University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Examining the lack of equity in leadership opportunities for underrepresented employees in the pharmaceutical industry

(USC Thesis Other)

Examining the lack of equity in leadership opportunities for underrepresented employees in the pharmaceutical industry

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Examining the Lack of Equity in Leadership Opportunities for Underrepresented Employees
in the Pharmaceutical Industry
by
Jonathan Thomas Chadwick Lucus
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
December 2023

2
© Copyright by Jonathan T.C. Lucus 2023
All Rights Reserved

3
Acknowledgements
The global pandemic changed each and every one of us. Paired with a tumultuous political
climate in the United States, I found myself wanting more. Wanting more for my family, more for
society, and more for myself. The silence of the world coming to a standstill was both ostensibly
surreal and indisputably deafening. This phenomenon combined with the raw, shrill sound of
America reeling in pain from both our past transgressions and our current contraventions left an
unsettling feeling deep within side me. In the silence I sat, challenged by a new modus operandi
when it came to working, educating my children, socializing with friends and family, and moving
forward without visibility of the path ahead. In the loudness I sat, challenged by what I witnessed
on the TV screen relating to the state of our democracy. So, with no great solution before me, I
stood up and walked toward knowledge, understanding, compassion, and hope. During a global
pandemic I started a new company supporting underrepresented individuals achieve their academic
and career goals and I started a new academic journey of my own at the University of Southern
California pursuing a Doctor of Education in Organizational Change and Leadership.
As this journey comes to an end, I would like to thank the following individuals who made
this walk possible. I would like to thank Dr. Brandon Martinez for chairing my dissertation,
providing support and encouragement, and departing his knowledge to students such as myself.
To Dr. Maddox and Dr. Datta, thank you for critical feedback during the dissertation process to
strengthen my learning. To my parents, Tom and Linda Lucus for modeling hard work,
determination, and the importance of sacrifice. To my wife, Qiaojue Yu, for allowing me to take
this journey, for always being the voice of reason, and for loving me though all our life voyages.
Lastly, to my sons Kian and Kamden, thank you for being my enduring hope as we walk together
through the valleys of possibility. All things are indeed possible. You teach me this every day.

4
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………………..3
Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………………….... 4
List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………………... 7
List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………………. 9
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………..10
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY……………………………………….. 11
Context and Background of the Problem………………………………………………...12
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions………………………………………….14
Importance of the Study………………………………………………………………….15
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology………………………………... 16
Definitions………………………………………………………………………………. 17
Organization of the Dissertation…………………………………………………………19
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………………………………20
Behavioral Rigidity and Implicit Bias…………………………………………………... 20
Structural Barriers to Leadership Opportunities…………………………………………31
Conceptual Framework…………………………………………………………………..38
Summary…………………………………………………………………………………40
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY………………………………………………………..42
Research Questions………………………………………………………………………42
Overview of Design……………………………………………………………………...43
Research Setting………………………………………………………………………… 44
The Researcher………………………………………………………………………….. 45
Data Sources…………………………………………………………………………….. 47
Method 1…………………………………………………………………………47
Participants………………………………………………………………47
Instrumentation…………………………………………………………. 48
Data Collection Procedures……………………………………………...49
Data Analysis……………………………………………………………49
Method 2…………………………………………………………………………50

5
Participants………………………………………………………………50
Instrumentation…………………………………………………………. 51
Data Collection Procedures……………………………………………...52
Data Analysis……………………………………………………………52
Method 3………………………………………………………………………... 52
Artifact Types……………………………………………………………53
Instrumentation………………………………………………………….. 53
Data Collection Procedures………………………………………………53
Data Analysis…………………………………………………………….54
Validity and Reliability…………………………………………………………………..54
Ethics……………………………………………………………………………………. 56
Limitations and Delimitations……………………………………………………………57
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS………………………………………………………………….59
Research Question 1: What are the environmental elements that influence behavioral
rigidity that negatively affect underrepresented individuals’ leadership opportunities?...65
Research Question 2: To what degree does the presence of implicit bias influence
leaderhip decision-making when promoting individuals into senior leadership
positions?........................................................................................................................... 72
Research Question 3: How to formal and informal stuctural frameworks within
organizations for equity and inclusion affect underrepresented individuals’
promotions?....................................................................................................................... 77
Summary…………………………………………………………………………………84
CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS…………………………………………………….86
Discussion of Findings…………………………………………………………………...86
Recommendations for Practice………………………………………………………….. 89
Recommendation 1: Utilization of Data Analytics to Assess Sense of
Belonging and Equity…………………………………………………………… 89
Recommendation 2: Implementation of Formalized Mentorship Programs……..90
Recommendation 3: Development and Oversight of Business Resource
Groups……………………………………………………………………………91

6
Limitations and Delimitations……………………………………………………………92
Recommendations for Future Research………………………………………………….94
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………. 96
References………………………………………………………………………………………..97
Appendix A: Survey Protocol…………………………………………………………………..112
Appendix B: Interview Protocol………………………………………………………………..116
Appendix C: Artifact Analysis Protocol………………………………………………………..119

7
List of Tables
Table 1: Representation in the Corporate Pipeline by Gender and Race (2019) 13
Table 2: Data Sources 44
Table 3: Demographic Characteristics of Participants (Interviews) 61
Table 4: Gender and Racial/Ethnic Characteristics of Participants (Survey) 62
Table 5: Roles and Tenure Characteristics of Participants (Survey) 63
Table 6: Frequency of White and Underrepresented Responses to Level Organizations
Value DEI 67
Table 7: Frequency of White and Underrepresented Responses to Provision of Trust and
Safety 68
Table 8: Frequency of White and Underrepresented Responses to Underrepresented
Employees in Leadership Roles 70
Table 9: Frequency of White and Underrepresented Responses to Barriers to Executive
Roles for Minorities 71
Table 10: Frequency of White and Underrepresented Responses to Belief in Gaining a
Leadership Position 74
Table 11: Frequency of White and Underrepresented Responses to Belief to Perform in
Executive Role 75
Table 12: Frequency of White and Underrepresented Responses to Organization Has
Effective Policies and Procedures to Address Implicit Bias Toward
Underrepresented Employees 76
Table 13: Frequency of White and Underrepresented Responses to Clear Pathways to
Leadership Positions 79

8
Table 14: Frequency of White and Underrepresented Responses to Their Organization
Addressing Stereotypes of the Abilities of Underrepresented Employees to Serve
in Leadership Roles 80
Table 15: Frequency of White and Underrepresented Responses to Quality of Promotion
Process 81
Table 16: Frequency of White and Underrepresented Responses to Organization’s Hiring
Processes Help Promote Racial/Ethnic Diversity 82
Table 17: Comparison of White and Underrepresented Employees in Executive/Senior
Positions in Comparison to Their Total Population in the Organization 84
Table 18: Pharmaceutical Industry Start-Up/Legacy Organization Comparison Chart 95

9
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework 40

10
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine a phenomenon within the pharmaceutical industry
where practices and procedures produce a lack of access to leadership opportunities for
underrepresented employees. The research focused on analyzing cultural and structural barriers
both formal and informal that impede underrepresented individuals’ ability to achieve
professional parity with their White counterparts. To guide this research study, the Burke-Litwin
Model of Change was utilized as the theoretical framework. The study used a mixed methods
design accompanied by an artifact analysis to determine to a greater specificity what those
barriers are and where they frequently present themselves. The findings of this study show that
organizations are not truly valuing diversity, equity, and inclusion at the level needed to be
effective. Furthermore, the findings demonstrate within the pharmaceutical industry, there is a
clear need for improving trust and safety of its employees. When attempting to access leadership
roles, underrepresented individuals find it more difficult to do so versus their White coworkers,
even when they are confident in their abilities. The study’s findings point toward organizations
creating clear pathways to promotion but generally only accessible to White employees. The
study provided strategies to combat these barriers through proactive steps both employers and
employees can take to initiate needed change. These include the use of data analytics to measure
belonging and equity, implementing formal mentorship programs, and developing Business
Resource Groups (BRGs) to empower members of underrepresented groups to voice their
concerns and find solutions. Future research was discussed that focuses on tactics and processes
commonly found in start-up organizations that create equity and enhance business outcomes that
could potentially be effectively applied across organizations in the pharmaceutical industry.
Keywords: underrepresented employees, equity, inclusion, trust, belonging, access, barriers

11
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
The study addresses the systemic nature of the marginalization of underrepresented
employees in the workforce. Underrepresented individuals are members of a minority group who
are less represented in a subset of society than in society as a whole. Many underrepresented
groups include people who have been denied access or suffered institutional discrimination
presently or in the past (Law Insider, 2023). Specifically, this paper examines the pharmaceutical
industry and the lack of access to leadership opportunities for underrepresented employees.
Organizational structures and individual preconceptions in this study are examined to gain a
clear understanding of the barriers that preclude underrepresented employee ascension into the
highest levels of the industry.
A 2020 survey conducted by the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO) of 42
U.S. biotech companies showed a significant disparity between the percentage of White
employees versus those identifying as Black, African American, and Hispanic/Latinx. The
survey indicated that only four to five percent of employees self-identified as a person of color,
whereas 59% identified as White (Biotech Innovation Organization, 2020). These percentages
were the case even though Black and Latinx individuals make up 13.5% and 18% of the U.S.
population, respectively. Furthermore, the study revealed even more significant discrepancies in
positions of power. The data indicated that only one percent of executives, three percent of board
members, and three percent of CEOs identified as Black or African American. The numbers are
just bleak for those who identify as Latinx. These percentages compare to 82% of executives,
68% of board members, and 88% of CEOs who classify themselves as White (Biotech
Innovation Organization, 2020). Likewise, women and especially women of color, face an
immense struggle in pursuit of advancing into decision-making positions (Begeny et al., 2020).

12
When it comes to executive positions, underrepresented employees experience a significantly
lower rate of promotion, a higher likelihood of demotion, and are more likely to exit the
company. Guest (2016) demonstrated that rates of promotion are 29% less, demotion rates are
32% greater, and exit rates are 37% higher than their White counterparts. Furthermore, there is
an elevated level of vulnerability felt by underrepresented employees who are passed over for
promotion that is given to a similarly qualified non-underrepresented coworker. Intersectionality
stigmatized employees feel increasing defenseless against future instances of discrimination
(Nag et al., 2022). Discrimination acts as a demotivator for underrepresented employees to
pursue future opportunities for advancement. The general question the study attempts to answer
is how organizations within the pharmaceutical industry can become more equitable and
inclusive to both strengthen the industry and better reflect the communities that make up the
social fabric of the United States.
Context and Background of the Problem
Corporate America is dealing with a diversity problem at the highest leadership ranks.
Many women and employees of color are not benefiting from their knowledge and hard work at
the same rates as White men. There continues to be a disconnect between corporate equity and
inclusion initiatives and the lived experiences of underrepresented individuals in the U.S.
workforce. This phenomenon is especially true for women of color. Moreover, it is exceptionally
true for all underrepresented individuals regarding career progression. King et al. (2022)
established that for underrepresented individuals, microaggressions, no matter how subtle,
contribute to the reduction of job satisfaction and increased burnout in the workforce.
Microaggressions are defined as a set of modeled behaviors by a majority group that demoralizes
or insults underrepresented groups (Farrell, 2021). While there has been an increase in White

13
individuals in the workplace who see themselves as allies to underrepresented individuals, they
are less likely to speak out on behalf of individuals who experience microaggressions,
discrimination, and repression regarding career advancement (Sue, 2009).
Furthermore, senior leaders have offered a paucity of active support to change this
dynamic. In most organizations, as rank within a company increases, the composition of those
who will fill these roles becomes more male and Whiter. Table 1 provides an overview of the
percentage of White individuals and people of color at various levels of corporate leadership.
Table 1
Representation in the Corporate Pipeline by Gender and Race (2019)
Note. Data represents the percentage of employees by level across the industry at the start of
2021. From “Women in the workplace 2021,” by McKinsey & Company, 2021, p.8
(https://womenintheworkplace.com/). Copyright 2021 by McKinsey & Company.
Sisco (2020) contended that corporations have maintained a history of racialized social
systems derived from implicit racial bias that have created inequities in the workplace. This
disparity across the corporate ladder is no more evident than in the pharmaceutical business.
Most recent studies of the pharmaceutical industry show that approximately one-third of the top
fifty pharmaceutical companies have no women on their board, and only 8% of board seats are

14
held by ethnically diverse directors. This is compared with 14% of Fortune 500 companies
overall (Freeman, 2021).
To explore the lack of diversity issue further, the study focuses on the problem of practice
related to the lack of equity in leadership opportunities for underrepresented employees in the
pharmaceutical industry. Historically, leadership within the pharmaceutical industry has not
reflected large segments of the general population. This void is specifically absent of women and
people of color. There has been a lack of equity in senior leadership opportunities for
underrepresented employees. Busari (2019) argued that both meritocracy and implicit bias
influences available career opportunities for employees of color. Recent studies have shown that
only eight percent of companies have board of director seats held by ethnically diverse
individuals (Women in the Workplace, 2021). Moreover, there has been slow progress with
increasing women, especially women of color, on senior leadership teams across the sector. This
gender gap is still a reality even though women and men enter the workforce with advanced
degrees in medicine and science at nearly the same rate (Women in the Workplace, 2021).
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
The project aims to inform action, gather evidence to validate proposed theories, and
contribute to developing knowledge in this field of study. Specifically, the study aims to gain a
greater understanding of the inherent barriers that are in place within organizations that prevent
underrepresented employees from obtaining leadership positions. The analysis of the study will
focus on stakeholders in the pharmaceutical industry who face systemic and inherent barriers to
leadership opportunities based on their ethnicity, gender, and race. The analysis will focus on
research questions centered on individual and institutional factors outlined below:

15
1) What are the environmental elements that influence behavioral rigidity that negatively affect
underrepresented individuals’ leadership opportunities?
2) To what degree does the presence of implicit bias influence leadership decision-making when
promoting individuals into senior leadership positions?
3) How do formal and informal structural frameworks within organizations for equity and
inclusion affect underrepresented individuals’ promotions?
Importance of the Study
The study contributes to the current conversation on the shortage of leadership
opportunities for underrepresented individuals by identifying structural barriers that are in place
within individual organizations in the pharmaceutical industry due to the presence of implicit
bias among senior decision-makers. The problem of practice examines the lack of equity in
leadership opportunities for underrepresented employees in the workplace. Cook and Glass
(2014) concluded that underrepresented individuals in leadership positions are considered less
competent than their White counterparts. This biased viewpoint leads to underrepresented
employees facing more significant challenges when being promoted, establishing their leadership
capabilities, and obtaining support across the organization. Additionally, many organizations do
not have strategic inclusion strategies for underrepresented individuals, which negatively affects
underrepresented individuals job performance and, in turn, promotional opportunities (Ohunakin
et al., 2019). This lack of equity in underrepresented individuals’ leadership prospects is critical
because it has a deleterious effect on organizational performance and employee morale.
Businesses that do not create policies and practices to improve diversity, equity, and inclusion
will have teams limited in their ability and desire to innovate, perform at an elevated level, and
provide their organization with a competitive advantage (Rock & Grant, 2016).

16
If solutions to the problem of practice can be resolved and policies and procedures
can be put in place, it can lead to a more extensive talent pool, increased employee engagement
and satisfaction, and better strategic decision-making. The significance of this study is its ability
to shed light on the importance that people across varying identities must feel valued, welcomed,
respected, included, represented, and heard. Thus, organizational productivity and culture is
strengthened when everyone feels valued and respected as an individual.
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
This study utilizes the Burke-Litwin Model of Change. The model examines various
drivers of change within an organization and ranks them in importance, with leadership being the
most crucial internal driver (Burke & Litwin, 1992). Leadership sets the organizational climate,
and there is an overlap between climate and culture. In short, climate affects employees'
perceptions of how work is managed and how effectively teams work together. Culture is the
beliefs and values held by the organization (Burke & Litwin, 1992). An organization's leadership
influences both, and their differences help define critical factors leading to or impeding
organizational change.
The Burke-Litwin Change Model supports the problem of practice as it considers
environmental factors, or lack thereof, essential determinates for organizational change. The
framework positions the external environment at the top as the most critical factor. The external
environment is followed by internal organizational factors such as leadership, mission and
strategy, and corporate culture (Burke & Litwin, 1992). These factors inform a given company's
organizational structure, policies and practices, and overall work climate. Factors such as these
are vital to understanding underrepresented individuals' barriers when accessing leadership roles.

17
The study will look at the problem of practice through the conceptual lens of three
distinct influences. These include meritocracy, microaggressions, and intersectionality. All three
concepts have deleterious effects on equity and inclusion in the workplace. George (2021)
denoted that many non-underrepresented leaders subscribe to the belief that opportunity has been
achieved strictly through hard work and not from their positionality. Therefore, barriers for
underrepresented individuals are overlooked.
Additionally, Farrell (2021) determined that microaggressions are not only harmful to the
undermined individual, but they also affect team morale and effectiveness. This deleterious
effect can impact the promotions of individuals and groups. Moreover, intersectionality plays a
role in senior leadership's decision-making when deciding who gets a promotional opportunity
and who does not (Crenshaw, 2019).
A mixed-methods design has been chosen as this study employs a phenomenological
methodology to underscore participants' lived experiences (Creswell, 2014). Through personal
interviews, the research will elicit information relating to the cause and effect of organizational
cultures and norms. Moreover, this study will synthesize data collected from Likert scale surveys
to draw correlations between lived experiences and individual perceptions of organizational
practices and behaviors. Recommendations will be provided based on research findings and bestpractice solutions.
Definitions
Below is a list of key concepts and terminology used throughout the study.
Behavioral Rigidity
This process of organizational decision-making where incremental solutions follow
experience and rules (Cyert & March, 1963).

18
Equity and Inclusion
Refers to the act of challenging and responding to bias, harassment, and discrimination
through the inclusion of differences in perspectives and backgrounds (Defining DEI, n.d.).
Intersectionality
Intersectionality is an analytical framework for understanding how aspects of a person's
social and political identities combine to create different modes of discrimination and privilege
(Crenshaw, 2019).
Marginalization
The act of treating a person or group as insignificant through the use of domination and
the leveraging of power (Hall & Carlson, 2016).
Meritocracy
The belief that opportunity is derived from hard work and achievement is colorblind
(George, 2021).
Microaggression
Microaggressions are a set of patterned behaviors by a majority group that undermines,
stereotypes, or insults underrepresented groups (Farrell, 2021).
Phenomenological
An adjective connected with the branch of philosophy that deals with what you see, hear,
and feel in contrast to what may actually be accurate or true about the world (Oxford Learner’s
Dictionaries, n.d.).

