“How do I choose a diversity & inclusion training provider for my organisation?”
How Do I Choose a Diversity and Inclusion Training Provider for My Organisation?
This is a question I am often asked by leaders and HR professionals at the point where intention turns into action. There is usually a clear recognition that something needs to shift whether that is performance, culture, leadership capability, or the quality of day-to-day interactions. At the same time, there can be uncertainty about how to choose a provider who can meaningfully influence those outcomes. Although this can appear to be a procurement decision, it is more accurately understood as a strategic choice about how leadership and organisational effectiveness will be developed in practice.
Reframing What You Are Choosing
In our work with organisations, a consistent pattern emerges. Leaders and employees often engage positively with inclusion training and, at times, can also be resistant. That resistance can be valid, particularly where inclusion has previously been introduced without clarity, applied inconsistently, or experienced as something being “done to” people rather than worked through with them.
From this perspective, you are not selecting a programme. You are selecting a way of working that will shape how leaders:
interpret situations
engage in conversations
make decisions under pressure
and balance the needs of people and performance
This distinction is important because it shifts the evaluation from content to capability.
A Recurring Challenge in Practice
Often, people understand the concepts, agree with the intent, and can articulate the importance of inclusion. However, when they return to their day-to-day roles, the same challenges tend to persist.
Conversations still sound like:
“Let’s keep an eye on that” rather than clearly addressing performance
“I don’t want to upset them” when accountability is required
“We need to be inclusive”, without clarity on what that means in decision-making
This reflects a gap between conceptual understanding and applied inclusive leadership practice. As outlined in Inclusive Leadership: Navigating Organisational Complexity, leadership does not occur in controlled or ideal conditions. It occurs in complexity, where multiple needs, perspectives, and pressures are present simultaneously. The effectiveness of inclusion work, therefore, depends on whether it equips leaders to navigate that complexity in practice. The effectiveness of diversity and inclusion work, therefore, depends on whether it equips leaders and employees to work with these needs in real time, rather than simplifying or avoiding them.
What to Evaluate in a Diversity and Inclusion Training Provider
1. Conceptual Rigour and Evidence Base
A diversity and inclusion training provider could be assessed on how their work is grounded in research and organisational psychology, rather than relying solely on opinion or contemporary discourse. Research in organisational behaviour consistently demonstrates that interventions are more effective when they are linked to observable outcomes and behavioural change (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Burke & Litwin, 1992). Providers who can articulate this connection clearly are more likely to deliver sustainable impact. This also includes how clearly the provider links inclusion to human and organisational needs in practice. Wilson’s (2023, 2024) work on the 8-Inclusion Needs of All People highlights that inclusion is experienced through conditions such as access, space, opportunity, and support, rather than solely through intention, and their chapter in Inclusive Leadership: Navigating Organisational Complexity. This strengthens the position that inclusion must be operationalised, not just understood conceptually. This aligns with a data-driven and needs-based approach, where inclusion is not treated as an abstract value but as a contributor to organisational performance.
2. Relevance to Organisational Context
Programmes designed to be universally applicable may struggle to address an organisation's specific realities. Leadership challenges are always shaped by context, including organisational structure, culture, and external pressures.
A provider’s approach could therefore be evaluated based on the extent to which it engages with: current organisational dynamics, existing leadership behaviours and the specific tensions leaders are navigating. Contingency theory (Fiedler, 1967) and subsequent leadership research emphasise that effectiveness depends on context rather than on fixed approaches. This reinforces the importance of needs-led design in inclusion work. From an Include-Performance Framework (R) perspective, this involves working with individual, collective, and task needs simultaneously, ensuring that inclusion aligns with the organisation’s goals rather than being applied as a separate initiative.
3. Translation into Behaviour
A central consideration is whether the provider focuses on behavioural, relational and structural practices. Awareness alone rarely produces sustained change.
From a psychological perspective, behaviour change requires: clarity of expectations, opportunities for practice and reinforcement in real contexts (Bandura, 1977). In practical terms, this means inclusion training could be evaluated based on whether it supports leaders to: conduct difficult conversations with clarity, articulate expectations in observable terms, address performance issues without avoidance and include diverse perspectives in decision-making
From an applied perspective, inclusion is not an additional activity but part of how work is carried out. As outlined in the Include-Performance Organisational Transition™ (Walsh, 2025), inclusion becomes effective when it is embedded within everyday organisational practices, including decision-making, communication, and task execution, rather than positioned as an add-on. The emphasis is not on what leaders know, but on what they can consistently do.
4. Integration of Diversity, Inclusion and Performance
A persistent tension in organisations is the perceived trade-off between being inclusive and achieving results. Some approaches position inclusion as primarily relational or cultural, while others prioritise performance outcomes. However, this separation can limit effectiveness. As articulated in the ELIS Advantage point of view, high performance requires everyone’s needs to be included. Wilson’s framework further supports this by demonstrating that when core inclusion needs (such as access, representation, and support) are not met, individuals are less able to contribute effectively. Inclusion, therefore, becomes a condition for performance rather than a competing priority. This perspective is supported by research indicating that inclusive leadership is associated with improved team performance, decision quality, and engagement (Nishii, 2013). An effective provider, therefore, works with the tension between people and performance, rather than simplifying it. Leaders are supported to make decisions that are both inclusive and effective, even when those needs appear to be in conflict.
5. Evidence of Applied Impact
While testimonials can provide useful insight, they do not always capture the extent of behavioural or organisational change. A more robust evaluation could consider whether the provider can demonstrate:
changes in how leaders communicate
improvements in accountability and ownership
reductions in recurring performance issues
shifts in how decisions are made and implemented
increase in psychological safety
increases and improvements in innovation
better team dynamics
inclusion weaved into business as usual activities
These indicators reflect changes in organisational functioning rather than perception alone. Kirkpatrick’s (1994) model of training evaluation highlights the importance of moving beyond reaction and learning to assess behaviour and results. This provides a useful framework for considering impact.
6. Credibility and Coherence of Approach
Finally, credibility could be assessed not only in terms of delivery capability, but also in the coherence of the provider’s overall approach. This includes: a clearly articulated methodology, consistency between their stated principles and their applied work, and a data-driven contribution to thought leadership in the field. A provider who demonstrates this level of coherence is more likely to offer a transferable and sustainable practice, rather than a one-off intervention. This is particularly relevant where the provider’s work is supported by both published research and applied frameworks, demonstrating an ability to operate across theory and practice in real organisational contexts.
The shift: From Awareness to Applied Leadership and Employee Practice.
The distinction between knowledge and practice is critical. Prior to effective inclusion work, organisations often experience:
avoidance of difficult conversations
ambiguity in expectations
repeated performance issues
a disconnect between values and behaviour
Following effective intervention, changes are typically observable in how leaders operate. Conversations become more direct and constructive, accountability becomes clearer, and decision-making processes incorporate a broader range of perspectives without losing focus on outcomes. In this shift, inclusion becomes part of how work is done, rather than something that sits alongside it. This reflects the principle that inclusion is an ongoing, needs-based process embedded in everyday organisational practice, not a one-off intervention.
This reflects a shift from knowing about diversity and inclusion to actually working inclusively in practice.
One question that can support decision-making in this context is: Will this provider change how our leaders and people work, or primarily what they know? This question encourages a focus on behavioural and organisational outcomes, rather than content alone.
Selecting an inclusion training provider is not simply a learning and development decision. It is an intervention into how leadership is enacted and how organisational performance is achieved. Drawing on Inclusive Leadership: Navigating Organisational Complexity and the Include-Performance frameworks (R), this involves working with multiple, and sometimes competing, needs in real time. Frameworks such as Wilson’s (2023, 2024) further reinforce that inclusion is experienced through practical conditions that enable contribution, rather than intention alone.
Effective inclusion work contributes to environments where individuals are able to perform and thrive, not as separate outcomes, but as interconnected elements of organisational effectiveness. Approaching this decision with a focus on practice, behaviour, and context increases the likelihood that inclusion will move beyond intention and become embedded in how work is done.
Get in contact if you want to discuss your inclusion needs.
References
Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 315–338.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice Hall.
Burke, W. W., & Litwin, G. H. (1992). A causal model of organisational performance and change. Journal of Management, 18(3), 523–545.
Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. McGraw-Hill.
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1994). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. Berrett-Koehler.
Nishii, L. H. (2013). The benefits of climate for inclusion. Academy of Management Journal, 56(6), 1754–1774.
Wilson, L. A. (2023). The 8-inclusion needs of all people: A proposed framework to address intersectionality in efforts to prevent discrimination. International Journal of Social Science Research and Review, 6(2), 296–314. https://doi.org/10.47814/ijssrr.v6i2.937
Wilson, L. A. (2023). Inclusion needs through the lens of intersectionality: Evidence supporting the 8-inclusion needs of all people framework. International Journal of Social Science Studies, 11(6), 38. https://doi.org/10.11114/ijsss.v11i6.6518
Walsh, S. (2024). Inclusive leadership: Navigating organisational complexity.
Walsh, S. (2025). Include-Performance Organisational Transition™.