University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content ENABLING SUPPORTS FOR DEI 1
The Role of Executives’ Knowledge and Motivation
in Enabling Organizational Supports for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
by
Nicole L. Yeldell Butts
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
May 2024
Copyright 2024 Nicole L. Yeldell Butts

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 2
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank:
- All the executives who shared their time, insights, and experience in organizational DEI, which
allowed this study to be done.
- The faculty of USC Rossier for the generosity of your time, guidance, dedication, and passion
which you gifted throughout this process. In particular, Anthony Maddox, Marc Pritchard, Eric
Canny, and my committee—Fred Freking, Braina Hinga, and Richard Grad.
- My USC Cohort, who lovingly held one another up and accountable throughout this process.
- My husband for his patience, understanding, and acceptance of my perpetual curiosity,
demonstrated by my propensity to peek around a hedge, mumble “I wonder what’s over there”
and then just start walking in that unfamiliar direction.
- My son for always giving me a reason to want to inspire someone else.
- My mom for a lifetime of being my constant unwavering cheerleader.
- Black women who are models of perseverance, courage, faith, creativity, grace under fire, love,
and personal excellence.
- My audacious sisters of The Links, Inc. and Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc. who inspire me,
lift me up, and hold me down every day.
- Dr. Erika Miller-Tate, and Dr. Bernadette Lucas, for holding the flashlight.
- Dr. Soraya Coley for standing fully in her power and challenging me to do the same.
- Ron Coley who asked me one day if what I was seeking at that time was enough.
- To Dr. Melvin Allen and Dr. Sherri Allen who reminded me that the universe conspires to give
you what you want. . . once you clarify and commit to what that it is.

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 3
Dedication
To my female ancestors who paved the way and carry me through my life journey.
I carry the torch you passed to me and I pass it to the next.

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 4
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements 2
Dedication 3
List of Tables 7
List of Figures 8
Abstract 9
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY 10
Context and Background of the Problem 11
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions 12
Importance of the Study 13
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology 14
Definitions 17
Organization of the Dissertation 18
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 19
Historical Perspective: Equal Employment and Affirmative Action 19
Equal Opportunity 20
Affirmative Action 20
Expanding Awareness in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s 21
The Importance of Organizational Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion 24
The Business Case for Supporting DEI 25
The Economic Case for Supporting DEI 28
The Social Justice Case for Supporting DEI 30
Diversity Management 32
Diversity Training 33
DEI Practitioners 34
Failure of DEI Initiatives 35
The Role of Executives in Supporting DEI 36
Knowledge as an Indicator of Performance 37
Factual and Conceptual Knowledge of Systemic Inequities 39
Metacognitive Knowledge 40
Motivation as an Indicator of Performance 42
Self-efficacy 43
Collective Efficacy 44
Expectancy Value 45
Organizational Supports 46
Conceptual Framework 49
Knowledge 49
Motivation 50
Organizational Supports 52
Chapter Summary 52
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY 54
Research Design 54
Data Source: Interviews 55
Participants 55
Instrumentation 56

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 5
Data Collection Procedures 56
Data Analysis 57
Data Sources: Researcher Notes, Summaries, and Journal 58
Data Collection Procedures 58
Data Analysis 58
Data Sources: Artifacts 58
Data Collection Procedures 58
Data Analysis 59
Credibility and Dependability 59
Ethics 60
Role of the Researcher 61
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS 62
Participants 63
Findings for Research Question One 63
Factual and Conceptual Knowledge of Structural and Systemic Inequities 66
Factual and Conceptual Knowledge of Specific Organizational Inequities 66
Metacognitive Knowledge: Role and Responsibility of Executives in Enabling
DEI 67
Self-awareness 70
Summary of Findings for Research Question One 71
Findings for Research Question Two 72
Self-Efficacy 72
Collective Efficacy 74
Expectancy Value 77
Summary of Findings for Research Question Two 79
Findings for Enabling Organizational Supports 79
Foundational and Leadership Accountability 80
Internal Talent Pipeline and Equitable Talent Development 83
Summary on Findings for Enabling Organizational Supports 86
Findings for Research Question Three 87
Lack of Role Clarity 87
Discomfort 89
Lack of Resources 91
Turnover and Lack of Continuity 92
Lack of Broader Organizational Connection 93
Summary of Findings for Research Question Three 94
Synthesis of Research Findings 94
CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATIONS 96
Recommendations for Practice: Executive Knowledge and Motivation 96
Recommendation #1: Conduct Internal Equity Audits 97
Recommendation #2: Provide Individual Executive Coaching to Members of the
Executive Leadership Team 100
Recommendation #3: Provide Team Coaching to the Executive Team 102
Recommendation #4: Utilize a Change Management Process 104
Total Investment 106
Economic Model 106

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 6
Potential Cost Benefit of Implementing the Recommendations 106
Current Cost of Lacking an Equitable and Inclusive Workplace 108
Summary 111
Limitations and Delimitations 112
Recommendations for Future Research 113
Conclusion 114
References 115
Appendix A 133

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 7
List of Tables
Table 1: Alignment of Fair360 and Centre for Global Inclusion Benchmarks 48
Table 2: Performance Influencers and Organizational Supports 57
Table 3: Participant Demographics 65
Table 4: Summary of Executive Knowledge Influences 66
Table 5: Summary of Metacognitive Knowledge Influences 68
Table 6: Summary of Executive Motivation Influences 74
Table 7: Summary of Organizational Supports 81
Table 8: Summary of Organizational Barriers 89
Table 9: Recommendations and Rationale 98
Table 10: Proposed Cost of an Internal Equity Audit 100
Table 11: Proposed Cost for Executive Coaching 102
Table 12: Proposed Cost for Team Coaching 104
Table 13: Proposed Cost for DEI Change Management Process 106
Table 14: Economic Model for Acme Associates 108
Table 15: Cost Benefit of Implementing Intervention Recommendations 109
Table 16: Cost-Benefit Analysis: Potential Cost and Mitigated Loss 111

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 8
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework for Enabling Organizational Supports for DEI 53

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 9
Abstract
Organizations continue to struggle to meet organizational diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)
goals and commitments. Despite decades of efforts from equal employment laws to the evolution
of Chief Diversity Officers, public commitments to equity, and billions of dollars spent,
organizations have not yet actualized their DEI goals and commitments. Executives and
executive leadership teams significantly impact the success of organizational DEI by either
supporting organizational efforts or being a barrier to them. Utilizing a modified gap analysis
framework from Clark and Estes, the study examined the impact that the knowledge and
motivation of executive leaders and executive leadership teams have on the enablement of
organizational supports for and the mitigation of organizational barriers to achieving
organizational DEI goals and commitments. The study found both knowledge and motivation
gaps, as well as limitations in organizational supports and specific barriers to organizational DEI.
Based on these findings, four recommendations are made to support executives and executive
leadership teams as they strive to achieve organizational DEI goals and commitments.

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 10
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
The 1955 murder of Emmett Till, a fourteen-year-old African American boy, shocked the
world and propelled the U.S. Civil Rights Movement (Baker, 2006; Hudson-Weems, 1998).
Sixty-five years later, the murder of George Floyd sparked civil protest, calls for racial
reckoning, and demands for justice and equity. Yet nearly six decades after the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 was signed, American society as a whole and organizations, specifically, still struggle to
operationalize their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) commitments (Baum, 2021; Center,
2023; Dobbin & Kalev, 2016).
After the 2020 murder of George Floyd, many organizations responded to the national
outcry for justice (Buchanon et al., 2020) by releasing public statements supporting diversity,
anti-racism, and solidarity while committing to racial equity (Mull, 2020; Ray 2020). However,
since 2020 there has been little change in organizational practices in support of these
commitments (Quiroz-Gutierrez, 2021). DEI initiatives on college and university campuses were
eviscerated following the June 2023 Supreme Court rulings on two cases (i.e., SFFA v. UNC and
SFFA v. Harvard), ending six decades of race-conscious admission programs (Totenberg, 2023).
Executives across America are deeply troubled about the implications for corporate, government,
and nonprofit DEI initiatives (Butler, 2023; Sorkin et al., 2023; Thadani, 2023).
As I write this in 2024, organizational DEI is not a new concept. It has existed in a
variety of forms under numerous names for decades, evolving from diversity awareness or
sensitivity to the growth and addition of inclusion, equity, belonging, access, and accountability.
But the pendulum is always in motion, and the past year has seen a significant devolution of DEI
in which it has become the monster under America’s bed, being blamed for everything from
making children feel uncomfortable to a bridge collapse in Baltimore. As a DEI practitioner for

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 11
more than 20 years, I have experienced this evolution and devolution. It neither surprises nor
deters me and continues to fascinate me. In my professional capacity, I have seen firsthand the
impact that executives have on the success or failure of their organizational DEI efforts. I have
encountered executives who silently resist, and those who silently support DEI. I have seen those
who explicitly resist, those who explicitly support, and those who appear simply perplexed and
noncommittal. The executives I have been most curious about are those who genuinely seem to
support the value and concept of DEI yet are unsure how to go about it. It is for these executives
and the organizations they lead that I embarked on this study.
Context and Background of the Problem
Since the summer of 2020, organizational attention to DEI has increased, yet progress has
been slow (Center, 2023). Using data from a World-at-Work survey, the Los Angeles Times
(2021) reported that 83% of U.S. organizations claimed “established” DEI strategies or were
“actively” working on a DEI strategy. Roughly a third of these initiatives (29%) were
implemented in 2021. Most employees (85%) reported that their organizations prioritized DEI.
Furthermore, American companies publicly committed to take action to advance DEI, with 2,200
CEOs and presidents pledging to create more inclusive workplaces (Center, 2023).
However, Williams and Clowney (2007) describe such statements of solidarity and
commitment as limited and reactive responses to cultural crisis and disruption that brings about
less than-meaningful change. Similarly, the Society for Human Resource Management report
(Gurchiek, 2021), suggests that most companies (80%) were “just going through the motions and
not holding themselves accountable," even though they invested considerable money and
resources on DEI initiatives.

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 12
In 2022, corporations across the world spent a combined $9.3 billion (USD) on DEI
initiatives, with 46% ($4.3 billion) of that money being spent in the United States (StrategyR,
2023). This investment was predicted to increase 26% to $15.4 billion by 2026, an increase of
66% in five years (StrategyR, 2023). Yet, several studies indicate that despite companies
spending billions of dollars on diversity initiatives, most efforts are largely symbolic and fail to
produce meaningful organizational diversity and inclusive culture change (Friedersdorf, 2023;
Pruitt 2018; Robinson, 2023; Singal, 2023).
The failure to produce meaningful organizational diversity also hurts organizational
revenue. Hunt et al. (2020) reported that increasing diversity increases business performance.
Hunt et al. (2020) studied more than 1,000 companies in 12 different countries. They found that
diverse teams improve economic outcomes for companies as measured by company profitability
and value creation, correlated with cultural and ethnic diversity. Researchers reported that
organizations in the top quartile for diversity outperformed those in the bottom quartile by
36.0%; this result correlated with gender and ethnicity diversity.
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
Meeting DEI performance goals requires executives to be motivated to ensure that proper
supports are in place for organizational DEI work (El-Amin, 2022). This study examines if and
how the knowledge and motivations of executives lead to organizational support for DEI and the
dismantling of organizational barriers that hinder DEI. The purpose of the study was to identify
the roles that executive and executive team knowledge and motivations have in the creation of
organizational supports for the operationalization of an organization’s DEI commitment.
Specifically, this study explored how knowledge of inequities, self-efficacy and expectancy-

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 13
value of executives, and collective-efficacy of the executive team impact the development and
implementation of organizational enablers of effective DEI.
This study serves the needs of organizational leaders responsible for DEI by identifying
knowledge and motivations that could support and advance their organizational DEI efforts. The
study benefits marginalized groups in the workplace by informing the actions of organizational
executives in their creation of effective organizational supports for DEI initiatives.
The study utilized a gap analysis framework (Clarke & Estes, 2008) and efficacy theory
(Bandura, 1997, 2000). Grounded in these approaches, the following two questions guided the
study:
1. What knowledge influences executives and executive teams related to enabling
organizational supports for DEI?
2. What motivations influence executives and executive teams related to enabling
organizational supports for DEI?
3. What are the organizational barriers to enabling organizational supports for DEI?
Importance of the Study
The problem of corporate DEI is important to address because 12 to 18 months after a
cultural crisis or disruption, most organizations revert to their prior behavior (Williams et al.,
2005). Given that our nation is already three years beyond the murder of George Floyd and the
ensuing unrest, executives have already lost critical time to leverage cultural momentum.
Structural and cultural change are required for organizations to create the substantive and
sustainable initiatives to operationalize their DEI (Akbar & Parker, 2021). Without structural and
cultural change, organizations will be unable to operationalize DEI initiatives. Having lost

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 14
valuable momentum, we must act quickly and decisively to get DEI onto a sustainable pathway,
with an eye towards potential judicial interference that may hamper existing DEI initiatives.
Executives exercise discretion in the adoption of diversity practices (Finkelstein &
Hambrick, 1996; Ng & Wyrick, 2011). Research establishes that organizational leaders play an
integral role in operationalizing DEI within an organization (Gould et al., 2022). Research also
points to the impact a leader’s motivation has on their ability to support organizational DEI
efforts (Sims, 2018). Research has also established the impact of self-efficacy on the
performance of leaders (McCormick, 2001); however, few studies have addressed executive selfefficacy or the collective efficacy of the executive team with regard to the operationalization of
their organizational DEI mission.
Grossman and Salas (2011) asserted that individuals with high self-efficacy are confident
in their ability to learn and apply learnings; they are thus more likely to persist through difficulty.
For these reasons, it is important to examine the role of executive self-efficacy in
operationalizing organizational DEI efforts. More research is needed to identify the motivational
drivers of executives’ willingness and ability to operationalize their organizational DEI mission
statements.
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
The study employed a gap analysis framework, a systemic problem-solving approach to
improving performance and achieving organizational goals (Clarke & Estes, 2008). This
framework identified three causes of performance gaps: knowledge and skills, motivation, and
organizational barriers. Knowledge encompasses the information people possess that enables
them to think and perform effectively (Eraut et al., 2000). Clarke and Estes (2008) identified a
key aspect of a knowledge and skills gap as a lack of information. Bedeian (1993) defines

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 15
motivation as the will to achieve. Clarke and Estes (2008) asserted that gaps in motivation can be
the result of personal and active choice, or a lack of persistence and mental effort. Schein (2017)
described organizational culture as how and why organizations do what they do. Clarke and
Estes (2008) contended that gaps in performance can stem from ineffective organizational
culture, insufficient resources, or a lack of accountability.
The study also utilized theories of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997), collective efficacy
(Bandura, 2000), and expectancy-value (Wigfield, 1994) to explore the motivation of executives
and executive teams. Self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1997) asserts that a person’s belief in their
ability to successfully accomplish a task or effect change is critical to their motivation to act. If a
person doubts their ability to be successful or effective, their motivation may diminish; in
contrast, confidence in one’s ability to be successful may increase motivation.
Collective efficacy can be defined as “individuals’ perceptions of his or her group’s
collective capability to successfully perform job-related task” (Borgogni et al., 2011). Collective
efficacy is not merely the sum of its parts (i.e., each team member’s self-efficacy) but rather
team members’ beliefs about the team’s ability to be successful (Bandura, 2000). High collective
efficacy is a critical determinant of team motivation and performance (Zaccaro et al., 1995).
When collective efficacy exists, a team or group exerts greater effort, persists even in the face of
setbacks, and achieves higher levels of performance (Bandura, 2000). These two theories
allowed the exploration of individual and collective motivation of executives that lead to the
utilization of resources to support an organization’s DEI mission.
Expectancy value is a theory of motivation that describes the relationship between an
individual’s expectancy for success in relation to the value the individual places on the task
(Wigfield, 1994). Expectancy value theory asserts that an individual's choices and behaviors are

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 16
influenced by their belief about the outcomes they expect to achieve and the value they place on
those outcomes (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). Eccles and Wigfield (2002) posited that individuals
are motived by two factors a) their expectations of success and b) their subjective value or
perceived importance of the task or goal. In other words, how much one values the task has an
impact on their motivation to complete it.
The study utilized a qualitative methodology with a grounded theory approach.
Qualitative research seeks to explore and understand how individuals and groups make meaning
of social or human situations (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Grounded theory generates theory,
processes, or actions from data collected from participants (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). A
qualitative grounded theory approach is appropriate for this study as the study seeks to explore
the knowledge and motivations of executives, and the influence of knowledge and motivations
on the creation of organizational supports for DEI.
The study employed individual one-to-one interviews with executives utilizing a semistructured, open-ended interview protocol (Creswell & Creswell, 2018); the interviews assessed
the knowledge, self-efficacy, and collective-efficacy of the executive team of which they are a
member as well as the organizational supports for DEI initiatives implemented in the
organization. Study participants consisted of CEOs, CFOs, and other C-Suite executives in
middle market companies based in the United States with a three- to seven-person executive
team. This participant profile was best situated to generate insights on individual executives and
team motivation as well as the organizational support for DEI; additionally, it provided
commonality in organizational size and structure.

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 17
Definitions
The following words and terms appear throughout this study. To support the reading and
comprehension of the study the definitions and citations from relevant literature provide an
explanation of their meaning as they are used in the study. Although individual terms may adopt
different meanings or applications in other works based on the context, the list provided outlines
those terms deemed pertinent to this study and the way in which they are used in this study.
Collective Efficacy
Team members’ beliefs about the team’s ability to successfully perform job-related task
(Bandura, 2000).
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)
Diversity, equity and inclusion does not have the same connotation or meaning in every
workplace, but rather has different meanings within an organization and society (Prasad et al.,
1997). For this reason and for the purpose of this study, DEI will not be defined by the
researcher, rather it will allow the participants to utilize their own organizational definition of
DEI.
Expectancy Value
A theory of motivation that describes the relationship between an individual’s expectancy
for success in relation to the value the individual places on the task (Wigfield, 1994).
Organizational Inequity
Systemic and persistent disparities in opportunities, resources, treatment, and outcomes
for employees (Gonzales, 2022).
Organizational Supports
An organization's processes and material resources (Maan et al., 2020).

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 18
Self-efficacy
An individual’s belief concerning their ability to perform a task (Bandura, 1997)
Systemic Inequity
Practices that accumulate over centuries and interact with each other dynamically to
compose a purposefully stratified and inequitable system (Ladson-Billings, 2013).
Organization of the Dissertation
The structure of this five-chapter study addresses executives' knowledge and motivation
to support organizational DEI commitments. Introduced in Chapter One was the problem of
practice and offers a holistic overview of the study. Chapter Two provides a review of the
literature examining the background on the problem of practice, executives' roles in addressing
the problem, the knowledge and motivation of executives to address the problem, and an
introduction to the conceptual framework for addressing the problem. Described in Chapter
Three are the research methodology for data collection (i.e., sampling, instrumentation, research
design) as well as the analytical procedures, inherent strengths, and known limitations. Chapter
Four discusses the research results and findings. Chapter Five proposes recommendations
informed by the study’s findings and existing literature.

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 19
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
The literature review provides a comprehensive overview of the literature relating to
organizational DEI efforts and executives’ impact on ensuring the success of organizational DEI
priorities. This review begins with a presentation of the business, economic and social justice
importance of organizational DEI. With the importance established, the chapter provides a brief
history of DEI in the United States, including equal employment and affirmative action as well
as the transition to diversity management. The review continues by exploring the role of
executives in supporting DEI. It then examines the impact that knowledge, motivation, and
organizational supports play in closing organizational DEI performance gaps; this includes
delving into knowledge and motivation as performance indicators. Finally, the review looks at
established organizational supports that enable organizations to meet their DEI commitments.
Historical Perspective: Equal Employment and Affirmative Action
DEI has developed as an organizational value in the workplace over many decades
(McIsaac & Moody, 2014), and a review of this evolutionary process reveals that social
pressures and advocacy are the key drivers of this evolution. However, the evolution of DEI in
the United States has entailed a complex and multifaceted journey that has seen progress in some
areas and persistent challenges in others. As we have moved through the past seven decades,
from the murder of Emmett Till to the murder of George Floyd, our understanding of workforce
diversity has grown from a myopic focus on differences to a broader perspective encompassing
identity, intersectionality, and inclusivity (Khilji, 2020). The practices of equal opportunity,
affirmative action, and diversity management represent steps in this evolution.

