Evolving Diversity, Equality and Inclusion (DEI) and Performance Management

Julie Blanchet, Sr Director and Vice-President, Talent Management at Reitmans

I have had the privilege to contribute to the development of DEI roadmaps in a few different organizations.  These companies were all public, operated in different sectors, and had a large footprint, national or international. The characteristics of their respective workforce were often at opposite ends of the spectrum with regards to the number of employees, type and level of expertise, and demographics such as gender, age, ethnicity, and predominant languages – English being a common base. My role was somewhat similar in these three organizations as a COE HR leader, with a focus on leadership development, organizational development, change management, and talent management.

All three organizations were at the beginning of their DEI journey. Deloitte’s DEI maturity model (see picture below) identifies four stages in the evolution of DEI processes.

The four levels are positioned on a continuum with level one focused on compliance with equal opportunity affirmation goals through talent acquisition. The approach is reactive, and the legal perspective is often central.  Level two is referred to as programmatic, and an increased representation of specific demographic groups is generally observed.  The HR department plays a central role therein and the business case for DEI is being articulated. The transition to level three requires a high level of engagement as the ownership transitions to business Leaders. Systemic cultural barriers are being addressed. Level four, defined as the final stage, is labelled as integrated: DEI then becomes an intricate part of the organization as it is owned by all.    

My experience is with companies that were striving to move to two and continue their evolution towards level three.  The focus was no longer on compliance - even if it was still relevant and important to continue to increase diversity. HR implemented some key activities in collaboration with DEI ambassadors in one instance, or with a DEI advisory committee in another. Examples of some key accomplishments are listed below:

• Integration on DEI in leadership development programs,

• Awareness sessions open to all employees,

• Focused training sessions for people leaders and/or executives on DEI challenges and biases,

• Review of compensation practices to ensure the absence of systemic discrimination, and

• Focused interventions on targeted minority groups in succession management processes, with or without mentoring programs.

“The four levels are positioned on a continuum with level one focused on compliance with equal opportunity affirmation goals through talent acquisition.”

At the first level, talent acquisition is generally identified as a key partner. There is usually a need to increase the representation of minority groups while working on evolving the culture toward greater inclusivity. Other key actions such as review of HR policies and processes also need to be looked at because they are less visible and time consuming, and they require the involvement of many stakeholders, these actions are sometimes delayed.   

What I have come to realize is that performance management process can also easily be overlooked. In literature, both DEI experts and performance management specialists rarely focus on the challenges related to the way performance management process (PMP) is conducted and its potential negative impact on the DEI agenda. My assumption is that even if a general consensus exists on the importance of managing performance, leaders tend to consider that performance management processes are not effective and have a limited impact. Therefore, it may not feel critical to improve the PMP and ensure it does not encourage discrimination. Yet, since PMP is vastly implemented in North America, and thus involves most employees and leaders, I believe we should not overlook that variable. I provide hereunder some examples of how we could evolve PMPs.  

Structural component of the PMP -Self-evaluation:

Research has demonstrated that the approach to self-evaluation can be very different based on gender.  For example, cismen could be more inclined to promote themselves in the self-assessment with the objective of showcasing the highlights of their achievement.  It could be characterized as a sales-oriented approach. On the opposite, ciswomen would tend to provide a more balanced perspective on their performance. They also put forward their achievements as it is part of the process to describe results and behaviors on most PMP. What is different is that their approach could be described as balanced with a stronger focus on identifying opportunities.  It tends to be more introspective, or to have a developmental focus. How does this impact DEI in the workplace? Managers often receive self-assessment documents before they complete their evaluation; it is thus easy to be influenced positively by cismen’s more sales-oriented version, with more favorable assessments as an end-result.  If the PMP is linked to compensation, it can result in higher salary increases and better bonuses. If there is a rating system and employees are plotted on a nine box grid (a commonly used tool to compare employees), it could be more difficult for ciswomen to be considered for promotions, or be identified as top talent with access to developmental learning and higher visibility to executive levels.

I still perceive employees’ self-evaluations as a useful tool for managers as it may facilitate the review of past year achievements and support the preparation of performance review meetings. It also provides a preview of the employee’s perspective on their performance and possibly reveals their blind spots. If self-evaluations are valuable, what are the options to mitigate their potential negative impacts? There are a few low hanging fruits such as: ensuring that managers do not have access to the self-evaluation documents prior to completing their own evaluations, raising managers’ awareness on the adverse impact of a sales-oriented self-evaluation vs a more developmental focused self-evaluation, and informing employees of the expected approach when completing their self-evaluation.   

 Raise awareness on the impact of biases on performance management

Leaders are often trained on unconscious biases.  When applied to HR, the focus tends to be on talent acquisition. My perception is that the impact of biases on the performance assessment is generally underestimated. People leaders should be exposed to the most common type of biases, be equipped to identify them, and assess how they currently impact their management style with different individuals.  Acknowledging that many studies have shown a rather limited effectiveness of unconscious biases training sessions, many organizations continue to organize them as there are a limited number of cost-effective options available.  In addition, organizations should consider offering cultural awareness training to support leaders in adapting their behaviors and managing their perceptions.

Other avenues can be explored to ensure that performance management supports diversity efforts, is truly equalitarian, and fosters inclusion. Solutions are not one size fits all, as performance management programs come in different shapes and forms. The effective PMP should be aligned with the characteristics of the organization, characteristics of the workforce, the work organization, and individual expectations. 

To support the transition towards the next level on the maturity model (from level 2 to 3), no doubt that a thorough review of all HR programs is necessary. I argue that a more significant focus should be put on performance management than what I have seen in literature and even in my professional experience.  After all, even if it seems to be overlooked by many, PMP is one of the keys to unlock motivation and engagement – key levers to greater organizational performance!

review

Legal