PwC’s Inclusive Culture Index allows organisations to move beyond collecting and reporting on diversity metrics to measure employee perceptions of workplace inclusion.
Only by measuring perceptions of inclusion, in conjunction with diversity metrics, can organisations address inequalities and drive the behavioural change and capability uplift required to unleash the benefits of a diverse workforce.
The Inclusive Culture Index measures employee perceptions across six key drivers for inclusion to generate a score that identifies key areas of strength and areas in need of further focus.
The Inclusive Culture Index delivers a holistic view of workplace inclusion, targeting six key drivers of workplace inclusion, allowing organisations to better understand where to focus inclusion initiatives.
Six drivers for workplace inclusion:
How the Inclusive Culture Index Works
Online Survey
Anonymous online survey includes 18 rating scale questions plus critical demographic questions.
Calculation and analysis
Calculation of inclusion scores and analysis of results to identify actionable insights.
Dashboard and reporting
Scorecard outputs detailing:
- Overall workplace inclusion score
- Results for each of the six drivers of inclusion
- Benchmarking of results (where available, based on market research survey data)
- Tailored inclusion action plan outlining recommended focus areas based on survey results
“While diversity targets help drive action, understanding employee perceptions of inclusion are essential to deliver meaningful, systemic, cultural change.”
Want to learn more about the Inclusive Culture Index?
Speak to one of our Diversity & Inclusion experts about how the Inclusive Culture Index can be used in your organisation to deliver a more diverse and inclusive workforce.
Elizabeth Shaw
“The Inclusive Culture Index is a highly effective diagnostic tool to pin-point feelings and perceptions of culture that either build or detract from the level of inclusion.”
Inclusive Culture Index: Frequently Asked Questions
PwC’s Inclusive Culture Index enables workplaces to move beyond collecting and reporting on diversity dimensions (e.g. gender) alone to measuring more holistic perceptions of workplace inclusion. Backed by research, the Index enables organisations to measure employee perceptions across the six key drivers for inclusion to generate a score that helps identify key areas of strength and gaps needing further focus.
Below are some frequently asked questions about inclusive workplace cultures.
- What is the most important driver of an inclusive culture and how do we know that it is the most important?
- What other drivers – not included in as one of the six key drivers – may be important to generating an inclusive culture?
- What is the meaning of the driver titled Contribution and Impact?
- How representative of the Australian workforce is the sample on which the statistical analysis is based?
- What is implied by the term “driver,” which is used to describe the concepts of the inclusive culture index?
- What is a good score and what is a bad score on the inclusive culture index and the concepts of the index?
- Can the performance of my organisation be specifically compared against another organisation?
- Can the inclusive culture index be used to study inclusivity in cross-cultural and cross-national settings?
- How do I know if the results of a quantitative benchmarking exercise have produced results significantly different from the empirical norms of the national sample?
- What sources of biases, if any, are likely to exist in the national sample that may be relevant in using the national sample for benchmarking purposes?
What is the most important driver of an inclusive culture and how do we know that it is the most important?
The importance of the drivers was established using field survey research and structural equations modelling. The six drivers of an inclusive culture include Empowerment, Belonging, Leadership and Accountability, Speak up Culture, Diversity, and Contribution and Impact.
The most important driver is Empowerment followed by Leadership and Accountability, which captures the core role of organisational leadership in supporting employees and visibly role modelling positive and inclusive behaviours.
Further details of how the (statistical) importance of the drivers was established are offered in the accompanying background document.
What other drivers – not included in as one of the six key drivers – may be important to generating an inclusive culture?
Per the response to Q1, a statistical analysis identified the key six drivers of an inclusive culture as Empowerment, Belonging, Leadership and Accountability, Speak up Culture, Diversity, and Contribution and Impact. However, it is possible that other drivers may exist and play an important role.
For example, we considered the possible impact of Flexibility and Acting with Integrity. Although these additional drivers may be important conceptually, the statistical analysis shows the influence of Flexibility and Acting with Integrity is largely subsumed by the influence of the other six key drivers.
What is the meaning of the driver titled Contribution and Impact?
The driver Contribution and Impact is intended to capture the performance implications of an inclusive culture. Conceptually, the performance implications of an inclusive culture may be seen at the level of an individual employee, at the level of a group or subunit within an organisation, or at the level of the organisation itself.
