People from Underrepresented Minority Groups in the Team

What does this metric measure?

This metric measures the share of total team members who identify as belonging to an underrepresented minority group. Representation is assessed relative to the general population, not an internal baseline.

The metric is inclusive of any characteristic that can lead to underrepresentation, including race, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, and gender identity.

Why this metric matters

Inclusive workplaces do not happen by accident. Without measurement, organizations have no reliable way to identify gaps or track whether inclusion efforts are working.

Tracking this metric creates accountability. It moves diversity and inclusion from intention to evidence, giving leadership a concrete starting point for action.

Research consistently links workforce diversity to stronger outcomes. A 2023 McKinsey report found that companies in the top quartile for ethnic diversity were 39% more likely to outperform peers on profitability. Diverse teams bring broader perspectives to problem-solving, which supports better decisions and more resilient organizations.

Beyond performance, representation affects how employees experience work. When people see themselves reflected in the team around them, retention improves and a stronger sense of belonging follows.

How to use this metric effectively

Set a meaningful baseline

Before setting targets, establish where the organization stands today. Calculate the metric at multiple levels: the overall company, individual departments, leadership tiers, and specific roles. Representation gaps often concentrate in particular functions or levels rather than spreading evenly across the organization.

Compare to the right reference population

The general population is a common reference, but it is not always the most useful one. Depending on the role, a more relevant comparison might be the qualified labour pool for that function, the local population in the region where hiring occurs, or industry-wide representation data. Using a narrower reference makes the metric more actionable.

Track over time, not just at a point in time

A single snapshot shows the current state. Tracking the metric quarterly or annually reveals whether representation is improving, stagnating, or declining. Pair trend data with information on hiring, promotion, and attrition rates to understand what is driving the change.

Disaggregate by group

Aggregating all underrepresented groups into a single number can mask meaningful differences. A team may score well on one dimension of diversity while showing significant gaps on another. Where data collection and privacy practices allow, report representation by specific group to surface those distinctions.

Common challenges

Self-identification rates vary. This metric depends on employees voluntarily disclosing their identity. If self-identification rates are low, the data will undercount actual representation. Transparent communication about how data is used and protected encourages participation.

Definition boundaries are not universal. What counts as an underrepresented minority group varies by country, industry, and organizational context. Organizations operating across multiple regions may need to adapt their definitions to reflect local demographics and legal frameworks.

The metric captures presence, not inclusion. A team can hit a representation target while still having an exclusionary culture. This metric should sit alongside measures of belonging, psychological safety, pay equity, and promotion rates to give a fuller picture.

Targets can be misapplied. Representation goals are most effective when they drive systemic changes to sourcing, evaluation, and development practices. Treating them as quotas without addressing underlying barriers produces surface-level results that do not hold.

Related metrics to track alongside