Diversity Wins How Inclusion Matters

Diversity
wins
How inclusion matters
May 2020

Preface
For business executives the world over, the
COVID-19 pandemic is proving to be one of the
greatest leadership tests of their careers. Not only
must they protect the health of their employees
and customers, they must also navigate far-
reaching disruption to their operations, plan for
recovery, and prepare to reimagine their business
models for the ‘next normal’.
In this challenging context, the task of fostering
inclusion and diversity (I&D) could easily take a
back seat—and the painstaking progress made
by many firms in recent years could be reversed.
As this report shows, however, I&D is a powerful
enabler of business performance. Companies
whose leaders welcome diverse talents and include
multiple perspectives are likely to emerge from the
crisis stronger. In short: diversity wins, now more
than ever.
This report was originally due for release in
March 2020, but we put publication on hold as the
COVID-19 crisis ensued. Since then, in talking to
CEOs, CXOs and CHROs and assessing the radically
changed business landscape, we have come to the
conclusion that its findings are even more relevant
right now.
The report demonstrates that the business case for
gender and ethnic diversity in top teams is stronger
than ever. Since we first published Why Diversity
Matters in 2015, the likelihood of diverse companies
outperforming industry peers on profitability has
increased significantly. The data also shows that
there is a clear divergence in how companies are
engaging with I&D. A third of the firms we have
tracked over the past five years have significantly
improved both gender and ethnic diversity on their
executive teams, while the majority have stalled or
gone backwards.
We also find that the dynamics around inclusion are
a critical differentiator for companies. Our evidence
is that an emphasis on representation is not enough;
1
How “Neutral” Layoffs Disproportionately Affect Women and Minorities, HBR, June 2016
2
McKinsey & Company, Women in the Workplace 2019
employees need to feel and perceive equality
and fairness of opportunity in their workplace.
Companies that lead on diversity have taken bold
steps to strengthen inclusion.
Early signs suggest that the COVID-19 crisis could
deepen these trends. Companies that already
see I&D as a strength are likely to leverage it to
bounce back quicker—and they will use this time
to seek new opportunities to boost representation
and inclusion to strengthen performance and
organizational health. As the CEO of a European
consumer-goods company told us: “I know we have
to deal with COVID-19, but inclusion and diversity is
a topic too important to put onto the back burner”.
On the other hand, some of the companies we have
spoken to are viewing I&D as a “luxury we cannot
afford” during the crisis. We believe that these
companies risk tarnishing their license to operate
in the long term and could lose out on very real
opportunities to innovate their business model and
strengthen their business recovery.
If companies deprioritize I&D during the crisis,
the impact is felt not just on the bottom line but in
people’s lives. Research and experience warn us
that diverse talent can be at risk during a downturn
for several reasons, including that downsizing can
have a disproportionate impact on the roles typically
held by diverse talent.1, 2
As companies send
staff home to work, this could reinforce existing
exclusive behaviors and unconscious biases and
undermine inclusion. In addition, unequal sharing
of childcare and homeschooling responsibilities,
and unequal availability of home workspace and
access to broadband could be putting women and
minorities at a disadvantage during this time of
working remotely.
Companies and their leaders can seize this
moment—both to protect the gains they have
already made, as well as to leverage I&D to position
themselves to prosper in the future.
In the COVID-19 crisis, diversity and inclusion matter more than ever
Diversity wins: How inclusion matters

There is ample evidence that diverse and inclusive
companies are likely to make better, bolder
decisions—a critical capability in the crisis.
For example, diverse teams have been shown to be
more likely to radically innovate and anticipate shifts
in consumer needs and consumption patterns—
helping their companies to gain a competitive edge.3
In this context, the shift to technology-enabled
remote working presents an opportunity for
companies to accelerate building inclusive and agile
cultures—further challenging existing management
routines. With its benefits of increased flexibility,
remote working can facilitate retention of women
and minorities, who are often shouldered with a
disproportionate share of family duties. It thus
widens access to an array of diverse talent that may
not have been available to companies previously.4
Moreover, a visible commitment to I&D during the
crisis is likely to strengthen companies’ global
image and license to operate. In times of crisis,
stakeholders typically interrogate a company’s
3
Ibid.
4
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/31/us/equal-pay-coronavirus-economic-impact.html
purpose and values even more closely, potentially
even more so in the current pandemic. Those that
tap into the growing sense of solidarity that is a
characteristic of the crisis—by reaffirming their
commitment to I&D, supporting vulnerable talent
who are at greater risk of infection, and reaching out
to local communities—could strengthen employee
motivation and win lasting approval.
The findings and case studies presented in this
report will be of enduring relevance to companies
in every industry, long after the world has emerged
from the COVID-19 crisis. But we are convinced
that, as companies and their leaders navigate the
crisis itself and plan their emergence from it, they
will find that I&D is an essential enabler of recovery,
resilience, and reimagination.
Vivian Hunt, DBE
Senior Partner, McKinsey & Company
London
Sundiatu Dixon-Fyle
Senior Expert, McKinsey & Company
London
Sara Prince
Partner, McKinsey & Company
Atlanta
Kevin Dolan
Senior Partner, McKinsey & Company
Chicago
May 2020

Contents
Executive summary 3
Introduction 10
A stronger business case for diversity, but slow progress overall 13
Citigroup: strengthening equality of opportunity 22
The widening gap between winners and laggards 24
Pentair: building an inclusive culture 31
How inclusion matters 32
Target Corporation: staying open 39
Winning through inclusion and diversity: taking bold action 41
Lockheed Martin: breaking down barriers to inclusion 46
Conclusion 47
Methodology 48
About the authors 52
Acknowledgments 52
1

2 Diversity wins: How inclusion matters

The business case for inclusion and diversity (ID) is stronger
than ever. For diverse companies, the likelihood of outperforming
industry peers on profitability has increased over time, while
the penalties are getting steeper for those lacking diversity.
Progress on representation has been slow, yet a few firms are
making real strides. A close look at these diversity winners
shows that a systematic, business-led approach and bold,
concerted action on inclusion are needed to make progress.
1
The data set for Diversity Matters was assembled in 2014, while that for Delivering through Diversity was assembled in 2017. Likewise,
this report, published in 2020, is built on data gathered in 2019. We therefore refer to three data sets in this report—for 2014, 2017
and 2019.
Diversity Wins is the third in a McKinsey series
investigating the business case for diversity,
following Why Diversity Matters (2015) and
Delivering through Diversity (2018).1
This report
shows not only that the business case remains
robust, but also that the relationship between
diversity on executive teams and the likelihood of
financial outperformance is now even stronger
than before. These findings are underpinned by our
largest data set to date, encompassing 15 countries
and more than 1,000 large companies. The report
also provides new insights into how inclusion
matters, through an analysis of employee sentiment
in online reviews; this shows that companies need
to pay much greater attention to inclusion, even in
relatively diverse industries.
By following the trajectories of hundreds of large
companies in our data set since 2014, we find that
overall slow growth in diverse representation in
fact masks a growing polarization between these
firms. While most are stalled or even slipping
backwards, some are making impressive progress in
improving diversity, particularly in executive teams.
We show that these diversity winners are adopting
systematic, business-led approaches to ID, with
special focus on inclusion. And we highlight the
areas where companies should take far bolder
action to bring about lasting change in inclusive
culture and behavior.
A stronger business case for diversity,
but slow progress overall
Our latest analysis reaffirms the strong business
case for both gender diversity and ethnic
and cultural diversity in corporate leadership—
and shows that this business case continues
to strengthen. The most diverse companies are now
more likely than ever to outperform
non-diverse companies on profitability.
Our 2019 analysis finds that companies in the top
quartile of gender diversity on executive teams were
25 percent more likely to experience above-average
profitability than peer companies in the fourth
quartile. This is up from 21 percent in 2017 and
15 percent in 2014.
Moreover, we found that the higher the
representation, the higher the likelihood of
outperformance. Companies with more than
30 percent women on their executive teams are
significantly more likely to outperform those with
between 10 and 30 percent women, and these
companies in turn are more likely to outperform
those with fewer or no women executives.
As a result, there is a substantial performance
differential—48 percent—between the most
and least gender-diverse companies.
Executive summary
3

In the case of ethnic and cultural diversity, the
findings are equally compelling. We found that
companies in the top quartile outperformed those
in the fourth by 36 percent in terms of profitability
in 2019, slightly up from 33 percent in 2017
and 35 percent in 2014. And, as we have previously
found, there continues to be a higher likelihood
of outperformance difference with ethnicity than
with gender.
Despite this, progress overall has been slow.
In the companies in our original 2014 data set,
based in the United States and the United Kingdom,
female representation on executive teams has
risen from 15 percent in 2014 to 20 percent in
2019. Across our global data set, for which our data
starts in 2017, this number has moved up just one
percentage point from 14 to 15 percent in 2019—
and more than a third of companies still have no
women at all on their executive teams. This lack of
material progress is evident across all industries and
in most countries. Similarly, representation of ethnic
minorities on US and UK executive teams stood at
only 13 percent in 2019, up from just 7 percent in
2014. For our global data set in 2019, this number
is 14 percent, up from 12 percent in 2017.
The widening gap between winners
and laggards
While overall progress on representation is slow,
our research makes it clear that this in fact hides
a widening gap between leading ID practitioners
and companies that have yet to embrace diversity.
A third of the firms we analyzed have achieved
real gains in top-team diversity over the five-year
period. But most firms have made little progress or
remained static and, in some, gender and cultural
representation has even gone backwards.
This growing polarization between high and low
performers is reflected in an increased likelihood
of a performance penalty. In 2019, fourth-quartile
companies for executive-team gender diversity
were 19 percent more likely than companies in
the other three quartiles to underperform on
profitability. This is up from 15 percent in 2017
and nine percent in 2015. And for companies in
the fourth quartile of both gender and ethnic
diversity the penalty is even steeper in 2019:
they are 27 percent more likely to underperform
on profitability than all other companies in our
data set.

