In the last article, I talked about cultural sensitivity in organizations and basically hinted at Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging (DEIB) in the context of the IDI. I also suggested that for organizations and businesses to appreciate such efforts and not just think of DEIB or IDI cultural efforts as a cost-center exercise—efforts must be linked to business impact. This should not be hard to imagine. The problem, I believe, is how one gets from a vision to a mission and so on to DEIB and IDI as a business need with performance outcomes. From a Certified Professional in Talent Development (CPTD) perspective, at least in concept, it’s easy. As I mentioned in the previous article, McKinsey and Company mentioned that organizations that were culturally diverse were 35% more profitable than those that were not. How diverse is a question? In addition, how about if there was a way to include the cost-benefit and ROI (business impact) regarding lower attrition and turnover and greater innovation (effectiveness and efficiency)? This could possibly be done with a DEIB Capability Model that was assessed using the reliable and validated IDI.
Developing an Assessed Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging Capability Model
Of course, there are several ways to start this process, but it likely begins with a needs assessment or rapid needs assessment per the Strategic Alignment Evaluation Model (SAEM) I mentioned in the previous article. Why capability? Competency inherently refers to the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behaviors for a purpose, role, or job. In contrast, capability also refers to the competency's potential, adaptability, and future capability as required—a continuum! Sounds familiar (IDI continuum)? DEIB in an organization is not a stagnant construct, or at least should not be. Such a capability model requires identifying gaps, introducing the concept, leveraging IDI, a tie-in to business outcomes, and pilot testing. Current training for DEIB, in terms of Bloom’s Taxonomy, is likely tied to remembering and understanding or lower-level taxonomy and nowhere close to that of higher-level Bloom Taxonomy and competency, e.g., application, or evaluation of DEIB. Capability and performance statements must also be created for this capability model.
Definition, Subscales, and Performance Statements for DEIB with Assessed IDI
“Why capability?”
Diversity Sub-Scales: (1) Representation: Extent to which different groups are present across all organizational levels. (2) Cultural Awareness: Demonstrating and applying cultural norms and practices. (3) Performance Statements: (a) Has achieved a workforce that reflects the diversity of the broader community, with assessed IDI. (b) Successfully incorporates diverse perspectives into decision-making processes.
Equity Sub-Scales: (1) Fair Treatment: Measures how equitably opportunities and resources are distributed. (2) Institutional Barriers: Evaluation of how systemic barriers are being identified and dismantled. (3) Performance Statements: (a) Has policies ensuring equal opportunities for all employees in promotions and role assignments. (b) Shows evidence of dismantling systemic barriers that prevent equal participation, with improved IDI.
Inclusion Sub-Scales: (1) Participation: Measures the extent to which diverse individuals feel they can contribute. (2) Voice: Assesses the avenues available for all members to express their views, e.g., IDI continuum. (3) Performance Statements: (a) Actively engages all employees in decision-making processes, possibly utilizing IDI development plans. (b) Provides platforms where employees can openly share opinions and concerns without fear of retribution, e.g., using organizational IDPs and coaching.
Belonging Sub-Scales: (1) Psychological Safety: Level of comfort employees feel in being themselves. (2) Community Engagement: Extent to which employees feel a sense of community within the organization, e.g., utilizing organizational and community IDI development plans, mentoring, and coaching. (3) Performance Statements: (a) Shows high levels of employee satisfaction regarding psychological safety in annual surveys. (b) Has established mentorship and affinity programs that create a sense of community among employees, e.g., utilizing and leveraging IDI IDPs.
Once these sub-scales and performance statements are defined and prioritized, the outcomes can likely be assessed and evaluated using the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) tool, continuous performance improvement models, and Kirkpatrick's and Phillips' 4 and 5 Levels of Evaluation. Of course, there is work to be done on this concept!
"Shows evidence of dismantling systematic barriers that prevent equal participation"
Conclusion
With Focused Impact (see the previous article), assessing the potential application of the IDI for business impact on organizations for DEIB, i.e., “the project,” can be done. I have laid out some rough arguments/thoughts, models, and concepts that I will continue to work on. One problematic barrier to such a DEIB Capability Model is the owner and who will maintain such a model, e.g., for certification, i.e., DEIB Certified or DEIB Certified Professional, etc. For now, such certifications as cultural awareness and inclusion are covered under the CPTD capability area Building Personal Capability. I would love to hear your thoughts on this important concept.