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 20
Equal Opportunity
Between the 1960s and 2008, myriad laws and regulations have been enacted to prohibit
workplace discrimination and promote equal opportunity for all people throughout the entire
employment lifecycle. These laws aim to ensure that individuals are treated fairly and without
bias based on protected categories including race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age,
disability, pregnancy, genetic information, and sexual orientation. Collectively, these laws are
referred to as Equal Employment Opportunity laws.
The U.S Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s was a pivotal moment in the
fight for racial equality and justice. The 1960s was a period of significant social change, with
focused efforts to desegregate schools, workplaces, and public spaces. This decade brought
significant attention to issues of segregation, voting rights, and discrimination faced by African
Americans, playing a significant role in shaping discussions about DEI in employment. As
workplaces began to integrate, discussions around diversity in employment became more
pronounced, culminating in legislation enacted to address employment discrimination and
promote equal opportunity.
The landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII, prohibited and made illegal
employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Title VII also
established the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, held accountable for enforcing
Title VII and investigating complaints of employment discrimination.
Affirmative Action
In response to historical discrimination and entrenched patterns of racial discrimination
and underrepresentation of minority groups in employment and education, affirmative action
policies also began to take shape in the 1960s (Anderson, 2023; Garrison-Wade & Lewis, 2004;

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 21
Holzer & Neumark, 2006). These initiatives aimed to promote the hiring and advancement of
individuals from underrepresented groups, particularly African Americans, women, and other
minorities (Holzer & Neumark, 2006). Federal regulations stipulated that employers who
received contracts, grants, and other benefits from the U.S. government were required to collect
and report data on the composition of their workforce; employers were also mandated to set
goals and timetables for hiring to improve the representation of disadvantaged groups who were
underrepresented relative to relevant labor markets (Agocs & Burr, 1996; Anderson, 2023).
Agocs and Burr (1996) described affirmative action in employment as “hiring by the numbers”
because of its “focus on increasing the representation of the designated groups through targeted
hiring, and to a lesser extent, training and promotion” (p. 32).
The 1960s also saw an increase in awareness of gender discrimination in the workplace.
Women’s rights activists pushed for greater opportunities and equal pay for women. In 1963, the
Equal Pay Act of 1963 was enacted, prohibiting sex-based wage discrimination between men and
women who perform substantially similar work under similar conditions. To protect individuals
aged 40 and above from age-based discrimination, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
of 1967 was passed.
Expanding Awareness in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s
During the 1970s and 1980s discussions surrounding DEI in employment continued to be
influenced by the civil rights movement and an increasing awareness of workplace
discrimination. Equal employment opportunity laws enacted in the 1960s continued to shape
efforts to combat workplace discrimination in the 1970s and 1980s. The Equal Employment
Commission (EEOC) continued to play a significant role in addressing workplace discrimination
and enforcing anti-discrimination equal employment laws. Yet, despite these legal protections,

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 22
workplace discrimination continued across protected categories such as race, gender, and age,
cases of discriminatory hiring practices and unequal pay (Levit, 2012).
Affirmative action initiatives continued to address historical and systemic discrimination;
they aimed to promote the hiring and advancement of underrepresented groups, particularly
African American, women and other minority groups. Although affirmative action focused on
hiring underrepresented minorities and women and increasing their numerical representation, it
did not address the retention of those hired or changing organizational policies and practices to
ensure their full and equal participation in the workplace (Agocs & Burr, 1996).
In the 1980s, people debated the effectiveness and fairness of affirmative action
(Hochschild, 2001). Critics argued that such policies could lead to reverse discrimination, and
several court cases tested the legality of the programs (Leonard, 1990). Supporters maintained
that affirmative action was necessary to ensure diversity and equal opportunities. Although
affirmative action in hiring was enforced in the 1970s, enforcement was discontinued in the
1980s by the Reagan and Bush administrations (Kelly & Dobbin, 1998) with very limited
support from the Bush and Clinton administration between 1988 and 1996 (Agocs & Burr,
1996).
Advocacy for women's rights in the workplace, including equal pay, opportunities for
advancement, and protection against gender-based discrimination continued in the ensuing
decades. In 1978, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 to prohibit sex-based discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related
medical conditions.
This era also saw the emergence of advocacy for individuals with disabilities. Disability
rights advocacy led to the addition of Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Section 503

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 23
aims to create a more diverse and inclusive workforce by removing employment barriers for
individuals with disabilities. Employers covered by Section 503 are prohibited from
discriminating against individuals with disabilities in their employment practices and must
provide reasonable accommodations to qualified individuals with disabilities.
The disability rights movement gained momentum in the 1980s, culminating in the
passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1990. The ADA, similar to Section
503, prohibited discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities and mandated
reasonable accommodations in employment, creating a significant impact on advancing the
inclusion of individuals with disabilities in the workplace. In 2008, Title I of the ADA expanded
the definition of disability to provide broader protections for individuals with disabilities. In
2008, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 was enacted to prohibit the use of
genetic information in employment decisions as well as restrict the acquisition and disclosure of
genetic information.
The lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) rights movement gained
significant momentum during the 1970s, but employment practices and workplace protections
for LGBTQ individuals were not well established (Morgan & Rodriguez, 2020). During the
1970s, there were no federal laws explicitly prohibiting employment discrimination based on
sexual orientation or gender identity (Melson-Silimon et al., 2020). Only a few local jurisdictions
had ordinances or laws protecting LGBTQ individuals from workplace discrimination
(Davidson, 2022). As a result, many LGBTQ individuals faced employment discrimination;
some felt compelled to conceal their sexual orientation or gender identity at work to avoid
negative consequences.

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 24
Despite these challenges, the 1970s and 1980s marked a period of significant LGBTQ
workplace activism advocating for more inclusive employment practices and protections.
Through a series of court decisions and legislative actions, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 was amended to include protection against discrimination based on sexuality (Bishop et al.,
2021). A key milestone was the 2020 U.S. Supreme Court decision Bostock v. Clayton County
which held that discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is a form of sex
discrimination and, therefore, prohibited under Title VII’s existing protections. This ruling
effectively extended federal protections to LGBTQ individuals in the workplace, prohibiting
employers from discriminating against employees or job applicants based on their sexual
orientation or gender identity (Bishop et al., 2021). However, just three years later, in June 2023,
the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a First Amendment case, agreeing that free speech protections
permitted a service provider to refuse services for a same-sex wedding, which legal experts fear
will “open the door to a slew of cases seeking to further chip away at civil rights protections in
the US” (Cole, 2023).
While equal employment laws and affirmative action may have helped diversify the
workforce, they have not necessarily helped create inclusive and equitable workplaces (Barak,
2022). Despite decades of legal changes and policy initiatives, affirmative action has remained
an unpopular policy in many sectors; for others, it is a failed initiative to address inequality
(Agocs & Burr, 1996).
The Importance of Organizational Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Addressing DEI within organizations has implications for business, economic, and social
justice affecting not only individuals but also communities, organizations, and society as a
whole. The business case for DEI is broad, impacting the pool of employees, turnover and

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 25
retention, innovation and problem-solving, job satisfaction and productivity, competitive edge,
and risk management. DEI has an economic impact on individuals with regard to income
inequality, career advancement, underemployment and unemployment, and health and wellbeing. The social justice case for DEI is strong, influencing equality and personal dignity, antidiscrimination and systemic injustice, representation and voice, and social progress. These cases
for DEI are discussed in greater detail in the following sections.
The Business Case for Supporting DEI
The business case for DEI is built on the idea that fostering a diverse and inclusive
workplace can have positive organizational impacts and that the failure to produce meaningful
organizational diversity hurts organizational revenue. Hunt et al. (2020), having studied more
than 1,000 companies in 12 countries, reported that increasing diversity increases business
performance. Researchers found that diverse teams improve economic outcomes for companies
as measured by company profitability and value creation, correlated with cultural and ethnic
diversity. Researchers report that organizations in the top quartile for gender and ethnicity
diversity outperformed those in the bottom quartile by 36%. Research also shows a positive
correlation between diverse leadership teams and financial performance, indicating that
companies with diverse executive boards have higher profitability and financial success (Tomic,
2015). There are a variety of reasons that diversity correlates with business success.
Attracting a Diverse Pool of Employees
A commitment to DEI attracts a diverse pool of talent, allowing organizations to select
from a broader range of highly skilled individuals (Lee et al., 2022). Embracing diversity allows
businesses to access a wider talent pool, enabling them to select the best candidates for positions,
potentially leading to improved productivity and performance (Cox & Beale, 1997).

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 26
Implementing DEI practices in the hiring process can attract candidates from various
backgrounds. When job applicants see that a company is committed to fairness and inclusion,
they are more likely to apply, as even the perception of fairness in hiring can attract a more
diverse applicant pool (Dover et al., 2016). Additionally, diverse employees are more likely to
refer their friends and acquaintances to their workplace when they feel valued and included,
which can also further diversify the talent pool (Kaul, 2021).
Businesses prioritizing diversity and inclusion are often seen as more inclusive and
socially responsible, enhancing their public image, reputation, and brand value among potential
employees, customers, and the broader society. (Dixon-Fyle et al., 2020). Organizations
prioritizing diversity and inclusion can enhance their reputation as an employer of choice, with
potential employees seeing an organization committed to diversity and inclusion as a more
appealing workplace. A study by Glassdoor (2021) found that 76% of job seekers and employees
consider a diverse workplace a critical factor when evaluating companies and job offers.
Reduced Turnover and Increased Retention
Attracting a diverse pool of employees and retaining them is equally important. DEI
initiatives that create an inclusive workplace are crucial to retaining diverse talent. Employees
are more likely to stay with a company that values and supports diversity. Companies with
diverse and inclusive cultures often experience lower turnover and reduced absenteeism, which
leads to cost savings associated with recruitment, training, and lost productivity (Circadian,
2016; Kossek et al., 2006; Travis et al., 2019). This can make organizations more appealing to
job seekers who value stability and a positive work environment.

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 27
Diversity Leads to Increased Innovation and Problem-solving
Diverse teams often bring together individuals with various perspectives and experiences,
which can foster creativity and generate innovative ideas and creative problem-solving (Cox &
Beale, 1997; Herring, 2009; Hunt et al., 2018). Diversity in thought and experience leads to more
comprehensive problem-solving and better decision-making (Hong & Page, 2001). Furthermore,
diverse teams are more likely to identify risks and opportunities that homogenous groups might
overlook, which can contribute to better decision-making (Page, 2007). Finally, diverse groups
are likelier to make better decisions because they consider a broader array of viewpoints and are
less prone to groupthink (Page, 2007).
Job Satisfaction and Productivity
Inclusive workplaces can create a sense of belonging and employee engagement,
resulting in increased job satisfaction and productivity (Hunt et al., 2018). DEI initiatives that
foster an inclusive culture can lead to a greater sense of belonging among employees, which is
closely linked to job satisfaction (Campbell et al., 2013). Employees who feel their identities and
contributions are valued are more likely to be satisfied with their jobs (Afshari et al., 2020).
Reduced workplace discrimination and bias can create a more comfortable and welcoming
environment as employees are less likely to face unfair treatment, which also increases job
satisfaction (Dovidio & Hebl, 2013). Employees who perceive themselves as the target of bias
are three times as likely to be disengaged, to withhold ideas, and to leave their jobs within one
year (Hewlett et al., 2017)
Improved Products and Competitive Edge
A diverse workforce helps businesses understand and reach a broader range of customers,
expanding their market shares (Herring, 2009). Diverse teams often exhibit higher levels of

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 28
creativity and innovation due to varied perspectives and experiences. This can lead to improved
products and services, contributing to organizational economic growth (Cox & Beale, 1997;
Herring, 2009;). Diverse teams are often more innovative and agile in adapting to market
changes and emerging trends, giving organizations a competitive edge (Holbeche, 2019).
Furthermore, diverse workforces enable businesses to understand and cater to broader
customer needs and points of reference. This understanding can drive business growth by
expanding market reach and appealing to a more diverse customer base; inclusive organizations
can tap into new markets and consumer segments more effectively (Deloitte, 2012). Companies
with a reputation for DEI are more likely to tap into growing, diverse markets as they can better
understand customers' diverse needs and preferences (Harvard, 2017). They can result in
improved production and services that cater to a broader audience (Milanesi, 2023).
Legal, Financial, and Reputational Risk
Maintaining a diverse and inclusive workplace is essential for legal compliance, reducing
legal risk and associated costs (Kalev et al., 2006). Failing to address DEI can result in legal
risks, lawsuits, and damage to a company’s reputation, leading to financial losses (Brummer &
Strine, 2022). Non-compliance with equal employment opportunity laws can result in fines and
penalties, which can have reputational and financial consequences. Discrimination in the
workplace can lead to legal expenses, lost productivity, and low morale (Dobbin & Kalev, 2016).
Compliance with equal employment opportunity laws is a critical aspect of DEI, and companies
prioritizing DEI are more likely to be in compliance with these regulations (Tenney, 2024).
The Economic Case for Supporting DEI
Without workplace DEI, employment discrimination can significantly negatively impact
individuals in myriad ways, including influencing or constraining earning potential, exacerbating

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 29
income disparity, hindering job prospects, limiting career opportunity and advancement,
decreasing job satisfaction, and reducing overall well-being. Individuals who experience
workplace discrimination may incur legal costs and expenses when seeking redress through
litigation or regulatory channels. Creating diverse, equitable and inclusive workplaces is critical
to mitigating these individual economic impacts and supporting DEI's social justice aspects.
Income Disparities
Workplace discrimination can result in lower wages and limited earning potential for
individuals. This may include disparities in pay, bonuses, benefits, and raises (Gould, 2019;
Maye, 2023; Wilson & Rodgers, 2016). Persistent income disparities for individuals in
marginalized groups lead to wage gaps, with minority workers earning less than their white
counterparts for similar work (Kochhar & Cilluffo, 2018). African Americans, for example, have
faced persistent wage gaps compared to White Americans (Patten, 2016). Income disparities for
individuals with disabilities are well-documented, with these individuals experiencing lower
income levels and higher rates of unemployment or underemployment. (Goodman et al., 2021)
Reduced Career Advancement
Discrimination can hinder career advancement, limiting opportunities for promotions and
leadership roles which can impact long-term earning potential (Glass Ceiling Commission,
1995). Discrimination can isolate individuals from valuable networking and mentorship
opportunities, which can be particularly harmful as networking and mentorship are crucial for
career development and advancement (Trau, 2015). Discrimination can create a hostile work
environment that is emotionally taxing and stressful. This can lead to decreased job satisfaction
and reduced motivation to pursue career advancement opportunities (Maese & Lloyd, 2021).

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 30
Workplace discrimination can lead to lower job satisfaction and increased stress which can
impact overall well-being and productivity (APA, 2015)
Turnover, Underemployment and Unemployment
Workplace discrimination can lead to lower job satisfaction, increased stress, and higher
turnover. Prolonged experiences of discrimination may prompt individuals to leave their jobs or
organizations in search of more inclusive environments (Bowie, 2023). In some cases,
individuals facing discrimination may choose to leave their workplace due to a hostile
environment, which can disrupt their career path and result in setbacks (Gallo, 2013).
Discrimination can lead to underemployment where individuals are overqualified for their
current positions, resulting in reduced income and job satisfaction. (Cordoba et al., 2021).
Health and Well-Being
Workplace discrimination can have a severe psychological and emotional impact on
individuals, creating chronic stress (APA, 2015). This chronic stress can manifest physically and
mentally, having detrimental effects on confidence and self-esteem, job satisfaction, and overall
well-being, and spilling over into an individual's personal life. This can influence an individual’s
willingness and ability to seek out and pursue career advancement opportunities. It can also lead
to increased healthcare costs and reduced economic well-being (Paradies, et al., 2015)
The Social Justice Case for Supporting DEI
The social justice case for DEI centers on the moral and ethical imperative of creating
fair and just workplaces where all individuals have equal opportunities and are treated with
respect and dignity. It posits that everyone deserves equal rights, opportunities, and treatment
regardless of their background, identity, or circumstances. The social justice case emphasizes the

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 31
ethical imperative to create a fair and just society where all individuals have equal access and can
thrive.
Equality, Fairness, and the Right to Dignity
Social justice principles emphasize the importance of equality and fairness. DEI ensures
that everyone, regardless of their background, has equal access to opportunities and resources
within the workplace (Mandle, 2009; Rawls, 1999). The social justice case for DEI is founded on
the principle of fairness and advocates for leveling the playing field and ensuring that historically
marginalized and disadvantaged groups have equal access to opportunities and resources (Rawls,
1999). The right to human dignity is a central aspect of social justice. DEI initiatives promote
dignity by fostering environments free from harassment and discrimination (Kunz, 1949).
Anti-Discrimination and Addressing Historical Systems of Injustice
DEI efforts aim to eradicate discrimination, prejudice, and bias, creating a workplace
where all employees are treated with respect, regardless of their race, gender, sexual orientation,
religion, or other characteristics (USEEOC, 2023). The goal is to rectify past injustices and
prevent future discrimination (Bonilla-Silva, 2006). Acknowledging historical and systemic
injustices is essential to the social case for DEI.
Representation and Voice
Social justice highlights the importance of diverse voices and perspectives in decisionmaking processes. DEI initiatives promote representation at all levels of an organization,
ensuring that underrepresented groups have a voice and empowering underrepresented groups in
decision-making processes, policy creation, and practices that affect their lives (Sen, 2007;
Young 2016). Social justice principles advocate for the empowerment and inclusion of

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 32
marginalized groups. DEI efforts seek to create environments where individuals from all
backgrounds feel valued, heard, and included (Fraser, 2008).
Community, Social Impact, and Inclusive Societal Progress
The social justice case for DEI acknowledges that diverse and inclusive organizations can
positively impact the communities they serve by promoting fairness and equity (Rawls, 1999). A
society that actively embraces DEI is more likely to foster positive social change and progress.
Inclusion allows diverse viewpoints, experiences, and talents to contribute to solutions for
complex societal challenges (Sen, 1999). Promoting DEI fosters a sense of solidarity and
empathy within organizations and society at large, which aligns with social justice values
(Nussbum, 2003).
Establishing workplace DEI policies and practices is important because 12 to 18 months
after a cultural crisis or disruption, most organizations revert to their prior behavior (Williams et
al., 2005). Given that our nation is already three years beyond the murder of George Floyd and
the ensuing unrest, executives have already lost critical time to leverage cultural momentum.
Structural and cultural changes are required for organizations to create the substantive and
sustainable initiatives to operationalize their DEI (Akbar & Parker, 2021). Without structural and
cultural change, organizations will be unable to operationalize DEI initiatives. Having lost
valuable momentum, we must act quickly and decisively to get DEI onto a sustainable pathway,
with an eye towards potential judicial interference that may hamper existing DEI initiatives.
Diversity Management
By the late 1980s, a new school of thought emerged—diversity management (Kelly &
Dobbin, 1998). Agocs and Burr (1996) described diversity management positioned as a reaction
against affirmative action; a less controversial alternative to affirmative action; complementary

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 33
to affirmative action, which was still needed as an antidote to inequality; and a strategy for
dealing with issues that affirmative action left unaddressed. Diversity management was
embraced by human resource managers and organizational leaders as an alternative approach to
hiring focused primarily on increasing the representation of underrepresented groups.
Diversity management brought a shift in perspective on workforce diversity, moving
from representation in numbers to inclusion and valuing the differences that a diverse workforce
can have on organizational performance (Agocs & Burr, 1996; Sabharwal, 2014; Wasserman,
2015). Diversity management also recognized the importance of organizational climate in
fostering the inclusion of minorities and women as well as supporting their full participation and
retention in the workforce (Agocs & Burr, 1996; Kelly & Dobbin, 1998).
Whereas equal employment and affirmative action focused on laws, policies, and
mandatory actions, diversity management focuses on organizational diversity practices and
initiatives. Diversity initiatives, intended to attract and retain a diverse workforce, encompass a
plethora of initiatives organizations adopt under the umbrella of diversity management. This may
include diversity councils, employee resource groups, mentoring programs, flexible benefits
packages, and targeted recruitment and hiring programs. This research study will focus on two
practices: diversity training and DEI practitioners.
Diversity Training
One of the most significant and enduring practices is that of diversity training and
education. The term “diversity training” is a catchall term encompassing myriad formats,
designs, activities, and topics for training (Bezrukova et al., 2012; Paluck, 2006). This researcher
has seen diversity training include activities from self-guided asynchronous learning modules to
multi-day in-person retreats. Despite the variety of diversity trainings available, these trainings

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 34
primarily interventions designed to make employees aware of implicit bias, diminish expressed
bias and microaggressions, and reduce prejudice and racism as well as to increase cultural
awareness and social inclusion (Paluck, 2006).
Nearly three decades ago, Cox and Beale (1997) recognized diversity training as the most
widely used diversity practice and the first of three primary drivers of diversity-related change.
In 2005, 66% of U.S. employers engaged in some form of diversity training (Paluck, 2006).
Although diversity training has been widely used for many years, many researchers have raised
critical questions about its effectiveness (Bezrukova et al., 2015; Chang et al., 2018; Dover et al.,
2020). While some studies suggest positive outcomes, others question its long-term impact on
attitudes and behaviors. As Bezrukova et al. (2012) pointed out, despite organizational reliance
on diversity training, there is still much to learn about diversity.
DEI Practitioners
The emergence of DEI practitioners is a fairly recent phenomenon (Kluch et al., 2022).
Titles vary, as well as where in the organizational structure they sit; but staff whose primary
responsibilities focus on DEI engage in a wide range of activities including but not limited to
training, creating awareness, strategic planning, and equal employment opportunity compliance
(Khilji, 2020). DEI practitioners are often solely charged with driving DEI in organizations
(Kluch et al., 2022). These practitioners are often hired in the absence of a clear organizational
understanding of the work that needs to be done; they are often hired in reaction to an internal or
external event (Khilji, 2020).
DEI practitioners work with unclear job descriptions and often lack the institutional
commitment and support needed to actualize the work (Khilji, 2020; Kluch et al., 2022; Wilson,
2013). Despite the challenges and barriers, they are often given the insurmountable task of