By tracking the progress of companies in our
original 2014 data set, we identified five cohorts
based on their starting points and speed of
progress on executive-team gender representation
and, separately, ethnic-minority representation.
The first two cohorts, Diversity Leaders and
Fast Movers, have shown strong improvement over
the past five years. For example, gender Fast
Movers have almost quadrupled representation of
women on executive teams to 27 percent in 2019;
for ethnicity, companies in the equivalent cohort
have increased representation from just 1 percent
in 2014 to 18 percent in 2019.
At the other end of the spectrum are the Laggards,
which have seen their already poor diversity
performance decline further. In 2019, these firms
had an average of 8 percent female representation
on their executive teams—and no ethnic-minority
representation at all. The two other cohorts
are Moderate Movers, which have on average
experienced slower growth, and Resting on Laurels,
which started with higher levels of representation
than did Laggards, but have similarly seen this
decline since 2014.
We also found that the average likelihood of
financial outperformance in these cohorts
is consistent with our findings in the quartile
analysis above. For example, in 2019 companies
in the Resting on Laurels cohort on average
have the highest likelihood of outperformance
on profitability, at almost 62 percent—possibly
reflecting their historically high levels of diversity on
executive teams. Laggards, on the other hand, are
more likely to underperform their national industry
median profitability, at 40 percent.
We sought to explore how differing approaches
to ID could have shaped the trajectories of
the companies in our data set, through analysis
of surveys and company research. These pointed
to two critical factors: a systematic approach to ID,
and bold action on inclusion.
We have previously advocated a systematic,
business-led approach to ID, based on a robust
bespoke business case, evidenced-based targets
and core-business leadership accountability.
To further understand how inclusion matters—and
specifically what aspects of inclusion employees
consider to be significant—we conducted for
the first time an analysis of indicators relating to
inclusion, outside-in. This analysis focused on
employee reviews about the firms they work for
made on online recruitment websites.
While this approach is indicative, it provides a more
candid read on inclusion than internal employee-
satisfaction surveys do—and it allows data across
dozens of companies to be analyzed rapidly and
simultaneously. We focused on three industries
with the highest levels of executive-team diversity
in our data set: financial services, technology
and healthcare. In these sectors, comments directly
pertaining to ID made up around one-third of the
total comments made, showing that this topic is high
on employees’ minds.
We analyzed comments relating to five indicators.
The first two—diverse representation and
leadership accountability for ID—are markers
of a systematic approach to ID. The other three
indicators—equality, openness, and belonging—
are core components of inclusion. Across several
of these indicators, our findings suggest that there
are marked “pain points” in the experiences of
employees, as follows:

— While overall sentiment on diversity was
52 percent positive and 31 percent negative,
sentiment on inclusion was markedly worse
at only 29 percent positive and 61 percent
negative—which encapsulates the challenge
that even the more diverse companies still face
in tackling inclusion. Hiring diverse talent isn’t
enough—it’s the experience they have in the
workplace that shapes whether they remain
and thrive.

— Leadership and accountability as it pertains
to ID accounted for the highest number of
mentions, and was also strongly negative.
On average across industries, 51 percent of
the total mentions related to leadership, and
56 percent of those mentions had negative
sentiment. This underscores the increasingly
recognized need for companies to engage their
core business managers better in the ID effort.
5

— Considering the three indicators of inclusion—
equality, openness, and belonging—we found
particularly high levels of negative sentiment
around equality and fairness of opportunity.
Negative sentiment around equality ranged from
63 to 80 percent across the industries analyzed.
Openness of the working environment, which
encompasses bias and discrimination, was also
of significant concern, with negative sentiment
across industries ranging from 38 to 56 percent.
Belonging elicited overall positive sentiment,
but from a relatively small number of mentions.
These findings highlight the importance not just
of inclusion overall, but specifically of the varying
extents to which particular aspects of inclusion
matter. Even where companies are more diverse,
many appear as yet unable to cultivate work
environments which effectively promote inclusive
leadership and accountability among managers,
equality and fairness of opportunity, and openness
and freedom from bias and discrimination.
Winning through inclusion
and diversity: taking bold action
We took a close look at the companies in our data
set that are achieving higher levels of diversity—
and benefitting from an increased likelihood of
financial outperformance. The common thread for
these diversity winners is a systematic approach,
together with bold steps to strengthen inclusion.
Drawing on best practices from these firms,
this report highlights five areas of action for
companies, as follows:

— Ensure representation of diverse talent. This
is still an essential driver of inclusion. Companies
should focus on advancing diverse talent into
executive, management, technical and board
roles. They should ensure that a robust, bespoke
business-driven case for ID exists and is well
accepted, while being thoughtful about which
forms of multivariate diversity to prioritize (for
example, going beyond gender and ethnicity).
They also need to set the right data-driven
targets for representation of diverse talent.

— Strengthen leadership accountability and
capability for ID. Companies should place
their core business leaders and managers at
the heart of the ID effort—beyond their
HR functions or employee resource-group
leaders. They also need to strengthen inclusive
leadership capabilities among their managers as
well as their executives, and more emphatically
hold all leaders to account for progress on ID.

— Enable equality of opportunity through
fairness and transparency. It is critical that
companies ensure that there is a level playing
field in advancement and opportunity, in pursuit
of true meritocracy. Companies should deploy
analytics tools to build visibility into
the extent to which promotions and pay
processes and criteria are transparent and fair.
They should de-bias these processes and work
to meeting diversity targets across long-term
workforce plans.

— Promote openness and tackle
microaggressions. Companies should uphold
a zero-tolerance policy for discriminatory
behavior such as bullying and harassment—
and actively build the ability of managers and
staff to identify and address microaggressions.
They should also establish norms for what
constitutes open, welcoming behavior, and ask
leaders and employees to assess each other on
how they are living up to that behavior.

— Foster belonging through unequivocal
support for multivariate diversity. Companies
should build a culture in which all employees
feel they can bring their whole selves to work.
Managers should communicate and visibly
embrace their commitment to multivariate forms
of diversity, building connection with diverse
individuals and supporting employee resource
groups to foster a sense of community and
belonging. Companies should also explicitly
assess belonging in internal surveys.

7

Progress on executive team diversity in our
2014 dataset continues to be slow
Representation in US and UK
18%
12%
2017
20%
13%
2019
2014
14%
7%
Gender Ethnicity
The penalty for lagging on gender diversity is
growing, while top quartile companies are more
likely to be at an advantage
Difference in likelihood of financial outperformance²
Penalty for bottom quartile
-9%
-15%
-19%
11%
2014
2017
2019
2019
Advantage for top quartile
Difference in likelihood of outperformance of 1st vs 4th quartile¹
Gender Ethnicity
2014 2017 2019
35% 33% 36%
2014 2017 2019
15% 21% 25%
Diverse companies are more likely to financially outperform their peers
The business case for inclusion diversity
is stronger than ever
¹ Difference in likelihood of financial outperformance vs the national industry median of five years average EBIT margin, using the full dataset of companies in each year.
² Difference in likelihood of financial outperformance vs the national industry median of five years average EBIT margin for 4th quartile vs 1st-3rd quartile, and 1st quartile vs
2nd-4th quartile, using the full dataset of companies in each year.
8

Promoting diversity does not ensure a culture of inclusion
3
Enable equality of opportunity through fairness
and transparency
4 Promote openness, tackling bias and
discrimination
5
Foster belonging through support for
multivariate diversity
A systematic, business-led approach to ID
1
Increase diverse representation, particularly
in leadership and critical roles
2
Strengthen leadership and accountability
for delivering on ID goals
Bold steps to strengthen inclusion
Bold actions are needed to strengthen both inclusion and diversity
³ Social listening is the action of tracking social media platforms for mentions and conversations related to a brand or topic, then analyzing them for
insights to discover opportunities to act; US only.
29%
positive
61%
negative
But sentiment on inclusion is the opposite
52%
positive
31%
negative
Overall sentiment on diversity is positive
There is a widening gap between leaders and laggards
One-third of the firms we tracked since 2014 have achieved real gains in executive team diversity. However
about 50% have made little or no progress and, within that, many have seen gender and ethnic minority
representation even go backwards.
We used a social listening approach to analyze employer reviews posted online³
26
40
7
27 28
22
12
19
9 8
Gender
5%
% of companies
% of companies 15% 24% 22% 12% 28%
28% 29% 10% 28%
Diversity leaders Fast movers Resting on laurels Moderate movers Laggards
17
32
1
18 18
12 3 10 1 0
Ethnicity
Representation in US and UK, % 2014 2019
9

