University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Human Resources and Equity: The Influence of HR on Addressing the Underrepresentation of
Women in Higher Education Leadership

by

Jacqueline Jehan Russell

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 2021

Copyright 2021 Jacqueline Jehan Russell

ii
Table of Contents
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. iv
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ vi
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... vii
Introduction of the Problem of Practice .......................................................................................... 1
Organizational Context and Mission .............................................................................................. 2
Importance of Addressing the Problem .......................................................................................... 4
Organizational Performance Goal ................................................................................................... 6
Purpose of the Project and Guiding Questions ............................................................................... 6
Stakeholder Group of Focus and Stakeholder Goal ........................................................................ 7
Review of the Literature ............................................................................................................... 10
Organizational Equity ....................................................................................................... 11
Gender Parity in Higher Education Leadership ................................................................ 11
Gender Bias ....................................................................................................................... 18
The Role of Human Resources in Achieving Gender Parity ............................................ 21
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences .............................................................. 28
Knowledge Influences ...................................................................................................... 29
Motivation Influences ....................................................................................................... 34
Organizational Influences ................................................................................................. 38

Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................................. 45
Qualitative Data Collection and Instrumentation ......................................................................... 47
Interviews ...................................................................................................................................... 48
Interview Procedures ........................................................................................................ 49
Documents and Artifacts ................................................................................................... 49
Data Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 50
Limitations and Delimitations ....................................................................................................... 50
Results and Findings ..................................................................................................................... 51
Participating Stakeholders ............................................................................................................ 51

iii
Findings ........................................................................................................................................ 53
Knowledge Influences ...................................................................................................... 53
Motivation Influences ....................................................................................................... 69
Organizational Influences ................................................................................................. 80
Synthesis ..................................................................................................................................... 111
Recommendations ....................................................................................................................... 113
Knowledge Recommendations ....................................................................................... 113
Motivation Recommendations ........................................................................................ 117
Organizational Recommendations .................................................................................. 120

Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan ......................................................................... 126
Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations ........................................................... 126
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators ......................................................................... 127
Level 3: Behavior ............................................................................................................ 128
Level 2: Learning ............................................................................................................ 130
Level 1: Reaction ............................................................................................................ 133
Evaluation Tools ............................................................................................................. 134

Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 135
Future Research .......................................................................................................................... 136
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 137
References ................................................................................................................................... 139
Appendices .................................................................................................................................. 161
Appendix A: Definitions ................................................................................................. 161
Appendix B: Interview Protocols .................................................................................... 162
Appendix C: Participating Stakeholders, Sampling Criteria, and Rationale
Participating Stakeholders .............................................................................................. 168
Appendix D: Validity and Reliability ............................................................................. 169
Appendix E: Credibility and Trustworthiness ................................................................ 170
Appendix F: Ethics ......................................................................................................... 171

iv
List of Tables
Table 1 Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals ..................10
Table 2 Knowledge Influences .....................................................................................................33
Table 3 Motivational Influences ...................................................................................................38
Table 4 Organizational Influences ...............................................................................................44
Table 5 Data Collection Methods and Sampling Strategy ............................................................48
Table 6 Stakeholder Participants ..................................................................................................52
Table 7 Determination of Knowledge Influences .........................................................................54
Table 8 Terms Used During Interviews to Define Equity ............................................................55
Table 9 Terms Used During Interviews to Describe How the University Works towards
Diversity Goals ..............................................................................................................................56
Table 10 Identified infrastructure that supports gender equity .....................................................61
Table 11 Duration and Source of Participant Training Attendance ..............................................63
Table 12 Terms Used During Interviews to Describe Unconscious Bias .....................................67
Table 13 Assumed Motivation Influences, Determination, and Summary of Findings ...............70
Table 14 Advantages and Disadvantages to Having Equal Representation .................................72
Table 15 Feelings and Beliefs About Organizations Actively Working to Recruit .....................73
Table 16 Participant Rating of Encouragement to Reduce Opportunities for Bias ......................77
Table 17 Assumed Organizational Influences Gaps .....................................................................81
Table 18 Participants Perceptions on the Campus Decision Making Process ..............................87
Table 19 Responses to Which Campus Entity Should Provide Diversity Training ...................105
Table 20 Participant Response to Receiving Adequate Support ................................................108
Table 21 Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations .......................................114

v
Table 22 Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations ........................................118
Table 23 Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations ....................................121
Table 24 Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes .......................127
Table 25 Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation .............................128
Table 26 Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors ..........................................................129
Table 27 Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program .......................................132
Table 28 Components to Measure Reactions to the Program .....................................................133

vi
List of Figures
Figure 1 Conceptual Framework: Gender Parity in Higher Education Leadership ..................... 46

vii
Abstract
This study applied the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework to understand the
influence of human resources (HR) personnel on addressing the underrepresentation of women in
higher education leadership. The purpose of this study was to conduct a needs analysis of HR
personnel gender equity-related knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) influences
and provide recommendations for organizational practice. Using semi-structured interviews of
university HR personnel, data was transcribed, coded, and analyzed. Further exploratory data
analysis was conducted by evaluating university policies and online resources in relation to the
HR personnel interview data. Findings from this study indicate that in order for HR to effectively
support gender equity initiatives it is critical for leadership to clearly express the goals and
values related gender equity. In addition, employees need to trust HR in their abilities,
knowledge, and competence, that sufficient resources be provided to support HR, and that
institutions empower HR to serve as change agent and strategic partner.

1
Introduction of the Problem of Practice
This study addresses the lack of gender parity and the underrepresentation of female
leadership in United States higher education institutions. The fact that women comprise 57% of
all college and university students, account for 60% of all degrees earned in the United States,
and receive 56% of all national research awards and grants, but only represent 25% of higher
education leadership institutional governing boards, Presidents, Chief Academic Officers and full
professors, indicates that underrepresentation of women in leadership areas is a problem
(Lapovskey, 2009; Lennon et al., 2010). The evidence highlights there is a 32% disparity in
female to full-time male professors in degree-granting postsecondary institutions and a 40%
disparity in women to men in the highest levels of leadership positions across academia
including Chief Academic Officer, Vice President, President, and Governing Boards
(Lapovskey, 2009). While women hold more faculty positions than men, they account for a
lower percentage of leadership pipeline tenure track positions and tenured ranks (Baker et al.,
2019), Johnson, 2016; Lennon et al., 2010). This problem is important to address because
diversity in leadership encourages fairness, affects the breadth and type of research produced,
and exposes men and women to successful female leaders (Johnson, 2016; Lapovskey, 2009;
Lennon et al., 2010; West & Curtis, 2006). Women in positions of influence are more likely to
promote equity in pay and benefits and opportunities for positive role models and experiences for
both male and female students, staff, management, and faculty (Lapovskey, 2009; Pew Research
Center, 2014).
The collection of knowledge, skills, experience and abilities of an organization’s
workforce is the intangible asset of human capital (Durai, 2016). Unlike other physical and
technological resources, the value of human capital is hard to quantify. However, similar to

2
organizational resources, human resources is a necessary and invaluable organizational asset
(Durai, 2016). Personnel management or Human Resource Management (HRM) is responsible
for the personnel related policies and practices that optimize the use of an enterprise’s human
resources in order to help accomplish the organization’s goals (Durai, 2016). This study
evaluates the influence and role of higher education human resources personnel in the ability of
institutions to meet their goals of increasing the number of women in leadership and
developmental positions.
Organizational Context and Mission
South State University (SSU), a pseudonym, is a small graduate-level state public
institution of higher education in the United States situated in a rural community and enrolls
approximately 12,000 on-campus and online students. According to its website, the SSU campus
boasts small class sizes and access to numerous outdoor recreation opportunities (SSU.edu).
SSU’s mission focuses on teaching and learning excellence, experiential education, personal
growth, civic responsibility, and professional excellence. SSU’s vision is to obtain national
recognition for its innovations in learning, student success, and providing the best student
experience.
The student population of SSU is 60% female and 40% male and SSU stakeholders
include administrators, faculty, staff, students, community members, and other state and federal
organizations. SSU is not considered an ethnically diverse campus because more than three
quarters of students, faculty, and staff are White. However, the SSU community is over 80%
White with the Hispanics encompassing the next largest population at 9%. Both the Black and
Asian populations of SSU’s community are less than 1%. In contrast, with the exception of
Hispanic students, SSU’s student population is slightly more diverse than the local community.

3
As of October 2016, women comprised 50% of the staff at SSU; 38% of the women held
positions with supervisor, director, or manager in the title. As of March 2018, 33% of the SSU
Board of Trustees were female. The representation of women in leadership positions at SSU is
14% to 29% across all echelons where women make up 25% of College Deans, 14% of
Associate College Deans, 20% of Vice Presidents, 19% of Department Chairs, 17% of Dean’s
Councils, and 29% of Faculty Senate. Only the President’s Council is near parity with 43%
female membership. While women represented 54% of non-tenure track faculty, the female
representation among tenure track faculty (38%) and tenured faculty (24%) has been slow to
increase in recent years. Much as at other universities, women represent a lower percentage of
science, technology, and mathematics faculty and a higher percentage of humanities and social
sciences faculty.
Nationwide, women are underrepresented in positions of influence across all ranks within
colleges or universities and across all types of institutions, save for community colleges
(Lapovskey, 2009; Lennon et al., 2010). Many institutions, including SSU, have taken deliberate
steps to encourage gender equity including drafting and approving a strategic diversity plan and
having the university president endorse state or national initiatives to promote women such as
Moving the Needle and the EvevateHER Challenge (ElevateHER Challenge, n.d.; Moving the
Needle, 2019). However, in the case of SSU, as with all organizations, it is necessary to hold
leadership accountable to ensure that their strategic mission is fulfilled and hold all employees
accountable for a workplace free from bias (Women in the Workplace, 2019).
SSU has signed on to two initiatives aimed at increasing professional opportunities for
women. The first is the American Council on Education’s (ACE) Moving the Needle campaign
(Moving the Needle, 2019). Moving the Needle launched in 2016 to bring national awareness to

4
the importance of achieving gender parity and diversity in higher education leadership. Its
mission is to increase the number of women in senior leadership positions in higher education
through programs, research, and resources by 2030 (American Council on Education, n.d.). The
second initiative is the Women’s Leadership Institute’s (WLI) ElevateHer corporate challenge
(ElevateHER Challenge, n.d.). Institutions pledged to increase the overall number of women in
senior leadership positions, improve female retention rates at all levels, and address any
underrepresentation of women on organizations’ boards. These organizations also pledged to
identify, monitor, and close gender pay gaps; improve leadership development, mentoring and
sponsorship programs for women; and encourage women to run for public office (Baker et al.,
2018; Women’s Leadership Institute, n.d.).
Importance of Addressing the Problem
The lack of gender parity in leadership roles across academia calls into question fairness
in many different areas of academia, including the hiring, evaluation, promotion, and tenure
processes. The disparities highlight gender-related mentoring, training, and opportunity gaps and
emphasize the need for organizations to address strategic, structural, and cultural deficiencies
(Dominici et. al., 2009; Hughes, 2018; Storey et al., 2017; West & Curtis, 2006). Hiring females
and minorities into leadership positions have a cascading effect that leads to hiring other females
and minorities, and the diversity in leadership serves as examples and mentors to other women,
which encourages them to take on future leadership roles (Burbridge et al., 2002; Duke, 2017;
Lapovskey, 2009). Women function as change agents when serving both in leadership and mid-
management positions as they lower gender segregation at all levels, including non-leadership
positions (Stainback et al., 2016). Women serving in positions of leadership provide
opportunities for other women across organizations.

5
Coffman, Exley and Niederle's (2017) research showed that in general, even with
identical resumes, employers choose to hire men over women for stereotypically male-type tasks
which exacerbates inequities. When a man is making the hiring decision, women have a 40%
chance of getting the job; whereas when a woman makes the decision, other women have a 50%
chance of getting the position. Not only are women more willing to hire other women, but they
are more likely to serve as mentors to them (Neal et al., 2013). Toler’s (2012) study found that
high-achieving women in higher education identified mentoring as a critical component to their
professional development, which makes hiring women and providing them mentoring
opportunities even more valuable. These biases adversely affect decision making and hinders the
ability of organizations to reach gender parity in leadership roles across the organization.
The landscape of higher education continues to change and to face funding shortfalls and
demand for competitive tuition, evolving accountability and efficiency measures, and an
impending enrollment decline and shift (Grawe, 2018). A diverse cadre of voices and leadership
styles are necessary to respond to these challenges effectively (White, 2014). Institutions create
critical balance by affording the fair representation of many different points of view and methods
of critical thinking, which are essential to the educational environment and the shaping of society
through education (Witcher Jackson Teague & Bobby, 2014).
The depth and breadth of research are also limited by solely male-driven research, and
the particular questions that women, from their unique experiences and perspectives, would ask
are missing (Lennon et al., 2010). Male-driven research affects the nature and span of studies and
steers existing research into answering questions posed by only the male researchers, which
limits the expansion and trajectory of research in general (Lennon et al., 2010). Further,
institutions and the educational experience of students benefit from a diverse perspective offered,

6
in part, by women.
Organizational Performance Goal
By August 2023, SSU will increase the number of women in all levels of leadership by
5%. By joining the American Council for Education’s (ACE) Moving the Needle Challenge and
the Women’s Leadership Institute’s (WLI) ElevateHer Challenge and creating a university
diversity strategic plan, the President and university leadership have made public the goal of
promoting gender equity throughout all strata of the university. The Moving the Needle initiative
aims to increase leadership opportunities for women and aligns with the Utah ElevateHer
Challenge’s call to increase female retention rates, increase the numbers of women in top
organization leadership roles, address pay gaps, and promote leadership development and
mentoring opportunities (ElevateHER Challenge, n.d.; Moving the Needle, 2019).
Purpose of the Project and Guiding Questions
The purpose of this study was to conduct a needs analysis in areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources necessary to reach the stakeholder goal of increasing
female representation at all levels of leadership at SSU. The stakeholder goal will ultimately
support the organizational goal of increasing women in all levels of leadership by 5%. While a
complete performance evaluation would focus on all stakeholders, this analysis featured the SSU
Human Resources office as the stakeholder of focus for practical purposes.
The questions that guided this project are the following:
1. To what extent is SSU meeting its goal of increasing women in leadership roles,
developmental roles, and positions in-line for future promotions?
2. What are the human resources knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
associated with SSU meeting its organizational goal?

7
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources?
Stakeholder Group of Focus and Stakeholder Goal
The leadership of SSU is an integral stakeholder whose active participation is critical to
achieving the organizational goal of increasing the number of women in all levels of leadership
by 5% by August 2023. The leadership of SSU includes the Board of Regents, Board of
Trustees, President, and President’s Council. This group sets the tone of the organization, directs
and approves policy, and leads through example. Leadership is ultimately responsible for holding
employees accountable, assuring equitable and unbiased hiring, promotion, evaluation, and
compensation practices.
Another important stakeholder group is the individual managers that make direct
personnel decisions. As with many organizations, SSU managers are responsible for many
devolved HRM and HRD functions as part of their supervisory duties (Heraty & Morley, 1995;
Perry & Kulik, 2008; Whittaker & Marchinton, 2003). Managers ultimately contribute to the
long-term success of the organization through creating an environment to promote retention,
making compensation-related decisions, crafting job descriptions, setting standards of
performance, and performing personnel evaluations (Dessler, 2018; McConville, 2006).
Additionally, managers are tasked with ensuring that HRD is aligned with business performance
and must be committed to the organization's HRD policies and practices (Watson & Maxwell,
2007). Finally, all employees are stakeholders in the success of this goal. Effective
communication between employees and leadership can help to actualize the goal of increasing
women in leadership (Berger, 2014).
Though numerous other stakeholders can support SSU’s goal of achieving gender parity

8
and more diversity in leadership roles, the office of Human Resources (HR) is the stakeholder of
focus for this research. They are responsible for providing, updating, and creating personnel-
related policies and promoting awareness of these policies (Dessler, 2018; Durai, 2016). During
the past two years, the SSU President has made strategic hires that brought females and diversity
in certain leadership positions, such as the new Chief Diversity Officer position that serves under
the Chief Academic Officer. Hiring across the rest of the campus and for mid-level positions or
pipeline positions that would lead to eventual promotion to leadership roles have not necessarily
seen similar progress. The HR office has struggled in the last several years with significant
turnover, with the average employee staying for only an average of a year and a half. The HR
office has been chronically understaffed, failing to add any new positions for several years
despite significant growth in student enrollment. In 2019, the office added two new full-time
positions, including an assistant director. However, in 2020, the HR department lost funding to
replace their training and development position. More recently, the HR assistant director has
been working to restructure the office to better serve the students, staff, and faculty on campus.
HR plays a critical role in promoting the healthy morale of the faculty, staff, and student
workers at SSU. The HR office is in place to implement and enforce processes, develop training,
and create personnel policies that would improve campus health and welfare programs and
improve retention, morale, talent acquisition, compensation equity, leadership development, and
the increase of diversity and inclusion (Dessler, 2018; Durai, 2016; Onley, 2016). HR has access
to personnel-related information and is in charge of managing the campus training program,
which could facilitate providing information and guidelines to managers responsible for
personnel related decision making (Dowd & Bensimon, 2014).
SSU’s most recent strategic plan directs the Vice President for Finance and

9
Administration to achieve an equitable and transparent compensation and classification system
that will aid in the recruitment and retainment the most qualified faculty and staff. Additionally,
the Vice President for Student Affairs was tasked with the SSU strategic plan of achieving a
positive gain in the number of students, faculty, and staff from underrepresented populations.
However, there was no associated quantifiable number associated with this task. In 2019, SSU
created its first Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion strategic plan. The listed objectives included
implementing a DEI developmental training program for HR and increasing the numbers of
underrepresented faculty and staff to reflect that of the student body. Since the SSU student body
is more than half women, it stands to reason that SSU is advocating for gender parity in its
employees. SSU’s commitment to diversity and inclusion, including its commitment to the
Moving the Needle initiative and directives in the university’s strategic plan and diversity
strategic plan support, stated goals to increase women in all roles (ElevateHER Challenge, n.d.;
Moving the Needle, 2019).
Representation in female leadership has already increased by more than 5% in the top
leadership SSU university positions, as there are significantly fewer of these positions. A 5%
increase in mid-level positions is an ambitious but attainable goal. Benchmark data from prior
years are used to compare new hire trends and compensation gaps. If the goal to increase female
leadership by 5% is not met, then SSU will potentially lose the progress made to date by the
actions of leadership because there will be an underrepresentation of females in mid-
management positions eligible for future promotion to campus leadership positions. Therefore,
SSU will not see the benefits of a more diverse workforce and will lose the momentum that has
been created. Table 1 identifies the three primary stakeholder goals, including human resources,
senior leaders, and mid-level managers. The goals are sequential beginning with HR

10
implementing strategies to guide the university. The senior leaders will then allocate resources to
facilitate university-wide efforts to promote equity. Finally, mid-level managers will receive and
apply the training and policies.
Table 1
Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational Mission
South State University is a dynamic teaching and learning community that engages students in
experiential education, leading to personal growth, civic responsibility, and professional
excellence.
Organizational Performance Goal
By August 2023, South State University (SSU) will increase the number of women in all levels of
leadership by 5%.
HR Goal Senior Leaders Goal Mid-level Managers Goal
By January 2022, HR
personnel will implement
hiring practices and strategies
to achieve gender parity in all
echelons of leadership.
By August 2022, senior
leaders will facilitate the
creation of updated personnel-
related training, policies, and
procedures with a gender
parity lens to increase the
percentage of women in
middle management.
By December 2022, mid-level
managers will be trained in the
value of diversity and
unconscious bias and follow
new hiring practices and
updated policies for each hire
and employee evaluation.

Review of the Literature
This literature review examines the root causes of gender parity gaps between male and
female leadership representation in higher education and focuses on the influence of human
resource strategy as a means to address disparities. The review begins with broad research on the
benefits of women in positions of influence and is followed by an outline of historical female to
male degree attainment, achievements, and representation in higher education leadership roles.
This review presents research on gender bias and the progress that has been made toward

11
achieving gender parity in higher education and discusses the research related to the role and
influence of human resource diversity strategy. Based on the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis
framework, the review then identifies the knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers that
influence gender parity in higher education leadership and pipeline to leadership positions.
Organizational Equity
Behavioral research on the overarching theme of equity theory is evidential groundwork
for gender equity initiatives. Equity theory postulates that an employee’s belief that employers
are fair and equitable has a positive correlation with increased job performance (Adams, 1963;
Adams, 1965; Mowday, 1991). Perceived effort-reward inconsistencies such as efforts that are
under rewarded and overrewarded create an environment of tension in the workplace and
negatively affects how the employee performs and interact with the organization (Janssen, 2001).
Furthermore, employee belief that there is equitable treatment in the workplace, more so than job
satisfaction, is a predictor for lower job absenteeism, decreased employee turnover, and greater
organizational citizenship behavior (Dittrich & Carrell, 1979; Organ & Moorman, 1993). When
employees perceive both procedural and interactional fairness, there is a positive correlation with
organizational citizenship behavior (Organ & Moorman, 1993). Increasing efforts to create an
equitable workplace environment serves to improve job performance and saves money by
decreasing turnover while increasing positive employee behavior.
Gender Parity in Higher Education Leadership
Diversity in leadership is a worthy goal that many organizations choose to pursue
because it can provide them with a competitive advantage (Hunt et al., 2015). While women
have been earning as many doctoral degrees as men since the mid-2000s and have been
approximately half or more than half of the student body at most educational institutions for

12
decades, there has not been a corresponding proportional shift in leadership roles being held by
women (Lapovskey, 2009; Lennon et al., 2010). Current widespread gender inequity, the lack of
fairness of treatment for men and women, is perpetuating the historical undervaluation in regard
to pay and lower leadership representation of women in many different industries. However,
savvy corporations have learned that obtaining a critical mass of women in positions of
leadership results in more innovation revenue, and their contributions are valuable financially, in
teams and in the ability to innovate (Lorenzo et al., 2017). While not substantial, to begin with,
higher education is the only sector that has seen overall declining numbers of women in positions
of influence (Lennon et al., 2010).
The critical balance created within an institution by affording representation of many
different points of view and methods of critical thinking is essential in the educational
environment (Lapovsky, 2009). The participation of women in national economies is correlated
with economic growth and productivity; the collective human capital of women is viewed as a
valuable economic resource (Durai, 2016; Wheelan, 2019). Women bring unique skills,
experiences, perspectives to teams, decision-making processes, strategies development and
implementation, and positions (Wheelan, 2019). As higher education continues to face novel and
serious challenges such as funding and enrollment crises, shifting missions, accountability
pressures, and changing instructional delivery methods, there is the potential to lose significant
talent resources by eliminating or overlooking diverse candidates (Altbach et al., 2013). Diverse
teams outperform even high-ability teams in problem-solving (Hong & Page, 2004).
Women serving in positions of authority provide the opportunity and observable example
for male and female students, faculty, and staff; mentor other women to prepare them for
leadership roles; and help to increase the representation of women in leadership (West & Curtis,

13
2006). Additionally, the unique perspectives and insights that diverse viewpoints provide all
levels of leadership in higher education promote ethical accountability (Eagly et al., 2014).
Furthermore, increases in managerial women correlate with a lower wage gap (with exception)
(Correll & Simard, 2016; Tsui & Gutek, 1999). Hunt et al.’s (2015) research showed companies
that maintained the most diverse management teams had 35% higher profits than other
organizations, and companies within the top 25% of gender diversity were 15% more likely to
have higher financial returns than the national industry median. Diversity fosters innovation and
creativity and provides a competitive advantage to organizations that strive to have diverse
leadership (Hunt et al., 2015). Conversely, those organizations that do not promote diverse
leaders stand to lose not only profits but the success of the organization overall. Increasing the
representation of women in positions of influence benefits organizations by providing diverse
viewpoints, mentors, and a competitive advantage.
While there has been progress in increasing the number of women in some positions of
authority at educational institutions, significant gaps remain at almost every echelon (Johnson,
2016; Lapovsky, 2009; Lennon et al., 2010). Women account for the majority of all college and
university students and degrees earned in the United States but hold less than a quarter of the
positions of influence such as tenured ranks and leadership positions in academia (Johnson,
2016; Lapovsky, 2009). As of 2016, women comprise 57% of all college students and earn 60%
of all conferred degrees, including 50% of doctoral degrees (Johnson, 2016). These numbers
have shown a steady increase since the 1970s, while the percentage of men obtaining degrees
have decreased (Lapovskey, 2009). According to 2018 data from the National Center for
Education Statistics (NCES), women lagged behind men in employment for all age groups by
8% (91% for men and 83% for women) after completing a bachelor’s degree (NCES, 2019).

14
Faculty
The nature of higher education faculty hierarchy is unique with tenure, tenure-track, and
non-tenure track ranks having different pay, benefits, and influence that varies based on the type
of institutions (Kezar & Sam, 2010; Ott & Cisneros, 2015). In general, tenure positions have
more job security and accompanying academic freedom (Adams, 2006; Cameron, 2010). An
integral component to most tenured positions includes more opportunities for upward mobility
(i.e., rank advancement), funding, release time for research, grants, sabbaticals, and professional
development. Non-tenure track and part-time faculty usually receive fewer resources including
funding for travel and research, fewer opportunities for advancement, less job security, on
average 25% less pay, fewer professional development opportunities, and are ineligible for
certain faculty service opportunities (Harper et al., 2001; Monks, 2007; O’Meara et al., 2014).
According to the American Association of University Professors, contingent faculty are
characterized by full- and part-time non-tenure track positions that have little reassurance of the
long-term position commitment from the institution (aaup.org, n.d.). From 1970 to the late
1990s, higher education saw a 13% increase in contingent and non-tenure track faculty. In 1970,
22% of the faculty were contingent or non-tenure track, and by 1997, the percentage increased to
43% (Monks, 2007). Today, 70% of all faculty appointments are contingent or part-time
(aaup.org, n.d.). During this time, there was a corresponding increase in women faculty
representation with the greatest gains in the non-tenure track and part-time ranks (Finkelstein et
al., 2016; Harper et al., 2001). Women hold over half of the lower-level positions such as
lecturers and instructors at most institutions (Johnson, 2016). The higher the rank, the more
significant the gender gap; women represented only 32% in the full professor rank at all degree-
granting institutions (Johnson, 2016).

