Closing the "performance gap" for underrepresented groups

Despite the huge investment in diversity, equity, and inclusiveness (DE&I), many companies still fail to make progress against their objectives, see a return on their investments, or realise systemic change. One of the reasons for this is because DE&I is often treated as something businesses should ‘do’ as part of their corporate social responsibility as opposed to being more integral. Rather than treating DE&I as a business objective in a list of many competing priorities, leaders should be aware of the implications that an absence of DE&I has on their business. Understanding how shortcomings in DE&I impacts the business, and the individuals within it, can help to identify meaningful solutions and establish a robust case for change in the process.

One of the ways in which shortcomings in DE&I affects a business is through its impact on individual performance. For example, I’ve been asked many times (with the best intent) why women, or ethnic minority professionals, “underperform” during critical career transitions. This question makes two assumptions. First, it assumes that the process and evaluations are fair and objective to begin with. Second, it assumes that different performance outcomes between groups are due to individuals’ ability and not the broader context or environment. To address the second assumption,?I often ask people to rethink the question – what is it about the environment that enables overrepresented individuals to consistently outperform others, or underrepresented individuals to underperform relative to their true ability, in these situations? This is where the impact of an absence or shortcomings in DE&I becomes more obvious.

When a business lacks authentic diversity, equity, and inclusiveness, this has a detrimental impact on the performance of its talent, whether that be real or perceived. This happens because individuals internalise their environment – here are three ways that can happen:

1.??????‘Imposter syndrome’ causes self-sabotage

The idea that imposter syndrome is a “women’s issue” has experienced some backlash; this is a well justified argument. Certain demographic groups aren’t more vulnerable to experiencing imposter syndrome due to their identity. However, in the workplace, persistent underrepresentation, a lack of role models, and experiences of othering, means that those from minority groups are more likely to question their sense of belonging. Questioning one’s belonging can lead to feelings of difference and irrational questions regarding competence and ability. People who experience imposter syndrome are more likely to attribute their success to luck – they may ask themselves ‘why bother?’ if they feel they have no control over the outcome. Such a mindset can lead to self-sabotage, which means deliberately hindering personal goals. The outcome of self-sabotage, at some stage, is underperformance relative to true ability.

2.??????Stereotype threat takes up required ‘headspace’

When being performance evaluated, the awareness of stereotypes about one’s identities, and the desire to disprove such stereotypes, can shift focus from the task at hand to the stereotype itself. When our focus moves away from the task and towards stereotypes, this inadvertently impacts performance. Research has demonstrated this phenomenon, known as stereotype threat, across demographics in a range of stereotyped contexts, including women’s underperformance in maths tests and older people’s underperformance in memory tests relative to their true ability when stereotypes are surfaced. In the workplace, stereotype threat can impact the performance of underrepresented individuals in performance and promotion assessments where progression means even less representation and risk of being ‘the only’, a greater focus on what makes individuals ‘different,’ and higher stakes.

3.??????Being ‘invisible’ or ‘hypervisible’ prevents recognition

We strive to be visible, which means being fully regarded and recognised for who we are and what we bring; this includes what makes us the same as those around us but also what makes us unique. To achieve this, we need to both feel both belonging (i.e., share fundamental similarities) and uniqueness (i.e., have personal differentiators). Conformity and blending in can create too much focus on belonging and render us invisible, which means having what makes us unique go unrecognised. Standing out can create too much focus on uniqueness and render us hypervisible, which means only being seen for what makes us different. For those who are underrepresented, being visible is more challenging – there is a much smaller margin to explore belonging and uniqueness because of expectations of what good looks like. The impact on performance comes from overlooked contributions when invisible or heightened scrutiny when hypervisible.

Recommendations

1.??????Developmental relationships

Critical career relationships – managers, mentors, sponsors, champions – play a fundamental role in career success. These relationships, when developed organically, create the psychologically safety and permission to be authentic required to fulfil one’s performance. However, these relationships are more likely to occur for those with shared, often superficial identities. Targeted programmes, such as reverse mentoring and sponsorship programmes, can help to level the playing field by facilitating these relationships, but those in the positions of power must be enable authentic and organic relationship development.

2.??????Diverse and sustainable pipelines

The phrase ‘you can’t be what you can’t see’ is often used to capture the impact of lack of representation on minority professionals. Diverse senior leadership representation is a starting point. However, it is insufficient to disrupt performance pressure in pivotal career transitions. Performance and promotion cycles that are diverse, where minorities aren’t ‘the only’ in the process and there is a critical mass of representation, will have a greater impact on disrupting imposter syndrome, stereotype threat, and invisibility/ hypervisibility. Diversity also reduces the likelihood of shifting standards. Building a sustainable pipeline of talent requires a debiased system across the full employee lifecycle.

3.??????Organisational culture

Whilst diverse interview panels may signal positive intent, it is insufficient to ‘undo’ institutional and systemic inequalities in a moment. DE&I needs to be embedded within the values of the business; this means having a consciously inclusive workforce who comfortably have conversations about difference, share their stories and give others space to share theirs, provide opportunities equitably across teams, coach individuals flexibly, role model such behaviours and hold themselves to account. Understanding the impact of an absence of DE&I on a business can help people to appreciate the importance of this.