Over the past decade, many companies around the world have
incorporated ID into their visions and strategies. Increasingly,
business leaders recognize that a diverse and inclusive employee
base—with a range of approaches and perspectives—is an asset
when competing in a fast-moving, globalized economy.
Along with growing acceptance of the business
case for ID, progress has been helped along
by regulatory pressure, media scrutiny, and an
upswelling of social-justice demands.
Yet significant, sustainable progress remains
challenging. Companies are struggling not
because they haven’t put ID on the agenda, but
because it’s hard to get right. Common pitfalls
include fragmented ID initiatives, overly relying
on individual commitments, and the lack of a clear
link with the company’s core business strategy.
Many companies are battling additional headwinds
of uncertainty over the economy and the future of
work more broadly, as well as the threat of diversity
fatigue and backlash.
This report, the third in the series after Why
Diversity Matters (2015) and Delivering through
Diversity (2018), shows how some companies are
winning through diversity—and how others can
do the same. It continues to focus on diversity of
gender and of ethnicity and culture in executive
teams—the leadership groups that drive company
strategy and organizational transformation, and act
as bellwethers for a company’s commitment
to ID. Diversity Wins draws on an expanded data
set of more than 1,000 large companies in
15 countries, comprising of company surveys, case
studies, and interviews, as well as new analysis
of employee sentiment about ID. (See Box 1:
Expanded data set, updated methodology.)
The report sets out the findings of this research, and
the actions needed to strengthen ID,
in four sections as follows:

— A stronger business case for diversity,
but slow progress overall

— The widening gap between winners
and laggards

— How inclusion matters

— Winning through inclusion and diversity:
taking bold action
Introduction
Box 1
Expanded data set, updated methodology
Our purpose in the Diversity Matters series is to explore the link between increased gender and ethnic
diversity in companies’ top teams, and those companies’ business performance. We also seek to
provide a robust basis for tracking companies’ progress in advancing ID among their leadership.
In so doing, we continue to substantiate the business case for diversity, and provide helpful insights
for companies seeking to strengthen diversity and translate it into business results.
Over the past five years, we have tracked the progress of hundreds of large companies (each with
annual revenues exceeding $1.5 billion) in countries around the world. For this report, we have
expanded that global data set to take in 1,039 companies in 15 countries: Australia, Brazil, France,
Germany, Norway, Denmark, India, Japan, Mexico, Nigeria, Singapore, South Africa, Sweden, the
United Kingdom, and the United States.

Exhibit 1
Our data set spans over 1,000 companies in 15 countries
9
9 2
24
4
2
22
2
1
15
5
1
13
3
1
11
1
7
7
Source: McKinsey Diversity Matters data set
Distribution of sample by country and industry group1, %
Industries, %
Countries
1. n = 1,039.
Brazil
Mexico
2014 2017 2019
Australia
France
Denmark
Norway
Japan
Nigeria
United Kingdom
United States
Germany
India
Singapore
South Africa
Sweden
Heavy industry
Energy, basic materials and environment
Consumer goods and retail
Telecom, media and technology
Finance, insurance and professional services
Healthcare and pharmaceuticals
Transportation, logistics and tourism
+ +
Regions, %
7
31
26
21
12
4
United
States
Asia
Pacific
Continental
Europe
UK
Latin
America
Sub-Saharan
Africa
9
9 2
24
4
2
22
2
1
15
5
1
13
3
1
11
1
7
7
Distribution of sample by country and industry group1, %
Industries, %
Countries
1. n = 1,039.
Brazil
Mexico
2014 2017 2019
Australia
France
Denmark
Norway
Japan
Nigeria
United Kingdom
United States
Germany
India
Singapore
South Africa
Sweden
Heavy industry
Energy, basic materials and environment
Consumer goods and retail
Telecom, media and technology
Finance, insurance and professional services
Healthcare and pharmaceuticals
Transportation, logistics and tourism
+ +
Regions, %
7
31
26
21
12
4
United
States
Asia
Pacific
Continental
Europe
UK
Latin
America
Sub-Saharan
Africa
11

Drawing on this unique data set, we have
been able to conduct longitudinal analysis
of 365 large US- and UK-based companies
included in our sample since 2014. For dozens
of these companies, we have conducted
in-depth interviews with senior executives to
understand their ID challenges, strategies
and progress. That, in turn, has supported
a segmentation of the companies into five
distinct cohorts.
We also undertook additional quantitative
analysis of inclusion in this report—the first
time we have done so. We used outside-
in analysis of employee sentiment on ID
in several major industries to understand
the relationship between inclusion and the
experiences of diverse talent in organizations,
what drives their engagement, and how this
influences diverse representation.
We should note that this report’s focus on
executive teams is deliberate, as these
leaders are the primary drivers of company
strategy and organizational transformation.
2
See, for example, Women in the Workplace 2019, October 2019, McKinsey.com.
That said, ID in other areas of leadership and
management is, of course, important too. We
include a brief discussion of diversity at board
level in this report, and we consider ID across
company levels in other McKinsey research.2
Finally, although our research focuses on
gender and ethnicity as intrinsic forms of
diversity which are measurable at scale,
we recognize the increasingly multivariate
nature of diversity—including multiple forms
of acquired diversity such as educational or
socio-economic background, or diversity of
thought. Over the past decade, traditional
identities of race and gender have fractured
as people start to embrace openly a more fluid
sense of who they are, highlighting the need to
recognize multiple forms of intersectionality.
Although this is more difficult to measure,
it is a significant additional driver of the need
to focus on inclusion.
For further detail on our methodology,
see page 48.

The business case for ID as a source of competitive advantage
is growing stronger. Increasingly, we find that the most diverse
companies recognize ID as more than a social-justice imperative;
they also see it as a core enabler of growth and value creation.
These diversity winners are pulling ahead of the rest.
For five years our research has shown a positive,
statistically significant correlation between company
financial outperformance and diversity, on the
dimensions of both gender and ethnicity. This
is evident at different levels of the organization,
particularly on executive teams. In our updated 2019
data set—covering 15 countries on five continents—
thiscorrelationholdsandisevenstronger.Andweare
alsoseeingthatthepositivecorrelationbetweenboard
diversity and financial outperformance observed in
our previous research has now become statistically
significant. (See Box 2: The increasingly clear link
betweenboarddiversityandbusinessperformance.)
For both executive teams and boards, gender
and ethnic diversity has progressed—but
progress is still very slow. But this overall picture
masks the fact that some companies have made
impressive advances over the past five years.
Across geographies and industries, these diversity
winners are pulling ahead on both gender and ethnic
diversity on executive teams. In this section of the
report we consider each dimension in turn.
A stronger business case for
diversity, but slow progress overall
Box 2
The increasingly clear link between board diversity
and business performance
Our expanded 2019 data set shows that companies whose boards are in the top quartile of gender
diversity are 28 percent more likely than their peers to outperform financially. In previous years, while
the correlations were positive between board gender diversity and outperformance on earnings
before interest and taxation (EBIT) margin, they were not statistically significant; now they are.
This difference in significance could be linked to an overall rise in female representation on boards.
In recent years, many countries have ramped up efforts to boost this, as evidenced by the significant
uptick in representation we have observed in several countries. For example, companies in France
and Norway have, on average, over 40 percent women on their boards. We hypothesize that this
higher representation may be linked to the increased likelihood of financial outperformance of their
companies becoming statistically significant.
The interplay between boards, executive teams and company profitability is not well understood.
Could these more diverse boards be operating differently? Or could a visible commitment to board
diversity be signaling a company’s openness towards increasingly diverse customers, employees,
businesses and communities, which in turn is positively influencing financial performance?
Board diversity could symbolize a company’s commitment to equality, innovation and inclusive growth.
Certainly, these questions warrant further research.3
3
“Toward a value-creating board: McKinsey Global Survey results,” 2016, McKinsey.com.
13

A clear opportunity from pushing
towards gender parity
When we assessed our original 2014 data set,
we found that companies in the top quartile for
gender diversity in their executive teams were 15
percent more likely to experience above-peer-
average profitability than companies in the fourth
quartile.4
Three years later, in our Delivering through
Diversity report, this had increased to 21 percent.
In our 2019 data set, it has increased again to 25
percent (Exhibit 2). As mentioned above, female
representation on executive teams has also
increased slowly but steadily during this time frame,
widening the gap between the top and bottom
quartiles. This has also been the case for gender
diversity on boards, which we discuss in Box 2.
Female representation on the executive teams of
the mostly US and UK companies we have been
tracking since 2014 has risen from 15 percent in
2014 to 20 percent in 2019. This represents an
annual average change over the past five years
of just 1.1 percentage points per year. Progress
4
Our 2014 original data set consisted of 383 companies largely in the United States and the United Kingdom. In 2017, this data set had
grown to 991 companies from 12 countries and our 2019 data set consisted of 1,039 companies from 15 countries, including three
Scandinavian countries; Women Matter: Reinventing the workplace to unlock the potential of gender diversity, 2015, McKinsey.com.
on gender diversity in boards has been similarly
slow, albeit with a marked uptick in the past two
years. Across our full 2019 data set of 15 countries,
progress (tracked since 2017) has been even slower
(Exhibit 3). Women make up just 15 percent of
executive-team membership, and more than
a third of companies have no women at all on their
executive teams.
Taking a country lens, progress towards female
representation on executive teams is low in most
countries (Exhibit 4). We observe extremes in
representation, ranging from Norway, where all
the companies in our data set have at least one
female executive, to several major economies—
including Brazil, India, Germany and Japan—
where up to 83 percent of companies have zero
women on their executive teams, and female
representation averages 8% or less. Developed
countries on average have higher rates of diversity
representation than do emerging economies.
(See Box 3: Comparing gender diversity in
developed and emerging economies.)
Exhibit 2
The business case for gender diversity on executive teams is stronger than ever
The business case for gender diversity on executive teams is stronger than ever
Likelihood of financial outperformance1, %
47
54
45
55
Why diversity matters Delivering through diversity D
Di
iv
ve
er
rs
si
it
ty
y w
wi
in
ns
s
44
55
+15%
50
20142 20173 20194
+21%
50
+25%
1. Likelihood of financial outperformance vs the national industry median. p-value 0.05, except 2014 data where p-value 0.1.
2. n = 383; US, UK, and Latin America; EBIT margin 2010-2013.
3. n = 991; US, UK, Brazil, Mexico, Australia, Japan, India, Singapore, Germany, France, South Africa, and Nigeria; EBIT margin 2011-2015.
4. n = 1,039; 2017 companies for which gender data available in 2019 plus Denmark, Norway, and Sweden; EBIT margin 2014-2018.
Source: Diversity Matters data set
Median
1st
4th
Quartile
50

