People Centricity case study

Say, Do, Say They Do: Measuring Inclusion

1,000+survey comments coded by theme
39survey items mapped to a benchmark
35local sources on market norms and law
2systems read side by side: the survey and HR data

The situation

The question behind the question.

This luxury house had written inclusion and well-being into its workplace strategy, to be rolled out market by market. A few months after we had designed its manager dashboard, it asked a harder question. The strategy's words were not yet measurable, its survey held a thousand comments nobody had read next to the HR data, and a healthy engagement score could hide a different story underneath. It chose one market to pilot the analysis, and to test whether the approach could travel.

As it was asked

“Tell us where we stand on inclusion and well-being in this market.”

As we reframed it

Define inclusion and well-being in terms that can be measured, then compare what people say, what the data shows they do, and what the market expects, so the gaps point to where to act first.

How we worked

How the work unfolded.

01

Define what to measure

We started by turning a strategy pillar into indicators. Inclusion and well-being were defined in 3 blocks, diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging, health and well-being, and engagement, framed by the relational currency of the People Expectations Framework™. Every survey item and HR metric was mapped to a block and rated red, amber or green against published research, not against the house's own average, so a stable score could not pass for a good one.

02

Listen 3 ways

Then the evidence, read through Margaret Mead's lens: what people say, what they say they do, and what they do. More than 1,000 survey comments across 39 questions were coded by theme and split by those likely or unlikely to recommend the house, by setting, generation and level. The HR system gave the behaviour: who leaves and when, who progresses, who works part time. 35 local sources set the market's norms and legal obligations alongside.

03

Read the gap

Then the three were read together, never one alone. Scores carry self-report bias, comments come mostly from those motivated to write, and HR data shows behaviour but never the reason; each source corrects the others' blind spot. Where they agreed, the pattern counted; where they parted, the gap was the finding. Small groups were protected throughout. The clearest signal was a gap between what the house said about inclusion and what its offices experienced.

04

Make the case for change

Then the case for change. Rather than prescribe, the report put to the leadership team the questions the evidence raised, theme by theme, so the answers would be theirs, and showed how peers had answered them. 3 focus areas emerged: careers, workload and well-being, and inclusion in the offices. The pilot was built to travel: one indicator matrix, one standard data request, one external scan per market, and a list of the data still missing, from pay to succession.

The instrument

Say, do, say they do

What people say. Comments in their own words, coded by theme, never quoted where they could identify anyone.

What they say they do. Survey scores, people rating their own experience, each item set against a published benchmark.

What they do. The HR system's record: who stays, who leaves, who progresses, who works part time.

Each source has its own blind spot. Where all three agree, act; where they part, look closer.

What moved

What changed, and what didn't.

3focus areas for the leadership team: careers, workload and well-being, inclusion in the offices
Evidence Decision taken Adopted in practice Measured impact
What moved

The diagnostic gave the leadership team 3 focus areas, careers, workload and well-being, and inclusion in the offices, and gave the house a method built to travel: the indicator matrix, the data request and the market scan became the template for the next markets, run in-house. As the sponsor put it, the pilot sharpened both the approach and the data it needs.

What didn't move

The pilot covered one market and aggregated data only: pay equity, succession and the recruitment funnel had no data to read, and exit interviews and staff representatives, planned at the outset, were not heard. Whether the leadership team acted on the focus areas was beyond what we saw.

What we'd say to a peer

Inclusion is judged in the gap between what an organisation says and what its people live. Define it in indicators set against outside benchmarks, then read what people say, what they say they do and what they actually do, side by side. Where all three agree, act; where they part, the gap is your finding. And pilot in one market, built to travel, before you roll out.

Let's talk Discover People Centricity Read more cases
Method note:

Own approach in 4 steps; People Expectations Framework™; indicator matrix against published benchmarks; 1,000+ coded survey comments; HR data analysis; 35 local sources.