Inclusion Hysteresis: When Your Culture Moves Faster Than Your Systems

A company announces a bold commitment to equity. Leadership communicates it clearly and sincerely. Training programs are updated. The DEI team grows. Hiring processes are redesigned to reduce bias. Over the following year, employee surveys show real improvement in belonging and inclusion scores. The culture has shifted – and genuinely so.

But two years in, something puzzling emerges. Employees from underrepresented groups report feeling included in the day-to-day but stuck when it comes to advancement. Promotion rates have not moved in proportion to representation. Pay progression remains uneven. The informal networks that determine who gets visibility with senior leaders have not changed much. The culture has moved. The systems have not kept pace.

This is inclusion hysteresis – borrowed from physics, where hysteresis describes the lag between applying a force and observing its full effect. In organizations, it describes the gap between the adoption of progressive values and the structural mechanisms that would make those values real.

The concept names something that many DEI leaders have sensed but struggled to articulate: the feeling that the organization has genuinely changed in some important ways, and yet the change has not reached all the way down to the systems that govern careers, rewards, and recognition.

Why culture moves faster than structure

Culture – the shared norms, behaviors, and values that characterize how people work together – is surprisingly responsive to deliberate leadership attention. When senior leaders model inclusive behavior consistently, when managers are trained and held accountable, when language and rituals shift, employees notice and adapt. The relational fabric of the organization can change meaningfully within a few years.

Structural systems are a different matter. Compensation frameworks, promotion criteria, performance evaluation methodologies, and the informal networks through which opportunity flows – these are stickier. They carry the accumulated logic of how the organization has historically rewarded people, which habits and styles it has treated as indicators of potential, and which relationships have mattered for advancement. Changing them requires not just intention but deliberate redesign, organizational will, and often a willingness to surface and challenge assumptions that are deeply embedded in how the business operates.

The result is a structural lag that creates a specific and identifiable problem. Employees, particularly those from underrepresented groups, find themselves in an environment that feels genuinely more inclusive at the interpersonal level – and yet face structural barriers that the new culture has not yet dismantled. The experience is disorienting: the signals say “you belong here” while the outcomes say “but not quite on equal terms.”

Research on non-binary individuals in the workplace captures this dynamic particularly clearly. Organizations can formally recognize diverse identities, update their policies, and communicate commitment to inclusion – while promotion criteria, visibility norms, and reward structures continue to reflect the assumptions of an older organizational logic. The values have been updated. The operating system has not.

What hysteresis looks like in organizations

Inclusion hysteresis tends to show up in three recognizable patterns, each of which is worth examining explicitly in your organization.

The first is the belonging-advancement gap. Employees report high scores on belonging and inclusion in engagement surveys, but lower scores on fairness of opportunity, career progression, and access to senior leadership. This divergence – feeling valued in the room but not equally positioned for what comes next – is one of the clearest signals that cultural progress has outpaced structural reform.

The second is invisible criteria in promotion decisions. When the formal criteria for advancement are clear but the actual decisions seem to be influenced by factors that go undiscussed – relationships, visibility, communication style, or simply familiarity – the structural logic of an older organizational habitus is still operating beneath the surface. Employees observe this quickly, even when it is never articulated explicitly.

The third is the recognition gap. High-quality contributions from employees who do not fit the dominant visibility profile – those who are less vocal in meetings, less self-promotional, or less connected to the informal networks that generate organizational buzz – are systematically underweighted in evaluations. The culture may celebrate diverse perspectives in principle, but the reward system still responds most reliably to a narrow set of behaviors.

Inclusion hysteresis is not a sign that DEI efforts have failed. It is a sign that they have succeeded at the cultural layer and now need to go deeper – into the structural mechanics that determine who actually gets ahead.

What this means in practice

For HR leaders and DEI practitioners, addressing inclusion hysteresis means shifting focus from cultural initiatives to structural accountability. The culture work is not finished – but it needs a structural counterpart.

Audit your structural systems explicitly. Take your stated DEI values and ask, systematically, whether your compensation governance, promotion criteria, performance evaluation frameworks, and succession planning processes are aligned with them. This is not a cultural conversation – it is an operational one. Where are the gaps between what the organization says it values and what its systems actually reward?

Make promotion criteria transparent and objective. One of the most effective ways to reduce the influence of informal networks and habitus-driven evaluation is to make explicit what was previously implicit. Structured promotion criteria, calibration processes that involve multiple evaluators, and clear documentation of what distinguishes different performance levels all reduce the space in which invisible criteria can operate.

Track the belonging-advancement gap as a metric. If your engagement data captures belonging and fairness of opportunity as separate dimensions – and measures them by demographic group – the gap between these two scores is one of your most useful indicators of inclusion hysteresis. A wide gap is a structural signal, not a cultural one, and it calls for a structural response.

Close the feedback loop. Employees who experience the belonging-advancement gap often do not surface it through formal channels, because doing so carries risk. Creating structured, psychologically safe processes for employees to share their experience of fairness in advancement – separate from standard performance feedback – gives the organization the signal it needs to act.

The organizations that will close the inclusion hysteresis gap are those willing to hold two things simultaneously: genuine pride in the cultural progress they have made, and honest scrutiny of the structural mechanics that still need to catch up.

Culture is where DEI begins. Structure is where it either becomes real or stalls. The distance between those two is not a sign of failure – it is the next frontier of the work.

Where in your organization is culture running ahead of structure – and what would it take to close that gap?

About the methodology

The insights in this series draw on original research conducted in collaboration with Danske Bank Lithuania. The study used a convergent parallel qualitative design, integrating two independent data streams to produce conclusions more robust than either could generate alone. These comprised 105 pieces of secondary data, including publicly available organizational policies and communications, external media and rankings, and employee Glassdoor reviews, analyzed alongside in-depth interviews with company managers.

By systematically comparing what the organization communicates, how it is perceived externally, and what employees and managers experience, the research identified where the gap between intentions and lived experience points to work still to be done. All frameworks and recommendations in this series are grounded in that evidence. 

References

• Özbilgin, Mustafa F., and Ceren Erbil. “Non-Binary Individuals, Visibility and Legitimacy at Work: Future Crafting Inclusive Organizations in Times of Inclusion Hysteresis.” The International Journal of Human Resource Management 36, no. 7 (2025): 1164–90.

• Acker, Joan. “Gendered Organizations and Intersectionality: Problems and Possibilities.” Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal 31, no. 3 (2012): 214–24.

• Allen, Shalini A., Audrey J. Murrell, and Frits K. Pil. “DEI Backlash – Implications for Organizational DEI Alignment and Employee Belongingness.” Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal. Advance online publication (2025).

• Bourdieu, Pierre. The Logic of Practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1990.

• Dover, Tessa L., Cheryl R. Kaiser, and Brenda Major. “Mixed Signals: The Unintended Effects of Diversity Initiatives.” Social Issues and Policy Review 14, no. 1 (2020): 152–81.

• Frazier, M. Lance, Stav Fainshmidt, Ryan L. Klinger, Amir Pezeshkan, and Veselina Vracheva. “Psychological Safety: A Meta-Analytic Review and Extension.” Personnel Psychology 70, no. 1 (2017): 113–65.

• Wolk, Jan, Fabiola H. Gerpott, and Rudolf Kerschreiter. “Three Levels, Two Needs, One Goal: Fostering an Integrated Sense of Inclusion through Inclusive Leadership.” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 98 (2025): e70037.