Symmetra has been delivering Unconscious Bias workshops and collecting data from executives and managers globally on impact of biased decision-making for several years.

Accordingly, we at Symmetra can readily endorse a recent article from the McKinsey Group – ‘Are you ready to Decide?’ (April, 2015) – reiterating that many bad decisions “are caused by cognitive or behavioural biases”. The authors of the McKinsey article contend, persuasively, that debiasing techniques built into the process of decision-taking are the most effective way of overcoming bias. Their technique proceeds in two stages:

Firstly:   decision –makers must examine the sources of assumptions and opinions: are they sufficiently broad-based and diverse to counteract a single-minded narrow view of the problem?

Secondly:   Whether the full range of potential negative outcomes has been taken into account.

An area which bears considering is that of employee dismissals and terminations. Risk arises when managers take the view that employees have used social media inappropriately and they are convinced that an employer response is called for with minimum delay. Precipitous decisions often result in bad outcomes following dismissals as in many other business situations.

A Real Life Illustration:

On Anzac day (April 25th 2015, a Saturday), sports journalist Scott McIntyre employed by SBS television posted some controversial tweets about the Anzacs on his private twitter account which to many Australians  were distasteful and were more than a little offensive.

Two Examples of his tweets:
“The cultification of an imperialist invasion of a foreign nation…”  and 

“summary execution widespread rape and theft committed by these ‘brave’ Anzacs… “

By the end of the following day, April 26th, Mr McIntyre had been summarily dismissed. On the 18th May, it was reported that Mr. McIntyre had lodged an adverse action claim with the Fair Work Commission, claiming he was unlawfully dismissed because he had expressed a political opinion.  He also claimed apparently, that he had been unfairly dismissed because proper dismissal procedures had not been followed.

Applying McKinsey’s guidelines in the McIntyre situation we subject the dismissal to the two-step process that the authors advocate.

Step 1

Q. Would a dismissal run counter to Mr McIntyre’s freedom of speech?

A. There is no absolute constitutional right of freedom of speech in Australia, However, in Australia as in other democratic countries it is generally accepted that people can express themselves as they please as long as they do not break the law on vilification or incite others to break the law in some way or are personally abusive. Managers need to understand that a dismissal may be regarded as unfair and therefore unlawful if it is harsh unjust or unreasonable This means both that it must be procedurally fair and the offence committed by the employee must justify a dismissal.  Every tweet, email or facebook posting that managers or executives find offensive must be measured against these yardsticks.

Q. How would a manager know if an opinion is, in fact, a ‘political opinion’?

A.  From the legal perspective there is no clear boundary as to what is ‘political opinion, ‘Clearly ‘political opinion’ in the discrimination provisions of the Fair Work Act goes beyond membership of or promoting the policy of a particular political party or even advocating a particular ideology such as communism or socialism. Tweets supporting trade union activity; taxation reform; use of renewable energy and so forth might be classed as political opinion. Impulsive dismissals on any of the discriminatory grounds could well result in unwelcome legal action.
Does it make a difference that Mr. McIntyre was using his private twitter account?
A. Possibly – where an employee makes derogatory tweets or comments on Facebook about their employer or the circumstances make it likely that the employer’s reputation or commercial interests will suffer or where the tweets and comments break the law then the employer is entitled to take disciplinary action against the employee. However there comes a point where the employee’s comments are simply his or her private opinion and not the business of the employer. The employer then intervenes at its peril.
Q. Can seriously offensive tweets or emails justify a summary dismissal?
A. Summary dismissals are usually reserved for the most serious cases where the evidence is reasonably clear and the employee’s unacceptable actions go to the heart of the employment contract. The mere fact that an employee is in breach of a company policy will not of itself justify a summary dismissal where no damage is done to the employer. It is usually safest to follow the principles of natural justice and allow the employee to be heard.