19
Theoretical Framework
A theoretical framework is a structure that can hold or support a theory of a research
study. The theoretical framework introduces and describes the theory that explains why the
research problem under study exists (USC Libraries, n.d.).
Organization of the Dissertation
The study is organized into five chapters. Chapter One introduces the problem of
practice, including the associated background of the problem, the purpose of the project, research
questions, and the study methodology. In addition, the appropriateness of theoretical and
conceptual frameworks is discussed in relation to the stated problem of practice being examined.
Chapter Two provides an overview of previous literature that addresses structural, systematic,
and behavioral norms that negatively affect underrepresented employees’ advancement into
executive leadership positions in the pharmaceutical industry. Chapter Three describes the
research design influenced by the chosen theoretical and conceptual frameworks and the
methodology for collecting and analyzing pertinent data. Chapter Four introduces the findings of
the study and the implications derived from the analysis. Lastly, Chapter Five examines the
findings of the study and compares them to previous research to propose recommendations and
viable solutions. Furthermore, this chapter provides an overview of the study’s limitations and
identifies areas for future research.

20
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
The literature review for this study initially examines recent research on behavioral
rigidity and implicit bias that includes the impact of grouping effects and positionality on
underrepresented employees’ career advancement. Additionally, the first section of the analysis
investigates how implicit bias contributes to the erosion of self-confidence and the perceived
retaliation racial underrepresented employees face when attempting to climb the corporate
ladder. Obstacles to recognition are analyzed using current literature to gain greater insight on
how tokenization and intersectionality are affected by unconscious bias. Furthermore, the
literature review considers in what manner promoting familiarity and organizational fit influence
underrepresented individuals’ promotions.
In the second section of this literature review, structural barriers to leadership
opportunities are assessed. The assessment includes the lack of formalized mentoring that
usually takes place through employee engagement and relationship building with senior
executives. Moreover, the lack of formalized diversity, equity, and inclusion programs are
examined through the lenses of the absence of diversity recruitment, non-existence of succession
planning, and paucity of clarity of organizational processes for promotional opportunities.
Behavioral Rigidity and Implicit Bias
Many individuals in positions of power within organizations carry with them implicit
biases. Jones et al. (2017) have defined implicit bias, or subtle discrimination as a negative or
ambivalent treatment enacted toward underrepresented individuals that may not be a conscious
effort but is based on underrepresented individual status membership. These biases present
themselves when promotional determinations are being made by senior leaders for employees
who work for them. Implicit biases lead to behavioral rigidity in decision-making and therefore

21
many underrepresented individuals who do not reflect the same gender or race as those who are
leading organizations are not being considered for career advancement. Soklaridis et al. (2022)
determined specifically in the medical field, most programming still focuses on adapting to male
White cis-gendered structures and therefore, underrepresented individuals continue to be
underrepresented. The literature review looks at various mechanisms that create this
underrepresentation and the impact it has on an underrepresented individual’s careers and
professional status.
The Impact of Microaggressions in the Workplace
Racial microaggressions are defined as “brief, everyday exchanges that send denigrating
messages to people of color because they belong to an underrepresented group” (Sue et al.,
2007, p.273). Microaggressions and other expressions of bias are behavioral manifestations of
shared expectations about acceptable interpersonal behavior in the workplace (Osatuke et al.,
2013).
This section of the literature review investigates the role of positionality and misalignment of
interpersonal expectations on the prevalence of racial microaggressions within organizations.
Under investigation in this portion of the literature review are the effects of microaggressions on
career advancement. Bond and Haynes‐Baratz (2022) argued that microaggressions present
significant barriers to the entry and advancement of individuals from marginalized groups within
a company. Additionally, this section focuses on the impact of racial microaggressions on selfconfidence and underrepresented employees’ perceptions of threats and retaliation in the
workplace.

22
Social Constructs Effect on Underrepresented Employee Career Advancement
Recently, there has been increased focus on organizations that exclude underrepresented
individuals and other underrepresented groups from key organizational positions. By
contributing to this phenomenon, organizations are failing to provide these specific individuals
with a sense of being valued as equal participants (Center for Talent Innovation, 2019). The lack
of feeling valued especially true for underrepresented females. Bonifacio et al. (2018) observed
that Latina graduate students who have more experiences with racial microaggressions reported
lower career decision-making self-efficacy and negative outcome expectations when entering the
workforce.
Furthermore, social constructs perpetuated by racial majority leadership, negate people of
color as viable candidates for promotion. Bloch et al. (2021) underscored that in shaping the
glass ceiling Black men and women face, is the biased process in which senior management look
at and determine who qualifies for career advancement. When people of color are promoted, they
face additional barriers to stay in senior positions. Sims et al. (2021) confirmed Black men
leaders experience more microaggressions in the workplace than their pro-typical peers.
Other social constructs such as differentiated expectations inform underrepresented
employee career laddering. Organizations tend to feature gendered, racialized, and classed
expectations for workers that shape who advances in the workplace (Rao & Tobias, 2019). These
expectations or assumptions are deep-seated, premeditated beliefs about innate aptitudes and
qualities based on underrepresented status such as race (Ridgeway, 2011). Further research
indicates that career trajectories and advancement can be contradictory processes, overdetermined by individual employees’ lived identities, work interactions shaped by those
identities, as well as formal and informal organizational practices embedded in an already raced,

23
classed, and gendered societal context and culture (Ruiz & Holvino, 2016). One of these
imbedded narratives is the creation of cultural constructs. Hasford (2016) revealed that dominant
cultural narratives have an outsized influence on relational dynamics of oppression in the
workplace. Cultural narratives generally found in places of work are derived from a White male
dominate culture.
White male dominate work cultures has been the status quo through the twentieth century
and are still so as we move into the second decade of the twenty-first. Socio-economic status is a
principal construct that creates division between underrepresented individuals and Whites within
organizations. This is also the case when African Americans socio-economic status is at even
stature with their White counterparts. Assari and Lankarani (2018) noted that the racial
composition of a workplace is highly correlated by which elevated socio-economic status
increases discriminatory experiences for African Americans, particularly for African Americans
who work in predominantly White work environments. This scenario places African Americans
in a difficult situation in many organizations. Additionally, this phenomenon hurts career
laddering opportunities, raises the fear of potential retaliation, and increases racial bias for those
who are in positions of power.
Perceived Retaliation
In today’s society, organizations are under more pressure to appear egalitarian. Gone are
the days of overt prejudice which has been replaced by subtle discrimination. Hidden
intolerances can cause even greater harm than blatant undermining of underrepresented
employees. Some of this harm leads to decreases in an underrepresented employee’s trust in the
organization and increases in perceived retaliation. Therefore, people of color in the workplace
continually conform to White masculine norms. Pitcan et al. (2018) established that

24
microaggressions produce environments where underrepresented individuals are excluded.
Therefore, people of color conform to White male norms for self-preservation and protection.
Roscigno (2019) indicated in his study of workplace power that underrepresented individuals
across occupational hierarchy endure race-specific discrimination at a rate 4 to 6 times higher
than their White colleagues. Racial discrimination is explicitly demonstrated in the workplace
toward people of color, and more so, toward Black men. When racial underrepresented
employees convey excitement or enthusiasm at their place of employment for their work and
colleagues it is generally scrutinized and disparaged. Neely (2020) found that Black men who
had expressions of passion were interpreted as threatening. Implicit assumptions of
underrepresented individuals’ emotions are both a blatant microaggression and an obstruction to
organizational equity and inclusion.
Underrepresented individuals face more bullying, aggression, and ostracism from both
co-workers and supervisors than their racial majority peers. When actual maltreatment transpires
in the workplace, underrepresented individuals gain a heightened awareness of potential harm in
all its forms. McCord et al. (2018) argued that underrepresented individuals perceive more racebased mistreatment in their places of work than their White colleagues. These increased
perceptions take a large toll on both the wellbeing and job performance of those who face the
prospect of discrimination.
When focusing specifically on supervisory aggression, senior leaders and managers have
greater leeway when it comes to exhibiting hostile behaviors. Furthermore, subordinates who
report these acts are deemed not credible and untrustworthy, especially underrepresented
subordinates. (Caillier, 2021) underscored that supervisees who report hierarchical aggression
have a greater chance of facing retaliation and are far less likely to receive support from their

25
organization to get the unwarranted behavior stopped versus reporters of coworker aggression.
Lack of support often translates into an absence of recognition of underrepresented employees.
Obstacles to Recognition
Despite being regarded as highly competent and skilled in their given professional roles,
many underrepresented employees are not recognized for their contributions to their
organizations. Habitually, knowledgeable, and experienced underrepresented employees are seen
by key individuals in leadership roles as a threat. For instance, Black individuals make up 13%
of the population in the United States, however, they only account for only eight percent of
employees in professional roles. Worse yet, Black professionals hold a little over three percent of
all executive or senior leadership roles and less than one percent of all Fortune 500 CEO
positions (Roepe, 2021). While underrepresented individuals may be represented in corporate
America offices, their talents are not truly being valued and their presence is not leading to
genuine inclusion across all organizational levels. When inclusion does occur, it is often in a
tokenized manner without creating an authentic sense of belonging and recognition.
Underrepresented Employee Tokenism in the Workplace
Tokenism is a common phenomenon in many employer settings. Merriam Webster
(2022) has defined tokenism in the workplace as “the policy or practice of making only a
symbolic effort” (such as hiring a person who belongs to an underrepresented group). Lewis
(2016) denoted in his study that tokenism influences career advancement patterns and it also has
an effect on an individual’s cultural capital. Tokenism is ever-present at the vast majority for
Fortune 500 companies in the United States. For example, only sixteen of the Fortune 500
companies report demographics backing up their commitment to diversity. And, at those sixteen
businesses, 72% of the senior executives are White men (Jones & Donnelley, 2017).

26
When organizations employ tokenism and are inauthentic in their hiring and promotional
practices, meaning, communicating pro-diversity messaging but do not engage in actual diversity
and inclusion efforts, underrepresented individuals have heighted concerns in these
organizations. Wilton et al. (2020) found underrepresented employees, especially African
Americans, have increased fears about fitting in and performing well at work. The fear that many
underrepresented employees’ experience is derived from organizations with diversity and
inclusion policies but lack diversity and inclusion practices. Gündemir and Galinsky (2018)
observed that organizations that affirm the importance of multiculturalism in the workplace often
have blindfolds that conceal and delegitimize racial discrimination by creating the illusion of a
fair environment toward underrepresented individuals.
Many times, to avoid conflict, underrepresented employees acquiesce to racial majority
principles while at work. Token non-Whites take on the values of White men and are provided
upward mobility to positions of status to ensure White values are sustained. Moreover, this act of
tokenism creates a positive appearance of equity and inclusion that in reality is not present
(Hekman et al., 2017). Tokenism and the avoidance of conflict have a deleterious effect on those
underrepresented groups who are being tokenized in the workplace. Tokenism advances
sensations of isolation, alienation, and exhaustion leading to lower productivity and job
performance (Walker, 2016). And tokenism provides a safe haven within organizations for
unconscious bias to thrive.
Intersectionality and Unconscious Bias
Unconscious bias fails to recognize individual experiences. Intersectionality allows the
examination of how vulnerable populations, in this study women and ethnic or underrepresented
individuals, have additional facets to their identities that can provide extra challenges in their

27
lives and work experiences (Cate et al., 2021). These prejudices include but are not limited to
racism, racialized sexism, and classism. Furthermore, underrepresented individuals who lose a
promotion to a similarly qualified non-minority coworker leads underrepresented individuals and
intersectionality stigmatized employees such as underrepresented women to feel increasingly
vulnerable to future discrimination (Nag et al., 2022). The belief that stigmatization will continue
to occur reduces the likelihood of an underrepresented employee applying for future promotional
opportunities. The lack of upward mobility is visibly present throughout business sectors. Wilson
and Rodgers (2016) drew attention to how the intersection of race and class produces economic
disadvantages in the workplace for underrepresented employees across industries.
The vulnerability employees with identified intersectionality are burdened with derives
from organizational systematic disparities or inequality regimes. Acker (2006b) has historically
argued that all organizations have inequality regimes, or ‘loosely interrelated practices,
processes, actions, and meanings that result in and maintain class, gender and racial inequalities
within particular organizations.’ Intersectionality as it relates to management and leadership
specifically, creates a power dynamic that underscores inherent inequity.
Rodriguez et al. (2016) explained that intersectionality allows for rethinking of the
interplay between privilege and oppression. This interplay is especially perceptible between
senior leaders from racial majorities and underrepresented employees. And this interplay is
creating especially stark barriers for Black men and women who face vast inequality regimes
across business sectors in the United States. Block et al. (2021) found this to be particularity true
for Black employees and people of color and that these inequality systems are intersectionally
situated. Moreover, recent studies indicate that the intersection of racism and sexism in the
workplace produce biases that distort the perceptions of Black women’s competencies that limit

28
their ascension into leadership positions (Moorosi et al., 2018). These biases and misperceptions
cause underrepresented women to question their sense of belonging and their commitment to
their employers. Meléndez and Özkazanç-Pan (2021) examined this phenomenon through an
intersectional lens, and find that many underrepresented employees, especially women of color
are leaving the organizations to the detriment of their careers.
When examining racial prejudice at work, unsurprisingly, Back employees, especially
Black women are four times as likely to encounter discrimination as their White counterparts
(CoQUAL, 2021). Unfortunately, most companies are not examining the intersection of race and
gender and seeing these compounding factors lead to greater inequality. So far, organizations are
not leveraging the construct of intersectionality as a tool to determine inequalities in the
workplace (Nkomo et al., 2019). Instead, companies are reinforcing behaviors that reward the
promotion of individuals with shared commonality.
Promoting Familiarity
Many organizations follow certain practices when sourcing and hiring new employees.
These practices include giving higher merit for talent secured through social networks, formal or
informal, and talent found through internal connections or relationships. Studies have shown that
there are benefits derived beyond just being hired through connections. Merluzzi and Sterling
(2017) established that there is an increased likelihood of promotion of people who become
employed through referrals. However, it has been demonstrated that people of color, especially
Black men, are often overlooked when their connections to a job opportunity hold less privilege
to White referrals (Wingfield, 2020). Moreover, hiring managers assess job candidates based on
shared similarities rather than core competencies. Rivera (2012) claimed from evidence of their
study that “cultural matching” takes place during the organizational hiring process where

29
evaluators denote that cultural similarities are rated the most important criteria when selecting a
candidate for an open position.
There are several theories on why organizations resort to utilizing social networks when
making personnel decisions. These include human capital decisions, increased efficiency in the
hiring process or a mixture of both. Nevertheless, an individual’s social capital is linked with
their positional power and status in society, and therefore, identifying and selecting candidates
through this approach favors members of dominant majority groups (Rivera, 2020). As in
society, underrepresented individuals’ social capital is invalidated at work as well. Guest (2016)
emphasized the recurrent African American experience where lower promotion, higher
demotion, and higher exit are commonplace occurrences. Furthermore, when it comes to access
to promotions, African Americans often experience the cumulative effects of multiple forms of
discrimination (Whitaker, 2019). This invalidation carries over into failed judgements of
gatekeepers who make hiring decisions.
Hiring managers who are tasked with hiring decisions frequently thwart equitable
intentions by limited knowledge of underrepresented individuals’ abilities (Burrell, 2016). Many
senior leaders unconsciously want staff with shared commonality and exclude potential
colleagues who they find interactions are uneasy or unfamiliar (Turnbull, 2015). These
unconscious biases lead people to assess new applicants’ qualifications differently (Burrell,
2016). This is especially true occurrence for underrepresented individuals. Underrepresented
employees continue to be significantly underrepresented in executive-level positions in nearly all
organizations (Catalyst, 2017). Underrepresentation of underrepresented individuals increases
the likelihood that these subgroups will anticipate discrimination at greater levels than nonminorities when passed over for a promotion (Nag et al., 2022). Therefore, they are less likely to

30
apply for professional opportunities in their respective organizations due to the belief that they
do not fit in with corporate norms.
Perception of Organizational Fit and Fitting In
Whereas familiarity relates to having connections within organizations one tries to gain
access to, organizational fit refers to the perceived match a person’s skills and norms with an
organization’s culture and work styles. Recent research on corporate recruitment increasingly
shows organizational fit as the most crucial element when evaluating potential new hires. GMAC
(2016) has defined organizational fit as “the judgment of how well an individual’s work style
and work-related values sync with the overall culture and norms of an organization”.
Unfortunately, for underrepresented employees when White senior leaders are making hiring
decisions, merit and qualifications are often synonymous with social, cultural, and racial
similarity. Rivera (2012) identified cultural fit or ‘matching’ as a formal evaluation criterion for
elite jobs. Often many organizational insiders or employees who have long-term social capital
refer to work units as fraternities or tribes, terms that imply uniformity, loyalty, social similarity,
and an elevated level of trustworthiness (Neely, 2018). Contrived homogeneity many times
denotes underrepresented individuals as interlopers and imposters. Therefore, underrepresented
individuals perform ongoing efforts to minimize and mask cultural differences in order to
overcome bias and achieve career mobility (Glass & Cook, 2020).
The value a company places on diversity, equity, and inclusion effects underrepresented
individuals’ perceptions of organizational fit. Wilton et al. (2020) illustrated that a decrease in
the importance of diversity has a corresponding effect on organizational fit assessments of
subgroup employees. Not only do underrepresented employees’ beliefs decline when it comes to
having a sense of belonging, perceived authenticity and work performance similarly worsen. A

31
decrease in the sense of belonging and subsequent work performance leads to higher
underrepresented employee workplace turnover. Velez et al. (2018) analysis showed that
perceived organizational fit has a positive correlation with job satisfaction and commitment for
underrepresented employees, whereas perceptions of low or no organizational fit leads to a
higher rate of turnover.
To combat the lack of perceived organizational fit, many underrepresented employees
have to become educators within their cohort groups and within their companies at large. Ince
(2022) revealed the burden of making diversity and inclusion materialize within an organization
often falls to those who are seeking a sense of belonging. Underrepresented individuals
frequently must advise and develop their White colleagues’ understanding of individual and
group actions that lead to non-acceptance. The common thread of underrepresented individuals
being the sole owners of the onus to create greater inclusion for themselves suggests both
informal culture and formal structures are in need of reform.
Structural Barriers to Leadership Opportunities
There are numerous structural barriers that prevent underrepresented employees from
achieving leadership roles in their organizations. The barriers begin with the recruitment and
outreach process. Most companies prefer to promote staff within their organizations versus
hiring outside talent. Therefore, if a corporation is not actively recruiting underrepresented job
candidates, there is a smaller pool to draw from when promoting individuals from within the
organization (Johns, 2013). Moreover, when underrepresented employees are represented in a
given workforce, they encounter additional corporate cultural barriers in the form of incongruent
styles of communication and behaviors.