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 35
ensuring that the organization is diverse, equitable, and inclusive while lacking the structural
power necessary to bring about meaningful organizational change. (Khilji, 2020; Kluch et al.,
2022; Williams & Wade-Golden, 2023; Wilson, 2013). For these reasons, DEI practitioner
positions are often more symbolic than substantive (Wilson, 2013).
Failure of DEI Initiatives
There appears to be a significant discrepancy between the proposed outcomes of diversity
management and the actual DEI outcomes (Agocs & Burr, 1996). The world saw an
unprecedented explosion of organizational commitments to DEI in 2020 and 2021 (Armstrong et
al., 2023). And, yet, despite this increase in engagement in diversity management after the
murder of George Floyd, many organizations have expressed disappointment with their DEI
outcomes (Zheng, 2022). Furthermore, the pace of commitments has slowed, with business
leaders, employees, and other key stakeholders expressing frustration with the lack of significant
progress in DEI initiatives (Zheng, 2022).
However, this disappointment is not new. More than two decades ago, Thomas and
Gabarro (1999) pointed out that many organizations had diversity management processes in
place, yet they did not produce the desired results, as evidenced by the continued high turnover
of staff of color. Other researchers wrote about organizations' disappointment with their diversity
management results in the early years of the 21st century (Cox, 2001; Pless & Maak, 2004).
Similarly, Ivancevich and Gilbert (2000) pointed to the lack of inclusive environments in
organizations despite their diversity management efforts.
Organizations often fail in their DEI efforts (El-Amin, 2022; Stanley et al., 2019). A
primary reason for failure is a lack of commitment, visible support, and resources from senior
leaders (Agrawal, 2023; Dobbin & Kalev, 2016; Khilji, 2020). According to Agrawal (2023), for

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 36
DEI to succeed, leadership must be committed from start to finish. Models for inclusive
workplaces point to the critical importance of top leaders' commitment to DEI, yet DEI
practitioners often highlight the low levels of leadership commitment and the lack of support and
resources (Khilji, 2020). Khilji (2020) described how DEI practitioners often must push top
leadership beyond just lip service.
The Role of Executives in Supporting DEI
Executives play a key role in enabling organizational change and action (Githens, 2009;
Kerman et al., 2012). According to Kotter (2007), successful organizational transformation
requires the Chief Executive Officer or President, plus at least five other leaders, to develop a
shared commitment to performance. This researcher argues that these individuals can be the
organizational executive team.
An essential factor contributing to inclusive workplaces is committed leaders who
support individual and cultural differences among employees (Pless & Maak, 2004; Ryan &
Kossek, 2008; Shore et al., 2011). In the case of DEI, organizations are more successful when
executive leaders openly support and engage in the work (Antle et al., 2008; Cocchiara et al.,
2010; Luger, 2011). Executive leaders set the tone and ensure that DEI is a priority, which is
critical to creating and sustaining DEI (Kiradoo, 2022). Executives’ awareness of the role they
play in DEI also increases organizational performance. (El-Amin, 2022; Gomez & Bernet, 2019;
Greer & Egan, 2019). Research shows that executive leaders must be committed to ensuring the
development and implementation of DEI strategies, programs, policies, and trackable metrics
that successfully support their shared vision (Agrawal, 2023; El-Amin, 2022; Leon 2014). In
addition to their commitment to DEI, executive leaders must also be willing to lead their
organization through DEI change initiatives (Gomez & Bernet, 2019; Greer & Egan, 2019).

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 37
Organizational change requires organizational leadership and commitment; change only occurs
when leaders drive change (McIsaac, 2014).
Sabharwal (2014) conducted research which showed that in organizations that effectively
manage diversity, commitment from top leadership is positively associated with organizational
performance. Her findings indicated that organizations need to have dedicated leadership focused
on fostering inclusion. Furthermore, organizational leaders must devise strategies to eliminate
systemic barriers and create avenues through which all employees are able to contribute to their
fullest potential.
Organizational leaders can decide if and how to manage diversity (Ng & Sears, 2011).
Many of the levers that drive organizational diversity and inclusion require executive leadership
(McIsaac, 2014). Meeting an organization’s DEI commitment is a performance goal.
Clark and Estes (2008) argue the key drivers of performance are knowledge, motivation and
organizational support. In addition to taking a solid position on DEI, organizational leaders must
provide the resources that enable DEI (El-Amin, 2022). This research project will explore the
knowledge and motivational levers that impact executives’ strategic choices to activate the
resources needed to meet an organization's DEI performance goals.
Knowledge as an Indicator of Performance
According to Clark and Estes (2008), knowledge impacts individuals' understanding,
behavior, and performance; thus, knowledge is an active ingredient in organizational success or
failure. Knowledge encompasses the information people possess that enables them to think and
perform effectively (Eraut et al., 2000). There are four types of knowledge associated with
performance: factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive (Clark & Estes, 2008;
Krathwohl, 2022; Rueda, 2011).

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 38
Krathwohl (2002) noted that factual knowledge entails the basic elements an individual
needs to know about a particular subject. Factual knowledge could include terminology, specific
details, and elements within any domain; it is the common “facts” needed to meet a goal.
Conceptual knowledge builds upon factual knowledge and is the understanding that facts
can be organized in meaningful ways (Anderson et al., 2001). Conceptual knowledge utilizes
factual knowledge to classify interrelated elements within a larger structure such as principles,
generalizations, theories, schemas, and models (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011).
Much like conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge builds upon factual knowledge
and demonstrates the knowledge of specific skills, tasks, techniques, and methods as well as the
criteria for deciding the use of appropriate procedures (Anderson et al., 2001). Procedural
knowledge is “how” one uses factual and conceptual knowledge. Procedural knowledge captures
the sequential or intricate processes and steps necessary to perform essential functions
(Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011).
Metacognitive knowledge is an awareness of one’s own thinking, and self-knowledge
(Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Metacognitive knowledge can be understood as strategic
knowledge and one's ability to use this knowledge to appropriately adapt the ways in which a
person thinks and behaves (Anderson et al., 2001; Krathwohl, 2022). It “includes knowledge of
oneself, the task at hand, and the strategy for successfully completing the required task” (Moores
et al., 2006). Metacognitive knowledge also points to self-efficacy, a person’s judgment of their
capability to accomplish a specific task (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011).
Understanding what knowledge is required to achieve a goal is essential (Rueda, 2011).
Similarly, Smith (2001) asserted that the value of knowledge is increased when it is focused on
organizational mission, core values, and strategic priorities. To make informed decisions

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 39
regarding DEI efforts and to meet organizational DEI commitments, executives must have
factual and conceptual knowledge of systemic inequities and metacognitive knowledge about
their role in DEI and relate that knowledge to organizational DEI efforts and outcomes.
Factual and Conceptual Knowledge of Systemic Inequities
Systemic inequity refers to the presence of long-standing and pervasive disparities in
opportunities, resources, and outcomes within a society or organization that are structured and
maintained by established systems, policies, processes, and practices (Luthra & Muhr, 2023).
Although these systemic inequities may be unintentional, they are nonetheless embedded in the
structure of organizations and perpetuated by systems that advantage certain groups while
disadvantaging others (Amis et al., 2020; Luthra & Muhr, 2023). Organizational executives need
to understand systemic inequity as it directly impacts individuals within the organization as well
as the success, sustainability, and reputation of their organization (Livingston, 2020).
With factual and conceptual knowledge of systemic inequities, executives are better
positioned to dismantle inequitable systems (Suarez, 2018). With knowledge of systemic
inequities, executives can advocate and support policies that address structural inequities and
actively contribute to creating an inclusive and equitable organizational culture (Seijts & Milani,
2022). Understanding systemic inequity can help executives make more informed decisions that
consider the potential impact on different demographic groups (Livingston, 202). With
knowledge of systemic inequities, executives are better equipped to integrate diversity and
inclusion into strategic planning, to identify systemic barriers, and to work proactively toward
creating a more equitable organizational structure (Livingston, 2020). This knowledge helps in
designing policies and practices that promote fairness, equity, and inclusion (Allison, 1999).

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 40
Addressing systemic inequity requires a comprehensive and sustained effort to reform
systems, policies, processes and practices across an organization (Solomon et al., 2019).
Understanding systemic inequity often involves recognizing the cultural contexts and historical
factors that contribute to disparities. Executives who possess this knowledge can foster in
themselves a leadership style that brings more awareness and is more culturally competent (Mor
et al., 2016). Executives can leverage their understanding of systemic inequity to establish and
monitor key performance indicators related to DEI and make data-driven assessments of progress
and areas for continued improvement (Hansen et al., 2021).
Metacognitive Knowledge
Metacognitive knowledge enhances one's ability to think critically, make informed
decisions, and lead effectively; it exerts substantial influence on individual performance (Klafehn
et al., 2013). Metacognitive knowledge enables executives to reflect on their own thoughts,
assumptions, and biases, leading to more strategic and well-informed decision-making (Ishimaru
& Galloway, 2014). As it relates to DEI, metacognitive leaders may be attuned to their own
positionality and the impact of that positionality on their thoughts, assumptions, biases, and
decision-making (Suarez, 2018). They recognize that everyone has biases, and they actively
work to identify and address these biases to make fair and equitable decisions (Lane, 2007).
Executives with metacognitive knowledge may assess the impact of organizational policies and
practices on DEI and consider whether these policies and practices contribute to or hinder
organizational DEI (Bourke & Dillon, 2016; Nishii & Leroy, 2022).
Metacognitive leaders are aware of their own cultural competency and they reflect on
their understanding of cultures, perspectives, and experiences (Goryunova, 2020; Lane 2007;
Mor et al., 2013). Metacognitive knowledge in the context of DEI includes reflection on how

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 41
organizational practices impact the well-being of employees from diverse backgrounds. Leaders
consider the psychological and emotional impact of workplace experiences on different
individuals. Metacognitive leaders may also consider how their words and actions may be
perceived by individuals from differing backgrounds and strive to communicate in a way that is
inclusive and respectful (Bourke & Dillon, 2016). They may actively seek feedback on their DEI
actions, decisions, and efforts and make necessary adjustments (Bourke & Dillon, 2016). By
understanding their own thinking and creative processes, they can create an environment that
values diverse perspectives, encourages open communication, promotes collaborative problemsolving, and encourages creative thinking; this leads to collaboration, innovation, and creativity
(Lane 2007; Mor et al., 2013).
Executives with metacognitive knowledge may be more adaptable and exhibit learning
agility, allowing them to assess their own learning needs, identify gaps in knowledge, and
proactively seek new information and skills (Black et al., 2016). Metacognition is closely linked
to emotional intelligence, equipping executives to understand and regulate their own emotions,
lead with greater empathy, and foster positive relationships with team members (Moon, 2008).
Emotionally intelligent executives who are adaptable and learning agile, and who engage in
reflective practices, can identify areas for personal and professional growth (Black et al., 2016;
Moon, 2020).
Metacognitive knowledge empowers organizational executives to be more effective
leaders by enhancing their decision-making abilities, fostering continuous improvement,
promoting emotional intelligence, and facilitating effective communications. Metacognitive
leaders contribute to a culture of learning, adaptability, and innovation. As it relates to DEI,
metacognition is essential for executives to foster a culture of self-awareness, continuous

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 42
improvement, and commitment to creating an inclusive and equitable workplace. It involves
reflective practices that lead to more informed and intentional actions, contributing to the overall
success of DEI within the organization.
Motivation as an Indicator of Performance
Knowledge and motivation are each part of a cooperative psychological system (Clarke
& Estes, 2008). As pointed out in the previous section, knowledge refers to what we know and
what we do with what we know. Motivation is what gets us going and keeps us moving (Bedian,
1993; Clark & Estes, 2008).
Motivation can be defined as the will to achieve and is critically important to goal
attainment (Bedeian, 1993). According to Clark and Estes (2008), individual motivation is an
important component to achieving workplace goals. Research shows that motivation leads to
greater focus and contribution to organizational performance (Grossman & Salas, 2011).
According to Clark and Estes (2008), motivation, combined with appropriate knowledge and
organizational supports, leads to organizational goal attainment.
The three primary facets of motivated performance are active choice, persistence, and
mental effort (Clark & Estes, 2008). Active choice refers to the moment when an individual
begins to pursue a goal, moving from intention to action (Clark & Estes, 2008). Persistence
refers to a continuation of action, even in the face of distraction, the absence of positive
reinforcements, or a lack of tangible rewards (Clark & Estes, 2008; Ng & Wyrick, 2011). Mental
effort refers to the intensity and rigor individuals invest in achieving the goal (Clark & Estes,
2008). Behavior is motivated by a desire to be effective in one’s life and motivation at work is
directly impacted by one’s beliefs about oneself, one’s team, and the prospect of being successful
(Clark & Estes, 2008). For this reason, in examining executive performance, this study will focus

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 43
on three motivational influences: a) self-efficacy, b) collective efficacy, and c) expectancy-value;
these three elements are described in greater detail in the following sub-sections.
Self-efficacy
Self-efficacy can be defined as a person’s belief in their ability to successfully
accomplish a task (Bandura, 1986). Bandura (1997) posited that people's motivations and actions
are based more on their self-efficacy—what they believe about their ability to be successful or
not—than what is objectively true. Brockner (1988) refers to self-efficacy as a task-specific
version of self-esteem. Bandura (1997) asserted that individuals set goals that align with their
level of self-efficacy, avoiding setting goals they do not believe they can achieve. Rueda (2001)
asserts that while high self-efficacy will motivate individuals to engage and persist, low selfefficacy will likely lead individuals to avoid a task.
Success in an endeavor is closely linked to self-efficacy in that endeavor, with higher
self-efficacy being associated with better outcomes (Bandura, 1997). A strong sense of selfefficacy has proven to be a predictor of behavioral outcomes and success, with a great deal of
evidence linking the importance of self-efficacy to performance (Chellappa, 2023; Cherian &
Jacob, 2013; Hill et al., 1987).
Self-efficacy influences the tasks individuals choose to learn, the goals they set, and their
level of effort and persistence (Lunenburg, 2011). Stajkovic and Luthans (1998) found that
employees with high self-efficacy tended to set more challenging goals for themselves, persisted
longer in the face of obstacles, and ultimately achieved higher levels of success. Chellappa
(2023) posits that self-efficacy “provides individuals with the motivation, persistence and drive
to problem-solve that are needed to overcome obstacles and achieve their desired outcomes.”

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 44
Paglis (2010) pointed to numerous studies that found that the self-efficacy of leaders was
positively correlated to individual leadership effectiveness and performance as well as collective
performance. To effectively engage in DEI efforts, executives need to believe they can achieve
their organizational DEI commitment.
Collective Efficacy
Bandura (1997) defines collective efficacy as “a group’s shared belief in its conjoint
capability to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given levels of
attainment” (p. 477). Collective efficacy can also be described as group members’ perceptions of
the group’s collective capability to successfully perform a job-related task (Borgogni et al.,
2011). Similar to self-efficacy, collective efficacy refers not to the actual capability of a team or
group but to the group members’ beliefs about their capacity to perform a task (Bandura, 1997).
Collective efficacy is not merely the sum of its parts (i.e., each team member’s self-efficacy) but
rather team members’ sense that they can effectively achieve a task or solve a problem through
concerted effort. Bandura (1997) posited that a group’s confidence in its ability to be successful
is associated with greater success.
High collective efficacy is a critical determinant of motivation and overall performance
(Zaccaro et al., 1995). Team members' collective beliefs about their capacity for success has
been shown to be an important determinant of team success. (Bandura, 1986; Zaccaro et al.,
1995). When collective efficacy exists, a team or group exerts greater effort, persists even in the
face of setbacks, and achieves higher levels of performance (Bandura, 2000). When a team of
individuals shares the belief that through unified efforts they can overcome challenges and
produce intended results, groups are more effective (Donohoo et al., 2018).

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 45
According to Bandura (1997), collective efficacy influences how individuals manage
resources, plans, and strategies as well as how much effort they exert and how they persist when
their efforts fail to produce quick results or the team encounters opposition. Guzzo et al. (1993)
also pointed out that high collective efficacy supports a team’s ability to “meet unexpected
challenges” (p. 89) The DEI outcomes organizations seek are achievable only through
collaborative, interrelated, interdependent efforts. High collective efficacy allows executives to
pool their knowledge and resources, acting in concert to shape their future (Bandura, 2000;
Stajkovic et al., 2009). For an organization to meet its DEI commitments, members of the
executive team must believe in the collective efficacy of their executive team to meet those
commitments.
Expectancy Value
Expectancy value is a theory of motivation that describes the relationship between an
individual’s expectancy for success and the value the individual places on a task (Wigfield,
1994). Expectancy value theory asserts that an individual's choices and behaviors are influenced
by their beliefs about the outcomes they expect to achieve and the value they place on those
outcomes (Eccles, 2005). It posits that individuals are motivated by two factors a) their
expectations of success and b) the subjective value or importance of the task. In other words,
how much an individual values a task has an impact on their motivation to complete it.
There are four elements of expectancy value. First, attainment value looks at the personal
importance for the individual engaged in the task. Second, intrinsic value looks at how much the
individual enjoys engaging in the task. Third, utility value refers to the perceived usefulness of
the goal, or how well the attainment of the goal relates to the individual's personal needs. Finally,

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 46
cost is the time and opportunity the individual has or is willing to invest, and its importance or
urgency with regard to other goals.
Research shows that a high expectancy value—the expectation of success coupled with a
high value for the task or outcome—leads to high motivation (Eccles, 2005). A high expectancy
value is correlated with active choice, persistence, and mental effort necessary to perform the
tasks to reach a goal (Rueda, 2011). To be motivated to meet an organizational DEI commitment,
executives must appreciate the utility value associated with the commitment and believe in their
ability to meet that commitment (Eccles, 2005; Rueda, 2011).
Organizational Supports
Organizational processes and material resources, which this researcher refers to as
organizational supports, impact an organization's ability to meet its goals (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Clarke and Estes (2008) contend that gaps in performance can stem from insufficient
organizational supports. One of the most persistent barriers to effective DEI work is a lack of
organizational supports (Kluch et al., 2002). Despite leaders having the appropriate knowledge
and motivations for successful DEI work, in the absence of effective organizational support, the
organization will not be able to meet its goals (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). For
organizations to meet DEI performance goals, executives must ensure necessary and sufficient
organizational supports are in place (El-Amin, 2022; Khilji, 2020; McIsaac, 2014).
There are two widely trusted benchmarks for DEI efforts: a) the Fair360 Top 50
Companies for Diversity (formerly known as the Diversity Inc. Top 50) and the Global
Diversity, Equity, Inclusion Belonging Benchmark. The measures used in these two benchmarks,
discussed below, will serve as models for the organizational supports executives can actualize to
support successful DEI efforts.

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 47
Fair360 compiles an annual list of the Top 50 Companies for Diversity based on a
comprehensive survey that assesses organizational performance across six key areas: talent
pipeline, equitable talent development, leadership accountability, supplier diversity, workplace
inclusion, and philanthropy and community support. The talent pipeline looks at the
representation of historically underrepresented groups at all levels of the organization, including
leadership and management positions. Equitable talent development involves fairness in
promotions, opportunities for skill development, and succession planning. Leadership
accountability addresses the commitment of senior leaders to accountability for diversity and
inclusion goals. Workplace inclusion explores organizational culture and the role of employee
resources groups, diversity training, and policies and practices that promote an inclusive
environment. Supplier diversity is the engagement with and support of diverse vendors and
suppliers. Finally, philanthropy and community support examine efforts to support
underrepresented groups in the community through charitable giving and volunteerism.
The Centre for Global Inclusion—the organization responsible for the Global Diversity,
Equity, Inclusion & Belonging Benchmark—guides organizations to implement and sustain best
practices in DEI. The benchmark identifies four groups and 15 categories for standards (Centre,
2023):
1. Foundation: vision and strategy; leadership and accountability; DEI structure and
implementation
2. Internal: recruitment; advancement and retention; job design, classification, and
compensation; work-life integration and benefits
3. Bridging: assessment, measurement, and research; DEI communications; DEI
learning and development; connecting DEI and sustainability

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 48
4. External: community, government relations and philanthropy; services and products
development; marketing and customer service; and responsible sourcing
For an organization to meet its DEI commitments, executives and the executive team
must ensure the necessary organizational supports needed to meet that commitment. These two
benchmarks provide clear recommendations for organizational supports for DEI and a roadmap
for executives to follow to meet their DEI commitment. Table 1, below, shows the alignment of
these two models. This research project will examine the resources to enable and drive DEI
initiatives.
Table 1
Alignment of Fair360 and Centre for Global Inclusion Benchmarks
Fair360 Centre for Global Inclusion
Foundation: vision and strategy; leadership
and accountability; DEI structure and
implementation
Leadership accountability—the commitment of senior
leaders to accountability for diversity and inclusion
goals.
Internal: recruitment; advancement and
retention; job design, classification and
compensation; work-life integration and
benefits
• Talent pipeline—the representation of historically
underrepresented groups at all levels of the
organization, including leadership and management
positions.
• Equitable talent development—fairness in
promotions, opportunities for skill development,
and succession planning.
External: community, government relations
and philanthropy; services and products
development; marketing and customer
service; and responsible sourcing
• Supplier diversity—engagement with and support
of diverse vendors and suppliers.
• Philanthropy and community support—efforts to
support underrepresented groups in the community
through charitable giving and volunteerism.
Bridging: assessment, measurement and
research; DEI communications; DEI
learning and development; connecting DEI
and sustainability
No Alignment
No Alignment Workplace inclusion—organizational culture and the
role of employee resources groups, diversity training,
and policies and practices that promote an inclusive
environment.

