. It will require strict adherence to a Diversity ROI measurement process and framework that demonstrates a “chain-of-impact” or “chain-of-evidence” that clearly shows that the Inclusion intervention or initiative was a major source of the calculated ROI impact.

In future Blogs, I will further discuss measuring the ROI impact of Inclusion. In addition; let me know what you think about this approach. If you have other guidelines that have been beneficial in your experience, tell us. We will share your examples such that others can learn and grow.

Dr. Ed Hubbard is an expert in Organizational Behavior, Organizational Analysis, Applied Performance Improvement and Measurement Strategies, Strategic Planning, Diversity Measurement, and Organizational Change Methodologies. Dr. Hubbard earned Bachelors and Masters Degrees from The Ohio State University and earned a Ph.D. with Honors in Business Administration. Dr. Hubbard is available for presentations, conferences, training, consulting and can be reached at edhub@aol.com or 707-481-2268.

 

 

 

 

A Next Level Approach to “Evolve Your Diversity Scorecard”​

How well does your existing Diversity measure(s) capture “strategic organizational drivers” that make a measurable difference in bottom-line organizational performance? For most organizations there will not be a very close match between the two lists. Even more important, in those firms where Diversity professionals think there is a close match, frequently, the senior executives do not agree that this second list actually describes how Diversity creates value. In either case, there is a serious disconnect between what is measured, what is important to organizational performance.

These questions are fundamental because new economic realities are putting pressure on Diversity to widen its focus from the traditional role of guardian of ethnic representation, social justice, and well-being to a broader, more strategic role as an important strategic business partner. As a primary source of production and performance impact, our economy has shifted from physical to intellectual capital (which comes in all diversity mixtures such as colors, backgrounds, genders, orientations, thinking styles, etc.). A good idea does not have a specific color, race, creed, gender, sexual orientation or physical ability. It’s just a great ideas and it can come from anyone! As a result, senior Diversity executives and managers are increasingly coming under fire to demonstrate exactly how they are helping the organization “organize, utilize, and support” this critically significant organizational asset to create improved performance and value.

Performance measurement in organizations is not something new, however, in the last 30 years or so, organizations have realized that financial measures alone are not sufficient for evaluating the success of an enterprise.

In the mid-1990s, the balanced scorecard concept was introduced; forcing executives to take a hard look at how many of their metrics were financial and then balance out their scorecards with non-financial metrics. The balanced scorecard approach also recommended that fewer metrics are better. The number of metrics that companies tracked had been increasing each year for many years, but Kaplan and Norton suggested that no one should have more than 15 to 20 metrics per scorecard. This is still a tough sell for analytical executives who love pouring over hundreds of charts each month.

The primary issue that Diversity must deal with is very hard for some to imagine and believe, that is, showing Diversity’s measurable impact on organizational strategy and the financial bottom-line. The ability to utilize a diverse mix of human and other resources to create unique blend of strategy focused solutions, by its very nature, creates an innovative competitive process that is difficult to copy – thus making it a competitive advantage (largely invisible to competitors).

 

Evolving the Diversity Scorecard’s Business Impact

 

Current Diversity Scorecards must evolve to move beyond simply counting heads. They must elevate their utility to a level that utilizes “Logic Model-based predictive analytics and processes which more accurately generate “Strategic Outcomes” and “Intended Transformational Impacts.

What are Analytics

Analytics come in different types with a specific focus. They can be defined as follows:

·        “Analytics” is the Science of Analysis

·        “Descriptive Analytics” tells what has happened in the past and usually the cause of the outcome.

·        “Predictive Analytics” focuses on the future telling what is likely to happen given a stated approach.

·        “Prescriptive Analytics” tells us what is the ‘Best’ course of action.

 

Descriptive Diversity Analytics can help us understand human capital challenges and opportunities in utilizing a diverse workforce. Whereas Predictive Diversity Analytics, helps us identify investment value and a means to improve future outcomes from Diversity interventions and initiatives.

Although most organizations have come a long way in introducing better metrics for Diversity on their corporate scorecards, there is still a great deal of work to be done. Even the best scorecards need improvement in some key areas to evolve to the next level of performance impact. Metrics on several Diversity Scorecards focus on counting activities, not producing outcomes and organizational transformations. There is a distinct difference between generating “outputs” from scorecard action plans and producing “Strategic Outcomes” and “Intended Transformational Impacts”. I define “Strategic Outcomes” and “Intended Transformational Impacts as “the planned, intended measurable result or effect of an action, situation, or event; something that follows due to a planned execution of actions which result in intended consequence (or unintended consequences) that add value and drives change.