32
Communication barriers and contrasting behaviors with their White peers lead to less
organizational engagement. Without effective communication, there is a lack of clarity regarding
the processes and policies centering on promotional opportunities. Additionally, without
successful diversity and inclusion programs that include formalized mentoring, underrepresented
employees have little chance of climbing the corporate ladder.
Lack of Formalized Mentoring for Underrepresented Employees
Formalized mentoring programs within organizations provide a means to counter
discrimination, marginalization, and ostracism. Additionally, when key senior leaders sponsor
and support lower-ranking employees, there is a greater likelihood that career advancement will
be advocated. However, there are disparities when it comes to mentorships between senior and
junior colleagues where mentees are underrepresented individuals (Davis et al., 2021). For
employees who generally face implicit barriers to upward mobility, formalized mentorships are
plagued by power dynamics and unfamiliarity with underrepresented individuals’ lived
experiences in the workplace (Corneille et al., 2019). Unfamiliarity with underrepresented
individuals’ backgrounds and a lack of initiative to learn restrains engagement opportunities
between senior leaders and potential mentees of color.
Opportunities for Engagement with Senior Leadership
The expertise on equity and inclusion of individuals in leadership positions plays a
critical role in underrepresented individuals’ career advancement. Senior leaders influence
organizational philosophies centered on underrepresented individual recruitment and
engagement. However, underrepresented individuals tend to have lower social capital within
their respective networks in organizations compared to their White counterparts. As a result of
this reduced access to social capital, facilitation of leadership advancement is less effective

33
(Khattab et al., 2020). While people of color may have increased career adaptability due to
finding ways to overcome microaggressions at their places of work, there are increased barriers
to leadership engagement (Cabell & Kozachuk, 2022).
Access to senior leaders enables employees to gain a stronger understanding of the future
direction of the organizations they work for, insight into potential career paths, and the ability to
forge relationships with key decision makers. A study by CoQUAL (2021) revealed that 44% of
White full-time employees have access to senior leadership compared to only 31% for Black
full-time colleagues. Being unable to find a path to top decision makers reduces the likelihood
for career advancement and organizational inclusion.
Most recently, it has come to the attention of scholars and workforce experts alike that
underrepresented individuals and other demographic subgroups are being excluded from key
positions in organizations and are not achieving an increased sense of belonging (O’Brien,
2016). Challenges such as these are inextricably tied to the complex effects of demographic
divergence within organizations (Roberson et al., 2017). These demographic divergences in
corporations imped underrepresented individual career advancement. Randel et al. (2021)
elucidated how career advancement opportunities in organizations cannot be achieved without
dyadic mentoring relationships from individuals in key leadership roles. Moreover, the Randel et
al. (2021) study indicated that increased attention to career advancement through formalized
sponsorship and mentoring is particularly beneficial to African Americans and other
underrepresented groups. Additionally, mentoring leads to a greater sense of belonging and
engagement.

34
Employee Engagement
A sense of belonging is a key indicator of long-term success of an employee at a given
place of work. A sense of belonging leads to employee engagement. Kruse (2012) defined
employment engagement as “the emotional commitment the employee has to the organization
and its goals”. Emotional commitment is derived from workplace relations and is influenced by
occupational positioning within an organization. Roscigno (2019) stated that good relationships
with coworkers reduce discrimination while poor supervisor relations increase the likelihood of
discriminatory encounters on the job. Therefore, it is reasonable to hypothesize that access to and
successful inclusion in specific formal or informal groups positively affects an underrepresented
individual’s career trajectory.
One specific formal or informal relationship vehicle is mentoring. When
underrepresented employees have cohorts with whom that can relate to as mentors, their career
trajectories are enhanced. Espino and Zambrana (2019) argued that the absence of racial/ethnic
concordance in mentoring may contribute to increased underrepresented individuals’ turnover
whereby they are cycled through rather than retained. Additionally, when underrepresented
groups have a heightened sense of workplace discrimination, an absence of trusted mentors
reduces organizational engagement. Lee and Li (2021) reasoned that when underrepresented
employees are able to communicate problematic situations such as discrimination with their
superiors, there is a greater affiliation with the organizations they work for. Affiliation is
strengthened when leadership teams represent diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. When
underrepresented individuals do not see representation in senior levels of organizations, a
perception of less support and a greater divide in understanding occurs. Cole et al. (2016)

35
contended that a dissimilarity between supervisors and subordinates establishes a perception of
exclusion and discrimination.
Decuir-Gunby and Gunby (2016) demonstrated a negative correlation between
assumptions of inferiority and job satisfaction. The presence of job dissatisfaction due to
microaggressions not only hurts the career trajectories of the victims, but they are often
detrimental to organizations they work for as well. Marks et al. (2020) argued that many
underrepresented individuals who suffer discrimination are deprived of both real and perceived
career options. Moreover, underrepresented employees who experience prejudice at work find
their professional volitions negatively affected. Volition in this context is a vital component
when evaluating career opportunities and achieving a high level of job satisfaction (Marks et al.,
2020).
Lack of Formalized DEI Programs within Organizations
In the wake of Black Lives Matter movement and shifting societal expectations on equity
and inclusion in the workplace, many companies are committing to DEI programs. Yet, a large
majority are not actively creating change or making substantial progress. Often, not having
enough funding to support DEI initiatives is the main cause of stagnation. Corrigan (2022) stated
that a recent survey by Culture Amp (an employee engagement and HR strategy firm) showed
81% of companies reported that they believe that DEI initiatives are beneficial to their
organizations. However, only 34% of respondents reported having enough resources to support
their DEI programs. Without the development of talent pipelines aimed at increasing
underrepresented individuals’ representation and purposeful and transparent processes for
promotional opportunities, racial subgroups will not see meaningful gains in employment and
career advancement.

36
Purposeful Creation of Underrepresented Employee Talent Pipelines
Singleton and Recendes (2022) underscored that the majority of Americans believe that
companies should prioritize diversity and inclusion initiatives. Initiatives that create meaningful
opportunities for underrepresented individuals must start with the construction of a system to
increase both talent pipelines and upward mobility of current underrepresented employees. If
not, the historical barriers to careers will persist. Wilson and Lagae (2017) indicated that African
Americans, relative to Whites, have lower rates of mobility within their respective companies,
reach management mostly through routes that are relatively formal and structured, and take
longer to reach management positions.
Career immobility of underrepresented professionals is tied to less engagement in
professional networking. Khattab et al. (2020) highlighted underrepresented individuals engage
less than majority individuals in utilizing professional acquaintances because of hesitations about
their legitimacy with regard to engaging in career utilization, and expectations of rejection.
Underrepresented individuals have an increased fear of majority perceptions of incompetence
associated with the stereotyping of their given social group. Moreover, when underrepresented
individuals participate in networking activities, their efforts are likely to create slower and less
successful advancement to leadership positions (Khattab et al., 2020).
Because networking is less impactful for underrepresented individuals, formalized
referrals are a crucial component of career opportunities and upward mobility. Recent research
suggests that underrepresented professionals are unlikely to leverage social contacts with
companies where they are applying for positions or promotion (Dennissen et al., 2019).
Therefore, formal referrals have more impactful effects on job acquisitions. In fact, Black
employee referrals are correlated with increased upward mobility outcomes. And evidence

37
indicates this is attributable to positive signaling toward Black people during the hiring process
which may endure long after they are onboarded at their respective organizations (Merluzzi &
Sterling, 2017). These findings imply that purposeful underrepresented employee talent pipelines
are needed to create equitable opportunities for career attainment and advancement.
Lack of Clarity and Processes for Promotional Opportunities
Most organizations create rules that are designed to protect underrepresented groups
from discrimination. These rules are consistently not adhered to and are often applied differently
based on race. Many organizations decouple their formal commitments to equity, inclusion, and
access to promotions from processes and policies that reinforce existing racial hierarchies. These
processes and practices are frequently enforced in ways that disadvantage non-Whites or
diversity, equity, and inclusion procedures may be ignored completely (Ray, 2019).
These unfortunate disadvantages perpetuate the belief many underrepresented workers
hold that they must work harder than their White colleagues to achieve the same professional
success. CoQUAL (2021) examined the perceptions workers have regarding career advancement
and determined that 65% of Black professionals believe they must outwork their non-minority
counterparts. This reality was mostly invisible to White professionals as only 16% indicated that
their Black co-workers face this added barrier. Such a low admission from White colleagues
validates that many White employees are not educated or aware of the plight underrepresented
individuals face when trying to climb up the career ladder.
Leader Member Exchange (LMX) plays a vital role in job performance and career
longevity for underrepresented employees. When formal LMXs are implemented early on in an
underrepresented employee’s career at a firm, there are greater long-term positive impacts on
career advancement. Without the exchange of information and knowledge from a leader to a

38
subordinate, ambiguous organizational promotional policies cannot be effectively navigated.
Zhang et al. (2020) ascertained that relative to their White colleagues, underrepresented
employee new hires who perceived high-quality LMX relationships reported higher levels of role
clarity. The clarity of responsibilities associated with an employee’s position provides a
foundation for success. Thus, underrepresented employees who have close, communicative
relationships with their superiors are more likely to be seen competent and capable of taking on
greater responsibilities within their organizations.
Conceptual Framework
The theoretical framework utilized to develop the conceptual framework is the BurkeLitwin Model of Change. This comprehensive framework allows the analysis of factors that
affect organizational performance (Burke & Litwin, 1992). Drawing on the theoretical
framework used in this study and the literature reviewed, three key concepts that are fundamental
to understanding the problem of practice come to the forefront. The first of these key concepts is
meritocracy. George (2021) stated meritocracy is the belief that reality is colorblind, and
therefore, opportunities and achievements are strictly related to hard work. The study seeks to
demonstrate that this is not always true for underrepresented employees. The second key concept
that has emerged is the existence of microaggressions in the workplace. Microaggressions are a
set of patterned behaviors by a majority group that undermines, stereotypes, or insults
underrepresented groups (Farrell, 2021). The study intends to demonstrate that microaggressions
in the workplace negatively affects individual morale and overall organizational effectiveness.
The third key concept that has surfaced is intersectionality. Intersectionality is an analytical
framework for understanding how aspects of a person's social and political identities combine to
create different modes of discrimination and privilege (Crenshaw, 2019).

39
Behavioral rigidity in the form of meritocracy, and implicit bias in the form of
microaggressions, within the context of organizational culture defined by senior leadership,
deeply and negatively impact underrepresented individuals’ leadership opportunities. This type
of homogeneous culture is influenced by the intersectionality of senior decision-makers and
those underrepresented employees who face significant informal and formal barriers to career
advancement (Soklaridis et al., 2022). Many of the barriers underrepresented individuals are
confronted with are imbedded in the fractured structures of the organizations they work for.
These include a lack of legitimate frameworks to create diversity, equity, and inclusion programs
to ensure underrepresented employee integration across all levels. Due to incongruencies in
intersectionality between supervisor and supervisee, mentorships and access to key
organizational information are not available to underrepresented individuals at the same level as
their majority cohorts (Corneille et al., 2019). Therefore, career advancement is suppressed.
The study examines how the intersectionality of senior decision-makers affects equity
and inclusion when considering who receives promotions. The intersectional identity in this
paper specifically focuses on gender and race. These intersectional identities have underrepresented groups in senior-level positions in most organizations. These three distinct yet
impactful concepts are integral to acquiring further insight into the barriers underrepresented
professionals face while climbing the corporate ladder and attaining leadership roles in their
places of work.

40
Figure 1
Conceptual Framework
Summary
The research findings from the literature review suggest that barriers continue to
stubbornly exist for underrepresented individuals when it comes to entry into existing job
openings and even more so for access to promotional opportunities once employed. Most social
constructs within companies are derivative of culture set forth by senior leadership. The research
shows that White males are far and beyond representative of who sits in the c-suite of most
Fortune 500 companies. This is in contrast to the more diverse populations who report to them.
When differing viewpoints and understanding exists between majority representative senior
leaders and underrepresented employee subordinates, perceived workplace retaliation increases.
These retaliations come in the form of tokenism when acknowledged, but mostly lack of

41
recognition for most underrepresented individuals who meet or exceed expectations. Therefore,
the status quo of promoting familiarity is perpetuated.
Research findings from the literature review also indicate that structural barriers within
organizations impede underrepresented individuals from reaching their professional potential.
When formalized mentoring programs for underrepresented employees are not in place, there is
an inequity in information sharing and access to upward mobility that many racial majority
employees enjoy. When access to both senior leadership and consequently career laddering are
denied or limited, underrepresented employee engagement decreases. Without targeted talent
pipelines and procedures to retain and develop underrepresented employees, cannot overcome
the continued plight of homogenous senior leadership teams. The literature review provides a
foundational understanding why such barriers exist for underrepresented groups not just
generally across the U.S. workforce, but more specifically for the pharmaceutical industry which
has had a particularly challenging time diversifying its workforce.

42
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
The primary purpose of this research is to inform action, gather evidence to validate
proposed theories, and contribute to developing knowledge in this field of study. Specifically,
this study aims to gain a greater understanding of the inherent barriers that are in place within
organizations that prevent underrepresented employees from obtaining leadership positions. The
theoretical framework used in this study and is the foundation for the research was the BurkeLitwin Model of Change. The model examines various drivers of change within an organization
and ranks them in terms of importance with leadership being the most important internal driver
(Burke & Litwin, 1992). This chapter begins with restating the research questions then provides
an overview of methodological design that outlines which questions were answered utilizing
responses from a survey and which ones were answered through the application of an interview
process. This is followed by a description of the research setting and an overview of the
researcher’s positionality. Subsequently, data sources are discussed that includes participants,
instrumentation, data collection procedures, and data analysis. Lastly, validity and reliability of
the study are argued along with ethical considerations of the research and any limitations or
delimitations that may be present.
Research Questions
Individuals with racial and ethnic backgrounds are becoming a larger percentage of the
U.S. population. However, like many business sectors, the pharmaceutical industry is not
keeping pace. The research questions outlined support this study’s intent to examine the
systematic and structural barriers in place that prevent underrepresented individuals from
obtaining leadership opportunities. The research questions listed below focus on the impact of

43
behavioral rigidity, implicit bias, and formal and informal structural frameworks that impede
career advancement. They are as follows:
1) What are the environmental elements that influence behavioral rigidity that negatively
affect underrepresented individuals’ leadership opportunities?
2) To what degree does the presence of implicit bias influence leadership decisionmaking when promoting individuals into senior leadership positions?
3) How do formal and informal structural frameworks within organizations for equity
and inclusion affect underrepresented individuals’ promotions?
Overview of Design
The methodological design used in this study is a mixed methods approach. Data
collection techniques administered include an on-line quantitative survey and virtual, first-person
interviews for qualitative research purposes. The theoretical framework utilized in this study is
the Burke Litwin Model of Change. This framework focuses on outside drivers and internal
leadership and policies and practices that drive organizational change (Burke & Litwin, 1992).
The survey and interviews conducted applied this framework to better understand and identify
specific drivers and their impact on organizational belonging and career mobility.
Creswell and Creswell (2018) emphasized that quantitative research is an approach for
testing objective theories through the examination of relationships among variables. For this
study, quantitative analysis is utilized to examine the influence of factors such as unconscious
bias, the absence of a clear organizational frameworks, and overall organizational culture has on
underrepresented individual’s outcome expectancy, self-efficacy, and leadership opportunities.
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) defined qualitative research as the discovery of meaning of a
phenomenon of those involved through their interpretation of their experiences, knowledge of

44
particular phenomenon, and its impact on them and within their environment. Interviews
conducted followed this logic and focused on individuals’ perceptions of the impact leadership,
policies, organizational culture, organizational structures, individual values, and management
practices have on discrimination and upward mobility of underrepresented employees.
Table 2
Data Sources
Research Questions Survey Interviews Artifactual
RQ1:
What are the environmental elements that
influence behavioral rigidity that
negatively affect racial minority
leadership opportunities?
X X
RQ2:
To what degree does the presence of
implicit bias influence leadership
decision-making when promoting
individuals into senior leadership
positions?
X X
RQ3:
How do formal and informal structural
frameworks within organizations for
equity and inclusion affect minority
promotions?
X X X
Research Setting
The study targeted over a hundred underrepresented individuals employed within the
pharmaceutical industry. Many of these people were members of an underrepresented focused
employee resource group (ERG) aimed to help marginalized groups feel a greater connection

45
based on shared experiences and common interests. These ERGs are a product of the ongoing
issues surrounding industry-wide workforce equity. Recent data indicates that there are 314,170
employees in the pharmaceutical industry with 35,540 people in management occupations
(USBLS, 2021). As stated in Chapter 1, only five percent of these employees identify as a person
of color (Biotech Innovation Organization, 2020). The survey and subsequent interviews took
place virtually to ensure greater accessibility and flexibility of schedules to increase
participation. The rational for including this sub-set of pharmaceutical industry employees is to
make certain that the research encompassed underrepresented individuals’ lived experiences
centered on career advancement opportunities and barriers to organizational inclusion.
The Researcher
The research for the topic being examined in this study aims to gain a better
understanding through appreciative inquiry is the lack of equity of leadership opportunities for
underrepresented individuals in the pharmaceutical industry. There are several power structures
that intersect with the researcher’s roles within the topic of interest. The power structures include
identifying as a White, heterosexual, middle-aged male. Additional intersections involve the
researcher having obtained a high level of education and residing economically in the uppermiddle class. Due to these inherent privileges, the researcher is afforded greater access to
personal safety, societal acceptance, and professional success.
The researcher has more than 18 years of workforce development experience supporting
people with disabilities, immigrants, and other underrepresented populations. His passion and
expertise in diversity, equity, and inclusion has led to roles as an international consultant to the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, State Department, the European Union, and
numerous countries on workforce integration solutions. The researcher’s contributions to migrant

46
workforce integration and training programs have been recognized by the United Nations High
Commissioner on Refugees as an international best practice.
As the executive director of the organization that supports workforce integration and
career advancement of people with disabilities, the researcher has a great deal of influence on
how underrepresented individuals with talent are perceived as assets to top global corporations
and society as a whole. With this vantage point along with the company’s business focus that the
researcher oversees as a corporate workforce strategy company, they have a unique positioning
to understand the issues at the center of the lack of equity of leadership opportunities for
underrepresented employees in the workplace. The researcher has witnessed underrepresented
individuals struggle to gain access to job opportunities and promotions for which they are
professionally qualified. In turn, these individuals have fought to create a self-identity, move
toward self-sufficiency, and to been seen and have a presence in the greater community. The
researcher has worked across the globe and witnessed firsthand how implicit bias has shattered
the futures of many communities whose voices were not heard, faces not seen, and talents not
recognized.
The presence of implicit bias and its negative effects on promotional opportunities for
underrepresented individuals has been commonplace in the elite corporations that the
researcher’s company has supported. A lack of diversity among senior decision-makers does not
allow for a proliferation of underrepresented employee hires and promotions to executive-level
roles. Another elemental barrier is the existence of meritocracy and its harmful fallacies that
opportunity is strictly derived from hard work (McNamee & Miller, 2018). Conversely, as a
White male, the researcher’s lived experience has mostly been absent of the barriers most
underrepresented individuals face. The researcher’s knowledge and abilities have not been called

