Push back on 'one metric.' But if forced, the strongest single metric is representation at leadership, not aggregate workforce representation.

Why leadership representation:

Aggregate headcount representation is easy to move by hiring entry-level; doesn't reflect inclusion.
Leadership representation is a lagging indicator that captures both hiring and progression — the full funnel.
Boards and investors increasingly ask for it as part of ESG disclosure.

What a single metric misses:

Compensation equity (same role, same tenure, same performance — same pay?).
Attrition disparity (are underrepresented groups leaving at higher rates?).
Promotion rate parity.
Employee experience by demographic (inclusion index).

What I'd actually propose to the CHRO:

'For the board cover-slide, leadership representation at VP+ is the single cleanest number. But I'd pair it with a second metric on attrition disparity. If leadership representation is rising but attrition among underrepresented groups is also rising, we're filling the top while leaking the middle — that's worse than standing still. Two numbers, one page.'

Ethics note: any demographic reporting requires clean data governance — voluntary self-ID, appropriate aggregation thresholds, and legal review in jurisdictions where demographic data collection is restricted (e.g., parts of the EU).

CHRO asks for one DEI metric for the board. Pick.

Draft your answer

Stuck? Peek at a hint

More people analytics questions