My new book: “Evolving Your Diversity Scorecard. Maximizing Diversity Business Intelligence with Transformational Analytics” will help develop a Strategic Outcomes Scorecard using Diversity Transformational Analytics® to drive organizational change and “next level” impacts (based upon a “Logic Model” framework).

Logic models are extremely effective tools for planning, describing, managing, communicating, and evaluating a program or intervention. They graphically represent the relationships between a program’s activities and its intended effects, state the assumptions that underlie expectations that a program will work, and frame the context in which the program operates. Logic models are not static documents. In fact they should be revised periodically to reflect new evidence, lessons learned, and changes in context, resources, activities, or expectations. Our system and approach to Logic models increase the likelihood that a Diversity and Inclusion intervention effort will be successful because they:

• Communicate the purpose of the program and expected results.

• Describe the actions expected to lead to the desired results.

• Become a reference point for everyone involved in the program.

• Improve program staff expertise in planning, implementation, and evaluation.

• Involve stakeholders, enhancing the likelihood of resource commitment.

• Incorporate findings from other research and ROI-based initiatives.

• Identify potential obstacles to program operation so that staff can address them early on.

 

Evolving the Diversity Scorecard requires that we ask key strategic measurement questions and perform specific actions along the Logic Model path to create transformational outcomes, impact and change. This is not a generic, random process. It involves possessing specific Transformational Analytics knowledge, skills and competencies to correctly drive each outcome phase (Initial, Intermediate, and Long-term) to achieve the desired change effect and impact. To gain the tremendous benefits that Diversity and Inclusion offers, our Scorecards and other measurement tools must take full advantage of “next level” practices such as the Hubbard Diversity Measurement Sciences and Analytics® to ensure better predictive accuracy to deliver strategic Diversity outcomes and transformational impacts. These methods provide the knowledge, skills, competencies, and tools to achieve excellence in implementing these paradigm shifting processes. As Diversity professionals, our utility, organizational value, brand reputation, credibility, and success will depend on our capability to demonstrate critical evidence-based impacts of Diversity initiative success. To this end, our Diversity scorecards must keep pace to display, track, and manage these results. Let me know what you think. Dr. Ed.

This article is based upon excerpts from the upcoming book: “Evolving Your Diversity Scorecard”: Maximizing the Use of Transformational Analytics to Drive Organizational Performance by Dr. Edward E. Hubbard, Ph.D. It is scheduled for release Spring 2019. Dr. Ed Hubbard can be reached at edhub@aol.com.

Dr. Ed Hubbard is an expert in Organizational Behavior, Organizational Analysis, Applied Performance Improvement and Measurement Strategies, Strategic Planning, Diversity Measurement, and Organizational Change Methodologies. Dr. Hubbard earned Bachelors and Masters Degrees from The Ohio State University and earned a Ph.D. with Honors in Business Administration. Dr. Hubbard is available for presentations and consulting and can be reached at edhub@aol.com or 707-481-2268.

 

 

 

Diversity Process Consulting or Intervention Consulting: How Do We Demonstrate Our Unique Value?

Building an Effective Diversity Measurement System

The creation of an effective Diversity measurement system and “best” practices cannot be a mechanical modeling exercise. It must be preceded by an inspection and utilization of basic business principles. It must focus on organizational and departmental strategic thinking as well as an assessment of the desired quality of work-life. Developing the actual measures is easy compared to the amount of time that should be spent thinking about what is important to the organization’s strategic business objectives and the expectations of the diversity measurement process.

Key steps to building an effective measurement system

Creating an effective Diversity measurement system and process that embodies these concepts involves at least five critical steps:

• Review the Strategic Business Plan for Needs
• Formulate Research Questions
• Design the Study Methodology
• Collect and Analyze Data
• Implement Solutions and Communicate Results

Each step in the process logically builds on the previous step which generates an evidenced-based framework that creates a “Best Practice” method for proving Diversity’s link to performance.

With proper training and skill/competency development, one of the more critical roles a Diversity Practitioner and Professional can perform is that of a Diversity Performance Consultant/Technologist^tm. This role in the Hubbard & Hubbard, Inc. Diversity Discipline Framework requires the Practitioner to design, develop and deliver or evaluate diversity performance solutions; maintain and apply an in-depth working knowledge in any one or more of the diversity performance improvement areas of expertise; take a disciplined approach to assessing individual and organizational effectiveness in the midst of collective mixtures of differences and similarities, diagnose causes of diversity tensions from differences, similarities and complexities, and recommend a set of interventions; as well as design solutions to improve diverse workforce performance and/or solutions to improve the organization’s performance.