Step 2

Q. What are the potential downsides of a badly-considered dismissal?
A. Internal – There are costs in money and time to the organisation when dealing with protracted litigation. There is also a potential problem of decline of morale in remaining staff members, when dismissals occur. Finally, employees may start suspecting that the company is regularly trawling through private Facebook, twitter and Instagram accounts to search for damaging or embarrassing material

External – There is the potential for damage in the eyes of the public, particularly when the organisation is high –profile. There is also the risk that prospective employees might think twice before joining a company where there has been a high-publicity dismissal.

Conclusion: The constantly changing face of the workplace and the blurring of the dividing lines between work times and spaces and those which are private create new challenges for managers.

Managers need to be made aware through appropriate training of the hazards of rapid-fire responses, personal biases and taking sole responsibility for decisions without having all the information available.

Organisations need to understand how biases impact on all manner of decisions and institutionalise and systematise checks and balances when decisions can cause unforseen damage.

A recent blog article by UGM Consulting in Australia has highlighted some important research from the USA regarding the impact of programs to counteract unconscious bias in the workplace. Unfortunately, the provocative title of the article and the conclusions and recommendations which the authors seek to draw, are in no way supported by the research that they cite!

Their proposition is simply that unconscious bias training should be jettisoned in favour of other forms of workplace intervention, lest the unconscious bias training itself do more harm than good. We will respond to this proposition in this post.

The first piece of research that the authors cite by Cialdini (2005), does not deal with biases as such but rather on the ways of optimising impact when seeking to change undesirable social behaviour. After conducting experiments in attempting to deter visitors to a national park from stealing petrified wood, the research concludes that a ‘descriptive normative’ message – that theft is commonplace – is actually less likely to reduce theft (and may in fact increase it) compared to an ‘injunctive normative message’ – that such thefts are disapproved of.

The authors suggest that the reason for this is that when endeavouring to bring about change to objectionable behaviour, one should focus on the desired outcomes rather than simply emphasizing that the bad behaviour is widespread. Simply focusing on the bad behaviour has two disadvantages: firstly it projects a mixed message (“this behaviour is bad, but everyone is doing it”) and secondly it may be inaccurate (the actual absolute quantity of stolen wood was relatively low).

The later research study by Duguid and Thomas-Hunt (2014) that was cited in the blog post does deal directly with stereotyping of the conscious and unconscious varieties. This study consisted of a series of tests to determine how respondents’ stereotypical attitudes towards certain groups would be impacted by advance information about whether stereotypes about these groups were either widespread or rare.

Consistent with the earlier study by Cialdini, they found that where respondents proceeded on the premise that stereotypes were widespread, they tended to exhibit more biased attitudes than when advised that stereotyping was very rare. It did not make any difference if the participants were admonished not to let themselves be influenced by stereotypical thinking.

The critical qualification, however, which is ignored in the UGM blog post is the following conclusion by Duguid and Thomas-Hunt: “…Our findings suggest that awareness of the general pervasiveness of stereotyping behaviour does not mitigate stereotypic expression, and in fact may have the opposite effect of increasing stereotyping. Nevertheless, stereotyping behaviour may be mitigated by heightened awareness to other’s efforts to work against stereotyping.” (in other words, by focusing on the efforts of others to achieve unbiased behaviour). Duguid and Thomas-Hunt go on to acknowledge that there is existing research in the literature which shows that raising unconscious bias awareness can cause a significant reduction in individual stereotyping behaviour, and they suggest that their study “qualifies” this previous research.

This rider furnishes the ideal basis for a solution to the potential negative consequences of providing generalised information about the fact that we all have bias in a training program. Indeed, no unconscious bias program worth its salt would simply inform participants that bias exists and leave it at that. That would be a job half done. Furthermore one could easily argue that the very fact that a group of 10 or 20 leaders are gathered in a workshop for the express purpose of finding ways to counteract bias, is in and of itself a clear message by the organisation  to every leader regarding the undesirable nature of biases.