47
into question, and their positionality is familiar and accepted by those who they have worked for
throughout their career. Potential assumptions and biases were mitigated through the succinct
usage of participant’s words and responses without the insertion of the researcher’s opinions.
Additionally, confirmability was applied to increase trustworthiness of the data and to diminish
the effect of researcher’s positionality on the study’s results.
Data Sources
This study incorporates a mixed-methods approach. Firstly, an online quantitative survey
was conducted where underrepresented employees from the partnering pharmaceutical
companies provided responses. Secondly, during the completion of the survey portion of the
research, virtual qualitative interviews were conducted with six individuals presenting different
professional levels within their respective companies. The interviews were performed several
weeks after survey implementation. Additionally, the researcher reviewed pharmaceutical
industry Disability, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) reports and corporate websites to gain an
understanding of strategic plans, espoused beliefs, and organizational cultural markers. These
artifacts provide insight into organizational norms and underlying assumptions about the study’s
problem of practice (Schein, 2017).
Method 1
A Likert scale survey was conducted that included several open-ended questions to allow
participants to reflect and to share lived experiences related to organizational inclusion and
career advancement and equity.
Participants
Participants for this study were chosen through a thoughtful process where the researcher
defines characteristics that will align with the research questions being posed. For this study,

48
participants were chosen based on (1) position held within the organization, mostly individuals
who are in lower to mid-level careers, and (2) they must have represented an underrepresented
group. This segment of employees is appropriate as they have lived experience related to the
problem of practice and were able to share their story through the survey.
The recruitment approach consisted of reaching out to corporate underrepresented
employee resource groups (ERGs) to elicit participation in the survey. Given this approach, a
stratified sampling methodology was administered where individuals in the predetermined
groups were randomly selected. Two hundred participants were selected and completed the
survey instrument.
Instrumentation
The study’s theoretical framework (Burke Litwin Model of Change) internal and external
drivers such as senior leadership and societal norms have been examined through the survey
instrumentation. The conceptual framework facilitated the assessment of key concepts that
influence the study’s problem of practice. These key concepts were identified using data
collected through the survey mechanism. They included the effects of meritocracy,
microaggressions, intersectionality, implicit bias, self-perception, organizational structure, and
organizational culture on underrepresented employee promotional opportunities.
The survey comprises of fifteen questions that include skip logic to gain further insight
into an individual’s self-perception of their ability to perform their job. These questions were
designed using a Likert scale, closed answer format with the exception of two open-ended
questions. The questions elicited demographic information such as gender, ethnicity, and current
role in the participants’ respective organizations. These questions were written using terminology
that is respectful to the respondents (Rosenberg, 2017). Several organizational process questions

49
were asked to obtain feedback on any structural barriers affecting promotional opportunities for
underrepresented employees. In addition, there were a series of prompts related to the survey
taker’s self-perception of the likelihood they will be able to attain a leadership position in their
company. Lastly, there are questions which focused on organizational culture to ascertain levels
of implicit and explicit bias present in the participants’ places of work.
The questions posed in the survey are tied to the study’s research questions as the
environment has an outsized role in individual employee career success. Likewise, the questions
were aimed to get to the core of both structural and inherent predispositions of leaders that
determine underrepresented individuals’ promotional prospects within a given corporation (see
Appendix A).
Data Collection Procedures
Data was collected using Qualtrics, an online survey tool. This allowed participants to
take the survey at a time that is most convenient to them. Data was derived from participants
who work at one of several partnering national pharmaceutical companies. Participants hailed
from offices located within the United States. To ensure reliable data collection, the survey link
was sent out to underrepresented employee ERG members in each of the organizations. The
surveys, on average, took five minutes and thirty seconds to complete. Qualtrics was used to
administer the survey and to collect responses. A survey was used as it permitted the researcher
to collect substantial amounts of specific information, for a large number of respondents, in an
efficient manner (Johnson & Christensen, 2015, p. 45).
Data Analysis
Qualtrics was used to administer the survey and conduct the preliminary data analysis.
SPSS was then employed to conduct the in-depth analysis of both nominal and interval data

50
gathered from the survey. Though the descriptive analysis was utilized to summarize data points
in a practical manner, that patterns might emerge that fulfill every condition of the data (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016). Elements such as mean, median, and mode were used to determine specific
levels of the responses. Additionally, open-ended questions focused on the presence of
unconscious bias of decision-makers and the self-efficacy of the respondents were coded in
relation to the study’s conceptual framework in order to detect patterns and similarities.
Method 2
Semi-structured interviews took place that allowed for further insight into the posed
research questions. This included impromptu questions to better ascertain participants’ lived
experiences. Thirteen questions in total were conducted that concentrated on organizational
culture, leadership, management practices, and specific policies that influence equity and
inclusion and access to executive career opportunities.
Participants
Participants for this study were chosen through a thoughtful process where the researcher
defined characteristics that align with the research questions being posed. For this study,
participants were chosen based on (1) position held within the organization, mostly individuals
who are in lower to mid-level careers, (2) they represent an underrepresented group, and (3) they
must have been with the organization for at least 6 months. Individuals with these characteristics
are most suited for the research questions as the study aimed to identify organizational barriers
both from structural deficits and individual leadership shortfalls. It was imperative that research
participants be representative of the target population and have lived experiences that provided
the appropriate insight into what the research questions are trying to examine.

51
The sampling and recruitment approach included providing the above criteria to
corporate partners’ HR departments to support the recruitment process. The sampling approach
used non-probability. Specifically, voluntary response sampling. The researcher requested
members of the identified population to join the sample, and they made independent decisions on
whether or not to participate in the study. The size of the sample was 6 people who represented
diverse racial, ethnic, and gender backgrounds.
Instrumentation
The interview protocol employed for this study was semi-structured. This methodology
allowed for a series of structured questions to ensure important insight was gained into the
research questions being posed. Furthermore, there were opportunities for unplanned questions
to allow the interviewer the flexibility to ascertain additional key information derived from
responses from the pre-determined questions. The number of established questions utilized was
thirteen. The questions addressed key concepts such as organizational culture, organizational
leadership, systems, policies and procedures, organizational climate, and management practices.
These concepts helped contextualize the issues being explored through the research. The types of
questions asked consist of elements that include knowledge, experience and behavior, opinion,
values, and individual feeling and sensing (Patton, 2002).
These interview inquiries related to the posed research questions as they highlighted
central components of behavioral rigidity seen by senior leaders who set the organizational
culture and climate. In turn, these components provided substantial awareness of the degree to
which underrepresented employee leadership opportunities are negatively impacted. The survey
questions explored specific organizations’ policies and practices centered on the promotional
process and equity and inclusion. Moreover, the interview questions aimed to define individual

52
experiences as an underrepresented employee in the workplace such as microaggressions, lack of
recognition, quality, and frequency of interactions with senior leaders and level of support they
receive in their roles (see Appendix B).
Data Collection Procedures
The procedures used for collecting the interview data are as follows: Interviews were
conducted at the beginning of calendar year 2023 over a three-week period. It included twelve
individuals and lasted between 45-60 minutes per interview with time allotted for any openended follow-up questions as they were needed. All interviews took place via Zoom in a virtual
setting. Data was captured through interviewer notes and by recordings and transcriptions
provided by the Zoom platform.
Data Analysis
The analysis of the semi-structured interviews included the following qualitative
protocols. The responses were assessed through the lens of the study’s conceptual framework.
Interview notations and transcripts were scrutinized for themes and patterns within the responses.
Once determined, the data was categorized and coded to apply greater significance and relevance
to the study’s overarching hypotheses and applied research questions.
Method 3
An artifact analysis was conducted to better ascertain how leading corporations in the
pharmaceutical industry portray themselves within the context of diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Artifact analysis is an invaluable triangulation tool when studying the same phenomenon (Bowen
2009). Moreover, this examination compared these portrayals to the lived experiences of the
employee participants gathered from the surveys and qualitative interviews.

53
Artifact Types
To analyze artifactual elements of particular companies within the pharmaceutical
industry, several specific products were collected. The products included websites to observe
both written, visual, and symbolic representations; job postings to examine the level of
inclusivity written into the descriptions; hiring policies to unearth if companies state their
diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) stances; social media accounts to better understand if and
how corporations market their values; and official documents such as annual and DEI reports to
ascertain whether or not corporations are prioritizing and measuring DEI programs and
initiatives.
Instrumentation
Both the study’s theoretical and conceptual frameworks were used in the qualitative
analysis of company artifacts. Specifically, key concepts such as senior leadership and
organizational culture were compared and contrasted with the responses given through the
survey instrument and subsequent interviews. Given visual and written materials can be rich
symbols of the culture and beliefs a company develops, a values system can be assessed. These
values are the designation of what is deemed important, what is held dear, and a measure by
which can evaluated (Antaki, 2020). Therefore, artifactual analysis provides an additional lens to
view the problem of practice of this study.
Data Collection Procedures
To collect artifactual information, company website landing and career pages were
reviewed and data elements such as photography and verbiage were noted. When available, job
postings and hiring policies were assessed based on the inclusiveness of the language used.
Furthermore, social media accounts were examined during regular intervals to measure the

54
frequency of postings that exemplify diversity, equity, and inclusion messaging. Lastly, official
corporate documents were collected when obtainable through online searches.
Data Analysis
An iterative process of combining content and thematic analysis was used to interpret the
data collected. This process included a superficial examination, a thorough examination, and an
interpretation of the materials reviewed. The content was organized into categories or emerging
themes related to the central research questions in this study and compared to the responses
given by research participants to triangulate and validate findings across all three research
methodologies employed.
Validity and Reliability
Interviews
It is important that all data gathered from the survey research is an accurate reflection of
the problem of practice and the topics posed in the research questions. To achieve this, there has
to be a high level of validity. To ensure validity, survey questions have to be easily understood
by all respondents on a consistent basis. Therefore, to increase validity of this research survey,
several steps were taken. Robinson and Firth Leonard (2019) stated these include confirming that
all questions are written clearly and concisely, ordering questions by topic, and conducting a pretest of the survey to check for effectiveness. The survey was piloted before beginning the actual
research to confirm reliability. In order to maximize response rates, several steps were
administered. First, prior notification was sent out to potential respondents to gain their attention
and it conveys the purpose and benefits of the survey. Additionally, the survey was designed
with a high level of quality, it was accompanied by clear instructions, and it was easily

55
accessible. Furthermore, incentives were provided to potential respondents to increase
participation.
Survey
To ensure trustworthiness in the data collection and analysis, triangulation, or testing
validity through the convergence of information from various sources was applied (Patton,
2002). Additionally, member checking, where data or results were returned to participants to
check for accuracy and resonance with their experiences was employed (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Lastly, transferability, dependability, and confirmability were established. Transferability
was demonstrated by establishing clear assumptions and contextual inferences of both the
research setting and the participants. Assurances of dependability were determined by providing
a detailed description of the research methods and by conducting a step-by-step repetition of data
collection from each participant interviewed. Confirmability of the qualitative data was created
through the implementation of a clear coding schema that identified codes and patterns during
analysis.
Artifactual Analysis
To ensure the credibility of this research, all materials were thoroughly evaluated for
subjectivity and the researcher’s understanding of the data or information being presented
(O’Leary, 2014). The diversity and number of artifacts examined along with the quality of
information provided from the artifacts were assessed to ensure validity. Additionally, biases of
both the authors or producers of these artifacts and the biases of the researcher were considered
during the analysis.

56
Ethics
To address positionality and power, the researcher utilized reflexivity. Reflexivity as a
tool aided to explore the researcher’s positionality and how their positionality influences
knowledge in a particular area of study. Moreover, to minimize the effect of the researcher’s
positionality on this qualitative study, the researcher conveyed their background to the study’s
participants. Their background is inclusive of their work experiences, education, cultural
experiences, and any related history. By being transparent with the prospective respondents, both
creditability and trustworthiness can be established (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Mitigating Issues Related to Positionality and Power
Positionality is also a critical component in qualitative research as it can directly
influence how the research is conducted and it can impact the prevailing outcomes or results. To
minimize the effect of positionality in this research study, a high-level of transparency took
place. This started with the researcher providing a positionality statement underscoring their
identity to include race, class, gender, sexuality, and ability status. This along with expressing
any potential influences and biases that affect their outlook on the world was provided. Given the
context that most executives in the pharmaceutical industry are White males and access to
institutional power has been a common historical occurrence for this group, this study needed to
be sensitive to this impact on underrepresented employee professional opportunities. During the
interview process, it was extremely important to be aware that groups such as women and people
of color have historically been denied institutional power. Therefore, it was critical that the
researcher being a White male who is educated, grew up in an American Judeo-Christian
community, and resides in the upper-middle class strata of society to consider his own
preconceptions. All of these attributes have the ability to influence the data. The researcher being

57
a person that mostly resides in the privileged category based on their attributes, views may have
become skewed when identifying systematic privilege versus a more easily recognizable
individual privilege. To overcome researcher bias and assumptions, confirmability was applied.
Using participants’ narratives and words rather than potential researcher partiality aided in the
trustworthiness of the data and helped mitigate the positionality of the researcher and its effect
on the results of the study.
Limitations and Delimitations
The researcher bound this study with the given conceptual framework facilitated the
assessment of key concepts that influence the study’s problem of practice. These key concepts
are identified using data collected through the survey instrument and subsequent interviews.
They include the effects of meritocracy, microaggressions, intersectionality, implicit bias, selfperception, organizational structure, and organizational culture on underrepresented employee
promotional opportunities. The level at which these factors are affected is based on the presence
of unconscious bias within the organization’s leadership, and the presence of lack of a DEI
framework within the participants’ companies.
Limitations within the study’s bounded concepts included uncontrollable factors. These
irrepressible factors consist of the level of truthfulness of respondents and the integrity of data
gathered from participants in both the survey and ensuing interviews. Specific to surveys, these
instruments provoke a respondent’s opinions and experiences, and these replies do not always
represent hard facts. Delimitations were also present and have direct implications on the data
collected. For example, the research is constricted by questions not asked that should have been.
Areas of further investigation may need to include a greater emphasis on how implicit bias
occurs in the workplace and its impact on underrepresented employees may be needed to fully

58
understand workplace barriers and those barriers relation to the conceptual framework. Other
delimitations may include a more explicit understanding of employee morale and confidence in
relation to career laddering. Additionally, phraseology of questions can always be stated more
clearly and consistently. Lastly, one should always consider the limited number of interviews
conducted and whether they provide a true representation of people’s experiences and the
diversity of those experiences. Without an accurate representation, generalizability of the study’s
results cannot be determined. Moreover, it prevents vulnerable populations from experiencing
the benefits of research involving any innovative or useful tactics that may increase equity and
inclusion in the workplace.

59
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
Chapter four provides a detailed overview of the findings of the mixed-method research
that was conducted. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the marginalization of
underrepresented employees at individual companies in the pharmaceutical industry. Specifically,
the research examined the lack of access to leadership opportunities for underrepresented
employees. Organizational structures and individual preconceptions in this study were studied to
gain a clearer understanding of the barriers that preclude underrepresented employees’ ascension
into the highest levels of the industry. The findings of this study are comprised of qualitative data
collected through interviews, quantitative data obtained through survey responses, and an artifact
analysis. The research questions that directed the study were as follows:
1) What are the environmental elements that influence behavioral rigidity that negatively affect
underrepresented individuals’ leadership opportunities?
2) To what degree does the presence of implicit bias influence leadership decision-making when
promoting individuals into senior leadership positions?
3) How do formal and informal structural frameworks within organizations for equity and
inclusion affect underrepresented individuals’ promotions?
A concurrent mixed methods research design was utilized. Both qualitative and
quantitative data were collected at the same time and analyzed separately. After both analyses were
completed, a comparison analysis of the results to define relationships more accurately among
variables of interest was conducted to derive overall conclusions. The qualitative portion of the
research included Zoom based interviews with employees from the pharmaceutical industry. There
was a cross section of interviewees from various levels within their organizations as well as
personal backgrounds. In addition to the qualitative interviews, a qualitative survey was distributed

60
shortly before qualitative interviews were completed. The survey went out to pharmaceutical
professionals across the United States. The total number of respondents was 111. Respondents
were heavily skewed toward lower-level employees (69%), with managers, senior managers, and
executives comprising 31% of the participants. Additionally, an artifact analysis was completed
where five of the largest pharmaceutical companies were reviewed. Artifact types that were
included in the analysis comprise of company website landing pages and career pages.
Additionally, corporate job postings, reports, and socials media platforms were scrutinized. Data
collected looked at organizational culture symbology and indications of specific inclusiveness in
communication.
Participating Stakeholders
The participants in this study were professionals in the pharmaceutical industry. The
participants represent a wide range of positions and tenure within their respective companies.
Participation in both the qualitative interviews and quantitative survey was strictly voluntary.
Interview Participants
The qualitative phase of this study consisted of interviewing six individuals. All
interviewees randomly self-selected to take part in study. Outreach was conducted on social
media platforms to recruit professionals from the pharmaceutical industry. All of the individuals
who participated in the qualitative study had over 10 years of experience in the field and worked
for various sized companies from large global corporations to recent start-up companies. The
interviewees’ roles within other organizations were diversified and ranged from executive level
ranks to middle management, to lower-level positions. Table 3 provides demographic
characteristics of the pharmaceutical professionals who participate in the qualitative interviews.

61
Table 3
Demographic Characteristics of Participants (Interviews)
Underrepresented
Minority (Y/N)
Position Years of
Experience
Participant #1 Yes Clinical Research
Consultant
13
Participant #2 No Clinical Trial
Manager
11
Participant #3 No President/General
Manager
22
Participant #4 No Regional Director 12
Participant #5 Yes Talent Acquisition
Recruiter
16
Participant #6 No Development
Director
20+
Survey Participants
The quantitative portion of this study began shortly before the qualitative interviews were
completed. Participants in the quantitative survey were recruited separately through outreach to
the pharmaceutical industry and professional associations. No one from the qualitative interviews
participated in the quantitative study. The survey was completed by 111 participants with various
ethnic, racial, and gender identities. Individuals’ roles and length of tenure and experience varied
greatly. Of the participants completing the demographic question regarding gender (N=105), the
majority responded female (55.2%), male was (40.0%), nonbinary was (0.95%), and prefer not to
answer contributed to (3.8%) of total respondents. The responses for racial/ethnic backgrounds
of participants (N=109), Whites made up the largest majority (69.7%), followed by Black people
(13.8%), Hispanics/Latinos comprised of (10.1%), Asians (4.6%), Native Americans (0.9%) and
(0.9%) for prefer not to answer responses. Table 4 provides an overview of these participant
demographic characteristics.