I have always viewed Diversity ROI & Inclusion methods as “performance improvement technologies”. I am also a strong supporter of participatory approaches to performance improvement, from involving stakeholders in the identification of needs and their causal factors to determining solution alternatives, selecting the solution, planning and managing the change, and monitoring and evaluating the change. This active stakeholder participation is critical to the sustainable success of any Diversity & Inclusion (D&I) intervention, not only because we gain real buy-in from stakeholders, but also because part of what we do as rigorous Practitioners ultimately, is to change the way people think about and approach D&I performance solutions in organizations.

Diversity Intervention Consulting is primarily focused on a specific transaction, the provision of an intervention (e.g., Cultural Competency Skills for Leaders training), whether it is a specific process or product. In this case, the performance consultant, as “expert,” carries the bulk of the responsibility for delivering the intervention, but does not typically stick around for the consequences of such interventions. Partially rooted in the sociological tradition in new systems theory which views organizations as self-organizing social systems, Performance/Process Consulting provides a different approach. With a Performance/Process Consulting approach, however, the Diversity Performance Consultant/Technologist^tm and the client are equal partners who share the responsibility for the desired change. There is a reduced chance of falling into fads or trendy solutions that may be insufficient or not fully applicable to the organizational realities, because both the Diversity Performance Consultant/Technologist^tm and the client are partners in the change and its consequences. Both have a stake in the success of the intervention, and both learn lessons along the way. Moreover, they involve others in the organization, so that these lessons learned benefit more than just a few.

I am convinced that the real value of our work is much more than a roster of interventions (no matter how evidenced-based); rather, it is the paradigm shift that we contribute to in the course of our involvement with our stakeholders. Our ultimate value is in the sustainable and positive change of the organization’s performance system that is now able to operate at its goal or outcome level. While neither resource was utilized exclusively, it is certainly worthwhile for us to reflect on our own approach and determine whether we consciously or subconsciously assessed the situation to determine what balance or blend would be of most value for the given situation.

It is always helpful to review our Performance Consulting approach because of the wide range of relevant topics and ROI-based metrics that fit under the performance improvement umbrella. I am fond of saying that “focusing on tactics without a strategic framework is like learning to run faster in the wrong direction”. You cannot make a strategic contribution without a tight alignment and linkage to the business objectives and success metrics of the organization. If you want to have your interventions resonate with the C-suite and line managers of the organization, they must be based in the real bottom-line needs that drive organizational performance. Whether the organizational initiative is diversity training to teach cultural competency skills, selling products to emerging market clientele, innovating new products and services for a global market, delivering healthcare services, serving governmental constituents, meeting a wide range of student needs, improving the customer service experience, etc., “strategically aligned” diversity performance strategies have the best chance at success and sustainability.

Let’s take a look at an example that helps to clarify this relationship. First, among the organization’s strategic objectives, you find a series of crucial performance areas. One of these areas focuses on an objective of improved customer service. Based upon the importance of this area to the business, the diversity organization has created a corresponding strategic objective to analyze and improve service across all demographic market segments. In the second step, you determine that for service to be improved in these targeted markets, the critical success factor areas must include “improved communication”, “culturally appropriate interactions”, quick access, increased satisfaction, and accurate information. Finally, these critical success factor areas lead you to select diversity performance measures and indicators that support each critical success factor area such as the “percentage of multilingual service transactions delivered”, “number of rings to answer” when a customer calls the organization, “percentage of favorable response on your diverse customer satisfaction survey”, etc. This type of alignment drives improved performance and gains top management support.

Both Diversity Process Consulting and Diversity Intervention Consulting can offer strategic value to the organization. The key is how well each Performance Consulting method meets critical needs of the business to drive its goals, outcomes and success. At what value level would stakeholders rate your internal Performance Consulting methods today? What do you need to do differently to enhance your role as a value-added business partner? Let me know what you think. Want to learn more?? Contact me at edhub@aol.com.

Dr. Hubbard is an expert in Organizational Behavior, Organizational Analysis, Applied Performance Improvement and Measurement Strategies, Strategic Planning, Diversity Measurement, and Organizational Change Methodologies. He holds a Practitioner Certification and Master Practitioner Certification in Neurolinguistic Programming (NLP), a Neuro-science discipline. Dr. Hubbard earned Bachelors and Masters Degrees from The Ohio State University and earned a Ph.D. with Honors in Business Administration.