1
14
4
2017 2019
2017 2019
Gender and ethnic diversity in leadership teams has progressed slowly in our 2014 data set
and even slower in our global 2017 data set
Representation, %
1. n = 365 for women and n = 241 for ethnic minorities; Subset of companies from Diversity Matters 2014 dataset with ethnicity data available for 2014,
2017 and 2019.
+1.3
+1.1
Ethnic minorities1
Gender1
Average annual change,
percentage points
+1.1
+0.8
1. n = 957 (global dataset) in 2017 and 2019.
+0.5
+0.0
Ethnic minorities2
Gender1
+1.0
+1.0
Leadership teams from global 2017 data set
Leadership teams from 2014 data set
2019
2014
2017 2019
2014 2017
Executive team
Board
Executive team
Board
2
21
1
2
24
4
2
28
8
1
15
5
1
19
9
2
20
0
1
13
3
1
14
4
1
17
7
7
7
1
12
2 1
13
3
2
24
4 2
24
4
1
15
5
1
16
6
1
14
4 1
14
4
1
12
2
percentage points
percentage points
percentage points
Exhibit 3
Gender and ethnic diversity in leadership teams has progressed slowly in our original 2014
data set
1
14
4
2017 2019
2017 2019
Representation, %
2017 and 2019.
+1.3
+1.1
Ethnic minorities1
Gender1
percentage points
+1.1
+0.8
+0.5
+0.0
Ethnic minorities2
Gender1
+1.0
+1.0
2019
2014
2017 2019
2014 2017
Executive team
Board
Executive team
Board
2
21
1
2
24
4
2
28
8
1
15
5
1
19
9
2
20
0
1
13
3
1
14
4
1
17
7
7
7
1
12
2 1
13
3
2
24
4 2
24
4
1
15
5
1
16
6
1
14
4 1
14
4
1
12
2
percentage points
percentage points
percentage points
1
14
4
2017 2019
2017 2019
Representation, %
2017 and 2019.
+1.3
+1.1
Ethnic minorities1
Gender1
percentage points
+1.1
+0.8
+0.5
+0.0
Ethnic minorities2
Gender1
+1.0
+1.0
2019
2014
2017 2019
2014 2017
Executive team
Board
Executive team
Board
2
21
1
2
24
4
2
28
8
1
15
5
1
19
9
2
20
0
1
13
3
1
14
4
1
17
7
7
7
1
12
2 1
13
3
2
24
4 2
24
4
1
15
5
1
16
6
1
14
4 1
14
4
1
12
2
percentage points
percentage points
percentage points
15

Source: Diversity Matters data set; World Bank (labor force participation rate, September 2019)
1. n = 1,039; 2019. Respective weighted averages: 9% and 45%
In nearly all 15 countries, women are underrepresented on executive teams
Female representation, %
Companies with at
least one woman on
executive team
Average female
representation1
Mexico
Australia
Singapore
Norway
Sweden
United States
United Kingdom
Nigeria
South Africa
Denmark
France
Brazil
A
Av
ve
er
ra
ag
ge
e
Germany
India
Japan
Female workforce
participation
36
46
44
48
47
45
46
46
44
47
45
42
45
23
42
100
98
94
90
73
76
75
80
47
64
40
48
46
28
65
17
3
28
27
24
21
19
18
18
17
13
13
8
8
8
5
15
Source: Diversity Matters data set; World Bank (labor force participation rate, September 2019)
1. n = 1,039; 2019. Respective weighted averages: 9% and 45%
Female representation, %
Companies with at
least one woman on
executive team
Average female
representation1
Mexico
Australia
Singapore
Norway
Sweden
United States
United Kingdom
Nigeria
South Africa
Denmark
France
Brazil
A
Av
ve
er
ra
ag
ge
e
Germany
India
Japan
Female workforce
participation
36
46
44
48
47
45
46
46
44
47
45
42
45
23
42
100
98
94
90
73
76
75
80
47
64
40
48
46
28
65
17
3
28
27
24
21
19
18
18
17
13
13
8
8
8
5
15
Exhibit 4

At the current rate of progress, it will take 29 years
and 24 years respectively for the average US and
UK company in our data set to reach gender parity
on its executive team, and 18 years and 13 years
on boards.5
Again, that picture differs radically
by country: comparable figures for Brazil are 238
years on executive teams and 27 years on boards.6
The overall slow pace of progress across industries
and countries is a missed opportunity—and
leaves most companies far off well-established
targets, such as the minimum 30 percent female
representation on boards and executive teams
put forward by the United Kingdom’s 30% Club
a decade ago. This coalition of business leaders
believes the following:
“Gender balance on boards and in senior
management not only encourages better leadership
and governance, but diversity further contributes to
5
Calculated by extrapolating rates of increase in representation since 2014 in our original data set.
6
Our 2015 Women in the Workplace report stated that companies in the United States were 100 years away from gender parity in the
C-suite, based on progress in female representation between 2012 and 2015. While this progress has accelerated over the 2014–19 time
period, we should also note that our current report draws on a different data set of companies, so its findings are not strictly comparable
with those of Women in the Workplace.
7
https://30percentclub.org/about/who-we-are. In the United Kingdom, the target of 30 percent average female representation on
executive teams and boards of major listed companies has since been met.
8
On EBIT margin.
better all-round board performance, and ultimately
increased corporate performance for both
companies and their shareholders.”7
Our data set appears to substantiate this view and
shows that there are likely additional benefits to
pushing for gender parity on executive teams.
In our US and UK data set, companies with female
executive-team representation exceeding
30 percent are significantly more likely to
outperform those whose executive teams are
between 10 and 30 percent female.8
Those
companies, in turn, are more likely to outperform
those with fewer than 10 percent female
executive-team representation. As a result, there
is a substantial likelihood of outperformance
differential—48 percent—between the most
and least gender-diverse companies (Exhibit 5).
Exhibit 5
Executive teams with more than 30% women are more likely to outperform those with
fewer or no women
43
54
63
0-10 10+ 30+
114 210 41
+18%
+25%
Executive teams with more than 30% women are more likely to outperform those with
fewer or no women
Likelihood of financial outperformance1, 2014, %
Women on executive teams2, %
Number of companies
1. Likelihood of financial outperformance vs the national industry median.
2. n = 365; US and UK; EBIT 2014-2018.
+48%
50
Median
17

This finding begins to substantiate the business
rationale for pushing further than historical 30
percent representation targets, and closer towards
gender parity on executive teams. Yet very few
companies today are close to this. In our latest data
set, only around 4 percent of companies have more
than 40 percent women on their executive team.
On the other hand, 42 percent of companies have
10 percent or less female executives.
Taking a view across industries, we find significant
differences in the rates of progress since 2014
(Exhibit 6). Female representation in executive
teams has increased at the fastest rates in the
financial services and the technology and media
industries, at about 1.5 percentage points a year.
In healthcare, by contrast, it has increased at just
0.3 percentage points a year, despite this being
an industry where female representation at entry
level is particularly high. Surprisingly, this starting
point does not appear to have led to a stronger push
towards gender parity in healthcare leadership—
as the slow growth rate shows.
9
Women in the Workplace, October 2018 2019, McKinsey.com.
We also took a close look at the roles women occupy
in executive teams—in particular, the extent to which
they occupy line decision-making roles, which have
the most direct influence on business performance
and provide a stronger path to the CEO position.
Only one-third of women executives in our 2019
data set sample occupied line roles, with two-
thirds occupying support or staff roles. Further, for
companies in the bottom two quartiles for gender
diversity, the proportion of women in staff roles is
even greater. These proportions have barely shifted
since we started tracking such roles in 2017, and are
consistent across other areas of our research.9
Taking an intersectional lens to our US data
set, we find that black women continue to be
disproportionately underrepresented in line roles,
with only 5 percent of female line roles held by black
women. Of the 33 percent of women who occupy
line roles, the vast majority—83 percent—are white.
Asian women (9 percent) and Hispanic women (2
percent) make up the rest. In the United Kingdom
the picture is similar.
Exhibit 6
Across major industries, female executive representation remains below 25%, and has
increased slowly since 2014
24
24
21
20
19
18
18
21
Healthcare
Finance
Energy and materials
Technology and media
Retail
Transport and tourism
Average
Heavy industry
0.3
1.5
1.4
0.8
1.1
1.3
1.1
1.1
Across major industries, female executive representation remains below 25%, and
has increased slowly since 2014
Average female representation1, % 2014-2019 annual growth, p.p.
1. n = 365; US and UK; 2019.