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 49
Conceptual Framework
The theoretical framework utilized for this study was a modified gap analysis framework
based on Clark and Estes (2008). The gap analysis framework is a systematic problem-solving
approach to improving performance and achieving organizational goals. It identifies three causes
of performance gaps: knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational barriers. Knowledge
encompasses the information people possess that enables them to think and perform effectively
(Eraut et al., 2000). Motivation is the will to achieve a goal (Bedeian, 1993). Clarke and Estes
(2008) asserted that gaps in motivation can be the result of active choice, persistence, or mental
effort. Organizational barriers include a lack of inadequate, or ineffective processes, resources, or
accountabilities (Clarke & Estes, 2008). The modification to the gap analysis framework in this
study was the thesis that the knowledge and motivations of executives and executive teams leads
to the creation of organizational supports to actualize DEI initiatives.
The conceptual framework for this study focused specifically on how the knowledge and
motivations of executives and executive teams impacted them in providing the organizational
supports needed to actualize their organizational DEI commitment. Knowledge (i.e., factual,
conceptual, and metacognitive elements), and motivation (i.e., self-efficacy, collective efficacy,
and expectancy-value) were evaluated in assessing executives and team impact in actualizing
organizational supports for the DEI commitment.
Knowledge
The assumed knowledge influences in this study focused on factual, conceptual, and
metacognitive elements. This section focused on the assumed knowledge that influences an
executive to provide the necessary organizational supports for DEI. Factual knowledge can be
thought of as the common “facts” one needs to meet a goal (Krathwhol, 2002). Conceptual

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 50
knowledge builds upon factual knowledge and is the understanding that facts can be organized in
meaningful ways. Conceptual knowledge utilizes factual knowledge to classify interrelated
elements within larger structures such as principles, generalizations, theories, schemas, and
models (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). The factual and conceptual knowledge executives need
to support DEI entails an understanding of structural and systemic inequities, especially the
specific inequities within their own organization.
Metacognitive knowledge is an awareness of one’s own thinking, or self-knowledge
(Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Metacognitive knowledge can be understood as strategic
knowledge or an individual’s ability to use this knowledge to appropriately adapt the ways in
which they think and behave (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001; Krathwohl, 2022). Metacognitive
knowledge includes “knowledge of oneself, the task at hand, and the strategy for successfully
completing the required task” (Moores et al., 2006). Metacognitive knowledge also points to
self-efficacy, an individual’s judgment of their capability to accomplish a specific task
(Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). The metacognitive knowledge needed by executives to support
DEI entails a clear understanding and acceptance of their impact as a leader with regard to the
organization's DEI outcomes. Executives must understand that they either support DEI or create
barriers to DEI based on their decision-making about the organizational supports to actualize
DEI initiatives.
Motivation
Motivation refers to an individual’s choice, persistence, and mental effort when engaging
in a task (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Research shows that motivation is critically
important to goal attainment and leads to greater focus and contribution to organizational
performance (Clark & Estes, 2008; Grossman & Salas, 2011; Rueda, 2011). This study utilized

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 51
theories of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997), collective efficacy (Bandura, 2000), and expectancyvalue (Wigfield, 1994) to explore the motivation of executives and the executive team.
Self-efficacy is a person’s belief in their ability to successfully accomplish a task
(Bandura, 1986). Success in any area is closely linked to self-efficacy in that area, with higher
self-efficacy being associated with improved outcomes (Bandura, 1997). Studies have found that
the self-efficacy of leaders is positively correlated to leadership effectiveness and performance
(Paglis, 2010). Thus, to effectively engage and persist in DEI efforts, executives need to believe
they can achieve their organizational DEI commitments.
Collective efficacy is group members’ perceptions of the group’s collective capability to
successfully perform a job-related task (Bandura, 2000; Borgogni et al., 2011). High collective
efficacy is a critical determinant of motivation and overall performance (Zaccaro et al., 1995).
When collective efficacy exists, a team or group exerts greater effort, persists even in the face of
setbacks, and achieves higher levels of performance (Bandura, 2000). When a team of
individuals shares the belief that through their unified efforts, they can overcome challenges and
produce the intended result(s), groups are more effective (Donohoo et al., 2018). In order for an
organization to meet its DEI commitments, members of the executive team must believe in the
collective efficacy of the executive team to meet those commitments.
Expectancy value theory asserts that an individual's choices and behaviors are influenced
by their beliefs about the outcomes they expect to achieve and the value they place on those
outcomes (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). In other words, how much a person values a task has an
impact on their motivation to complete it. A high expectancy value is correlated with active
choice, persistence, and mental effort to perform the task necessary to reach the goal (Rueda,
2011). To be motivated to meet an organization's DEI commitments, executives must appreciate

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 52
the utility value associated with the commitment and believe in their ability to actualize that
commitment (Eccles, 2006; Rueda, 2011).
Organizational Supports
Organizational supports—work processes, material resources, and accountability—
impact an organization's ability to meet its goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). One of the most
persistent barriers to effective DEI work is a lack of organizational supports (Kluch et al., 2002).
Despite leaders having the appropriate knowledge and motivations for successful DEI work, in
the absence of effective organizational support, an organization will not be able to meet its goals
(Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). For an organization to meet its DEI commitments,
executives and the executive team must ensure the necessary and proper organizational supports
to actualize DEI initiatives.
For organizations to meet their DEI commitments, executives and executive teams must
be knowledgeable, motivated, and ensure the proper supports are in place for organizational DEI
work (El-Amin, 2022). This study assessed each of these three factors in Clark and Estes’ (2008)
gap analytical framework (see Figure 1, below).
Chapter Summary
Despite decades of focus, dating back to equal employment and affirmative action which
began in the 1950’s, moving through the racial reckoning of 2020, and continuing today,
organizations often fail at their DEI efforts (El-Amin, 2022; Stanley et al., 2019). A primary
reason for this failure is a lack of commitment, visible support, and resources from top leaders
(Agrawal, 2023; Dobbin & Kalev, 2016; Khilji, 2020).
Clarke and Estes (2008) contended that a combination of appropriate knowledge,
motivation, and organizational supports leads to organizational goal attainment, and that gaps in

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 53
performance can stem from any one of these three factors. Similarly, Agrawal (2023) asserts that
for DEI to succeed, leadership must be committed from start to finish. Likewise, Lockwood
(2005) pointed to the necessity of leaders communicating commitment by allocating the
necessary resources - staff, budgets, and time - to move diversity forward. In summary, for
organizations to meet DEI performance goals, executives must be knowledgeable, motivated,
and ensure the proper supports are in place for organizational DEI work (El-Amin, 2022).
Figure 1
Conceptual Framework for Enabling Organizational Supports for DEI
Structural & systemic
inequities
Specific organizational
inequities
Role and responsibility
of executives
Self-efficacy
Collective efficacy
Expectancy value
Foundation/Leadership
Accountability
Internal/Talent Pipeline,
Equitable Talent
Development
Bridging/Workplace
Inclusion

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 54
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this study was to identify the roles of knowledge and motivations held by
executives and executive teams have on the creation and maintenance of organizational supports
for the operationalization of an organization’s DEI commitment. Specifically, this study explored
how executives’ knowledge (factual, conceptual, and metacognitive), and motivation (selfefficacy, collective efficacy, and expectancy-value) impacts the development and
implementation of organizational enablers of effective DEI initiatives.
The methodology section presents the research design, research questions, and
participants. It details the data sources, instrumentation, data collection procedures, and data
analysis. Finally, it addresses validity and reliability, limitations and delimitations, ethics, and
researcher positionality.
Research Design
The study utilized a qualitative, grounded theory approach. Qualitative research seeks to
explore and understand how individuals and groups make meaning of social or human situations
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Ground theory generates theory, process, or action from data
collected from participants (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). A qualitative grounded theory approach
is appropriate for this study as the study seeks to explore the self-efficacy of executives, the
collective efficacy of executive teams, individual and group expectancy-value, and the
relationship of these elements to the creation of organizational supports for DEI.
The study method was one-to-one, semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The following research questions guided the study:
1. What knowledge influences executives and executive teams related to enabling
organizational supports for DEI?

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 55
2. What motivations influence executives and executive teams related to enabling
organizational supports for DEI?
3. What are the organizational barriers to enabling organizational supports for DEI?
Data Source: Interviews
The methodology used in this study was one-to-one semi-structured interviews.
Interviews were selected as they allow for a purposeful conversation that will allow the
researcher to learn what the interviewees are thinking about (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). The
interviews solicited information about the participants’ knowledge and motivations, things that
are not observable (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015).
A semi-structured approach was most appropriate for this study because it allowed for
structured questions that elicit responses directly related to the study focus while maintaining
consistency of questioning across participants, which allowed for better analysis (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2015). Semi-structured interviews also allowed for flexibility, which supported a more
conversational tone during the interview (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). This approach also allowed
for follow-up questions that demonstrated the researcher was listening and attuned with the
participant, not just asking prescribed mechanical and inauthentic questions (Merriam & Tisdell,
2015). Additionally, the researcher used language that may have felt more familiar to or aligned
with the participant.
Participants
The study consisted of interviews with English-speaking C-Suite executives (e.g., CEO,
CFO, COO, CDO, CAO) in the United States working in medium-sized organizations of 750-
1200 employees with an executive team of three to five chief executive officers. This provided
commonality in organizational size and structure.

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 56
The study utilized purposeful sampling to identify 15 executives and 14 were
interviewed. Purposeful sampling allowed the researcher to gain insight from a sample of
participants who were anticipated to possess the greatest insight into individual executive and
team motivation as well as the organizational support for DEI (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). The
study targeted members of the executive team as they were anticipated to be best situated to
provide insight into their knowledge and motivations as well as being the individuals responsible
for organizational support for DEI initiatives.
Instrumentation
The interview protocol utilized a one-to-one semi-structured (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015),
open-ended (Creswell & Creswell, 2018) interview protocol (see Appendix A). The 10 interview
questions were aligned to and driven by the study’s conceptual framework and directly linked to
the research questions, which focus on executive knowledge, motivation, and organizational
supports. Questions were designed to stimulate responses that focus on participants' knowledge,
experience and behaviors, opinions, and values (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015; Patton, 2014).
Data Collection Procedures
Data was collected using virtual interviews conducted with the online Zoom platform.
Each interview took approximately 60 minutes. The researcher asked permission to record the
interview to ensure both the full attention of the interviewer during the interview as well as a
complete and accurate recording of the interview. To support the researcher's understanding of
responses, the researcher asked follow-up or clarifying questions and restated and/or rephrased
responses. Table 2, below, outlines the preliminary performance influencers and organizational
supports central to the study.

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 57
Table 2
Performance Influencers and Organizational Supports
Performance Influencers Elements
Assumed Knowledge • Structural and systemic inequities (Factual & Conceptual)
• Organizational inequities (Factual & Conceptual)
• An executive's personal responsibility for DEI
(Metacognitive)
Assumed Motivational • Self-efficacy
• Collective efficacy
• Expectancy-value
Assumed Organizational
Supports
• DEI vision and strategy
• Leadership accountability
• DEI structure
• Talent pipeline (Recruitment)
• Talent development (Advancement & Retention)
• Workplace inclusion
• DEI communications
• DEI learning development
Data Analysis
Data analysis is the process of making meaning of the data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015).
After each interview, the interview audio recording was transcribed by the researcher listening to
the audio recording while reading the transcript to ensure the accuracy of the transcription.
The researcher began data analysis with the first interview, continuing throughout the
interview period. The researcher read each transcript two or three times to get a sense of the data
and made preliminary notes of keywords. After all interviews were completed, the coding
process began. Coding is the process of identifying patterns and constructing categories or
recurring themes across the data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). The researcher read each transcript,
coded for keywords and then identified patterns, categories, and themes.

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 58
Data Sources: Researcher Notes, Summaries, and Journal
During the interviews, the researcher took low-inference notes. She wrote a more detailed
summary after each interview, recording initial impressions and reactions. During the course of
the research, she kept a researcher journal for reflections.
Data Collection Procedures
Data was collected manually in the form of researcher notes during interviews. Detailed
summaries and the researcher's journal were maintained in password protected documents on the
researcher’s computer.
Data Analysis
Researcher notes, summaries, and journal entries were reviewed to address potential
researcher bias. Data was triangulated with the interview data to increase the trustworthiness of
the data.
Data Sources: Artifacts
Artifacts are an important part of the qualitative research process (Creswell & Creswell,
2018). During the interviews, participants offered to share organizational documents such as
statements, organizational webpages, memos, and promotional materials. The researcher also
reviewed the organizational websites of research participants as well as press releases,
organizational social media, news articles, and other publicly available artifacts.
Data Collection Procedures
Data was be collected during interviews, if volunteered. Data was collected before
interviews so that the researcher can monitor for and question any incongruencies or areas of
interest.

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 59
Data Analysis
Data from artifacts was triangulated with the interview data and researcher notes,
summaries, and journal entries to increase the trustworthiness of the data.
Credibility and Dependability
The researcher utilized three primary strategies to maximize credibility and
trustworthiness. The first strategy was member checking or respondent validation (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2015). The researcher shared the proofread interview transcripts with participants to
ensure the accuracy of the information and to provide any necessary corrections, clarifications,
or other edits. This strategy addressed potential concerns of bias by allowing participants to
either confirm or clarify the meaning(s) they were trying to convey during the interview.
A second strategy was to provide rich and thick descriptions of the findings (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2015). In sharing the study findings, the researcher provided deep and wide descriptions
of the participants’ organizational context and narrative. The intention was to provide the reader
with enough information to help them determine if the findings can transfer to them and their
organizational context.
A third strategy was triangulation of artifacts to confirm or challenge participants’
answers to the interview questions. This mitigated both participant bias and researcher bias.
A fourth strategy was data triangulation using researcher notes, summaries, and journal
entries. This additional strategy allowed the researcher to check their position and reflexivity
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). The researcher engaged in peer review with her chair, her committee,
and her doctoral student colleagues (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). These critical self-reflections
throughout the study process—of the researchers' own assumptions, worldviews, bias, and

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 60
relationship to the study—coupled with peer review mitigated the concerns of applying the
researchers' own meaning to participant responses.
Ethics
To mitigate ethical dilemmas related to this study, the researcher completed the CITI
certification process. Permission was sought and approval received from the University of
Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB) prior to initiating the research; the IRB
reviewed the methodology and did not identify any potential ethical concerns. The researcher
faithfully incorporated any and all IRB recommendations and constraints to protect participants,
the researcher, and the institution (Glesne, 2011; Rubin & Rubin, 2012). Throughout this study,
the researcher received guidance and support from the dissertation chair and committee.
To ensure the confidentiality of interview participants, no identifying information about
the participant or the organization was shared. Pseudonyms were assigned to all participants and
organizations. In the event references are made to individuals or organization, pseudonyms were
used.
Participants were informed and reminded that the interview was strictly voluntary and
confidential, and that they may stop the interview at any time or decline to answer any question.
They were also informed that they could withdraw their consent at any time before the
publication of this dissertation.
With the informed consent of the participants, interviews were recorded and transcribed.
The commencement and termination of the recording was indicated to participants at the
beginning and end of the official data collection process. Additionally, participants were invited
to review the interview transcripts (Glesne, 2011), allowing them to make edits, deletions,

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 61
additions, clarifications, or to opt out of the study entirely. No compensation or gifts were
exchanged for participation.
At the publication of the study, all recordings and transcripts were destroyed. Study
results were made available and disseminated to all participants upon request.
Role of the Researcher
The researcher’s positionality created both insights and obstacles to this research study.
As a Black woman and a Chief Diversity Officer (CDO), I was both an insider and an outsider to
this problem (Qin, 2016). As a Black woman and member of a marginalized community, I had
personal insights into the problem of inequity and exclusion; thus, I was an insider to the lived
experiences of those impacted by the lack of accountability for organizational change. I was also
an outsider to the benefactors of the systems in power.
As a CDO, I had a seat at the table in organizational decision-making and I was,
therefore, an insider to the continuation of systemic, organizational barriers to equity and
inclusion. I understood how organizations operate; I understood the things that support DEI
initiatives and the things that posed obstacles. As a member of an impacted group and,
consequently, viewed by my colleagues as not bringing an objective lens, I was simultaneously
an outsider. My positionality as a CDO may have affected my study given my work experience
and informed my research thesis—that an executive’s knowledge and motivations lead to either
the creation of or barriers to organizational support for DEI. My position as a Black women
CDO may have affected participation in this study as participants may have felt awkward
responding to questions from a Black women CDO, or they may have been inclined to respond
in more favorable tones, to provide responses they thought I wanted to hear, or to answer in ways
that put them in a more positive light.

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 62
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
This study set out to examine if and how the knowledge and motivations of executives
led to the creation of organizational supports for DEI and the dismantling of organizational
barriers that hinder DEI. Specifically, this study explored the impact of development and
implementation of organizational enablers of effective DEI on executive’s knowledge of a)
structural and systemic inequities, b) specific organizational inequities, c) self-efficacy and
expectancy value of executives, and d) collective-efficacy of the executive team. The study
employed a gap analysis framework, a systemic problem-solving approach to improving
performance and achieving organizational goals (Clarke & Estes, 2008). This framework
identified three causes of performance gaps: knowledge and skills, motivation, and
organizational barriers. The conceptual framework for this study focused specifically on how the
knowledge and motivation of executives and executive teams impacted executives in providing
the organizational supports needed to actualize their organizational DEI commitment.
Knowledge (i.e., factual, conceptual, and metacognitive elements) and motivation (i.e., selfefficacy, collective efficacy, and expectancy value) were evaluated in assessing individual and
team impact in actualizing organizational supports for the DEI commitment. Three research
questions guided the study:
1. What knowledge influences executives and executive teams related to enabling
organizational supports for DEI?
2. What motivations influence executives and executive teams related to enabling
organizational supports for DEI?
3. What are the organizational barriers to enabling organizational supports for DEI?

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 63
Participants
Fourteen executives participated in the study. They included Chief Executive Officers
CEOs), Chief People Officers, CDOs, Regional Presidents, and Vice Presidents within the
highest level of organizational leadership. All participants worked in U.S.-based, medium-sized
organizations of 750 to 3,000 employees with an executive team of three to seven members.
Organizations represented not-for-profit, corporate, public, and military institutions (see Table 3,
below). Of the 14 participants, 12 (85.7%) identified as female, one identified as male, and one
identified as nonbinary. Ethnic and racial diversity was evenly represented between executives
who identified as White (6, 42.9%) and Blacks (6, 42.9%); there was a single executive who
identified as Hispanic and one who identified as Asian. Executives averaged 2.9 years on the job,
with a median of three years and a range from two months to nine years. All names used in
Chapter Four and Chapter Five are pseudonyms.
Findings for Research Question One
The first research question asked, “What knowledge influences executives and executive
teams related to enabling organizational supports for DEI?” According to Clark and Estes
(2008), knowledge impacts individuals' understanding, behavior, and performance; thus,
knowledge makes an active contribution to organizational success or failure. Krathwohl (2002)
noted that factual knowledge entails the basic elements an individual needs to know about a
particular subject. Conceptual knowledge builds upon factual knowledge and is the
understanding that facts can be organized in meaningful ways (Anderson et al., 2001).
Metacognitive knowledge is an awareness of one’s own thinking and self-knowledge
(Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011).