He can be reached at edhub@aol.com.

 

CEOs Want to Know the Impact of Diversity ROI on Initiatives but Aren’t Getting It!

A study of CEOs analyzing what CEOs want from their Diversity organizations concluded that CEOs want to see the impact and ROI of their Diversity investments but instead receive only activity and satisfaction data. So, why aren’t Diversity & Inclusion Executives, Managers, Practitioners, etc. measuring their impact and sharing with their CEOs? After all, this is not exactly a revelation. Some of the leading reasons are lack of resources, lack of support from the CEO, lack of funding, lack of skills, etc. My take: these are all just excuses since there are a huge number of resources, books, workshops, etc., available. This strongly suggests that many Diversity Practitioners need a serious skill update or should excuse themselves out of the job. If they remain without these skills, at some point, they may face elimination and/or extinction.

This is the 21^st Century, with its emphasis on cutting edge as well as “State of the Practice” technological and analytical advances, yet Diversity Practitioners are using old-fashion measurement skills where the wheels immediately come off of their measurement system wagons. We haven’t been in the “Old West” of Diversity measurement for quite a few decades. State of the Art Diversity ROI processes have been here for quite some time.

Accountability Trends

Many enlightened business managers often take a professional business approach to Diversity, with ROI being part of the strategy. Top executives who watched their diversity budgets continue to grow without appropriate accountability measures have become frustrated with this approach. In an attempt to respond to the situation, they have turned to Diversity Return on Investment (DROI^®). Top executives are now demanding DROI^® calculations from Diversity departments where they were not required previously.

So, what factors prevent us from mastering Diversity ROI measurement? Here are a few excuses I hear that Diversity Practitioners say are consistently challenging and “Small Doses” to begin to address them:

Small Doses to Bust Up Measurement Myths and Misconceptions

Issue-1: Lack of Skills and Orientation
Many Diversity staff members neither understand ROI nor do they have the basic skills necessary to apply the process within their scope of responsibilities. Diversity ROI Measurement and evaluation is not usually part of the preparation for the Diversity job or taught as part of a university education focused on diversity. Also, the typical Diversity training program or intervention does not focus on results, but more on diversity awareness concepts, activities, or other issues. Staff members attempt to measure results by measuring learning only instead of the full range of Diversity performance intervention outcomes (at all 7 levels) that drive business. Consequently, this is a tremendous barrier to implementation that must be changed such that the overall orientation, attitude, and skills of the Diversity staff member are focused on business results, impact, and/or outcomes.

Small Dose-1: Build DROI® Skills and Measurement Orientation
Don’t wait until you are asked about the DROI^® of your Diversity intervention to gain competency and business acumen in this area, start learning about DROI^® today! Attend a Diversity ROI Webinar, Workshop, Read books on Diversity ROI, Use DROI^® Tools, etc. (Note: DROI^® is a registered trademark of Hubbard & Hubbard, Inc., All Rights Reserved.)

Issue-2: Faulty Needs Assessment
Many existing Diversity interventions are not based on an adequate needs assessment. Some diversity interventions have been implemented for the wrong reasons based on requests to chase a popular fad or trend in the industry. Even worse, they schedule training for everyone in the organization costing thousands or millions of dollars with NO measurable DROI^®. If the intervention is not needed, the benefits from the program will be minimal or wasted. A DROI^® calculation for an unnecessary program will likely yield a negative value. This barrier can be eliminated by training and certifying Diversity Executives and Practitioner in programs such as Diversity ROI Certification, training and measurement workshops, etc.

Remember: “If there is no verified need you cannot calculate Diversity ROI Impact”

Small Dose-2: Learn the Detailed Steps to Conduct a Comprehensive Needs Assessment
Needs analysis is the cornerstone of any Diversity performance analysis effort. It provides you with appropriate justification for either developing or not developing your Diversity intervention. You must conduct a needs analysis, no matter how abbreviated, before any Diversity intervention takes place.
The objectives of a needs analysis are to:

• Describe the target population
• Describe the exact nature of a performance discrepancy (Ideal versus Actual Performance)
• Determine the cause(s) of the discrepancy
• Recommend the appropriate solution(s)

Issue-3: FEAR
Some Diversity departments do not pursue DROI^® measurement implementation due to fear of failure or fear of the unknown. Fear of failure appears in many ways. Designers, developers, facilitators, and program owners may be concerned about the consequences of a negative DROI^®. They fear that the DROI^® measurement process will be a performance evaluation tool instead of a process improvement tool. Also, the DROI^® process will stir up the traditional fear of change. This fear is often based on unrealistic assumptions and a lack of knowledge of the process.

