Data, baselines and leadership accountability can turn EDI from a trend-cycle pledge into measurable workplace outcomes
The public conversation around EDI (equity, diversity and inclusion) has shifted dramatically since 2020. Regulators are scrutinizing corporate inclusion programs, major employers have softened public language, and HR leaders are being pushed to prove EDI is more than a political or reputational exercise.
Lola Obomighie’s answer is to make the work measurable. Obomighie, Vice President of People, Culture and Organizational Effectiveness at Northumberland Hills Hospital in Ontario, has spent much of her career in public healthcare. She believes that hospitals have a distinct obligation to the communities they serve. But the same discipline matters to private employers too. If leaders want better culture, lower attrition, fewer grievances and stronger performance, they need to understand who their people are, who they serve and whether interventions are changing outcomes.
“I do not know how to do anything without data,” Obomighie said. “There is evidence-based decision making, there’s data-informed decisions. It’s not the end all be all, but it’s a powerful tool.”
Start with the baseline
The approach begins before any major program is launched. Obomighie describes the first year of her organization’s EDI work as establishing the foundation: current-state analysis, shared language, training on the Ontario Human Rights Code, unconscious bias, cultural appropriation and inclusive language, plus early policy review around recruitment practices.
The point was not to do everything at once. It was to understand the starting point. What did employees think EDI meant? Where did policies already support the work? Where were the gaps? What language did leaders, managers and staff need in common before more ambitious change could stick?
Each year then becomes the next baseline. In year two, the organization maintained the first-year work and added voluntary training, including reconciliation training and more intentional relationship-building with Indigenous partners. Later years moved into mandatory training, co-designed policies, a smudging policy, land acknowledgment guidance and board education.
“Everything we’ve done in the year before becomes the baseline,” Obomighie said. The lesson for private employers is simple: EDI maturity is built sequentially. The mistake is treating it as a campaign that peaks when sentiment is positive and disappears when the politics change.
Measure what matters
The data work starts small. Obomighie says organizations first need to understand their own workforce demographics through employment, engagement or pulse surveys. Then they need to compare that picture with the demographics of the customers, clients, patients or communities they serve. Public population data can often supply part of that second picture.
“By the time you’re juxtaposing who are the users of our service, who are providing the service, what needs do they have and want, there’s always the place for anecdotal and the more subjective data,” she said.
From there, the scorecard can grow. Training completion, EDI event attendance, respectful-workplace incidents, employee feedback, engagement survey responses and service-user experience data can all show whether the work is moving beyond activity into impact. Obomighie cautions against measuring everything without purpose. The question is what data will drive decisions.
At her organization, that logic shaped the first mandatory training priorities: gender awareness, Indigenous cultural sensitivity and anti-Black racism. The choices were informed by employee and physician demographics, the population served and the local context. Other organizations may choose differently. The question, she said, is: “What is your context? What does good look like for you?”
Why private employers should care
That context matters because Obomighie’s experience is rooted in public healthcare, while many HRD readers operate in private-sector environments where the argument must often be made in commercial terms. She acknowledges the difference. In hospitals, equity directly shapes patient and community experience. In private companies, leaders may first ask how the work affects performance, cost and risk.
Her answer is to connect EDI to business outcomes. Attrition has a cost. Replacing talent has a cost. Complaints and grievances have a cost. A culture where employees can raise concerns earlier and share a common language about inappropriate interactions can reduce avoidable friction before it becomes a formal dispute.
“Once the leaders at the top get and understand that this isn’t about ticking a box, this isn’t about a quota, this isn’t about political correctness, it’s the key to growth,” she said.
External data helps explain why the issue is not going away. Catalyst and NYU Law’s Meltzer Center reported in May 2026 that 80 percent of U.S. organizations remain committed to workplace inclusion, even as 55 percent of organizations had publicly signalled a retreat from EDI and only 34 percent had actually reduced inclusion efforts. McKinsey’s latest diversity research has also continued to associate diverse executive teams with a higher likelihood of financial outperformance.
Build it into the organization
The results from Obomighie’s model aren’t abstract. She points to shared language across the organization, more visible commitments such as land acknowledgment and Pride visibility, policies around smudging and recruitment, annual board training and more reporting from people who can now identify inappropriate language or behaviour.
“If you hardwire something into the fabric of the organization, then it’s difficult to take it out,” she said.
Governance matters, too. Obomighie prefers a committee approach, linked to senior leadership and board oversight, because it makes the work shared. A single EDI role can be eliminated. A committee, policy framework and scorecard are harder to unwind.
For HR leaders navigating 2026 and 2027, that may be the answer to the pendulum swing. Durable EDI work does not depend on perfect politics. It depends on evidence, leadership accountability and enough organizational structure that outcomes can be measured year after year.