Unfortunately, UGM concludes (without any empirical data to support their proposition) that most unconscious bias training must be increasing the levels of bias in the workplace. Accordingly they recommend that taking an “influencing approach” rather than examining the nature and prevalence of bias is the preferred route to addressing, for example, gender imbalances and stereotyping in the workplace.

This is an astonishing and unwarranted conclusion. There is a wide variety of programs designed to modify objectionable practices in the workplace in areas such as resource wastage, sustainability, unethical financial behaviour, workplace hazards, sexual harassment, bullying and so forth – most of which are built on the pillars of:

1. Explaining the nature of the undesirable practice;
2. The degree to which it occurs;
3. Its effects, costs and general undesirability;
4. Inculcating cultural and behavioural change

Taken to its logical conclusion, UGM’s argument suggests that it is always counterproductive to bring to the attention of employees that levels of unacceptable behaviour are high, because the inevitable consequence is that the bad behaviour will only become worse.

A more plausible approach suggested in this article written by thought leaders Sheryl Sandberg and Adam Grant in response to the same research, is to acknowledge the relevance and appropriateness of pointing out the stereotyping and biases, but warn that this should not be seen as “legitimising prejudice”. Instead, it should be information which provides a foundation to move to: “…reinforcing the idea that people want to conquer their biases and that there are benefits to doing so…”

Sandberg and Grant assert that people should be encouraged to correct for biases and this can only be done if we acknowledge that all actors in the workplace are subject to explicit and implicit biases.

In conclusion, we at Symmetra would contend that there is no reason to abandon unconscious bias training that is properly designed as part of a multi-pronged behavioural change initiative. Our experience with thousands of leaders across the globe over the last few years shows just the contrary – that starting with unconscious bias training as the first step of a culture change process towards embedding inclusion can “turbo boost” change.  When leaders actually become aware of the extent to which unconscious bias can undermine the quality of their decisions, we have found they become highly driven to develop their skill to counteract bias, as well as to (re)design systems and processes to render them more impervious to biases, as they see this as a direct means of optimising their business performance.

by Errol Price

In recent months U.S. technology giants Apple and Facebook both announced a decision to provide financial cover to female employees for a significant part of the costs associated with freezing their eggs. The ostensible objective of this new policy is to allow women the opportunity to schedule their pregnancies to align better with their career goals, although female employees could well take advantage of this for other equally valid reasons.

The new policy adopted by these companies has re-ignited a furious debate about elective or ‘social’ egg freezing in general and whether it is right or appropriate for employers to intrude into the area of female procreation at all. It, also, naturally gives rise to the question of whether Australian organisations should facilitate access by their female employees to this medical procedure with its potential to radically extend choices available to women in the workforce. Female egg freezing (the technical term is ‘oocyte cryopreservation’) is not new. It has existed for some three decades. Nor for that matter is elective egg freezing. However the decision of corporates to provide this benefit is indeed very new.

It is timeous for Australian employers and employees to engage in a debate as to whether elective egg freezing is a desirable benefit to be offered to female employees by their employers as an addition to the currently existing ways of facilitating work-life integration.

THE CASE FOR

Women’s fertility declines steadily in their 30s

Oocyte cryopreservation in 2015 is a relatively safe medical procedure. Natural fertility in women starts to decline after age 33 and by age 40 only 20 per cent of women can conceive naturally. Most experts consider the optimal age for child bearing to be between ages 25 and 35, taking factors such as emotional preparedness and the physical ability to carry a pregnancy.

Women have a  right to control their own bodies

Many women consider that children will be or could be an important part of their lives but they are not all ready to fall pregnant and assume the obligations of motherhood during the ‘ideal’ period. The reasons for delay may be one or a combination of factors: not having the right partner; educational, professional and career priorities; other carer obligations; financial considerations; ambivalence about having children; and feeling unready to be a mother. Women have a moral right to have control over their own bodies and to exercise available options regarding the timing of conceiving and raising children.