15
Guarino and Borden (2017) found that even when controlling for rank, ethnicity, and
discipline, female faculty performed significantly more university, campus, and departmental
service work than their male counterparts, a fundamental component of higher education
academic work. Additionally, women represented about 30% of tenure track positions within
doctorate-granting institutions (36% at all institution types) but were awarded 55% of some of
higher education's most prestigious awards and 56% of national research awards and grants
(Finklestein et al., 2016; Lennon et al., 2010). Regarding wages, male faculty generally earn
more than female faculty at every rank and within every type of institution except two-year
private institutions (Johnson, 2016).
Academic department chairs are typically tenured faculty whose efforts directly influence
the efforts, morale, and success of their faculty and academic department (Gmelch & Miskin,
2011; Lloyd-Jones, 2012). Department chairs are responsible for administrative activities such as
budgeting and resource management, faculty related activities such as mentoring, employee
evaluations, student-related issues, and program and curriculum-related activities (Chu, 2012).
The associate chair and center or program director roles are important developmental positions
for mid-career faculty and the department chair position is a critical leadership pipeline entry
point. Individuals that serve as department chair are often best prepared to take on college dean
and other academic leadership positions (Baker et al., 2018). As of 2015, 14% of medical school
department chairs were women, less than 10% of economic department chairs were women, and
less than 40% of accounting department chairs were women (Carnes et al., 2015; Langan, 2019).
There is a correlation between female department chairs and greater equity in publications, pay,
and tenure rates for assistant professors (Langan, 2019). Additionally, when male chairs are
replaced with female chairs, there is a corresponding 10% increase in female graduate student

16
enrollment (Langan, 2019). Selecting more women to serve in a department chair role both
prepares women to take on positions of greater responsibility and results in more equity within
the department.
Staff
Staff in higher education support administrative, logistical, and student service functions
in the university setting and are a key resource in the ability of institutions to support students
and achieve their goals (Pritchard et al., 2020; Warren, 2018). Staff positions in departments
across campuses range from entry-level to managers with office/clerical, service/maintenance,
technical, and skilled craft roles (Pritchard et al., 2020). There is little gender-related research on
entry-level and middle-management staff positions in higher education. However, the College
and University Professional Association for Human Resources 2020 Staff in Higher Education
Annual Report (2020) data showed that women make up 61% of higher education staff and are
paid less than their male counterparts for the same work, except for positions that are office or
clerical. Most staff positions are non-exempt rather than professional, and 75% of all higher
education staff are in either office, clerical, service, or maintenance positions (Pritchard et al.,
2019; Pritchard et al., 2020). More gender-related, staff-specific research is needed in higher
education.
Higher Education Chief Academic Officers
One of the common paths to a college or university presidency for women is through the
position of chief academic officer (CAO), with 52% of female presidents and 42% of male
presidents rising from that rank (Lennon et al., 2010). In order to obtain a CAO position, it is
particularly important for women to come up through the academic ranks. Lennon et al. (2010)
noted that women comprise 40% of CAOs overall and represent 32% of CAOs at doctorate

17
conferring institutions (50% at community colleges, 28% at masters level institutions, and 37%
at bachelors level institutions). Overall, universities have seen a 2.7% increase in female CAOs
since 2008, while there has been a 14.7% decrease of female CAOs in public doctoral degree-
granting universities (Johnson, 2016). In general, female CAOs are more likely not to be married
(89% compared to 71% of men), not have children (87% compared to 73% of men), be less
likely to have a doctorate than their male counterparts and be more likely to have served as
another CAO, Provost, or some senior executive outside of academic affairs than their male
peers (males are more likely to have been an academic dean) (Johnson, 2016).
Presidents
The most common path to becoming a college or university president is by first being a
current president at another institution. Women are at a disadvantage of becoming president at
larger institutions because women represent only 30% of existing presidents (Howard &
Gagliardi, 2018). As of 2009, the percentage of female college and university presidents had
remained steady for the previous ten years. The numbers show that 77% of university presidents
at all universities and 86% of presidents at doctoral level institutions are men (Lapovskey, 2009).
Female presidents are more likely to have a Ph.D. or Ed.D., not be married (90% compared to
75% of men), not have children (89% compared to 74% of men), have altered their career for a
spouse/partner/parent (32% compared to 16% of men), and are more likely to have served as a
CAO, Provost, or some senior executive in academic affairs than their male peers (Cook, 2012;
Gagliardi et al., 2017).
Governing Boards
The number of women that serve on institutional boards is perhaps more disparate than in
other leadership areas as the representation of women has increased for private institutions by

18
1.8% since 2004 and has decreased by 2% since 2010 for public boards. In public and
independent governing boards, the ratio of men to women is 2 to 1 (Association of Governing
Boards of Universities and Colleges, 2010; Lapovskey, 2009). Females hold slightly more
positions on governing boards at public universities than at private universities (Association of
Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, 2010).
Gender Bias
Successful leadership has historically been defined and exemplified by males, which
hinders women by giving them less access to leadership roles and more barriers to success when
serving in those roles (Koenig et al., 2011). These leadership examples vary by gender in two
important ways. First, leadership styles are expected to be different between males and females
(Eagly & Johnson, 1990). Second, success in leadership is defined and assessed differently based
on gender (Eagly & Johnson, 1990). There are preconceived or implicit notions (implicit
leadership theory) of what leadership looks like, and this interferes with the ability to discern
who the best leader might be for certain situations or distort the perception of what a successful
leader might look like (Forsyth & Nye, 2008; Kenney et al., 1996). The lens with which
leadership characteristics and success are defined is an important consideration when discussing
the problem of the underrepresentation of women in higher education leadership.
Furthermore, phenomena such as stereotype threat, role congruity theory, and
socialization-derived gendered patterns of self-selection perpetuate biases toward current and
would-be female leadership (Eagley et al., 2014; Eagly & Karau, 2002; Ochsenfeld, 2014).
Stereotype threat occurs when gender-based stereotypes affect how women see themselves and
how men see women as fitting into the role of leader. When women do not behave in a way that
fits within the stereotypical confines of their gender, they are viewed as not feminine enough;

19
and when they act in a stereotypically female manner, they are not viewed as viable leaders
(Eagly et al., 2014; Heilman, 2001; Heilman & Okimoto, 2007; Heilman et al., 2004; Rudman &
Glick, 1999; Rudman & Glick 2001). Congruity theory proposes that there is a perceived
prejudice in how women are viewed as fitting into leadership roles and that how success in those
roles is evaluated for women (Eagly & Karau, 2002). The result of the perceived prejudices is
less positive attitudes toward female leaders, more difficulty for women in obtaining leadership
roles, and more difficulty in being successful in those roles when they are obtained (Eagly &
Karau, 2002).
Gender bias affects all decisions and is critical to address because even well-meaning
people impose gender bias and stereotypes (Banaji & Greenwald, 2013). For instance, women
are more likely to be hired into top leadership roles when the organization is in decline or the
position is precarious (Ryan & Haslam, 2005). Research suggests that women are hired into top
roles when the organization performs poorly not as a result of the belief that they can improve
performance but rather because they are viewed as better managers of people and can take the
blame for any subsequent failures (Ryan et al., 2011). Furthermore, men are considered the ideal
leader in successful organizations, while female stereotypes were viewed as the ideal manager
for unsuccessful organizations (Ryan et al., 2011). Other research shows that women generally
receive positive and constructive feedback that is more vague, more focused on communication
style, and less often tied to specific outcomes than male counterparts (Correll, 2017). In
negotiations, women are believed to be more easily misled and to have less competence than
men (Kray et al., 2014). In addition, Banaji and Greenwald’s (2013) research revealed the
influence of bias in the workplace by showing that men and women have an unconscious
preference for a male boss; even when the individuals did not verbalize such a preference, both

20
the men and women indicated they would sacrifice some salary to have a male boss over a
female boss. Identifying bias is a critical consideration for leaders’ decision-making process.
In a National Science Foundation study in which 60 women were surveyed, every single
woman reported having experienced gender bias (Hosek, 2005). Decision making at all levels is
influenced by gender and intersectional bias, which are common in the workforce today
(Stamarski & Son Hing, 2015; Struffolino, 2017; Williams, 2014). Implicit bias is formed
without the individual being aware of it and is reinforced without even realizing it (Williams,
2014). For example, bias towards mothers in the workplace is significant. One study showed that
when all things are equal, a mother is 79% less likely to be hired, is 50% less likely to be
promoted, is paid over $10,000 less, and is given significantly more demanding evaluation
standards (Struffolino, 2017). The research related to bias toward employed mothers aligns with
the current data that shows that the majority of the highest leadership positions held by women in
higher education are single and childless (Struffolino, 2017). The entirety of biases faced by
women is important to acknowledge because the most influential aspect of a woman’s career
pattern is derived from her life experiences (Giele, 2008). Organizations can educate their
workforce on second-generation bias, which means that organizations must address the
inconsistency between how women are seen, how they see themselves, and how their qualities
and experiences are associated with leadership (Ibarra et al., 2013).
Gender stereotypes can and have changed over time. Eagly et al. (2019) revealed that
over the last several decades, people’s opinions regarding various trait differences between men
and women, including communion, agency, and competence, have shifted to the advantage of
women. The belief in female competence equality and female superiority increased over time
and resulted in a smaller competence trait gap (Eagly et al., 2019). As society continues to shift

21
in alignment with societal gender norms, the opportunity has arisen for women to take on
leadership roles that more traditionally were held by men.
Human capital theory (HCT) had long guided gender equity research (Smart, 1991). HCT
postulates that people invest in themselves through personal development such as education and
work experiences in order to make higher salaries later. Approaching gender equity from an
HCT perspective assumes that women have invested less time and resources in developing their
human capital, which results in lower rank and earning later (Smart, 1991; Strober, 1990).
Research has established that organizational and structural mechanisms, beyond the control of
the individual, are primary reasons for the perpetuation of inequality (Abouzahr et al., 2017;
Acker, 1990; Smart, 1991; Strober, 1990; Van den Brink & Benchop, 2012). The level of
ambition in men and women at the beginning of their careers is much the same. However, later
levels of ambition for women are determined more by the company culture than by family status
(Abouzahr et al., 2017). Women, including mothers, are more likely to want to advance in
organizations that promote positive attitudes towards gender diversity (Abouzahr et al., 2017).
Recognizing that organizational structures and mechanisms are not gender neutral is a critical
consideration when approaching the problem of gender bias in higher education.
The Role of Human Resources in Achieving Gender Parity
Strategic human resources maximize the tacit knowledge, educational background, work-
related experience, and competencies (or human capital) of its employees (Durai, 2016; Noe et
al., 2015). Strategic HR also affects the corporate culture, management philosophy and
practices, mentoring relationships, and the informal networking systems established by the
organization (or social capital) of the organization to meet the organization’s mission (Noe et al.,
2015). Strategic HR, human resources management (HRM), and human resources development

22
(HRD) are fundamental administrative functions of most industries, including higher education.
HR is responsible for a wide range of personnel-related activities that directly influence
organizational culture and workforce strategy (Shein, 2013). HR strategy influences personnel-
related policy, practices, and the performance of organizations (Dessler, 2018; Gould-Williams,
2003). HR also serves as a partner in the strategy and planning processes of organizations by
providing guidance recruitment, development, and integration of necessary talent (Schein, 2013).
The knowledge and skills related to the ability of HR employees are critical to addressing issues
of gender equity in the developmental and leadership roles of academia.
Thistle and Molinaro’s (2016) research discusses the critical role that HR leaders play
during times of change and need to embrace the change early on in order to identify cultural and
leadership changes necessary to make the initiative successful. In addition, HR leadership needs
to maintain a high level of accountability as they play an essential role in facilitating and
maintaining the momentum of change (Thistle & Molinaro, 2016). Kunze et al.’s (2013) research
suggests that diversity-focused HR policies can reduce the effects of age discrimination in the
workplace and attenuate top managers’ age-related, negative stereotypes. HR structure and
practices can foster a culture of social and ethical responsibility, innovation, and change (Lau &
Ngo, 2004; Simmons, 2003; Thistle & Molinaro, 2016).
The field of human resources is credited with helping shape modern organizational
diversity and inclusion initiatives and has a significant role in the achievement of diversity goals
(Dessler, 2018; Hays-Thomas, 2016). HR departments are responsible for understanding federal,
state, and local laws that relate to sex, race, ethnicity, age, disability, national origin, sexual
orientation, and other recognized employee characteristics to ensure that the personnel policies
of the organization adhere to these laws (Hays-Thomas, 2016). In addition, HR deals with

23
recruiting, grievances, and loss of employees; HR staff function as both employees of the
organization and advocates for other employees within the organization (Hays-Thomas, 2016;
Schein, 2013). HR is a natural place to maintain diversity knowledge and is often tasked with
overseeing, advocating for, and implementing diversity initiatives (Hays-Thomas, 2016). HR
offices track data and process paperwork related to personnel changes, compensation, and
positions that make it well situated to evaluate female retention rates, changes in leadership, and
recommend adjustments for and monitor any pay inequities (Onley, 2019). HR can play an
influential role in promoting diversity initiatives and addressing gender bias.
The existence of gender bias in recruitment, selection, interviews, position selection,
salary negotiation, and promotion is well established in research (Abrams et al., 2016; Foley et
al., 2019; Gaucher et al., 2011; Heilman, 2001; Moss-Racusin et al., 2010; Rudman & Glick,
2001; Uhlman et al., 2007). Masculine stereotype words such as “competitive” are more
common in advertisements for male-dominated professions, resulting in women viewing the
positions as less appealing and believing there is less representation in these roles and in
reinforcing social beliefs about which gender is associated with an occupation (Gaucher et al.,
2011). Abrams et al. (2016), Riach and Rich (2006), and Moss-Racusin et al. (2010) demonstrate
how gender bias plays out in the interview selection process where women, when equally
qualified, receive fewer invitations to interview. Men also experience similar discrimination
when applying for entry-level or traditionally feminine roles (Ross-Racusi, 2010).
Women face more rigorous scrutiny of their credentials, and when all qualifications are
equal, male candidates are considered more competent, and the legitimacy of their credentials is
less likely to be questioned (Moss-Racusin et al., 2010; Steinpreis et al., 1999). Bowles et al.’s
(2007) research showed that women who negotiated for better salaries are looked upon less

24
favorably than men who took similar action. In the selection process, the weight, emphasis, or
definition of hiring criteria shifts to favor men when criteria weights are not preassigned or when
the position is stereotypically feminine (Norton et al., 2004; Ulman & Cohen, 2005; Ulman &
Cohen, 2007). The language within performance evaluations is also gendered. Women are more
likely to be described as compassionate or inept, and men as analytical or arrogant (Smith et al.,
2018). Over time, the culmination of these experiences related to HR contributes to the inability
to achieve gender parity in leadership roles (Brand & Fernandez-Mateo, 2017).
There are numerous areas related to gender parity that HR departments influence to raise
awareness, create policies and practices to address gaps, and advise leadership on diversity
issues. For instance, women are more likely than men to volunteer, be asked to volunteer, or
accept requests to volunteer for tasks at work that have low promotability (serving on a
committee, writing a report, etc.) which may lead to slower professional progress in an
organization (Babcock et al., 2017). Bringing awareness to facts such as this by educating
managers, leaders, and employees or advising promotion policies can help reduce this
occurrence.
In the past decade, leadership development has been established as a foundational
element of HR and is considered by some to be the most important task of HR Development
(Callahan et al., 2007; Madsen, 2012). Leadership development on campuses is important for
employee professional growth, leadership turnover and retirement, and organizational
amelioration (Callahan et al., 2007; Fusch & Mrig, 2011). Many organizations, including
numerous institutions of higher education, have established women leadership development
programs in collaboration with HR to meet the demand for qualified and effective leaders
(Madsen, 2012). Additionally, there is a growing emphasis on women-only opportunities that

25
provide safe spaces to prepare early- and mid-career staff and faculty for future leadership roles
(Madsen et al., 2012). Female-centered training focuses on community-campus connections,
finance and budgeting, career and professional “risk-taking,” politics, cultural barriers, and
approaching gender-specific challenges (White, 2012). Addressing unconscious gender bias in
leadership development programs serves to develop in individuals the ability to identify
underlying organizational barriers and personal biases (Madsen et al., 2018).
Women need to be moved up the ranks within educational institutions, so they are
prepared to take on key leadership roles on college and university campuses. According to
Johnson (2016) and Lennon et al. (2010), senior leaders need to annually review the institution’s
commitment to diversity, be cognizant of the gender-related trends in their organization, and
regularly evaluate how they are progressing toward the goal. Senior leaders also need to provide
developmental pipeline position opportunities to women and look at non-traditional career paths
to broaden the potential candidate pool as women are more likely to follow a different leadership
path (Johnson, 2016; Roberts, 2017). The recommendations included that senior leaders evaluate
hiring and promotion policies to determine if they are equitable, particularly for women and
minorities, demand a diverse candidate pool and the search committee for all faculty and
leadership positions, and ensure that search committees are educated and aware of the current
status of women in the organization and on the benefits of hiring women and women of color
(Johnson, 2016; Lennon et al., 2010). Johnson (2016) and Lennon et al. (2010) also suggest
using search firms that have a reputation for generating a diverse candidate pool. Managers are a
critical stakeholder for HR as some of the HRM responsibilities have devolved to them
(McConville, 2006). Research by Currie and Procter (2006) suggests that, in cross functional
partnerships with HR, middle managers are able to facilitate strategic change. However, in order

26
to maximize the effectiveness of their relationships, managers require significant development
and require HR to work alongside them (Currie & Procter, 2006). Many of the recommendations
mentioned fall within the domain of responsibility of HR and are implemented by managers.
Managers have many devolved HRM and HRD responsibilities, including evaluating the
performance in the roles of their subordinates and making personnel-related recommendations
and determinations for the positions they oversee (Heraty & Morley, 1995; Perry & Kulik, 2008;
Whittaker & Marchington, 2003). The devolution of HR duties to managers opened up
opportunities for HR to play a more significant role in the operational functions of business units
and the strategic planning of organizations (Perry & Kulik, 2008). Managers work closely with
HR and utilize the training, policies, and procedures provided by HR (Gilbert et al., 2011;
Whittaker & Marchington, 2003). Training in HR competencies and support for managers is
integral to them being able to effectively carry out their supervisory duties (Gilbert et al., 2011).
In fact, managers that received training and support for their HR responsibilities perceived their
organization as more effective than organizations where HR responsibilities were not devolved
(Perry & Kulik, 2008).
Both the ACE and the WLI offer numerous methods and strategies to help organizations
meet the goals of addressing gender inequities in the workplace that can all be facilitated by HR.
Suggestions included improving communication as to the value of diversity, ensuring women are
included in candidate pools, and providing professional development opportunities for women
(American Council on Education, n.d.; Women’s Leadership Institute, n.d.). Lapovskey (2009)
suggests using a gender lens when deciding where to spend resources as well as regularly
tracking and reviewing the gender-related data, setting benchmarks, monitoring the progress, and
establishing accountability by setting targets on a specific timeline. Both organizations suggests

27
proactive monitoring and reliable reporting of gender ratios in leadership, retention rates, and
pay to provide an equity index similar to the one discussed in Bensimon et al.’s (2007) study. HR
metrics are powerful tools already in use to quantify the impact of employee programs and HR
processes (Hussain & Murthy, 2013).
Bensimon et al.’s (2007) Academic Equity Scorecard, as outlined and designed for
student diversity, provides a superior framework to begin applying to equity and accountability
for achieving gender parity in the workplace. Access, excellence, institutional receptivity, and
retention are areas that make the Academic Equity Scorecard Framework a reliable starting point
(Bensimon et al., 2007). Each area has equity indicators such as faculty composition for
institutional receptivity or degrees earned for retention or excellence (Bensimon et al., 2007).
Indicators for gender parity in leadership roles may include improving women’s tenure rates for
retention, ensuring women are represented in candidate pools for access to higher-level positions
or improved female-to-male ratios for institutional receptivity (Bensimon et al., 2007; Johnson,
2017; West & Curtis, 2006). Defining performance indicators is instrumental in creating
accountability measures for the institution (Dowd & Bensimon, 2014).
Women face both internal and external barriers to obtaining and maintaining leadership
positions (Madsen, 2019). Internal barriers are specific to individual women, such as confidence,
ambition, or motivation (Madsen, 2019). External barriers are those related to the organization,
such as processes, systems, and unconscious biases (Madsen, 2019). Leaders and organizations
can take numerous approaches to address both internal and external barriers at work to achieve
gender parity in leadership roles. For instance, organizations can help combat internal barriers to
leadership for women by creating opportunities for women to champion a cause within the
institution, reframing leadership opportunities as a way to make a positive difference, or helping

28
women to identify their strengths (Madsen, 2019).
This review of literature presented research on the representation of women in higher
education, the benefits of achieving gender parity, gender bias, and HR’s organizational
influence in achieving gender parity in higher education leadership. Using Clark and Estes's
(2008) gap analysis framework, the review discussed the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational barriers that impact the ability of institutions of higher education to promote
women in positions of influence. The following sections discuss the gap analysis framework in
more detail.
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
The following review of Clark and Estes's (2008) knowledge, motivation, and
organizational framework and its influence on the decision making of HR personnel at SSU
provide insights into how they can achieve their stakeholder performance goal. The stakeholder
goal states that HR personnel will implement hiring practices and strategies to increase the
percentage of women in middle management and leadership pipeline positions by 2023. Clark
and Estes (2008) identify three primary causes of performance gaps in organizations. First, there
may be a lack of knowledge or skills required to accomplish the organizational goals. Second,
employees and stakeholders may lack the motivation or conviction to change or facilitate change.
Finally, organizational barriers make the goal of achieving gender equity in leadership roles
difficult (Clark & Estes, 2008). If management provides employees with the required knowledge
and clarity on the abilities necessary to obtain open roles, the barriers to promoting gender parity
in leadership and creating a pipeline to leadership roles would be vigorously combated.

29
Knowledge Influences
Rueda (2011) and Krathwohl (2002) discuss cognitive approaches to learning and
identify knowledge types (factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive) that can be used to
improve learning. In the process of examining and ascertaining gaps in stakeholder knowledge
influences, it is important to identify the pertinent facts, concepts, procedures, and strategies that
are integral to learning (Mayer, 2011). For the primary SSU stakeholder, HR, and the associated
stakeholder goal, the knowledge influences are related to examining personnel processes and
hiring, promotion, and evaluation practices.
Factual knowledge is fundamental or basic knowledge that is relevant or necessary to
provide context to a situation or to solve problems (Rueda, 2011). Factual knowledge includes
industry-specific vocabulary or procedures and discipline-related foundational information
(Rueda, 2011). Conceptual knowledge is the deeper understanding of factual knowledge and
informs the interrelationships between the various types of factual knowledge. Conceptual
knowledge includes the different models, theories, and categories that are necessary to grasp the
bigger picture and see how factual knowledge works together (Rueda, 2011). The third
knowledge type outlined by Rueda (2011) is procedural knowledge. Procedural knowledge is
knowing how to apply knowledge; this includes the techniques and methods used to determine
how to do something (Rueda, 2011). Finally, metacognition knowledge is the ability and self-
awareness of an individual to reflect and examine situations. Metacognition is an important
addition to Krathwohl’s (2002) work because it provides an opportunity for the reflection of
oneself and of the processes and organizations that lead to change. Using the lens of the Clark
and Estes (2008) gap analysis and considering the various knowledge influences identified
through literature reviewed, it is possible to ascertain if there are any deficiencies in HR

30
personnel’s knowledge or motivation.
Factual: Knowledge of Organizational Goals
Factual knowledge is isolated information specific to a context (Krathwohl, 2002). The
SSU campus needs to know the organizational goals regarding diversity, knowledge of the value
of diversity, and the role they play in the SSU strategic plan. These basic elements support the
goal of increased diversity at SSU and include factual knowledge such as terminology and
university processes that all employees need to know to set the stage for future or improved
initiatives.
SSU has worked to facilitate a more equitable environment for would-be female leaders
to obtain positions of authority, including developing strategic diversity plans and supporting
state or national initiatives to promote women. However, these actions are made by a few
individuals at the highest levels of administration or by small committees. No visible effort was
made public to integrate these initiatives into campus procedures via training, communication, or
policy.
The greater the number of individuals at SSU that know the goal of the university to
promote diversity, the more likely the university will be successful in meeting its organizational
goals. They also need to understand the purpose of those goals and the value of working toward
diversity, inclusion, and equity. In addition, it is imperative that HR personnel be familiar with
the existing infrastructure of the university that supports diversity and gender equity. These may
include programs, policies, or processes. In order to achieve the organizational goal, the mission
and the vision need to be communicated to all employees, and management must hold decision-
makers accountable to ensure that decisions are aligned with these goals and policies are
compatible with the stated mission (Taiwo et al., 2016). An increasing HR responsibility is

31
leading employee communication (Turner, 2003).
Procedural: Manager Training and HR Best Practices
Procedural knowledge is the information needed to complete a task that includes process,
principles, structure, techniques, and methods to execute successfully (Krathwohl, 2002).
Procedural knowledge is also understanding the implications of any actions taken (Krathwohl,
2002). There are two areas of procedural knowledge that are integral to the ability of SSU’s HR
to achieve its stakeholder goal. HR personnel need to be aware of and understand the best
practices for ethical and unbiased hiring, evaluation, promotion, and compensation (Dessler,
2018). Additionally, HR needs to understand how to integrate these into the campus culture in
order for the organization to be positioned to hold accountable those who do not uphold the
values of the organization or do not align their actions with the stated mission and vision (Thistle
& Molinaro, 2016). HR’s understanding of the processes and principles that influence and
develop an organizational culture that promotes fairness in recruitment, selection, promotion, and
evaluation is imperative for the achievement of the organizational goal.
The HR office is the cornerstone of organizations and is instrumental in providing legal,
developmental, safety, employee benefits, and wellness support (Dessler, 2018). HR influences
organizational culture and plays a strategic role in personnel management (Lau & Ngo, 2004).
HR also needs to be responsible for creating and administering training across campus and
tracking successful completion of training by designated employees. Supervisors need to be
asked to submit hiring rubrics and scores for promotions and new hires. In addition, instituting
oversight of HR-related activities for both the HR office and personnel managers will not only
help with accountability but improve opportunities for equity (Simmons, 2003).

32
Metacognitive: The Role of Implicit Bias in Decision Making
Metacognitive knowledge is an individual’s reflection on and evaluation of strengths and
weaknesses (Krathwohl, 2002). Reflection includes assessing the demands of a task or project,
planning an approach, and monitoring progress (Krathwohl, 2002). In the case of SSU,
employees need to understand how their own implicit biases affect their decision making. To
assess this knowledge, HR personnel need to reflect on their own biases, complete bias
inventories routinely, and build organizational policies and practices that reduce opportunities for
bias (Women in the Workplace 2019, 2019).
The procedural, declarative, and metacognitive SSU HR knowledge influences are
outlined in Table 2. Table 2 also classifies the three knowledge influences by knowledge type
and the methods used to assess the identified influences. It is critical to evaluate each knowledge
influence to identify potential gaps and to provide the most relevant and applicable
recommendations.

33
Table 2
Knowledge Influences
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type Knowledge Influence Assessment
HR personnel need to
understand how to
create equitable
procedures and
policies and training
for evaluations,
promotions,
compensation, and
hiring.
Procedural HR policies establish clear accountability
procedures for campus, managers, and
employees. Oversight of HR-related
activities will ensure managers are held
accountable. HR can synthesize research
and best practices to see how they can be
integrated into campus procedures and to
improve or create new policies and
reduce instances of unfair personnel and
administrative actions. HR and upper
management should stay abreast of
pertinent research and be aware of what
other similar institutions are doing both to
fulfill their goals and to learn what is
working or not working for them.
[Assessment] Accountability. Establish a
panel of stakeholders to conduct an
annual review of a report prepared by HR
of what openings there were, who was
hired, what candidates applied, and how
they were evaluated.

34
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type Knowledge Influence Assessment
HR personnel
knowledge of
organizational goals
and established
infrastructure that
support diversity and
gender equity, the
value diversity and
gender equity, and the
roles of diversity and
gender equity in the
strategic plan.
Declarative (factual) [Assessment through tests and
observations] Organizational mission and
vision should be conveyed to all
employees and all actions aligned with
the associated goals. When employees
understand the goals, their interrelation,
and the underlying value in each, they are
better prepared to work together towards
them.
HR personnel need to
understand the role of
implicit bias in
decision making. HR
will provide training
to university
employees on
-Recruiting
-Hiring and retention
-Evaluations
-Promotions
-Compensation
Metacognitive Managers will be required to complete
comprehensive, research-based, and
interactive training before participating in
the hiring process, evaluations,
promotions, or compensation decisions.
HR will be responsible for creating and
administering training as well as tracking
completion. Supervisors will submit
rubrics and scoring for promotions and
new hires. HR will prescreen candidates
and remove identifiers that could indicate
gender or race.

Motivation Influences
There are three psychological indices of motivation including active choice, persistence,
and mental effort (Clark & Estes, 2008). When an individual begins working toward a goal, that
decision is considered an active choice. Persistence is the individual’s diligence while working

35
toward achieving that goal. Finally, mental effort is the amount and quality of energy and focus
directed toward working toward a goal (Clark & Estes, 2008). A shortage in any one of the three
will hinder an individual, team, or organization in reaching a goal.
There are numerous motivational theories, including self-efficacy, expectancy-value,
emotions, interest, goal orientation, and attributions influencing motivation. The following
discussion will focus on expectancy-value theory and goal orientation of SSU’s HR personnel
(Bandura, 1977; Clark & Estes, 2008). Assessing the motivational influences for SSU’s HR
would provide clarity on the perceived utility value of diversity in leadership roles and their goal
orientation (Clark & Estes, 2008; Mayer, 2011; Rueda, 2011; Yough & Anderman, 2006).
Assessing motivational factors is most effective when it is done as one step in the process of
continuous evaluation. Simply increasing motivation may not automatically solve performance
issues related to the attainment of organizational goals, but it will improve outcomes when other
knowledge or skills gaps or organizational barriers have been addressed (Clark & Estes, 2008).
While knowledge, skills, and abilities are an integral component to the success of SSU in
meeting its goal of gender parity in positions of influence, it is equally important to consider the
motivation of the stakeholders. Without motivation, it is difficult to achieve a goal because
stakeholders and organizations must want to engage in behaviors that bring them closer to goal
attainment (Clark & Estes, 2008; Mayer, 2011; Rueda, 2011). It is important to explore the
motivational influences which affect the achievement of organizational and stakeholder goals.
Motivation can be either intrinsic or extrinsic (Pintrich, 2003). An individual’s genuine interest
produces intrinsic motivation while extrinsic motivation arises from the benefit an individual will
derive from pursuing or achieving the goal (Hulleman et al., 2016; Pintrich, 2003). Finding
interest and identifying value in the stakeholder goal will foster intrinsic motivation in HR

36
personnel.
Expectancy Value Theory: Utility Value
Expectancy value motivational theory asks if an individual can complete the task and if
they want to complete the task (Eccles, 2006). Expectancy is a strong predictor of persistence,
mental effort, and performance, while an individual who finds value in a task is a strong
predictor of active choice (Eccles, 2006). There are four components of task value beliefs:
attainment value, intrinsic value, utility value, and cost belief. Attainment value confirms
whether something is important to one’s self-schema (Eccles, 2006). Intrinsic value is where an
individual derives meaning or enjoyment from a task because of their interest (Eccles, 2006).
Utility value is how the tasks fit into the individual’s plan and its usefulness in meeting future
goals (Eccles, 2006). Finally, cost value is the adverse aspects of engaging in the task, such as
fear of failure or success. It is also the amount of effort needed to be successful and the
opportunity cost that results from making one choice rather than another (Eccles, 2006). HR
personnel who relate the value of the stakeholder and organizational goals to their sense of self
will be more motivated to integrate the goals into their daily efforts and tie their success to
achieving the stakeholder goals.
Grossman and Salas’s (2011) study demonstrates how trainees who perceive the training
as useful are more likely to apply what they have learned and will see improved performance.
Similarly, SSU’s HR and managers need to recognize the value of diverse leadership at all levels
and departments across campus. In other words, they need to identify and share the utility of
diversity and diversity training in the organization in order for stakeholders to be motivated to
take action to ensure decision making aligns with that goal. The more important a task is
perceived to be, the higher its perceived utility, and therefore, the more likely an individual will

37
be in persisting until the goal is attained (Rueda, 2011). Ascertaining the value placed on
diversity and developmental diversity training by stakeholders will facilitate meeting the goal of
gender parity in roles of influence and authority.
Decision Makers’ Goal Orientation
SSU’s HR, campus leaders, and managers should endeavor to go beyond what they
currently do to ensure that they are working toward gender parity in personnel-related decision
making. University leadership, at the highest levels, must address HR-related barriers to diversity
and gender equity (DiTomaso et al., 2007; Stevens et al., 2008). A goal orientation theory
motivational influence is when stakeholder’s goals focus on the mastery of a skill or on learning
instead of doing a task just to avoid looking incompetent or to appear superior to others (Yough
& Anderman, 2006). Dweck and Leggett (1988) describe behavior patterns that are adaptive and
maladaptive regarding goal attainment. Adaptive behaviors, or mastery orientations, display
flexible and dynamic behaviors when faced with challenges and when conducting problem-
solving (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Maladaptive behaviors are oriented on performance that relies
on a fixed level of knowledge and ability and are more likely to avoid challenges and have
barriers hinder their performance (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Adoption of an adaptive behavior
pattern will enable HR to be more effective in the implementation of policies, practices, and
training that will facilitate the achievement of unbiased decision making.
Table 3 shows the motivational influences on HR personnel and the methods to assess
them.

