A. Leadership and EDI Accountability*
Leaders are almost always from the dominant groups (e.g. white, male). Diversity and inclusion is neither a written nor spoken priority in organizational decisions. People will either fit in or leave.
Leaders are almost always from dominant groups (e.g. white, male) and approve surface-level initiatives (e.g., diversity training with no follow-up) to meet minimum sector requirements, legal compliance or maintain organizational image. A strong belief in meritocracy exists, that those hired or promoted are the most qualified.
Leaders, although usually from dominant groups, understand and care for EDI (equity, diversity and inclusion) issues. Some diversity strategies are approved with varying degrees of success but due to inconsistent understanding of EDI there are significant gaps between what is said and what is actually done in practice.
Leadership approaches or reflects the diversity of the available workforce of the community (or relevant region). Organizational strategies and policies explicitly address not just diversity and inclusion, but also equity (fairness) in the workplace with awareness that true merit-based processes in hiring and promotion must account for unconscious bias and inter-group power dynamics. There are few gaps between beliefs and practices, with EDI performance metrics in place for leaders.
Leadership and governance meet or exceed the diversity of the available workforce of the community (or relevant region). Leaders are Diversity Champions, personally accountable for EDI using performance indicators. There are regular mechanisms to collect input from staff/stakeholders to inform leaders’ decision-making in order to enhance inclusion, engagement and productivity.