Why organizations succeed at hiring diversity but fail at retaining it, and how managers, not policies, decide belonging.
Diversity hiring metrics often look strong in launch announcements. Representation ratios improve; inclusion targets are met. Yet months later, attrition within those same cohorts is often significantly higher than average. This is the Belonging Paradox. Diversity can be achieved through intent and process; belonging cannot. It is shaped daily through interactions, leadership behaviour, and unspoken norms.
In the current evolution of Global Capability Centres (GCCs), the stakes for retention are higher than ever. As these centres transition from back-office support to high-value innovation hubs, they require a diverse talent pool that offers varied cognitive perspectives. When a GCC fails to retain diverse talent, it doesn't just lose a head-count; it loses the "global" perspective required to drive borderless innovation. In today's context, GCCs are competing for the same elite talent as domestic startups and global tech giants;belonging is the only sustainable competitive advantage that prevents talent poaching.
Many organizations unintentionally treat diverse hires as a program rather than part of the operating core. Special cohorts and symbolic initiatives may signal intent; however, they can also reinforce difference rather than normalize it.In a GCC environment, where teams often report to global stakeholders, the"othering" of diverse talent can be amplified if they are excluded from critical global calls or strategic decision-making loops.
The decisive factor is almost always the immediate manager. Inclusion is rarely lost in policy; it is lost in everyday leadership moments: who is heard; who is stretched; who is protected; and who is overlooked. For GCCs, this is further complicated by "Matrix Inclusion." A manager in India may support adiverse hire; yet if the global functional lead does not practice the same inclusive behaviours, the employee’s sense of belonging evaporates.
Belonging also requires visible progression. When GCC leadership remains homogeneous while entry-level hiring diversifies, the message is clear. Talent infers that advancement may be conditional. For a GCC to be seen as a "centre of excellence," its leadership must mirror the diversity of the markets it serves; otherwise, diverse talent will view the organization as a stepping stone rather than a career destination.
In the Indian context, this also means recognizing intersectionality. Experiences of inclusion are shaped not only by gender or nationality; but also by region, language, caste, disability, and life stage. Policies that treat “diverse talent” as a single block often miss where exclusion actually shows up. In a high-pressure GCC environment, these nuances are often buried under the guise of "meritocracy," which can inadvertently favour those who fit the traditional corporate mold.
Manager capability is therefore the decisive lever. Practical interventions such as structured 1:1s, transparent allocation of stretch opportunities, deliberate sponsorship of under-represented talent, and early coaching on micro-behaviours, often do more for belonging than any new policy document.
Organizations serious about inclusion must move beyond dashboards and into managerial capability. Diversity may open the door; but belonging determines whether people stay.
If your attrition data contradicts your diversity dashboard, it’s time to shift from metrics to meaning. We can help you close the gap.