Small Dose-3: Overcome FEAR by Taking Action
The best way to overcome FEAR is by (a) taking action, (b) generating results, (c) evaluating the outcome, and (d) implementing improvements. FEAR is often based on a lack of knowledge so the antidote is to “learn” and “master” the DROI® skills and processes.

Issue-4: Discipline and Planning
A successful DROI^® evaluation implementation requires much planning and a disciplined approach to keep the process on track. Implementation schedules, evaluation targets, DROI^® analysis plans, measurement and evaluation policies, and follow-up schedules are required. The Diversity Change Management team may not have enough discipline and determination to stay on course. This becomes a barrier, particularly if there are no immediate pressures to measure the return. If the current senior management group is not requiring a DROI^® evaluation, the Diversity Change Management team may not allocate time for planning and coordination. Also, other pressures and priorities often eat into the time necessary for an effective DROI^® evaluation implementation. Only carefully planned implementation efforts succeed.

Develop Strategic Capabilities and Follow-thru

Small Dose-4: Build DROI® Discipline and Planning Focus
There is really no substitute for implementing a thorough approach to a DROI^® evaluation process. The practice of Diversity ROI evaluation should be an “industry standard of professionalism and competence” in the Diversity and Inclusion field and discipline. To do otherwise sets us apart from other professional discipline such as Marketing, Sales, Operations, etc. that require standard metrics and analyses to determine their effectiveness and impact. Diversity ROI impact analysis must be implemented using effective project planning and management skills as well as following the DROI^® methodology according to each step in its design.

Issue-5: False Assumptions
Many Diversity staff members have false assumptions about the DROI^® process that keep them from attempting DROI^®. Typical assumptions include: (a) The impact of intervention cannot be accurately calculated, (b) Operating managers do not want to see the results of Diversity expressed in monetary values. They won’t believe it, (c) If the CEO does not ask for the DROI^®, he or she is not expecting it, (d) CDO denial – “I have a professional, competent staff. Therefore, I do not have to justify the effectiveness of our programs”, (e) Learning or this type of intervention is a complex but necessary activity. Therefore, it should not be subjected to an accountability process, etc. These false assumptions form perceptible barriers that impede the progress of a DROI^® evaluation implementation.

Use Evidence-based Data for Credibility

Small Dose-5: Eliminate Any False Assumptions
Credible processes rooted in strategic performance-based sciences to calculate Diversity ROI have been in existence for over 30 years. Yet, Diversity practitioners have been slow to enroll and learn what it takes to be fully competent and capable in this scientific discipline. Let’s face it; the DROI^® evaluation process and its associated analytics are here to stay. It’s only realistic that Diversity practitioners eliminate any false assumptions, wishful thinking and/or outdated measurement paradigms that prevent them from being effective. In the future, there is likely to be even more demands for DROI® analysis feedback, demonstrated credibility and intervention performance value that tie to the organization’s bottom line.

Sample Diversity ROI Resources by Dr. Hubbard

Using these processes has the added benefit of improving the effectiveness of all Diversity interventions we conduct. Only those Diversity Practitioners who can operate as full strategic business partners will have what’s needed to survive for the long term. Do You Have What It Takes To “Survive”, “Thrive”, and “Drive” Real Business Performance using  Diversity & Inclusion? The next move is yours!

Dr. Edward E. Hubbard is President & CEO of Hubbard & Hubbard, Inc. and is recognized as the pioneer and founder of the Diversity Measurement and Diversity Analytics fields. He is the author of over 40 plus books including the ground-breaking “Measuring Diversity Results”, “How to Calculate Diversity Return on Investment”, “The Diversity Scorecard: Evaluating Diversity’s Impact on Organizational Performance”, “Diversity Training ROI”, “The Executive’s Pocket Coach to Diversity and Inclusion Management”, “Measuring the ROI Impact of ERGs and BRGs”, “The Diversity Discipline”, “The Hidden Side of Employee Resistance to Change”, and many more. Dr. Hubbard is available Keynote presentations, Strategic Diversity and ROI Consulting, Training, etc. He can be reached at edhub@aol.com.