62
Table 4
Gender and Racial/Ethnic Characteristics of Participants (Survey)
Characteristics n %
Gender (N=105) Female 58 55.2
Male 42 40.0
Nonbinary 1 0.95
Prefer Not to Answer 4 3.80
Race/Ethnicity
(N=109)
White 76 69.7
Black 15 13.8
Hispanic/Latino 11 10.1
Asian 5 4.60
Native American 1 0.92
Prefer Not to Answer 1 0.92
When analyzing the responses of the professional roles of participants (N=105) the
majority identified as employees (67.6%), those indicating they were managers was (20.0%),
senior managers (8.6%), and executives were (2.9%). Of the total respondents (0.95%) stated
other as their role. Regarding the length of time in their professions, (15.2%) stated less than one
year, (40.0%) indicated one to five years, and (44.8%) specified that their tenure is greater than
five years. Table 5 provides these demographic characteristics of the participants.

63
Table 5
Roles and Tenure Characteristics of Participants (Survey)
Characteristics n %
Role (N=105) Employee 71 67.6
Manager 21 20.0
Senior Manager 9 8.6
Executive 3 2.9
Other 1 0.95
Tenure (N=105) Less Than 1 Year
16
15.2
1-5 Years 42 40.0
Greater than 5 Years 47 44.8

64
When comparing the quantitative and qualitative data and analyzing results several
themes emerged that contribute to answering the study’s three main research questions. When
examining environmental elements that influence behavioral rigidity that negative affects
underrepresented employee leadership opportunities, misalignment of organizational values and
behaviors was determined to be an attributable influence. Regarding the second research
question that looked at to what degree does the presence of implicit bias influence leadership
decision-making when promoting underrepresented individuals, a lack of awareness and
understanding centered on inclusion and belonging was contributable factor. Lastly, when
examining how formal and informal structural frameworks within organizations for equity and
inclusion affect underrepresented individuals’ promotions, a lack of accountability was a
significant component.
Through a thorough analysis of the qualitative data, it was determined that the results of
the interviews did not yield robust findings that clearly relate to the study’s research questions.
Therefore, the quantitative data was utilized to a greater extent as it led to a substantial
understanding of significant patterns and told a more succinct story of the barriers
underrepresented employees face when seeking to advance in their careers. However, direct
quotes from the interviews were used throughout the discussion of the quantitative data to
reinforce the findings and to bolster the ties back to the posed research questions.
The following data analysis compares and contrasts survey responses of underrepresented
individuals to those of their White counterparts. A Mann-Whitney U test was administered for all
ordinal data between the two groups to nonparametrically test the null hypothesis for randomly
selected values X and Y from the two populations. Additionally, z-scores for all question
responses were calculated to determine the probability of a score occurring within a standard

65
normal distribution for both White and underrepresented response data sets for each question.
Furthermore, p-values were calculated to determine the probability value to measure how likely
it is that a result is due to chance. Qualitative interviews help reinforce what was determined
through the results of the quantitative survey data. Moreover, a brief evaluation of any
differences between a pharmaceutical start-up and an existing company will be discussed. In
addition, the artifact analysis will provide further information on how corporations in the
pharmaceutical industry see themselves when it comes to being inclusive and diverse in the
employee makeup and how they do or do not communicate this organizational asset.
Research Question 1: What are the environmental elements that influence behavioral
rigidity that negatively affects underrepresented individuals’ leadership opportunities?
For this portion of the study, four survey question responses were analyzed. These
responses included answers to three ordinal questions and one open-ended question. The
question responses were attributed to research question 1 based on the rubric established in the
survey protocol. The questions are as follows:
1) Based on your own reflection, what barriers, if any, have you seen for minorities moving
into executive roles within your organization?
2) To what extent do you agree with the following: “Within my organization I can find
examples of minority individuals serving in executive leadership roles who I see as role
models, or person of positive influence.”
3) To what extent do you agree with the following: “My current organization values
diversity, equity, and inclusion.”
4) To what extent do you agree with the following: “My current organization creates an
environment of trust and safety to advance diversity and equity in executive leadership.”

66
Responses to the above set of questions combined with answers given during the
qualitative interviews provided an insight into environmental factors that lead to organizational
rigidity, and, therefore, a lack of leadership opportunities for underrepresented employees in the
pharmaceutical industry. The most significant barrier being a misalignment of organizational
values and behaviors.
Misalignment of Organizational Values and Behaviors
While values and behaviors and their misalignment within organizations was the major
theme derived from the data analysis, two sub-themes were investigated that provide a deeper
understanding of where this misalignment is occurring. They include a failure to demonstrate
organizational values across all levels in companies and the lack of effective policies and
procedures to properly address implicit bias within individual organizations in the
pharmaceutical industry.
Failure to Demonstrate Organizational Values
When examining the extent to which a respondent’s current organization values diversity,
equity, and inclusion, in total, 50.0% indicated they fully agree (M = 1.74; SD = 0.98; n = 104).
The unbiased sample variance was (s2 = 0.98) indicating low variability and more homogeneous
responses to the posed question. In order to test the null hypothesis, response data between White
and underrepresented participants was compared using a Mann-Whitney U test. The value of U
was 933.5 and the distribution was approximately normal. The z-score was 1.30857 and the pvalue is 0.1902. Therefore, the result was not significant at p < .05. When comparing the
responses of White respondents to those who identified as an underrepresented group, the results
are much starker. The percentage of White respondents (n = 73) that indicated they totally agree
that their current organizations value diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) was 54.8%, whereas

67
38.7% the underrepresented group of respondents (n = 31) indicated they totally agreed that their
organizations value diversity, equity, and inclusion. This 16.1 percentage point difference
between the two groups, was echoed by an underrepresented employee, interviewee #2 who
stated, “My organization views focusing on strengthening DEI is seen as not productive.” Table
6 provides an overview of the frequency of responses of White and underrepresented
respondents as well as frequency of the responses combined.
Table 6
Frequency of White and Underrepresented Responses to Level Organizations Value DEI
Frequency White
Respondents
(n = 73)
% Underrepresented
Respondents
(n = 31)
% Total
Respondents
(N = 104)
%
Fully
Agree
40 54.8 12 38.7 52 50.0
Agree 23 31.5 13 41.9 36 34.6
Undecided 7 9.6 3 9.7 10 9.6
Disagree 1 1.4 1 3.2 2 1.9
Fully
Disagree
2 2.7 2 6.5 4 3.9
Range
5 - 1 = 4 5 - 1 = 4 5 - 1 = 4
When investigating respondents’ indications to the level at which their current
organization creates an environment of trust and safety to advance diversity and equity in
executive leadership, 40.4% stated they fully agree their respective organizations create an
environment of trust and safety that supports diversity at the highest levels (M = 1.92; SD =
1.02; n = 104). The unbiased sample variance was (s2 = 1.04) indicating a more heterogeneous

68
response to the posed question. When calculating the Mann-Whitney U test, the value of U was
1059.5 and the distribution was approximately normal. The z-score was -0.40264 and the p-value
was 0.68916. Therefore, the result was not significant at p < .05. When contrasting White
responses (n = 73) versus those of their underrepresented peers (n = 31), Whites had a lower
average of those who indicated they fully agreed, 38.3% compared to 45.1% from the
underrepresented group. Over 50 percent of respondents felt less than completely sure their
organizations foster trust and safety that increases diversity at the executive level. This was
reiterated by interviewee #1 who stated, “Positionality leads to privilege. For many lower-level
underrepresented employees a lack of trust is present.” Table 7 provides the frequency of
responses of White and underrepresented respondents as well as frequency of the responses
combined.
Table 7
Frequency of White and Underrepresented Responses to Provision of Trust and Safety
Frequency White
Respondents
(n = 73)
% Underrepresented
Respondents
(n = 31)
% Total
Respondents
(N = 104)
%
Fully
Agree
28 38.3 14 45.1 42 40.4
Agree 29 39.7 11 35.5 40 38.5
Undecided 11 15.1 1 3.2 12 11.5
Disagree 5 6.9 3 9.7 8 7.7
Fully
Disagree
0 0.00 2 6.5 2 1.9
Range
5 – 2 = 3 5 – 1 = 4 5 – 1 = 4

69
Lack of Effective Policies and Procedures to Address Implicit Bias
When exploring respondents’ replies to whether or not they can find examples of
minority individuals serving in executive leadership roles who they see as role models, or person
of positive influence, only 38.5% stated they fully agree that within their organizations that can
find examples of underrepresented individuals in executive leadership roles who provide a
positive influence (M = 1.92; SD = 1.00; n = 104). The unbiased sample variance was (s2 =
1.00) indicating a relatively high variation, and there, more heterogeneous responses to the posed
question. When calculating the Mann-Whitney U test, the value of U was 1070 and the
distribution was approximately normal.
The z-score was 0.32355 and the p-value was 0.74896. Therefore, the result was not significant
at p < .05. Comparing the total White responses (n = 73) versus the total of those who are
underrepresented employees in the pharmaceutical field (n = 31), 37.0% of Whites indicated
they fully agreed, while slightly higher, less than half (41.9%) from the underrepresented group
fully agreed. Table 8 provides the frequency of responses of White and underrepresented
respondents as well as frequency of the responses combined.

70
Table 8
Frequency of White and Underrepresented Responses to Underrepresented Employees in
Leadership Roles
Frequency White
Respondents
(n = 73)
% Underrepresented
Respondents
(n = 31)
% Total
Respondents
(N = 104)
%
Fully
Agree
27 37.0 13 41.9 40 38.5
Agree 35 48.0 9 29.0 44 42.3
Undecided 6 8.2 4 12.9 10 9.6
Disagree 3 4.1 4 12.9 7 6.7
Fully
Disagree
2 2.7 1 3.3 3 2.9
Range
5 – 1 = 4 5 – 1 = 4 5 – 1 = 4
When reviewing the responses regarding barriers participants have seen relating to
minorities moving into executive roles, underrepresented employees had a much higher rate
(58.1%) of affirming barriers than their White cohort (31.0%). Based on written answers
provided by both groups, underrepresented individuals have a greater sensitivity to noticing
barriers as it is most likely part of their lived experience in the workplace. One respondent stated,
“minorities work twice as hard in their job and still get passed over for promotions.” Another
participant asserted, “there are barriers that have been set up in relation to specific educational
standards, mentoring opportunities, and culture.” White respondents chalked up an absence of
underrepresented individuals’ leadership positions to “lack of opportunities” within their
organizations and “lack of professional and educational experience” of underrepresented

71
colleagues as main contributors to the problem. Table 9 provides the frequency of responses of
White and underrepresented respondents as well as frequency of the responses combined. Based
on the written responses, answers were categorized as barriers present, no barriers present, or
undecided.
Table 9
Frequency of White and Underrepresented Responses to Barriers to Executive Roles for
Minorities
Frequency White
Respondents
(n = 73)
% Underrepresented
Respondents
(n = 31)
% Total
Respondents
(N = 104)
%
Barriers
Present
22 30.1 18 58.0 40 38.5
No
Barriers
Present
45 61.7 11 35.5 56 53.8
Undecided 6 8.2 2 6.5 8 7.7
Range
3 – 1 = 2 3 – 1 = 2 3 – 1 = 2

72
Research Question 2: To what degree does the presence of implicit bias influence
leadership decision-making when promoting individuals into senior leadership positions?
For this section of the study, four survey question responses were analyzed. These
responses included answers to three ordinal questions. The question responses were attributed to
research question 2 based on rubric established in the survey protocol. The questions are as
follows:
1) How would you rate the following statement: “If I applied effort in pursuing a leadership
role, I believe I would succeed at gaining a position in executive leadership.”
2) To what extent do you agree with the following statement: “I am confident in my ability
to perform if advanced into an executive leadership role.”
3) To what extent do you agree with the following: “My current organization’s policies and
procedures are effective in addressing implicit bias against minorities.”
Responses to the above set of questions combined with answers given during the
qualitative interviews provides an understanding of the degree to which the presence of implicit
bias impacts leadership decision-making when promotion individuals into senior leadership roles
at companies within the pharmaceutical industry. The most substantial factor leading to the
existence of implicit bias is a lack of awareness and understanding centered on inclusion and
belonging.
Lack of Awareness and Understanding
Although a lack of awareness and understanding centered on inclusion and belonging is
central theme of causation of the presence of implicit bias influencing leadership decisionmaking, two sub-themes were studied to gain further understanding of specific reasons implicit
bias occurs within companies in the pharmaceutical industry. These explicit factors include the

73
frequent occurrence of a perceived elevated level of risk and the inability to address stereotypes
regarding minority abilities to succeed in executive level positions.
Perceived High Level of Risk
When assessing the extent to which a respondent believes they would succeed at gaining
an executive leadership role, in total, 25.0% indicated they fully agree (M = 2.26; SD = 1.10; n
= 104). The unbiased sample variance is (s2 = 1.20) indicating a high variability and more
heterogeneous responses to the posed question. When calculating the Mann-Whitney U test, the
value of U was 1093 and the distribution was approximately normal. The z-score was 0.16177
and the p-value was 0.87288. Therefore, the result was not significant at p < .05. When
comparing the responses of White respondents to those who identified as an underrepresented
group, the results skew heavily toward White employees. The percentage of White respondents
(n = 73) that indicated they fully agree they would succeed in obtaining an executive role was
27.4%, whereas 19.4% the underrepresented group of respondents (n = 31) indicated they fully
agree that they could achieve access to leadership positions. Table 10 provides an overview of
the frequency of responses of White and underrepresented respondents as well as frequency of
the responses combined.

74
Table 10
Frequency of White and Underrepresented Responses to Belief in Gaining a Leadership Position
Frequency White
Respondents
(n = 73)
% Underrepresented
Respondents
(n = 31)
% Total
Respondents
(N = 104)
%
Fully
Agree
20 27.4 6 19.4 26 25.0
Agree 29 39.7 16 51.6 45 43.3
Undecided 13 17.8 4 12.9 17 16.3
Disagree 7 9.6 4 12.9 11 10.6
Fully
Disagree
4 5.5 1 3.2 5 4.8
Range
5 – 1 = 4 5 – 1 = 4 5 – 1 = 4
Inability to Address Stereotypes Regarding Minority Abilities
When analyzing responses to participants’ confidence in their abilities to perform in a
leadership position a combined 40.4% indicated they fully agree that would (M = 1.85; SD =
0.88; n = 104). The unbiased sample variance was (s2 = 0.78) indicating a relatively low
variability and more homogeneous responses to the posed question. When calculating the MannWhitney U test, the value of U was 839.5 and the distribution was approximately normal. The zscore was -1.98443 and the p-value was 0.0477. Therefore, the result was significant at p < .05.
When comparing the responses of White participants to those in the underrepresented group,
again the results skewed immensely toward White employees. The percentage of White
respondents (n = 73) that indicated they fully agree they would succeed in an executive role was
37.0%, whereas 48.4% the underrepresented group of respondents (n = 31) indicated they fully

75
agree that they could thrive in leadership positions. Table 11 provides an overview of the
frequency of responses of White and underrepresented respondents as well as frequency of the
responses combined.
Table 11
Frequency of White and Underrepresented Responses to Belief to Perform in Executive Role
Frequency White
Respondents
(n = 73)
% Underrepresented
Respondents
(n = 31)
% Total
Respondents
(N = 104)
%
Fully
Agree
27 37.0 15 48.4 42 40.4
Agree 26 35.6 15 48.4 41 39.4
Undecided 15 20.5 1 3.2 16 15.4
Disagree 4 5.5 0 0.00 4 3.9
Fully
Disagree
1 1.4 0 0.00 1 0.9
Range
5 – 1 = 4 5 – 3 = 2 5 – 1 = 4
When analyzing responses regarding participant organizations utilization of effective
policies and procedures to address implicit bias against underrepresented employees, in totality
only 32.7% indicated their companies do (M = 2.20; SD = 1.17; n = 104). The unbiased sample
variance was (s2 = 1.36) indicating a high variability and more heterogeneous responses to the
posed question. When calculating the Mann-Whitney U test, the value of U was 1022. The zscore was 0.67226 and the p-value was 0.50286. Therefore, the result was not significant at p <
.05. When comparing the responses of White participants to those in the underrepresented group,
again the results skewed vastly toward White employees. The percentage of White respondents

76
(n = 73) that indicated they believed effective policies and procedures are in place was 35.6%,
whereas 25.8% the underrepresented group of respondents (n = 31) indicated they fully believed
their organizations have implemented effective policies and procedures that reduce implicit bias.
This 9.8 percentage point difference between the two groups aligns with interviewee #4 who
stated, “I feel microaggressions are normal in my organization.” Table 12 provides an overview
of the frequency of responses of White and underrepresented respondents as well as frequency
of the responses combined.
Table 12
Frequency of White and Underrepresented Responses to Organization Has Effective Policies
and Procedures to Address Implicit Bias Toward Underrepresented Employees
Frequency White
Respondents
(n = 73)
% Underrepresented
Respondents
(n = 31)
% Total
Respondents
(N = 104)
%
Fully
Agree
26 35.6 8 25.8 34 32.7
Agree 26 35.6 13 41.9 39 37.5
Undecided 10 13.7 5 16.1 15 14.4
Disagree 8 11.0 3 9.7 11 10.6
Fully
Disagree
3 4.1 2 6.5 5 4.8
Range
5 – 1 = 4 5 – 1 = 4 5 – 1 = 4

77
Research Question 3: How do formal and informal structural frameworks within
organizations for equity and inclusion affect underrepresented individuals’ promotions?
For this part of the research, four survey question responses were analyzed. These
responses included answers to four ordinal questions. The question responses were attributed to
research question 3 based on rubric established in the survey protocol. The questions are as
follows:
1) In my current organization, the pathway for obtaining an executive leadership position is
clear.
2) To what extent do you agree with the following: “My current organization addresses
stereotypes about the ability of minorities to serve in leadership positions.”
3) How would you rate the following: "Are you able to identify the promotion process at
your organization?”
4) To what extent to you agree with the following: “My current organization’s policies
enhance the hiring process to help promote ethnic/racial diversity.”
Responses to the above set of questions combined with answers given during the
qualitative interviews provides an understanding of the degree to which formal and informal
structural frameworks within pharmaceutical organizations for equity and inclusion affect
underrepresented individuals’ promotions. The factor that has the greatest impact from an
organizational perspective on underrepresented employee promotions is a lack of accountability.
Lack of Accountability
While lack of accountability within organizations was the major theme derived from the
data analysis, three sub-themes were identified that provide a clearer interpretation of why the
nonexistence of accountability occurs. They include unclear pathways to leadership positions, a

78
lack of understanding when it comes to organizational hiring and promotion processes, and a
lack of access to executive leadership.
Unclear Pathways to Leadership Positions
When analyzing responses of participant views of the level of clarity of pathways for
obtaining an executive leadership position, combined White and underrepresented groups only
29.8% indicated pathways were very clear (M = 2.36; SD = 1.31; n = 104). The unbiased
sample variance was (s2 = 1.72) indicating a high variability and more heterogeneous responses
to the posed question. When calculating the Mann-Whitney U test, the value of U was 872 and
the distribution was approximately normal. The z-score was -1.84057 and the p-value was
0.06576. Therefore, the result was not significant at p < .05. Comparing the responses of White
participants to those in the underrepresented group, White participants who stated pathways for
obtaining an executive leadership position were very clear were significantly lower than their
underrepresented counterparts. The percentage of White respondents (n = 73) that indicated
their organizations have clear processes was 21.9%, compared to nearly half (48.4%) of the
underrepresented group of respondents (n = 31). Table 13 provides an overview of the frequency
of responses of White and underrepresented respondents as well as frequency of the responses
combined.