38
Table 3
Motivational Influences
Assumed Motivation Influences Motivational Influence Assessment
Utility Value – HR personnel need to see the
value in having diversity and gender equity in all
echelons of leadership in all departments across
campus.
Interview HR personnel (stakeholder) to
assess their knowledge of the value of
diversity and gender equity.
Interview prompt:
“What do you believe the advantages to
having equal representation of men and
women in all positions of influence are, if
any? What are the disadvantages, if any?”
and “How do you feel, in general, about
diversity and equity initiatives in the
workplace? Why?”
Goal Orientation – HR, campus leaders, and
hiring managers should want to go beyond the
minimum and master necessary skills.
Interview HR personnel (stakeholder) to
assess their motivation to implement
diversity and gender equity initiatives.
Interview prompt:
“What are some of the established
infrastructures that support gender equity on
campus?” and “Do you believe your campus
leadership have the motivation and skills to
effectively promote equity? Why do you
believe this?”

Organizational Influences
The following is a review of organizational influences for the decision-making managers,
including the HR leadership at SSU, which provides insights into how they can achieve their

39
stakeholder performance goal. The stakeholder goal states that HR will implement hiring
practices and strategies to increase the percentage of women in middle management and
leadership pipeline positions by 2022. In order to be effective employees, there needs to be a
culture of trust. Offices working to facilitate changes, the organization and HR office need to
address the resistance to change. Finally, the organization needs to provide a setting for HR that
promotes communication and provide HR with the resources to promote trust. As it applies to the
organizational and stakeholder goals, organizational culture is highly influential on the
stakeholder’s decision making and enactment of HR practices (Stamarski & Son Hing, 2015).
Organizational change is dependent on both cultural models and settings.
Culture is a fundamental part of any organization as it reflects the established norms and
forms the core values of its employees (Erez & Gati, 2004). Within each organization, there is an
established culture with various overlapping cultural models and settings that influence the
invisible and visible events happening within the organization (Shein, 2004). Cultural models are
the normative understandings of the world and encompass the attitudes, beliefs, and values that
underlie an organization and the behavior of those within it (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001).
Often cultural models go unseen or are automatic. Cultural settings are the visible part of
organizational culture and are expressed in the activities, application of resources, or the lack of
resources committed to an activity (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Both cultural settings and
models are specific to the context within the organization (Shein, 2004).
Cultural Model: Trust
SSU is like many universities that embrace shared governance, an environment where
faculty and staff work with administrators to plan and make recommendations (Olson, 2009).
SSU provides employees with opportunities for faculty and staff to have a voice regarding the

40
happenings of the university, and they trust that the organization will accept the faculty’s
professional knowledge and allow for academic freedom. Knowing the cultural elements that are
common to higher education provides an understanding of one of the many layers within the
cultural model that is present at SSU (Kezar, 2011; Shein, 2004). Interpersonal and operational
trust in HR is an integral step in establishing a positive motivational environment and, thus, is a
desirable cultural model to maintain (Clark & Estes, 2008).
HR is a critical function in any organization, and the demands on HR vary depending on
the organization’s mission. The core functions of HR at SSU include staffing, processing
personnel actions, oversight and implementation of compensation, and employee relations.
However, the potential of Strategic HR, HRM, and HRD to benefit the organization by
increasing productivity and positively influencing organizational culture spans a significantly
greater number of functions that are perhaps less well defined, such as training and development,
onboarding, employee wellness, recruiting, assessments, and rewards and recognition (Dessler,
2018; Shein, 2013). The SSU HR office has faced high turnover and understaffing. In addition,
there are few updated HR policies in place. Research by Graham and Tarbell (2006) suggests
that different campus stakeholders emphasize different HR competencies. In organizations that
emphasize trust, management gives more weight to expertise and relationships and leadership
emphasizes results (Graham & Tarbell, 2006). Trust is especially important in relation to the
stakeholder of focus, HR, because HR practices are strong predictors of both organizational
performance and trust (Gould-Williams, 2003). Not only does HR play a significant role in
establishing and maintaining organizational trust, but the results of distrust including reduced
employee productivity, decreased employee morale, and increased employee turnover fall under
the purview of HR (Hitch, 2012). HR must guide efforts to establish and renew trust within

41
organizations (Hitch, 2012). Accountability is an important aspect of trust, and HR needs to
maintain accountability because they are important to the momentum of change (Thistle &
Molinaro, 2016). HR processes can promote social and ethical responsibility, which, in turn,
fosters trust (Lau & Ngo, 2004; Simmons, 2003; Thistle & Molinaro, 2016).
Cultural Model: Resistance to Change
According to Schein (2004), for an organization to effectively change, it needs to modify
its values, beliefs, and rituals. For this reason, it is important to identify the values, beliefs, and
rituals present within an organizational context to actively facilitate change. To complicate the
process of identifying cultural values, there has been a trend toward fewer shared values in
higher education as more people from differing backgrounds join higher education (Kezar,
2011). Resistance to change underlies numerous decisions and actions by mid-level leaders,
especially those that involve deeply rooted values (Del Val & Fuentes, 2003). Resistance to
change is also stronger in change that is precipitated by strategic demands rather than
evolutionary ones (Del Val & Fuentes, 2003). Managers can play a role that is either destructive
or constructive to the change process, and the role they play is tied to the actions and
communication from organizational leadership (Meyer, 2006).
HR professionals, who increasingly serve in the role of change leaders within
organizations, are often some of the first to know about new changes and need to embrace that
change early for it to be successful (Jansen, 2000; Thistle & Molinaro, 2016). As the
organization works to achieve more gender parity representation in leadership, they must
consider the sources of resistance to change and the actions and involvement required by those at
the highest levels (Del Val & Fuentes, 2003; Meyer, 2006). An openness to change away from
the status quo is required in HR and the administration so that appropriate resources can be

42
reallocated, and policies and practices can be effectively implemented. HR’s ability to be open to
change is important because employee behaviors are influenced by HR practices and HR is
positioned to positively improve change outcomes by institutionalizing processes and practices
that support it (Maheshwari & Vohra, 2015).
Cultural Setting: Communication
Clark and Estes (2008) include communication as one of the six types of support
necessary for organizational change. Shein (2004) discusses the need for a system of
communication and explains how most communication breakdowns result from people making
different assumptions. Coordinated communication focused on changing individual employees is
critical in order for change efforts to be successful (Gilley et al., 2009; Larkin & Larkin, 1994).
The most effective messaging to facilitate change in employees is personal communication from
their supervisors (Larkin & Larkin, 1994). For this reason, HR and leadership can help achieve
the organizational and stakeholder goal by communicating the importance of addressing the
problem of underrepresentation of women in developmental roles on campus.
Internal communication is a function of interdisciplinary management involving HR,
administration, and marketing (Verčič et al., 2012). The HR discipline views communication as a
management tool (Fitz-Enz, 1990; Heron, 1942; Lachotzki & Noteboom, 2005). Verčič et al.’s
(2012) study found that respondents agreed that the responsibility for internal communication
should be held between both HR and marketing. HR is a critical change agent and has the
influence to communicate and train managers and employees to help reach the goals of the
organization (Long et al., 2013).

43
Cultural Setting: Cultural Setting: Resource Alignment with Institutional Values
As with communication, Clark and Estes (2008) identified the need for organizations to
provide the knowledge, skills, and motivational support to employees in order to create effective
organizational change. Numerous studies have linked organizational performance and HRD
efforts (Chou & Yoon, 2015; Combs et al., 2006; Katou, 2003; Paul & Anatharaman, 2003).
Research suggests that when HR offices are strategically oriented within an organization, they
are able to increase the return between investments in employee training and organizational
outcomes (Choi & Yoon, 2015). A strong HRM system that is strategically oriented can
contribute to organizational effectiveness and improve organizational performance (Bowen &
Ostroff, 2001; Choi & Yoon, 2015). Moreover, HRM high-performance work practices have also
been shown to positively influence employee outcomes such as turnover and productivity (Batt
& Colvin, 2017; Huselid, 1995; Kehoe & Wright, 2013). Investing in the organization’s human
capital is a worthwhile endeavor that can help meet the stakeholder and organizational goals
(Crook et al., 2011).
Accomplishing HRD and establishing high performance work practices require
allocation of resources to fund and support HRM and HRD training programs. Funding provides
opportunities for professional development in HR and additional staff provides administrative
support for the time-consuming tasks associated with core functions and allows increased time
for the HR to devote to employee development functions. With additional support, HR could
spend significantly more time on providing training and support to supervisors and in drafting
updated policies and procedures.
Table 4 classifies the above-mentioned organizational influences by type.

44
Table 4
Organizational Influences
Assumed Organizational Influences Organizational Influence Assessment
Cultural Model Influence 1
The organization needs to build trust in the
HR office that their practices and policies are
equitable and align with values and strategic
plan of the organization.
Interview to determine the level of
perceived trust and identify reasons
for any lack of trust.
Cultural Model Influence 2
The organization needs to develop an
openness (or transparency) of change from
the HR office, administration, and
supervisors so that policies and best practices
can be effectively implemented.
Interview to determine barriers to
developing transparency.
Cultural Setting Influence 1
The organization needs to be consistent and
improve communication between the HR
office and leadership that focuses on equity
in HR practices and policies.
Interview to identify shortcomings of
communication between
administration and HR and between
HR and the rest of campus.
Cultural Setting Influence 2
The organization needs to align resources
with the goals and mission of the university
to include providing the HR office with
enough employee support to be able do their
jobs and create changes in policies and
practices.
Interview to determine if HR
received adequate resources to
maximize their performance.

45
Conceptual Framework
Conceptual frameworks are the illustration and description of a system’s concepts,
assumptions, expectations, and theories and underlie all research (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam &
Tisdell 2016). They combine thought experiments and personal experiences with theoretical and
empirical research to develop a theory on the how and why of interactions (Maxwell, 2013) The
purpose of this conceptual framework is to analyze the HR’s stakeholder goal as it applies to
gender parity in higher education leadership. In addition, this conceptual framework may be used
to identify the most appropriate research methods and any threats to validity (Maxwell, 2013).
Conceptual frameworks are carefully constructed rather than discovered and thus require
focusing on the relevant research and synthesizing it in the literature review. Each of the
potential influences are presented independently for discussion purposes, but are, in fact,
interrelated and work together to provide the knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers
of the stakeholder.
Figure 1 illustrates the influence of the organization on the knowledge and motivation of
the stakeholder. The organizational context is the largest area because it is what all influences
operate within.

46
Figure 1
Conceptual Framework: Gender Parity in Higher Education Leadership

The knowledge and motivation influences are nested within the organizational context
because they are directly influenced by the SSU cultural context. SSU’s HR stakeholder goal is
connected to the organizational context, associated knowledge, and motivation influences, but
has not been fully integrated into the culture. Examining the organizational, knowledge, and
motivational gaps and how they interact with one another provides the necessary information to

47
address institutional barriers and help achieve the stakeholder goal. Figure 1 depicts the
organizational context of the organization with the key cultural influences being trust, openness
to change, communication, and resources. In addition, it describes the knowledge influences of
procedural, metacognitive, and declarative as they interact and work within the cultural context
of the institution. Figure 1 includes the motivational influences of utility value and goal
orientation as a critical piece of the conceptual framework.
There are numerous knowledge influences, motivation influences, and organizational
barriers to consider when looking at this problem. The HR office influences personnel related
policies and procedures including hiring, evaluations, training, and compensation and is the
primary stakeholder in this conceptual framework.
Qualitative Data Collection and Instrumentation
The researcher served as the primary research investigator for this qualitative study.
Interviews were used as the main instrument to provide the researcher with data on the
perspectives of participants, allowing for the most appropriate and relevant recommendations to
be crafted (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Interviews of HR personnel provided perceptions of the
role and influence of HR in furthering diversity and gender equity initiatives and goals on
campus and assess their knowledge and motivation, as well as identify organizational barriers.
Using semi-structured interviews and careful analysis of personnel data and university
documents and artifacts provided an opportunity to assure validity by obtaining comparable data
(Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Maxwell, 2013). Document reviews assisted with a better
understanding of organizational culture and knowledge. Documents such as university policies,
handbooks, and strategic plans were public and accessible. Documents and artifacts provided the
researcher with potential areas for further study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).

48
When conducting the qualitative research, it is important to achieve a typical
representation of the setting and individuals that can provide the most relevant data (Maxwell,
2013). This study was conducted with voluntary individual interviews of employees of the HR
department at SSU (eight interviews). The aim of the qualitative interviews was to help evaluate
the knowledge and motivation of the HR department to help ascertain their knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences. Table 5 summarizes the sampling strategy and target
stakeholder for the data collection methods employed in this study.
Table 5
Data Collection Methods and Sampling Strategy
Data Collection
Method
Sampling
Strategy
Number of
Stakeholders in
Population
Target Sample
Size
Data
Collection
Timeline
Interviews Purposeful ~12 10 Jul-Oct 20
Documents Purposeful N/A N/A Jul-Mar 21

Interviews
This research utilized semi-structured interviews, since semi-structured interviews
provide some flexibility with the questions and allow for a mix of structured and unstructured
questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The questions were predetermined as with a structured
interview; however, the interviewer asked follow-up questions or other questions depending on
the situation and experiences of the interviewee. The interview questions were crafted to obtain
information related to stakeholder knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences in mind.
The focus of the questions from the interviews was on the stakeholder motivation, including
utility value and goal orientation, their declarative, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge

49
influences, and the cultural model and setting influences. The conceptual framework for the
research highlights the cultural setting influence of communication and resources and the cultural
model influence of trust and openness to change.
Interview Procedures
HR personnel were accessible during the planned months of July through October of
2020. Documentation reviews were conducted during and after interviews to provide an
opportunity to compare the data and provide ample time for data analysis. Individual interviews
were conducted with all HR participants on a voluntary basis. HR personnel are familiar with the
human resources systems, human resources development, and laws requiring equitable human
resources practices. Full-time HR staff were emailed regarding the opportunity to participate in
the research using the contact information provided on the university website. The voluntary
interviews were conducted on the campus of the university in a location convenient to the
interviewees such as the HR conference room. The researcher was unable to conduct in-person
interviews and used digital meeting software at a convenient time for the interviewees. The total
interview time averaged 1 hour. The interviews were recorded, transcripts produced, and
associated handwritten notes from the discussions included as more information related to the
interaction was better for conducting the analysis.
Documents and Artifacts
The researcher analyzed publicly accessible university policies and procedures, strategic
plans, and handbooks to ascertain context and understanding of the process of hiring, promotion,
and other HR or personnel-related activities. The university policies dictate acceptable
managerial behaviors, and common practices and procedures elucidate the typical behaviors of
managers, commonly held beliefs, and guidance provided by the HR support staff. The

50
researcher also examined current, publicly-available staffing data including gender, position title,
year started, past university awards, and compensation data to identify trends.
Data Analysis
Data analysis began during data collection. Thoughts, concerns, and initial conclusions
about the data in relation to the conceptual framework and research questions were documented.
The interviews were transcribed and coded. The first phase of analysis involved open coding,
looking for empirical codes, and applying a priori codes from the conceptual framework. A
second phase of analysis was conducted where empirical and a priori codes were aggregated into
analytic and axial codes. The third phase of data analysis incorporated pattern codes and themes
that emerged in relation to the conceptual framework and study questions identified. Finally,
analysis of documents and artifacts was conducted in relation to the concepts in the conceptual
framework.
Limitations and Delimitations
Some limitations of this study are various threats to validity such as truthfulness of
respondents from the method of the study and the data collection process. The qualitative method
of this study is a possible limitation because respondents could choose to answer in a way that
would be considered socially acceptable and could be biased according to what they were
expected to say. The researcher conducted interviews with a small group of individuals who
were colleagues in HR and may have shaped their answers based on their relationship. The
delimitations of this research include focusing on the domain of HR during the study. This
delimitation may have made it difficult to generalize the results as they relate to achieving
gender parity in leadership positions.
The recruiting, sampling, and data collection for this research were conducted during the

51
height of the COVID-19 pandemic. The unique circumstances created by the pandemic limited
the researcher to virtual interviews only and hindered recruitment and interaction with other
campuses that may have yielded more participants. In addition, the pandemic introduced new
challenges for HR that were discussed during the interview and may have effectuated different
answers to questions.
Results and Findings
This improvement study sought to identify the HR personnel skills, knowledge, and
motivation required to facilitate achieving the goal of increasing women in leadership positions.
Additionally, this study explores the organizational barriers that hinder HR personnel from
working to increase female representation and retention in positions of leadership. This chapter
addresses the findings detailing the extent to which SSU was meeting its goal of increasing
women in leadership roles, providing a pathway for professional development and for future
promotions. The plan of this study utilized a gap analysis framework with a qualitative methods
design. The research questions are as follows:
1. To what extent is SSU meeting its goal of increasing women in leadership roles,
developmental roles, and positions in line for future promotions?
2. What are the human resources knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
associated with SSU meeting its organizational goal?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources?
Participating Stakeholders
Seven participants were interviewed for this study. Six SSU full-time HR department
staff and one HR professional in an auxiliary campus department agreed to participate. One HR

52
professional in a different auxiliary campus department did not respond to requests for an
interview. Of the seven participants, two were female, and five were male. Four participants
were in supervisory roles, and three had no supervisory responsibilities. All participants were
White, and all participants had experience in the HR field ranging from seven months to 30 years
with an average of 13 years of experience. However, only two participants had worked at SSU
for more than three years, and three of the employees were in their second positions within the
HR office due to promotion or position restructuring. In an effort to maintain anonymity,
participants were randomly assigned a unique number. Table 6 provides data on the participants’
gender, time in their current HR position, total time working in any HR capacity, and if they
supervise a full time HR employee.
Table 6
Stakeholder Participants
ID Gender
Time in
Current Position
Total Full-time
HR Experience
Full-time
Employee Manager
I Male 8 months 1 year, 10 months Y
II Male 8 months 2 years N
III Male 7 months 7 months N
IV Female 2 years, 2 months 18 years N
V Female 1 year 22 years Y
VI Male 25 years 30 years Y
VII Male 4 years, 6 months 29 years Y

A 24-question interview was conducted with each participant to gather data on the
research questions. Data collection for this study took place virtually over a two-week period.
The participant response rate was 88% with eight potential participants being contacted via email
and seven responding with their willingness to be interviewed. Six of the seven interviews were
conducted using the virtual meeting platform Zoom, and one was conducted using the virtual

53
meeting platform Google Meet. The duration of the interviews ranged from 45-90 minutes.
Findings
The presentation of findings has been organized by the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences outlined in the conceptual framework. All findings are linked back to
the research questions. The findings for this study are based on analysis of SSU’s HR personnel
interviews and SSU documents and artifacts.
In the presentation of the data, gaps were invalidated when less than 57% of the
participants (or four out of seven) did not confirm the assumed influence. A gap was neither
validated nor invalidated when 71% of participants' responses (or five out of seven) did not
confirm the assumed influence. A gap was confirmed with a response rate of 86% or more (or six
out of seven participants), and areas are identified for amelioration. When gaps are invalidated,
there may still be need for improvement, but focus is given to assumed influences where gaps are
clearly identified. Instances where assumed influence gaps are neither validated or invalidated
indicate areas for further research.
Knowledge Influences
Multiple interview questions were crafted to measure the knowledge influence of
participants' understanding of equity, unconscious bias, established infrastructure, and
organizational goals related to gender equity and diversity. There were also interview questions
regarding what diversity and gender equity training the participants had attended and which
specific campus department should be responsible for training campus personnel on diversity and
equity. Responses from the participants revealed that there was a relatively clear comprehension
of the definition and recognition of organizational benefits of diversity and gender equity, and
the importance of being cognizant of unconscious bias in decision making. Responses were

54
mixed on training and the appropriate source of diversity initiatives and training on campus.
Table 7 identifies the assumed knowledge influences and if a gap was validated,
invalidated or undetermined.
Table 7
Determination of Knowledge Influences
Assumed Knowledge Influences Gap Validated, Invalidated, or
Undetermined
HR personnel’s’ knowledge of organizational goals
and established infrastructure that support diversity
and gender equity, the value diversity and gender
equity and the role diversity and gender equity in the
strategic plan.
Diversity- Invalidated
Gender Equity- Validated
HR Personnel conveyed knowledge of
general organizational diversity values
and goals but were unable to identify
any related to gender equity.
HR personnel need to understand how to create
equitable procedures and policies and training for
evaluations, promotions, compensation, and hiring.
Gap Undetermined. HR Personnel
attended training and some
communicated knowledge of best
practices.
HR personnel need to understand the role of implicit
bias in decision making.
Gap Invalidated. HR personnel clearly
understood the role of implicit bias in
decision making.

Declarative Knowledge
HR personnel need to know the organizational goals and values regarding diversity, gender
equity, its value and its role in the strategic plan.
Establishing a shared understanding of the term equity between the researcher and the
participants was an important initial step in the interviews. Each participant was asked to
describe their understanding of the term equity. For this research equity is defined as the quality

55
of being fair and equitable (Dittrich & Carrell, 1979). All but one of the participants’ responses
aligned with the definition of equity used as the basis for this study.
Table 8 describes the terms used by participants to define or describe equity.
Table 8
Terms Used During Interviews to Define Equity
Terms ID
Fair Treatment I, V, VI
Judgment (based on position, skills/abilities, or performance) I, III, V, VII
Equal Opportunity II
Special Attention to Individual Needs IV

Knowledge of Diversity Goals and Values. The results of the assumed declarative
knowledge influence were mixed. HR personnel at SSU stated limited understanding of the
university’s diversity values and goals. However, they were unable to recount or express any of
the institution’s values or goals related gender equity. When asked, the interviewees felt that the
university President demonstrated his commitment to diversity and gender equity by taking
public actions that supported diversity efforts and by hiring women into positions of influence.
For instance, when asked about established infrastructure at the university that supports gender
equity on campus, participant VII said he believes that “at the top level of leadership” the
president “has done a very good job of actively promoting and recruiting women.” When
referring to the newly created committee to help rehire and reevaluate the Chief Diversity Officer
(CDO) position, participant V stated:
I really applaud the administration, especially the President for realizing, even though he
didn’t necessarily vocalize anything that it was a loss that [the CDO] left. You know,
whether anybody appreciated her work or not or whatever. It’s a loss that she departed,

56
and that program now no longer had a leader. And so, I applaud him for putting together
a committee on it.
Similarly, participant VI expressed that diversity and gender equity are “important to
administration and I know the President feels that it’s very important too and you can see the
steps that he’s taken in appointing individuals.” Participant VII said, “I do believe that this
President is serious about representation, especially when it comes to the male, female balance…
But honestly, I have not seen something that said, ‘This is the mission when it comes to
diversity.’” However, several respondents were unable to specifically identify or articulate any
organizational goals or values related to gender equity and neither were they able to correctly
point to where the goals and values were written. Table 9 lists the methods and resources that the
interviewees believe the university uses to work toward its diversity goals. Hiring procedures
were mentioned or discussed the most frequently by participants. The Legal Office, Title IX, and
specific actions by the University President were both mentioned by two participants while the
strategic planning process, campus professional development opportunities, and proactively
addressing discrepancies in pay were each mentioned by one participant.
Table 9
The Methods and Resources the University Uses to Work towards Diversity Goals
Ways that the university working toward diversity goals and values ID
Hiring procedures I, III, IV, V, VI, VII
Strategic planning process VI
Campus professional development opportunities VI
Legal Office/Title IX V, VI
Specific actions by the University President IV, VII
Proactively address discrepancies in pay II

57
Interviewees broadly described the university’s diversity goals and values in vague and
general terms but could not articulate knowledge of any specific component. However, each
interviewee expressed a strong belief that campus supports diversity. Participant IV stated, “I
know that [diversity] is a key part of our strategic plan. It’s in every paragraph and every bullet
point of the mission and vision statement. We want to be seen as diverse and equitable.” Neither
the SSU mission statement nor the vision statement mentions diversity or equity as participant IV
believed. Two out of 30 total objectives in the current SSU strategic plan related to inclusion
have an indicator of the achievement of increasing the numbers of faculty and staff from
underrepresented populations. There is no mention of diversity as it relates to faculty or staff in
the current SSU strategic plan. SSU does have a 2019 Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Strategic
Plan that was developed by the Diversity and Inclusion Department that was mentioned by
participant VI. This document, as well as an extensive set of guidelines for inclusive recruiting
practices that was developed by the same office, is available on the SSU Diversity and Inclusion
Department website. Both appear to be comprehensive resources, according to the website, and
were created by the Chief Diversity Officer, the Diversity and Inclusion Department, and a
campus-wide Diversity Strategic Planning Committee. Only participant VI mentioned the
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Strategic Plan and how the CDO collaborated with a “campus-
wide committee” to develop it. He noted that it “was very positive that we not just settle for one
or two paragraphs or a brief mention within the overall strategic plan for the university but that
we actually take it several steps further and actually have a more detailed plan.” Participant IV,
quoted earlier, mentioned diversity and equity as a key part of every part of the strategic plan and
may have been referring to the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Strategic Plan rather than the
university’s primary strategic plan. None of the participants mentioned the hiring guidelines or

58
resources available on the Diversity and Inclusion Department’s website as an available
resource. However, each of them did mention the Diversity and Inclusion office as a general
resource.
The 2019 Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Strategic Plan names the SSU HR office as the
responsible or partially responsible party for 11 initiatives and names HR as at least partially
responsible in every major objective. The Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Strategic Plan
discusses themes such as campus climate, accountability, recruitment, retention, education, and
awareness. The Diversity and Inclusion Department’s hiring guidelines provides instructions and
recommendations for search committees, recruitment, screening applicant pools, interviews, and
making a hiring selection. The stated purpose of the hiring guidelines document is to be a
comprehensive tool to aid SSU in hiring a more diverse workforce. While hiring at SSU falls
under the purview of the HR office, this resource does not appear to be referenced to or linked to
from the SSU HR website. Each HR interviewee mentioned hiring at some point and, in some
cases, numerous times during their interview, as the vehicle by which the HR office is working
to increase diversity and equity on campus. For instance, participant II responded, “We have
wording in all of our hiring documents to support equity and diversity and we strongly suggest
diverse applicants apply.” While the hiring guidelines document mentions HR throughout the
document, it is unknown if HR was a collaborative partner in its creation. Also, none of the
interviewees mentioned or discussed the Diversity and Inclusion’s hiring guidelines document as
a resource in their interview. The Strategic Plan Committee Members as listed on the SSU
website did not include an HR representative as a member. This disconnect between the SSU
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Strategic Planning Committee and the SSU HR office is a topic
that would benefit from future discussion and investigation.

59
The newly created position of CDO was mentioned by all but one of the participants as
an example of the efforts by leadership to pursue diversity on campus. Participants I, V, and VI
discussed HR leading efforts to hire a new CDO, which was occurring at the time of the
interviews. Participant I expressed his belief that the CDO would help build campus diversity
and create diversity initiatives. He stated, “At least in word we’ve been really pushing for more
diversity, in general, and with our CDO and trying to find one that's really going to fit our
campus and will really help to build [diversity] as well.”
Knowledge of Gender Equity Goals and Values. Findings around participant
knowledge of university goals and values related to gender equity differed from those of
diversity. No participant was able to point to or describe any gender-specific university goals or
values. They were also unable to pinpoint where anything was written to support gender equity.
Participant I stated, “I will be honest in saying, I don't know, specifically on gender equity, what
our current mission is or desire is on that. I think we have focused a lot more on general
diversity, more than anything specific at all.” Participant V said, “I don't really hear a whole lot
about gender. I hear more about diversity in general,” but qualified her response by saying that
she believed there is a positive mindset toward gender equity. She also stated, “I have been here
a year and I hear talk about diversity and inclusion, but up to this point I really haven’t seen a lot
of development in that area. I just heard chatter. So, I think [diversity initiatives on campus] are
weak at best.” Participant I expressed a similar sentiment, “I think we have focused a lot more on
general diversity, more than anything specific.” When asked about established infrastructure at
the university that supports gender equity on campus, participant VI said that the topic is
important to faculty and staff organizations and that these “topics and issues” are “also important
to administration and the president.” The actions by the President that were mentioned by

60
participants included creating a Chief Diversity Officer position, being supportive of attempts to
address gender wage gaps for campus positions, supporting the recent creation of a campus
leadership academy, offering leadership training, hiring a woman into a highly-visible and
almost historically exclusively-male role in one instance, and supporting diversity, in general.
Six of seven interviewees conveyed that they believed the leadership was committed to gender
equity even though they had not heard or seen anything aside from specific actions taken by the
university President.
Interviewees named a variety of policies, departments, and processes on campus that
support equity and diversity. Numerous campus offices were identified including the campus
women’s organization, the legal office, Title IX office, the CDO position, campus leadership,
and pockets of champions. Participant V described champions as professional women leaders
that show others that they are competent and are a “great example that you can promote women
and they will be able to take care of business.” All but one participant mentioned some type of
legal repercussion for blatant gender-based biases in the workforce. The Government Records
Access and Management Act (GRAMA) requests are a resource if there are concerns regarding
how a search is executed. Title IX makes sexual discrimination in higher education illegal, but it
has an arguably narrow purview. Finally, affirmative action is addressed by both a federal and
state law at SSU. It is also the primary topic of two university policies and mentioned in two
other university policies. Only one participant, the newest and least experienced employee,
mentioned either this law or the university policy as an infrastructure that supports gender equity
at SSU. In fact, the affirmative action policy at SSU hasn’t been updated since the late 1990s and
does not appear to be actively used. The objective of the SSU affirmative action policy is to
create a workforce across all levels of employment and all departments that reflects the

61
availability of women and minorities available within the appropriate labor market. The policy
prescribes dozens of hiring, retention, training, and reporting activities aimed at increasing the
representation of women and minorities at SSU and is the single most definitive guiding
diversity and equity document.
Table 10 outlines the university policies, procedures, or other supporting infrastructure
identified by participates as promoting gender equity.
Table 10
Identified infrastructure that supports gender equity
Campus policies, procedures, or other infrastructure supporting
gender equity ID
Campus women's organization I
Leadership support/Champions I, V, VI
Legal Office/Title IX I, III, IV, V
Hiring procedures II, IV, V
Proactively address discrepancies I, II, III, IV
Affirmative action, GRAMA III, V
Training VI
University policies III, VI, VII
CDO Position I, II, IV, V, VI, VII
Diversity and Equity Department I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII

The gap of HR personnel’s knowledge of organizational goals and values regarding
diversity, its value, and its role in the strategic plan is invalidated. HR personnel conveyed
knowledge of general organizational diversity values and goals. The gap in HR personnel’s’
knowledge of organizational goals and values regarding diversity, its value, and its role in the
strategic plan is validated. No participants were able to express what the university’s goals and
values were specific to gender equity or its role in the university’s strategic plan.