It’s liberating for women

Women recognise and understand that there is no guarantee that egg freezing will produce a successful pregnancy in the future. However, it is an important additional element which empowers them in two significant respects.

Firstly, it unshackles them from the implacably ticking biological clock which may govern many of the decisions which they make in their child bearing years.

Secondly, it removes even if only to a limited extent, the disadvantage which women face in the workplace when competing against men – the fact that they may have to interrupt their career at a critical and very unfavourable juncture. In this respect, elective egg freezing may be as liberating for women as the contraceptive pill.

Most working women cannot afford egg freezing

The primary obstacle at present is financial. Very few countries cover elective egg freezing under government provided medical aid schemes. In Australia, Medicare will not pay for these procedures.

It therefore falls to employers to step into the breach and offer this as an option (together with paid parental leave, flexible work options, child care subsidisation and so forth) which will allow female employees to develop their talents and progress their careers until they are ready to take the time to have children. A properly-devised program for the subsidising of elective egg freezing need not place any additional pressures on women but rather free them to make more appropriate decisions at the right time.

THE CASE AGAINST

It’s a plot by men

The principal argument against corporate sponsored egg freezing is that it is a stratagem devised by male-controlled organisations to induce female employees to tamper with normal biological time lines, at best without regard to their emotional, physical and psychological well-being and at worst for exploitative motivations. Even if it appears that a valued female employee is autonomously and carefully weighing the pros and cons of employee-sponsored egg freezing for herself , she will be subjected to unspoken pressure from the employer to delay child-bearing.

The French Philosopher and theologian, Bertrand Vergely gravely warns that companies like Apple and Facebook, which interfere with the biological clocks of female employees ‘are meddling with the whole of humanity (in Le Figaro)’.

Working women will be commercially exploited by egg freezing factories

Currently, egg freezing is expensive (up to $10,000 for one freeze cycle and generally two cycles are recommended). It therefore makes women targets for exploitation by the unrestrained commercialisation of egg freezing by ‘freezing brokers’ – businesses that act in partnership with drug companies and fertility clinics. These organisations apply high pressure sales techniques for egg freezing and minimise the health risks and other disadvantages.

It is unethical to encourage women to reprogram their biology for commercial reasons

Opponents point out that the bio-ethical issues of elective egg freezing are obscured or entirely lost by suggesting to women that the only material factors to be weighed are economic health risks, finance and convenience. There are ethical considerations to extending the ability of the female body to bear children beyond that which nature has evolved, apart from the physical difficulties of carrying a pregnancy in a woman’s late 30s or early 40s.

Further, opponents maintain that it is unethical for a woman to interfere with or attempt to manipulate the natural reproductive cycle simply for lifestyle reasons.

It’s the workplace not women who need to change

Finally, opponents assert that resorting to something like egg freezing for career women is simply a means of disguising the real underlying issues. The labour market is structured in such a way that it is extremely difficult for women to exercise their basic biological right to have children in their 20s and 30s and not be thwarted from pursuing a career at the same time. Thus elective egg freezing is an artificial ‘fix’ when the real issue is how to reorganise the workplace so that women can have children as nature ordered it and not be marginalised in the work context if they do so.

Tell us what you think…

On 1st December, Heather Price, CEO of Symmetra delivered a presentation on Supplier Diversity to the Pride in Diversity Workplace Conference, held in Sydney.

While focusing on the LGBTI community as a component of the diverse supplier grouping, the theme of Heather’s talk was the changing rationales and evolving understanding of the benefits of embracing Supplier Diversity in general.

Heather explained how Australian businesses, in particular, have made giant strides in the appreciation of embedding supplier diversity as a fundamental principle of procurement programmes. They have done this because it is now clearly accepted that the advantages arising from the latest supplier diversity paradigm current in Australia flow in both directions – equally for the procuring organisation as much as for previously disadvantaged supplier groups.