79
Table 13
Frequency of White and Underrepresented Responses to Clear Pathways to Leadership
Positions
Frequency White
Respondents
(n = 73)
% Underrepresented
Respondents
(n = 31)
% Total
Respondents
(N = 104)
%
Very Clear 16 21.9 15 48.4 31 29.8
Somewhat
Clear
31 42.5 8 25.8 41 39.4
Undecided 9 12.3 2 6.5 11 10.6
Somewhat
Unclear
9 12.3 2 6.5 11 10.6
Very
Unclear
8 11.0 4 12.8 12 11.6
Range
5 – 1 = 4 5 – 1 = 4 5 – 1 = 4
When reviewing responses of participants about their organizations adequately
addressing stereotypes of underrepresented employees’ abilities to serve in leadership roles, in
totality only 18.3% indicated their companies do (M = 2.50; SD = 1.15; n = 104). The unbiased
sample variance was (s2 = 1.32) indicating a high variability and more heterogeneous responses
to the posed question. When calculating the Mann-Whitney U test, the value of U was 957 and
the distribution was approximately normal. The z-score was 1.13601 and the p-value was
0.25428. Therefore, the result was not significant at p < .05. When comparing the responses of
White participants to those in the underrepresented group, the results were heavily skewed
toward White employees. The percentage of White respondents (n = 73) that indicated they fully
believed that their organizations effectively address negative stereotypes was 21.9%, whereas

80
9.68% the underrepresented group of respondents (n = 31) indicated they fully agreed their
organizations do so. Table 14 provides an overview of the frequency of responses of White and
underrepresented respondents as well as frequency of the responses combined.
Table 14
Frequency of White and Underrepresented Responses to Their Organization Addressing
Stereotypes of the Abilities of Underrepresented Employees to Serve in Leadership Roles
Frequency White
Respondents
(n = 73)
% Underrepresented
Respondents
(n = 31)
% Total
Respondents
(N = 104)
%
Fully
Agree
16 21.9 3 9.7 19 18.3
Agree 29 39.7 12 38.7 41 39.4
Undecided 13 17.8 11 35.5 24 23.1
Disagree 11 15.1 1 3.2 12 11.5
Fully
Disagree
4 5.5 4 12.9 8 7.7
Range
5 – 1 = 4 5 – 1 = 4 5 – 1 = 4
Lack of Understanding Organizational Hiring and Promotional Processes
When investigating responses regarding the ability of participants to be able to identify their
organization’s promotion processes, in totality only 20.2% indicated that their knowledge was
excellent (M = 2.49; SD = 1.09; n = 104). The unbiased sample variance was (s2 = 1.18)
indicating a high variability and more heterogeneous responses to the posed question. When
calculating the Mann-Whitney U test, the value of U was 1084.5 and the distribution was

81
approximately normal. The z-score was 0.22289 and the p-value was 0.82588. Therefore, the
result was not significant at p < .05.
When comparing the responses of White participants to those in the underrepresented
group, the results of the two groups were more closely aligned. The percentage of White
respondents (n = 73) that could most effectively identify promotion processes was 19.2%,
compared to 22.6% the underrepresented group (n = 31) who indicated they are able to identify
their company’s promotion processes most effectively. Table 15 provides an overview of the
frequency of responses of White and underrepresented respondents as well as frequency of the
responses combined.
Table 15
Frequency of White and Underrepresented Responses to Quality of Promotion Process
Frequency White
Respondents
(n = 73)
% Underrepresented
Respondents
(n = 31)
% Total
Respondents
(N = 104)
%
Excellent 14 19.2 7 22.6 21 20.2
Good 26 35.6 8 25.7 34 32.7
Average 21 28.8 10 32.3 31 29.8
Poor 9 12.3 4 12.9 13 12.5
Terrible 3 4.1 2 6.5 5 4.8
Range
5 – 1 = 4 5 – 1 = 4 5 – 1 = 4
When analyzing participant responses regarding the helpfulness of their organizations
hiring processes when it comes to promoting racial/ethnic diversity, in sum only 31.7% indicated

82
they fully agreed that their company’s processes are indeed helpful (M = 2.12; SD = 1.10; n =
104). The unbiased sample variance was (s2 = 1.21) indicating a high variability and more
heterogeneous responses to the posed question. When calculating the Mann-Whitney U test, the
value of U was 1055.5 and the distribution was approximately normal, and the z-score was
0.4314. The p-value was 0.6672. Therefore, the result was not significant at p < .05. When
evaluating the responses of White participants to those in the underrepresented group, the results
skewed slightly toward White employees. The percentage of White respondents (n = 73) that
indicated they fully believed their companies policies were supportive was 32.9%, whereas
29.0% of the underrepresented group of respondents (n = 31) indicated they fully believed the
same thing to be true. Table 16 provides an overview of the frequency of responses of White and
underrepresented respondents as well as frequency of the responses combined.
Table 16
Frequency of White and Underrepresented Responses to Organization’s Hiring Processes Help
Promote Racial/Ethnic Diversity
Frequency White
Respondents
(n = 73)
% Underrepresented
Respondents
(n = 31)
% Total
Respondents
(N = 104)
%
Fully
Agree
24 32.9 9 29.0 33 31.7
Agree 30 41.1 12 38.7 42 40.4
Undecided 11 15.1 6 19.4 16 15.3
Disagree 5 6.9 4 12.9 9 8.7
Fully
Disagree
3 4.0 0 0.00 3 2.9
Range
5 – 1 = 4 5 – 2 = 3 5 – 1 = 4

83
Artifact Analysis
A review was conducted of the five largest pharmaceutical companies in the United
States in the month of April of 2023. Artifact types that were collected include information
gathered from corporate website landing pages and career pages, job postings, company reports,
and social media platforms (see appendix C). All five company landing pages had photos and
articles about an ethnically diverse group of professional women working for their corporations.
When investigating career pages of the five organizations, all had depictions of underrepresented
individuals and 60% specifically mentioned the importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion
(DEI) in their workforces. All five corporations average three social media posts in the month of
April across Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter (currently known as X) that focused on
acknowledging or celebrating diversity, equity, and inclusion. While these researched companies
all demonstrated consistent communication on the importance of DEI, the majority of the
communication was focused on women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM)
related careers.
Two organizations provided formal annual DEI impact reports that were conducted in
2021 and 2022, respectively. Year 2021 EEO-1 reports were analyzed (the last year that were
provided by the corporations) for four of the five organizations. One company did not provide
access to the data. Across all four corporations’ executive/senior level positions were
predominantly held by employees who were White. This trend was affirmed by interviewee #3
who stated, “Top leadership is Caucasian, there is a real lack of diversity.” Comparing the
percentage of White employees in the four organizations to the percentage of executives who
were White, White executives were 7.1 percentage points higher. When examining
underrepresented employees across the four companies to executives who were from the

84
underrepresented community, they were 7.1 percentage points lower. Table 17 provides further
information on the discrepancies in White versus underrepresented executive leadership across
the corporations that were analyzed.
Table 17
Comparison of White and Underrepresented Employees in Executive/Senior Positions in
Comparison to Their Total Population in the Organization
Entity White
Employees
Exec./Senior
( # & %)
White
Employees
Overall Staff
(# & %)
Underrepresented
Employees
Exec./Senior
(# & %)
Underrepresented
Employees
Overall Staff
(# & %)
Company #1
(N = 323)
(N = 23,952)
252 (78.0%)
15,755 (65.8%)
71 (22.0%)
8,197 (34.2%)
Company #2
(N = 73)
(N = 16,609)
57 (78.1%)
10,508 (63.3%)
16 (21.9%)
6,101 (36.7%)
Company #3
(N = 1,142)
(N = 26,467)
827 (72.4%)
17,862 (67.1%)
315 (27.6%)
8,705 (32.9%)
Company #4
(N = 106)
(N = 29,522)
78 (73.6%)
19,971 (67.7%)
28 (26.4%)
9,551 (32.3%)
Totals
(N = 1,644)
(N = 97,864)
1,214 (73.8%)
65,310 (66.7%)
430 (26.2%)
32,554 (33.3%)
Summary
When investigating environmental elements that influence behavioral rigidity that
negatively affect underrepresented individuals’ leadership opportunities, two specific findings
were learned. One, organizations are not truly valuing diversity, equity, and inclusion at the level
needed to be effective. And two, within the pharmaceutical industry, there is room for improving
trust and safety. This was evidenced by the high percentage of underrepresented employees who

85
indicated they see barriers to executive roles in their respective organizations. When analyzing to
what degree does the presence of implicit bias influence leadership decision-making when
promoting individuals into senior leadership positions, one set of findings stood out among the
data. Underrepresented employees believe it is a lot harder to gain leadership roles in their
companies versus their White coworkers. However, these same underrepresented employees
strongly believe in their ability to perform in leadership roles compared to their White
colleagues. Lastly, when investigating how formal and informal structural frameworks within
organizations for equity and inclusion affect underrepresented individuals’ promotions, the data
indicated that there are clear pathways. However, these pathways may be exclusive to Whites
only. As one interviewee stated, “Friends of the leadership team are favored for promotions, and
the leadership is White.” This alludes to organizations inadequately addressing stereotypes.
These findings will be explored in greater detail in the findings section of this study.

86
CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the qualitative and quantitative research carried out in this study, chapter 5
provides a rich discussion of the findings that center on organizations not truly valuing diversity,
equity, and inclusion at the level needed to be effective; and the need to improve trust and safety
within the pharmaceutical industry as a whole. Following the discussion of findings, three
recommendations for practice are offered that support the study’s conceptual framework.
Subsequently, limitations and delimitations will be highlighted along with recommendations for
future research that may help further address the problem of practice. A concluding overview at
the end of chapter 5 conveys the importance and impact of the study.
Discussion of Findings
The findings from this study validate the academic research that was discussed in chapter
2. Organizations in the pharmaceutical industry, like many organizations, are simply going
through the motions when it comes to their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. The
disengagement of such a critical component of organizational culture, competitiveness, and
employee wellbeing has led to underrepresented groups feeling undervalued. Moreover, this
disengagement has allowed for White, male, cis-gendered structures to persist (Soklaridis, 2022).
The feeling of devaluation noted in the literature review was reinforced by the findings in this
study. With only 38.7% of underrepresented respondents fully agreeing that their companies
value DEI, a substantial percentage of underrepresented survey participants remain unsure if
their employers value their presence and contributions.
Tokenism is a key factor in the belief from employees that their companies are not
valuing DEI across all ranks and levels of their organizations. As noted in the literature review,
tokenism negatively impacts career capital for underrepresented employees (Lewis, 2016). The

87
research from this study supports this notion. When asked about whether or not their company’s
hiring processes promote diversity, equity, and inclusion, only 31.7% fully agreed their
organization’s hiring processes indeed do so. The existence of tokenism and not true integration
of underrepresented groups at all levels of an organization allows unconscious bias to flourish
(Walker, 2016). This unconscious bias degrades organizational support for promoting talented
underrepresented employees.
Another major contributor to underrepresented employees believing a lack of valuing
diversity, equity, and inclusion is present in their organizations is the hiring and promotion of
individuals with similar backgrounds to White leaders. While survey participants from the
underrepresented community had a strong belief in their abilities to perform in leadership roles
(48.4%), only 19.4% thought that leadership roles were accessible to them. This phenomenon
was confirmed in the literature review as there is an increased likelihood that promotions for
employees who were referred, increasing the existence of meritocracy (Merluzzi & Sterling,
2017). Furthermore, if underrepresented employees truly feel like leadership opportunities are
unavailable to them, they will not apply for promotions when openings do arise (Rodgers, 2016).
The inequality in referrals for promotional opportunities leads to a lack of underrepresented
individuals in executive positions, and therefore, less visible as leaders. The findings from this
study indicated that only 38.5% of total respondents noted underrepresented individuals in
leadership roles in their companies. This decline in leadership opportunities leads to a
deterioration of trust and safety amongst underrepresented employees.
The presence of trust and safety within an organization is the genesis of the
underrepresented community’s success in the workplace. Microaggressions play an oversized
importance of whether or not an underrepresented employee gains entry into the workplace and

88
if they are able to move up the career ladder. This factor was uncovered in both the literature
review and the findings from the research. Bond and Haynes-Baratz (2022) found that
microaggressions create more barriers to both career entry and career laddering for marginalized
groups than their White counterparts. As stated by one interview participant, “I feel like
microaggressions are normal.” This normalcy of injurious behavior erodes trust and safety for all
employees. This was evident in the responses of survey participants in this study as only 40.4%
stated that they fully agreed trust and safety was present at their respective places of work.
Without company leaders stepping up and addressing the importance of diversity, equity, and
inclusion along with creating a culture of trust and safety, underrepresented employees will never
reach parity with their White colleagues. Unfortunately, this study found that only 9.7% of
underrepresented employees and only 21.9% of Whites fully agree that their organizations are
adequately addressing negative stereotypes about the abilities of underrepresented employee
capabilities and therefore not gaining the trust of the majority of their workforce.
When analyzing the findings of the research and applying the results to the study’s
conceptual framework, it is apparent that the existence of unconscious bias within the ranks of
leadership in an organization paired with a deficiency in formal DEI frameworks breeds
meritocracy, conflictual beliefs centered on intersectionality, and increased microaggressions.
This lack of structure and deficient cultural norms negatively affect underrepresented employee
leadership opportunities. In the next section recommendations for practice will be provided to
remedy the institutional barriers that underrepresented employees face when being valued for
their abilities and acknowledged for their efforts.

89
Recommendations for Practice
There are three recommendations that have been identified to address the lack of equity
leadership opportunities for underrepresented employees in the pharmaceutical industry.
However, these recommendations are far reaching and can be applied to companies across
industry sectors in general. The recommendations provided for implementation are focused on
both organizations and to underrepresented individuals working within them. The following
recommendations to be discussed include the development and utilization of data analytics to
assess underrepresented employee sense of belonging and fair recruitment, hiring, and promotion
practices within organizations; implementation of mentorship programs for underrepresented
employees to eliminate/reduce meritocracy and ensure upward mobility; and specifically for
underrepresented groups, to advocate for and lead in the creation of Business Resource Groups
(BRGs) that are vessels for communicating the presence of institutional barriers when it comes to
career mobility and workforce equity and inclusion.
Recommendation 1: Utilization of Data Analytics to Assess Sense of Belonging and Equity
Given the findings strongly suggest that most organizations do not adequately address
implicit bias, create a culture of trust and safety, or express the value of diversity, equity, and
inclusion. Therefore, it is imperative that companies use data analytics to better understand the
scope of the problems that exist when it comes to underrepresented employees’ sense of
belonging. Data analytics can provide much needed insight into which DEI initiatives are
working well and which ones are not effectively promoting equal opportunity. Data analytics can
aid organizations to better identify and eliminate biases in their recruitment and promoting
processes; recognize disparities in representation among their candidate pipelines and their
existing workforce; detect factors that contribute to job satisfaction and employee turnover; and

90
develop effective initiatives that improve opportunities for promotion of underrepresented groups
that strengthens an inclusive workplace culture.
Chantarat et al. (2023) found that historically and structurally excluded groups perceive
their workplace DEI efforts to lack substance and focus on planning and reporting rather than
implementation. It is necessary for organizations to develop robust data collection procedures
and to communicate DEI programmatic successes, and more importantly, areas in need of
improvement. Data analytics is a key tenet of formalizing an organizational DEI program. As
laid out in this study’s conceptual framework, when a formalized system is in place there is
greater influence on organizational culture. In turn, there will be an increase in leadership
opportunities for underrepresented individuals.
Recommendation 2: Implementation of Formalized Mentorship Programs
The findings of this study indicate that underrepresented individuals frequently
experience significant barriers to executive roles in their organizations. These barriers are rarely
visible to their White colleagues. Given that the vast majority of senior leaders are White, it is
imperative that formalized mentorship programs are developed and implemented in companies
across the pharmaceutical industry. Senior and executive leaders who are members of
underrepresented groups must be leveraged as advocates for lower-level underrepresented
employees.
Moreover, with such a large disparity between underrepresented employees who do not
fully believe senior leadership roles are accessible to them versus those who do, effective
mentorship programs are obligatory. These leadership programs must include a high level of
specificity aimed toward increasing career opportunities for each marginalized group within a
given workforce. Sugiyama et al. (2016) found that the development of identity-based leadership

91
programs is more effective than generalized diversity focused leadership approaches. Therefore,
it is recommended that mentorship programs are developed with key stakeholders in mind. This
includes considering employees’ intersectionality as demonstrated in the conceptual framework.
By having a deeper understanding of how people's overlapping identities and experiences affect
them, organizations will be able to mentorships to gain insight into the talents and knowledge
underrepresented employees bring to the workforce, and therefore, enhance future opportunities
for promotions into leadership positions.
Recommendation 3: Development and Oversight of Business Resource Groups
The research in this study showed that underrepresented employees have a keen sense of
self and their abilities to be leaders within their organizations; even compared to their White
coworkers. Therefore, it is essential that they create avenues for self-advocacy in their places of
work. With the pharmaceutical industry being so White male dominate in its leadership ranks,
underrepresented employees need safe places to communicate and find solutions to barriers they
face routinely when it comes to recognition and access to upward mobility in their organizations.
When underrepresented groups have spaces to amplify their concerns centered on
diversity, equity, and inclusion, they are able to play critical roles in tailoring strategies to
overcome them. Campbell et al. (2023) found that when organizations make their DEI programs
personal to underrepresented groups, there is greater impact. Furthermore, they observed that
through shared experiences, there was greater impact in the ability to increase DEI. As
demonstrated in the conceptual framework, micro-aggressions and other informal, invisible
unconscious biases negatively affect leadership opportunities for underrepresented employees.
Therefore, it is recommended that Business Resources Groups (BRGs) that are specific to
creating a sense of belonging for underrepresented individuals be implemented within each

