As shown in a growing body of research, including our work at Gartner, companies that invest in diversity see bottom-line benefits including greater innovation and ability to penetrate new markets. Organizations that create inclusive work environments, furthermore, accrue more of these benefits than those that focus on diversity alone. But if inclusion is the key to unleashing the value of diversity, it can also be a heavier lift: Our research shows that most employees—especially frontline employees—don’t think their managers successfully foster an inclusive work environment.
Creating an inclusive environment means, in part, mitigating the impact of conscious and unconscious bias on talent processes like hiring, promotion, and performance management. Most organizations attack this challenge through anti-bias training, which can bolster employees’ confidence in diversity and inclusion efforts but often falls short of bridging the gap between increasing managers’ awareness of bias and actually changing their behavior. Training targets attitudes as opposed to actions, its effects diminish over time, and it requires significant effort and expense to implement at scale.
An essential lesson from our research is that best-practice D&I initiatives don’t just train managers in how to avoid bias, but actually embed bias mitigation into those talent processes. Accordingly, there is now a growing movement within the D&I community to complement anti-bias training with “inclusion nudges”: soft, non-intrusive mental pushes that help us make more objective decisions and affects predictable behaviors to make them more inclusive.
At Gartner’s ReimagineHR conference in Orlando, Florida on Sunday, Gartner’s Jeanine Prime led a panel discussion with Lorelei Whitney, Assistant Vice President Human Resources at Cargill; and Eric Dziedzic, Director, Diversity and Inclusion at Amgen, about their experiences implementing inclusion nudges at their organizations.
What does an inclusion nudge look like?
Over the past few years, a growing number of US states and cities have enacted legislation to create state-sponsored retirement savings programs for employees of organizations that don’t offer an employer-sponsored plan like a 401(k). Currently, 40 states have considered, studied, or moved toward implementing this type of program, though only 10 states and one major city (Seattle) have yet implemented them, writes Paula Aven Gladych at Employee Benefit News. Not all state and local policies are alike, however: While automatic-enrollment, payroll-deducting IRA programs (“auto-IRAs”) are the most popular policy tool, others include multiple-employer plans and retirement savings marketplaces:
California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Oregon and the city of Seattle have adopted automatic IRAs. Massachusetts and Vermont have adopted multiple employer plans and New Jersey and Washington State have adopted marketplaces. New York, the latest state to jump into the fray, has adopted a voluntary payroll deduction IRA. …
The states that haven’t made a move yet will be watching closely to see how effective the different tools are in marketing the plans to employers and employees. … These programs are getting bipartisan support. Blue and red states are studying the issue. Every year there’s a handful of states in study mode, considering what their options are, says [Angela Antonelli, executive director for the Center for Retirement Initiatives at Georgetown University].
New York’s new program, adopted in April as part of the state’s budget for fiscal year 2019, is similar to the auto-IRAs adopted in other states, except that it is not compulsory for any employer to participate, as Paychex analyst Jessica Curtin explained at the time. The program, scheduled to begin in April 2020, uses a Roth IRA structure, so contributions are made on a post-tax basis. Employers cannot make direct contributions to the plan, but those that choose to participate must automatically enroll their employees at a contribution rate of 3 percent of their paychecks; employees may then choose to opt out.
It’s impossible to hide from your coworkers. Whether you work in the office, from home, or at a coffee shop, any of your colleagues can instantly interrupt (and perhaps ruin) your day with a “tap on the shoulder” thanks to a plethora of communication technologies. At Bloomberg BNA Last week, Genevieve Douglas highlighted some new data illustrating the negative impact this constant onslaught of communication is having on a growing number of employees. Many are either missing critical information they need, or are considering changing employers to get away from the deluge of chatter and information.
Douglas points to a survey published in March by the communications software provider Dynamic Signal, in which half of respondents said they felt overwhelmed by the proliferation of these tools and pressured to use multiple platforms. A third of the employees surveyed said they were so stressed out by the state of communication in their workplace that they were ready to quit because of it.
Having personally tracked the reasons why employees quit with my colleague Brian Kropp for over a decade, I’m skeptical that employees will really quit because of poor communication alone. However, our latest research does substantiate the claim that providing employees with “on demand access” to information and HR solutions through more channels and new technology platforms really does hinder their performance.
Business leaders are aware of this problem of communication overload and looking to address it proactively, Natalie McCullough, general manager of MyAnalytics and Workplace Analytics at Microsoft, told Douglas. When it comes to enabling employee collaboration through technology, our new research points to a useful rule of thumb: If you want to improve employees’ performance and experience at the same time, focus less on providing new ways for them to communicate and more on enabling them to act.
Adding a communication channel should not lead to more communications, but rather better communications that are ‘effortless’ to process and use. This, paradoxically, requires employers to restrict the sharing of information and communicate in ways that nudge employees to act. We call this “guided action.”