Tracing the history of this approach to procurement, Heather noted that supplier diversity has its origins in the United States when the first Federal Government – sponsored program began in 1969 in conjunction with the Civil Rights Movement. An executive Order signed by President Nixon required government agencies and their contractors to contract with minority-owned companies and to report the results against pre-established goals. The National Minority Supplier Development Council (NMSDC) was formed during the 1970s to certify businesses as Minority Business Enterprises.

In essence this was an ethical initiative supported by Government directive designed to give impetus to the enabling of previously disadvantaged groups to establish a significant presence in the economy.

In South Africa, where unequal economic rights had previously been entrenched by law, remedial legislation has been passed which requires the implementation of transformative measures to improve the participation of the black population in the economy – including rules about supplier diversity. Again this was a move through legislative intervention to modify traditional supply arrangements so that those who had been largely prevented from supplier undertakings could now gain a competitive foothold.

This kind of legislated supplier restructuring while necessary in some societies can be constraining because, by its nature, it limits the scope for choice and selection.

Later, however, in the USA and elsewhere businesses started to comprehend that supplier diversity was not simply an expression of social goodwill but could be leveraged by organisations to offer a competitive business advantage for themselves.

These benefits flowed initially from a business imperative – the realisation by U.S. businesses of the need to cater for a continuously diversifying customer base. From this came the awareness that the makeup of the range of suppliers to organisations should be reflective of and resonate with their increasingly diverse customers.

Businesses which accepted this proposition soon found that they penetrated sectors of the market where they previously had little or no presence. They also found that once customers became aware of their supplier diversity programs, the brand loyalty of these customers increased.

In Australia, businesses are not constrained by legislation and can explore and leverage supplier diversity to their maximum economic benefit. Australian business has accordingly leapfrogged to the next level of supplier diversity, pursuing diversity in their suppliers for performance rather than just governance requirements.

Progressive Australian businesses now accept that a diverse range of suppliers can help them gain access to new ideas, can increase competition, can provide them with a more flexible service and most importantly can offer untried and innovative features to the supply chain which ultimately adds value for the consuming organisation. Supplier diversity for such businesses is not a specialised programme but is being integrated into their policies and procurement procedures as the best way to do business.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that supplier diversity is not a one-way street but has the potential to be a winner for all participants.

James Bowen, a leading expert on gamification has said:

“Games are a way to experience the world in ways not possible in reality and thus tap into a natural learning process and enjoyment. In education, gamification can create learning environments that condense the learning time of key ideas…”

Companies worldwide recognise that in order to stay competitive, they must constantly innovate and adapt. To achieve this, their workforces must be continuously trained, upskilled and kept abreast of what is happening in their markets. Effective training methods need to match new technologies and feel familiar to a workforce whose demographic profile is rapidly changing. This requires that such training be fast-paced and capable of being segmentized so as to fit with busy work schedules.

Many Australian organisations as well as industry bodies have been questioning whether widely-used training methods are actually achieving the desired objectives.

Striving to make workplace training more engaging and seeking techniques which will enhance the retention of information, and achieve a sustainable change in behaviour organisations are increasingly looking to ‘gamification’ as the formula of choice.

There is a firm scientific basis for believing that learning through game-playing can frequently be superior to the traditional didactic form of instruction. Gary Marcus, a research psychologist of New York University believes that the pleasure centres in the brain consist of multiple pathways which can be selectively activated by games and other forms of “pleasure technologies” such as movies and music.

Almost everyone is naturally attracted to some form of game playing so that games can, if properly used, help focus a learner’s attention and cement knowledge. In a world characterised by unpredictability and even randomness games are appealing because they are based on well-defined rules, promote interactivity and have a definite outcome. Considered from a process perspective they utilize our natural tendency to compete, to aim for identifiable goals and exploit our desire for self-expression, role playing, problem solving and of course, winning.