92
company. Moreover, these BRGs must include representatives from every level of the
organization to ensure issues are visible across the organization and can be addressed in a timely
and effective manner.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations and delimitations of this study will be discussed as it relates to the processes
of both the qualitative analysis of interview responses and the quantitative analysis through
survey data. Limitations are related to weaknesses in the methodology of a study such as
inadequate sample size or issues relating to the recruitment process (Creswell, 2018). Limitations
such as the ones mentioned above, are not within the control of the researcher but can produce
inaccurate or unrepresentative findings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
When examining the processes for qualitative research, several limitations come into
play. These limitations include the difficulty in verifying the results as qualitative research is not
statistically representative. There is also difficulty when investigating causality. Accuracy of
respondents is limiting as well. Additionally, it is possible for the researcher to speculate and
insert themselves into the research study. Furthermore, the researcher’s positionality can lead to
a skewed view of the data. Finally, qualitative research alone is often insufficient to make
population-level summations. An additional, yet significant limitation in regard to the results of
the qualitative data presented itself during the interview process. This limitation is centered on a
general reluctancy of interviewees to be seen as whistleblowers. This is especially true of
interviewees who were members of underrepresented populations. Questions regarding observed
experiences of underrepresented employees in the workplace and the presence of
microaggressions at their respective organizations were answered both vaguely and
incompletely. Given the findings from the quantitative survey that highlighted numerous and

93
specific barriers to upward mobility for underrepresented employees, it is logical that there was a
tremendous hesitation to detail experiences where instances of hostile or derogatory behaviors
occurred. By volunteering to recount these occurrences, the interviewees may have equated it to
an unsafe act of whistleblowing or blatantly calling out their employers’ deficits of inclusivity.
When investigating the processes for quantitative research, limitations are present as
well. These include the possibility of cause-and-effect error where the researcher may incorrectly
establish a cause-and-effect relationship that is not actually present. Additionally, when
analyzing ordinal data, there is an inherent inability to know the precise differences between
observations limits the mathematical functions and summary statistics that can be calculated.
Furthermore, while the researcher recorded values for the variables using numbers, such as 1-5
for a Likert scale of agreement, which does not necessarily indicate all numeric calculations are
valid. Lastly, quantitative data may not capture the complexity, diversity or richness of the
phenomena being studied.
Delimitations are elements that can be controlled by the researcher (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). When examining the qualitative study, the most significant delimitation was the sample
size. Given the small sample size and a limited timeframe for data collection, results may not be
representative of the greater public. When inspecting the quantitative research for delimitations,
several may be present. These include the choice of participants (employees across sectors in the
pharmaceutical industry), the choice of paradigm (mixed-method design), and the choice of the
theoretical framework applied to this study (Burk-Litwin Model of Change). This model
examines the internal and external drivers such as senior leadership and societal norms through a
survey instrumentation. Given these specific delimitations, it is not possible to cover every

94
aspect of the topic being researched, nor is possible to completely isolate the target population
within the established scope.
Recommendations for Future Research
Based on what was learned from this study, there are two specific recommendations for
future research. Principally, learnings from the literature review and both the qualitative and
quantitative data analysis all point to the need for an adaptable, open organizational culture when
creating a workplace of belonging and inclusion. It would be beneficial to further investigate
what measures organizations can take to create environments that promote upward mobility for
underrepresented populations not just in the pharmaceutical industry, but the U.S. workforce on
the whole. Through interviews with pharmaceutical industry employees, open-ended responses
from the survey, and company communications discovered during the artifact analysis, a clear
difference emerged when comparing start-ups to legacy corporations in the pharmaceutical
sector. These differences in regard to operational norms, access to and communication with
senior leaders, allocation of resources, and organizational culture and ethics may be a roadmap to
future research and protocols that could be put in place to create and maintain a work
environment with equal access for all employees. Table 18 provides a comparison of factors
relating to the level of access to equity between start-up environments and those environments of
legacy organizations.

95
Table 18
Pharmaceutical Industry Start-Up/Legacy Organization Comparison Chart
Start- Up Factors in Equity Legacy Factors in Equity
Access to CEO Fear/Unfamiliarity of CEO
Merit-Based Promotions Relationship-Based Promotions
Promotions Executed Based on Timing Promotions Based on Time-In
Resource Focused Revenue Focused
Systems Drive Efficiency Systems Drive Bureaucracy
Culture of Altruism Culture of Egoism
Developing a Set Culture Maintaining a Set Culture
Environment of Collaboration Environment of Competitiveness
Small Size Connects Employees Large Size Creates Disparate Groups/Clicks
Diversity is Driven Through Need for
Expertise
Diversity is Driven Through Policy and
Procedures
Additionally, future research should be directed toward analyzing the impact of diversity,
equity, and inclusion training across organizational levels within the pharmaceutical industry.
Many of the cultural issues discussed in the literature review and uncovered in this study such as
microaggressions and unconscious bias, are driven by the lack of education employees and
senior leaders have received during their careers. By investigating what training is offered, who
it is offered to, and how it is administered, and its overall effectiveness may lead to a better
understanding of where the gaps in knowledge and practice are and how they can effectively be
addressed.

96
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to examine and identify possible reasons for the lack of
equity in leadership opportunities for underrepresented employees in the pharmaceutical
industry. Utilizing the Burke Litwin Model of Change as the theoretical framework to guide
methodological decisions and to connect this research to existing knowledge allowed for
interpretation of the results and the application of broader generalizations on the issue being
studied. Through the conceptual framework that illustrated internal factors that affect access to
leadership roles for underrepresented individuals, coherent conclusions have been drawn. These
conclusions underscore the need for organizations to proactively engage in practices that
promote the value of diversity, equity, and inclusion. Furthermore, there is a clear obligation for
organizations within the pharmaceutical industry to improve the trust and safety of all employees
but especially of those individuals who come from the underrepresented community. The
findings of this study highlight areas of improvement where the pharmaceutical industry should
take immediate action. If not, and the lack of equity in underrepresented individuals’ leadership
prospects persists, it will continue to have a deleterious effect on both organizational
performance and employee morale.

97
References
Acker, J. (2006b). Inequality regimes: Gender, class, and race in organizations. Gender &
Society, 20, 441–464.
Antaki, M. (2020). Values. McGill Law Journal, 66(1), 169–172.
https://doi.org/10.7202/1082057ar
Assari, & Lankarani, M. M. (2018). Workplace racial composition explains high perceived
discrimination of high socioeconomic status African American men. Brain
Sciences, 8(8), 139–. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci8080139
Begeny, C.T., Ryan, M.K., Moss-Racusin, C.A., & Ravetz, G. (2020). In some professions,
women have become well represented, yet gender bias persists – Perpetuated by those
who think it is not happening. Retrieved from
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/26/eaba7814
Biotech Innovation Organization (2020). Measuring diversity in the biotech industry: Building
an inclusive workforce. January 2020, from http://go.bio.org/rs/490-EHZ999/images/Measuring_Diversity_in_the_Biotech_Industry_Building_an_Inclusive_Wor
kforce.pd
Bloch, K. R., Taylor, T., Church, J., & Buck, A. (2021). An Intersectional Approach to the Glass
Ceiling: Gender, Race and Share of Middle and Senior Management in U.S.
Workplaces. Sex Roles, 84(5-6), 312-325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-020-01168-4
Bond, & Haynes‐Baratz, M. C. (2022). Mobilizing bystanders to address microaggressions in the
workplace: The case for a systems‐change approach to Getting A (Collective)
GRIP. American Journal of Community Psychology, 69(1-2), 221–238.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12557

98
Bonifacio, L., Gushue, G. V., & Mejia-Smith, B. X. (2018). Microaggressions and ethnic identity
in the career development of latina college students. The Counseling Psychologist, 46(4),
505–529. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0011000018776909
Bowen. (2009). Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method. Qualitative Research
Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
Burke, W., & Litwin, G. H. (1992). A causal model of organizational performance and
change. Journal of Management, 18(3), 523–545.
https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639201800306
Burrell, L. (2016). We just can’t handle diversity (cover story). Harvard Business Review, 94(7),
70–74. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2016/07/we-just-cant-handle-diversity
Busari. (2019). UsToo: Implicit bias, meritocracy, and the plight of black minority leaders in
healthcare. BMJ Leader, 3(4), 101–103. https://doi.org/10.1136/leader-2019-000157
Cabell, A. L., & Kozachuk, L. (2022). Professional Leadership, Racial Microaggressions, and
Career Adaptability of Minoritized Clinicians in the United States. International Journal
for the Advancement of Counselling, 44(3), 512-528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10447-022-
09478-w
Caillier. (2021). Does the rank of the perpetrator and reporter affect how agencies handle
workplace aggression? A test of resource dependence theory. Review of Public Personnel
Administration, 41(3), 520–545. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X20903354
Campbell, J. A., Walker, R. J., Dawson, A. Z., Ozieh, M. N., Schmidt, S., Shay, L. A., Williams,
J. S., Phillips, S. A., & Egede, L. E. (2023). Feasibility, impact, and priority of key
strategies to enhance diverse and inclusive training programs in clinical and translational

99
research: A Mixed Methods Study. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science, 7(1),
e16–e16. https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2022.452
Catalyst (2017), “Women in S&P 500 companies by race/ethnicity and level”, available at:
www. Catalyst.org/_knowledge/women-sp-500-companies-raceethnicity-and-_level
Cate, T., MacMillan, C., McKinnon, M., Torabi, H., Osmond-McLeod, M., Swavley, E., Armer,
T., & Doyle, K. (2021). Seeing and overcoming the complexities of
intersectionality. Challenges, 12(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/challe12010005
Center for Talent Innovation (2019). Being black in corporate America: An intersectional
exploration. http://www.talentinnovation.org
Chantarat, T., Rogers, T. B., Mitchell, C. R., & Ko, M. J. (2023). Perceptions of workplace
climate and diversity, equity, and inclusion within health services and policy
research. Health Services Research, 58(2), 314–324. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-
6773.14032
Cole, Jones, R. J., & Russell, L. M. (2016). Racial dissimilarity and diversity climate effect
organizational identification. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International
Journal, 35(5/6), 314–327. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-09-2015-0072
Cook, A., & Glass, C. (2014). Above the glass ceiling: When are women and racial/ethnic
minorities promoted to CEO? Strategic Management Journal, 35(7), 1080-1089.
https://doi:10.1002/smj.2161
CoQUAL. (2021). Being black in corporate America. https://coqual.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/09/CoqualBeingBlackinCorporateAmerica090720-1.pdf

100
Corneille, Lee, A., Allen, S., Cannady, J., & Guess, A. (2019). Barriers to the advancement of
women of color faculty in STEM: The need for promoting equity using an intersectional
framework. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, 38(3), 328–348.
https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-09-2017-0199
Corrigan, J. (2022, February 28). Only 34% of companies have enough resources to support DEI
initiatives. Human Resources Director.
https://www.hcamag.com/us/specialization/corporate-wellness/only-34-of-companieshave-enough-resources-to-support-dei-initiatives/326842
Crenshaw, K. (2019). The marginalization of Harriet’s daughters: Perpetual crisis, misdirected
blame, and the enduring urgency of intersectionality. Kalou (Santa Barbara, Calif.), 6(1),
7–23. https://doi.org/10.15367/kf.v6i1.226
Creswell. (2014). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th
ed.). SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. (5th ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.
Cyert, & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Prentice-Hall.
Davis, Jones, M. K., Settles, I. H., & Russell, P. G. (2021). Barriers to the successful mentoring
of faculty of color. Journal of Career Development, 89484532110133–.
https://doi.org/10.1177/08948453211013375
DeCuir-Gunby, J., & Gunby, N. (2016). Racial microaggressions in the workplace: A critical
race analysis of the experiences of African American educators. Urban Education
(Beverly Hills, Calif.), 51(4), 390–414. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085916628610

101
Dennissen, Benschop, Y. W. & Brink, M. C. L. van den. (2019). Diversity networks: Networking
for equality? British Journal of Management, 30(4), 966–980.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12321
Espino, & Zambrana, R. E. (2019). “How Do You Advance Here? How do You Survive?” An
Exploration of Under-Represented Minority Faculty Perceptions of Mentoring
Modalities. Review of Higher Education, 42(2), 457–484.
https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2019.0003
Ferrell, J. (2021, March 5). Racial microaggressions: definition, examples, and practical actions.
EWGroup. https://theewgroup.com/blog/racial-microaggressions-definition-examplesactions/
Freeman, L. (Host). (2021, June 16). Dimensions of diversity: Diversity in the pharmaceutical
industry. Buchanan, Ingersoll, Rooney. https://www.bipc.com/dimensions-of-diversitydiversity-in-the-pharmaceutical-industry
George, J. (2021, January 11). A lesson on critical race theory. American Bar Association.
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/civ
il-rights-reimagining-policing/a-lesson-on-critical-race-theory/
Glass, & Cook, A. (2020). Performative contortions: How White women and people of colour
navigate elite leadership roles. Gender, Work, and Organization, 27(6), 1232–1252.
https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12463
Graduate Management Administrative Council. (2016, June 30). Employers rank organizational
fit most important in evaluating potential new hires. https://www.gmac.com/marketintelligence-and-research/research-insights/employment-outlook/employers-rankorganizational-fit-most-important-evaluating-new-

102
hires#:~:text=Organizational%20fit%20is%20a%20judgment,and%20norms%20of%20
an%20organization.
Guest. (2016). Executive mobility and minority status. Industrial Relations (Berkeley), 55(4),
604–631. https://doi.org/10.1111/irel.12153
Gündemir, & Galinsky, A. D. (2018). Multicolored blindfolds: How organizational
multiculturalism can conceal racial discrimination and delegitimize racial discrimination
claims. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 9(7), 825–834.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617726830
Hall, & Carlson, K. (2016). Marginalization: A revisitation with integration of scholarship on
globalization, intersectionality, privilege, microaggressions, and implicit
biases. Advances in Nursing Science, 39(3), 200–215.
https://doi.org/10.1097/ANS.0000000000000123
Hekman, Johnson, S. K., Foo, M.-D., & Yang, W. (2017). Does diversity-valuing behavior result
in diminished performance ratings for non-white and female leaders? Academy of
Management Journal, 60(2), 771–797. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0538
Ince. (2022). “Saved” by interaction, living by race: The diversity demeanor in an organizational
space. Social Psychology Quarterly, 85(3), 259–278.
https://doi.org/10.1177/01902725221096373
Johns. (2013). Breaking the glass ceiling: structural, cultural, and organizational barriers
preventing women from achieving senior and executive positions. Perspectives in Health
Information Management, 10(Winter), 1–1e.

103
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2015). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed approaches (5th ed.) (p. 45). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Jones, K.P., Arena, D.F., Nittrouer, C.L., Alonso, N.M. and Lindsey, A.P. (2017), “Subtle
discrimination in the workplace: A vicious cycle”, Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 51-76.
Jones, S., & Donnelley, G. (2017, June). Why we logged every Fortune 500 company’s diversity
data, or lack thereof. http:// fortune.com/2017/06/16/why-we-logged-every-fortune500-
companys-diversity-data-or-lack-thereof/
Khattab, van Knippenberg, D., Nederveen Pieterse, A., & Hernandez, M. (2020). A network
utilization perspective on the leadership advancement of minorities. The Academy of
Management Review, 45(1), 109–129. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2015.0399
King, Fattoracci, E. S. M., Hollingsworth, D. W., Stahr, E., & Nelson, M. (2022). When thriving
requires effortful surviving: Delineating manifestations and resource expenditure
outcomes of microaggressions for Black employees. Journal of Applied Psychology.
https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001016
Kruse, K. (2012, June 22). What is employee engagement. Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinkruse/2012/06/22/employee-engagement-what-andwhy/?sh=394f201d7f37
Law Insider. (n.d.). In Law Insider.com dictionary. Retrieved 6.1.2023.
https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/underrepresented-populations
Lee, & Li, J.-Y. (2021). Discriminated against but engaged: The role of communicative actions
of racial minority employees. Communication Monographs, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-

104
print), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2021.2021432Lewis. (2016). Gender,
race, and career advancement: When do we have enough cultural capital? The Negro
Educational Review, 67(1-4), 106–169.
Marks, L., Yeoward, J., Fickling, M., & Tate, K. (2020). The role of racial microaggressions and
bicultural self-efficacy on work volition in racially diverse adults. Journal of Career
Development, 8948453209970-. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845320949706
McCord, Joseph, D. L., Dhanani, L. Y., & Beus, J. M. (2018). A meta-analysis of sex and race
differences in perceived workplace mistreatment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(2),
137–163. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000250
McKinsey & Company. (2021). Women in the workplace, 2021.
https://womenintheworkplace.com/
McNamee, S. J. & Miller, R. K. (2018). The meritocracy myth (4thedition). London: Rowman &
Littlefield, Chapter 2.
Meléndez, & Özkazanç-Pan, B. (2021). Gender, race and power: An intersectional reading of
“opting out.” Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management, 16(3/4), 658–673.
https://doi.org/10.1108/QROM-02-2019-1724
Merluzzi, & Sterling, A. (2017). Lasting effects? Referrals and career mobility of demographic
groups in organizations. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 70(1), 105–131.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0019793916669507
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

105
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Tokenism. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved August 29,
2022, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tokenism
Moorosi, P., Fuller, K., & Reilly, E. (2018). Leadership and intersectionality: Constructions of
successful leadership among Black women school principals in three different contexts.
Management in Education, 32(4), 152-159. https://doi. org/10.1177/0892020618791006
Nag, Arena, D. F., & Jones, K. P. (2022). How promotion loss shapes expectations of
discrimination: an intersectional approach. Gender in Management, 37(4), 441–456.
https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-02-2021-0048
Neely, M. T. (2018). Fit to be king: How patrimonialism on Wall Street leads to inequality.
Socio-Economic Review, 16(2), 365–385. https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwx058
Neely. (2020). The portfolio ideal worker: Insecurity and inequality in the new
economy. Qualitative Sociology, 43(2), 271–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-020-
09444-1
Nkomo, S. M., Bell, M. P., Roberts, L. M., Joshi, A., & Thatcher, S. M. B. (2019). Diversity at a
critical juncture: New theories for a complex phenomenon. Academy of Management
Review, 44(3), 498–517. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2019.0103
O’Brien, S. A. (2016, March 3). Silicon Valley engineer, ‘We’re in a really precarious moment
with race relations.’ CNN Money.
https://money.cnn.com/2016/03/03/technology/racism-in-silicon-valley-ericabaker/index.htmlOhunakin, F., Adeniji, A., Ogunnaike, O. O., Igbadume, F., & Akintayo,
D. I. (2019). The effects of diversity management and inclusion on organisational

