Jordan Mitchell has spent his career pushing systems-level change in places that resist it. An eleven-year Army veteran, founder of a non-profit aimed at ending human trafficking, and now a DEI Engagement Partner at Sprout Social, Jordan has a track record of advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion practices in environments where the work is hard and the wins are slow. The recurring theme in his work: do not let the dashboard replace the strategy.
This Reimagining Company Culture conversation focused on how DEI and culture functions get distorted when the metrics outrun the meaning. Jordan made the case that measurement is necessary, but companies that over-rotate on it end up gaming numbers instead of changing experience.
The synthesis below pairs Jordan’s view with research and field practice from People teams running this work today.
Why Over-Relying on Metrics Distorts DEI Work
DEI metrics are seductive because they are concrete. Representation percentages, promotion rates, and pay gap snapshots are easy to put in a slide. The problem is that any single metric can move without the underlying experience changing. Hire ten new people from underrepresented backgrounds and the representation number goes up. If those hires leave within 18 months because the workplace is hostile, the dashboard lied.
McKinsey’s Diversity Matters Even More report found that while sentiment on diversity sat at 52 percent positive, sentiment on inclusion was 29 percent positive and 61 percent negative. That gap is the one most metrics miss. The hiring funnel can look healthy while the workplace experience is failing the same employees the funnel was meant to serve.
Outcome metrics matter more than input metrics, but most DEI dashboards over-index on inputs because inputs are easier to count. Companies serious about the work flip that ratio and accept the messier measurement work that comes with it.
What Real DEI Measurement Looks Like
What metrics actually predict an inclusive workplace?
Three matter most: regrettable attrition by demographic, internal promotion velocity by demographic, and qualitative inclusion sentiment from employees in their first 12 months. Inclusion as a measurable construct requires all three, and any one of them in isolation gives a misleading read.
How does pay equity fit into the picture?
Pay equity is the floor, not the ceiling. Pew Research Center analysis of the gender pay gap continues to show meaningful gaps for women and women of color. Companies committed to pay equity as a discipline run regular audits, fix what they find, and publish enough of the methodology that employees can trust the result.
What Actually Works in DEI Strategy
Start with the experience, then design the measurement
DEI work fails when measurement comes first. The right sequence is: understand the lived experience of underrepresented employees, identify the friction points, then build measurement that tracks those specific frictions. Generic dashboards rarely move the work.
Treat manager behavior as the primary lever
Different leadership styles produce different inclusion experiences for the same employee. Catalyst research on inclusive leadership shows that nearly half of an employee’s experience of inclusion can be explained by managerial behavior. Investing in inclusive manager development consistently outperforms aggregate DEI campaigns.
Connect DEI to ER signal
The clearest DEI feedback loop runs through ER. Patterns in who reports issues, what kinds of issues they report, and how those cases get resolved are the truth that aggregate dashboards cannot show. Workplace data and insights layered onto ER trends turns scattered cases into strategic intelligence the executive team can act on.
Where Employee Relations Fits in DEI Strategy
The fastest way to expose the gap between DEI metrics and DEI reality is to look at ER trends. If certain demographics consistently use the speak-up channel and others avoid it, the workplace is sending a signal long before the engagement survey catches up. Companies running mature DEI programs anchored in measurable outcomes use ER data as a primary diagnostic.
How ER infrastructure changes DEI outcomes
ER infrastructure determines whether issues get surfaced at all. Anonymous reporting channels matter most for employees who fear retaliation, which often correlates with the same demographics DEI strategy is trying to support. Without trustworthy intake, the dashboard is measuring the wrong population.
Frequently Asked Questions About DEI Metrics
What are the most important DEI metrics?
Representation by level, pay equity by role, regrettable attrition by demographic, internal promotion velocity, and inclusion sentiment from new hires. Each one tells a different part of the story. None of them in isolation is enough.
What is the difference between equity and equality?
Equality means everyone gets the same. Equity means everyone gets what they need to have a fair shot. Equity versus equality as concepts is the most common framing question DEI leaders field, and getting the language right inside the company saves hours of debate later.
How often should DEI metrics be reviewed?
Monthly for operational metrics (intake, time to resolution, manager touchpoints) and quarterly for strategic metrics (representation, pay equity, attrition). Annual reviews are too slow to catch the patterns that matter.
How do you avoid gaming DEI metrics?
Tie executive accountability to outcomes (retention, promotion, sentiment) rather than inputs (training completion, hiring funnel volume). Outcome-based accountability is harder to game and more aligned with the actual goal.
How does DEI tie into business performance?
The connection runs through inclusion, not representation alone. Inclusive teams make better decisions, retain talent longer, and surface problems earlier. The business case is real; the trick is to measure inclusion specifically rather than treating representation as a proxy.
One trap worth naming: outcome metrics can also be gamed if leaders only look at lagging indicators. Regrettable attrition by demographic, for example, can stay flat for a quarter or two even when the workplace experience is degrading, simply because people take time to act on bad experiences. Pairing lagging indicators with leading ones (sentiment from new hires, ER intake patterns, manager feedback themes) catches the trend earlier. The teams that combine both views move faster and avoid the awkward conversation when last year’s strategy turns out to have ignored the warning signs.
Another common failure mode is treating DEI dashboards as a quarterly executive update with no operational owner. Metrics without an owner do not move. The companies that make real progress assign clear responsibility for each metric and tie that ownership to performance reviews and promotion decisions for senior leaders. Deloitte’s 2025 Gen Z and Millennial Survey shows that 86 percent of Gen Z employees and 89 percent of millennials say purpose is key to workplace satisfaction, which means the population entering the workforce is paying attention to whether the company actually delivers on stated values, not just whether it puts the values on a slide.
The Bottom Line for HR Leaders
Metrics matter, and metrics deceive. Jordan’s argument is not against measurement; it is against measurement disconnected from experience. The teams that move DEI forward use data as a starting point for the conversation, not the end of it.
For People teams running this work, the structural advantage is to pair quantitative dashboards with qualitative ER signal. The combination tells the truth about whether the workplace is actually changing or whether the numbers are just rearranging themselves on a slide.
See how AllVoices helps People teams turn workplace signals into action.
.avif)
.avif)
.avif)
.avif)
.avif)
.avif)