Game playing responds to and reinforces a number of basic psychological impulses which are vital to learning: motivation – people need to have a motivation to learn, practice – which must take place in a relevant context and be as closely related as possible to the actual situation that will be faced; timely feedback – immediate feedback on what is being done well and what is not and the ability to retrieve and repeat segments which have not been adequately internalised.

In the USA game-based learning is well established. According to the research firm Gartner Inc., gamification is currently being applied by many Fortune 500 companies to customer engagement, employee performance, training and education, innovation management, personal development, sustainability, health and wellness and a growing list of other areas.

Gartner further states “… by 2015, 40 percent of Global 1000 organisations will use gamification as the primary mechanism to transform business operations”

‘Serious’ workplace games are essentially of two categories: firstly ‘simulations’ which place the learner in a situation which mimics reality and in which the learner can act and make decisions with the aim of obtaining real time feedback. This feedback accompanied by the ability to repeat the process in a risk-free environment prepares the learner to make better decisions in a real-life situation.

‘Gamification’ on the other hand uses the methodology of game playing with appropriate rules, rewards and objectives in order to engage and inspire the employee to become immersed in the learning process.

Over the past decade Symmetra has been one of the leading proponents of game-based education in the Australian workplace and globally. After producing a number of face-to-face computerised training games, it is now poised to launch what is possibly the most advanced on-line gamified training platform available in Australia.

Symmetra’s experience has shown that games can successfully be used not only to imbed knowledge on hard technical subject-matter but can also be used to foster skills dealing with diversity and inclusion, counteracting unconscious bias as well as to modify behaviour in relation to troublesome work place behaviours such as harassment and bullying.

Employees frequently find passive learning an exercise in boredom and unsuitable to prepare them to meet the real world challenges which they encounter daily.

New entrants to the workforce have grown up with the internet and playing digitized games is second nature to them. Technological advances enable employees to engage in learning at almost any location since the relevant applications can be accessed through tablets and mobile phones. Flexible game engines are available which reduce the need for custom made applications.

The time is ripe for Australian business and other organisations to seize the benefits and opportunities offered by gamified learning. As the Australian economy transitions from a supplier of basic resources to one focused on providing services and expertise, the need for flexible, high-tech workplace training will certainly increase and game-based education will undoubtfully be a significant contributor.

Heather Price, CEO of Symmetra

Centre for Innovation outside Seoul

As a seasoned Diversity consultant for 20 years I would like to share an exciting new emerging trend which I have been witnessing in several global corporates – a trend which clearly signifies that Diversity and Inclusion is truly being integrated into the mainstream of business strategy. What I am witnessing is that Directors of Innovation and Directors of Diversity are suddenly beginning to collaborate closely, at the intersection of these two fields so as to equip leaders of their organisations to achieve innovation through inclusion.  And Symmetra is being engaged to do work for several global corporates to achieve just that.

I was in Seoul last month to deliver Symmetra’s ‘Innoclusion™ program to a Fortune 500 global health care provider whose mission is to deliver innovative health care solutions for better patient outcomes. . Our objective has been to work with their global senior leaders for the last two years to build their capability to innovate and stay on top in their very competitive industry.  Next quarter Symmetra will be working with a Fortune 500 company in the manufacturing industry, headquartered in the US, who are developing substantial new revenue streams through the launch of a new innovative product range. And at home in Australia we are starting work with the leaders of companies in financial services and professional services in a similar vein.

Why is innovation so important for companies today? Even though efficiency is essential for business success, in the long run, it alone cannot sustain business growth. It is clear that almost every organization and business is feeling the impact of globalization, migration, disruptive technology, the knowledge revolution and clients who want “more for less”. Not surprisingly studies confirm that today all businesses want to be more innovative. In the current day economic scenario, the ability to innovate has become a major strategic lever for sustainable growth and wealth creation.