Previous McKinsey research has found that black
women face the greatest barriers to progress in
the workplace, a consequence of accumulation of
different forms of discrimination, including racism,
sexism, and classism. In the United States, for
example, we have shown that for every 100 men
who receive their first promotion from entry level
to manager, only 79 women receive that same
promotion. For black women that number is 60.10
10
Women in the Workplace 2019, op. cit.
In aggregate, the above findings make it clear that
there is opportunity for most companies to take
much bolder action to advance gender diversity
on executive teams—and to push towards parity
and increased representation in line decision-
making and technical roles.
19

Ethnic and cultural diversity:
potentially an even bigger opportunity
As with our Delivering through Diversity report, we
analyzed data from countries where the definition
of ethnic and cultural diversity was consistent,
and our data were reliable.11
We found that the
business case for ethnic and cultural diversity was
comparable to our previous findings, with a
11
The countries included in the analysis were the United States, the United Kingdom, Brazil, Mexico, and Singapore.
36 percent higher likelihood of outperformance
on EBIT margin for top quartile companies for
ethnic and cultural diversity on executive teams—
up from 33 percent in 2017 and 35 percent in 2014
(Exhibit 7). This is consistently higher than for
gender diversity, but with progress similarly slow.
The business case for ethnic and cultural diversity
on boards remained significant in 2019. (See Box 2).
Box 3
Comparing gender diversity in developed and emerging economies
We compared the likelihood of outperformance on profitability for firms in advanced economies
with that for their counterparts in emerging economies. We hypothesized that the business case for
gender diversity would be stronger in advanced economies where markets are typically more efficient
and the ID agenda is often more advanced at national level.
What we found backs this up. The likelihood of financial outperformance by companies with gender-
diverse executive teams climbs to a high of 47 percent in advanced economies that have high gender
parity, such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Finland, and Sweden. By contrast, the
likelihood of financial outperformance by such gender-diverse companies stood at an average of
17 percent in lower-parity emerging economies such as Brazil, India, and Nigeria.
The fact that they are trailing offers firms in emerging and low gender-parity economies an
opportunity to learn from the progress and mistakes of their peers in more developed markets.
They have the opportunity to replicate what works and, more importantly, skip what doesn’t—
creating the possibility that they can leapfrog to a position of greater competitive advantage.
Exhibit 7
The business case for ethnic diversity on executive teams remains strong
The business case for ethnic diversity on executive teams remains strong
43
58
44
59
Why diversity matters Delivering through diversity
Diversity wins
43
59
20142 20173 20194
+35% +33% +36%
50 50 50
Median
1st
4th
Quartile
2. n = 364; US, UK, and Latin America; EBIT margin 2010-2013.
3. n = 589; US, UK, Brazil, Mexico, Singapore, and South Africa; EBIT margin 2011-2015.
4. n = 533; US, UK, Brazil, Mexico, Singapore, Nigeria, and South Africa where ethnicity data available in 2019; EBIT margin 2014-2018.

The findings highlighted in Exhibit 7 support
the argument that there is significant opportunity
from promoting ethnic and cultural diversity in
companies’ top teams. Yet despite this, ethnic
diversity appears to have been less of a focus
than gender for many companies—hence the slow
progress. In the United States and the United
Kingdom, overall ethnic-minority representation
in executive teams moved from 7 percent in 2014
to 13 percent in 2019 (see Exhibit 2, above). Not
surprisingly, as with gender diversity, we found that
most countries and industries need to pick up the
pace in strengthening ethnic diversity in leadership.
As we saw for gender above, we found significant
differences across the six countries for which
we analyzed executive ethnic diversity. Only
in Singapore was this in line with “fair share”
representation, with the companies in our data set
averaging 33 percent non-majority representation
on their top teams—well above the 24 percent
12
Fair share is calculated based on diverse representation in each country’s population.
representation in the general population.12
The United Kingdom, at 9 percent non-majority
representation on executive teams, is just under
halfway to achieving fair-share representation
of ethnic minorities (20 percent), while all others
are further behind, including the United States
(14 percent on executive teams compared to
37 percent fair share).
Beyond average representation, the proportion of
companies in our data set with zero non-majority
representation in their executive teams is a telling
measure of the lack of progress: in the United
States this is 31 percent, in the United Kingdom
58 percent, and in Brazil 73 percent. There is a
significant opportunity for many companies that
have fallen behind on this measure. By increasing
ethnic and cultural diversity on their top teams,
they could potentially reinvigorate performance
and growth.
21

Citigroup: strengthening
equality of opportunity
Global investment banking company Citigroup is powering
ahead with a no-nonsense ID agenda and placing equality,
accountability and transparency at the center of everything
that it does.
It’s a common refrain in the ID space: there’s
not enough female or black talent in a particular
industry and that is why targets can’t be achieved—
but that’s a story Citigroup just isn’t buying into.
A fast mover—Citigroup has gone from 8 percent
gender diversity on its executive team in 2014 to
over 30 percent in 2019—the firm places equality
of opportunity, accountability and transparency
at the center of everything that it does. Business
leaders at all levels are directly involved in and held
accountable for advancing ID across the firm,
with scorecards presented at each board meeting
where “very granular” and “very transparent”
conversations are encouraged.
“We are not debating any more whether ID is
the right thing to do,” says Teri Hogan, Global Head
of Talent and Diversity. “We spent a long time on
the business plan and our CEO is on record as
saying it’s simply ‘smart business’—now we just
need to get down to delivering.”
The focus is on three key areas: targeted
recruitment, development and retention, and
promotion paths and processes. On the recruitment
front, accountability is foregrounded through
cascading targets for women and non-majority
staff. And these targets are in the public domain.
The company also works with external providers to
set targets and determine the availability of non-
majority talent by location to counter
the talent-shortage myth and uses a heatmap
showing how different areas are trending in order
both to increase transparency and to create a bit
of healthy competition.
Having secured diverse talent, the retention and
promotion of this is a key priority. “You can’t over-
index on hiring and expect that that’s going to
solve the problem,” says Hogan. “You can’t just
think about retention, you also have to think about
promotion. In this it all comes down to culture.”
Which is why the firm is ratcheting up the focus
on building an inclusive workplace. Here too,
transparency is key. Believing that creating a diverse
and inclusive culture is the responsibility of all of its
employees, not just those who identify with a certain
gender, ethnicity or affinity, Citigroup has invested
heavily in Implicit Association Test (IAT) training
and Affinity Groups to enable people to talk openly
about barriers and the need to hold themselves and
others to account. They are not shying away from
difficult and uncomfortable conversations and,
when they do fall short, they strive not to sweep
their failings under the carpet.
“You have to think big and bold,” says Hogan.
“When it comes to ID you have to address every
part of the system because this cuts across all
aspects of the organization.”

23

The widening gap between
winners and laggards
One-third of the firms we tracked—our diversity winners—have
achieved real gains in top-team diversity. But most of the firms we
analyzed have made little or no progress and, for some, gender
and cultural representation has even gone backwards.
We sought to establish whether the few
companies progressing far more boldly on diverse
representation in leadership were also starting to
pull away from their peers in terms of a widening
likelihood of financial outperformance. Our analysis
shows clearly that this is the case: companies in the
top quartile for both gender and ethnic diversity
are 12 percent more likely to outperform all other
companies in the data set (Exhibit 8).
For the larger group of companies that are making
little or slow progress with diversity, the performance
penalty highlighted in our earlier reports remains.
Companies in the bottom quartile for gender diversity
on executive teams are more likely to underperform
all other companies in the data set to an increasing
extent: from 9 percent in 2014 to 19 percent in 2019.
Considering both gender and ethnicity, bottom-
quartile companies on both dimensions were 27
percent more likely to underperform than all other
firms in the data set in 2019, similar to the 29 percent
we found in 2017 (Exhibit 8).
Companies in the top quartile
for both gender and ethnic
diversity are 12 percent more
likely to outperform all other
companies in the data set.

Exhibit 8
The penalty for lagging on diversity is growing, while top-quartile companies are more likely
to outperform all their peers
The penalty for lagging on diversity is growing, while top quartile companies are more
likely to outperform all their peers
Gender
Gender
and Ethnicity
47 52 45 53
Why diversity
matters 20142
Delivering through
diversity 20173
Diversity wins
2019
44 54
-9% -15% -19%
Diversity wins
20194
50 55
+11%
40 53 40 57 39 54 51 57
-25% -29% -27% +12%
1–3rd
4th
Quartile 1st
2nd–4th
Quartile
2. n = 383 for Gender; n = 364 for Gender and Ethnicity; US, UK, Brazil, and Mexico; EBIT 2010-13.
3. n = 991 for Gender; n = 589 for Gender and Ethnicity; US, UK, Brazil, Mexico, Australia, India, Japan, Singapore, France, Germany, Nigeria,
and South Africa; EBIT 2011-2015.
4. n = 1,039 for Gender; n = 533 for Gender and Ethnicity; US, UK, Brazil, Mexico, Australia, India, Japan, Singapore, France, Germany,
Nigeria, South Africa, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden; EBIT 2014-18.
Penalty for bottom quartile Advantage for top quartile
25

Defining five cohorts of companies
with different rates of progress
on diversity
The above findings highlight the fact that companies
across countries and industries are facing
significant challenges in actually capturing the
potential of diversity. To extend our understanding
of why this is the case—and what firms need to
do differently—we tracked the progress of 365 of
the companies in our original 2014 data set, based
in the United States and the United Kingdom.
We segmented these firms into cohorts based on
their starting levels of executive-team diversity,
and their rates of progress between 2014 and 2019.
We then complemented this analysis with research
and interviews with a variety of companies, from
those that had made huge strides in top-team
representation to those that had struggled to do so.
For progress on executive-team gender diversity,
we identified the following five cohorts (Exhibits 9
and 10):

— Diversity Leaders (5 percent of the data
set). These companies have shown sustained
improvement and are approaching gender
parity, with on average 40 percent women
executives in 2019, off an already solid base of
26 percent in 2014. Our interviews showed that
these firms have typically taken a systematic,
business-led approach to ID for at least five
years, have a strong culture of accountability,
and are deploying innovative and ambitious
interventions, supported by strong leadership
commitment. Most are taking bold and
courageous steps to build fairer and more
inclusive workplace cultures at all levels of the
organization. We found Diversity Leaders across
industries, from consumer goods
and retail through to aerospace.