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 64
Table 3
Participant Demographics
Participant Gender
and Race
Type of
Organization
Organizational
Role
Time in
Role
Interview
Length
Sophia White
Female
Non-profit CEO 4 months 48:45
Isabel Black
Female
Public Vice President 2 months 44:39
Olivia Black
Female
Public Vice President
Chief Officer
1.5 years 49:42
Mia White
Female
Corporate Regional
President
1 year 37:59
Ava Hispanic
Female
Public Vice President 3.5 years 53:12
Emma Black
Female
Public Chief Officer 4 years 56:07
Charlotte White
Female
Public Chief Officer 5.5 years 50:19
Amelia White
Female
Non-profit Executive
Director
5 years 42:15
Evelyn Black
Female
Corporate Vice President 2 years 38:29
Kevin White
Male
Non-profit Executive
Director
9 years 50:58
Abigail White
Female
Military CEO 3 years 60:01
Emily Black
Female
Public Chief Officer 2 years 39:05
Harper Asian
Nonbinary
Public Chief Officer 3 years 48:35
Lilly Black
Female
Non-profit Vice President 1 year 49:36

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 65
In alignment with the conceptual framework, this study examined executives' knowledge
of systemic inequities and organizational inequities as well as their metacognitive knowledge of
the role of executives in supporting DEI. With knowledge of systemic inequities, executives are
better equipped to integrate diversity and inclusion into strategic planning, to identify systemic
organizational barriers, and to work proactively toward creating a more equitable organizational
structure (Livingston, 2020). Metacognitive knowledge enhances one's ability to think critically,
make informed decisions, and lead effectively; it exerts a substantial influence on individual
performance (Klafehn et al., 2013). Table 4 presents a summary of participants' knowledge based
on participant responses in interviews.
Table 4
Summary of Executive Knowledge Influences
Factual and Conceptual Knowledge Metacognitive
Knowledge
Participants Structural and
Systemic Inequities
Specific Organizational
Inequities
Role and Responsibility
of Executives
Sophia ✓
Isabel ✓
Olivia ✓
Mia ✓
Ava ✓ ✓ ✓
Emma ✓
Charlotte ✓ ✓ ✓
Amelia ✓ ✓ ✓
Evelyn
Kevin ✓ ✓
Abigail ✓ ✓
Emily ✓
Harper ✓ ✓ ✓
Lilly ✓

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 66
Factual and Conceptual Knowledge of Structural and Systemic Inequities
Thematic analysis of interviews showed that six of 14 (42.9%) participants had a clear
knowledge of structural inequities and the existence of structural inequities was discussed among
their executive team. Participants who discussed structural or systemic inequities shared how
they were trying to interrogate the different experiences of historically marginalized groups and
asking themselves and their team how they could tackle systemic marginalization. In some cases,
it was just the acknowledgment that “systemic inequities are still pervasive” and that ELTs
played a role in recognizing and combatting systemic inequities. One participant recognized that
their organization had built itself to get the results it was getting. This knowledge was critical for
executives as factual and conceptual knowledge of systemic inequities better positions
executives to dismantle inequitable systems (Suarez, 2018).
Factual and Conceptual Knowledge of Specific Organizational Inequities
Thematic analysis of participants' interviews showed less than a third of the participant's
organizations (4, 28.6%) had assessed and analyzed for organizational inequities. Of the four that
assessed and analyzed for organizational inequities, three (21.4%) conducted the analysis inhouse by looking at personnel data, including the composition of the workforce, promotions,
retention, terminations, and hiring; the remaining organization utilized an outside firm to conduct
the analysis. Another source of knowledge these four organizations utilized was climate or
engagement surveys. These surveys disaggregated data based on several demographic markers;
this included but was not limited to gender, race, ability, age, level in the organization, and time
in the organization. They used the disaggregated data to identify variations in group experiences,
which then informed organizational priorities and decision-making.

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 67
Metacognitive Knowledge: Role and Responsibility of Executives in Enabling DEI
Thematic analysis of interviews revealed that the majority of participants (13, 92.9%)
believed that executives served a critical role in enabling organizational DEI (see Table 5). A
recurring theme around the role of the executives in supporting DEI spoke to their ultimate
responsibility for leading and supporting DEI work. This was described in different ways,
including “living it,” “keeping it in conversation,” and “allocating resources.”
Table 5
Summary of Metacognitive Knowledge Influences
Participants Role of
Executives
in DEI
Knowledge Building
(continued learning,
feedback, exposure)
Self-Awareness
(positionality,
bias, impact)
Sophia ✓ ✓ ✓
Isabel ✓
Olivia ✓
Mia ✓
Ava ✓ ✓ ✓
Emma ✓
Charlotte ✓ ✓ ✓
Amelia ✓ ✓ ✓
Evelyn
Kevin ✓
Abigail ✓
Emily ✓ ✓ ✓
Harper ✓ ✓
Lilly ✓ ✓
Role of Executives
Thirteen participants (92.9%) demonstrated a strong understanding of the importance of
executives in supporting organizational DEI; this was communicated in a variety of ways. Sophia
responded by saying, “As the leader, I am charged with leading this work.” She expanded on this
by expressing her organization’s need to leverage organizational knowledge and positionality to

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 68
recognize strategies that would be accepted and “take it across the finish line and ensure
funding.”
Isabel spoke to utilizing individual executive power to make decisions and impact
people's lives, addressing how the executive’s role is to help “put people in the right places, in
the right doors, in the right conversations with the right people.” Emily, a CDO shared that a
major component of her role was to keep DEI in the conversation. Emma spoke about her
responsibility to have courageous conversations. Kevin, a CEO, said it is his role to form the
culture from the top down.
It is the responsibility of me, the CEO, to provide the culture to allow DEI to flourish. If
I'm only doing it, because my DEI person said I have to do it, then I am only going to do
it according to the list, and no more.
While most participants spoke about the role of executives from the perspective of
personal buy-in, some executives spoke about it from a divisional perspective or from an ELT
perspective. Olivia only spoke about the role of executives from the perspective of her divisional
position, referring to her role in implementing a strategic plan for her division and working with
her managers to identify specific areas of work they can impact. Evelyn’s perspective spoke to
how each member of the ELT was doing the work in their respective divisions with each division
expected to have tangible goals and objectives.
Those participants who spoke about the work from a divisional perspective seemed to
think of the ELT as individual division heads doing divisional work; they did not see the ELT as
a unified entity with a shared vision or message. Participants who spoke to DEI from an ELT
perspective spoke more about unified efforts and messaging. Emma stated that executives held
the greatest responsibility for DEI, arguing, “Executives set the tone and provide the resources,

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 69
set the goals, and the strategic plan to meet those goals. So, depending on the value we place on
these issues, [that] is the value that it's going to get.” Ava spoke to the importance of embedding
DEI work throughout the organization (i.e., making it a part of the organizational DNA) so that
staff knew the ELT “means what we say.”
Knowledge Building
Five participants (35.7%) talked about the importance of knowledge-building as an
executive responsible for enabling DEI. Harper talked about things they had to learn related to
DEI concepts, historical context, and systemic inequities. Lilly spoke about helping her ELT
understand implicit and explicit bias, recognizing when bias comes into a conversation, how bias
impacts decision-making, and recognizing bias in organizational policies and procedures. Lilly
posited that the ELTs had the responsibility to understand the issues and how they impacted the
organization, saying “It's important that we know how to answer some questions, know where to
find information, and how to provide resources for our teams. Not only personal knowledge of
DEI but also [to] understand DEI within our systems and structures.” Charlotte talked about
analyzing personnel data through a DEI lens and learning about employee engagement levers.
Harper, a CDO, talked about the need for the ELT to find developmental tools for their own
personal growth and development, something that allowed them to track their own personal DEI
development.
Sophia realized how much she didn’t know, which she tempered with a willingness to ask
the hard questions and hear the uncomfortable answers. She asserted that “because you are an
executive at an organization does not mean you know everything. You have to understand how
much you don’t know and surround yourself with the people who know a lot more than you.”
Sophia expounded on this, explaining how she listened and learned when first coming on board.

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 70
When she met a staff person, one of her first questions addressed “if they had the support that
they needed and what they were walking through themselves.” She would work with the staff
person through “the struggle points,” which she found to be an “interesting and very eye-opening
process, in a good way.”
Self-awareness
Half of the participants (7, 50.0%) discussed self-awareness as a critical component of in
supporting DEI. Amelia spoke about her realization that she needed to get out of the “bubble of
homogeny,” saying, “I realize that my whole life I was just hanging out with people that look
just like me because that was comfortable, and that's what I saw everybody doing. So, I was
never challenged to do something different.” She happened to be living with a disability that
surfaced in adulthood; the onset of this disability proved to be a DEI learning experience as well:
With the progression of my disability, I realized that people were looking at me
differently because of my disability, and they were doubting my abilities. And that
changed my world. People doubt me all the time, and that had never happened. I am
getting a small fraction of what has happened in our country and our world for millions
and millions and millions of people.
Similarly, Sophia spoke about recognizing their own privilege and realizing that she had
not been aware of how she was coming across. “How many things was I saying that were so
incorrect and probably did more harm than good?” Sophia also spoke to realizing many of the
matters that were being raised in her organization were not part of her personal lived reality; she
owned that, admitting, “I completely had to shift my mind.”

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 71
Being Uncomfortable
A recurring theme was around the matter of comfort and discomfort. Ameila spoke about
the role of an executive as leading by example; she added that this was not always comfortable.
“It is not always the most comfortable thing but it's okay, and staff need to see that and
understand that we’re all working through it.” Mia posited that leaders must learn how to be
“comfortable being uncomfortable.” Sophia shared her realization that when she was
uncomfortable about something she knew she must do some work on herself. “I think it took me
almost two decades of working my way up into an executive role for me to be so uncomfortable
with myself and some situations to finally ask, ‘Why am I so darn uncomfortable?’”
Summary of Findings for Research Question One
The thematic analysis indicated that the factual and conceptual knowledge of
organization-specific inequities was low. Very few executives and ELTs seemed to have
knowledge of the inequities that existed within their own organizations. According to Livingston
(2020), this knowledge is needed for executives to integrate DEI into strategic planning,
allowing them to know where to focus their energies. Although metacognitive knowledge of the
role of executives in DEI was high, drilling down on specific aspects of metacognitive
knowledge revealed that executives were not necessarily continually building their DEI
knowledge and were often uncomfortable confronting DEI issues. Metacognitive knowledge
helps leaders assess their own learning needs, identify gaps in knowledge, and proactively seek
new information and skills (Black et al., 2016). Metacognition is also closely linked to emotional
intelligence, allowing executives to understand and regulate their own emotions, such as
discomfort (Moon, 2008). The thematic analysis suggests that these leaders would benefit from
greater factual, conceptual, and metacognitive knowledge.

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 72
Findings for Research Question Two
The second research question asked, “What motivations influence executives and
executive teams related to enabling organizational supports for DEI?” Motivation can be defined
as the will to achieve and is critically important to goal attainment (Bedeian, 1993). In alignment
with the conceptual framework, this study examined executives' self-efficacy and the collective
efficacy and expectancy value of the ELT.
A strong sense of self-efficacy has been proven to predict behavioral outcomes and
success, with a great deal of evidence linking the importance of self-efficacy to performance
(Chellapa, 2023; Cherian & Jacob, 2013; Hill et al., 1987). Similar to self-efficacy, collective
efficacy refers not to the actual capability of a team or group but to the group members’ beliefs
about their capacity to perform a task (Bandura, 1997). High collective efficacy is a critical
determinant of motivation and overall performance (Zaccaro et al., 1995). Research shows that a
high expectancy value—the expectation of success coupled with a high value for the task or
outcome—leads to high motivation (Eccles, 2005). Table 6, below, presents a summary of
participants' motivation based on participant responses.
Self-Efficacy
Thematic analysis of participants' interviews revealed that all participants identified their
self-efficacy related to engaging in DEI work as moderate or high. Recurring themes related to
humility, the willingness to be uncomfortable, and continual learning. Several participants
mentioned the importance of humility in DEI work and often talked about humility in relation to
“not knowing everything” and being willing to be uncomfortable in order to learn. Harper talked
about humility in relation to the ELT, understanding that there was always room for
improvement and opportunity for personal growth. Emma talked about having confidence in her

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 73
ability to engage in DEI work while still being humble. “I would say my self-efficacy in doing
this work is very confident, with humility. I know I don’t know everything, and I don’t presume
to either, but I’ve studied it for a very long time.” Mia mentioned feeling confident, which also
meant “being open to when I don’t quite get it right.” Abigail identified feeling only moderately
confident because she realized just how much she had to learn. But she felt 100% confident in
her willingness to dive in.
Table 6
Summary of Executive Motivation Influences
Participants Self-efficacy Collective efficacy Expectancy Value
Sophia High Moderate Moderate
Isabel Moderate Low Low
Olivia Moderate Moderate High
Mia High Moderate Moderate
Ava High Low Low
Emma High Moderate High
Charlotte Moderate Low Low
Amelia Moderate High High
Evelyn Moderate Moderate Low
Kevin High High n/a
Abigail Moderate Low n/a
Emily High Moderate High
Harper High Low Moderate
Lilly High High High
Participants also spoke about their willingness to be uncomfortable. Sophia talked about
her ability to work through being uncomfortable, giving her the ability to stay present. “If you're
sitting in an executive role, it doesn’t matter how uncomfortable you are because it's really
uncomfortable.”
Emma told the story of a DEI learning event that became very heated but was allowed to
play itself out. She described it as a very uncomfortable situation; however, she not only got
through it, but the situation also came to a resolution. The process and outcome were credited to

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 74
executives knowing how to sit in discomfort. Emma reflected “These are the moments that move
us forward.”
Participants spoke at length about the relationship between their self-efficacy and their
personal learning journeys. Sophia said she started reading and going to professional learning
sessions, admitting, “It's been a lot of hard work to get myself here.” Mia said, “I read or listen to
podcasts and try to educate myself on these things.” Emma shared that what bolstered her
confidence was being “very diligent about learning, training, exposure, and having and
facilitating conversations.”
A few participants made direct reference to their growth over the past few years once
they intentionally started their learning journey. Amelia shared, “I have enrolled in classes. I
have read multiple books, and I listen to podcasts and read articles. I am actively on a journey of
self-improvement.” Lilly remembered “listening to a webinar, and they started talking about
position bias, and I realized I both had position privilege and held position bias. That was the
moment I started to face myself and my bias.”
Two of the participants mentioned taking part in the Intercultural Development
Inventory, which measures individual and group mindset and skillsets related to intercultural
interactions. This inventory allowed those participants to better understand their strengths and
areas for growth and development. The inventory prompted them to ask themselves, “What do I
have to do to move out of my current placement into the next?” Most participants referred to the
fact that their moderate to high self-efficacy was the result of a lot of self-work.
Collective Efficacy
Thematic analysis of participants' interviews revealed that the collective efficacy of the
ELT was far less promising than the self-efficacy of individual executives. Of the 14

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 75
participants, five (35.8%) identified their ELT collective efficacy as low, six (42.9%) identified it
as moderate, and just three (21.4%) indicated high collective efficacy. For those who identified
collective efficacy as low, the primary reason given was a lack of unified vision. Isabel shrugged
their shoulders while admitting, “There is no collective vision.” Charlotte said, “We simply don’t
have these conversations in the ELT.” Abigail referred to collective efficacy as “very
superficial.” Harper simply shook his head and said, “I don't really know.”
Ava gave a more detailed response, saying that the ELT had taken the Intercultural
Development Inventory, with both individual and team assessments. As a team, they were found
to be in minimization, a category that de-emphasizes differences. As her ELT had done no work
to move from minimization to acceptance (i.e., deeply comprehending differences), Ava deemed
their collective efficacy to be low.
Those participants who identified their ELT’s collective efficacy as moderate often cited
the variability in the ELT. Sophia shared that half of the ELT was confident and committed and
the other half simply didn’t see the point. Olivia said her CEO was fully committed and pushing
the ELT to engage in the work but the entire team was “uneasy.”
Mia rated the collective efficacy of her ELT at three on a five-point scale, noting that
they were much better than they thought they were but that they did not feel confident in that.
Mia had a very interesting view of the challenge faced by the ELT, raising the issue of the
political aspects of DEI:
[The ELT members] all work really hard in the teams they lead to demonstrate, to be
inclusive, and to be thoughtful and kind because, in all honesty, that's a big part of our
culture. So, you see that inherently with people; but I think they're a little afraid to wave
the DEI flag about it and be very purposeful about it.

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 76
Emily, identifying the collective efficacy of her ELT as moderate, explained her
perception by sharing that the ELT as a whole seemed to lack the ability to do the work;
however, they fully supported Emily, who was the CDO, in doing the work. Emily pointed out
that they never had to convince anyone on the ELT about the importance of DEI work. Rather,
the ELT directly admitted that they were not sure how to do the work. The ELT did, however,
advocate for Emily to get whatever was needed for her to get the work done. The ELT members
would often strategize with other members offline and then, during ELT meetings, speak with
one voice supporting a singular message about building the infrastructure Emily needed to get
the work done. In their one-to-one meetings with the CEO, ELT members would continue to
advocate for requests made by Emily. Where they fell short was in engaging in the work
themselves. This experience was shared by other participants; it is discussed in greater detail
below in the findings addressing barriers.
Only three participants (21.4%) identified the collective efficacy of their ELT as high;
each participant gave very different reasons for this rating. Amelia credited high collective
efficacy to the fact that her ELT was mostly made up of women of color. Lilly shared that her
ELT considered themselves to be “really good” in the DEI space; but Lilly believed that if you
peeled back the layers and asked the hard questions, the ELT could be doing more. Kevin, who
was a CEO, believed the high collective efficacy was rooted in his approach to DEI work, which
focused not on DEI per say but the overall organizational culture:
We didn't set up what we did to hit any DEI standards. Rather, the thought of having
equity and inclusion is why we set up what we did. You can have all of the
recommendations, all of the regulations, all the policies you want. If you cannot get the

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 77
cultural buy-in, none of that matters. And the worst thing to do is to set it up with, “We're
doing this because of DEI.” No, “DEI is why we are doing this.”
Expectancy Value
Thematic analysis of participants' interviews revealed that expectancy value of the ELTs
varied. Of the 14 participants, four (28.6%) responded low, three (21.4%) responded moderate,
five (35.7%) responded high, and two (14.3%) did not respond to the question. The expectancy
value portion of the interview garnered the least amount of conversation and dialogue. The
participants who thought their ELT had a low expectancy value gave no explanations and most
simply shrugged their shoulders or shook their heads. Evelyn’s only comment was, “It’s difficult
to discern.”
Those whose responses indicated a moderate level of expectancy spoke from either a
personal perspective or an ELT perspective. Sophia talked about using her privilege and
executive role to be an ally and described how allyship leads to “a positive outcome for
somebody else.” Mia spoke to expectancy value from the perspective of needing to help the ELT
do better work because the “want is really there,” meaning they were sincerely desirous of
having a positive impact; yet Mia was not sure the ELT members felt confident they knew how
to achieve expectancy value. Mia went on to say, “I think they can have a much bigger impact on
the organization.” This response, however, spoke more to her view of them than their view of
themselves. Harper described the expectancy value of the ELT as “half and half;” he also spoke
to the fact that the current CEO had a strong focus on DEI but wondered, in the event of the
hiring of a new CEO, whether the focus and expectancy would continue.
Five participants (35.7%) indicated a high expectancy value for their ELT. To
participants, Lilly and Amelia, simply spoke to their ELT’s strong belief in their ability to have a

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 78
positive impact on DEI in the organization; other participants had more to say. Olivia shared that
her organization had recently hired their first DEI Director and that ELT thought “it will be
successful.” In probing this response more deeply, it appeared the ELT was confident that person
would be successful; therefore, the role of the DEI Director would serve the purpose of having a
positive impact on DEI. However, it sounded as though the ELT members thought it would be
successful due to someone else’s work, not their own. This belief reappears again in the
discussion of barriers to DEI, addressed below. Emma’s response spoke both to the ELT’s
expectancy value as well as their actual actions, casting doubt that their belief and actions
aligned:
If you were to ask each of them, they would completely say that this work is super
important, that they support it. I don't think our actions line up with that. Other things get
prioritized over it. Yes, we can have a positive impact, but their behavior doesn't
necessarily support that.
Emily shared that although the ELT members believed “that they can absolutely have a positive
impact,” they were not willing to give up anything to do it. Their unwillingness to give up
anything referred to their individual resources of budgets, personnel, time, and divisional
priorities.
Whereas Kevin did not definitively rate the ELT’s expectancy value, he made it clear
that, as CEO, his leadership team was expected to act from a DEI lens saying, “They are very
aware of my feelings and stance and are emboldened to act according to the culture we are
building.”