106
outcomes: a case of a multinational corporation. Verslas: Teorija Ir Praktika, 20, 93–102.
https://doi.org/10.3846/btp.2019.09
O’Leary. (2014). The essential guide to doing your research project. (2nd edition.). SAGE.
Osatuke, K., Leiter, M., Belton, L., Dyrenforth, S., & Ramsel, D. (2013). Civility, respect and
engagement at the workplace (CREW): A national organization development program at
the Department of Veterans Affairs. Journal of Management Policies and Practices, 1(2),
25–34. http://jmppnet.com/journals/jmpp/Vol_1_No_2_December_ 2013/4.pdf
Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries. (n.d.). Phenomenological. In Oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com
dictionary. June 25, 2022, from phenomenological adjective - Definition, pictures,
pronunciation, and usage notes | Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary at
OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Chapter 7: Qualitative interviewing. In Qualitative research and
evaluation methods (3rd ed.) (pp. 339-380). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pitcan, M., Park-Taylor, J., & Hayslett, J. (2018). Black Men and Racial Microaggressions at
Work. The Career Development Quarterly, 66(4), 300. https://doi.org/10.1002/cdq.12152
Randel, Galvin, B. M., Gibson, C. B., & Batts, S. I. (2021). Increasing career advancement
opportunities through sponsorship: An identity-based model with illustrative application
to cross-race mentorship of African Americans. Group & Organization
Management, 46(1), 105–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601120978003
Rao, & Tobias Neely, M. (2019). What’s love got to do with it? Passion and inequality in white‐
collar work. Sociology Compass, 13(12). https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12744
Ray. (2019). A Theory of Racialized Organizations. American Sociological Review, 84(1), 26–
53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122418822335

107
Ridgeway, C. L. (2011). Framed by gender: How gender inequality persists in the modern world.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rivera, L. A. (2012). Hiring as cultural matching: The case of elite professional service firms.
American Sociological Review, 77(6), 999–1022.
Rivera. L.A. (2020). Employer Decision Making. Annual Review of Sociology, 46(1), 215–232.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054633
Roberson, Ryan, A. M., & Ragins, B. R. (2017). The evolution and future of diversity at
work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 483–499.
https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000161
Robinson, S. B., & Firth Leonard, K. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. Los Angeles,
CA: Sage.
Rock, D., & Grant, H. (2016). Why diverse teams are smarter. Harvard Business Review, 4(4), 2-
5.
Rodriguez, J.K., Holvino, E., Fletcher, J.K. and Nkomo, S.M. (2016), “The theory and praxis of
intersectionality in work and organizations: Where do we go from here?”, Gender, Work
and Organization, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 201-222.
Roepe, L. (2021, February 6). Barriers for black professionals. SHRM.
https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/news/all-things-work/pages/racism-corporateamerica.aspx
Roscigno. (2019). Discrimination, sexual harassment, and the impact of workplace
power. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World, 5, 237802311985389–.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023119853894

108
Rosenberg, S. (2017). Respectful collection of demographic data. Retrieved from
https://medium.com/@anna.sarai.rosenberg/respectful-collection-of-demographic-data56de9fcb80e2
Ruiz Castro, & Holvino, E. (2016). Applying intersectionality in organizations: inequality
markers, cultural scripts and advancement practices in a professional service
firm. Gender, Work, and Organization, 23(3), 328–347.
https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12129
Schein, E. H. (2017). In E. Schein & P. Schein, Organizational culture and leadership (5th ed.,
pp. 152-153). Wiley.
Sims, Carter, A. D., Sparkman, T. E., Morris, L. R., & Durojaiye, A. (2021). On Black male
leadership: A study of leadership efficacy, servant leadership, and engagement mediated
by microaggressions. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 23(4), 354–383.
https://doi.org/10.1177/15234223211037753
Singleton, L., & Recendes, T. (2022, February 1). A 4-point strategy to grow your company’s
diverse talent pipeline. Fast Company. https://www.fastcompany.com/90715693/a-4-
point-strategy-to-grow-your-companys-diverse-talent-pipeline
Sisco. (2020). Race-conscious career development: Exploring self-preservation and coping
strategies of black professionals in corporate America. Advances in Developing Human
Resources, 22(4), 419–436. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422320948885
Soklaridis, S., Lin, E., Black, G., Paton, M., LeBlanc, C., Besa, R., MacLeod, A., Silver, I.,
Whitehead, C. R., & Kuper, A. (2022). Moving beyond ‘think leadership, think white
male’: The contents and contexts of equity, diversity and inclusion in physician

109
leadership programmes. BMJ Leader, https://doi-org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1136/leader2021-000542
Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., Torino, G. C., Bucceri, J. M., Holder, A. M. B., Nadal, K. L., &
Esquilin, M. (2007). Racial microaggressions in everyday life: Implications for clinical
practice. American Psychologist, 62, 271–286. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.62.4.271
Sue, D. W., Bucceri, J., Lin, A. I., Nadal, K. L., & Torino, G. C. (2009). Racial microaggressions
and the Asian American experience. Asian American Journal of Psychology, S(1), 88-
101.
Sue, D. W. (2017). Microaggressions and “evidence”: Empirical or experiential reality?
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(1), 170–172.
Sugiyama, K., Cavanagh, K. V., van Esch, C., Bilimoria, D., & Brown, C. (2016). Inclusive
leadership development: Drawing from pedagogies of women’s and general leadership
development programs. Journal of Management Education, 40(3), 253–292.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562916632553
Turnbull, H. (2015). The affinity bias conundrum: The illusion of inclusion part III. Profiles in
Diversity Journal. Retrieved from http://www.diversityjournal.com/13763-affinitybiasconundrum-illusion-inclusion-part-iii/
United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2021, March 31). May 2021 national industry-specific
occupational employment and wage estimates. Retrieved October 1, 2022, from
https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_325400.htm#11-0000
University of Michigan. (n.d.). Defining DEI. https://diversity.umich.edu/about/defining-dei/

110
University of Southern California Libraries. (n.d.). Theoretical Framework. In
Researchguidesusc.edu. June 25, 2022, from
https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/theoreticalframework
Velez, B. L., Cox, R., Jr., Polihronakis, C. J., & Moradi, B. (2018). Discrimination, work
outcomes, and mental health among women of color: The protective role of womanist
attitudes. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 65(2), 178-193. https://doiorg.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1037/cou0000274
Walker, G. N. (2016). Missing in leadership: Mentoring African American women in higher
education [Doctoral Dissertation]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.
10099584)
Whitaker, T. (2019). Banging on a locked door: The persistent role of racial discrimination in the
workplace. Social Work in Public Health, 34(1), 22–27.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19371918.2019.1572564
Wilson, Valerie, and William Rodgers III. (2016). “Black, white wage gaps expand with rising
wage inequality.” Economic Policy Institute. https://www.epi.org/publication/blackwhite-wage-gaps-expandwith-rising-wage-inequality/.
Wilson, & Lagae, B. (2017). Race and the dynamics of men’s mobility into management from
working class jobs. The Review of Black Political Economy, 44(3-4), 233–249.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12114-017-9252-2
Wilton, Bell, A. N., Vahradyan, M., & Kaiser, C. R. (2020). Show don’t tell: Diversity
dishonesty harms racial/ethnic minorities at work. Personality & Social Psychology
Bulletin, 46(8), 1171–1185. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219897149

111
Wingfield, H. (2020). Where work has been, where it is going: Considering race, gender, and
class in the neoliberal economy. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity (Thousand Oaks,
Calif.), 6(2), 137–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332649220903715
Zhang, Goldberg, C. B., & McKay, P. F. (2020). From new hires to their supervisors: The
influence of newcomer race/ethnicity on the leader–member exchange
conveyance. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 93(3), 767–789.
https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12314

112
Appendix A: Survey Protocol
Question
Open
or
Closed?
Level of
Measurement.
(nominal,
ordinal,
interval, ratio)
Response
options RQ
Concept being
measured
(from
emerging
conceptual
framework)
1. My preferred
pronoun is:
Closed Nominal He/his,
she/her,
they/their
NA NA
2. I identify my
ethnicity as:
Closed Nominal Asian,
Black/African,
Caucasian,
Hispanic/Latinx,
Native
American,
Pacific Islander,
Prefer not to
answer
NA NA
3. What is your current
role?
Closed Nominal Employee,
manager,
senior
manager,
executive
NA NA
4. How long have you
been employed in your
current role?
Closed Interval Less than 1
year, 1 to 5
years, more
than 5 years
NA NA
5. In my current
organization, the
pathway for obtaining
an executive
leadership position is
clear.
Closed Interval Very Clear;
Somewhat
Clear;
Undecided;
Somewhat
Unclear; Not
Clear at All
RQ2 Clear
Organizational
Framework
6. What barriers, if any,
have you seen for
racial minorities
moving into executive
Open
Ended
NA Identify and
explain
RQ1 Unconscious
Biases

113
roles within your
organization?
7. On a scale 1-5 (1 being
excellent and 5 being
poor) how would you
rate the following:
Your ability to explain
techniques, methods
or steps needed to be
taken in to navigate
the hiring process at
your organization in to
advance into an
executive leadership
role.”
Closed Interval 1. Excellent
2. Good
3. Fair
4. Poor
5. Very Poor
RQ2 Leadership
Opportunity
8. On a scale 1 to 5 using
the response option
provided, how would
you rate the following
statement: “If I
applied effort in
pursuing a leadership
role, I believe I would
succeed at gaining a
position in executive
leadership.”
Closed Interval 1. Fully agree
2. Agree
3. Undecided
4. Disagree
5. Fully
Disagree
RQ2 Outcome
Expectancy
9. To what extent do you
agree or disagree with
the following
statement: “I am
confident in my ability
to perform if advanced
into an executive
leadership role.”
Closed Interval 1. Fully agree
2. Agree
3. Undecided
4. Disagree
5. Fully
Disagree
RQ1 Self-Efficacy
10. Skip-Logic: (If
disagree or fully
disagree) What are the
primary reasons you
feel this way?
Open
Ended
NA Identify and
explain
RQ1 Self-Efficacy
11. To what extent do
you agree or disagree
with the following:
Closed Interval 1. Fully agree
2. Agree
3. Undecided
RQ1 Setting

114
“Within my
organization I can find
examples of racial
minority individuals
serving in executive
leadership roles who I
see as role models, or
person of positive
influence.”
4. Disagree
5. Fully
Disagree
12. To what extent do
you agree or disagree
with the following:
“My current
organization’s policies
and procedures are
effective in addressing
implicit bias against
racial minorities.”
Closed Interval 1. Fully agree
2. Agree
3. Undecided
4. Disagree
5. Fully
Disagree
RQ2 Setting
13. To what extent do
you agree or disagree
with the following:
“My current
organization addresses
stereotypes about the
ability of racial
minorities to serve in
leadership positions?”
Closed Interval 1. Fully agree,
2. Agree
3. Undecided
4. Disagree
5. Fully
Disagree
RQ1 Setting
14. To what extent to
you agree or disagree
with the following:
“My current
organization’s policies
enhance the hiring
process to help
promote ethnic/racial
diversity.”
Closed Interval 1. Fully agree,
2. Agree
3. Undecided
4. Disagree
5. Fully
Disagree
RQ2 Setting
15. To what extent do
you agree and
disagree with the
following: “My current
organization creates
an environment of
Closed Interval 1. Fully agree
2. Agree
3. Undecided
4. Disagree
5. Fully
Disagree
RQ1 Leadership
Opportunity

115
trust and safety to
advance diversity and
equity in executive
leadership.”

116
Appendix B: Interview Protocol
Interview Questions Potential Probes RQ Addressed
Key
Concept
Addressed
Q Type
(Patton)
1. How would you
describe the
characteristics of the
current leadership team
in your organization
(physical, personality,
positionality, etc.)?
Do you think
others would
give the same
descriptions?
What are the
factors that lead
to behavioral
rigidity that
negatively affect
minority
leadership
opportunities?
(All are
based on
BurkeLitwin)
Leadership Knowledge
2. What are the
processes for becoming
eligible for a promotion
in your organization?
How do you feel
about these
processes?
How are these
processes
communicated to
employees?
How do formal
structural
frameworks
within
organizations for
equity and
inclusion affect
minority
promotions?
Systems,
policies,
procedures Knowledge
3. Do the current
structures or systems in
your organization
support equity and
inclusion? Explain. What are the
strengths and
limitations of
these structures
or systems?
How do formal
structural
frameworks
within
organizations for
equity and
inclusion affect
minority
promotions? Structure Knowledge
4. What experiences
would I observe in your
workplace if I were a
minority employee?
What in your
experience makes
you say this?
What are the
factors that lead
to behavioral
rigidity that
negatively affect
minority
leadership
opportunities? Org. Culture
Experience
&
Behavior
4b. How do these
experiences translate in
your interactions with
members of the
leadership team?
Can you provide
an example of
your
interactions?
What are the
factors that lead
to behavioral
rigidity that
negatively affect Leadership
Experience
&
Behavior

117
minority
leadership
opportunities?
5. What do you perceive
are the differences
minorities and nonminorities experience in
being recognized for
their efforts? Why do you
think these
differences exist?
What are the
factors that lead
to behavioral
rigidity that
negatively affect
minority
leadership
opportunities? Climate
Experience
&
Behavior
6. Have you been a
victim of
microaggressions or
witnessed others being
victimized?
Can you provide
examples?
What are the
factors that lead
to behavioral
rigidity that
negatively affect
minority
leadership
opportunities? Org. Culture
Experience
&
Behavior
7. How are employees
supported to be
successful in their jobs?
How have your
experiences
been?
What are the
factors that lead
to behavioral
rigidity that
negatively affect
minority
leadership
opportunities?
Management
Practices
Experience
&
Behavior
8. In your opinion, what
are the factors that
influence promotional
opportunities in your
organization?
Can you give me
an example of
this?
How do formal
structural
frameworks
within
organizations for
equity and
inclusion affect
minority
promotions? Org. Culture
Opinion &
Values
9. What do you see as the
main characteristics
someone must possess to
become a leader in your
organization?
Why do you see
these as the main
characteristics?
What are the
factors that lead
to behavioral
rigidity that
negatively affect
minority
leadership
opportunities?
Individual
Skills &
Abilities
Opinion &
Values

118
10. What behaviors to
you see from senior
management when
interacting with minority
employees?
Can you provide
examples of
these behaviors?
What are the
factors that lead
to behavioral
rigidity that
negatively affect
minority
leadership
opportunities?
Management
Practices Sensory
11. How do you feel
when interacting with
senior leaders in your
organization?
Why do you
think you feel
this way?
What are the
factors that lead
to behavioral
rigidity that
negatively affect
minority
leadership
opportunities?
Individual
Needs &
Values Feeling
12. How do you feel
about your opportunities
for advancement into
positions of leadership?
What in your
experience makes
you say that?
How do formal
structural
frameworks
within
organizations for
equity and
inclusion affect
minority
promotions?
Systems,
policies,
procedures Feeling

119
Appendix C: Artifact Analysis Protocol
Data Collection Sheet
PI: Jonathan Lucus
Organization Artifact Type Date Collected Organizational
Culture
Symbology
Noted
Specific Inclusiveness
Noted/
Any Additional Notations
Company #1 Landing Page
Career Page
Job Posting
Reports
Social Media -
Facebook
Social Media -
Twitter
Social Media -
LinkedIn
Company #2 Landing Page
Career Page
Job Posting
Reports
Social Media -
Facebook
Social Media -
Twitter
Social Media -
LinkedIn
Company #3 Landing Page
Career Page
Job Posting
Reports
Social Media -
Facebook
Social Media -
Twitter
Social Media -
LinkedIn

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Sustainable fashion leadership: The female phenomenon

PDF

School district leadership and the motherhood penalty

PDF

IT belongingness: from outcasts to technology leaders in higher education – a promising practice

PDF

Leadership in turbulent times: a social cognitive study of responsible leaders

PDF

Barriers in care access for the marginalized individual: a provider’s role

PDF

Addressing the challenges of employee retention: a qualitative analysis of job satisfaction and perceptions of advancement by marginalized women in the insurance industry

PDF

The underrepresentation of African Americans in information technology: an examination of social capital and its impact on African Americans’ career success

PDF

Examining teachers’ perceptions of diversity, equity, and inclusion professional development

PDF

Black women in tech: examining experiences in tech industry workplaces

PDF

The organizational impacts of executive technology leadership role proliferation

PDF

Understanding queer leadership in corporate America

PDF

An unlikely partnership: engaging diasporas as stakeholders to international development donors

PDF

An unlikely partnership: engaging diasporas as stakeholders to international development donors

PDF

Human resources and equity: the influence of HR on addressing the underrepresentation of women in higher education leadership

PDF

Facilitators for the advancement of Hispanic/Latinx employees in corporate security

PDF

The role of executives’ knowledge and motivation in enabling organizational supports for diversity, equity, and inclusion

PDF

Identification of barriers to mentoring and their impact on retention and advancement of underrepresented populations in the federal government

PDF

A qualitative study that examines the transformational factors that prevent cybersecurity from being a funding priority in healthcare organizations

PDF

Senior leadership response to campus flashpoints

PDF

Averting the gaze: gender bias in the fashion industry

Asset Metadata

Creator Lucus, Jonathan Thomas Chadwick (author)

Core Title Examining the lack of equity in leadership opportunities for underrepresented employees in the pharmaceutical industry

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Degree Conferral Date 2023-12

Publication Date 11/14/2023

Defense Date 10/30/2023

Publisher Los Angeles, California (original), University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag access,Barriers,belonging,equity,inclusion,OAI-PMH Harvest,trust,underrepresented employees

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Martinez, Brandon (committee chair), Datta, Monique (committee member), Maddox, Anthony (committee member)

Creator Email jtlucus@gmail.com,lucus@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113766177

Unique identifier UC113766177

Identifier etd-LucusJonat-12472.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-LucusJonat-12472

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Lucus, Jonathan Thomas Chadwick

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20231114-usctheses-batch-1106 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu