Ling-Yi Tsai, our HRTech expert, brings decades of experience assisting organizations in driving change through technology. She specializes in HR analytics tools and the integration of technology across recruitment, onboarding, and talent management processes. With a reputation for challenging conventional wisdom, she argues that a fixation on diversity targets often obscures the systemic issues that truly hinder progress, advocating instead for a deep, procedural audit of how talent is identified, developed, and promoted.
You shared a powerful story about a law firm that audited its promotion process instead of setting gender targets. Could you walk us through the specific procedural changes they likely made and explain why that approach proved so much more transformative than a focus on numbers?
Of course. It’s a story I love to tell because it cuts right to the heart of the matter. When we encouraged them to audit their process, it felt like a lightbulb went on. They stopped asking, “How do we get more women partners?” and started asking, “What in our system is preventing talented women from becoming partners?” They likely began by deconstructing their opaque promotion criteria, replacing vague notions of “partner material” with concrete, measurable competencies. I imagine they analyzed who was getting access to high-profile cases, who was receiving mentorship from senior partners, and how performance reviews were conducted to root out subjective, biased language. The result—six new partners, all of them women, just two years later—wasn’t a miracle; it was the natural outcome of fixing a broken system. Targets would have just been a bandage; auditing the process was the cure.
The article critiques the 1990s “War for Talent” model for failing to deliver diversity. What are some of the most common subjective notions of leadership potential that this model promoted, and how can companies effectively shift to a developmental model that nurtures talent across all groups?
That “War for Talent” model, which came out of that McKinsey research in the late 90s, was so seductive because it felt decisive. But it was built on a flawed, narrow premise. It encouraged leaders to find a small group of “A-players” based on incredibly subjective criteria—things like a certain kind of aggressive ambition, a specific pedigree, or a communication style that mirrored the existing, often homogenous, leadership. It created an environment where potential was seen as a rare, innate quality you either had or you didn’t. To shift to a developmental model, you must first fundamentally change that belief. You have to truly embrace that talent is distributed everywhere, across all identities. This means investing in structured development, mentorship, and sponsorship programs that are accessible to everyone, not just a hand-picked few. It’s a move from hunting for talent to cultivating it, which is ultimately far more sustainable and inclusive.
You recommend fostering justice in everyday leadership. For a manager wanting to put this into practice tomorrow, what are a few specific, daily behaviors they can adopt to ensure their processes and interactions are truly equitable for every team member?
This is where real change happens—not in grand gestures, but in the small, consistent, daily practices. For a manager starting tomorrow, I’d suggest they begin by auditing their own meetings. Actively notice who speaks, who gets interrupted, and who is invited to the table in the first place, and then consciously create space for quieter voices. Another powerful behavior is to be incredibly deliberate about how you assign stretch assignments and high-visibility projects. Don’t just give them to the person who is loudest or reminds you of a younger version of yourself. Instead, map those opportunities to specific developmental goals for each team member. Finally, when giving feedback, focus relentlessly on behavior and impact, not on personality or style. This removes the ambiguity where bias so often hides and ensures your guidance is fair and actionable for everyone.
Your first strategy is reforming leadership models to avoid bias. What are the most common, subtle biases you see embedded in traditional leadership prototypes, and what is the first practical step an organization can take to begin dismantling them?
Traditional leadership prototypes are often invisible because they are so deeply ingrained in an organization’s culture. They subtly favor a very specific mold: someone who is extroverted, has a linear career path without breaks, and exhibits a certain kind of command-and-control assertiveness. These prototypes unintentionally marginalize people who lead differently—introverts, caregivers who took time off, or individuals from cultures that value collaborative decision-making. The first, most critical step to dismantling this is not to write a new competency model but to conduct a rigorous audit of the current one. Get your leaders in a room and ask the hard questions: Who do we promote and why? What are the unwritten rules for success here? What common traits do our senior leaders share? Making those implicit patterns explicit is the essential first move; you cannot fix a system that you refuse to see clearly.
Do you have any advice for our readers?
My advice is to stop chasing the illusion of the quick fix and have the courage to examine your own systems. For decades, we’ve been told that if we just set the right targets or launch another program, fairness will magically appear. It won’t. True equity comes from the less glamorous work of auditing your processes, questioning your assumptions, and holding your leaders accountable for the fairness of their daily decisions. So, instead of asking “How many do we have?” start asking “How do we choose? How do we develop? How do we promote?” Answering those questions honestly, with data and a commitment to justice, is the only path to creating an organization where all talent can truly thrive.