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 79
Summary of Findings for Research Question Two
While all participants identified their self-efficacy engaging in DEI work as high or
moderate, there was greater variety in the collective efficacy and expectancy value of the ELTs.
According to Kotter (2007), successful organizational transformation requires the Chief
Executive Officer or President, plus at least five other leaders, to develop a shared commitment
to performance. When a team shares the belief that through unified efforts they can overcome
challenges and produce intended results (i.e., high collective efficacy), groups are more effective
and achieve higher levels of performance (Bandura, 2000; Donohoo et al., 2018). Expectancy
value asserts that an individual's choices and behaviors are influenced by their beliefs about the
outcomes they expect to achieve and the value they place on those outcomes (Eccles, 2005).
Thematic analysis suggested some of the factors impacting limited collective efficacy and
expectancy value were the lack of a shared DEI vision, not understanding how ELTs engage in
DEI, the expectation that it was another person's job so the ELT members did not need to be
directly involved, and not feeling comfortable engaging directly in the work.
Findings for Enabling Organizational Supports
Despite leaders having the appropriate knowledge and motivations for successful DEI
work, in the absence of effective organizational support an organization will not be able to meet
its goals (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). For an organization to meet its DEI commitments,
executives and the ELT must ensure that the organizational supports necessary to meet that
commitment are in place (El-Amin, 2022; Khilji, 2020; McIsaac, 2014). For this reason,
Research Question 1 and Research Question 2 asked about executives’ knowledge and
motivation related to enabling organizational supports for DEI. To examine the organizational
supports enabled by the ELTs, this study utilized two benchmarks that provided clear

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 80
recommendations for organizational supports for DEI and a roadmap for executives to follow to
meet their DEI commitment: the Fair360 and Centre for Global Inclusion Benchmarks. In
alignment with these two tools, Table 7, below, presents a summary of enabled organizational
supports participants reported in their organizations.
Table 7
Summary of Organizational Supports
Participant
Foundation and
Leadership
Accountability
Internal Talent
Pipeline & Equitable
Talent Development
Bridging and
Workplace
Inclusion
Sophia ✓ ✓
Isabel ✓
Olivia ✓ ✓ ✓
Mia ✓ ✓
Ava ✓ ✓
Emma ✓
Charlotte ✓ ✓
Amelia ✓ ✓
Evelyn ✓
Kevin ✓ ✓
Abigail ✓
Emily ✓ ✓
Harper ✓ ✓
Lilly ✓ ✓
Foundational and Leadership Accountability
Foundation and leadership accountability refers to organizations establishing a vision and
strategy for DEI, gaining the commitment of senior leaders to be accountable to and for DEI, and
building and implementing the organizational structures for DEI. According to both Fair360 and
the Centre for Global Inclusion, these elements are the cornerstone of organizational DEI. Some
of the specific foundational and leadership accountability elements to consider are include but
are not limited to holding a shared common definition of DEI; having a CEO and ELT who
espouse DEI not just in words but in actions; the presence of a head of DEI who is either part of

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 81
the ELT or at the next lower level of senior leadership and who has access to and support from
ELT with resources to do the work. This study inquired about these aspects of DEI within the
participants’ organizations. Of the 14 participants, eight (57.1%) indicated the existence of some
of these elements.
Shared Definition of DEI
Of the eight participants indicating foundational and leadership accountability supports,
six (42.8%) spoke to having a shared DEI definition. Ava acknowledged that her organization
had a loosely defined definition but that it had no real shared meaning. Conversely, Emma
shared that her organization “has a very clear definition of DEI, expounding on and clarifying
each individual letter uniquely. We hold each other accountable for these definitions and that
differentiation.” Harper’s organization has been particularly diligent in this regard, leading
Harper to share:
We talk about diversity in terms of representation. We talk about inclusion in terms of
welcoming and belonging. We talk about equity in terms of opportunity parity and access
and fairness. And then we talk about accountability to be able to track our progress and
make sure that we are being accountable to reporting back on how things are going. We
are very clear not to conflate these concepts. Each of these letters has a strategy. And we
communicate that at the business unit level so they [individual leaders] can think about
that for their own units.
In discussing shared definitions, Amelia raised the issue of change. Her organization had a
shared definition of DEI dating back to 2020 but the murder of George Floyd and the mass
shootings of Asians in San Fransico changed the way they saw DEI and the way they defined it.

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 82
As a result of these and other events, their definition of DEI became much broader and they now
asked themselves, “How is our definition helping us tackle systemic marginalization?”
Commitment of Senior Leadership
Another aspect critical to foundational and leadership accountability was a CEO and ELT
that espoused DEI not just in words but in actions. Nine of the 14 participants (64.3%) identified
commitment from senior leadership. Senior leadership included the CEO, the ELT and other
organizationally recognized senior leaders. This showed up in comments about leaders who
openly discussed and advocated for DEI, challenged decision-making, and demonstrated
inclusive behaviors themselves. Mia shared, “You have to inherently believe it [DEI] and then
you have to have action around it.” Charlotte shared a personal example from her organization:
I think it really is about people and their experiences with people. I really try to interact
with people in ways that make them feel important or seen. An employee said to me, “I
really like working for you because you always remember my name.” That’s a really low
bar and we can all do better than that.
Emily shared a strategy her organization had adopted in which, at the end of every fiscal
year, they had a State of Diversity Address that built off the address from the year before. They
created a mechanism to hold leaders accountable for updates on progress made since the
previous address. As Emily noted in relation to this State of Diversity Address, “We get out of
the rhetoric. Now we're into the tangible aspects of what do we see, what do we know, what have
we done, and what do we plan to do moving forward.”
Head of DEI with Support and Resources
Of the 14 participants, half (7, 50.0%) indicated that their organization had a Head of
Diversity. Two of the participants (14.3%) served as the Head of Diversity for their

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 83
organizations. All seven participants indicated that their Head of Diversity was part of their ELT.
Amelia, Ava, and Charlotte noted that their Head of Diversity had been new in the role in the
past year. Ava and Charlotte went deeper, sharing that the role of Head of Diversity had changed
over time, with different titles, different levels of access, and different responsibilities; they
acknowledged that those changes caused some confusion about how the role operated.
Internal Talent Pipeline and Equitable Talent Development
Internal talent pipeline and equitable talent development refers to an organization’s focus
on talent, internal equity in the form of recruitment, fair access to development and
advancement, retention, job placement, compensation, and benefits. According to both Fair360
and the Centre for Global Inclusion, these elements are central aspects of organizational DEI. Of
14 participants, three (21.4%) spoke to internal talent pipeline and equitable talent development.
Sophia spoke at length about advocating for insurance coverage for gender affirmation.
Sophia and her ELT recognized that gender affirmation procedures were not part of their
insurance benefits, a fact brought to their attention by an employee. With this information, they
worked with their health insurance provider to ensure this coverage became part of their standard
coverage.
Olivia, who worked in higher education, where students and student employees constitute
one of three groups of constituents, recognized that students with an account balance were
prevented from registering for classes and buying books in the school library. Marginalized
groups of students including black, Hispanic, and first-generation students, were being impacted
by this practice at a much higher rate than their non-marginalized peers; this was having a
negative impact on their ability to advance their education. With this knowledge, the ELT

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 84
rescinded that practice, allowing students to continue their education despite having an account
balance.
Kevin’s organization changed their maternity leave benefits to include fathers, adoptions,
and even marriages that included step-children. They also changed their insurance coverage to
include partners, inclusive of same-sex partners.
Bridging and Workplace Inclusion
Bridging and workplace inclusion refers to DEI learning and development, DEI-related
communication, the presence of employee resource groups, organizational culture, and practices
to promote an inclusive environment. All 14 participants (100.0%) spoke to having elements of
bridging and workplace inclusion. This was by far the most common and most utilized
organizational support for the participants. Of the organizational supports discussed, three were
mentioned most often: professional learning (14, 100.0%), the existence of DEI Councils and/or
Employee Resource Groups (5, 35.7%), and conducting employee engagement or climate
surveys (5, 35.7%). Other varieties of supports were mentioned less frequently, and in some
cases were only mentioned by a singular participant.
Professional Learning and Development
All 14 participants (100.0%) talked about their organizations providing professional
learning and development. This aligns with the research literature which points to diversity
training as the most widely used diversity practice; in 2005, 66.0% of U.S. employers engaged in
some form of diversity training, (Cox & Beale, 1997; Paluck, 2006). Professional learning
focused on DEI was provided to all or most levels of employees. In some organizations,
professional learning specifically developed for and delivered to executives was also mentioned.
Sophia talked about the importance of executives receiving DEI training, saying “If any

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 85
executive thinks that they can do this work without formal training and really owning what you
don't know, I think that it would be a huge disservice.”
Professional learning took various forms including single and serial synchronous formal
classes, synchronous and asynchronous webinars, and guest speakers. Topics ranged broadly,
including compliance focused topics such as anti-discrimination and sexual harassment as well
as issues more focused on self-awareness (e.g., implicit bias, courageous conversations). Emma
shared how the courageous conversations training at her organization was “so raw and intimate
and necessary that staff asked for more.”
Other Supports
There were five other types of supports mentioned by participants: DEI specific supports,
physical space, celebrations, challenging organizational norms, and communication. These are
described below.
DEI Specific Supports. Five participants (35.7%) mentioned having DEI Councils
and/or employee resources groups. Five participants (35.7%) mentioned employee engagement
or climate surveys. Three participants (21.4%) mentioned incorporating DEI into performance
evaluations.
Physical Space. Three participants (21.4%) mentioned physical facilities in terms of
creating dedicated and/or inclusive spaces. Examples included gender-inclusive bathrooms and
mediation spaces. Emma shared that her organization was in the process of developing equity
principles around facilities.
Celebrations. Two participants (14.3%) mentioned having organizational DEI-related
celebrations. Evelyn shared that her organization recently began recognizing and celebrating
historical dates and religious holidays; they instituted one floating holiday per year to allow

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 86
people to honor religious holidays that may not be organizational holidays. Abigail shared that
her organization had a Culture Day when employees bring in food and clothing from their home
cultures.
Challenging Organizational Norms. Two participants (14.3%) spoke directly to their
organization creating an environment in which people felt comfortable pushing back against
organizational norms. One CEO who spoke frequently about the need to change the
organizational culture for DEI to be a reality shared that since coming on board to lead the
organization, “The number of people who are outwardly expressing non-heterosexual lifestyles
has skyrocketed. They aren’t different people. They now think in this organizational
environment, ‘I can say it.’ It feels safer for them, to say it.”
Abigail talked about encouraging employees to open up and to feel safer having
conversations with their leadership about their experiences in the workplace. Employees were
encouraged to say to their leadership, “This is what’s happening and it is not okay, which pushes
back on those norms.”
Communications. Some of the communication supports mentioned included one
reference to leadership communication after the murder of George Floyd; this participant
acknowledged, “Our organization is not okay. Our people are not okay, and we all need to
understand that.” Sophia referred to implementing an inclusive person-first language and Amelia
mentioned an organizational name change based on learned historical information.
Summary on Findings for Enabling Organizational Supports
One of the most persistent barriers to effective DEI work was a lack of organizational
supports (Kluch et al., 2002). Despite leaders having the appropriate knowledge and motivations
for successful DEI work, in the absence of effective organizational support, an organization will

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 87
not be able to meet its goals (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). While all participants
acknowledged organizational supports for bridging, which focused on a sense of inclusion, only
three (21.4%) utilized organizational supports aimed at establishing internal equitable talent
systems. There was a focus on inclusion but not a focus on equity. Eight participants (57.1%)
identified foundational and leadership supports, including fully half of participants (7, 50.0%)
having Head Diversity Officers; nevertheless, supports for equity lagged far behind.
Findings for Research Question Three
The third research question asked, “What are the organizational barriers to enabling
organizational supports for DEI.” One of the most persistent barriers to effective DEI work was a
lack of organizational supports (Kluch et al., 2002). Despite leaders having the appropriate
knowledge and motivations for successful DEI work, in the absence of effective organizational
support, an organization will not be able to meet its goals (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011).
According to Clarke and Estes (2008), organizational barriers can include the absence of
inadequate, or ineffective processes, resources, or accountabilities. These showed up in this
study, specifically in the form of lack of resources, lack of role clarity (i.e., processes and
accountability), lack of connection (i.e., processes), lack of continuity (i.e., processes and
accountability), and discomfort (i.e., accountability). Table 8, below, presents a summary of
organizational barriers shared by participants.
Lack of Role Clarity
Of 14 participants, 11 (78.6%) identified a lack of role clarity as a barrier to DEI. A lack
of role clarity showed up as questions. Who or what office is responsible for DEI? What are they
responsible for? If I am not the DEI lead, what is my role? This last question of an individual’s
role was more often demonstrated as a statement, with participants asserting that they were not

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 88
the DEI lead so they were not responsible for DEI. The ongoing tension was expressed as, “Who
is responsible? I’m not responsible.” Charlotte described it well when she spoke of DEI leads:
In some ways, it becomes a symbolic role. If you hire someone, everyone is just going to
say it's that person's job to do it. But then somebody else says, “But if you don't dedicate
the resources and invest in it being someone's portfolio, then nobody does it.” And, so,
you have both of those points of view, whether you have one [DEI lead] or you don't. It's
still the same thing. It's everyone's work, but nobody's work. And then one person is
responsible for tracking and driving [DEI], but they can't possibly do and be everywhere
that needs to get the work done.
Table 8
Summary of Organizational Barriers
Participants Lack of
Resources
Lack of
Role Clarity
Lack of
Connection
Lack of
Continuity
Personal or
Political
Discomfort
Sophia ✓ ✓ ✓
Isabel ✓ ✓
Olivia ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Mia ✓
Ava ✓ ✓ ✓
Emma ✓ ✓
Charlotte ✓ ✓
Amelia ✓ ✓
Evelyn ✓
Kevin ✓
Abigail ✓ ✓ ✓
Emily ✓ ✓ ✓
Harper ✓ ✓ ✓
Lilly ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
A commonly shared experience was that there was no common understanding, purpose or
role for DEI work among the ELTs. Emily shared her experience of being hired as the CDO.

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 89
Despite the organization deliberating on the role for three and a half years before hiring her,
upon being hired and coming on board, the ELT had not identified her portfolio of work.
The other dimension of this lack of clarity barrier was that other members of the
organization did not actively engage in the work. Ava described the problem as “a lack of people
seeing themselves in this work. They are not seeing their part in it.” Sophia referenced the board
not understanding its role or how to be champions for DEI work. Harper called out his
organization for not being able to “fully activate directors and managers in the work.” Rather
they were simply allowed to ask the CDO to do the work. This problem of lack of role clarity
resurfaced and intensified in discussions of the lack of resources, discussed later in this chapter.
Discomfort
Nine of 14 participants (64.3%) called out people's discomfort as a barrier. The
discomfort mentioned included denial, people taking things personally, people not wanting to
engage for political reasons, and discomfort with change. Sophia shared that some members of
her ELT took some of the DEI issues that came up personally and “got their feelings hurt,”
which hindered the ELT from engaging and taking action.
There were many comments made about the impact of the political climate on people's
comfort in engaging with DEI. Olivia shared a concern that political issues were causing
discomfort, saying, “Some leaders have stopped speaking up because political sentiments toward
DEI have shifted.” Kevin echoed this when he shared that he did not use the phrase DEI
intentionally because “I honestly think if I bring it up my board’s doing to get upset.” The most
directly spoken political discomfort came from Lilly who admitted, “Funders who have strong
negative feelings on DEI provide a great deal of pushback. There is not much of an appetite to
fight that pushback.”

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 90
Denial was another barrier. Olivia talked about people being in denial about the realities
of structural racism and organizational systemic inequities. Abigail pointed to the denial of
leaders when she described this as “leaders not recognizing the depth and breadth of diversity,
for instance, not addressing misogyny and ableism or seeing those things in our systems.” Emma
spoke to both the denial and the discomfort when she said
I think it's an easy out to not consider diversity, equity, and inclusion issues, that are
really the root cause of so many of our issues. But I think a lot of people are
uncomfortable talking about it. They don't know how to talk about it, so they avoid it.
They'll talk about it when a George Floyd situation happens, but as soon as that goes
away, it's not as relevant or sexy. Or [they use it] as badge, inducing, like you have this
badge of honor that you support these issues, then it subsides.
Another element of discomfort was being uncomfortable with change itself. Olivia
mentioned that people were uncomfortable with change, particularly when that change called for
accountability. “People feel resentful when there is an organized plan to greater accountability.
They don’t like that and start to push back.” Kevin’s statement encapsulated this barrier. His
simple reply to the questions of barriers asserted, “People. The thing that drives the culture
change is people. The thing that gets in the way of culture change is people.” Finally, Emily had
a unique perspective, sharing that what might be perceived as resistance to DEI might actually be
resistance to change:
The biggest sticking point that I have observed tends to be when you have to change,
when you have to stop doing something or do something differently, to actually realize
the change you want to see. And that means rethink and stop doing this work and start
doing that, reallocate resources. The rhetoric is there, the want, the desire, even

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 91
understanding the need to do it. But when it comes, the hard part is actually doing the
change somewhere in the institutional structures
Lack of Resources
Six of the 14 participants (42.8%) identified lack of resources as a barrier to DEI.
Specific references were made to time and financial resources. A recurring theme was the
executive leader’s lack of time for critical, reflective, proactive, philosophical thought and
conversations, replaced by an almost singular focus on operations. One of the most profound
observations on limited time came from Charlotte:
There's too much to do to have philosophical conversations. People want to know who's
go this. Are you going to do it? When are you going to get it done by? I think that the
time is gone for thoughtful people coming together and having thoughtful discussions.
They're just pure operational need. So, when you are trying to get a job done, get a task
done, you don't have the time and energy that it takes to explore, to have those
philosophical conversations to understand. It becomes about trying to just gloss over. Get
stuff done.
Harper also spoke to this:
There is no time to be proactive. [We] always seem to be reactive. We don't have time for
innovation, because we’re always putting out fires. We're always responding to things.
We don't have dedicated time for deep thinking or strategic thinking or creativity. We
don’t say “no” to stuff. We want to be able to take it all on. Our culture is contributing to
this feeling of having to do everything all the time. Not prioritizing strategic, proactive
planning.

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 92
The lack of dedicated financial resources was also a recurring theme. Participants talked
about not having the budget allocation or financial resources to support DEI work. Lilly pointed
out that despite the CEO and the ELT expressing verbal commitment to DEI, “There is no
prioritization of the resources behind it.” She shared that they had not allocated a budget for DEI
for the current year. Emily spoke to DEI being underfunded and lacking the infrastructure to
support the rhetoric and the passion. Both Lilly and Emily shared how divisions were responsible
for allocating resources within their existing budgets; these budgets were already stretched thin
with no additional central money earmarked for DEI. Charlotte, Olivia, and Ava spoke to their
organizations imposing DEI actions without providing the infrastructure or dedicated resources
to support it.
This struggle with time and financial resources was also connected to the lack of role
clarity related to the CDO and/or the DEI Office. Participants referred to having a single DEI
practitioner or a DEI office consisting of one person. The rationale for the sole staff member was
often financial. Coupled with a lack of role clarity, the demand for this sole practitioner's time
was extremely high and there were not enough people resources to support the work. Harper
pointed out that the DEI office had extremely limited resources in comparison to the
organizational need. “So many people are seeking their support and service. The demand is too
high. It is not sustainable.” This lack of sustainability tied into the theme of turnover and lack of
continuity.
Turnover and Lack of Continuity
Five of 14 participants (35.7%) identified high turnover and lack of continuity as a barrier
to DEI. Isabel called out the high turnover of leadership as their primary organizational barrier.
“Every few years people come in with new direction, new vision, the work starts and stops and

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 93
there is never a completion of how we collectively view, engage in, or apply this work.” Olivia
shared that a new CDO was brought in who had a different set and level of responsibilities,
rather than picking up where the previous CDO left off. This caused not only confusion but a
complete redirection of work. The CEO of Lilly’s organization had been a strong proponent of
DEI and there was the possibility they might be leaving soon. Lilly feared that the next person
might not have the same focus and DEI-related policies had not yet been instituted. She wanted
to see things become policy so they could not simply be undone with a leadership turnover.
Abigail made the following observation about leadership turnover:
Eventually, the organization goes back to its original founding. There are just so many
established norms that you cannot break in one cycle of a CEO’s life. And then to just see
the systems rubber band and snap back into place.
Lack of Broader Organizational Connection
Four of 14 (28.6%) participants identified the lack of connection between DEI and larger
organizational goals was a barrier. Sophia had aligned DEI with their organizational strategic
plan; she learned her lesson at another organization—having DEI as a standalone issue and not
weaving it throughout the organization made it difficult to take hold. It would only be seen as a
separate item and extra work. Olivia indicated that not making DEI part of the overall strategic
plan made it hard to incorporate into organizational priorities. If it was not part of the strategic
plan, it was not monitored and tracked; therefore, there was limited accountability. Evelyn shared
that in her organization DEI fell under a larger umbrella and there was not enough focus
specifically on DEI.

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 94
Summary of Findings for Research Question Three
According to Clarke and Estes (2008), organizational barriers can include the absence of
inadequate, or ineffective processes, resources, or accountabilities. This study demonstrated each
of these organizational barriers and explored the relationships between them. This was
particularly clear when it came to role clarity, resources, and discomfort. A lack of role clarity
related to DEI was both a process and an accountability matter. Who was responsible for what
and how did leadership hold itself accountable to DEI? Organizations limited the resources
dedicated to DEI; often a single person was in charge of DEI. The responsibilities of that sole
practitioner were typically unclear, and the process of DEI work was not fully established. Other
leaders, often uncomfortable with DEI and unclear how to engage with it, placed all DEI
responsibility on this sole practitioner or relied on them to shoulder the majority of the weight,
alleviating themselves of accountability. This led to a lack of continuity as turnover for DEI
professionals was particularly high, 22.0% attrition for DEI professionals compared to 12.0% for
non-DEI role. Furthermore, the average tenure of DEI leaders was 2.9 years, compared to seven
years for CEOs (Reyhan Ayas et. al., 2023; Umoh, 2024 ). Finally, these barriers of lack of role
clarity, lack of resources, discomfort, and lack of continuity mutually reinforced one another.
Synthesis of Research Findings
The modification to the gap analysis framework in this study was the thesis that the
knowledge and motivation of executives and the ELT would lead to the creation of
organizational supports to actualize DEI initiatives. In comparing the knowledge and motivation
of participants to the supports their organizations enabled, the findings did not point to any
particular knowledge or motivation that led to the enabling of these supports. Rather, the findings
revealed a lack of knowledge of specific organizational inequities, low metacognitive knowledge

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 95
related to comfort, low collective efficacy of the ELT, a lack of adequate organizational supports
for equity, and poor role clarity for DEI work.
Executives either supported DEI or created barriers to DEI. To fully support DEI, they
needed to know where to direct their attention; take responsibility; accept accountability,
individually and collectively; and be willing and able to sit in their discomfort as they engaged in
the work. Chapter Five offers four recommendations to achieve the full support of DEI.