62
Procedural Knowledge
HR personnel need to understand how to create equitable procedures and policies and
training for evaluations, promotions, compensation, and hiring.
Participants in this study were asked what diversity and unconscious bias training they
had attended, the duration of that training, whether the training was mandatory, and what
additional training on these topics was available to campus supervisors. These questions aimed to
determine if HR personnel have the knowledge needed to create personnel policies and
procedures that reduce opportunities to insert unconscious bias and increase equitable outcomes.
Every participant interviewed had participated in some type of diversity or unconscious bias
training. Six of the seven participants had attended more than one training in the last two years.
Participants I, II, III, IV, V, and VI answered that there was no mandatory training required for
their employment, but attendance was encouraged. Participant VII said there had been one
training three years ago that he believed was mandatory. While no HR staff were required to
attend training on unconscious bias or diversity, each had had the opportunity to participate in
some type of training from various sources at varying times and for varying durations. Table 11
describes the training that each study participant indicated they attended. Table 11 also shows
whether the participant specifically attended any unconscious bias training and whether the
training they attended increased or decreased their interest in promoting diversity and equity at
SSU. It is important to note that diversity or unconscious bias only constituted a small portion of
some of the trainings discussed. Only two of the participants, VI and VII, noted that they
attended training exclusively on unconscious bias training.

63
Table 11
Duration and Source of Participant Training Attendance, Unconscious Bias Training, and if the
Trainings Attended Increased or Decreased Interest in Promoting Diversity and Equity
ID
Duration of most
recently attended
Training Training Offered by
Unconscious Bias
Training?
Increased or
Decreased
Interest?
I 1 Hour Retirement Company Y
Increased and
Decreased
II 0 - Y Increased
III 2 Hours
Higher Education HR
Professional Organization Y
Neither Increased
or Decreased
IV 2 Hours Leadership Program Y Increased
V 20 minutes Title IX Y Increased
VI 1 Hour Retirement Company Y Increased
VII 2 Hours Title IX N
Neither Increased
or Decreased

The researcher asked the participants about integrating best practices and improving HR
processes and training to maximize the university’s ability to achieve its equity related goals. All
seven of the participants agreed that were HR to fully integrate best practices, the influence on
the organization’s diversity and equity goals would be immense. Having the funds and time to
actively recruit and bring diverse candidates to campus was mentioned by participant III and
having a better system for collecting data was mentioned by participant II. Participant V
discussed the ability to more effectively use data to identify areas that need to be addressed and
benchmark progress. Along with additional resources, participant VI mentioned that campus
managers could be provided more “opportunities to access information, whether it be in
trainings, whether it be online YouTube videos, whether it be frequently asked questions on your
website, or just-in-time training.” Three participants mentioned an HR representative serving on

64
hiring committees. Participant I said, “Here in HR we’re working with a couple of companies to
see how we can potentially improve our postings, to be more directed towards diverse candidates
and help with updating our job postings, our job descriptions so that they include wording that
will hopefully help to attract more diversity.”
Participant IV observed the cost of not addressing diversity and equity at the university
could be a consideration. She said, “If you care about money, you have to care about diversity
and equity,” and she explained that if you don’t teach it, you will eventually have to fight it in
court and the cost to the organization would be very high. She went on to say, “If I had time to
teach [employees] compliance, I wouldn’t have to take the time to litigate or mediate. If I could
teach them how to treat each other, I would save all of the other time on the back end.”
Participant VI expressed a similar idea when discussing loss of trust: “You know there are
investigations that then happen and obviously, that’s not what we want. We want to be able to
resolve the situation. We want to be preemptive and avoid the situation by educating and training
and developing our supervisors and our leadership team.” From their perspective, integrating
best practices—in this case, training—would benefit the organization by saving them from
having to address legal complaints.
During the course of their interview, each participant recounted some human resources
best practices, such as reducing opportunities for bias in hiring or compensation through training,
forms, or audits. Most of the best practices revolved around recruiting and hiring, compensation,
and training (e.g., removing names from applications and addressing pay inequities) and were
ones they hoped to implement or believed that if implemented would help foster diversity and
gender equity. Participants II and V were the only interviewees to discuss how to use data to
identify opportunities to improve diversity and equity efforts. Participant V specifically

65
addressed promotions:
You could look at promotion data. And the hiring data and the compensation data and see
of the pool of people who do apply, how many were men? How many were women? You
could do this for each role and see how many women were actually hired into those jobs
versus men. You can see who was promoted versus a man.
Participant V continued discussing the use of data around how to analyze basic demographic
information, where on the pay scale men and women are hired at, who received off-cycle raises,
and many other ways to explore and develop meaning from personnel data. Participant V ends
her enumeration by saying, “I’ve seen enough to make me scratch my head.”
Currently, aside from Title IX and sexual harassment compliance training, there is no
campus training offered by the HR office on diversity, equity, or unconscious bias; and there is
no mandatory training for campus employees from any office on these topics. There are,
however, components of hiring committee training that include information on Equal
Employment Opportunity (EEO) requirements. There were mixed responses from participants on
whether hiring committee training is mandatory. SSU HR offers limited, inconsistent, or no
training for evaluations, promotions, compensation, and hiring decisions. The lack of support for
HR proactiveness, which will be discussed later, may account for the lack of training rather than
any inability to create it.
According to participants V and VI, SSU HR takes an active role in the campus policy
revision process and is responsible for facilitating employee related policy updates. Currently,
aside from the SSU affirmative action policy, there appears to be only one SSU employee policy
that mentions diversity. That policy states that the university encourages hiring practices that
increase faculty diversity. The faculty and staff hiring policies state that candidates cannot be

66
discriminated against based on race, color, religion, gender, and several other criteria. Women
employees are mentioned in four personnel policies including the university’s affirmative action,
sexual misconduct, sexual harassment, staff hiring, and classified staff policies. The lack of
support for gender equity within campus policies does not necessarily indicate that the SSU HR
personnel are unable to articulate or integrate concepts that would promote diversity efforts.
The procedural knowledge gap of how to create equitable procedures and policies and
training for evaluations, promotions, compensation, and hiring is undetermined. Each of the HR
personnel interviewed had some level of knowledge on diversity and unconscious bias and
communicated at least some understanding of best practices. However, it is unclear if the
majority of the interviewees would be able to convert this knowledge into widespread practice.
Examples of compensation analysis to confront pay inequities and hiring committee training
were the only compelling evidence of the procedural knowledge in action.
Metacognitive Knowledge
HR personnel need to understand the role of implicit bias in decision making.
For this study, the researcher defined unconscious bias, also referred to as implicit bias,
as the social stereotypes about certain groups of people that individuals form outside their own
conscious awareness (Williams, 2014). All of the participants were able to describe one or more
aspects of unconscious bias. Table 12 describes the terms used by participants to describe the
term unconscious bias.

67
Table 12
Terms Used During Interviews to Describe Unconscious Bias
Terms ID
Bias that is unknown to the individual I, V
Natural tendency toward what one is familiar with II, III, IV, V, VI, VII
Only wrong if you act on it III, IV
Lack of awareness hinders equity VI

Interestingly, six participants described unconscious bias as the tendency to gravitate
toward people and ideas that one is familiar with. Participant II defined unconscious bias as “the
natural tendency to... choose things that are close to what you believe or what you relate with as
opposed to something that’s different or outside of your normal,'' while participant III said, “And
so I think a lot of people have biases in certain aspects, not because they're choosing to be biased
towards something, but because they themselves just naturally think that way.” Participant VI
shared the view that
One of the challenges that we face is that oftentimes when we’re in a hiring situation and
this is something we routinely train search committees on campus here for faculty and
staff openings, is that the tendency, unfortunately, is to hire people that are like us, that
you know we know just that’s kind of our tendency. We’re a little more comfortable.
A similar sentiment was recounted by participant IV. Participant VII described unconscious bias
as “All of us have some sort of preconceived idea. And unfortunately, they usually result in bias
for things, for people that look like we do” and “...leaders usually choose those that look like
themselves for roles.” Additionally, participant IV observed, “I don’t think any department
should go out and do any recruiting because that’s how you get the tap on the shoulder of, you
know, the whole birds of a feather doctrine. You know, we like people that are like us so White

68
men are gonna like White men.” Several of the participants later brought up cultural and
religious barriers and the equity-impeding inclination to choose what is known and familiar to
individuals. The unconscious bias-based barrier is discussed in more detail in a subsequent
section.
Participants III, IV, and VI shared similar descriptions of unconscious bias expressing
that it is only harmful when it is acted upon and when it is unidentified by the individual.
Participant VI explained unconscious bias this way: “The challenge we face as human beings is
that we have these biases, and they can get in the way of equity. And I think the more that we
talk about it, the more we learn about it, the more we discuss it, we can take steps to eliminate
and reduce it.” Unconscious bias can cause the most harm when it goes unacknowledged and
unchallenged and each of the participants had a clear understanding of the term and how it can
influence decision making.
In an effort to determine if interviewees could identify unconscious bias in decision
making, they were asked if campus managers make fair and impartial gender-related personnel
decisions and how was that evident to them. Participant I responded, “My most recent
experiences tell me not exactly, but it's mostly been due to compensation issues. I think
compensation is a little easier to identify.” Participant VI’s response to the same question
contradicted participant I’s: “I think our analysis of the gender equity pay for our campus is an
example and proves that [campus managers] are making these decisions in a fair way. Do we get
it right all the time? No.” As the longest-serving employee, participant VI had a more historical
perspective of this issue. Participant IV stated, “I believe we hire our five best friends and if the
best friends are all boys we’re going to hire a boy. Right? So, I think if we reach beyond our
immediate circles, we would do a better job.” She went on to share an example of how small the

69
hiring circle can be with an example of the recent hires within the SSU HR office. Participant
VII stated “it depends on the manager” whether they see the value in making fair and impartial
decisions and there are “some managers who are probably biased.” All the participants, except
participant IV, agreed that, for the most part, campus managers make equitable decisions with
the exception of some.
Based on the participants’ responses to the metacognitive knowledge-related questions
and others, the HR personnel seem capable of discerning unconscious bias in the decisions and
activities around them. All participants expressed some knowledge and understanding of the
value of diversity and of having women represented in leadership positions and the potential
hazards of unchecked unconscious biases in decision making. The knowledge gap associated
with HR personnel’s knowledge and understanding of unconscious bias in decision making is
invalidated.
Motivation Influences
Table 13 outlines the motivation influences that were validated and invalidated during
this study’s interviews. HR personnel were able to express the utility value of gender parity in
positions of influence in roles across campus and departments. In addition, they discussed their
perceptions of the advantages and disadvantages of organizations actively recruiting women into
leadership positions. The utility value motivation gap is invalidated. Conversely, the goal
orientation motivational influence gap of the SSU HR personnel is validated. While HR
personnel understand the value of gender parity, they do not attempt to go beyond the status quo
or appear to actively seek ways to advocate for additional resources that would support equity.

70
Table 13
Assumed Motivation Influences, Determination, and Summary of Findings
Assumed Motivation Influences
Gap Validated, Invalidated, or
Undetermined
Utility Value – Leaders and managers need to see
the value in having gender parity in all echelons of
leadership in all departments across campus.
Gap Invalidated. Leaders and HR
personnel identify value in having women
represented in positions of influence.
Goal Orientation – HR personnel should want to go
beyond the minimum and master the necessary
skills.
Gap Validated. HR personnel do not feel
motivated to go beyond what is currently
being done.

Utility Value
HR personnel need to see the value in having gender equity in all echelons of leadership in all
departments across the campus.
Participants answered questions about what constituted the potential advantages and
disadvantages of having equal representation of men and women across all campus positions of
influence, if any. Each participant conveyed one or more positive aspects of having a critical
mass of women on teams and in leadership positions. Participant V explained that “women and
men communicate differently, just have a different focal point on the world” and that equal
representation in leadership “brings more of an openness to your environment, to the employees
because they can see that. I think that it gives the employees some type of hope that they can
aspire to those higher-level roles because they can see both in there.” She also noted that “it
brings a richness to the way thought processes in strategic planning, all those kinds of things
happen because you’ve got the mix of perspectives that are going on.” The participants listed
various other advantages, such as having a more balanced team and a more holistic approach to
problems and decision making, introducing different strengths and viewpoints to teams and
positions, having higher quality discussions, and maintaining the appearance of fairness.

71
When participants were asked about possible disadvantages to equal representation in
leadership positions, two responses centered on the perceptions of others with regard to
perceived unfair hiring practices that might promote unqualified women just to satisfy the
requirements of equity. Participant V said if the “dynamics of those groups of people that are
working together at that level are not developed, then you can end up with some hurt feelings or
very distorted perceptions of other people’s behaviors. You could also end up with resentment,
with, ‘Oh, we know how she got to the top.’” The possibility, as raised by participant I, that
unfairly promoting women into leadership by basing opportunities primarily on gender rather
than qualifications or performance could lead to making it “hard for people to feel like they can
openly apply for things when they don’t feel like the application will even be looked at'' and can
hinder achieving the “best workforce” was another perceived disadvantage. Conversely, research
shows that women often do not apply for primarily masculine positions, which includes many
leadership positions, because they do not feel like they are qualified enough (Mohr, 2014). It is a
credible concern that the potential to unfairly advantage women for leadership positions, much as
men have been historically, would cause men to feel a similar hesitation to apply for positions
Participants III and VII raised concerns about implementing any type of quota to meet
diversity or gender goals. Participant VII explained, “I am adamantly opposed to quotas, as I
believe performance should be the only criteria. And if it means you have 80% female leadership
because they’re the top 80% of performers, so be it”; he went on to explain that it is important to
find “some non-biased ways to judge performance.” Participant III echoed a similar viewpoint:
Sometimes we will go into the statistics of we hired this many people, there's this many
from this demographic, this many from this demographic, and we're required to hire
somebody from a certain demographic, whether that's gender, or ethnicity or race and that

72
can sometimes cause us to not necessarily choose the most qualified person but choose a
qualified person who also meets diversity needs.
The tendency of both the male and female respondents to assume that organizations with equal
genders across leadership positions must achieve it by instating quotas or hiring less qualified
personnel is an area that requires further research and examination.
Table 14 outlines the advantages and disadvantages that participants shared related to
having equal representation of women and men in leadership positions. Interviewees shared
significantly more advantages than disadvantages and listed the advantage of having different
strengths and viewpoints on these positions the most frequently. The most frequently cited
disadvantage was the potential of hiring less qualified women into leadership roles in order to
meet gender parity.
Table 14
Advantages and Disadvantages to Having Equal Representation of Women and Men in
Leadership Positions
Advantages ID Disadvantages ID
Improved communication V
Resentment from perceived unfair
hiring practices
I, V
More balanced team/ holistic
approach
I, IV
Gender preference could lead hiring
less qualified individuals
III, VI,
VII
Different strengths/ viewpoints
I, II, III,
IV, V
None II
Improved discussion making/
discussions
V, VI

Important to have men and women
represented in leadership
I, II

All responses to questions regarding organizations actively working to recruit and
promote women into both developmental and leadership roles were favorable. Participant I said

73
it was “Awesome,” and participant VI said it was “very important.” Participant V responded, “I
do think that it's a good idea to take any classification of people and try to help give them a hand
up into development. However, I do not think that you should do that at the detriment of
somebody else who's already qualified that doesn't carry those markers.” Participant VII said, “I
believe that women are underrepresented in leadership roles and that is partly systemic” and “I
believe also that women are disproportionately disadvantaged because a large percentage of
women who are married, take time out during childbearing years, bear the primary responsibility
for children and it has a negative impact on their career.” When asked about gender, the
participants’ responses were supportive of organizational initiatives that work to recruit and
promote female leaders. The motivation gap of HR personnel utility value in having diversity
and gender equity in all echelons of leadership in all departments across the campus is
invalidated.
Table 15 lists the various feelings and beliefs shared by interviewees regarding
organizations actively working to recruit and promote women into developmental and leadership
roles. Each response was in favor of organizational practices that promote female representation
in positions of authority. There were no responses that were shared by more than two of the
interviewees.
Table 15
Feelings and Beliefs About Organizations Actively Working to Recruit and Promote Women into
Developmental and Leadership Roles
Feelings and beliefs ID
Necessary due to systemic problems stemming from bias VI, VII
Important for accreditation/ to leadership VI, VII
Improves organizational earnings and innovation potential III, VI
Important or a good idea, in general I, II, V

74
Significant barriers for HR professionals at SSU are that they lack awareness of any
gender-related goals to work toward and that not all participants believe that SSU leadership has
the intrinsic motivation to work toward the organizational goals. As discussed in the knowledge
section, the participants’ diversity and equity knowledge is centered on general diversity, and
none of the participants were aware of the organization's commitment to work towards
increasing women in a pipeline for advancement and leadership roles. However, the participants
believed that SSU leadership was committed to diversity and would want them to work toward
gender equity even if it wasn’t specifically stated. This section establishes that the participants
had the self-motivation to attend diversity or unconscious bias training of their own accord and
were individually empowered to eliminate unconscious bias in decision making. In addition, they
had positive beliefs about organizations actively recruiting and promoting women into leadership
roles. However, even with the necessary tools and mindset to improve campus processes and
policies, SSU HR professionals did not believe that the SSU leadership had the skills or
motivation to help the organization achieve increased numbers of women in leadership and
pipeline positions. Without the understanding of the organizational goals, belief in leadership
motivation, and any discussion and evidence of initiatives or implemented processes, policies, or
procedures that would help SSU meet its organizational goal, this motivational gap is validated.
Each participant, save one, had attended at least one diversity or unconscious bias
training since starting as an employee at SSU and described the training they attended as either
increasing their motivation toward diversity or keeping their interest the same. Participant I
discussed three trainings he had attended since starting as an employee in the HR office. Two of
the trainings were regarding general diversity and a third focused on one dimension of diversity.
Participant I stated:

75
There was another [training] that did decrease my interest [in promoting diversity] and I
think the reason for that was because it focused on one specific category of diversity. If
we are talking about diversity and we just focus on women and say that as diversity needs
to take care of them, you need to have equity for them, but they don't talk about any other
diversity. I don't know. I feel like we should be continually looking at diversity as a
whole and seeing in general. And while there are, you know, obviously specific
categories that are important to be thinking about and remembering and working on, I
don't, I don't love when that's the only focus, but it's just one group of people, one type
because it can limit our, our viewpoint to, to the general diversity that we need to be
working towards, improving, helping.
As discussed in the procedural knowledge section, participants’ knowledge of organizational
diversity goals related only to diversity in general rather than a specific demographic. Participant
VI said, “I love anything that brings people together. I don't like anything that pulls people apart.
So if a diversity initiative tries to show our differences, I don't want that. I would like it to be
what makes us all the same.” Four HR employees discussed their concerns about being forced to
hire unqualified candidates or the choice of a diverse candidate being perceived as an unfair hire.
Two felt uncomfortable confronting or discussing certain specific aspects of diversity and
preferred to discuss it only in a general context. These responses revealed some level of
hesitation in pursuing diversity in HR. In addition, as discussed in the previous section, five
participants showed concern about the possibility of placing preferential value on particular
aspects of diversity when considering qualified candidates. However, if diversity and gender
equity are goals established by the organization, diversity would unavoidably need to be a
consideration during HR activities, including candidate selection.

76
There is no mandatory diversity training for SSU personnel, but each of them has
attended at least one diversity or unconscious bias training of their own volition. Every
participant expressed an interest and some level of commitment to develop their knowledge on
unconscious bias, and the majority of the interviewees conveyed that learning about one’s own
unconscious biases was an important or ongoing process.
Participants were asked to rate the level of encouragement to eliminate unconscious bias
on a scale of 0 (for none) to 10 (for completely) (see Table 16). The most experienced HR
employees (participants IV, V, VI, and VII) felt the most empowered to take action to eliminate
opportunities for bias. Newer or less experienced employees (participants I, II, and III) felt less
so, which may be due to being less confident or influential in their roles. Participant I, who is a
supervisor, stated, “It's probably around a six; slightly encouraged. I mean, in general, campus
doesn't talk to me about it or really care as much as far as, like, asking me about it or anything”;
and participant II, who is not a supervisor, also said, “I’d probably say six. So, I don't think it's
necessarily been realized and stated that I should do those things. But I definitely think that they
would want that.” Participant III, whose score was 7 and is not a supervisor, conveyed that he did
not have a significant amount of encouragement to eliminate bias in decision making but “in
every discussion we have, it's always something that we make sure we're aware of.” In contrast,
the more experienced HR professionals said they each felt personally encouraged to reduce
opportunities for unconscious bias in campus decision making but felt there was a need to
continue efforts across and educate employees. Participant V, who answered with a 9, stated:
I'm encouraged to do it. Yeah, I think that it does need to go on because I have seen
pockets of it. And I also think because it is unconscious bias people don’t know about it
because it's unconscious, so they just really don't know. And I think we have a body of

77
people that are not, they're not biased against people simply because they lack the
awareness. They just think “what do we need to this diversity thing for? we don't have a
problem.” But they've been in a homogeneous society, so they don't know what they don't
know.
Participant VI shared that “a lot of the times we're just not aware, and so, I think if we were more
aware there'd be more encouragement.” Finally, participant IV felt completely empowered to
avoid opportunities for unconscious bias and said, “I think that we give all the right words to it. I
just don't know what happens behind the scenes to make it not happen, but I think it's getting
better all the time.” Three of the four more experienced HR personnel also felt personally
empowered but believed that there was still a need for increased awareness of unconscious bias
at the organizational level.
Table 16
Participant Rating of Encouragement to Reduce Opportunities for Bias (0=none;
10=completely)
ID Gender
Encouragement to Reduce
Opportunities for Bias from 0-10
I M 6
II M 6
III M 7
IV F 10
V F 9
VI M 8
VII M 9

Every respondent mentioned or discussed hiring and training, five mentioned or
discussed compensation, three mentioned recruiting, and only one mentioned retention and

78
employee motivation efforts. Specific efforts by SSU’s HR to address inequities or bias such as
removing names from applications were discussed hypothetically, and the only new activities
discussed were compensation reviews. Existing activities included hiring committee training and
new hiring forms that have a checkbox for diverse candidate consideration. Improving recruiting
and hiring efforts alone are not enough to build a diverse and equitable workforce. Organizations
with the support of their HR office must also work to develop, retain, and create an inclusive and
equitable climate for promotion and evaluations of women and underrepresented employees.
Finally, the participants were not consistently confident in the skill and motivation of the
SSU administration and leadership to promote diversity and gender equity at the university. Each
participant had varying views on the skills and motivation of SSU leadership. Participant I
shared, “Well, based off of recent actions, I think they have the skills to do [promote equity].
Um, I think it could be done. We have plenty of very talented women here on campus and they
could take bigger leadership roles.” He went on to say that he didn’t “know if they are as
motivated as they could be right now” and that “it is somewhat of an unconscious bias, but
there's other, obviously there's other issues right now that are happening that have kind of
derailed a lot of our conversations about trying to improve diversity.” Participant I cited the
COVID-19 epidemic as stalling any efforts that were previously being made. He said, “It's hard
to bring new positions in much less give raises or promotions and that kind of stuff during this
time. So, I think that definitely hurts the motivation.” However, he added that “I've also seen a
couple of different circumstances lately that just, I think there's still, there's still some
unconscious biases there that are being carried out into practice that could be improved, but the
skills, no doubt. I know they can do that.” Participant II felt that the SSU leadership were “open
minded and embrace change and we strive for diversity in our leadership,” while participants III

79
and VII felt that motivation varied between the older and newer administrative leadership or
different leadership groups. Participant III stated:
I would say that a lot of the newer administration definitely does. And I would say some
of the older administration, but I think there's, just, that I don't try to put stigmas on
anyone, but there definitely is older, older generations have older sets of norms, older
values, older ways of doing things. And I don't think that they're necessarily wrong ways
of doing things. They just, most of the older ways that people were hired. I mean it used
to be you knew somebody, were friends with somebody, that's why you got a job. I don't
think it should be that way. I think that's how it was for a lot of people.
While participant VII believed that there were “major differences depending on which group
you're talking about,” both female participants expressed that they believed the SSU leadership
had the motivation and skills. However, participant V added, “What I think they lack is the time
and the bandwidth and they're in a community that is not necessarily always open. So, you're
asking diversity to come to a community that is homogenous, basically, and has a faction of
citizens that are not open to it.” Participant IV shared that incentive on the part of leadership is
primarily motivated “because it's going to get really expensive legally if we don't [promote
equity] so even if they ethically didn't have the motivation, I think they legally have the
motivation” and “It might be something that they go to kicking and screaming, but they're going
to go to it.” She added that money is a driving force because “if you're passionate about money,
then you're passionate about that diversity.” Without the perceived intrinsic motivation of
leadership and corresponding alignment of resources, discussed in a subsequent section, on the
achievement of the organizational goal, the HR office is stifled in its ability to be effective at
organization-wide efforts. It is critical that diversity be promoted at the highest levels of SSU in

80
order for current HR strategies, policies, and procedures that may inhibit diversity to be
addressed (DiTomaso, et al., 2007; Stevens, et al., 2008).
The lack of evidence of HR initiatives or improved processes, policies, or procedures that
would help SSU achieve its organizational goals and the inconsistent perceptions of leadership
motivation to address equity indicate a motivation gap. The view that some SSU leadership is
inconsistent in the support of equity efforts, motivated by potential legal repercussions, or
overcommitted without the bandwidth to support diversity or equity initiatives is a significant
indicator of a motivational gap. While Participant VII believes “the person most responsible for
diversity and equity at a university or any organization should be the Chief HR officer,” he
observed that a lack of interest in diversity and equity by the HR office has resulted in other
offices taking on the associated responsibilities. He stated, “I believe HR has forfeited most of its
responsibilities when it comes to diversity and equity related goals. Either the Title IX or the
Diversity Office has usurped, might not be the right word, but has been given those
responsibilities. Probably because the HR office didn’t take as much interest as maybe they
should have historically.” In addition, the areas of responsibility discussed by HR personnel were
limited to primarily hiring and compensation when a comprehensive approach that encompasses
the full range of human resources management and human resources development activities is
necessary to facilitate change and improve the effectiveness of efforts in the organization.
Organizational Influences
Organizational culture is an essential consideration when evaluating organizational
influences because culture is reflected in the core values of the organization and its employees
(Erez & Gati, 2004). Cultural models and settings overlap to influence the organization and can
help or hinder change efforts (Shein, 2004). When comparing the SSU workforce demographic

81
to that of the community in which it resides, women, more so than any other group, are
underrepresented in SSU leadership. The cultural models of trust and openness for change and
the cultural settings of communication and alignment of resources are discussed in this section.
Table 17 outlines the gaps that were validated or inconclusive.
Table 17
Assumed Organizational Influences Gaps
Assumed Organizational
Influences
Gap Validated, Invalidated, or Undetermined
Cultural Model: Trust
Gap Validated. HR personnel identified trust between SSU
employees and HR as something that needs to continue to
be developed.
Cultural Model: Resistance to
Change
Gap Undetermined.
Cultural Setting: Communication
Gap Validated. Communication between HR and leadership
as well as HR and employees were identified as areas that
need to be improved.
Cultural Setting: Aligning
Resources with the Values of the
Institution
Gap Validated. Associated resources have not accompanied
the organization’s commitment to diversity and gender
equity.