 

“Evaluation, Reliability, and Validity: How Credible are Your Diversity Initiative Assessments of Progress and Results?”

Evaluation is a task that every Diversity Practitioner will face at one time or another. No matter what your role such as Trainer, Consultant, Chief Diversity Officer (CDO), Council Member, ERG/BRG Leader, etc., conducting an evaluation to assess key aspects of your Diversity and Inclusion initiatives is inevitable.

Two Definitions of Evaluation

People do not always agree on one definition of evaluation. Following are statements that reflect two different definitions:

• “Evaluation is the systematic process of collecting and analyzing data in order to determine whether and to what degree objectives have been or are being achieved.”
• “Evaluation is the systematic process of collecting and analyzing data in order to make a decision.”

Notice that the first ten words in each of the definitions are the same. However, the reasons-the “Why!”-for collecting and analyzing the data reflect a notable difference in the philosophies behind each definition. The first reflects a philosophy that as an evaluator, you are interested in knowing only if something worked, if it was effective in doing what it was supposed to do. The second statement reflects the philosophy that evaluation makes claims on the value of something in relation to the overall operation of a Diversity intervention, project, or event. Many experts agree that an evaluation should not only assess program results but also identify ways to improve the program being evaluated. A Diversity program or initiative may be effective but of limited value to the client or sponsor. You can imagine, however, using an evaluation to make a decision (the second definition) even if a program has reached its objectives (the first definition).

For some, endorsing Diversity Evaluation is a lot like endorsing regular visits to the dentist. People are quick to endorse both activities, but when it comes to doing either one, many Diversity Practitioners are very uncomfortable.

Evaluation: An Essential Element of Success

Evaluation is an absolutely essential ingredient when you are attempting to close performance gaps or improve performance. It is the only way to determine the connections between performance gaps, improvement programs, and cost-effectiveness. Evaluation is one of the most cost-effective activities in diversity performance improvement, because it is the one activity that, if applied correctly, can ensure success. It is often resisted, however, because of the fear that it could document failure. Evaluation is the process that helps us make decisions about the value of all the activities we have been engaged in and whether they are a worthwhile investment for the organization. Without systematic evaluation we are left with “wishful thinking” or self-service impressions that are often wrong and sometimes dangerous.

All evaluation studies must satisfy two criteria: reliability and validity. Establishing these criteria up front will help you communicate your expectations to the C-Suite and any vendors who deliver programs and assist in your Diversity initiatives. Reliability, the simpler of the two, requires all evaluation methods give the same results each time we measure. This protects you against measures that change constantly and produce different results every time they are used, because of the measuring instrument. Reliability is relatively easy to achieve, yet its importance is often overlooked. To overcome this you must utilize specific Diversity science procedures and instruments for measuring the aspects of Diversity performance and goal achievement that are reflected in the initiative’s objectives, strategies and the organization’s performance gaps. Next, you have to standardize these procedures such that they measure in the same way every time. These activities can be perfectly compatible with the way correctly designed Diversity initiatives are structured and administered.

The second criterion, validity, requires that all evaluations measure exactly and only what it is supposed to be measuring. This criterion is one of the requirements most often violated in Diversity performance and other assessments. For example, if we attempt to measure the amount of knowledge employees gained in a Diversity Competency Training program using a “Reaction” form that asks them how much they learned, the results will indicate how much employees “think” they learned, not how much they “actually” learned. Reaction forms too often report high amounts of learning when little occurred and vice versa (Clark, 1982). Consequently, training reaction evaluation could be reliable but not valid in these cases, because the actual results were the opposite of what the invalid instrument reliably reported! If the instrument reported the same invalid result each time it was used, it is still reliable—which is why we need both reliability and validity for all evaluation activities.

An example of a valid measurement of learning would be a Diversity competency problem-solving exercise or memory test (provided they represented the knowledge and skills the participants learned during the training. The more you make use of Diversity sciences and research evidence about the event being measured, the better your chances of for validity. Performance evaluation systems such as the Hubbard 7-Level Evaluation Methodology, integrates these approaches in the process.

Conducting a comprehensive Diversity Evaluation is the only true way to know if Diversity and inclusion programs or initiatives are delivering the outcome results expected by key stakeholders. It is essential that Diversity Practitioners master critical Diversity and Inclusion evaluation methods using technologies that are rooted in Diversity ROI^® science. Why? Because the perceived value and credibility of what we do to be seen as a true Business Partner and Professional depends on it!