— Fast Movers (28 percent of the data set). These
companies have shown exceptional improvement
toanaverageof27percentfemalerepresentation
in 2019, off a very low base (an average of
7 percent in 2014). It is encouraging that this
cohort makes up a significant share of the data
set—and that almost 30 percent of companies
in this cohort are also Fast Movers on ethnic
diversity. These companies have typically placed
strong recent focus on ID, with systematic
moves including developing a bespoke business
case with ambitious ID targets, promoting full
transparency including talentprocessesandpay,
anddeployingeffectiveretention initiatives. They
are increasingly emphasizing developing a fair
and inclusive culture. Many are in traditionally
more male-dominated industries such as mining,
finance, and professional services.

— Resting on Laurels (29 percent of the data
set). These companies started with significant
diversity, with an average of 28 percent female
representation on their executive teams in
2014—but they have made no progress over
the past five years, on average slipping to 22
percent female representation in 2019. This is
despite many being in traditionally more female-
oriented industries, such as healthcare and
retail. These companies have tended to take
a less systematic approach to ID, supporting
initiatives such as employee resource groups
but with apparently less emphatic efforts to
tackle the barriers limiting representation of
women and minorities at the very top. In some
instances, the issue has been holding on to
progress in representation. This was particularly
striking in companies whose executive teams
were more than 40 percent female in 2014: all
experienced a drop in executive-team gender
diversity between 2014 and 2019.
Diversity Leaders are taking bold and
courageous steps to build fairer and
more inclusive workplace cultures
at all levels of the organization.

— Moderate Movers (10 percent of the data set).
Among these companies, female representation
on executive teams increased from 12 percent
to 19 percent over the five-year period.
Typically, these companies have found that
their generally unspecific and low-profile public
commitments to ID are failing to translate into
tangible progress on representation, including
that at senior levels, or into a fair and inclusive
workplace culture. This limited momentum
results from a host of factors which include
the lack of a robust articulation of a “reason
why” for diversity, unclear accountability at all
levels, talent policies and practices which are
not effective at removing bias, and insufficient
attention to inclusive mindsets and behavior.

— Laggards (28 percent of the data set). These
companies’ already low gender diversity has
declined further over the five-year period, from
an average of 9 percent female representation
on executive teams in 2014 to 8 percent in
2019. A large proportion, 51 percent, are also
Laggards on ethnicity. Companies in this cohort
have typically not embarked on a purposeful
ID journey, or have taken a fairly unambitious,
somewhat “box-ticking” view of ID. They
generally lack data and insight into their ID
performance and are fragmented in their
approaches, which may be primarily bottom-
up and led by fledgling employee resource
groups. We found limited accountability for ID
at all levels of these companies, and significant
challenges with inclusion.
Exhibit 9
We found five cohorts of companies based on progress on executive diversity between 2014
and 2019
Fast
movers
Laggards
Diversity
leaders
Moderate
movers
Resting
on laurels
10 10-20 20-30
2014 representation,
% women
30+
Gender1
5
28
29
10
28
2014 representation,
% ethnic diversity relative to fair share
Ethnicity2
10 10-20 20-30 30+
Fast
movers
Laggards
Diversity
leaders
Resting
on laurels
15
24
22
12
28
Moderate
movers
1. n = 365; US and UK.
2. n = 241; US and UK.
We found five cohorts of companies based on progress on executive diversity between 2014
and 2019
% of total number of companies
Strong
Moderate
Decline,
flat or slow
2014
-
2019
improvement
=10 p.p.
5 p.p.
=25 p.p.
0 p.p.
27

26
40
7
27 28
22
12
19
9 8
There are stark differences in how executive gender and ethnicity has evolved in each
cohort since 2014
Representation, %
Diversity
leaders
Fast
movers
Resting
on laurels
Laggards
Moderate
movers
Female
representation1
Ethnic minority
representation2
1. n = 365; US and UK.
2. n = 241; US and UK. Absolute representation, not relative to fair share.
17
32
1
18 18
12
3
10
1 0
2019
2014
Exhibit 10
There are stark differences in how executive gender and ethnic diversity has evolved in each
cohort since 2014
We also found that the 2019 likelihood of financial
outperformance differences between the cohorts
is consistent with our findings in the quartile
analysis above. Companies in the Resting on
Laurels cohort on average have the highest
likelihood of outperformance on profitability,
at almost 62 percent, reflecting their historically
high levels of diversity on executive teams.
Diversity Leaders and Fast Movers are next
with an average of 55 percent and 52 percent
respectively. They are followed by Moderate
Movers, which have exactly average likelihood
of outperformance, as would be expected.
Finally, Laggards are more likely to underperform
their national industry median profitability.
We found similar trends in companies’ progress
on ethnic-minority representation between
2014 and 2019, within our 2014 US and UK data
set. Interestingly, companies in the cohorts at
the extremes of progress on executive gender
diversity—that is, Fast Movers and Laggards—
also had the highest and lowest levels of ethnic
diversity respectively.
The Diversity Leaders in the case of ethnic
diversity (15 percent of companies in the data set)
almost doubled the representation of non-majority
executives on their top teams—from 17 percent
in 2014 to 32 percent in 2019. The Fast Movers,
which constitute a quarter (24 percent) of all
companies assessed, made even more dramatic
progress: they moved from an average of 1 percent
non-majority representation on executive teams
in 2014 to 18 percent in 2019. Yet, as for gender
diversity, a larger group of companies made
no progress on ethnic diversity or even moved
backwards. Laggards, at 28 percent of the data
set, make up the largest cohort when it comes to
ethnic diversity—and they had zero non-majority
representation on their executive teams in 2019
(Exhibits 9 and 10).
For both gender and ethnic diversity on executive
teams, our cohort analysis shows a contrasting
picture by industry. Taking gender for example,
healthcare companies in our data set are
overwhelmingly (51 percent) in the Resting on
Laurels cohort. The finance industry, on the
other hand, is more polarized, with 42 percent
of companies in the Fast Movers cohort and
39 percent in Resting on Laurels (Exhibit 11).
Technology, Media and Telecoms companies are
slightly more likely to be Fast Movers than the
other cohorts.
26
40
7
27 28
22
12
19
9 8
There are stark differences in how executive gender and ethnicity has evolved in each
cohort since 2014
Representation, %
Diversity
leaders
Fast
movers
Resting
on laurels
Laggards
Moderate
movers
Female
representation1
Ethnic minority
representation2
1. n = 365; US and UK.
2. n = 241; US and UK. Absolute representation, not relative to fair share.
17
32
1
18 18
12
3
10
1 0
2019
2014
Representation, %

Exhibit 11
The picture across different industries contrasts sharply
Distribution of companies across cohorts by industry1, % of cohort
Healthcare and
pharmaceuticals
2014–2019
improvement
2014 executive team gender representation
Finance, insurance, and
professional services
1. n = 39 for Healthcare and pharmaceuticals, n = 36 for Finance, insurance and professional services, n = 55 for Telecom, media,
and technology; US and UK.
Telecom, media, and
technology
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40+
Fast movers
Laggards
Diversity
leaders
Moderate
movers
Resting
on laurels
Fast movers
Laggards
Diversity
leaders
Moderate
movers
Resting
on laurels
Fast movers
Laggards
Diversity
leaders
Moderate
movers
Resting
on laurels
Healthcare and
pharmaceuticals
2014–2019
improvement
Telecom, media, and
technology
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40+
Fast movers
Laggards
Diversity
leaders
Moderate
movers
Resting
on laurels
Fast movers
Laggards
Diversity
leaders
Moderate
movers
Resting
on laurels
Fast movers
Laggards
Diversity
leaders
Moderate
movers
Resting
on laurels
Healthcare and
pharmaceuticals
2014–2019
improvement
Telecom, media, and
technology
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40+
Fast movers
Laggards
Diversity
leaders
Moderate
movers
Resting
on laurels
Fast movers
Laggards
Diversity
leaders
Moderate
movers
Resting
on laurels
Fast movers
Laggards
Diversity
leaders
Moderate
movers
Resting
on laurels
29

Why commitment to building an
inclusive culture is not enough
As we have mentioned, the gap in executive gender
representation has widened between leading ID
practitioners in our data set and other companies,
with only a third achieving real gains and the
majority remaining static or declining—even where
their leaders have articulated noble aspirations for
inclusion and diversity. Two critical barriers appear to
stand in the way of the sustained change in company
culture, and the individual mindsets and behavior,
that are needed to build a truly inclusive culture.
The first barrier is a lack of purposeful follow-
through on diversity pledges. Many companies,
including those in our Laggards cohort, have
publicly committed to building a diverse and
inclusive company culture, and in some cases
with their CEOs have even signed public pledges
to do so.13
But many companies have yet to adopt
the systematic, business-led approach to ID
that is needed to translate these pledges into
actual change. Such companies have tended to
rely overly on employee resource groups to drive
their ID agendas, rather than giving leaders and
managers true accountability for strengthening
diversity. Aspirations and ad hoc interventions
are not enough. In the words of one HR director
we interviewed: “A disconnect between what
the company says and the progress it is making
on the ground can seriously erode credibility both
inside and outside of the organization, and further
contribute to a lack of experienced inclusion”.
A second barrier in many companies, particularly
those that are yet to embark on a purposeful
ID journey, relates to inclusion. Unaddressed
misconceptions about fairness and meritocracy
are one critical issue. There is often a prevailing
belief that “everything should be the same for
everyone”, and this fails to factor in the reduced
extent to which women and ethnic minorities
benefit from support and sponsorship—and
the greater extent to which they face bias and
microaggressions versus the dominant majority.
McKinsey’s Women in the Workplace research, for
example, has found that women, especially black
women, are more likely to face microaggressions—
also known as everyday discrimination—than
men.14
Cumulatively, these microaggressions have
been shown to contribute to a rise in perceptions
of unfairness and an increase in the likelihood
of people thinking about leaving their jobs. By
contrast, when employees believe they have equal
opportunity and the workplace is fair then they are
three times more likely to say they are happy with
their career and will stay at their company longer.15
A disconnect between what the company
says and the progress it is making
on the ground can seriously erode
credibility both inside and outside of
the organization, and further contribute
to a lack of experienced inclusion.
13
https://www.ceoaction.com/pledge/i-act-on-pledge/
14
Women in the Workplace, McKinsey Company, October 2018.
15
16
ibid.

