But here is the governance lesson that stands regardless of how any court would ultimately rule.  The DOJ targeted HR practices, including compensation, hiring, promotions, performance management, and access to development. These are the same areas that SHRM research shows workers most often use to test whether an organization’s civility standards are real. When compliance risk and civility risk show up in the same places, leaders should treat the overlap as an early warning signal. 

Good intent does not replace sound process. Process is the work.

Diversity is the Input. Civility is the Process. Inclusion is the Outcome.

The middle word matters. Civility is where organizational values become operational behavior.  It shows up in how decisions are made, how criteria are explained, how conflict is handled, and whether leaders apply standards consistently across level, title, and influence.

Where Civility Gets Tested

The SHRM Q1 2026 Civility Pulse found a clear pattern across the employment lifecycle. Workers tend to experience more civilityat the entry points of employment and less civility at the decision points that shape careers. The survey found 80% of workers rated their recruiting, preboarding, and onboarding each scored 80% civil or very civil. During performance reviews, that figure dropped to 67% and during promotion, it dropped to 64%, the lowest score in the lifecycle. More than 1 in 3 workers, 35%, said they personally experienced or witnessed incivility tied to pay or compensation in the past month of the reporting period. That is the point. The deepest civility test is not how employees are welcomed. It is how employees are evaluated, paid, promoted, developed, and told no.

Why the IBM Settlement Matters for Civility Work

The IBM settlement matters because the DOJ’s allegations targeted the same governance pressure points where SHRM’s civility research shows workers are most sensitive to fairness, respect, and transparency.  This is not a verdict on IBM’s culture. It is a governance lesson for employers.

Incentive Design

The DOJ alleged that IBM used a “diversity modifier” tied to bonus compensation and demographic targets. Holland & Knight warned that “federal contractors and grant recipients should take immediate note of this development,” because the alleged structure connected compensation to demographic outcomes in a way that could influence employment decisions.

SHRM data shows 35% of U.S. workers said they personally experienced or witnessed incivility tied to pay or compensation in the past month. When pay decisions feel opaque or inconsistent, workers don’t just feel disrespected; they start asking whether the criteria were applied the same way to everyone. The IBM allegations show what happens when that question gets asked by the DOJ instead of just by employees.

The practical takeaway is simple. Compensation systems must be explainable before they are challenged. Leaders should be able to defend the criteria, the calibration process, and the final decision.

Selection and Advancement

The DOJ’s allegation that IBM considered race, national origin, or sex in hiring and promotion decisions lands in the exact place SHRM data shows workers are already watching. This is where civility data should get leadership’s attention. 

Gen Z and Millennials are more likely than older workers to rate promotion as uncivil or very uncivil, according to SHRM data. That is a future risk indicator. As younger generations become a larger share of the workforce and leadership pipeline, employers should expect more scrutiny of promotion criteria, manager discretion, and advancement pathways.

Access to Development

The DOJ’s allegations also included access limits for certain training, mentoring, leadership development, partnerships, and educational opportunities. Access to development is not a soft issue. It shapes readiness, visibility, sponsorship, and long-term career mobility. 

Workers are asking for clear policies, safe reporting channels, and accountability for managers who model or tolerate uncivil conduct. The governance point is direct. Formal development programs should use neutral, documented, and reviewable criteria. Sponsorship can be intentional. Program access must be defensible.

Complaint Handling and Manager Accountability

Workers want clear policies and consequences, safe reporting channels without fear of retaliation, and managers held accountable for modeling civil behavior, according to the SHRM Civility Pulse.  That is the bridge between culture and compliance. A policy that cannot be reported against is not a real policy. A standard that does not apply to senior leaders is not a real standard.

A Leader’s Playbook: Civility as Prevention 

Workers are not asking for symbolism. They are asking for governance.  

How do we get there? HR leaders should:

• Tighten pay and compensation decisions and tie them to operational excellence and risk management. 
• Document the criteria for base pay, bonuses, merit increases, and incentives. 
• Calibrate decisions across managers before outcomes are communicated. 
• Stress test incentive plan modifiers against Title VII, Federal Acquisition Regulation obligations, and federal contractor requirements.

The question is not whether the intent is positive, but whether the structure is lawful, transparent, and defensible. Performance review, and promotion transparency and rigor are the next steps. Organizations need to: 

• Publish criteria in advance. 
• Require a written rationale for promotion and performance decisions. 
• Audit for inconsistent treatment before final decisions are communicated. A process that cannot be explained will not be trusted. A process that is not documented will not be easily defended. Apply operational governance around access to development and formal development programming. 
• Open training, mentoring, and leadership programs using neutral criteria. 
• Document eligibility rules and keep those rules reviewable.  

Leaders should distinguish between informal advocacy and formal access. Managers can champion talent. Organizations still need clear and lawful rules for who gets to participate in formal programs.

Organizations must apply accountability at every level, regardless of past performance. SHRM civility data show an enforcement gap. Workers are more likely to believe that individual contributors face a higher chance of consequences for uncivil behavior than CEOs or Presidents. That gap is corrosive. It tells employees that civility is a conduct rule for people without power, not a leadership standard for everyone.  Accountability must be written, visible, and applied consistently. Seniority cannot be a shield. Performance cannot be an excuse.

Let’s Be Clear: Leadership Silence is Not Neutral

When leaders do not explain standards, criteria, and consequences, employees fill in the gaps themselves. Those gaps get filled with skepticism, inconsistency, and risk.  The remedy is not more statements. The remedy is clearer process, visible criteria, and enforceable accountability.

Three Tests for the Future of Inclusion Work 

• First, it must be legally compliant. The IBM settlement is a reminder that employment decisions must be built on criteria that can withstand scrutiny. Intent does not cure weak processes. 
• Second, it must be workplace unifying. SHRM data show that most U.S. workers believe they can be civil with coworkers whose political views are vastly different from their own. The capacity is there. Leaders have to build operating norms around it. 
• Third, it must be business accretive. Repeated minor incivility can contribute to toxic work environments, and workers who experience or witness incivility report mental health impacts. 

Diversity is the input. Civility is the process. Inclusion is the outcome. Leadership accountability is what makes the framework real.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.