Cultural Models
The organization needs to build trust in the HR office that their practices and policies are
equitable and align with values and strategic plan of the organization.
Employee trust in an organization means improved morale and productivity and
decreased turnover and enhanced organizational performance (Gould-Williams, 2003; Hitch
2012). Interpersonal and operational trust are at the center of the SSU HR’s ability to effectively
help the university reach its organizational goal of increasing women in leadership and
developmental positions. Interpersonal relationships between the HR staff and each employee
across the organization are important so that HR is utilized as an effective resource and can

82
foster an environment that engenders equity and combats unconscious bias. SSU leadership’s
trust in HR is imperative to providing guidance and input for policies and practices, and their
trust in HR's ability to be a strategic partner is critical to continue developing an organizational
culture of fairness and inclusiveness. HR employee responses indicated they believed that there
was trust in HR’s ability to execute transactions as well as minimal but growing trust in HR's
operational effectiveness and HR-employee interpersonal relationships. HR personnel believed
that managers would say they were supported by the HR office but primarily with HR-
necessitated transactions and would like more support in other areas. Participants cited
employees contacting the HR office at their own discretion to obtain access to information as
evidence of developing interpersonal relationships between employees and HR. Finally,
participants indicated that HR was currently only indirectly involved in the campus leadership
decision-making process of the university and was not being utilized as a strategic partner, which
indicates that leadership may not fully trust HR. The gap in trust in the HR office is validated.
History of Trust. A history of mistakes had resulted in a lack of trust, and six of the
seven participants believed the office was in the process of rebuilding trust across campus. Only
one interviewee, participant VII, believed that there was no trust in the HR office. When asked if
HR was trusted by campus employees, participant I responded, “Yes and no. I think it’s
improving” and “I think it depends on the experiences they’ve had.” He further observed, “In
some ways I feel like they very much trust us… but the question always comes down to, in the
moment of a hiring process or another process, do they trust us enough to get our input, or are we
a barrier to what they want to do?” Participant VI, who is the longest-serving HR staff member
stated, “I’m sure there are some individuals that maybe have not had a positive experience and so
perhaps things didn’t turn out the way they had hoped they would. And so perhaps they might

83
look at the HR office and say, ‘You know, I’m not going there again.’” Participant I said that, in
the past, the HR office “made a lot of mistakes.” Participant II said that HR “did not have a good
relationship with campus” and that there were individuals in the HR office that “weren’t
necessarily the most eloquent in their speaking.” Participant V conveyed that a barrier to trust in
HR was that employees had “been burned” and had an “old memory” while some had a
“renegade mindset” where they felt they did not need support from HR. The prospect of HR
hindering what employees would otherwise want to do, not seeing the value of HR, past negative
interactions with the office, and lack of confidence in their work are reasons for lack of trust by
employees in the SSU HR department. The collective employee memory had resulted in
employees not always seeking out or trusting HR, and the consequence was summarized by
participant IV as “I just don’t think they know to reach out anymore” and “there’s been so many
generations of employees that didn’t reach out to us, they don’t even know the resource.” The
missteps of HR in the past was also evident as a hindrance even to the participants that had been
in their positions a year or less.
Participant VII, who had worked at SSU for about four and a half (and more than any
other participant save VI), was the only participant that did not believe the office was trusted by
employees. He believed there was a lack of trust, in part, because the HR employees did not trust
each other and said “they talk negatively about one another. That’s a pretty good sign that they
don’t have trust among one another.” He went on to say, “I’ve had people tell me directly that
they believe it’s worthless to go to HR with concerns or issues.” When asked if he believed that
this situation had been improving lately, he stated “I believe, recently, there is more concern for
how the HR office appears to the rest of the university.” Similarly, participant IV, who had
served a little over two years but had extensive HR experience in other positions, when speaking

84
of her experience with the HR office specifically, said, “When I walked in this place my first
three months here it was such an icy hateful place. I mean it was just so bad, and now you walk
in here and it feels supportive.” She also believed “that it became financially detrimental to not
improve our department” and that the leadership needed to allocate funding to the HR
department to “get it credible and I believe we were causing more trouble than we were fixing,
and we're supposed to be the ‘fix that’ department,” The belief that the SSU leadership had
identified the HR office public image and performance as needing improvement was mentioned
by four participants during their interviews.
Participant V believed that the office was fully trusted but only with transactional actions.
She stated, “And I think you would get ‘Yes, I trust them in handling my transactional stuff, but I
don’t necessarily trust them all the time.’” The sentiment that HR had been focused on
transactions was reinforced by a comment from participant IV, who described the office as being
perceived as “lever pullers,” “paperwork people,” and “button pushers.” She stated, “I believe
we’re getting better. I believe, because we used to be so process driven and we weren’t accurate,
we didn’t do a lot with our accuracy and credibility, and I believe it’s getting better all the time.”
Participants I and VI agreed that, in general, the HR office had increased success. Participant VI
said HR is “successful at helping to resolve situations that need to be addressed,” and participant
I noted that HR has “the ability to support [managers] fully.” Despite past issues, all but
participant VII were confident that the HR office was able to support campus and was growing
trust overall.
Evidence of Developing Trust. Six of the seven interviewees cited employees and
managers actively reaching out to the HR department and personnel as evidence that there is
trust or developing trust in their office. For instance, participant II stated, “They come to us with

85
various questions and praises from different offices” and “when we’re out in the public, a lot of
people embrace us and talk with us.” Similarly, participants believed that employees trust them
and their coworkers because they go to them “for problems,” as observed by participant I, and
“come and ask for help,” as noted by participant VI. When asked if campus trusted HR and how
was it evident, participant VI responded, “I believe we are. I think the evidence is that people
come and ask for help, they contact us,” and participant I stated, “In some ways I feel like they
very much trust us. A lot of people get input in the hiring process. A lot of people reach out as
they have those questions.” Participant V observed that she receives “more phone calls” and that
there are “more folks reaching out to [her] for help with problems” and “more compliments on
[her] staff and how they’ve interacted with people.” The HR participants believed they were
meeting the needs of managers and employees because they were sought out for help to resolve
issues and answer questions. However, it is unknown how many employees still did not reach
out to them.
Participant IV thought that “if [managers] asked for advice they would take it. If they got
around to asking for it and they’d know we’re supportive and they’d know we’re trying”; and
while discussing the hiring process, participant I said, “Those who feel like we could fully
support them, ask questions throughout the process” and if they do not ask questions, it was
because they had had HR involved throughout the process, received adequate training, or
alternatively “just don’t feel like they can get the help they need from us.” In response to a
question about why managers on campus may or may not feel adequately supported by HR, three
of the participants expressed the belief that managers just did not reach out or were unaware of
what HR could do to support them. Participant VII noted that managers may feel that they are
given “scant direction” and that they’re supposed to “just figure it out without support.” He

86
mentioned that managers would feel this way specifically in regard to “performance evaluations,
for dealing with corrective action, or any other type of performance management, [and] for
compensation analysis.” Another observation noted by participants III and VI was that managers
would likely say they wanted more training. The need to improve employee education and
outreach is a theme that emerged throughout the interviews and is discussed in a subsequent
section.
Six participants were confident that the relationships and credibility in the department
were improving but acknowledged there was still work to be done. Participant II mentioned, “I
feel like we’re becoming more and more involved with the different things'' and discussed the
new efforts of the HR office to “try to have an outward focus on campus.” The majority of
participants were optimistic about the direction of the office and expressed agreement that trust
in the HR department was on a firmer footing and improving.
Leadership’s trust in HR. HR personnel were asked about the campus decision-making
process and the voice of HR in that process. Every participant believed that the campus decision-
making process was, to varying degrees, collaborative. Participant VII observed that universities
are “much more collaborative just by the nature of shared governance” but added that he
believed “the President has, in the time [he’s] been here, has actually increased that
collaboration.” Participant IV felt that the “campus decision-making process might be over
collaborative sometimes,” while participant I stated, “I think when we have high level positions,
there’s more of a pull for collaboration.” Participant II said, “I would say [campus leaders] are
collaborative and try to include as many different opinions in the process as [they] can.”
Participant V rated the level of collaboration on a scale of 0-10 as a 7, with 10 being extremely
collaborative. She said, “I have seen things where we talk about the collaborative nature of

87
decisions, but then I have seen that decisions are made, and they only have involved the other
party.” While the campus decision-making process seemed collaborative overall, the more
experienced HR staff believed the voice of HR in the process is limited.
Table 18 identifies the perceptions of interviewees on the campus decision making
process.
Table 18
Participants Perceptions on the Campus Decision Making Process (DMP)
Is the DMP collaborative? ID
Yes II, VI, VII
Yes, but could be better I, III, IV, V
Does HR have a voice in the campus DMP?

Yes I, II, III
Limited IV, VI, VII
No V

On the question of whether the HR office had a voice in the campus decision-making
process, the responses were skewed by participants’ level of authority. Participants I, II, and III,
who had the least experience in HR, viewed the voice of HR in decision making more favorably.
Participant I said that HR had a voice in the campus decision-making process because search
committee chairs reached out to them, HR “often answers questions as [search committees] are
preparing to post a job,” and the HR office gave “input for best practices.” Participant II said he
wasn’t involved in decision making but believed that the HR director was. Participant III
discussed HR’s involvement in advising, providing data, and making suggestions to campus
leaders.
The participants with a longer tenure working in HR suggested that HR could provide
more contributions to the decision-making process than they currently were. Participant V, who

88
was relatively new to SSU but had worked in HR for many years, said:
I have seen things here that are very different than my past. I think it’s my frame of
reference where HR was involved in everything all the way up to the board level. And
they were always included in the decision-making process and here HR is treated more
like the problem solver of employee relations issues and the transactional vehicle to
make sure that employment files are done in a compliant manner.
Participants IV, V, VI, and VII had also worked in HR outside of SSU and in private industries.
They compared the level of HR engagement in the decision-making process to those experiences
in other industries. Participant IV believed that at SSU, HR had a voice “more now than ever”
and went on to say that
I have worked at companies where HR is a very important strategic partner and I’ve
worked in companies where HR is a very much ‘do what you’re told’ kind of partner and
I think we’re a little heavy on the do what you’re told side here. They don’t allow our
department much of a voice and maybe that stems from some credibility issues that
we’ve given ourselves in the past.
Participant V expressed frustration at the perceived lack of involvement in the campus decision-
making process because she felt that HR had a connection with campus employees and could
provide the most effective guidance on personnel laws and policies.
Participant VI, who worked in HR for a private company for several years before starting
at SSU, stated that he believed HR had a voice in decision making but “perhaps not as much as
in industry” and that in higher education, an HR office typically reports to a Vice President. He
stated that because of the reporting structure, HR had “to kind of work through that vice
president to get initiatives and policies and things approved.” While participant VI believed HR

89
was a participant in campus decision making, participant VII did not believe they were—and for
the same reason. He said, “I believe the fact that the HR director reports to the [Vice President]
means that there is less influence. I personally believe the HR director should report directly to
the Chief Executive Officer in any organization. So in this case, the President,” adding “I don’t
believe HR is a full stakeholder in decision making.” The SSU HR reporting structure has all
other campus business offices and several departments, such as facilities, that report to the same
Vice President.
According to participant V, were HR to become a strategic partner, they “could be a pivot
point for [the university] because traditionally diversity and inclusion and EEO, and all those
things fall under the HR function and so if the university would leverage us and our body of
knowledge in how to do those things and how to just deal with people the process would be a lot
smoother.” Participant VI mentioned promotions, compensation, training, employer relations,
addressing discrimination, administering policies, and the impact of employment laws as areas
HR manages that “can either be avenues to success or roadblocks and barriers to success.”
Participants VI’s list of areas that HR manages were somewhat muted in the opinion of the other
HR staff members under certain circumstances. HR’s apparent limited engagement in the
campus decision-making processes indicates a lack of trust of HR among leadership.
Strengthening HR as a strategic partner in the campus decision-making process will benefit the
organization by allowing input from the department with a direct connection to the employees
and which is integrally involved in the critical personnel activities of the organization.
HR Trust in Themselves. A theme emerged from the interviews centering on the need
for employees to proactively engage with HR as well rather than for only HR to reach out to
employees. When asked about why HR employees might fail to reach out, participant IV

90
observed that there is hesitation for HR to assert themselves in ways that might be typical
elsewhere. She compared hiring committee training where HR was reluctant to “step into your
search committee and say, ‘Remember these roles’” to a purchasing request for proposal training
where the staff there “steps into the meeting and just gives us a really quick training about what
we can consider and what we can’t.” She went on to say that “I think we've been such an
unwelcome presence. That we didn't feel good about inserting ourselves forcibly into those
meetings.” However, participant VI noted that HR would “insert” or “invite” themselves into
leadership decision making when necessary. Other participants referred to a lack of resources as
an explanation, which is discussed in a subsequent section. There is little evidence from the
participants that the SSU HR is comfortable or has the resources to proactively engage campus
as they might wish. For instance, throughout the interviews, it became clear that HR responds to
the inquiries of hiring committees rather than creating supporting materials, anticipating needs,
and monitoring and intervening throughout the process.
While the HR is in the process of rebuilding trust and gaining credibility as a valuable
campus resource, the historical lack of trust and current inability to be proactive is preventing the
expertise of the HR office from being fully utilized or being perceived as a potential strategic
partner in the campus decision-making process. HR employees believe their policies and
practices to be equitable and individuals feel encouraged to reduce opportunities for bias.
However, they acknowledge that managers may want additional support and that HR could have
a greater presence in the campus decision making process. The gap in the assumed
organizational influence cultural model influence of trust is validated.

91
The organization needs to develop an openness to change and build upon diversity and equity
efforts.
Several interview questions aimed to ascertain the level of openness to change of the HR
office, university leadership, and the organization in general. Transparency and openness to
change are critical in order for the organization to effectively implement policies and practices
that result in increased gender equity across campus leadership positions. The participants
discussed several organizational challenges or barriers to an openness that would allow achieving
the representation of women in leadership and increasing diversity. Sources of resistance to
change included, in order of frequency, the current lack of diversity perpetuating the status quo,
lack of turnover in leadership positions, the predominant religious affiliation of employees and
culture of the surrounding area, resource shortages which hinder recruiting, training, and
retention efforts, and campus decision making which was not particularly equity driven. The
absence of response to reduce the impact of these barriers indicates there is a need to address
unconscious bias and propagate an openness to change. However, it is difficult to determine from
participants’ comments the underlying reasons for why more measures have not been taken to
proactively address these challenges. A lack of response may not be related to a resistance to
change, however. The cultural model gap of need to develop openness is undetermined.
Lack of Diversity Perpetuates a Lack of Diversity. A frequently-mentioned
impediment to increasing diversity was the size of the local community, as well as the current
lack of diversity at the university and within the surrounding community. When referring to
increasing diversity at SSU, participant III shared that the culture is “a challenge because it is
harder to get somebody who maybe is diverse to move to a place like [SSU’s city].” Comments
from participant II, III, IV, VI, and V shared similar observations. Participant II said, “Definitely

92
community-wide there is a very high White population in [SSU’s city] that makes it very hard to
recruit from different cities to [SSU’s city], knowing it’s like 80 or 90% White.” Participant IV
discussed how the university “values education” and wants to keep student and post-graduate
employment numbers high. Using the term “kids” to refer to students, she described the situation
as “we’ve got a lot of White Mormon kids and we’re only hiring who we know, so we’re going
to end up with a lot of White Mormon kids.” The influence of religion is discussed in a later
section. Finally, participant II conveyed his belief that when diverse candidates are provided an
opportunity to live somewhere with more natural diversity, they do not choose SSU. He said, “I
would say that our location is probably our biggest struggle.”
The lack of diversity within the community also poses barriers to leadership at the
university. When asked about the equity-related motivation and skills of SSU leadership,
participant V observed that SSU is in “a community that is not necessarily always open. So
you’re asking for diversity to come to a community that is homogenous basically and has a
faction of citizens that are not open to it.” She continued by saying that diverse candidates
considering a move to SSU’s community may find the community’s lack of diversity
“problematic.” Participant IV, when responding to a question about how the university actively
champions the values of diversity and equity, shared that the President had attended a
community event to support Black Lives Matter. She went on to say that the community saw his
attendance “as a show-off deal” while she believes that he was “sincere.” The lack of diversity
creates a less attractive environment to hire and retain a diverse workforce which, in turn,
increases the lack of diversity. This situation requires purposeful efforts to offset these
challenges and needs leaders committed to fostering equity to address institutional practices that
are barriers to equity (Bensimon, 2005). Challenges around developing an openness to change

93
encompass the conventional influence of the SSU community, lack of resources, leaders
insufficiently devoted to addressing the problem of recruiting, and the unconscious bias that
maintains the status quo.
Lack of Turnover. In every organization, there is a finite number of leadership positions.
Without turnover, creating new positions may be the only path for an individual to obtain a
leadership role. Participant V mentioned that, even if a woman is prepared to take on more
responsibility, “if that man that's in front of her doesn't retire or leave, she will have no place to
go.” In situations where women have no opportunities, participant V stated that “we're apt to lose
that person because if she decides she wants to actually exercise her wings now she's going to go
to another company if something opens up or just sit there and not get promoted.” She also
mentioned that “the general turnover of the institution at the higher level seems to be slow.”
Correspondingly, participant VI made the statement: “So because you don’t have a lot of
turnover and because we don’t have a lot of turnover in certain areas that limits the number of
opportunities that we’re going to have.” He added that he hoped that SSU’s growth would
continue to provide opportunities. SSU’s consistent growth had opened positions in past years,
but participant V believed that the institution did not go “into the macro” to identify “individuals
that we have in our pipeline that have the capability in this interest and then put together the
plan.” She believed this was due in part to the singular focus on growth and because the
leadership “have not had an HR resource that will hold their hand and guide them through it.”
Slow turnover also means that the “older set of norms, older values, older ways of doing
things…,” participant III observed, so that what has been established in the past may persist.
While discussing the skills and motivation of SSU leadership to effectively promote equity,
participant III also conveyed that the older administration work in a traditional, but not

94
necessarily wrong, way that has led to less equitable practices such as hiring based on “you knew
somebody, were friends with somebody.” Through turnover, the introduction of new and
different attitudes and abilities creates change in its own right. A barrier to being open to change
is that there are few opportunities to introduce new leaders and ways of thinking and an
established mentality and potentially unchallenged status quo.
Influence of Religion on Gender Equity. Understanding and awareness of the socio-
cultural and historical context of the community and organization is critical for leaders to effect
change (Chavez et al., 2008). The residents of the community in which SSU resides and the SSU
student population are almost 80% affiliated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
(LDS). In addition, three participants mentioned or discussed being raised in the LDS church and
their personal understanding and experiences of living and being raised in a predominately LDS
community. Four participants expressed that this cultural influence manifested as an
organizational challenge to increasing female representation in leadership in one of two ways:
conservatism in gender norms and predilection towards preferential treatment of members of the
LDS faith. Both resulted in a potential preference for male candidates because within the LDS
church, women are not permitted to serve in the highest leadership roles (Sumerau & Cragun,
2015).
A conservative LDS culture and the associated gender norms and expectations were
discussed in four interviews. Participant IV, an LDS female, shared observations on the
dynamics of female and male interactions at SSU:
I've seen it around here and with women in leadership roles and even some of our young
men have a really hard time taking authority, direction from women because I think we're
just raised here to believe that men have got that little bit of an edge. I don't know if it's

95
with God or with each other or who, but I think culturally the LDS Church has got a
gender barrier that a small town in [SSU’s state] isn't going to overcome.
Comments from participants I, III, and VII echoed similar understandings of the impact of the
predominant faith within the university. Participant III stated that SSU was situated in a “very
small conservative town” and while “not a bad thing,” it had resulted in “traditionally there's
been lots of influences both just religious and cultural that influence it so less women work, more
men work.” When it comes to gender equity, the potential pool of candidates in the immediate
area was impacted by the cultural expectation of roles of women and men. Similarly, participant
I observed that “we kind of have a culture of, a predominate religion, and even being a more
progressive part of [town] and being in the university, it still feels like sometimes we push for the
men to be in more leadership roles and women to be in different roles, some specific role.” He
provided examples of administrative assistants on campus being mostly women with directors
being mostly men. However, participant I stated that the university is improving and “moving in
the right direction” and shared that he didn’t know if this problem was “specific to the area” or a
more general societal problem.
Members of the LDS Church do not see women in positions of high leadership, and
within the Church, service roles are defined by gendered norms (Sumerau & Cragun, 2015). As
participant VII shared, “The quiet undertone is religious bias. I believe there's absolutely a
particular religion and that religion it has a predominantly male leadership mentality, then yes, if
you believe the best leaders are male and that comes from your religious background, you're
going to have some bias.” In addition, participant VII believed there was potential bias in favor
of other Church members which aligned with some participants' definitions of unconscious bias
as a preference for what someone is familiar with. He stated, “I believe there’s absolutely a bias

96
towards one certain religious group which I don’t know if it means there’s bias against if you’re
not part of that religious group but there is certainly that potential for bias if you’re not part of
the predominant religion in the area.” Hiring a church member increases the probability that the
candidate will demonstrate similar values and priorities so will “fit in.” Participant VI did not
discuss religion, but he did note that a barrier to achieving gender equity was “hiring people that
are like us,” which would be influenced by the demographics of the SSU decision makers. Hiring
practices would be a critical step in addressing gender equity, and participant IV noted that SSU
hiring practices were reflective of the community’s values:
I think in small towns and I think you can go to any culture that has a predominant
religion and whatever their value system is mimicked in the employment. So I don't think
it's unique to [SSU’s city], I think if you went to a culture that was very matriarchy-lead
then women would have preference in the companies there.
The influence of the predominantly LDS SSU community and religious upbringing of many
employees may hinder an openness to change for employees and leadership to promote and hire
women into positions of authority.
Attitudes Toward Change. As discussed in previous sections, participants expressed a
positive attitude about efforts to address inequities and increase diversity, and most expressed
that in many ways the university was already moving in the right direction. Every participant
expressed the belief that the SSU President was an advocate of gender equity and diversity on
campus. However, to varying degrees, each acknowledged that there were still instances of
recognizable bias on campus. Participant V noted that the community “is not necessarily always
open,” and participant IV noted that the “predominant religious culture is a barrier to success”
Participant III, however, claimed the issue stemmed from university leadership itself:

97
In some ways though, some campus leadership is really resistant to change. They’re
really resistant to new things and then some campus leadership, they’re very accepting of
change. They’re very accepting of wanting to adapt and be innovative. I would say we
have about 50/50. Half of the leaders are on board for change and improving and half of
them want things to stay the same.
However, he believed that HR would never be given enough resources to fully support the
campus in reaching its organizational goals. In response to a question about being given enough
resources, he stated, “I think we would help. I think our diversity goals would be achieved.
Absolutely. I do, however, think that’s never going to be possible” and “I think it’d be cool. I
think it’d be great but it’s never going to happen.”
Rapidly changing labor laws and slow changes at the university also influenced the
responses from participants. While discussing Federal labor law changes, participant IV said,
“We can’t keep up with the changes,” “the ball rolls so slowly [at SSU] that sometimes the legal
changes outpace the policy changes,” and “I don't think I've ever seen a change here that wasn't
painfully slow.” When discussing the established university infrastructure that supports diversity
and equity, participant VI said, “It’s slowly changing and that’s good. It would be great if it
could be even sped up more.” Participants' attitudes in general were optimistic about change, and
all participants believed that, to some degree, gender equity and diversity were improving on the
SSU campus.
Responses, as discussed in an earlier section, that assume improving gender equity and
diversity would result in a less qualified workforce or resentment by other employees due to the
perception of unfair hiring practices indicate that some participants may feel that the change is
brought on by strategic demands rather than a natural evolution. Furthermore, HR staff had an

98
opportunity to lead change efforts at the university and promote the benefits but indicated few
efforts to do so. It is unclear as to whether the HR personnel were not open to change, were
unwilling or unable to assert themselves into the change process, or had been discouraged in
previous attempts. The gap related to the cultural model of openness to change is undetermined.
Cultural Setting
The organization needs to be consistent and improve communication.
Communication is a fundamental part of all relationships, including those between
employers and employees. The HR department is an invaluable contributor and facilitator in
organizational communication, especially as it relates to communicating to supervisors the
importance of addressing unconscious bias in decision making and the problem of the
underrepresentation of women in leadership roles on campus. Based on interview responses, it
became clear that the vast majority of campus communications from HR were dependent on
employees reaching out to them for information or to directly request training. Aside from
training hiring committees and responding to individual questions, HR does not interact or
regularly communicate with other campus employees. HR’s communication with the leadership
filters through the supervising VP, and their input is indirect. Regarding general campus
communication, five of the seven participants said they heard about campus decisions first from
an announcement to campus or from their supervisors. For questions related to how HR heard
about campus decisions that directly impacted HR, responses were highly dependent on the
amount of HR experience the participants had. Participants I, II, and III, who had less HR
experience, primarily heard about decisions affecting HR from their supervisors. Participants IV,
V, VI, and VII shared that they sometimes did not hear about campus decisions that affected HR
until after the decisions have been made. The cultural setting gap of communication is validated.

99
Top-Down Communication. There were several ways that general information was
communicated on campus to HR staff. All respondents were, on some occasions, informed by a
general announcement to campus or by their supervisor, particularly if they were directly
supervised by HR staff. Participants who were involved in hiring or approval functions obtained
some information from their direct involvement. For instance, participants I and VII, responded
that they found out information by being part of the process such as by being asked personnel-
related questions, being in the approval queue, or serving on committees. Participants I, II, III, V,
and VII said they found some information out through campus announcements and participants
II, III, IV, and VI, and VII found out from their supervisors. Participant I shared that “at the
highest levels, obviously it’s usually an announcement to campus,” or for hiring-related
activities, he might learn information through the approval process. Participant III stated, “I have
never heard about it after the fact, or from somebody else [other than a supervisor],” and
participant I heard from either the one of the HR supervisors “or generally there are emails that
are just directed to campus.” Somewhat unexpectedly, when asked how campus decisions are
communicated, participant V, who is a supervisor and holds a leadership role, stated,
“Sometimes I don’t even hear about things and I don’t know things are going on,” though there
was little indication from the employees she supervised that they felt this to be the case.
Regarding decisions by campus leadership that directly affect HR, the perspective of the
participants I, IV, V, VI, and VII, the more experienced HR professionals, differed from those of
participants II and III. Participants II and III shared that they hear about the decisions that affect
HR “before it’s announced publicly” and that it “usually trickles down” from the VP over HR to
the HR supervisors and that they announce it to the office. Participant V expressed that “I think
that the nature of my level position I should know more things than what I do know, but there’s

100
times when I don’t have any clue that something has gone down or something that’s happening.”
She provided an example of an outside committee editing HR policies “instead of involving HR
first.” She had not been made aware of or included in the process even though it “is an HR
function from both a compliance and a benefits perspective.” Participant VI, a supervisor,
discussed being involved in discussions with the VP over HR, the university’s President, and the
legal office about “the issues and the initiatives that we’re trying to accomplish.” However, he
said that “sometimes leaders are moving so quickly and working so fast that we kind of have to
insert ourselves.” He provided an example of having to ask the VP over HR to have HR
represented in the search for the new CDO, a position that they believed was very much
associated with the HR function. Participant IV acknowledged that sometimes HR wasn’t part of
the collaborative process and heard about decisions after they had been made. When discussing
trust in HR, participant I said, “There’s also been times though when we find information after
the fact, as though ‘We’ve done all the leg work, good luck, you get to take care of this, but you
don’t have a say in it.’ That’s definitely a kind of sign of mistrust.” The lack of involvement in
decision making that directly impacts HR and the fact that HR leadership hear about decisions at
the same time as the rest of campus or even after the decisions have been made reveals there is
room for improvement in this area of communication. Even though HR staff felt that trust is
building, trust appears to be slow to manifest in regard to including HR in certain decisions and
discussions.
HR Communication to Campus. Communication from HR on the SSU campus is
widely a pull system that requires employees to proactively reach out to HR for information, to
ask questions, and to request training. As discussed in the trust section, the participants
repeatedly used the increase in number of questions, frequency of praise, and increase in

101
employees and managers seeking advice as evidence that campus was developing trust in the HR
office. The amount of discussion on the deficits of current outreach and training efforts was a
striking contrast. Improving the quality and reliability of HR work was the one specific effort
that participants discussed to address beliefs that employees do not reach out to HR because they
do not know what HR can do for them, that managers would likely say they need more training
and direction, that there are historical issues with trust, and that there is a feeling that HR may
push for compliance with unpopular diversity policies.
Aside from the existing hiring committee training and optional training on new processes
and personnel action forms, participants did not discuss any specific or strategic outreach and
training measures being taken. For instance, participant IV stated, “I don't think they're asking as
much as they could. And I think that's just because most people don't know they don't even know
what we do anymore.” In answer to a follow-up question as to why employees had to come to
them to ask for assistance, Participant IV responded:
I think if we had the confidence in our HR team, if our HR department had the
confidence to forcibly insert ourselves where we belong, we would be better off. But, I
think, our confidence level and our credibility level was so low we stopped pushing our
way through doors that we really belong in.
Previously mentioned comments from participants VI and VI, comments from participant II
about HR “becoming more and more outspoken,” and others imply that this may be changing at
least among interactions between HR and campus leadership. In addition, participant IV noted
that “I think the people that we have helped are very impressed with the level of knowledge,
skills, and abilities that we have available on our team.” This comment, as well as others,
suggested that outreach and educational efforts would be successful. Before the HR office can

102
communicate diversity and equity effectively to campus, it is important that employees
understand why the HR office is there and the various ways it can serve as a resource.
When discussing HR-to-campus communication generally, participant IV said, “We have
10 ways [to communicate on campus] and 1,000 people prefer one of the 10 ways.” She felt that
she had to send HR information out “to all thousand [employees] in 10 ways even though they
prefer one way,” and it is sometimes “information overload and so, people start ignoring
everything.” When asked about trust in HR, participant I shared that the HR office was “still
working on improving that communication so that it’s less of a barrier and more of a
collaborative effort.” More experienced participants identified room for improvement in the area
of communication that directly impacted the HR function. However, all participants expressed
that general campus communication met their needs.
No Clear Source of Campus Diversity Training. In response to questions regarding
whether diversity, equity, and unconscious bias training and support should come from HR,
participants I expressed his belief that the “purpose of the training” should dictate who offers it.
For instance, unconscious bias in hiring should be addressed in training from HR while
“unconscious bias, in general” would be better addressed through the CDO or Diversity and
Inclusion Center. He stated that “better appreciating diversity on campus, better opening our
minds, removing unconscious bias, becoming a more welcoming and loving campus. I think that
kind of stuff can come from the [Diversity and Inclusion Center] where maybe HR doesn’t quite
have the same place.” Participant II believed that this type of training should be “endorsed” and
“supported” by HR but didn’t “necessarily think that HR needs to take the lead on it or if it
should come directly from the HR office.” He felt that the training should come from the CDO.
Like participant II, participant V said diversity, equity and unconscious bias training and support

103
should be a collaborative effort and discussed the current structure of the university. She noted
that since many organizations didn’t have a CDO, the responsibility fell in HR’s arena but said,
“I think that the CDOs office should direct that kind of thing. But again, in partnership with
HR.”
The campus organization responsible for employee diversity and equity training had not
been communicated to the HR staff. While at some point in each interview every participant
professed the belief that one of HR’s roles in helping the university achieve its gender equity-
related goal was employee training, only three participants believed that HR should provide the
diversity, unconscious bias, or equity training. All but one of the participants agreed that there
was currently no mandatory HR training. Participant IV mentioned a mandatory HR supervisor
training, one in 2018 and one in 2019. However, every participant expressed the belief that HR
should be involved in offering or collaborating on the training. According to participants, hiring
committee training addressed unconscious bias, but there was no HR diversity and equity
training for employees who did not serve on a hiring committee. Participant V stated that,
currently, diversity, equity, and unconscious bias training and support for campus managers
through HR is “not happening. There’s nobody doing it. So there’s really nothing right now.”
Similarly, participant VII said, “I’ve never seen training from the HR department on bias or
diversity or equity. Every training that I’ve seen or been part of has come from the legal office,
not the HR office.” Participant I shared that the hiring committee training is the “main training”
they do, but in regard to HR diversity, equity, and unconscious bias training, he stated:
I know we’d like to do more. It hasn’t been done and it seems like in the past we kind of
probably left that more to the [Diversity and Inclusion Department] to do than us, which is
unfortunate, but I think it’s something that will happen more as soon as we get into

104
training more, which would be so nice.
Participant III mentioned that the university does require compliance training for sexual
harassment and Title IX and said that “we do have optional diversity training. We need to do
more. We’re working on that. So I’m not trying to make an excuse, but as of right now, we don’t
have as much as we should.” Participant III did not specify the source of the optional diversity
training he mentioned, but based on his comments and others, it is likely training offered by the
Diversity and Inclusion Department. Participant II said he was not familiar with any diversity or
equity related training and support for campus managers.
Participants VI and VII were reluctant to assign responsibility to either the HR office or
the CDO. When pressed, participant VI said it should reside with HR, but “it should be done in
collaboration” with the CDO, the Legal Office, and faculty and staff organizations on campus.
He added that “there's strength in collaboration” and ultimately “it has to be everybody’s
responsibility,” including the deans, faculty, the Provost, and champions throughout campus.
Similarly, participant VII did not state that HR should be in charge of the training. He believed
that HR should “be centrally involved” and “it might be some sort of shared governance with
diversity and legal but HR, to me, HR has the primary role to attract, retain and motivate
employees and so they should absolutely be involved in that.”
Finally, participants III and IV believed that HR should be in charge of offering diversity,
equity, and unconscious bias in collaboration with other supporting departments. Participant III
stated that HR “should be giving and doing our own [training] and collaborating [with the
Diversity and Inclusion Center],” and participant IV stated, “It’s okay if it comes from other
places too but there should be a mandatory training coming out of HR for anything to do with
legal compliance.”