Pentair: building an
inclusive culture
Pentair—a water-treatment company with a global footprint—
is sharpening its focus on ID as a core business opportunity.
For Kelly Baker, Executive Vice President and Chief
Human Resources Officer at Pentair, focusing
on building an inclusive culture as a business
opportunity means taking a contemporary view of
ID. This includes a broader definition of diversity
encompassing race, gender, ethnicity, country
of origin, age, personal style, sexual orientation,
physical ability, religion, and life experiences. It also
translates into a stronger focus on company culture,
creating a space where employees are enabled to
leverage their unique strengths and work in
the ways that suit them best.
“ID is not just about setting targets and having
women on the slate; we are spending significant
time on education—building the business case
for ID and pointing out why it’s not just about
being politically correct,” says Baker. They are also
working on developing a shared language on ID.
This focus fits easily into the company’s existing
commitment to building what it calls a Win Right
culture and values.
Baker says the organization takes an integrated
approach to supporting and promoting workplace
ID based on the following three pillars:
1. Talent acquisition and deployment, with a focus
on fair hiring practices at every level.
2. Development and retention of diverse talent for
leadership roles. Focus areas include expanding
participation in leadership-development
programs, prioritizing career-development
planning for all talent, including diverse talent,
and leveraging employee resource group
networks to attract, retain, and develop people
from diverse backgrounds. The company has
also revised its benefits to support families and
work–life balance.
3. Leadership of diverse teams. The focus is
on cultivating an environment that values
differences, fairness, and inclusion.
This includes Global Effectiveness training,
which fosters insights about global differences
and strengthens manager and employee
capabilities in working across countries,
cultures, and languages.
While it can be challenging to carve out the time
for people to engage on the question of ID, Baker
says they know that it’s worth persevering on
this important journey. “We know that a diverse
and inclusive workforce contributes different
perspectives and creative ideas that enable us to
improve every day. So we continue to be bold in
advancing these ideas in the organization.”
31

The evidence presented in this report highlights the challenges
for companies in making sustained progress on increasing
gender and ethnic and cultural diversity on their top teams.
And among those companies that do make tangible gains,
holding onto these gains represents a further challenge.
Why this is the case was one of the themes we explored in our
interviews with companies in our data set. What we discovered
emphasized the need for a systematic, business-led approach
to ID, as we have advocated in previous reports. But it also
shed new light on the relative importance of inclusion.
Indeed, we found that every company in our data
set that has made sustainable progress towards
increasing gender and ethnic and cultural diversity
on its top team over the past five years has also
made real strides in creating an inclusive work
culture. Lockheed Martin, for example, has sought
to “create an environment where our employees
feel welcomed and encouraged to bring their whole
selves to work” (see case study on page 46).
Several of the executives we interviewed made it
clear that their companies could not have improved
on diversity without investing in inclusion. For
example, leaders at Pentair talk about moving
beyond a focus on representation as a tick-box
exercise to one that embraces a “shared language
on ID” across the organization (see case study
on page 31). And executives at Target say they are
committed to building an “ecosystem” around ID,
“rather than just having it as an isolated function.”
These companies’ efforts point to inclusion as an
important emerging differentiator of success among
leading diversity practitioners. This dovetails with the
findings of previous reports by ourselves and others,
including Women in the Workplace.16
These studies,
as well as the research presented in this report,
show that employees’ experience of inclusion in their
workplace matters enormously to them, and is not
always aligned with their companies’ or even their
managers’ official commitments to inclusion.
For example, our most recent Women in the
Workplace study found that commitment to gender
diversity at the leadership level had increased
significantly: 87 percent of companies stated that
they were highly committed to gender diversity in
2019, compared to 74 percent in 2014. However,
employees at these companies were much less
likely to perceive that their companies or their
managers had actually made diversity a priority.17
Just 61 percent of women employees in 2019
agreed that commitment to gender diversity was
a priority, for example. (This is up from 44 percent
in 2014, suggesting that a shift may be underway.)
There is much work still to be done in bridging
this gap.
Outside-in: a new lens on how inclusion matters
The logic behind prioritizing inclusion alongside
diversity is coming more clearly into focus—but
the full dynamics of the different aspects of
inclusion, and their relative importance, are
not yet fully understood. There is evidence
that inclusion is closely linked to employee
engagement, itself in turn a critical component
of employee retention, productivity and financial
performance. For example, research has shown
that business units that score in the top quartile of
their organization in employee engagement have
nearly double the odds of success.18
16
17
ibid.
18
State of the Global Workplace report, Gallup, 2017. Specifically, business units in the top quartile of are 17% more productive and 21%
more profitable than those in the bottom quartile. They also have 20% higher sales, 10% higher customer metrics.

19
“Culture matters. Now we can measure it,” MIT SMR / Glassdoor Culture 500, https://sloanreview.mit.edu/culture500?utm_
medium=prutm_source=releaseutm_campaign=Culture500.
20
This research builds on and corroborates other research that has been done on this topic, especially the MIT / Glassdoor report (our
results are similar) and McKinsey’s Women in the Workplace.
21
See page 48 for a detailed understanding of our methodology.
A significant challenge for senior leaders is that
inclusionandworkplacecultureareinherentlydifficult
to measure. There is no standardized, universal
metric,and employee survey data are typically
required, limitingthescaleoftheanalysisintermsof
thenumberofcompaniesfromwhichdatacaneasily
and rapidly be gathered. Further, it is unclear that
employeeresponsestointernalsatisfactionsurveys,
even if anonymous, are fully representative of their
experiences and are not influenced by employees’
perceptions about what their employers consider to
be acceptable responses.
These limitations can, in part, be overcome by an
outside-in approach, which is what studies such
as Culture 500 have taken. This collaboration
between MIT Sloan and Glassdoor developed and
validated a methodology for measuring company
culture outside-in, using sentiment analysis of
employee reviews of their employers posted
on job-search websites. We sought to build on
these efforts to obtain a directional read on
how inclusion matters, and specifically on what
aspects of inclusion employees considered to be
significant, based on comments made outside-in.19
In partnership with McKinsey Digital Consumer
Insights, we carried out an analysis of employee
reviews about the companies they work for, made
on Glassdoor and Indeed, both public forums
based in the United States, during 2017–19.
Using a natural language processing algorithm,
we analyzed the sentiment—positive, negative
and neutral—in employee mentions about ID,
focusing on 10–30 companies in each of three
industries: financial services, technology, and
healthcare. (These industries have the highest
levels of executive-team diversity in our data set,
but not necessarily the highest levels of overall
diversity or indeed inclusion.)20
We searched for ID-related reviews using
keywords relating to two indicators of a systematic
approach to ID, diverse representation itself,
and leadership accountability for ID.21
We then
specifically researched three core indicators of
inclusion, as follows:

— Equality—fairness and transparency in
promotion, pay and recruitment, and equal
access to sponsorship opportunities as well
as other resources and retention support.
Companies that embrace equality ensure
a level playing field across critical talent
processes, building representation targets
into workforce plans and deploying analytical
tools to build transparency.

— Openness—an organizational culture where
people treat each other with mutual respect,
and where bias, bullying, discrimination and
micro-aggressions are actively tackled. In
companies that embrace openness, the work
environment is welcoming and conducive to
discussion, feedback which includes the most
senior leaders, and risk taking.
33

— Belonging—an outcome resulting from the
organization’s demonstrating commitment to
support the well-being and contributions of
diverse and other employees. Leaders and
managers foster connection with their diverse
talent and between all employees, building
a sense of community and encouraging them
to contribute their diverse talents fully.
In our sentiment analysis, comments directly
pertaining to ID made up around one-third of
the total comments made, showing that this topic
is high on employees’ minds. Key findings across
the five indicators we tested suggests that there
are marked “pain points” in the experience of
employees, as follows (Exhibits 12, 13a and 13b):

— While overall sentiment on diversity was
52 percent positive and 31 percent negative,
sentiment on inclusion was markedly worse
at only 29 percent positive and 61 percent
negative—which encapsulates the challenge
that even the more diverse companies still face
in tackling inclusion.

— Leadership and accountability as they pertain
to ID accounted for the highest number of
mentions, and were also strongly negative.
On average across industries, 51 percent of the
total mentions were related to leadership, and
56 percent of those mentions had a negative
sentiment. This underscores the increasingly
recognized need for companies to engage their
core business managers better in the ID effort.