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 96
CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATIONS
Chapter Five identifies four recommendations to support the knowledge and motivation
of organizational leaders; these recommendations are designed to lead to the adoption of DEI
organizational supports and the mitigation of organizational barriers to DEI. Each
recommendation is presented in the form of a rationale for intervention, including the economic
costs of the intervention and the intended outcomes (i.e., benefits) of implementation. The
chapter also presents a sample economic model of implementation and the potential cost-benefits
for a fictional organization. Finally, this chapter discusses the limitations of the study and makes
recommendations for future research.
Recommendations for Practice: Executive Knowledge and Motivation
This study revealed a factual and conceptual knowledge gap regarding specific
organizational inequities, a metacognitive knowledge gap related to comfort, a motivation gap
grounded in low collective efficacy for ELTs, inadequate organizational supports for equity, and
an organizational barrier of poor role clarity for DEI professionals. Four recommendations
address these gaps and barriers: a) conducting an equity audit, b) executive coaching, c) ELT
team coaching, and d) change management. Table 9 outlines the recommendations, the
knowledge, and/or the motivation gaps the recommendations are designed to impact, and the
rationale for the recommendations.
The recommendations are interrelated and designed to work holistically to have the
greatest impact. Each recommendation can also be taken as a singular intervention; however, the
most impactful approach would be to undertake all four recommendations, ensuring the most
significant outcome. Given that the study findings and subsequent recommendations align with

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 97
individual, group, and organizational change, the following quote is an appropriate encapsulation
of this study and Chapter Five:
Individual change is at the heart of everything that is achieved in organizations. However,
individuals are to some extent governed by the norms of the groups they belong to, and
groups are bound together in a whole system of groups of people that interconnect in
various habitual ways. Individuals, teams, and organizations all play a part in the process
of change, and leaders have a particularly onerous responsibility: that is, making all this
happen. (Cameron & Green, 2019, p. 9)
Table 9
Recommendations and Rationale
Recommendation Knowledge/Motivation/
Organizational Support Rationale
Conduct an Internal
Systemic Equity Audit
Knowledge
Factual and Conceptual
Identification of organizational
inequities
Individual Executive
Coaching
Knowledge
Metacognitive
Support executive ability to
sit in discomfort
Executive Team
Coaching
Motivation
Collective Efficacy
Support the ELT’s collective
efficacy
Employ a Change
Management Process to
Develop and Deploy
Appropriate
Organizational Supports
and Mitigate Barriers
Organizational Supports
Organizational Barriers
Develop and implement a strategic
change management process to
ensure organizational supports for
DEI are built into the organization,
and mitigate organizational
barriers
Recommendation #1: Conduct Internal Equity Audits
As the thematic analysis revealed, leaders would benefit from greater factual, and
conceptual knowledge about specific organizational inequities. With knowledge of systemic
inequities, executives are better equipped to integrate diversity and inclusion into strategic

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 98
planning, identify organizational systemic barriers, and work proactively toward creating a more
equitable organizational structure (Livingston, 2020). An internal systemic equity audit is a
process in which an organization evaluates its internal practices, policies, systems, and outcomes
to ensure employee fairness and equity (Asare, 2009; Brown, 2010; Waddock, 2000). Such an
audit aims to identify and address disparities or inequities in areas such as recruitment and hiring,
compensation, promotions, training opportunities, and other aspects of the workplace. An
internal equity audit would provide executives with knowledge of where systemic inequities
within the organization exist; this will equip them to a) make more informed decisions; b)
integrate diversity and inclusion into strategic planning; c) advocate and support policies that
address structural inequities, thereby dismantling inequitable systems; and d) work proactively
toward creating a more equitable organizational structure (Livingston, 2020; Seijts & Milani,
2022; Suarez, 2018)
Cost of an Internal Equity Audit
There are two primary factors in establishing the cost of an internal equity audit.
Depending on decisions made as a result of the audit or how the organization categorizes its
budget, there may be three ingredients. First are personnel costs, which include the time of
internal staff involved in the audit. If an audit is conducted by internal staff, the amount of staff
time includes the collecting of data, conducting quantitative and qualitative data analyses, and
preparing the recommendations. Second, if an external vendor conducts the audit, the time of the
internal staff will be related to the time it takes to source the external vendor and the time it takes
to collect all the data needed by the external vendor. There will also be the cost of the external
vendor who conducts the audit. The cost of a vendor to conduct such an audit can range from
$10,000 to $30,000 depending on the vendor selected and the organizational elements to be

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 99
analyzed. Third are other program inputs such as the cost of making organizational changes
based on the audit's findings(e.g., compensation changes, recruitment and hiring process
changes, policy changes, and personnel changes). Table 10 presents the potential cost of
conducting an internal equity analysis.
Table 10
Proposed Cost of an Internal Equity Audit
Item Description, Notes, and Assumptions Quantity Total Cost
Internal
Personnel
The first assumption is that internal HR
generalists will be used to collect organizational
data to be utilized in the audit. The average HR
generalist salary in the United States is $56,159
per year or $27.00 hourly.
160 hours
of HR
generalist
time at
$27.00
per hour
$4,320
External
Personnel
The second assumption is that an external vendor
will be utilized to conduct the actual audit. We
will assume a midrange flat rate cost.
$25,000
Other Inputs The cost of making organizational changes is
based on the audit findings. The assumption is to
put aside $100,000 for potential interventions.
$100,000
Total Cost $129,320
Benefits of an Internal Equity Audit
The benefit of conducting an internal equity audit is that it supports the organizational
knowledge of executives, revealing and identifying any internal inequities and providing them
with the information necessary to make strategic decisions that promote DEI within the
organization (Asare, 2009; Waring et al., 2012). Without this knowledge, executives may not
know where or how to focus their efforts or the organizational supports needed to create a
diverse, equitable, inclusive workplace. Executives allocate the necessary resources (e.g., staff,
budgets, and time) to meet DEI performance goals (El-Amin, 2022). Without dedicated research

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 100
pointing to the direct impact of an internal equity audit on an organization's DEI efforts, we will
utilize the sensitivity testing approach “to estimate the highest and lowest ratios that might be
plausibly obtained” (Levin et al., 2018, p. 252). In the case of the internal equity audit, we can
estimate that the intervention could impact executives' knowledge and, by extension, their
actions somewhere between 1% and 100%. For the purpose of this recommendation, we will
estimate that the knowledge gained as a result of the equity audit at 20%. This will be applied to
the economic model below.
Recommendation #2: Provide Individual Executive Coaching to Members of the Executive
Leadership Team
Metacognitive knowledge enhances one's ability to think critically, make informed
decisions, and lead effectively; it exerts a substantial influence on individual performance
(Klafehn et al., 2013). Executive coaching is a professional development process designed to
help individuals in leadership positions enhance their skills, performance, and overall
effectiveness in their role (Collins, 2012; Horner, 2002). The aim is to support executives in
driving organizational success. Executive coaching can support metacognitive knowledge
including self-awareness. Providing executives with executive coaching for organizational DEI
enhances self-awareness of belief systems, identifies potential biases and blind spots, and helps
confront issues such as discomfort. It can encourage self-reflection, helping individuals learn
from their experiences.
Cost of Executive Coaching
There are two primary factors that influence the cost of providing executive coaching.
The first cost is the time spent by the executive engaging in coaching. Typically, executive
coaching is conducted in 45 to 60 minute blocks of time, conducted weekly or twice a month.

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 101
Most executive coaching often also entails a few hours per week of self-reflection, journaling,
reading research, or skills practice. Thus, an individual executive could plan to spend between
six and 12 hours per month engaged in direct and indirect coaching time.
The second cost is the cost of the executive coach. Executive coaches typically charge a
flat hourly rate, ranging from $125 to $600 per session based on the expertise of the coach. Many
executive coaches or coaching firms will require a minimum number of sessions, which is
dependent on the goal and objectives of the coaching. A standard starting point for DEI coaching
would be 20 sessions per executive. Table 11 presents costs associated with individual executive
coaching.
Table 11
Proposed Cost for Executive Coaching
Item Description, Notes, and
Assumptions Quantity Total Cost
Personnel Each individual executive should
be expected to dedicate six to 12
hours per month for 10 months,
depending on the frequency of
sessions. The average annual
salary of an executive is $200,000
or $96 per hour.
12 hours per month
for 10 months = 120
hours per executive.
For five executives,
the total is 600 hours.
600 hours x $96/hour
= $57,600
$57,600
Training Cost of the executive coach. We
will assume a mid-range price for
a coach of $350 per session.
20 sessions per five
executives = 100
sessions
$35,000
Total Cost $92,600
Benefits of Executive Coaching
The benefit of providing executive coaching to executives is that individual executive
coaching will support both the metacognitive knowledge and self-efficacy of leaders related to
DEI. Coaching can help improve a leader’s ability to sit in discomfort as they embark on and

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 102
sustain organizational DEI efforts. Self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1997) asserts that a person’s
belief in their ability to accomplish a task or effect change is critical to their motivation to act. If
a person doubts their ability to be successful or effective, their motivation may diminish; in
contrast, confidence in one’s ability to be successful may increase motivation. Grossman and
Salas (2011) asserted that individuals with high self-efficacy are confident in their ability to learn
and apply learnings; thus, they are more likely to persist through difficulty.
Without dedicated research pointing to the direct impact of executive coaching on an
organization's DEI efforts, we utilize the sensitivity testing approach “to estimate the highest and
lowest ratios that might be plausibly obtained” (Levin et al., 2018, p. 252). In the case of
executive coaching, we can estimate that the intervention could impact executives' motivation
and, by extension, their actions somewhere between 1% and 100%. For this recommendation, we
will estimate that executive self-efficacy will be 5%. This will be applied to the economic model
following this section.
Recommendation #3: Provide Team Coaching to the Executive Team
Team coaching involves working with a group of individuals who collaborate towards a
common organizational goal. Team coaching aims to enhance a team’s performance,
effectiveness, and overall dynamics. It focuses on improving teamwork, communication,
collaboration, and achieving shared goals and objectives. Team coaching can positively impact
collective efficacy, the team's shared belief in its ability to achieve specific goals. A team with a
strong sense of collective efficacy is more likely to tackle challenges, set ambitious goals, sustain
the effort, and achieve success. Coaching can also support expectancy, as individuals and teams
are more motivated when they feel competent in a particular area. Providing opportunities for
skill development and improvement can increase expectancy value; it also reduces anxiety and

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 103
fear of failure. Much like individual executive coaching, the cost of team coaching has two
primary elements, the time spent by the team members and the cost of the team coach. Table 12
outlines the costs associated with ELT team coaching.
Table 12
Proposed Cost for Team Coaching
Item Description, Notes, and
Assumptions Quantity Total Cost
Personnel Five executives dedicating 20
hours to team coaching
20 hours per executive at
$96 per hour. Five
executives.
$9,600
Training The cost of the team coach
providing 20 sessions of team
coaching at a rate of $1500 per
team session.
$30,000
Expected Cost $39,600
Benefits of Team Coaching
Team coaching is intended to support an ELT's collective efficacy and expectancy value
as they embark on DEI efforts. Collective efficacy is “individuals’ perceptions of his or her
group’s collective capability to successfully perform a job-related task” (Borgogni et al., 2011, p.
6). Collective efficacy is not merely the sum of its parts (i.e., each team member’s self-efficacy)
but rather team members’ beliefs about the team’s ability to be successful (Bandura, 2000). High
collective efficacy is a critical determinant of team motivation and performance (Zaccaro et al.,
1995). When collective efficacy exists, a team or group exerts more significant effort, persists
even in the face of setbacks, and achieves higher levels of performance (Bandura, 2000).
Expectancy value is a theory of motivation that describes the relationship between an
individual’s expectancy for success in relation to the value the individual places on the task
(Wigfield, 1994). Expectancy value theory asserts that an individual's choices and behaviors are

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 104
influenced by their belief about the outcomes they expect to achieve and the value they place on
those outcomes (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). They posit that individuals are motivated by two
factors: a) their expectations of success and b) their subjective value or perceived importance of
the task or goal. In other words, how much one values the task impacts one's motivation to
complete it.
Without dedicated research pointing to the direct impact of team coaching on an
organization's DEI efforts, we will utilize the sensitivity testing approach “to estimate the highest
and lowest ratios that might be plausibly obtained” (Levin et al., 2018, p. 252). In the case of
team coaching, we can estimate that the intervention could impact executives' motivation and, by
extension, their actions somewhere between 1% and 100%. For this recommendation, we will
estimate that the collective efficacy and expectancy value will be 20%. This will be applied to
the economic model below.
Recommendation #4: Utilize a Change Management Process
A change management process provides the structure, tools, and strategies necessary to
successfully implement organizational initiatives, such as DEI, by ensuring that these efforts are
embraced and sustained throughout the organization. It is a structured approach to transitioning
individuals, in which teams and organizations move from an existing state to a desired future
state. It involves planning, executing, and communicating changes systematically to maximize
the chances of successful implementation. Change management is essential for organizations
undergoing significant transformations, including diversity, equality, and inclusion. The benefits
of the change management process include minimizing resistance, enhancing communication,
increasing employee engagement, facilitating planning and coordination, and improving the
overall success rate. In the case of DEI, change management can provide clarity on what specific

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 105
strategies are needed to achieve the agreed-upon goals, the actions needed to get there, and the
measures to evaluate success. Change management provides a systemic and structured approach
to guide organizations through the DEI transition. The cost of change management has two
primary elements: a) the personnel cost associated with the effort and b) the cost of a consulting
firm to support and guide the efforts. Table 13 presents potential costs associated with
developing a DEI change management process.
Table 13
Proposed Cost for DEI Change Management Process
Item Description, Notes, and Assumptions Total Cost
Personnel Executive team setting vision and strategic goals.
Human resources are required to implement and manage change.
Communications team to develop and disseminate ongoing
messaging
Legal team for legal and compliance considerations
$250,000
Training External consulting firm to design and oversee change
management
Cost of training staff on new expectations, competencies,
policies, practices, systems,
$250,000
Expected Cost $500,000
Benefits of Change Management
A well-structured change management process can contribute to the success of DEI
initiatives. Employing a change management process to develop and deploy appropriate
organizational supports will provide executives with the framework and roadmap for
organizational change. Without dedicated research pointing to the direct impact of change
management on an organization's DEI efforts, we will utilize the sensitivity testing approach “to

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 106
estimate the highest and lowest ratios that might be plausibly obtained” (Levin et al., 2018, p.
252). In the case of change management, we can estimate that the intervention could impact the
organization's DEI efforts between 1% and 100%. For this recommendation, we will estimate
that employing a change management process will impact efforts by 20%. This will be applied to
the economic model below.
Total Investment
It is recommended that all four recommendations be implemented together. Utilizing the
sensitivity test, all four interventions applied could have an 80% impact on the organization. The
total estimated cost of implementing all four recommendations is $760,520.
Economic Model
An economic model utilizes a fictional average U.S.-based, medium-sized organization
of 1650 employees with an ELT of five chief officers referred to as Acme Associates. Acme
Associates has an annual revenue of $250M with annual profits of $25M and an annual payroll
of $104M. As discussed in earlier in this chapter, one can make business, individual, and societal
cases for organizational DEI, with numerous benefits referenced in each category. The economic
model presented here focuses on the business case for organizational DEI and addresses both the
potential organizational gains of having a diverse, equitable, and inclusive workplace and the
potential organizational cost of not having such a workplace (see Table 14, below).
Potential Cost Benefit of Implementing the Recommendations
This model focuses on two potential organizational gains of implementing the
recommendations and creating a diverse, equitable, and inclusive workplace: engagement and
innovation.

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 107
Table 14
Economic Model for Acme Associates
Financial Metric Statistic
Revenue $250M
Payroll $104M
Profit $25M
Employee Statistics
Number Of Employees 1650
Turnover Rate 20%
Employee Engagement Rate 46%
Actively Disengaged Rate 18%
Annual EEO Lawsuit 1
Engagement
Inclusive workplaces can create a sense of belonging and employee engagement,
increasing job satisfaction and productivity (Hunt et al., 2018). According to research conducted
by management consulting company Aon Hewitt, a 1.0% increase in employee engagement can
lead to an additional 0.6% growth in sales (Merry, 2013). Suppose we conservatively project that
just one of the proposed interventions has a 20% impact on the organization and all four
interventions have an 80% impact on the organization. In that case, it is reasonable to project that
such impacts would lead to a minimum of a 1.0% increase in engagement. A Gallup (2016)
report found that companies in the top quartile of employee engagement experience 21% higher
profitability. According to research conducted by Aon Hewitt (Merry, 2013), the top quartile of
employee engagement is 72.0% or higher. If all four interventions improve employee
engagement by 80.0%, Acme Associates would move from a 46.0% employee engagement rate
to an 82% employee engagement rate, elevating them into the top quartile, which, according to
Gallup (2016), could result in a 21.0% higher profitability.

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 108
Innovation
PriceWaterhouseCoopers’ Innovation Benchmark Report (2017) indicates that top
innovators achieve, on average, 5.6% higher profit margins. If the recommended interventions
lead to a 20% to 80% improvement in innovation, that could result in a 5.0% higher profit
margin. Table 14 estimates the cost-benefit of implementing the four recommendations.
Spending $760,520 implementing the four interventions could lead to cost benefits of
approximately $19.25M, a 25-fold return-on-investment in just one year, laying a foundation for
the financial benefits to continue.
Table 15
Cost Benefit of Implementing Intervention Recommendations
Current State Impact of Intervention Potential Economic
Growth Cost Benefit
$250M in sales Increase employee
engagement by 1%
0.6% growth in sales $1.5M
$25M profit Employee engagement
moves into the top quartile
21% higher profitability $5.25M
10% profit margin Become a top innovator 5% higher profit margin $12.5M
Potential Cost Benefit $19.25M
Current Cost of Lacking an Equitable and Inclusive Workplace
A second model focuses on four potential organizational costs associated with not having
an equitable and inclusive workplace. We will examine the cost of turnover, absenteeism, poor
productivity, and lawsuits. Companies with diverse and inclusive cultures often experience lower
turnover and reduced absenteeism (Kossek et al., 2006; Travis et al., 2019). Projecting that one
intervention will have a 20% impact on the organization and all four interventions have the

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 109
potential to have an 80% impact on the organization, we will forecast a median cost reduction of
50%.
Turnover
Companies with diverse and inclusive cultures often experience lower turnover and
reduced absenteeism (Kossek et al., 2006; Travis et al., 2019). There are a variety of statistics
indicating the cost of employee turnover, which range considerably. According to the Society of
Human Resource Management (Allen, 2008), the cost of employee turnover can range from 50%
to 200% of an employee's annual salary, depending on the position and the level of expertise
required. The Work Institute's (2019) Retention Report suggested that the cost of turnover is
approximately 33% of an employee's annual salary. Bersin (2013) suggested that the cost of
losing an employee can range from tens of thousands of dollars to 1.5 to two times the
employee's annual salary. Workbuzz (2023) estimates that disengaged employees are 87% more
likely to leave their organizations. Assuming an average employee income of $63,000, a
moderate estimate of 33% as the cost of turnover (i.e., $21,000), and an annual 20% turnover
rate among the company’s 1650 employees, the annual cost of turnover for Acme Associates
would be $6.9M. Forecasting a 50% reduction in turnover cost as a result of the interventions,
Acme Associates could reduce its turnover cost to $3.45M.
Absenteeism
Circadian Workforce Solutions (2016) estimated that absenteeism costs approximately
$2,650 per employee per year. This estimate would mean that absenteeism at Acme Associates is
costing the organization $4.4M a year. However, companies with diverse and inclusive cultures
often experience lower turnover and reduced absenteeism (Kossek et al., 2006; Travis et al.,