105
Table 19 includes the interviewee responses to which department or person on campus
should be responsible for proving diversity training.
Table 19
Responses to Which Campus Entity Should Provide Diversity Training
Who Should Provide Campus Diversity Training? ID
HR- only as it relates to HR related activities e.g. hiring or compliance I, IV
HR (input from CDO) III
CDO & HR (collaboration) V, VI, VII
CDO (with input from HR) II

Furthermore, the new CDO has blurred the lines of responsibility where campus training
and support for diversity and equity are concerned. Participant V observed that, with regard to
discussing diversity and equity, HR was becoming more of an acknowledged resource in its
own right. She stated that employees “traditionally had that dialogue with [HR], especially since
the whole wave of ‘We've got to have a separate CDO come on board and a separate diversity
and inclusion center.’ I think that they've seen that more as separate and now it's starting to go
out that now we do have the tools that we can help you with these things.” HR personnel
believed that it was necessary to collaborate with the CDO and other campus entities. It seems
they were also in the process of creating and improving relationships to increase collaboration.
Participant I stated, “I think there could be more of a collaboration between [Diversity and
Inclusion Department], HR, in general, and campus to help make it more of the priority” and
“we want to be able to be a teammate and a partner with the [Diversity and Inclusion
Department] and so it’s definitely a much better relationship recently.” However, it is unclear,
based on the participants’ responses, if the campus leadership had communicated which
department was ultimately responsible and accountable to ensure that employees were

106
supported and trained. In addition, it is unclear what the expectation was for collaborative
efforts across campus agencies.
To further complicate the roles is a historical lack of collaboration between HR and the
CDO positions. Responses of participants IV and V implied tension between the previous CDO
and HR. In reference to training offered by HR to campus supervisors, participant IV said, “I
couldn’t even get the Chief Diversity Officer to show up for 10 minutes and teach diversity in
those meetings. She had the audience.” Participant V also mentioned this problem, “I was never
part of [the CDO’s] things, ever, and I heard that a lot of people have been to her training, but
I’ve never seen any. And then I’ve heard people say, ‘Well, she just wouldn’t show up for my
training.” The strain in relationships between the two offices may account for some of the
ambivalence from the participants about which campus office should be responsible for
diversity, equity, and inclusion employee education.
The full extent of the role of HR in supporting, training, and communicating the
significance of diversity and equity to campus was unclear to the HR staff, which indicates that
guidance from leadership had not been given or received. Without a definitive designation
message to HR regarding their responsibilities in helping the organization reach its gender equity
related goals, their efforts to support and educate campus are unfocused. Additionally, HR’s
communication with employees is hindered because employees must seek information rather
than HR proactively providing access to that information. Finally, the fact that communication
about decisions that affect HR is sometimes not revealed in a timely manner and input is not
solicited from them prior to the final decision indicates that communication between HR and
campus leadership could still be improved.

107
The organization needs to align resources with the goals and mission of the organization.
A shortage of resources to fully support HR in helping the organization reach its
organizational goal of increasing women in leadership and developmental positions arose in each
interview. As discussed earlier, participants expressed feeling individually encouraged to combat
unconscious bias. Also, participants responded that they, for the most part, were provided the
necessary resources to be effective HR professionals. However, when asked about the potential
of HR to help further the organizational goal, all participants indicated that the HR office needed
additional resources. The need for more time, or “bandwidth,” and personnel were identified as
the primary resources that HR needed to be effective in helping the organization meet its
organizational goal. The failure to reallocate resources to HR that would help them improve
diversity and gender equity efforts reveals that the SSU HR’s current practices remain
maladaptive and oriented solely on the performance of basic HR functions. The organizational
setting gap of aligning resources to support the goals of the institution is validated.
Individual Resources. All responses to the question about if they feel that they are given
adequate resources to be an effective HR professional and to function at a high level were
answered for the most part in the affirmative. The two female participants felt personally
supported but believed that the HR office could use more support. Two of the most junior HR
personnel said they felt supported but could use more training, and the three most experienced
men felt they were satisfactorily supported. Participant II said, “I guess I feel I’ve been given
plenty of opportunities to do training and learn about those things,” and later said, “I mean [my
position is] HR, but it's not dealing with HR policies and things like that. [The HR office
doesn’t] necessarily focus on training me specifically for those roles or for those things. And so I
guess I could have better trainings, and more trainings.” Participant III felt that he needed more

108
resources to be the best HR professional he could be. He stated, “I would say, I have some, but
not all I need. I definitely need more. I think when it comes to unconscious bias, it’s not
something that you just learned about and train about once and then you’re done.” Participant IV
related that only recently were leadership starting to support the office enough to make it
effective. However, when speaking of the university leadership, she stated, “And I believe we
give a lot of lip service to [reducing bias]. We’re still going to hire our five best friends, and I
think we have all the right words in place. Now we just need the right spirit to go with our
words.” Participant V said she believes she is given adequate resources but “maybe lacks a little
support, but it’s unconscious support.”
Table 20 identifies the interviewee responses to whether or not they feel they receive
adequate resources and support to be an effective HR professional.
Table 20
Participant Response to Receiving Adequate Support to be an Effective HR Professional
Adequate Resources: Personal ID
Yes I, VI, VII
Yes, but not support IV, V
Some, but would like more training II, III

Time and Personnel in HR. In many ways, the resources of time and personnel, as they
were discussed by participants, were interchangeable. Having additional HR staff would allow
for more time to be spent toward certain pursuits just as freeing up time for current employees
would allow them to direct their time toward those same pursuits. In addition, because there
hadn’t been time to educate employees, the HR staff and also the Legal Office spent time on the
backend addressing the concerns and problems. Participant IV said that training was crucial for
compliance issues, and each of the three new supervisor trainings that had been offered since she

109
started several years ago were well attended. She shared that “if I had time to teach them
compliance, I wouldn’t have to take the time to litigate or mediate” and that “we packed [the
training] every time, we overbooked every time, so we offered 60 seats. We ended up with 80
people. I had a big waiting list for the next time we hosted it.” However, the last one was offered
in October 2019, and no training dates had been scheduled at the time of the interview.
Participant IV explained that the training was initially intended for new supervisors, but once
“we found out that there were tenured supervisors that literally had 10 to 15 years of supervisory
experience and did not know what FMLA stood for, we opened it up for everybody.” She said
those trainings turned into a “what can HR do for you” session, and there wasn’t enough time to
train on other important topics such as ADA.
When asked about the potential impact of integrating HR best practices could potentially
have to assist the university achieve its stated goals, participant V responded that doing so was
“paramount” and “[campus managers] need some awareness training and they’ve had some of it,
but I think they need kind of a bath in it.” Despite the identified need and employee desire for
training, two years ago when the last HR training and development employee resigned, the
university failed to replace the position due to budgetary constraints. Participant VI expressed
that “it’s been a little frustrating because we had a training position, and we were making some
great strides in supervisory and leadership development training. And with budget cuts we lost
that position.” He shared that getting the position back would require going “through the normal
budget process” and “that could be a while.” He believed that the position was critical to the HR
office. Participant II stated, “I feel that we could use some further support. I feel that if we had a
dedicated training person and if we had the manpower and the funding for that I feel that would
definitely increase our ability to [promote diversity and gender equity].” He believed that “our

110
budget is our constraint.”
In spite of the fact that participants felt they had adequate resources to perform as HR
professionals, all participants expressed the opinion that their office could use more support.
Participant IV discussed a history of mistakes coming from the HR office and said, “But I
believe that was to the fault of more work than there were people, and we didn't have time to be
accurate or credible, we only had time to process as much as we could and apologize for what we
can’t get done. So, I think it is a resource problem.” In response to the loss of the personnel line,
participant VI said there were “limited resources” and that they were “trying to leverage
technology. So that we can do more with less.” If provided “the appropriate resources and
manpower,” participant III believed that HR “could help the university achieve its diversity
goals.” He also believed that “if we had the ability and the funds and the people,” they could
travel to recruit diverse candidates and be actively involved in hiring committees. With that level
of support, he stated that “I think our diversity goals would be achieved. Absolutely.” Participant
V stated, referring to the HR office, “I think they have the mental acumen to support it. I don't
think that they have a lot of the resources to fully support it,” and like participant III, believed
that with enough resources the HR office could “actually go recruit people.” She also shared that
“The manpower in the HR office is very tight so just the deployment of us from a bandwidth
standpoint is very difficult. So, I think that [campus leadership] do support us in that. But I don't
think that we have the monetary and the time resources to actually go do it.” Participant I stated
that “I think that we could [fulfill HR’s role in promoting diversity and equity on campus]. I
think that we would have support from leadership if we were to do stuff like that.”. Put simply by
participant IV, “I do not think this company puts enough human resources into its human
resources. We don’t have enough people here.”

111
In addition to the full-time staff position that was eliminated, student wages for the office
were cut. Participant II had supervised an hourly student in the past and said that “due to funding
issues we haven't been able to hire anybody, we're looking at potentially hiring somebody, but
it's kind of been delayed.” Participant V stated, “I just don't know that the administration and the
powers that be really know what a functional HR department is really supposed to do. I think
they see it as highly as transactional and impersonal.” If leadership is not aware of the full
potential of the HR office, they may not provide them the resources they need to work toward the
organizational goal. Participant VII believed that the resources to support diversity and equity
goals were “diverted to other offices.”
SSU HR personnel do not feel that they have the time and energy necessary to further
diversity and equity initiatives on campus. The HR office clearly expressed that they believe
their office needs additional resources in order to help the organization reach its goals of
increasing women in leadership. The organizational barrier associated with the cultural setting of
aligning resources with the goals of the university is validated.
Synthesis
This research offered nine assumed influences that may impact the organization’s ability
to successfully reach its goal of increasing women in leadership positions by 5% per year. The
research identified a total of five areas for improvement related to the knowledge, motivation,
and cultural models and settings of the university: one declarative knowledge area, one
motivation, and three cultural. Some of the influences are interconnected and may have
contributed to other identified gaps. For example, the lack of clear knowledge and understanding
of the goals of the organization related to gender equity and increasing numbers of women in
position of influence may contribute to the lack of required goal orientation. Also, without

112
knowledge of the goal and with little effort to reach the goal, then it is unlikely that the office
will request or allocate the necessary resources to achieving the goal.
It is evident from the many comments made by HR staff in the study interviews that HR
was once and, to some degree, remains a dysfunctional campus office. The reason for the
dysfunction appears to have multiple sources, ranging from a flawed understanding of the type of
resources they can provide and the fracture of traditional HR responsibilities to budget
considerations and issues from the past that still impact the current HR. Staff has pointed out that
everything from the chain of command to inadequate staffing represent impediments to proper
function. Highly critical is the perceived or actual failure of campus leadership to clearly define
HR’s role and the role of overlapping offices such as the CDO and Diversity and Inclusion
Department. Nor is campus leadership perceived to provide a mandate to HR staff to take a more
assertive approach to participating in HR-related workforce development and equity-related
actions. However, internal HR leadership is complicit in the distrust that is evident among
employees and in failing to communicate, defining employee responsibilities as they relate to
equity, and being more proactive with advocating for their department in the larger community.
The first research question asked to what extend is SSU meeting its goal. Limited
engagement by the SSU HR office has hindered progress toward the organization’s goal of
increasing women in leadership roles, developmental roles, and positions in line for future
promotions. Additionally, a lack of benchmarking data and data collection protocols makes it
difficult to ascertain if there has been any progress. The analysis of data investigated nine
influences areas to examine the HR knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
associated with SSU meeting its organizational goal. The analysis identified five HR gaps that, if
addressed, will help the organizational move closer to their desired outcome. The subsequent

113
session addresses the final research question regarding the organizational practices that will aid
the organization and HR in meeting their goals
Recommendations
Presented in this section are the recommendations to address the knowledge, motivation,
and organizational influence gaps identified in this study. The knowledge influence of
understanding of organizational goals surrounding gender equity, the motivation influence of
goal orientation, and the organizational influences of the culture model trust, and cultural settings
of communication and resource alignment are discussed. In addition, this section provides
suggestions for the influences that were undetermined, including the procedural knowledge
influence of understanding of how to create policies and practices that facilitate equity and the
cultural model influence of resistance to change. Each of the undetermined areas are integral to
the ability of the organization to accomplish the organizational and stakeholder goals. This
section provides suggestions for comprehensive implementation and evaluation using the New
World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Knowledge Recommendations
Three knowledge influences including factual, procedural and metacognitive were
examined and analyzed for this study; however, only one gap was identified related to factual
knowledge of HR employee understanding. Factual knowledge is isolated information specific to
a context (Krathwohl, 2002). The SSU HR staff, as well as all employees, need to know the
organizational goals and values regarding both diversity and gender equity so they will be able to
collectively and individually work toward the goal of increasing women in leadership positions.
Additionally, HR needs to fully understand the gender-related organizational goals so that they
can integrate this knowledge into policy, practices, and training. Procedural knowledge is the

114
information needed to complete a task that includes process, principles, structure, techniques,
and methods to execute successfully (Krathwohl, 2002). Procedural knowledge is also
understanding the implications of any actions taken (Krathwohl, 2002). There was not enough
available evidence to establish whether there was a gap in the HR personnel’s procedural
knowledge of creating policies and practices that facilitate equity, but the topic is discussed
because it is integral to achieving the organizational goal. Table 21 lists the knowledge
influences, knowledge type, principles and citations, and context-specific recommendations. The
recommendations offered in Table 21 aim to close the declarative and potential procedural
knowledge gaps.
Table 21
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Knowledge
Influence

Knowledge
Type

Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Employees need
knowledge of
organizational
goals regarding
diversity and
gender equity.
Declarative
Factual
The organizational goals
and values need to be
communicated clearly to
all employees and
leadership (Clark &
Estes, 2008).

Establishing declarative
knowledge that is
required to perform a
skill improves the
associated procedural
knowledge (Clark &
Estes, 2008).

When individuals
understand goals, how
they interrelate, and the
underlying value in each,
they are better prepared
to work together to reach
Provide a job aide that
effectively communicates
-the stated values of the
organization and -rationale for
working to achieve the goals
-encouragement to align
actions with the associated
goals.

115
those goals (Clark and
Estes, 2008).
HR personnel
need to understand
how to create
policies and
practices that
facilitate equity.
Procedural Creating mechanisms to
promote accountability
increases likelihood of
meeting organizational
goals (Aguinis &
Kraiger, 2009)

Establishing changes in
the organizational culture
improves outcomes
(Kotter, 2012; Thistle &
Molinaro, 2016)

Decision-makers need to
be accountable to ensure
that their decisions,
policies, and practices
are aligned with the
goals and vision of the
organization (Hammond
et al., 2015; Taiwo et al.,
2016).
Provide external and internal
comprehensive professional
development and continuing
education opportunities.

Create, track, and administer
HR related campus training.

HR will synthesize research
and best practices to see how
they can be integrated into
campus procedures and to
improve or create new policies
and reduce instances of unfair
personnel and administrative
actions.

HR and upper management
should stay abreast of
pertinent research and be
aware of what other similar
institutions are doing.

Establish a panel of
stakeholders to do a regular
review of an HR report on
HR-related activities; share
findings with campus.

Employees need knowledge of organizational goals regarding diversity and its value.
SSU employees need knowledge of organizational goals regarding diversity and its value
to facilitate a more equitable environment for would-be female leaders to obtain positions of
authority. Clark and Estes (2008) identified information, job aids, training, and education as
vehicles to closing knowledge gaps. Providing the basic information needed to HR personnel is
the fundamental to and integrated into each of the recommendations and suggestions.
Furthermore, it is important for gender-related goals to be communicated to all employees and

116
for management to hold decision-makers accountable and ensure that decisions are aligned with
goals and that policies are compatible with the stated mission (Taiwo et al., 2016).
A job aide that clearly communicates the organizational values and rationale for
increasing diversity and women in leadership is necessary for all employees to share
understanding (Clark & Estes, 2008). Job aides provide an opportunity for individuals to take in
information at their own pace and without external interpretation (Clark & Estes, 2008). The
greater the number of individuals at SSU that know the goal of the university to promote
diversity, the more likely there will be success in meeting the organizational goals. Each
employee will understand the purpose of those goals and the value of working toward diversity,
inclusion, and equity. In order to achieve the organizational goal, it will be communicated to all
employees, and management will hold decision-makers accountable to ensure that decisions are
aligned with these goals and policies are compatible with the stated mission (Taiwo et al., 2016).
The greater the number of individuals at SSU that know the goal of the university to promote
gender equity, the more likely there will be success in meeting the organizational goals.
Managers need to understand HR policies and practices that facilitate equity.
The ability for managers to understand HR policies and practices that facilitate equity is
an integral part of achieving the goal of more women in leadership. Managers work closely with
HR and utilize the training, policies, and procedures provided by HR (Gilbert et al., 2011;
Whittaker & Marchington, 2003). The data showed that managers may lack training in HR
competencies and support from HR, which is critical to their being able to effectively carry out
their supervisory duties (Gilbert et al., 2011). Managers with devolved HR responsibilities need
training from HR to be aware of and understand their role in ethical and unbiased hiring,
evaluation, promotion, and compensation.

117
The recommendation is that HR be responsible for creating and administering training
across campus and tracking successful completion of training by designated employees.
Developmental, rather than compliance, unconscious bias training is an example of training that
HR needs to assist in developing and delivering, as well as in tracking completion for all
managers. In addition, HR will be encouraged to attend professional development and other
training to increase their knowledge, ability to effect change, and create resources and
procedures that promote equity and diversity.
In work by Grossman and Salas (2011), trainees that perceive the training as useful are
more likely to apply what they have learned and will see improved performance. HR will create
effective training that develops the utility value of diversity within the organization. Increasing
the perceived value of diversity for stakeholders will generate motivation to take action to ensure
decision making aligns with the goal of increasing female representation in leadership roles. HR
and leadership will research where and how other institutions are finding success, analyze
internal processes for the impact on equity, and synthesize academic and HR research to address
institutional policies and practices that create barriers for equity (Bensimon, 2005). Finally, HR
will work to integrate these into the campus culture in order for the organization to be positioned
to hold accountable those who do not uphold the values of the organization or do not align their
actions with the stated mission and vision (Thistle & Molinaro, 2016).
Motivation Recommendations
There are numerous motivational theories, including self-efficacy, expectancy-value,
emotions, interest, goal orientation, and attributions influencing motivation. The following
discussion will focus on utility value and goal orientation of SSU’s HR personnel (Bandura,
1977; Clark & Estes, 2008). Assessing the motivational influences for this study provided

118
insights into a gap in HR personnel’s goal orientation regarding achieving gender-equity and
increasing diversity in leadership roles. This study also examined potential gaps in the
motivational influence of utility value, but a gap was not validated. Determining motivational
factors is most effective when it is done as one step in the process of continuous evaluation.
Simply increasing motivation may not automatically solve performance issues related to the
attainment of organizational goals, but it will improve outcomes when other knowledge or skills
gaps or organizational barriers have been addressed (Clark & Estes, 2008; Mayer, 2011; Rueda,
2011; Yough & Anderman, 2006). Table 22 provides a summary of the motivational influence,
knowledge type, principle citation, and context-specific recommendation.
Table 22
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Motivation
Influence

Motivation Type Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
HR, campus
leaders, and hiring
managers should
be intrinsically
motivated to go
beyond the
minimum and
master the
necessary skills.
Goal Orientation Learn to display
flexible and dynamic
behaviors when
faced with
challenges (Dweck
& Leggett, 1988).

Improve self-
efficacy (Bandura,
1982).

Make it safe to take
risks (Yough &
Anderman, 2009).

Provide credible
models and time for
employees to
observe models
(Mayer, 2011;
Denler et al., 2009).
Improve manager self-
efficacy in making diversity
related decisions by
providing credible models
that employees can observe
and practice using.

Create an environment
where it is safe to
implement measures and
procedures that will help
meet the organizational
goal.

Provide tools to achieve the
goal.

Actively reinforce the goal
of increasing female
representation in leadership
roles within the

119

Create
reinforcements and
appropriate feedback
to increase behaviors
and learning (Mayer,
2011; Shute, 2008).

Monitor
performance
(Dembo & Eaton,
2000).
organization by leadership.

Review adherence to clear
accountability procedures
by creating benchmarks and
evaluative metrics to gauge
progress and identify areas
that need to be addressed.

Increasing the goal orientation of HR personnel and campus decision makers
Interviews of HR personnel revealed that they do not see pursuing equity as a major
priority in campus personnel-related decision making, and there have not been significant or
specific efforts within the HR office to promote equity. A goal orientation theory motivational
influence is when a stakeholder’s goals focus on mastering a skill or on learning instead of doing
a task just to avoid looking incompetent or to appear superior to others (Yough & Anderman,
2006). The recommendation is that the university improve leadership, manager, and HR
personnel self-efficacy in making diversity-related decisions, make it safe to take risks, and
actively reinforce the goal of increasing gender parity in higher education leadership. Providing
credible models, such as examples of actions taken by other universities or organizations seeking
to achieve a similar goal, will show employees that related activities have functional value and
will promote learning and performance (Denler et al., 2009).
To increase the goal orientation of those making day-to-day decisions for personnel on
campus, it is important to focus on skill mastery, create a reinforcing organizational structure,
and provide timely and private feedback (Mayer, 2011; Shute, 2008). In addition, making the
tasks associated with increasing female representation in leadership roles interesting and

120
reasonably challenging will help to increase motivation (Yough & Anderman, 2006). It is
important that there are measurable data that are benchmarked, tracked, monitored, and reported
on regularly and kept within context to show progress and motivate HR personnel and other
decision makers (Dembo & Eaton, 2000). SSU will be more effective in meeting its goals when
they utilize disaggregated data to make informed decisions and track the impact of each decision
on its effect on equity in organizational practice (Bensimon, 2005). Other strategies to increase
goal orientation include HR personnel working to improve their diversity self-efficacy and
campus leaders providing space to take some risks by taking measures that work to improve
outcomes (Bandura, 1982; Yough & Anderman, 2006). Clear accountability procedures need to
be communicated to HR professionals at SSU and adherence to the procedures monitored.
Creating benchmarks and evaluative metrics to gauge progress and identify areas that need to be
addressed will help to monitor and improve performance (Dembo & Eaton, 2000). When
appropriate, rewards for HR personnel should be linked with progress in order to show
improvement and learning (Pintrich, 2003).
Organizational Recommendations
Culture is a fundamental part of any organization as it reflects the established norms and
forms the core values of its employees (Erez & Gati, 2004). This study examined the two cultural
model influences of trust and resistance to change. A gap in the cultural model influence of trust
was validated while the gap in cultural model influence of resistance to change was
undetermined. Additionally, this study evaluated two cultural setting influences of
communication and aligning organizational resources with its values. Gaps in the cultural setting
influences of communication and the alignment of resources were validated. Within each
organization, there is a culture with various overlapping cultural models and settings that

121
influence the invisible and visible events happening within the organization (Shein, 2004).
Cultural models are the normative understandings of the world and encompass the attitudes,
beliefs, and values that underlie an organization and the behavior of those within it (Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001). Often cultural models go unrecognized or are automatic. Cultural settings are
the visible part of organizational culture and are expressed in the activities, application of
resources, or the lack of resources committed to an activity (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001).
Both cultural settings and models are specific to the context within the organization (Shein,
2004). Table 23 identifies the organization influence, knowledge type, principle and citation, and
context-specific recommendations.
Table 23
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Organization
Influence

Knowledge
Type
Principle and Citation

Context-Specific
Recommendation
Trust Cultural
Model
Organizations are more
effective when their leaders
are trusted and when they
trust their employees
(Korsgaard et al., 2002;
Rath & Conchie, 2009).

Organizations with a high
level of organizational trust
produce high quality
products and service for
less because they retrain
highly motivated employees
(Colquitt, Scott & LePine,
2007 as cited in Starnes;
Truhon & McCarthy, 2010).
HR will demonstrate
accountable autonomy by
keeping commitments and
building trust.

Campus leadership and HR
will clearly articulate
organizational goals and
create, communicate, and
measure the organization’s
progress toward goals.
Communication

Cultural
Setting
Communication validates
the organization’s
commitment to
acknowledging worker
HR will use effective
communication strategies to
facilitate and maintain
positive relationships with,

122
concerns (Berbary &
Malinchak, 2011).

Effective leadership
understands the process of
communication and its
influence on motivation and
organizational change
(Conger, 1991; Denning,
2005; Fix & Sias, 2006;
Lewis, 2011).
and build motivation among
stakeholders and to help
facilitate organizational
change.

HR will use effective
communication to convey
the university’s mission and
goals related to diversity to
campus, as well, as engage
all stakeholders in the
change process.
Aligning
Resources with
the Values of the
Institution
Cultural
Setting
Effective change ensures
that stakeholders have the
resources they need to do
their jobs (Clark & Estes,
2008).

Lack of resources can be
barriers to change (Ross et
al., 2015).
Campus leadership will
ensure that HR has the
resources it requires to meet
the organizational goal.

Building organizational trust in Human Resources
Interviews of SSU HR staff have identified a gap in the cultural model of trust within the
organization. Building interpersonal and operational trust in the HR office is an integral step in
establishing a positive motivational environment and, thus, is a desirable cultural model to build
and maintain (Clark & Estes, 2008). The best leaders are those that can be trusted and
organizations with a high level of organizational trust are more efficient with less expense
because they retain highly motivated employees (Colquitt, Scott & LePine, 2007, as cited in
Starnes, Truhon & McCarthy, 2010; Korsgaard et al., 2002; Rath & Conchie, 2009). The
recommendation is that HR will demonstrate accountable autonomy by empowering employees
with position-appropriate discretion, increasing innovation by using employee knowledge, and
improving cross-functional work and collaboration (Fung, 2001). In addition, HR and leadership
will increase trust by keeping commitments and campus leadership, and HR will create,

123
communicate, and measure the organization’s progress toward organizational goals.
The core functions of HR at SSU include staffing, processing personnel actions,
overseeing and implementing compensation, and employee relations. However, the potential of
Strategic HR, HRM, and HRD to benefit the organization and its employees spans a significantly
greater number of functions that are perhaps less well defined, such as training and development,
employee safety, recruiting, evaluations, and rewards and recognition (Dessler, 2018). Trust is
especially important in relation to the stakeholder, HR, because HR practices are strong
predictors of both organizational performance and trust (Gould-Williams, 2003). Accountability
is an important aspect of trust, and HR needs to maintain accountability because they are
important to the momentum of change (Thistle & Molinaro, 2016). HR processes will promote
social and ethical responsibility, which, in turn, foster trust (Lau & Ngo, 2004; Simmons, 2003;
Thistle & Molinaro, 2016).
Communications as means to facilitate successful organizational change
A gap organizational model of communication within the organization was validated, and
participants discussed areas that communication could be improved: in particular, improving
communication between leadership and HR; including HR in the higher-level, personnel-related
planning and decision making; and HR proactively communicating with employees. In addition,
the lack of knowledge of the organizational goals related to gender equity is a communication
issue, and leadership needs to clearly communicate the organization’s goals and values (Johnson,
2006). Clark & Estes (2008) include communication as one of the six types of support necessary
for organizational change. Coordinated communication focused on changing individual
employee behavior is critical in order for change efforts to be successful (Gilley et al., 2009;
Larkin & Larkin, 1994). Communication validates the organization’s commitment to

124
acknowledging worker concerns, including those related to perceived equity and organizational
commitment to diversity, and effective leadership understands the process of communication and
its influence on motivation and organizational change (Berbarry & Malinchak, 2011; Conger,
1991; Denning, 2005; Fix & Sias, 2006; Lewis, 2011). HR will implement a strategy to improve
communication that supports leadership in conveying the university’s mission and goals related
to diversity and gender equity to campus, as well as engaging all stakeholders in the change
process. This strategy may include updates and revisions to existing policies and procedures and
creation of new policies and procedures, outreach campaigns, job aides for employees such as
websites and integrating the message into training.
Internal communication is a function of interdisciplinary management involving HR,
administration, and marketing (Verčič et al., 2012). The HR discipline views communication as a
management tool (Fitz-enz, 1990; Heron, 1942; Lachotzki & Noteboom, 2005). In research by
Verčič et al. (2012), respondents agreed that the responsibility for internal communication should
be shared between both HR and marketing. HR is a critical change agent and has the influence to
communicate and train managers and employees to help reach the goals of the organization
(Long et al., 2013). The recommendation is that HR will use effective communication strategies
to facilitate and maintain positive relationships with, and build motivation among, stakeholders
to help the organization change and meet the organizational goal.
Additionally, top leadership needs to align their behavior with the organization’s culture
and be clear in their support for the espoused values (Schein, 2004). Modeling their interest and
enthusiasm for diversity and gender equity is important to improving HR motivation and
persistence to achieve their stakeholder goal (Schraw & Lehman, 2009). Leaders will be more
effective when they use inclusive actions to model their commitment to valuing diversity and

125
gender equity and build a culture where diversity is considered an asset to the organization and
its stakeholders (Angeline, 2011; Prieto, Phipps, & Osiri, 2009). Leadership also needs to set and
then clearly communicate the measurable goals that align with the organizational values
(Johnson, 2006).
Aligning Resources
It is imperative that organizations provide the necessary resources to support change and
exhibit a commitment to organizational goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). HR offices that are
strategically oriented within an organization are positioned to improve outcomes, increase
organizational performance, and produce and execute more effective employee training (Bowen
& Ostroff, 2001; Choi & Yoon, 2015). A gap in the cultural setting influence of aligning
resources with the values of the institution was identified in this study. The recommendation for
eliminating this gap is for leadership to allocate resources to the HR office so they are able to
successfully fulfill their role in creating effective and sustainable change. Resources that HR
requires include hiring additional personnel, bringing HR into the top levels of decision making,
and empowering them to be proactive in their services and support as they relate to promoting
diversity and gender equity. Additional personnel support will benefit the HR office not only by
improving transactional reliability but also allowing them to create new resources and training
opportunities for campus employees and to conduct data analysis to benchmark and track
progress to goals. As a result, the office will have the resources to address the organization
culture influence gaps of communication and trust. Cultural influence gaps of communication
and trust can be addressed by continuing to increase in positive interactions with the HR office
and improved communications across the organization.

126
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) New World Kirkpatrick Model is used as the
theoretical framework for the following recommendations. The New World Kirkpatrick Model
has four levels of training and evaluation: reaction, learning, behavior, and results (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). Level 1, reaction, is how well participants involved in training react and
includes engagement, relevance, and trainee satisfaction (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Level 3, learning, is how much is learned and is assessed by knowledge, attitude, confidence, and
commitment. Level 3, behavior, identifies the necessary behaviors that an individual must
perform to achieve a desired result. Behaviors must be observed and checked to make sure there
is consistent performance, monitor and adjust behaviors as needed, and reinforcement of critical
and required behaviors. Finally, Level 4, results, is the specified objectives or the desired results
of a program. In addition, Level 4 evaluates the progress toward the objects and desired results
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The New World Kirkpatrick Model provides a theoretical
framework that effectively uses “backwards mapping” to assess (Level 4 to Level 1) and reverses
the approach provided in the original Kirkpatrick Model (Level 1 to Level 4). The reverse
approach provides the opportunity to focus primarily on the most important outcome
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations
The SSU organizational performance goal was to increase the number of women in all
levels of leadership by 5% by August 2023. The HR stakeholder goal was to implement hiring
practices and strategies to achieve gender parity in all echelons of leadership by January 2022.
Through a review of the relevant literature and interviews of HR personnel at the organization,
five assumed knowledge, motivation, and organization influences were identified as areas to

127
ameliorate. The identified influence gaps are the HR employees’ knowledge of gender equity
organizational goals and values, HR employees’ diversity and gender equity goal orientation, and
a lack of trust in HR, communication from HR, and resources in HR. Providing training to HR
personnel and campus managers, as well as creating policies and practices to promote equity,
will help to raise awareness of individual biases and decrease opportunities for inequitable hiring
practices (Dessler, 2018; Onley, 2016). Implementing the recommendations provided in this
study will improve gender equity and female representation in leadership roles across higher
education campuses.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
HR personnel are able to assess the progress toward their stakeholder goal by monitoring
female hire, promotion, and turnover rates at the university against past benchmarks. These
provide a possible external metric to determine the extent of the stakeholder’s progress. Table 24
describes the external and internal outcomes and the associated metrics and methods.
Table 24
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes

Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
1. Increased female tenure
and promotion rates.
Number of women that achieved
tenure or rank advancement and
those that did not.
Obtain data from
Provost’s office.
2. Improved female morale
across the organization.
Women who indicate that they are
happier with and have more
professional opportunities in their
workplace.
Collect annual employee
satisfaction survey data
(if applicable).
Internal Outcomes
1. Increased representation
of women in positions of
authority.
Hiring rates of women into middle
and upper management positions.
Collect, analyze, and
report on employment
data.

128
2. Increased
developmental
opportunities for women
on campus.
Increased in qualified female
application rates for positions of
influence.
Conduct audits of hiring
data.

Level 3: Behavior
Critical Behaviors.
The critical behaviors that human resources personnel need to demonstrate include the
ability to create equity driven policies and procedures, actively engage in and provide substantive
input into the campus decision making process. HR personnel also need to be able to deliver
consistent, relevant, and high-quality training that is equity-centered to members of campus.
Table 25 describes the behaviors that the HR personnel must exhibit in order to achieve the
stakeholder goal of increasing women in leadership roles. The table includes the critical
behaviors, as well as the associated metrics, methods, and timing. HR personnel must not only
meet the transactional and basic HR support to campus but also provide a foundation on which to
consistently make fair and equitable personnel related decisions.
Table 25
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
Create equity
driven policies and
procedures.
Frequency and age updates
to existing policies; how
many new relevant policies
and procedures were created
or updated; auditing of
existing processes to ensure
continuous improvement
Monitor new and revised
policies approved by
Board of Trustees;
leadership creates
committee and
accountability to monitor
and maintain progress.
Annually
Deliver
consistent,
relevant, and
high-quality
training that is
centered on
Frequency of training;
number and positions of
attendees; feedback from
those receiving the training
Track frequency of
training and conduct post
assessment surveys to
evaluate the frequency,
quality, content, and
applicability of training.
After each
training
(surveys)
and assessed
each quarter.

129
diversity and
equity.
Examine and
assess personnel-
related outcomes
to identify areas
that need to be
addressed.
Number of developmental
and mentoring opportunities
for women; percentages of
qualified women being hired
into positions of increased
responsibility
Analyze personnel
evaluations; analyze
recruitment, hiring,
compensation, and
promotion data; examine
exit survey data.
Ongoing

Required Drivers.
Support and accountability throughout implementation of recommendations is necessary.
Required drivers provide reinforcement and encouragement to ensure the necessary support and
accountability (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Campus leaders and direct supervisors need to
encourage and require the use of what was learned from HR in the workshops and training to
maximize success of implementation. Establishing rewards for those who meet their established
performance goals will help to maximize the long-term success of the training. Table 26
describes the reinforcing, encouraging, rewarding, and monitoring drivers and the associated
methods and timing. Table 26 also indicates which critical behaviors from Table 25 are
supported with each activity.
Table 26
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical
Behaviors
Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing

Job aide including all current policies, procedures, best
practices, trainings, examples of policies and procedures
that integrate best practices.
Ongoing 1
Consistent and quality developmental campus training. Annually and
as needed
2
Encouraging

Collaboration with departments across campus. Monthly and 2, 3

130
as needed
Feedback and coaching from CDO. Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Rewarding

Public acknowledgement by leadership when there is
progress from HR initiatives.
Quarterly 3
Monitoring

Policies and practices regularly evaluated to ensure they
are up-to-date.
Annually 1
Audits of training surveys. Ongoing 2

It is imperative that campus leaders provide a unified front to ensure that any actions HR
takes are successful. Campus leaders determine how the HR office is strategically placed within
the organization and can provide a well-positioned platform for them to begin their work toward
accomplishing the organizational goal. Without the support of campus leaders, the trainings and
procedures will not be mandatory, and policies will not be submitted for approval to the Board of
Trustees.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals.
Once the recommendations have been implemented the stakeholders will be able to:
1. Understand the role of implicit bias in personnel-related decision making
(Procedural).
2. Provide equity centered training to university employees on recruitment, hiring,
evaluations, promotions, and compensation (Procedural).
3. Create HR procedures and policies that promote equity (Declarative).
4. Understand the research and best practices to integrate equity into campus culture
(Procedural).
5. Understand their own individual implicit biases and how these influence their
decision making (Metacognitive).

131
6. Understand the organizational goals related to diversity and gender equity and their
relationship to the organization’s values (Factual).
7. Indicate confidence that they can implement strategies that foster equity and diversity
(Confidence).
8. Value diversity and its contributions to teams and the organization as a whole
(Value).
Program.
The learning goals provided in the Learning Goals section will be achieved by implementing a
training program that integrates gender- and diversity-related HRM and HRD. Trainees, HR
personnel, will learn about topics ranging from gender inequities in higher education to gender
bias and the influence of HR offices in reducing the gap in female-to-male leadership
representation. This professional development training will require annual refreshers and will
consist of collaborative workshops that engage stakeholders across campus. HR personnel will
also be provided “train the trainer” instruction that they can provide to all campus leaders and
managers.
During the synchronous workshops, trainees will be provided job aides which include
examples, policies, and procedures on how to conduct equitable recruiting, hiring, compensation,
evaluation, promotion, and other HR activities. Training will be provided to all HR personnel
regardless of their duties. Instruction will include job aides and examples of their practical
application and how to best train managers to implement these practices. Workshops will be
interactive with the opportunity to address questions and complete reflective exercises.
Additionally, learners will be able to interact with others through discussion, role-play, and peer
modeling. This will provide the opportunity for less experienced HR professionals to learn from

132
their more experienced colleagues. As HR trains managers and leaders on campus, they will be
required to refresh their learning to ensure they stay abreast of current events, law changes, and
procedural changes.
Evaluation of the Components of Learning.
Table 27, below, lists the methods and activities that will be used to evaluate the learning goals
discussed in the previous section. The methods and activities include knowledge checks, various
workshop activities, and post assessment surveys. Implementation of these will provide evidence
of the ability to apply learning and assess the declarative and procedural knowledge, as well as
the confidence and attitude and commitment of the participants.
Table 27
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge: “I know it.”

Knowledge checks Throughout the workshop as asked
by the instructor
Knowledge checks Throughout the workshop; worked on
in group activities
Train the Trainer Each time training of managers and
leaders is conducted
Procedural Skills: “I can do it right now.”

Workshop Activities Throughout the workshop; during
individual activities
Workshop Activities Throughout the workshop; during
group activities
Train the Trainer Each time training of managers and
leaders is conducted
Post assessment survey that asks the participants level
of proficiency before and after the workshop
At the end of the workshop
Attitude: “I believe this is worthwhile.”

Instructor’s observation of the participant Throughout the workshop
Post assessment survey question about the benefits of
diversity
After the workshop
Confidence: “I think I can do it on the job.”

Workshop activities Throughout the workshop;

133
individual and group discussions that
follow practice and feedback
Post assessment survey scaled question After the workshop
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”

Workshop activities Throughout the workshop;
individual and group discussions that
follow practice and feedback
Create and individual action plan During the workshop
Post assessment survey question After the workshop

Level 1: Reaction
Engagement during workshops and perceptions of the value and relevance of training can
be measured by observing participants, workshop leader observations, and end of training
surveys (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). It is important to gauge participants’ reaction to
training they are receiving and have received to determine its effectiveness. Table 28 identifies
the methods or tools used to measure reactions to programs and the timing of those
measurements.
Table 28
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement

Instructor observation Throughout the workshop
Attendance During the workshop
Leadership observation Throughout the workshop and during subsequent trainings of
managers and leaders
Check-Ins Throughout the workshop
Post assessment survey After the workshop
Relevance

Post assessment survey
question
After the workshop
Workshop activities Throughout the workshop
Customer Satisfaction

Post assessment survey
question
After the workshop
Workshop activities Throughout the workshop

134

Evaluation Tools
Immediately Following the Program Implementation.
Upon completion of the workshop, there will be an activity and discussion that will help
ascertain engagement with the contents of the workshop. Immediately following the workshop,
participants will be asked to complete a blended survey regarding the workshop. The survey will
incorporate Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) Level 1, reaction, and Level 2, learning, of
training evaluation. The survey will assess the engagement, attitude, and confidence of
participants, as well as relevance of the material.
Delayed for a Period After the Program Implementation.
After approximately six weeks post-workshop, the HR leadership will administer a
survey to evaluate Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016)’s Levels 1, 2, and 3 of training. The
survey is a blended survey of open and scaled questions and aims to assess the participants’
perspective on the relevance of training (Level 1), the participants’ confidence in their ability to
apply what they learned in the workshop (Level 2), and the level of success of their applying
what they learned on the job (Level 3). The delayed evaluation will also ask participants to
identify the efforts made that resulted from their learning.
Data Analysis and Reporting
The Level 4 goal of HR personnel is measured by the positive change in the proportion of
female representation in positions of leadership across the organization. There are numerous
metrics that can determine the progress made. Each quarter, the HR office will track the turnover
of women in positions across campus, as well as new hires.
In addition, the designated committee will review reported data annually to maintain

135
accountability and to monitor progress. A more comprehensive and detailed report will be
generated and reported to the President’s cabinet annually.
Summary
The New World Kirkpatrick Model provides a methodology of training evaluation that is
examined in reverse and is designed to identify goals and outcomes followed by the various
critical behaviors required to achieve those goals and outcomes (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016). Each critical behavior requires associated knowledge and skills, and the model asks the
evaluator to establish these next. SSU’s goal of increasing the representation of females in
positions of leadership and authority requires HR to have the relevant skills and abilities to create
policies, practices, and training to help meet this goal. Evaluating the training of HR personnel
back on the New World Kirkpatrick Model provided the opportunity to critically examine its
effectiveness and success (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). There were two assessments
planned. The data was collected from a survey immediately following the workshop and then
several months later. When the process is carried out without hindrance the data will provide
opportunities to improve the training process.
The growing and evolving role of human resources in higher education provides a
strategic opportunity for SSU to meet its stakeholder goal. Management and human resources
research supports the opportunity of HR to facilitate positive organizational change, and this can
serve as a guide for SSU’s efforts in creating equity-driven training, policies, and procedures. As
the organization’s HR hones its knowledge and skills in driving change and reinforcing diversity,
the existing diversity initiatives on campus SSU stand to gain much from their efforts. Ongoing
training for HR and their ability to effectively train and support administrators, managers, and all
employees will ultimately lead to SSU gaining more female representation in the ranks of

136
leadership and authority which benefits the organization, the community, and higher education.
Future Research
Seven interviews were conducted to assess nine assumed influences affecting the
organization's ability to accomplish its goal of increasing women in positions of leadership. This
study identified knowledge, motivation, and organizational influence gaps based on these
interviews. This study was confined to one institution of higher education with unique
demographic considerations. Further research would benefit from examining whether candidates
looking for employment at this institution were married and whether the influence on their
choice to work at the institution were impacted by available employment for the partner. In some
cases, the fact that there are no employment opportunities in a small city for a spouse or partner
may be a barrier in itself. Interviews with HR personnel from other institutions of higher
education and from different regions should be conducted to verify the validity of the influence
gaps identified in this study. Interviewing managers from the same institution and comparing
data from their answers to HR’s would provide an opportunity to identify inconsistencies and
control for self-censoring of HR personnel. Conducting similar research in other types of
institutions may also provide insights into potential recommendations for higher education and
confirm the validity of the identified influences. Finally, exploring the source of assumptions by
some study participants that increasing diversity in employee selection would result in not hiring
the most qualified candidates warrants future research.

137
Conclusion
This study examined the organizational goal of increasing women in higher education
leadership at one institution. A review of literature and interviews with the organization’s HR
personnel were completed to assess the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influence
contributions to the organization’s ability to meet its goal. Clark and Estes’s (2008) Gap
Analysis Framework provided a model to identify gaps in assumed influences through data
collection and analysis. Based on the data and analysis, recommendations were proposed to
address the gaps. The Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) New World Model was used to create
an implementation and evaluation plan to successfully execute the proposed recommendations.
Findings from this study show that HR personnel do not have the knowledge of the
organizational goals related to gender equity, do not have the goal orientation necessary to reach
those goals, and do not have the resources, communication, and trust to maximize their
effectiveness at achieving the organizational goals. Though HR personnel demonstrated that they
saw value in diversity and gender equity and believed the leadership would encourage working
toward improving diversity and gender equity, they did not have any knowledge of the goals and
values of the institution or leadership as these relate to gender equity specifically. Additionally,
HR personnel did not exhibit strong motivation to reach the goal of increasing women in
leadership, perhaps because they were not aware of any. Trust and communication are integral to
every successful relationship, and HR is in the process of rebuilding trust across the organization
and confidence in their role in campus communication. Finally, resources are required for HR to
fulfill its mission, and HR personnel expressed the need for their organization to find support
from leadership through additional personnel. Additional personnel support would provide the
office opportunities to increase outreach and support to everyone on campus and would allow for

138
more effective efforts to engage diverse populations for recruitment, provide training to campus,
become more involved in the campus decision making process, and maintain data to contribute
to more informed decision making.
When considering diversity and more specifically increasing women in leadership
positions, several factors were presented in this study. Some of these factors can be overcome,
some could be mitigated, and some are more difficult to address. The most complicated factor to
consider is the community surrounding the institution in this study. Participants recognized that
fewer working women in the community to draw from as candidates and the influence of the
predominant faith in the institution and community where women are not seen as organizational
leaders are significant obstacles to overcome. A corollary to this is the practice of preferentially
selecting individuals based on familiarity and membership in the predominant faith. A lack of
diversity in the city possibly being unattractive to minority candidates is a further consideration.
Training was another area that HR staff expressed concern over. While many of them were very
clear that there should be additional training both for themselves, for the campus managers, and
for all employees, they were confused and contradictory as to what training was encouraged,
mandated, or available. The biggest area of confusion was the issue of what office was
responsible for producing and providing training.
The successful implementation of the recommendations offered in this study is only one
component in the accomplishment of the organization’s goal. There are numerous other campus
stakeholders that play an integral role at the institution. However, failure to incorporate this
study’s recommendations will impede the ability to address the institution's validated knowledge,
motivation, and organizational gaps and reduce the likelihood of success for the institution to
achieve its organizational goal of increasing women in leadership positions.

139
References
About the Board. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://ushe.edu/board-of-regents/about-the-board/
Abouzahr, K., Krentz, M., Taplett, F. B., Tracey, C., & Tsusaka, M. (2017). Dispelling the
Myths of the Gender “Ambition Gap.” Boston Consulting Group.
https://www.bcg.com/en-us/publications/2017/people-organization-leadership-change-
dispelling-the-myths-of-the-gender-ambition-gap.aspx
Abrams, D., Swift, H. J., & Drury, L. (2016). Old and unemployable? How age‐based
stereotypes affect willingness to hire job candidates. Journal of Social Issues, 72(1), 105-
121.
Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender &
society, 4(2), 139-158.
Adams, J. S. (1963). Towards an understanding of inequity. The journal of abnormal and social
psychology, 67(5), 422.
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In Advances in experimental social
psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267-299). Academic Press.
Adams, M. L. (2006). The quest for tenure: Job security and academic freedom. Cath. UL Rev.,
56, 67.
Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and
teams, organizations, and society. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 451–474.
doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163505
Altbach, P. G., Reisberg, L., & Pacheco, I. F. (2013). Academic salaries and contracts: global
trends and American realities. Almanac of Higher Education.

140
American Council on Education (n.d.). Moving the needle: Advancing women in higher
education leadership. Retrieved from
https://www.acenet.edu/leadership/programs/Pages/Moving-the-Needle.aspx
Anderman, E., & Anderman, L. (2009). Attribution theory. Education. com, 23.
Angeline, T. (2011). Managing generational diversity at the workplace: expectations and
perceptions of different generations of employees. African Journal of Business
Management, 5(2), 249-255.
Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. (2010). 2010 Policies, Practices,
and Composition of Governing Boards of Independent Colleges and Universities. AGB
Press.
Baker, V. L., Lunsford, L. G., & Pifer, M. J. (2019). Patching up the “leaking leadership
pipeline”: Fostering mid-career faculty succession management. Research in Higher
Education, 60(6), 823-843.
Banaji, M., & Greenwald, A. (2013). Blindspot : Hidden biases of good people (1st ed.).
Delacorte Press.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological
review, 84(2), 191.
Barasch, A. (2012). Gender Bias Analysis Version 2.0: Shifting the Focus to Outcomes and
Legitimacy. NYU Rev. L. & Soc. Change, 36, 529.
Batt, R., & Colvin, A. J. (2011). An employment systems approach to turnover: Human
resources practices, quits, dismissals, and performance. Academy of management
Journal, 54(4), 695-717.

141
Bensimon, E. M., Hao, L., & Bustillos, L. T. (2007). Measuring the state of equity in higher
education. In P. Gandara, G. Orfield, & C. Horn (Eds.), Expanding opportunity in higher
education: Leveraging promise (pp. 143–166). State University of New York Press.
Berbary, D. F., & Malinchak, A. A. (2011). Connected and engaged: The value of government
learning. Public Manager, 40(3), 55.
Berger, B. (2014). Read my lips: Leaders, supervisors, and culture are the foundations of
strategic employee communications. Research Journal of the Institute for Public
Relations, 1(1), 1-17.
Bowles, H. R., Babcock, L., & Lai, L. (2007). Social incentives for gender differences in the
propensity to initiate negotiations: Sometimes it does hurt to ask. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103(1), 84-103.
Bowen, D. E., & Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding HRM–firm performance linkages: The role
of the “strength” of the HRM system. Academy of management review, 29(2), 203-221.
Budworth, M. H., & Mann, S. L. (2010). Becoming a leader: The challenge of modesty for
women. Journal of Management Development, 29(2), 177-186.
Burbridge, L., Diaz, W., Odendahl, T., & Shaw, A. (2002). The meaning and impact of board
and staff diversity in the philanthropic field. Joint Affinity Groups. http://www. nng.
org/html/ourprograms/research/diversity_table. Htm
Cameron, M. (2010). Faculty tenure in academe: The evolution, benefits and implications of an
important tradition. Journal of Student Affairs at New York University, 6(1), 1-9.
Carnes, M., Bartels, C. M., Kaatz, A., & Kolehmainen, C. (2015). Why is John more likely to
become department chair than Jennifer? Transactions of the American Clinical and
Climatological Association, 126, 197.

142
Choi, M., & Yoon, H. J. (2015). Training investment and organizational outcomes: A moderated
mediation model of employee outcomes and strategic orientation of the HR function. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(20), 2632-2651.
Chu, D. (2012). The department chair primer: What chairs need to know and do to make a
difference (Vol. 131). John Wiley & Sons.
Clark, R. E. & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Coffman, K., Exley, C. & Niederle, M. The role of beliefs in driving gender discrimination.
Harvard Business School Working Paper, No. 18-054, December 2017. (Revised January
2020.)
Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (2000). Toward an integrative theory of training
motivation: a meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of research. Journal of applied
psychology, 85(5), 678.
Conger, J. A. (1991). Inspiring others: The language of leadership. Academy of Management
Perspectives, 5(1), 31-45.
Combs, J., Liu, Y., Hall, A., & Ketchen, D. (2006). How much do high-performance work
practice matter? A meta-analysis of their effects on organizational performance.
Personnel Psychology, 59(3), 501–528. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-
6570.2006.00045.x
Correll, S. J. (2017). SWS 2016 Feminist Lecture: Reducing gender biases in modern
workplaces: A small wins approach to organizational change. Gender & Society, 31(6),
725-750.

143
Correll, S., & Simard, C. (2016). Vague feedback is holding women back. Harvard Business
Review, 94, 2-5.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage Publications.
Crook, T. R., Todd, S. Y., Combs, J. G., Woehr, D. J., & Ketchen Jr, D. J. (2011). Does human
capital matter? A meta-analysis of the relationship between human capital and firm
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 443.
Currie, G., & Procter, S. (2001). Exploring the relationship between HR and middle
managers. Human Resource Management Journal, 11(3), 53-69.
Del Val, M. P., & Fuentes, C. M. (2003). Resistance to change: a literature review and empirical
study. Management Decision, 41(2), 148-155.
Dembo, M. H., & Eaton, M. J. (2000). Self-regulation of academic learning in middle-level
schools. The elementary school journal, 100(5), 473-490.
Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2009). Social cognitive theory.
Denning, S. (2005). The leader's guide to storytelling: Mastering the art and discipline of
business narrative (Vol. 269). John Wiley & Sons.
Dessler, G. (2018). Human Resource Management (15th Edition), Pearson Prentice Hall.
DiTomaso, N., Post, C., & Parks-Yancy, R. (2007). Workforce diversity and inequality: Power,
status, and numbers. Annu. Rev. Sociol., 33, 473-501.
Dittrich, J., & Carrell, M. (1979). Organizational equity perceptions, employee job satisfaction,
and departmental absence and turnover rates. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 24(1), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(79)90013-8

144
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and
personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256.
Dominici, F., Fried, L. P., & Zeger, S. L. (2009). So few women leaders. Academe, 95(4), 25-27.
Dowd, A. C., & Bensimon, E. M. (2014). Engaging the "race question": Accountability and
equity in US higher education. Teachers College Press.
Duke, S. (2017). The key to closing the gender gap? Putting more women in charge. World
Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/11/women-leaders-key-to-
workplace-equality/
Eagly, A. H., Gartzia, L., & Carli, L. L. (2014). Female advantage: Revisited. In S. Kumra, R.
Simpson, & L. Carli (Eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Gender in Organizations. Oxford
University Press.
Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 233.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female
leaders. Psychological review, 109(3), 573.
Eagly, A. H., Nater, C., Miller, D. I., Kaufmann, M., & Sczesny, S. (2019). Gender stereotypes
have changed: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of US public opinion polls from 1946 to
2018. American Psychologist, 75(3), 301-315.
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/.¶
ElevateHER Challenge Participants. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://wliut.com/companies-taking-
challenge/challenge-participants/

145
Erez, M., & Gati, E. (2004). A dynamic, multi‐level model of culture: from the micro level of the
individual to the macro level of a global culture. Applied Psychology, 53(4), 583-598.
Finkelstein, M. J., Conley, V. M., & Schuster, J. H. (2016). Taking the measure of faculty
diversity. TIAA Institute.
Fitz-Enz, J. (1990). Human value management: The value-adding human resource management
strategy for the 1990s. Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Fix, B., & Sias, P. M. (2006). Person-centered communication, leader-member exchange, and
employee job satisfaction. Communication Research Reports, 23(1), 35-44.
Foley, M., & Williamson, S. (2019). Managerial perspectives on implicit bias, affirmative action,
and merit. Public Administration Review, 79(1), 35-45.
Forsyth, D. R., & Nye, J. L. (2008). Seeing and being a leader: The perceptual, cognitive, and
interpersonal roots of conferred influence. Leadership at the crossroads: Leadership and
psychology, 1, 116-131.
Fung, A. (2001). Accountable autonomy: Toward empowered deliberation in Chicago schools
and policing. Politics & Society, 29(1), 73-103.
Fusch, D., & Mrig, A. (2011). Rethinking higher education’s leadership crisis. Higher Ed
Impact: Monthly Diagnostic.
Gagliardi, J. S., Espinosa, L. L., Turk, J. M., and Taylor, M. 2017. American College President
Study 2017. American Council on Education.
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45-56.

146
Gaucher, D., Friesen, J., & Kay, A. C. (2011). Evidence that gendered wording in job
advertisements exists and sustains gender inequality. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 101(1), 109.
Giele, J. Z. (2008). Homemaker or career woman: Life course factors and racial influences
among middle class Americans. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 39(3), 393-411.
Gilbert, C., Winne, S. D., & Sels, L. (2011). Antecedents of front-line managers' perceptions of
HR role stressors. Personnel Review, 40(5), 549-569.
Gilley, A., Gilley, J. W., & McMillan, H. S. (2009). Organizational change: Motivation,
communication, and leadership effectiveness. Performance Improvement Quarterly,
21(4), 75-94.
Glesne, C. (2011). Chapter 6: But is it ethical? Considering what is “right.” In Becoming
qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.) (pp. 162-183). Pearson.
Gmelch, W. H., & Miskin, V. D. (2011). Department chair leadership skills. Atwood Publishing.
Gould-Williams, J. (2003). The importance of HR practices and workplace trust in achieving
superior performance: a study of public-sector organizations. International journal of
human resource management, 14(1), 28-54.
Graham, M. E., & Tarbell, L. M. (2006). The importance of the employee perspective in the
competency development of human resource professionals. Human Resource
Management: Published in Cooperation with the School of Business Administration, The
University of Michigan and in alliance with the Society of Human Resources
Management, 45(3), 337-355.
Grawe, N. D. (2018). Demographics and the demand for higher education. JHU Press.

147
Grossman, R., & Salas, E. (2011). The transfer of training: what really matters. International
journal of training and development, 15(2), 103-120.
Guarino, C. M., & Borden, V. M. (2017). Faculty service loads and gender: Are women taking
care of the academic family? Research in Higher Education, 58(6), 672-694.
Harper, E. P., Baldwin, R. G., Gansneder, B. G., & Chronister, J. L. (2001). Full-time women
faculty off the tenure track: Profile and practice. The Review of Higher Education, 24(3),
237-257.
Hays-Thomas, R. (2016). Managing workplace diversity and inclusion: A psychological
perspective. Taylor & Francis.
Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women's
ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 657-674.
Heilman, M. E., & Okimoto, T. G. (2007). Why are women penalized for success at male tasks?:
the implied communality deficit. Journal of applied psychology, 92(1), 81.
Heilman, M., Wallen, A., Fuchs, D., & Tamkins, M. (2004). Penalties for success: Reactions to
women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3),
416-427.
Heraty, N., & Morley, M. (1995). Line managers and human resource development. Journal of
European Industrial Training, 19(10), 31–37.
https://doi.org/10.1108/03090599510095861
Heron, A. R. (1942). Sharing information with employees. Stanford University Press.
Hitch, C. (2012). How to build trust in an organization.

148
Hong, L., & Page, S. E. (2004). Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of
high-ability problem solvers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(46),
16385-16389.
Hosek, S. D. (2005). Is there gender bias in federal grant programs? Research brief. RAND
Corporation.
Howard, E., & Gagliardi, J. (2018). Leading the way to parity: Preparation, persistence, and the
role of women presidents.
Hughes, C. (2018). The role of HRD in using diversity intelligence to enhance leadership skill
development and talent management strategy. Advances in Developing Human
Resources, 20(3), 259-262.
Hulleman, C. S., Barron K. E., Kosovich J. J., Lazowski R.A. (2016). Student motivation:
Current theories, constructs, and interventions within an expectancy-value framework. In:
Lipnevich A., Preckel F., Roberts R. (Eds.) Psychosocial Skills and School Systems in the
21st Century (pp.241-278). Springer.
Hunt, V., Prince, S., Dixon-Fyle, S., & Yee, L. (2018). Delivering through diversity. McKinsey
& Company.
Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover,
productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of management
journal, 38(3), 635-672.
Hussain, S. A., & Murthy, O. N. (2013). HR metrics: A benchmarking towards excellency.
Journal of Business Management and Social Sciences Research, 2(9), 23-27.
Ibarra, H., Ely, R., & Kolb, D. (2013). Women rising: The unseen barriers. Harvard Business
Review, 91(9), 60-66.

