Latest / The Diversity Career Podcast with Fexingo: Inclusion, Equity, and Underrepresented Professionals / How One Company Made Its Leadership Training Actually Inclusive
Transcript
- Lucas: You know, we've talked a lot on this show about hiring pipelines and retention strategies. But there's this tricky middle zone — once someone's in the door, how do they actually move up into leadership? Luna: Right, and the data there is pretty sobering. McKinsey's 'Women in the Workplace' report keeps showing that the biggest drop-off for women of color is that first step into management. Lucas: Exactly. So today I want to look at a company that tried something different. It's a mid-sized tech firm called Greenline Software — about twelve hundred employees, based in the Pacific Northwest. They realized their leadership development program was not actually developing diverse leaders. Luna: What were they doing before? Lucas: The classic high-potential nominee model. Senior leaders would nominate people they thought had 'leadership potential.' And what do you think that looked like? Luna: I'm guessing a lot of people who look and act like those senior leaders. Lucas: Bingo. When they audited their pipeline, they found that seventy-five percent of nominees were white, and sixty percent were men. But the company overall was forty-five percent women and thirty percent people of color. So the nomination process was effectively filtering out a lot of talent before the training even started. Luna: That's a huge leak in the pipeline. So what did they change? Lucas: Two big things. First, they scrapped the nomination process entirely and replaced it with a skills-based assessment. Any employee with at least two years at the company could apply. They didn't need a manager's sign-off. Luna: That's a big shift. How'd they assess people without manager input? Lucas: They used a combination of a situational judgment test — so, hypothetical leadership scenarios — and a recorded video response where candidates answered questions like, 'Tell us about a time you influenced a decision without formal authority.' Then a diverse panel of assessors scored those responses blindly, without knowing the candidate's name, gender, or background. Luna: Blind auditions for leadership training. I love that. Lucas: It's a concept borrowed from orchestras, actually. And it worked. The pool of participants went from seventy-five percent white to fifty-two percent white, and from forty percent women to fifty-five percent women. Over nine hundred employees applied for sixty spots. Luna: So demand was clearly there. But just getting into the program isn't enough — what actually happened inside it? Lucas: That's where the second big change comes in. They redesigned the curriculum to focus on three things: managerial skills like giving feedback and delegating, strategic thinking, and something they called 'organizational navigation' — basically, how to get things done in a company when you don't have a powerful sponsor yet. Luna: And did they have sponsors? I feel like that's the missing piece in a lot of programs. Lucas: That's exactly the piece. Greenline paired each participant with a senior leader who wasn't their direct manager — a sponsor, not just a mentor. The sponsor's job was to actively advocate for the participant: nominating them for stretch assignments, introducing them to other executives, and pushing for their promotion at talent review meetings. Luna: That's a huge time commitment. How'd they get senior leaders to buy in? Lucas: They made sponsorship part of the senior leaders' own performance reviews. Each executive had to sponsor at least one participant per cycle, and their bonus was partially tied to whether that participant advanced within eighteen months. Luna: Wow — so they tied real accountability to it. That's rare. Lucas: It's the difference between a nice to have program and one that actually moves the needle. And the results? Within two years, the share of women and people of color in first-time management roles increased by thirty-four percent. Not just in the program — across the company. Because the program created a visible pipeline, and managers started expecting diverse candidates. Luna: That's a really concrete outcome. But I wonder — did they measure anything else? Like, did participants themselves report feeling more prepared? Lucas: They did. Ninety-two percent of participants said the program prepared them well for management, compared to only sixty percent of people who went through the old nomination system. And retention among participants was fifteen percent higher than the broader employee population. Luna: So it's not just good optics — it's actually sticky. People stay. Lucas: Exactly. And I think that gets at something we don't talk about enough: leadership development programs are often treated as a cost center. But Greenline calculated that replacing a single manager costs about two times their salary. If the program keeps even three managers from leaving, it pays for itself. Luna: That's a compelling business case. But I'm curious — was there any pushback? Like, 'We're letting unqualified people into management'? Lucas: Oh, definitely. Some senior leaders were skeptical. They argued the skills assessment couldn't capture things like 'cultural fit' or 'executive presence.' But Greenline pushed back by showing the data: participants' performance ratings in their first year as managers were actually slightly higher than the historical average for new managers. So the assessment was a better predictor than the old nomination system. Luna: That's a powerful counterpoint. 'Cultural fit' is often just code for 'people like us.' Lucas: Right. And I think the key lesson here is that Greenline didn't just add a diversity overlay to an existing program. They rethought the entire design from the ground up — starting with who gets to be in the room. Luna: It reminds me of something we've touched on before: if you want different outcomes, you have to change the inputs. Lucas: Exactly. And look, not every company has the resources to run a program like this at scale. But Greenline's approach has some really transferable pieces. The blind assessment, the sponsorship accountability, the focus on outcomes rather than just attendance — those are all things that can be adapted. Luna: I'd add that it also requires some humility from senior leaders — admitting that their 'gut feel' about who has potential might be biased. Lucas: That's a big one. And that's where the data helps. When you can show leaders that the skills assessment predicts success better than their own nominations, it's harder to argue with. Luna: I want to circle back to something you said about retention. Fifteen percent higher retention among participants — that's huge. And it makes me think: if leadership development is this effective, why don't more companies invest in it? Lucas: Part of it is that these programs take time and money. But also, I think a lot of companies view leadership development as a perk, not a strategic tool. They send people to a two-day workshop and call it done. But Greenline's program ran for nine months, with weekly sessions and monthly sponsor check-ins. Luna: That's a significant investment. But if you calculate the cost of turnover and missed promotions, it probably pays off. Lucas: And that's before you even factor in the innovation and productivity gains from having more diverse leadership. Research from Boston Consulting Group shows that companies with above-average diversity in management report nineteen percent higher innovation revenue. Luna: So the case for inclusive leadership development is pretty airtight, on paper. But I think the real challenge is the culture shift — getting people to actually believe that potential doesn't always look like the last person who had the job. Lucas: Absolutely. And that's where stories like Greenline's matter. They prove that when you change the system, you get different — and often better — results. Luna: Speaking of different results — you know, episodes like this take time to research and write. And I know our listeners find them valuable because we hear from you. If you've gotten something out of this show, a couple of dollars a month genuinely helps keep it going. Lucas: Yeah, no kidding. We don't run ads, and that's intentional. If you want to support us, you can head to buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. Even five bucks makes a real difference. Luna: And thank you to those who already do. It lets us keep digging into stories like this one. Lucas: Alright — back to the data. So Greenline's program had another interesting feature: they tracked long-term outcomes, not just immediate promotion rates. After three years, participants were still in management at a rate twenty percent higher than the control group. Luna: That suggests the training actually stuck. They weren't just getting promoted and then struggling. Lucas: Exactly. And they also found that participants were more likely to sponsor others later on. So the program created a virtuous cycle. Once people got the boost, they paid it forward. Luna: That's the kind of multiplier effect you want. It's not just about one cohort — it changes the culture over time. Lucas: Right. And I think that's the ultimate takeaway. Greenline didn't just fix a pipeline problem. They built a self-sustaining system for developing leaders from all backgrounds. Luna: So for companies listening: start with the assessment. Stop relying on nominations. And attach real accountability to sponsorship. Lucas: And measure what matters. Not just how many people completed the program, but how many advanced, how many stayed, and how many lifted others. Luna: I think we could do a whole episode just on measuring DEI outcomes. But for now, this feels like a concrete, actionable model. Lucas: Absolutely. And if you want to read more about Greenline's program, there's a detailed case study in the Harvard Business Review from earlier this year. We'll link to it in the show notes. Luna: Thanks for listening, everyone. We'll talk next time.