INSPIRIA^®

For years, we’ve used DE&I metrics as a stand-in for “diversity of thought.” Sometimes that’s directionally helpful—but it’s not the same thing. Representation can change which perspectives show up, but it doesn’t guarantee the room challenges assumptions, surfaces dissent or explores real alternatives.

Now that DE&I tracking isn’t permitted in some contexts, the question gets sharper (and more useful): How do we actually measure and build diversity of thought—without guessing, without proxies, and without turning it into a vibes exercise?

I’m convening a small group of senior leaders for an off-the-record dinner to have the candid version of this conversation:

• What “diversity of thought” should mean in practice (decision quality, innovation, risk)
• What we can measure instead: cognitive/experiential variety, dissent patterns, decision hygiene, perspective-taking
• What we should stop doing
• Where this belongs – hiring, succession, team formation, and post-decision reviews

And here’s the business reason to care: large-scale studies have repeatedly found a correlation between leadership diversity and outperformance—for example, McKinsey reported companies in the top quartile for gender diversity were 15% more likely to outperform their industry median, and top quartile for racial/ethnic diversity 35% more likely.  BCG similarly reported firms with above-average management-team diversity had 19 percentage points higher innovation revenue (45% vs. 26%).

If the outcomes matter, the measurement has to get smarter.