— Considering the three indicators of inclusion—
equality, openness, and belonging—we found
particularly high levels of negative sentiment
around equality and fairness of opportunity.
Negative sentiment around equality ranged
from 63 to 80 percent across the industries.
Openness of the working environment, which
encompasses bias and discrimination, was also
of significant concern, ranging from 38 to 56
percent of negative sentiment across industries.
Belonging elicited overall positive sentiment,
but from a relatively small number of mentions.
These findings, although indicative, highlight
the importance not just of inclusion overall,
but specifically of the varying extents to which
particular aspects of inclusion matter. They can
also provide companies with “another version of
the truth” on inclusion by complementing internal
employee-satisfaction surveys—and highlighting
the gap between public pronouncements
of commitments to ID, and the sentiments
employees are willing to express in the relatively
risk-free environment of a job-search website.
In aggregate, this research shows that even
where companies are more diverse, many
appear as yet unable to cultivate inclusive work
environments in an effective and consistent way.
Such environments promote inclusive leadership
and accountability among managers, equality
and fairness of opportunity, and openness
and freedom from bias and discrimination.
While overall sentiment on diversity
was 52 percent positive and 31 percent
negative, sentiment on inclusion was
markedly worse at only 29 percent
positive and 61 percent negative.

Exhibit 12
Employee reviews provide companies with additional insight into workplace experiences
of inclusion
Employee reviews provide companies with additional insight into workplace experiences of
inclusion
Source: Glassdoor and Indeed user-generated reviews
“Full of white male
privilege…No diversity, the
company churns out all these
positive phrases but doesn't
abide by them.”
“Great place to work because of
all the walks of life coming
through the doors… from
different cultures/ethnic
backgrounds.”
Diversity
“Heavy on favoritism. How
you are promoted depends on
which supervisor you get.”
“Fair promotion process…
and if you perform well then
[you will get] amazing pay.”
Equality
Positive comment examples Negative comment examples
“Management makes a strong
effort to create an outstanding
work environment, the culture
is inclusive and
encouraging.”
Leadership
“Management does not
foster an inclusive culture
for all levels of employees.”
“I don't feel valued or a
sense of belonging, I feel
like a number who's opinion
is not valued.”
“Best company to work for,
they really make you feel
like family!”
Belonging
“This toxic environment is
not built to develop or care for
minorities or people with
disabilities.”
“Everybody treats you with
Humility, Respect, and
Trust.”
Openness
35

31%
Diversity
74%
Leadership
56%
44%
Equality Openness
61%
32%
Belonging
Inclusion²
Exhibit 13a
Sentiments on inclusion are on average more negative than those on diversity
% of negative sentiments1
1. Total number of mentions by theme: Diversity 1,153; Leadership 3,216; Inclusion 2,077; Equality 1,257; Openness 710; Belonging 110
2. Weighted average of Equality, Openness and Belonging
Neutral Positive
Negative
To further understand how inclusion
matters we conducted an analysis of
indicators relating to inclusion, outside-in

Leadership
Equality
Openness
Belonging
Technology
58%
29%
56%
67%
30%
Healthcare
42%
30%
44%
63%
29%
Diversity
Finance
58%
32%
38%
80%
33%
Exhibit 13b
On most areas of inclusion and across industries, negative sentiment outweighs positive
% of negative sentiments1
1. Total number of mentions by theme and industry: Diversity – Finance 607, Tech 382, Healthcare 164; Leadership – Finance 2,190, Tech 629,
Healthcare 397; Equality – Finance 668, Tech 377, Healthcare 212; Openness – Finance 391, Tech 209, Healthcare 110; Belonging – Finance 70,
Tech 23, Healthcare 17
Neutral Positive
Negative
37

How employees experience
inclusion—or the lack of it
A closer look at the sentiment analysis reveals some
differences between industries—and vivid mentions
from employees, which further illustrate the value
of this “social listening” approach to companies
seeking to improve their inclusive culture.
Equality
Organizations across all three of the industries we
analyzed fare poorly on this metric, with equality
overwhelmingly the most negative of all dimensions
measured. In the finance sector, sentiment was the
most strongly negative (80 percent) followed by
technology (67 percent) and healthcare (63 percent).
Typical mentions included the following
(see Exhibit 12):

— “Promotions are based on WHO you know,
not WHAT you know! Good and hard work are
not recognized.”

— “There is a lot of blatant favoritism and lack of
strong managerial leadership which amounts
to swaths of displeased and un-engaged
employees. This can be seen by amount of
people we have had leave the organization.”
Openness
On this metric, sentiment of mentions was in
aggregate negative, but more mixed across industry
sectors. In the technology sector, sentiment was the
most negative (56 percent) followed by healthcare
(44 percent) and finance (38 percent). No sector
was overall positive.
Positive mentions focused on respect and trust
as important components in the workplace, while
negative mentions tended to cluster around bullying
and microaggressions. Typical examples included
the following:

— “Lack of diversity in thought and in people.”

— “Backstabbing, exclusive culture. No diversity
of thought and opinions are not valued.”

— “The constant rumor mill and lack of
communication makes it very stressful to
work here.”
Belonging
On this dimension, the majority of mentions across
industry sectors were positive, although based on
a notably smaller number of mentions. A typical
example was the following:

— “Amazing culture with an emphasis on inclusion
and diversity. There are many employee
resource groups and clubs that make it easy
to feel comfortable and included at work. The
people I’ve worked with truly care about helping
you succeed and working as a team towards a
common goal.”
Negative sentiments expressed included the
following: “You cannot have your own opinion, own
style of work—only what is expected, to do exactly
things in the way corp says to you.”

Target Corporation: staying open
Target Corporation is the eighth-largest retailer in the United
States and believes that its sophisticated approach to ID—
including using data to drive real-time transparency—is a key
enabler of its success.
“Diversity and inclusion are at the heart of what we do
at Target,” Brian Cornell, Chairman and CEO, explains.
“Seventy-five percent of the US population lives
within10milesofaTargetstore—andinordertowinin
retail,weneedtoreflectthatpopulationinourteamto
ensure we deliver the product, services, experiences
and messages our guests want and need.” 22
Fifteen years into its journey with an ID office,
Target is among the 5 percent of companies in our
data set that is close to achieving gender parity on
its executive team (approaching 45 percent). Target
pursues a broad set of ID best practices, but it
stands out in the following two key regards:

— A sophisticated use of data to drive real-time
transparency. Progress on ID is meticulously
tracked, with a dedicated ID analytics team.
With multiple dashboards and through quarterly
and annual processes, the organization
reassesses its ID goals every year and adjusts
tactics quarterly. Business leaders are expected
to make use of this disaggregated data to drive
their talent decisions. When setting pay or
advancement, for example, they can access and
check their diversity statistics.

— A radical emphasis on courageous
conversations and active listening that
extends beyond the organization. The company
culture is summed up in the call to action to “stay
open.” And through the company’s guardrails for
co-existence, employees are encouraged to be
curious and accountable, to ask questions and
have the difficult conversations and to leverage
their unique skills to drive positive impact in
business and society.
Inclusivity is a key value in Target’s culture.
The company believes that embracing diversity
and striving to give everyone access to the same
opportunities helps them benefit from the richness
of different perspectives and fulfill the needs of
their guests better.
“We’ve built an ecosystem around ID rather than
just having it as an isolated function,” says Tariq
Malik, Director of Employee Relations and Diversity
Analytics, who leads the company’s first ever ID
analytics team. Every member of the organization is
empowered to help champion an inclusive society.
For example, each business area has a Diversity
Action Committee—a volunteer group that works
with the ID team to implement tactics specific for
their part of the organization. There are also affinity
groups for race/ethnicity, gender, ability, sexual
orientation, veterans, people with different abilities,
and faith.
Despite the company’s steady progress towards
parity, Malik says that the journey is not over. “We
are looking towards the future.” With a new set
of goals for the business and team, the company
will continue to pursue outcomes in three key
areas: (i) representation (equitable retention
and advancement of diverse talent); (ii) inclusive
experience (inclusive leadership and individual
behavior); and (iii) business (ongoing investment
in diverse suppliers, and continued reach to
multicultural audiences and guests).
22
Comment taken from Target website: www.target.com/stayopen.
39

Winning through inclusion
and diversity: taking bold action
As we have shown, the business case for diversity is growing
stronger and clearer—yet too many companies appear
unable to overcome significant obstacles in their efforts to
make tangible and sustained progress. The experience of
the diversity winners we have studied suggests that it’s time
to be bold, in deploying a systematic approach to ID, and
in purposefully tackling inclusion. There is a significant
performance opportunity for those that are prepared to step up
and do what it takes to foster significant progress on ID.
How it can be done is exemplified in the four
case studies shared in this report. Citigroup
and Pentair are surging ahead in representation,
while continuing to push the boundaries and
foster inclusive workplace cultures where people
are empowered to be their authentic selves.
Target Corporation and Lockheed Martin are also
prioritizing inclusion, while pushing towards gender
parity on their executive teams—which is nearly
45 percent and 40 percent female respectively (see
case studies on page 39 and page 46).
Action steps to make inclusion work
Our analysis of diversity winners in our data set,
coupled with extensive insights from our research
and practice on ID, has helped identify the winning
actions and practices of diversity winners when it
comes to inclusion (Exhibit 14).
Exhibit 14
Companies need a systematic, business-led approach to ID, and bolder action on inclusion
Companies need a systematic, business-led approach to ID, and bolder action on inclusion
Strengthen leadership and accountability for delivering
on ID goals
Enable equality of opportunity through fairness and
transparency
Increase diverse representation, particularly in leadership
and critical roles
Promote openness, tackling bias and discrimination
Foster belonging through support for multivariate diversity
1
2
Systematic,
business-led
approach to
ID
Bold steps to
strengthen
inclusion
41

Diversity Wins How Inclusion Matters

Diversity Wins How Inclusion Matters

More Related Content

Diversity Wins How Inclusion Matters