Innovation implies the use of new ideas that lead to the making of new products, services or processes as well as new business systems and new methods of management, all of which have a significant impact on productivity and growth. In this respect the capacity to innovate is a capability that every senior leader needs. As leaders assume real seniority their focus must shift from straight forward delivery and execution to additional skills in innovation and discovery.

Inside the Centre for Innovation

So what does this have to do with inclusion? Well companies can gain that innovative edge by empowering their leaders to leverage innovation through inclusion (this is what Innoclusion ™ means), by leveraging the diversity of thought in their teams which has been empirically linked to driving higher performance and innovation. Symmetra is working side by side with the experts who empower leaders with the strategic models for innovation relevant to their specific industry. But our focus is on effecting the paradigm shift and behavioural changes that are needed by these leaders to drive innovation effectively, to translate the strategies they have learned into practice,  so as to embed a culture where innovation can actually happen.

Witnessing at firsthand what is occurring in South Korea which has become such a hot bed of innovation over the last half century has been nothing short of astonishing. Fifty years ago, the country was poorer than Bolivia and Mozambique; today, it is richer than New Zealand and Spain, with a per capita income of almost $33,000. For 50 years, South Korea’s economy has grown by an average of seven percent annually, contracting in only two of those years. South Korea now has bragging rights as the all-around most innovative country in the world! They were named number one in the 2014 Bloomberg Rankings – where they evaluated more than 200 countries and sovereign regions based on seven factors, such as R&D expenditure, the percentage of public high-tech companies and patent activity.

It is no wonder that many companies operating in countries like South Korea are at the forefront of such initiatives and it is a privilege to participate in this process of corporate evolution.

Symmetra has a specific service offering named ‘Innoclusion™’ – achieving innovation through inclusion. Please contact Gail Laffer at <Gail.Laffer@symmetra.com.au> for more details  

The Women Lawyers Association of NSW recognizes the legal industry has been slow to respond to the seismic shifts that are taking place within the industry. They have been in close conversation with CEO Heather Price about the work Symmetra is  doing with leading law firms and says she brings a fresh and innovative perspective of the importance of diversity to the legal profession and approaches to advancing the gender agenda.

To read more please click this link to view the recent article by Heather Price posted on the WLA blog.

http://womenlawyersnetwork.wordpress.com/?p=50&preview=true

The new Global Diversity and Inclusion Benchmarks: Standards for Organizations Around the World (GDIB) have just been released from the Diversity Collegium, a twenty year old non-profit think tank of practitioners, scholars and leaders whose mission is to advance the field of Diversity and Inclusion through dialogues, symposia, research and publications.

Heather Price, CEO of Symmetra has sat on the Expert Panel which ratifies the Global Diversity and Inclusion Benchmark Tool ™ since its inception in 2006. “Transparency about diversity impacts a fundamental component in effective stakeholder relations, investment decisions, and other market relations. To support this a globally shared framework of concepts, consistent language, and metrics is required. These benchmarks will help raise the standards of diversity and inclusion work for all organizations around the world by providing a clear and consistent platform of measurement,” says Price.

This practical tool elicits answers to the primary questions – How does an organization know if its diversity and inclusion (D&I) efforts are high quality and really worthwhile? and What are the standards to judge by? The GDIB details a comprehensive set of standards,  organized into four groups of thirteen categories. The 280 benchmarks are ranked at five levels of performance. Based on extensive contributions from 80 Expert Panellist around the globe, this 30-page booklet with a new diversity and inclusion model, illustrates what excellent diversity and inclusion work looks like worldwide today.

From Global Diversity and Inclusion Benchmarks: Standards for Organizations Around the World © 2014 Julie O’Mara and Alan Richter. Used with permission. All Rights Reserved.

Benchmarking is a clear indicator of commitment in an organization, it is also a prime opportunity to educate and inspire diversity and inclusion in your organization. You can download The Global Diversity & Inclusion Benchmarks tool by clicking this link  http://diversitycollegium.org/GDIB_2014_Standard_A4_Version.pdf .