More generally, a substantial component of the variation in individual, group, and organisational performance may be explained by an inclusive culture.
The existing measures of Contribution and Impact reflect the perceptions of employees of their performance (i.e., a self-rating of performance). However, other measures are possible and future iterations of the inclusive culture index may incorporate such measures. The existing measures are indicative of the components of performance rather than comprehensive.
How representative of the Australian workforce is the sample on which the statistical analysis is based?
The sample is based on approximately 1,200 responses from Australians aged 18 years and older, and who were participating in the labour force at the time the sample was generated.
The sample includes responses from seven major categories of employment: industries including Healthcare and Social Assistance, Retail, Construction, Education and Training, Manufacturing, Financial and Insurance Services, and Electricity, Gas, Water and Waste Services.
Employment in these industry sectors accounts for more than 50 percent of all employment in Australia. The sample is generally representative of labour force participants in those sectors (i.e., there is considerable variation on all the measured variables and background characteristics of respondents).
What is implied by the term “driver,” which is used to describe the concepts of the inclusive culture index?
The drivers can be thought of as inputs to an inclusive culture or outcomes of an inclusive culture.
Specifically, the concepts Diversity and Contribution and Impact are the focal outputs. The concepts Empowerment, Belonging, Leadership and Accountability, and Speak up Culture are inputs.
Further, a driver can be both an input and an output. For example, the concept Leadership and Accountability is an output in the relationship between Empowerment and Leadership and Accountability and it is an input in the relationship between Leadership Accountability and Diversity.
These more subtle patterns of interrelationships are described in detail in the accompanying background document.
What is a good score and what is a bad score on the inclusive culture index and the concepts of the index?
There are at least two ways to define “good” and “bad” scores on the inclusive culture index and its key drivers.
The first way is to compare the performance of an organisation (or unit within an organisation) by benchmarking the organisation against the empirical norms established in the original national sample of the Australian workforce. The benchmarking may be against the overall sample or a specific industry or industries.
A second way to define good and bad scores is to establish thresholds of acceptable performance for a particular organisation. For example, an organisation might establish a threshold of agreement for acceptable performance at 70, 80, or 90 percent agreement.
Can the performance of my organisation be specifically compared against another organisation?
No. The data does not allow for comparison against a single and specific organisation (i.e., a competitor). However, it is possible to benchmark against an industry sector which may include key competitors and it may be possible to qualitatively compare the performance of an organisation against exemplars.
Can the inclusive culture index be used to study inclusivity in cross-cultural and cross-national settings?
Yes. The inclusive culture index can be used in settings other than the Australian setting in which it was developed.
Two key tests must be attended to in using the inclusive culture index in cross-cultural and cross-national settings.
The first key test is to establish that the concepts of the inclusive culture index exist and operate in the same way in one setting as they do in another setting or settings.
The second key test is to establish that the levels of the concepts (i.e., their measured variables) are the same across the settings of interest. Statistical tests are available for evaluating both tests. The results of these tests can influence the ways in which the inclusive culture index should be used across cultures and national boundaries.
How do I know if the results of a quantitative benchmarking exercise have produced results significantly different from the empirical norms of the national sample?
An organisation’s scores on the drivers on the inclusive culture index can be compared to the national sample results, and the statistical significance of differences in an organisation’s scores and the benchmark scores of the national sample can be compared.
Further details of how to perform these tests are provided in the accompanying background document. Note that even small differences in scores are likely to be statistically significant. For example, differences in scores of two or more points out of 100 are likely to be statistically significant at a probability level of 0.05 percent.
What sources of biases, if any, are likely to exist in the national sample that may be relevant in using the national sample for benchmarking purposes?
The national sample is unlikely to be subject to systematic sources of bias (but can be reweighted to specifically reflect the proportion of the workforce in each of the key industry sectors on which it samples). A further issue to be mindful of in surveying current employees and comparing the results of an organisational survey to the national sample is a form of selection bias known as “survivor bias.”
It is possible that an organisational survey will be subject to survivor bias because employees with an unfavourable view of an organisation’s culture supporting inclusivity may have a lower visibility than other employees. That is, they may be more difficult to survey (reluctant to participate) and/or may have left the organisation (resigned their employment). Statistical tests are available for testing the extent of survivor bias and the likely impact of survivor bias on the results of an organisational survey.
Contact us