149
Jansen, K. J. (2000). The emerging dynamics of change: Resistance, readiness, and
momentum. People and Strategy, 23(2), 53.
Janssen, O. (2001). Fairness perceptions as a moderator in the curvilinear relationships between
job demands, and job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of management
journal, 44(5), 1039-1050.
Johnson, H. L. (2016). Pipelines, pathways, and institutional leadership: An update on the status
of women in higher education. American Council on Education.
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2015). Chapter 11: Descriptive statistics. In Educational
research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (5th ed.). SAGE.
Katou, A. A. (2009). The impact of human resource development on organisational performance:
Test of a causal model. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 10(3), 335-356.
Kehoe, R. R., & Wright, P. M. (2013). The impact of high-performance human resource
practices on employees’ attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Management, 39(2), 366-391.
Kenney, R. A., Schwartz-Kenney, B. M., & Blascovich, J. (1996). Implicit leadership theories:
Defining leaders described as worthy of influence. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 22(11), 1128-1143.
Kezar, A. (2011). Understanding and Facilitating Organizational Change in the 21st Century:
Recent Research and Conceptualizations: ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report,
Volume 28, Number 4.
Kezar, A., & Sam, C. (2010). Understanding the new majority of non-tenure-track faculty in
higher education: Demographics, experiences, and plans of action. ASHE-ERIC Higher
Education Report, 36(4), 1-133.

150
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick's four levels of training evaluation.
Association for Talent Development.
Koenig, A. M., Eagly, A. H., Mitchell, A. A., & Ristikari, T. (2011). Are leader stereotypes
masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psychological Bulletin, 137(4),
616.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice,
41, 212–218. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4104
Kray, L. J., Kennedy, J. A., & Van Zant, A. B. (2014). Not competent enough to know the
difference? Gender stereotypes about women’s ease of being misled predict negotiator
deception. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 125(2), 61-72.
Krosgaard, M. A., Brodt, S. E., & Whitener, E. M. (2002). Trust in the face of conflict: The role
of managerial trustworthy behavior and organizational context. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87(2), 312.
Kunze, F., Boehm, S., & Bruch, H. (2013). Organizational performance consequences of age
diversity: Inspecting the role of diversity‐friendly HR policies and top managers’
negative age stereotypes. Journal of Management Studies, 50(3), 413-442.
Lachotzki, F., & Noteboom, R. (2005). Beyond control: Managing strategic alignment through
corporate dialogue. John Wiley & Sons.
Langan, A. (2018). Female managers and gender disparities: The case of academic department
chairs. Princeton, NJ: Job Market Paper.
Lapovskey, L. (2009). The White House project report: Benchmarking women’s leadership.
Retrieved from https://www.in.gov/icw/files/benchmark_wom_leadership.pdf.

151
Larkin, T. J., & Larkin, S. (1994). Communicating change: Winning employee support for new
business goals. McGraw Hill Professional.
Lau, C. M., & Ngo, H. Y. (2004). The HR system, organizational culture, and product
innovation. International Business Review, 13(6), 685-703.
Lennon, T., Spotts, D. L., & Mitchell, M. (2010). Benchmarking Women’s Leadership in the
United States. University of Denver–Colorado Women’s College. Retrieved from
https://womenscollege.du.edu/media/documents/BenchmarkingWomensLeadershipinthe
US.pdf.
Lewis, Laurie. (2011). Organizational Change: Creating Change through Strategic
Communication. Wiley-Blackwell.
Long, C. S., Wan Ismail, W. K., & Amin, S. M. (2013). The role of change agent as mediator in
the relationship between HR competencies and organizational performance. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(10), 2019-2033.
Lorenzo, R., Voigt, N., Schetelig, K., Zawadzki, A., Welpe, I., and Brosi, P. (2017). The Mix
That Matters: Innovation Through Diversity. Retrieved from https://www.bcg.com/en-
us/publications/2017/people-organization-leadership-talent-innovation-through-diversity-
mix-that-matters.aspx
Madsen, S. R. (2012a). Women and leadership in higher education: Current realities, challenges,
and future directions. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 14(2), 131-139.
Madsen, S. R. (2012b). Women and leadership in higher education: Learning and advancement
in leadership programs. Advances in developing Human resources, 14(1), 3-10.

152
Madsen, S. R. (2019). One Unique Way to Increase Women in Leadership Positions.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescoachescouncil/2019/10/10/one-unique-way-to-
increase-women-in-leadership-positions/#15d491d73bc4
Madsen, S. R., & Andrade, M. S. (2018). Unconscious gender bias: Implications for women's
leadership development. Journal of Leadership Studies, 12(1), 62-67.
Madsen, S. R., Longman, K. A., & Daniels, J. R. (2012). Women’s leadership development in
higher education: Conclusion and implications for HRD. Advances in Developing Human
Resources, 14(1), 113-128.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Pearson Education.
McConville, T. (2006). Devolved HRM responsibilities, middle‐managers and role
dissonance. Personnel review.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Meyer, C. B. (2006). Destructive dynamics of middle management intervention in post merger
processes. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 42(4), 397-419.
Mohr, T. S. (2014). Why women don’t apply for jobs unless they’re 100% qualified. Harvard
Business Review, 25.
Monks, J. (2007). The relative earnings of contingent faculty in higher education. Journal of
Labor Research, 28(3), 487-501.
Moss-Racusin, C. A., Phelan, J. E., & Rudman, L. A. (2010). When men break the gender rules:
Status incongruity and backlash against modest men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity,
11(2), 140.

153
Mowday, R. T. (1991). Equity theory predictions of behavior in organizations. Motivation and
work behavior, 5, 111-131.
Moving the Needle: Advancing Women in Higher Education Leadership. (2019, December 13).
https://www.acenet.edu/Programs-Services/Pages/Communities/Moving-the-
Needle.aspx.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2018). Employment and unemployment rates by
educational attainment. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cbc.asp
Neal, S., Boatman, J., & Miller, L. (2013). Women as Mentors: Does She or Doesn’t She? DDI.
https://www.shrm.org/ResourcesAndTools/hr-topics/employee-
relations/Documents/womenasmentors_rr_ddi.pdf_ext=.pdf
Noe, R. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Gerhart, B., & Wright, P. M. (2015). Human resource
management. Gaining a Competitive Advantage. McGraw-Hill.
Norton, M. I., Vandello, J. A., & Darley, J. M. (2004). Casuistry and social category bias.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(6), 817.
O'Meara, K., Lounder, A., & Campbell, C. M. (2014). To heaven or hell: Sensemaking about
why faculty leave. The Journal of Higher Education, 85(5), 603-632.
Ochsenfeld, F. (2014). Why do women’s fields of study pay less? A test of devaluation, human
capital, and gender role theory. European Sociological Review, 30(4), 536-548.
Olson, G. A. (2009). Exactly what is “shared governance.” The Chronicle of Higher Education,
24.
Onley, D. (2019, August 16). HR Key in Helping Employers Achieve Gender Equality.
Retrieved from https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/news/hr-magazine/1116/pages/hr-key-in-
helping-organizations-achieve-gender-equality.aspx

154
Organ, D. W., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Fairness and organizational citizenship behavior: What
are the connections? Social Justice Research, 6(1), 5-18.
Ott, M., & Cisneros, J. (2015). Understanding the changing faculty workforce in higher
education: A comparison of non-tenure track and tenure line experiences. Education
Policy Analysis Archives, 23, 90.
Paul, A. K., & Anantharaman, R. N. (2003). Impact of people management practices on
organizational performance: Analysis of a causal model. The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 14(7), 1246-1266.
Perry, E. L., & Kulik, C. T. (2008). The devolution of HR to the line: Implications for
perceptions of people management effectiveness. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 19(2), 262-273.
Pew Research Center. (2014) Pew Research Center: Social and Demographics Trends. What
men and women bring to business leadership. United States. [Archived Web Site]
Retrieved from https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/01/14/women-and-
leadership/st_2015-01-14_women-leadership-2-13/
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667–686.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667¶
Prieto, L. C., Phipps, S. T., & Osiri, J. K. (2009). Linking workplace diversity to organizational
performance: A conceptual framework. Journal of Diversity Management (JDM), 4(4),
13-22.
Pritchard, A., Fuesting, M., Nadel-Hawthrone, S., Schmidt, A., & Bichsel, J. (2020). 2020 Staff
in higher education annual report (Research report). CUPA-HR.

155
Pritchard, A., McChesney, J., & Bichsel, J. (2019). Staff in higher education annual report: Key
findings, trends, and comprehensive tables for the 2018-2019 academic year (Research
report). CUPA-HR.
Rath, T., & Conchie, B. (2008). Strengths based leadership: Great leaders, teams, and why
people follow. Simon and Schuster.
Riach, P. A., & Rich, J. (2006). An experimental investigation of sexual discrimination in hiring
in the English labor market. The BE Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 6(2).
Roberts, C. (2017). Advancing Women Leaders in Academe: Creating a Culture of Inclusion. In
Handbook of Research on Administration, Policy, and Leadership in Higher Education
(pp. 256-273). IGI Global.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Chapter 6: Conversational partnerships. In Qualitative
interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.) (pp. 85-92). SAGE Publications.
Rudman, L., & Glick, P. (1999). Feminized management and backlash toward agentic women:
the hidden costs to women of a kinder, gentler image of middle managers. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 77(5), 1004-1010.
Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic
women. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 743-762.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 Dimensions of Improving Student Performance: Finding the Right
Solutions to the Right Problems. Teachers College Press. 1234 Amsterdam Avenue, New
York, NY 10027.
Ryan, M. K., & Haslam, S. A. (2005). The glass cliff: Evidence that women are over‐represented
in precarious leadership positions. British Journal of Management, 16(2), 81-90.

156
Ryan, M. K., Haslam, S. A., Hersby, M. D., & Bongiorno, R. (2011). Think crisis–think female:
The glass cliff and contextual variation in the think manager–think male stereotype.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 470.
Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership (3rd Edition). Jossey-Bass.
Schein, E. H. (2013). The Role of Organization Development in the Human Resource Function1.
Handbook for strategic HR: Best practices in organization development, 9-16.
Schneider, B., Brief, A. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1996). Creating a climate and culture for sustainable
organizational change. Organizational dynamics, 24(4), 7-19.
Shrm. (2021, March 01). Understanding and developing organizational culture. Retrieved
October 23, 2020 from https://www.shrm.org/ResourcesAndTools/tools-and-
samples/toolkits/Pages/understandinganddevelopingorganizationalculture.aspx
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of educational research, 78(1), 153-
189.
Simmons, J. (2003). Balancing performance, accountability and equity in stakeholder
relationships: towards more socially responsible HR practice. Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management, 10(3), 129-140.
Smart, J. C. (1991). Gender equity in academic rank and salary. The Review of Higher
Education, 14(4), 511-525.
Smith, D. G., Rosenstein, J. E., & Nikolov, M. C. (2018). The different words we use to describe
male and female leaders. Harvard business review.
Stainback, K., Kleiner, S., & Skaggs, S. (2016). Women in power: Undoing or redoing the
gendered organization? Gender & Society, 30(1), 109-135.

157
Stamarski, C., & Son Hing, L. (2015). Gender inequalities in the workplace: the effects of
organizational structures, processes, practices, and decision makers’ sexism. Frontiers in
Psychology, 6, 1400.
Starnes, J. B., Truhon, A. S., & McCarthy, V. (2010). A primer on organizational trust: How
trust influences organizational effectiveness and efficiency and how leaders can build
employee-employer relationships based on authentic trust. Human Development and
Leadership Division, American Society for Quality.
Steinpreis, R. E., Anders, K. A., & Ritzke, D. (1999). The impact of gender on the review of the
curricula vitae of job applicants and tenure candidates: A national empirical study. Sex
Roles, 41(7-8), 509-528.
Stevens, F. G., Plaut, V. C., & Sanchez-Burks, J. (2008). Unlocking the benefits of diversity:
All-inclusive multiculturalism and positive organizational change. The journal of applied
behavioral science, 44(1), 116-133.
Storey, V. A., Anthony, A. K., & Wahid, P. (2017). Gender-based leadership barriers:
advancement of female faculty to leadership positions in higher education. In
Encyclopedia of Strategic Leadership and Management (pp. 244-258). IGI Global.
Strebel, P. (1996). Why do employees resist change? Harvard business review, 74(3), 86.
Strober, M. (1990). Human capital theory: Implications for HR managers. Industrial Relations: A
Journal of Economy and Society, 29(2), 214–239. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
232X.1990.tb00752.x
Struffolino, M. N. (2017). The devil you don't know: Implicit bias keeps women in their place.
Pace L. Rev., 38, 260.

158
Sumerau, J. E., & Cragun, R. T. (2015). The hallmarks of righteous women: Gendered
background expectations in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Sociology of
Religion, 76(1), 49-71.
Taiwo, A. A., & Lawal, F. A. (2016). Vision and Mission in Organization: Myth or Heuristic
Device?. The International Journal of Business & Management, 4(3).
Thistle, B. M., & Molinaro, V. (2016). Driving organizational transformation through strong
leadership accountability it's time for HR leaders to step up. People & Strategy, 39(3),
28-32.
Tolar, M. H. (2012). Mentoring experiences of high-achieving women. Advances in Developing
Human Resources, 14(2), 172-187.
Tsui, A. S., & Gutek, B. A. (1999). Demographic differences in organizations: Current research
and future directions. Lexington Books.
Turner, P. (2003). Organisational communication: The role of the HR professional. CIPD
Publishing.
Verčič, A. T., Vercic, D., & Sriramesh, K. (2012). Internal communication: Definition,
parameters, and the future. Public Relations Review, 38(2), 223-230.
Bossu, C., Brown, N., & Warren, V. (2018). Professional and support staff in higher education:
An introduction. Professional and support staff in higher education, 1-8.
Watson, S., & Maxwell, G. A. (2007). HRD from a functionalist perspective: The views of line
managers Sandra Watson. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 9(1), 31-41.
West, M. S., & Curtis, J. W. (2006). AAUP faculty gender equity indicators 2006. American
Association of University Professors.

159
Watson, S., & Maxwell, G. A. (2007). HRD from a functionalist perspective: The views of line
managers Sandra Watson. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 9(1), 31-41.
Wheelan, C. (2019). Naked economics: Undressing the dismal science. WW Norton &
Company.
White, J. S. (2014). HERS at 50: Curriculum and connections for empowering the next
generation of women leaders in higher education. Women and Leadership in Higher
Education, 77-95.
Whittaker, S., & Marchington, M. (2003). Devolving HR responsibility to the line: threat,
opportunity or partnership?. Employee Relations.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement
motivation. Contemporary educational psychology, 25(1), 68-81.
Williams, J. C. (2014). Double jeopardy? An empirical study with implications for the debates
over implicit bias and intersectionality. Harvard Journal of Law & Gender, 37, 185.
Witcher Jackson Teague, L., & Bobby, K. (2014). American Council on Education’s IDEALs for
women’s leaders: Identify, develop, encourage, advance, link, and support. Women in
Leadership in Higher education, 59-76.
Women in the Workplace 2019. (2019). Retrieved from https://womenintheworkplace.com/.
Women’s Leadership Institute (n.d.). Retrieved from https://wliut.com/elevateher-challenge/
Uhlmann, E. L., & Cohen, G. L. (2007). “I think it, therefore it’s true”: Effects of self-perceived
objectivity on hiring discrimination. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 104(2), 207-223.
Uhlmann, E. L., & Cohen, G. L. (2005). Constructed criteria: Redefining merit to justify
discrimination. Psychological Science, 16(6), 474-480.

160
Van den Brink, M., & Benschop, Y. (2012). Slaying the seven‐headed dragon: The quest for
gender change in academia. Gender, Work & Organization, 19(1), 71-92.
Verčič, A. T., Verčič, D., & Sriramesh, K. (2012). Internal communication: Definition,
parameters, and the future. Public Relations Review, 38(2), 223-230.
Yough, M., & Anderman, E. (2006). Goal orientation theory. Retrieved from http://www.
education.com/reference/article/goal-orientation-theory/.

161
Appendix A: Definitions
Gender Equity: fairness of treatment for men and women according to their respective needs.
Gender Equality: access to rights or opportunities is not influenced by gender.
Gender Parity: a statistical measure that provides a numerical value of female to male ratio and
compares a particular indicator among women to the same indicator among men.
Diversity: a variety of ideas, backgrounds, or experiences in the pool of employees.
Equity: the quality of being fair and impartial.
Pipeline or Developmental Positions: positions that develop the skills and provide the experience
to take on positions of greater responsibility.

162
Appendix B: Interview Protocols
Thank you so much for taking the time to meet with me today. My name is Jacqueline
Russell, and I am a doctoral candidate. Your perspective and input is invaluable to this research.
I am going to take notes while we speak so that I am able to capture what you have said and
revisit it if needed. Also, I would like to record our conversation. The recording is only so that
what you’ve said is captured accurately, and I will be the only person to hear it. Is that ok with
you?
Before I begin, I want to share with you the overview of this research and answer any
questions you might have. The purpose of the research is to explore the relationship between
diversity and gender equity-related knowledge and motivation of human resources personnel,
human resources practices, and leadership attainment in higher education. Thank you so much
for agreeing to participate in this interview. The information I gather from these interviews will
inform my dissertation research for the Doctorate of Education at the University of Southern
California. Do you have any questions for me about the research?
Please know that everything we discuss is confidential, and that any conversation
reported will be unidentifiable. There will never be a name or other identifying information
associated with any quotes or findings. The transcripts and recordings from this interview will
never be shared and will be kept in a secure location. You can find more information in the copy
of the consent form that was provided to you. Do you have any questions before we move
forward?
If you have any questions about your rights while taking part in this study, or you have
any concerns or suggestions about the study and you want to talk to someone other than me,
please call (213) 821-1154 and reference IRB# UP-20-00967.

163
Again, thank you for taking the time to meet with me. I expect this interview to take no
more than an hour. Are you ready to begin?
Begin recording (mention time, date, and interview type).
Interview Questions
I’d like to start by asking you a few questions about you, your background in this office and HR,
in general.
1) What are your preferred pronouns?
2) What is your human resources job title?
a) In this role, what are your primary duties in this role?
b) How long have you served in this role, and how long have you worked in HR, in any
capacity?
c) Do you have any supervisory responsibilities?
i) If yes: How many employees do you supervise and what are their positions?
ii) If no: move on
iii) Now I would like to ask you a few questions about diversity and equity, in general.
3) People apply many different meanings to the words “equity” and “unconscious bias.” What is
your understanding of these terms? [if asked: equity means the quality of being fair and
impartial; unconscious biases are the social stereotypes about certain groups of people that
individuals form outside their own conscious awareness.]
4) How do you feel, in general, about diversity and equity initiatives in the workplace? Why?
5) What types of unconscious bias or equity-related training have you participated in in the
past?
a) When did you last complete a training, and what was the duration of that training?

164
b) Were these trainings mandatory for your employment?
c) In general, did these trainings increase or decrease your interest in promoting diversity?
Why?
6) How do you feel about organizations actively working to recruit and promote women into
both developmental and leadership roles? Why?
7) What do you believe the advantages to having equal representation of men and women in all
positions of influence are, if any?
a) What are the disadvantages, if any?
i) Now I am interested to know your thoughts on your organization as a whole. For
these questions, equity means the quality of being fair and impartial and diversity
means recognizing and appreciating individual differences such as dimensions of
race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, age, physical
abilities, religious beliefs, political beliefs, or other ideologies.
8) Would you consider the campus decision making process to be collaborative? Why or why
not?
a) Does HR have a voice in the process?
b) When a decision is made how is it communicated?
9) What is your understanding of the university’s goals and values related to diversity and
gender equity? (If asked, gender equity is fairness of treatment for both women and men,
according to their respective needs.)
a) In what ways does your university actively work to meet these goals and champion these
values?
10) Do you believe your organization faces any challenges in regard to achieving gender equity

165
in developmental and leadership roles?
a) If yes: What are they?
b) If not: Why do you believe this?
11) What are some of the established infrastructures that support gender equity on campus?
These may include policies, processes, programs, etc.
a) What does accountability for enforcing adherence to these look like?
12) Do you believe your campus leadership have the motivation and skills to effectively promote
equity? Why do you believe this?
The following questions relate to your HR office. For these questions, devolved means having
had power transferred or delegated to a lower level, such as from the HR office to managers
across campus (staff and faculty). These HR activities may include evaluations, recruitment and
selection, or disciplinary actions, among others.
13) Is your HR office trusted by campus employees?
a) How is this evident to you?
14) If campus managers were asked about HR’s ability to fully support them in their devolved
HR duties, what do you think would they say?
a) Why do you believe they would say this?
b) Would you agree with them? Why or why not?
15) How significant of a role, if any, do you believe HR plays in the university’s ability to
achieve its diversity and gender equity related goals?
a) If HR has an active role:
i) Do you believe your office is successful in this role?
(1) If yes: In what ways?

166
(2) If no:
(a) Why?
(b) Do you believe your office is sufficiently supported by your campus
leadership to fulfill HR’s role in promoting diversity and gender equity? Why
or why not?
b) If HR does not have an active role: Why?
c) How much influence do you believe integrating best practices and improving HR
processes and training could have on the university achieving its diversity and gender
equity goals? Why?
16) If provided, what does HR diversity, equity, or unconscious bias training and support for
campus managers look like?
a) If training is offered:
i) Is it required?
(1) If yes: for what situations (e.g. hiring)?
(2) If no: move on
ii) How has this training helped the university meet its diversity and gender equity
related goals?
b) If there is no training offered:
i) Does another campus entity provide this training?
(1) If yes: Does HR collaborate on or track completion of this training?
(2) If no: move on
c) Should this type of training come from HR?
17) What are the equity, diversity, and unconscious bias knowledge and competencies you

167
believe a successful HR professional should possess?
a) Of the knowledge and competencies mentioned, which do you believe could be further
developed at your organization?
18) Do you believe managers on your campus make fair and impartial gender-related personnel
decisions? How is this evident to you?
Now I’d like to discuss your role as an HR professional. For these questions, unconscious bias is
defined as social stereotypes about certain groups of people that individuals form outside their
own conscious awareness.
19) Do you feel you are given adequate resources (such as internal and external training,
empowerment, encouragement, etc.) to be the most effective HR professional you can be?
Why or why not?
20) Since working in HR, describe a situation, formal or informal, when you have been asked to
support an employee on a gender equity-related problem.
21) On a scale from 0-10, (where 0 = not encouraged at all and 10 = extremely encouraged),
while working in your HR role, how encouraged are you to reduce opportunities for
unconscious bias from decision making on campus? Why?
i) Final questions
22) What university data, policies, or other campus resources would be most helpful for me to
review to inform my research?
23) Are there any other HR professionals in your organization that I may not have included that
you think would be advantageous for me to speak to?
24) Do you have any questions for me and anything else you would like to add before I stop the
recording?

168
Appendix C: Participating Stakeholders, Sampling Criteria, and Rationale Participating
Stakeholders
The primary stakeholders of this study are human resources personnel. This is a
qualitative study. There are roughly 7 HR personnel and 100 managers on campus. HR personnel
were interviewed individually. The approach of this research is purposeful participant selection
in order to gather meaningful data on how HR policies and practices influence managers to make
personnel-related choices free from bias and to foster gender parity (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. Included in the study are full-time human resource department employees.
HR employees carry out the day-to-day administrative functions and inform policies and
practices of the department. These employees interact with managers on a regular basis.
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
The human resources department employees are the most knowledgeable on the internal
personnel-related policies, procedures, and practices Additionally, they are familiar with state
and federal employment laws. This group has the most organizational influence on managers’
personnel-related decision making. Interviews will enable the researcher to obtain data on the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that enable and hinder their ability to meet
the stakeholder goal.

169
Appendix D: Validity and Reliability
Combating threat to validity such as researcher bias and reactivity are imperative to
reaching valid conclusions (Maxwell, 2013). Assuring the validity involves obtaining identifying
consistencies across the rich data of interviews and actively looking for alternative explanation
for any results obtained (Maxwell, 2013). Comparing consistencies across interviews and
organizational documents and artifacts provided data points on the same knowledge, motivation,
and organizational influences and reduced the risk of associations and systemic biases (Maxwell,
2013). In addition, the researcher used member checking to ensure reliability and exercised the
use of member checks to solicit feedback on the initial findings (Maxwell, 2013). The validation
of responses and conclusions by participants also helped to assure validity in this study. In an
effort to maximize the participant response rate, the research emailed interview reminders.

170
Appendix E: Credibility and Trustworthiness
Credibility and trustworthiness are crucial to ensuring that bias is eliminated from the
research. For this project, the researcher clarified their own bias, maintain recorded data and
notes, and conducted an external audit. There were numerous opportunities for the research to
interject bias into the data collection and analysis. For this reason, the researcher reflected on
their own biases and clarified them (Merriam & Tidell, 2016). Their experiences as a woman, a
leader, and a human resource professional with past organizations provided the foundation for
bias in this research. The researcher was raised as and identifies as a woman. The researcher
worked at the university of focus at the time that this research was conducted. These influences
shaped their perspective on what it means to be a professional woman working in higher
education.
Additionally, the researcher served a decade in the U.S. Army, and they have strong
feelings regarding the importance of leadership and what it means to lead and be a leader. The
researcher worked in the human resources field for over ten years, and the experiences in that
profession are a basis for bias on the importance and influence of HR. The researcher believes
that leadership is a skill that can be developed. Finally, the researcher has a strong sense of
fairness and questioning, and this influences how they view and interact with the world.
Journaling assisted with this reflection on each of these points. The researcher mitigated bias
from this research by using neutral phrasing in the interview questions. Interview questions were
designed with these biases in mind to eliminate the injection of bias into the wording and
phrasing. In addition, the researcher maintained detailed notes from the interviews and all
recorded materials. Throughout data collection and analysis, they attempted to be as transparent
and accountable as possible throughout the process (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).

171
Appendix F: Ethics
The reliability and validity of any research study are dependent on the ethics of the
researcher, and the data produced are only as trustworthy as the credibility and trustworthiness of
the researcher (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Ethics is an essential consideration when conducting
any research involving human participants. Researchers must allow research participants to make
their own choices and protect individuals who are unable to protect themselves (Glesne, 2011).
Additionally, researchers must seek to not harm participants, maximize the benefits to those
individuals, and ensure that some do not benefit while others do not (Glense, 2011). Informed
consent was obtained before any research was initiated to safeguard the rights and protect those
participating. In addition to informed consent, participation was voluntary, identities were
confidential, participants were able to withdraw at any time without penalty, a separate
permission was requested for any recording, and all data collected were secure (Rubin & Rubin,
2012). The procedural guidelines such as “do no harm,” situational issues that arose during the
research, and the researcher’s relational considerations were all evaluated and addressed
promptly, as necessary and appropriate (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Before any research was initiated, the approval of the University of Southern California
and SSU’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) was obtained, and all the associated rules and
guidelines were followed. The IRB process provided an objective and rigorous assessment. Each
participant was asked to sign a consent form that provided them an opportunity to review all the
ethical considerations of the study. Each participant signed a consent form that informed them
that participation was voluntary, and they could stop any time without prejudice; they were also
informed that their identity would be protected, that data collected are kept confidential, and that
recordings of conversations were also secured. No incentives were provided in order to avoid the

172
appearance of coercion. Transcripts were made available to participants so they could verify that
their words were captured accurately.
The researcher serves as a College Business Manager at the organization and interacts
with the stakeholder groups in a co-worker capacity. The research focused on gender, and the
researcher has a personal interest in the research results as a woman. There was a possibility that
the participants would assume that the research the researcher was conducting at the university
was business-related due to the researcher’s affiliation with the university’s women’s
organizations. The researcher explained that the research was unrelated to their role as a
university staff member; this was clearly articulated in the information sheet that was given to
participants before the research was initiated (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
A possible conflict of interest was that the researcher serves on two boards related to
women in higher education. The first board is the state board for women in higher education and
the second is the board of the university's women’s network. Since participants could have
confused the researcher’s role in those boards with this research, it was critical that these were
accounted for prior to any data collection, analysis, or reporting. Bias was evaluated in the
framing of questions and the monitoring and evaluating of the interview conduct (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016).

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Raising women leaders of Christian higher education: an innovation study

PDF

Prescription for change: gender barriers impact on healthcare leadership equity

PDF

Racial and gender gaps in executive management: a retrospective examination of the problem cause and strategies to address disparities

PDF

Barriers to gender equity in K-12 educational leadership: an evaluation study

PDF

K-12 dress codes and gender equity: an examination of policy and practice of dress code implementation

PDF

Navigating the profession of spine surgery: narratives from women on the front lines

PDF

Partnerships and nonprofit leadership: the influence of nonprofit managers on community partnerships

PDF

Retaining and supporting BIPOC professionals in PWIs: addressing PWIs equity gap

PDF

Shattering the status quo: women in cannabis entrepreneurship

PDF

Women in executive leadership: a study of the gender diversity gap

PDF

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

PDF

The development of change leadership skills in aspiring community college leaders

PDF

Workplace bullying of women leaders in the United States

PDF

Sustainable fashion leadership: The female phenomenon

PDF

Underrepresented and underserved: barriers to academic success for students of color in higher education

PDF

Environmental influences on the diversity of professional sports executive leadership

PDF

Women of color senior leaders: pathways to increasing representation in higher education

PDF

Gender barriers towards women on the career path and within executive leadership

PDF

Physician burnout during a global pandemic: an evaluation study

PDF

Minding the gap: an evaluation of faculty, staff and administrator readiness to close equity gaps at the California State University

Asset Metadata

Creator Russell, Jacqueline Jehan (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2021-12

Publication Date 10/28/2021

Defense Date 10/28/2021

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

Tag developmental positions,diversity,equity,gender equality,gender equity,gender parity,Higher education,human resources,leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,pipeline positions,Women

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Adibe, Bryant (committee chair), Datta, Monique Claire (committee member), Murphy, Don (committee member)

Creator Email russellinbox@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC16251447

Unique identifier UC16251447

Legacy Identifier etd-RussellJac-10181

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Russell, Jacqueline Jehan

Type texts

Source 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. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

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