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 110
2019). By forecasting a 50% reduction in absenteeism due to the interventions, Acme Associates
could reduce the cost of absenteeism to $2.1M.
Loss of Productivity
Inclusive workplaces can create a sense of belonging and engagement among employees,
resulting in increased job satisfaction and productivity (Hunt et al., 2015), while discrimination
in the workplace can lead to low morale and lost productivity (Dobbing & Kalev, 2016).
The Conference Board (2017) estimated that the cost of lost productivity due to employee
disengagement can range from 5% to 40% of a company's payroll. Gallup's (2017) State of the
Global Workplace report suggested that actively disengaged employees cost their organizations
34% of their salary in lost productivity. Harvard Business Review (2017) discussed the financial
impact of disengaged employees, noting that organizations with low employee engagement
scores experienced 18% lower productivity. With 18% of Acme Associates employees being
actively disengaged, costing an estimated 33% of an average salary, disengagement costs Acme
Associates $6.2M annually. Forecasting a 50% reduction in the cost of loss productivity as a
result of the interventions, Acme Associates could save $3.1 million a year.
Lawsuits
Discrimination in the workplace can lead to legal expenses (Dobbing & Kalev, 2016).
According to the Employment Law Alliance, the average cost of employment-related litigation
can range from $75,000 to $125,000 for cases that settle before trial. If a case goes to trial, costs
can be $250,000 or more.
Total Cost Attributable to Lack of DEI
Table 17, below, shows the projected costs and cost savings of implementing the four
recommendations. Not having a diverse, equitable, and inclusive workplace is likely costing

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 111
Acme Associates $16.7M annually. Forecasting that the proposed interventions can reduce these
costs by 50% reduces, this totals $8.35M annually in cost savings. Implementing all four
recommendations is one-tenth the cost of the potential organizational savings resulting from the
interventions.
Table 16
Cost-Benefit Analysis: Potential Cost and Mitigated Loss
Current State Economic Impact Cost Potential Savings
20% Turnover Rate 33% of annual salary $6.5M $3.25M
Absenteeism $2650 per employee $4.3M $2.15M
Loss of Productivity: 18% rate
of employee disengagement
33% of disengaged
salary
$5.8M $2.9M
One Lawsuit per year $125,000 $125,000 $125,000
Potential Costs 16.7M
Potential Mitigated Loss $8.35M
Summary
When the four recommendations are implemented together, they are mutually
reinforcing. For instance, conducting an internal equity analysis informs the DEI change
management process by focusing efforts on those areas identified in the audit and supporting role
clarity for DEI professionals. In other words, the outcome of the audit is used during the change
management process to identify the specific DEI goals and roles of personnel in achieving those
goals. Individual coaching prepares executives to courageously engage in the work of DEI,
despite personal discomfort; ELT team coaching helps team members develop collective efficacy
to persist in the work.
Implementing these four recommendations, organizations can identify their DEI focus
areas (internal equity audit);, develop a clear plan of action that includes role responsibilities and

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 112
clarity (change management process); develop the individual skills necessary to engage in the
work (executive coaching); and connect to a common, shared vision of the role of the ELT and a
gain a deep sense of collective efficacy in achieving their organizational goals (ELT team
coaching). When the four recommendations are applied, at a cost of $760,520, the organization
gains $19.25M a year in benefits from increased engagement and innovation. However, it also
saves the organization $8.35M annually in turnover, absenteeism, loss of productivity, and legal
fees. In the first year alone, the cost savings and additional revenue far exceed the initial
expenditure, and the cost benefits would continue for years.
Limitations and Delimitations
Study limitations are factors or occurrences that arise in the course of a study that are
outside of the researcher’s control yet may have an impact on the study (Simon & Goes, 2013).
There were several limitations of this study, some of which were anticipated prior to conducting
the study and others developed over the course of the study.
Limitations of this study known to the researcher include, first, the quality of the
information shared by the participants. As this study explored knowledge, motivations, and
actions taken, participants' responses were limited by their own knowledge, self-awareness,
honesty, and/or desire to portray a positive image. Second, the sample was made up primarily of
women, with input from only one male voice. Third, the sample represented a variety of
divergent industries, which provided a broad view of DEI across industries but prevented a deep
look into a singular industry. Fourth, the study initially set out to interview complete executive
leadership teams from three organizations allowing input from every member of the
organizational ELT. However, the researcher was unable to solicit three complete ELTs,
resulting in the interviewing of singular representatives from 14 different organizations. Fifth,

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 113
were the perceptions and biases of participants, particularly as they related to the collective
efficacy of their ELT.
Delimitations are aspects of a study that arise from the scope of a study and are within the
researcher’s control, based on decisions the researcher made (Simon & Goes, 2013).
Delimitations of this study known to the researcher include the narrow focus on knowledge,
motivation, and organizational supports as influences. Second, the decision was made to conduct
this research in the United States rather than globally. Third was the necessity of the researcher
to conduct interviews in English.
Recommendations for Future Research
Further research is needed to address the problem of organizations struggling with
achieving their DEI commitments. First, the current study focused on the knowledge and
motivation of executives and executive teams across a variety of industries; additional research
should focus on a single industry to more deeply understand the supports and barriers in specific
industries. Second, future research should focus on how organizations define the role clarity of
DEI leaders and the impact of that role clarity on the achievement of DEI goals. Third, this study
utilized a gap analysis framework; a future study could utilize Bronfenbrenner’s ecological
systems model to explore the impact the micro-, meso-, macro-, and chrono-systems have on
organizational DEI. Fourth, during this study, many participants spoke to their reality that ELTs
have limited ability to engage in philosophical or strategic discussions and that C-Suite
leadership has shifted from strategic to operative, focused more on the how of doing and less on
the why and what. Future research should facilitate a deeper understanding of this shift’s impact
on organizational DEI.

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 114
Conclusion
Addressing DEI within organizations has business, economic, and social justice
implications affecting not only individuals but communities, organizations, and society as a
whole. Decades-long failures to produce meaningful organizational DEI hurt organizations,
individuals, and society. What propelled this study was my curiosity about, and desire to help,
executives who genuinely support the value and concept of DEI yet are unsure how to go about
it. In support of them and the organizations they lead, the purpose of this study was to identify
the role knowledge and motivation of executives and executive leadership teams have in
actualizing and operationalizing diversity, equity, and inclusion in U.S. organizations. The study
examined if and how the knowledge and motivation of executives and ELTs led to organizational
support for DEI and the dismantling of organizational barriers that hindered DEI. Specifically,
this study explored how knowledge of inequities, self-efficacy, and expectancy value of
executives, and collective efficacy of the ELT, impacted the development and implementation of
organizational enablers of effective DEI.
The findings revealed three key gaps in knowledge and motivation, specifically a) factual
and conceptual knowledge gaps related to organizational inequities, b) metacognitive knowledge
gaps related to self-awareness in the form of comfort, and c) a motivation gap of collective
efficacy of the ELT. The recommendations identified four strategies to address these gaps: a) an
internal equity analysis, b) individual executive coaching, c) ELT coaching, and d) the
implementation of a DEI change management process. As the pendulum on DEI invariable
swings, and American society’s views ebb and flow, the findings and recommendations from this
study will continue to serve organizational leaders responsible for DEI, benefit marginalized
groups in the workplace, and aid American society in becoming more just and equitable.

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 115
References
Afshari, L., Young, S., Gibson, P., & Karimi, L. (2020). Organizational commitment: exploring
the role of identity. Personnel Review, 49(3), 774-790. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-04-
2019-0148
Agocs, C., & Burr, C. (1996). Employment equity, affirmative action and managing diversity:
Assessing the differences. International Journal of Manpower, 17(4/5), 30-45.
https://doi.org/10.1108/01437729610127668
Agrawal, V. (2023, April 3). 10 Reasons why dei efforts fail (and how to ensure they succeed).
Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/theyec/2023/04/03/10-reasons-why-dei-efforts-failand-how-to-ensure-they-succeed/?sh=c2d837c26969
Akbar, M., & Parker, T. L. (2021, April 8). Equity, diversity, and inclusion framework.
American Psychological Association. https://www.apa.org/about/apa/equity-diversityinclusion/framework.pdf
Allen, D. G. (2008) Retaining talent: A guide to analyzing and managing employee turnover.
Allison, M. T. (1999). Organizational barriers to diversity in the workplace. Journal of Leisure
Research, 31(1), 78-101. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.1999.11949852
American Psychological Association (APA). (2015). 2015 stress in America. American
Psychological Association. https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/stress/2015/impact
Amis, J. M., Mair, J., & Munir, K. A. (2020). The organizational reproduction of inequality.
Academy of Management Annals, 14(1), 195-230.
https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2017.0033
Anderson, J. C. (2023). Implicit social cognition: The hidden element affecting equity, inclusion,
and belonging on diverse collaborative teams. Journal of Leadership Studies, 17(1), 30-
37. https://doi.org/10.1002/jls.21839
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich,
P. R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and
assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Pearson.
Antle, B. F., Barbee, A. P., & van Zyl, M. A. (2008). A comprehensive model for child welfare
training evaluation. Children and Youth Services Review, 30(9), 1063-1080.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2008.02.002
Armstrong, M., Edwards, E., & Pinder, D. (2023). Corporate commitments to racial justice: An
update. McKinsey. https://www.mckinsey.com/bem/our-insights/corporatecommitments-to-racial-justice-an-update

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 116
Asare, T. (2009). Internal auditing in the public sector: Promoting good governance and
performance improvement. International Journal on Governmental Financial
Management, 9(1), 15-28.
Baker, C. (2006). Emmett Till, justice, and the task of recognition. The Journal of American
Culture, 29(2), 111-124. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1542-734X.2006.00323.x
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75-78. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00064
Barak, M. E. M. (2022). Managing diversity: Toward a globally inclusive workplace. Sage.
Baum, B. (2021). Diversity, equity and inclusion policies: Are organizations truly committed to a
workplace culture shift? Journal of Business and Behavioral Sciences, 33(2), 11-23.
Bedeian, A. G. (1993). Management (3rd ed.). Dryden Press.
Bersin, Josh (2013) Josh Bersin on “employee retention is now a big issue: Why the tide has
turned. Bob Morris: Blogging on Business. https://bobmorris.biz/josh-bersin-onemployee-retention-is-now-a-big-issue-why-the-tide-has-turned
Bezrukova, K., Jehn, K. A., & Spell, C. S. (2012). Reviewing diversity training: Where we have
been and where we should go? Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(2),
207-227. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2008.0090
Bishop, J., D’arpino, E., Garcia-Bou, G., Henderson, K., Rebeil, S., Renda, E., Urias, G., &
Wind, N. (2021). Sex discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964. The Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law, 22, 369-373.
Black, H., Soto, L., & Spurlin, S. (2016). Thinking about thinking about leadership:
Metacognitive ability and leader developmental readiness. New Directions for Student
Leadership, 2016(149), 85-95. https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.20164
Bonilla-Silva, E. (2006). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the persistence of
racial inequality in the United States. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Borgogni, L., Dello Russo, S., & Latham, G. P. (2011). The relationship of employee perceptions
of the immediate supervisor and top management with collective efficacy. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18(1), 5-13.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051810379799

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 117
Bourke, J., & Dillon, B. (2016). The six signature traits of inclusive leadership: Thriving in a
diverse new world. Deloitte Insights.
https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/topics/talent/six-signature-traits-of-inclusiveleadership.html
Bowie, K. (2023, April 28). Discrimination ‘biggest cause of staff leaving.’ Heath Service
Journal. https://www.hsj.co.uk/workforce/discrimination-biggest-cause-of-staffleaving/7034702.article
Brockner, J. (1988). Self-esteem at work. Lexington Books.
Brown, K. M. (2010). Schools of excellence and equity? Using equity audits as a tool to expose a
flawed system of recognition. International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership,
5(5), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.22230/ijepl.2010v5n5a206
Brummer, C., & Strine, L. E. (2022). Duty and Diversity. Vanderbilt Law Review, 75, 1.
Buchanon, B., Bui, Q, & Patel, J. K. (2020, July 3). Black lives matter may be the largest
movement in US history. The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/07/03/us/george-floyd-protests-crowdsize.html
Butler, K. (2023, June 22). Race-based affirmative action is over. Corporate diversity could be
next. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-06-22/supreme-courtaffirmative-action-ruling-jeopardizes-corporate-diversity-too#xj4y7vzkg
Cameron, E., & Green, M. (2019). Making sense of change management: A complete guide to
the models, tools and techniques of organizational change. Kogan Page Publishers.
Campbell, N. S., Perry, S. J., Maertz Jr, C. P., Allen, D. G., & Griffeth, R. W. (2013). All you
need is. . . resources: The effects of justice and support on burnout and turnover. Human
Relations, 66(6), 759-782. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726712462614
Centre for Global Inclusion (Centre). (2023). About gdeib. Centre for Global Inclusion.
https://centreforglobalinclusion.org/what-we-do/the-gdeib/
Center for the New Economy and Society (Center). (2023). Global parity alliance: Diversity,
equity and inclusion lighthouses 2023. Center for the New Economy and Society.
https://www.weforum.org/reports/global-parity-alliance-diversity-equity-and-inclusionlighthouses-2023
Chang, E. H., Milkman, K. L., Gromet, D. M., Rebele, R. W., Massey, C., Duckworth, A. L., &
Grant, A. M. (2019). The mixed effects of online diversity training. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 116(16), 7778-7783.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1816076116

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 118
Chellappa, S., (2023, June 2) Level up teams’ performance with self efficacy. Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbeshumanresourcescouncil/2023/06/02/level-up-teamsperformance-with-self-efficacy/?sh=53ecff147686
Cherian, J., & Jacob, J. (2013). Impact of self-efficacy on motivation and performance of
employees. International Journal of Business and Management, 8(14), 80-88.
https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v8n14p80
Circadian. (2016) Absenteeism: The bottom-line killer. Circadian.
https://www.circadian.com/white-paper-absenteeism
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Publishing.
Cocchiara, F. K., Connerley, M. L., & Bell, M. P. (2010). “A gem” for increasing the
effectiveness of diversity training. Human Resource Management, 49(6), 1089-1106.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20396
Cole, D. (2023, June 30). What the supreme court’s lgbtq rights decision means. CNN.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/30/politics/lgbtq-rights-public-accommodations-lawssupreme-court/index.html
Collins, C. E. (2012). Exploring executive coaching: its role in leadership development [Doctoral
dissertation, University of Warwick]. University of Warwick.
https://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/53725/
Conference Board. (2017). The Conference Board measure of ceo confidence. The Conference
Board. https://www.conferenceboard.org/data/datadetail.cfm?dataid=ceoconf#:~:text=The%20Measure%20of%20CEO
%20Confidence,employment%2C%20recruiting%2C%20and%20wages.
Cordoba, J. C., Isojarvi, A. T., & Li, H. (2021). Equilibrium unemployment: The role of
discrimination. Federal Reserve Board.
https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2021080pap.pdf
Cox, T. (2001). Creating the multicultural organization: A strategy for capturing the power of
diversity. John Wiley & Sons.
Cox, T., & Beale, R. L. (1997). Developing competency to manage diversity: Reading, cases,
and activities. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage Publications.

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 119
Davidson, J. W. (2022, July 5). A brief history of the path to securing lgbtq rights. American Bar
Association.
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/int
ersection-of-lgbtq-rights-and-religious-freedom/a-brief-history-of-the-path-to-securinglgbtq-rights/
Deloitte. (2012). Waiter, is that inclusion in my soup? A new recipe to improve business
performance. Deloitte.
https://www.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/au/Documents/human-capital/deloitte-auhc-diversity-inclusion-soup-0513.pdf
Dixon-Fyle, S., Hunt, V., Dolan, K., & Prince, S. (2020). Diversity wins. McKinsey.
https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/featured%20insights/diversity%20and%2
0inclusion/diversity%20wins%20how%20inclusion%20matters/diversity-wins-howinclusion-matters-vf.pdf
Dobbin, F., & Kalev, A. (2016). Why diversity programs fail. Harvard Business Review, 94(7),
14.
Donohoo, J., Hattie, J., & Eells, R. (2018). The power of collective efficacy. Educational
Leadership, 75(6), 40-44.
Dover, T. L., Kaiser, C. R., & Major, B. (2020). Mixed signals: The unintended effects of
diversity initiatives. Social Issues and Policy Review, 14(1), 152-181.
https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12059
Dovidio, J. F., & Hebl, M. R. (2013). Discrimination at the level of the individual: Cognitive and
affective factors. In R. L. Dipboye & A. Colella (Eds.), Discrimination at work (pp. 11-
35). Psychology Press.
Eccles, J. S. (2005). Subjective task value and the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related
choices. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and
motivation (pp. 105–121). Guilford Press.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53(1), 109-132. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2020). From expectancy-value theory to situated expectancy-value
theory: A developmental, social cognitive, and sociocultural perspective on
motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101859.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101859
El-Amin, A. (2022). Improving organizational commitment to diversity, equity, inclusion, and
belonging. In R. Throne (Ed.), Social justice research methods for doctoral research (pp.
208-221). IGI Global.

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 120
Eraut, M., Alderton, J., Cole, G., & Senker, P. (2000). Development of knowledge and skills at
work. Differing Visions of a Learning Society, 1(1), 231-262.
https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1t891gf
Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. C. (1996). Strategic leadership: Top executives and their effects
on organizations. West Publishing Company.
Fraser, N. (2008). Social justice in the age of identity politics: Redistribution, recognition, and
participation. In G. Henderson & M. Waterstone (Eds.), Geographic thought: A praxis
perspective (pp. 72-89). Routledge.
Friedersdorf, C. (2023, May 31). The DEI industry needs to check its privilege. The worst of the
industry is expensive and runs from useless to counterproductive. The Atlantic.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/05/dei-training-initiatives-consultantscompanies-skepticism/674237/
Gallo, A. (2013, January 30). Is it time to quit your job? Harvard Business Review.
https://hbr.org/2013/01/is-it-time-to-quit-your-job
Gallup. (2016). Q12 meta-analysis report. Gallup.
https://www.gallup.com/workplace/321725/gallup-q12-meta-analysis-report.aspx
Gallup. (2017). State of the global workplace. Gallup. https://qualityincentivecompany.com/wpcontent/uploads/2017/11/Gallup-State-of-the-Global-Workplace-Report-2017_ExecutiveSummary.pdf
Garrison-Wade, D. F., & Lewis, C. W. (2004). Affirmative action: History and analysis. Journal
of College Admission, 184, 23-26.
General Electric and Fisher College of Business. (2011). The market that moves America. Middle
Market Center. https://www.middlemarketcenter.org/Media/Documents/the-market-thatmoves-america-insights-perspectives-and-opportunities-from-middle-marketcompanies_the_market_that_moves_america_white_paper.pdf
Githens, R. P. (2009). Leadership and power in fostering a collaborative community in a nonprofit professional organization. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 22, 413-429.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-009-9138-8
Glass Ceiling Commission. (1995). Good for business: Making full use of the nation's human
capital. Cornell University.
https://ecommons.cornell.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/b409d07c-ecfb-4eed-8117-
2e1198962f73/content
Glassdoor. (2021, July 21). What job seekers really think about diversity and inclusion stats.
Glassdoor. https://www.glassdoor.com/employers/blog/diversity/

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 121
Glesne, C. (2011). But is it ethical? Considering what is “right.” In C. Glesne (Ed.), Becoming
qualitative researchers: An introduction (pp. 162-183). Pearson.
Gomez, L. E., & Bernet, P. (2019). Diversity improves performance and outcomes. Journal of
the National Medical Association, 111(4), 383-392.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnma.2019.01.006
Gonzales, M. (2022, October 26). A snapshot of workplace inequity. Society for Human
Resources Managements. https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/news/inclusion-equitydiversity/snapshot-workplace-inequity
Goodman, N., Morris, M., & Boston, K. (2021). Financial inequality: Disability, race and
poverty in America. National Disability Institute.
https://www.nationaldisabilityinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/disability-racepoverty-in-america.pdf
Goryunova, E. (2020). Metacognitive strategies for effective interaction across cultures: Global
leaders perspective. The Journal of Business Diversity, 20(1), 28-45.
Gould, E. (2019). Stark black–white divide in wages is widening further. United Steelworkers.
https://m.usw.org/blog/2019/stark-black-white-divide-in-wages-is-widening-further
Gould, R., Mullin, C., Parker Harris, S., & Jones, R. (2022). Building, sustaining and growing:
Disability inclusion in business. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International
Journal, 41(3), 418-434. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-06-2020-0156
Greer, T. W., & Egan, T. M. (2019). Knowledge management for organizational success:
Valuing diversity and inclusion across stakeholders, structures, and sectors. In M. Fedeli
& L. Bierma (Eds.), Connecting adult learning and knowledge management: Strategies
for learning and change in higher education and organizations (pp. 119-136). Springer.
Grossman, R., & Salas, E. (2011). The transfer of training: What really matters. International
Journal of Training and Development, 15(2), 103-120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
2419.2011.00373.x
Gurchiek, K. (2021, February 23). Report: Most companies are 'going through the motions' of
de&i. Society for Human Resources Management.
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/behavioral-competencies/global-andcultural-effectiveness/pages/report-most-companies-are-going-through-the-motions-ofdei.aspx
Guzzo, R. A., Yost, P. R., Campbell, R. J., & Shea, G. P. (1993). Potency in groups: Articulating
a construct. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32(1), 87-106.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1993.tb00987.x

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 122
Hansen, M. J., Keith, C. J., Mzumara, H. R., & Graunke, S. (2021). Developing and
implementing an institutional research office diversity, equity, and inclusion strategic
plan. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2021(189-192), 93-108.
Harvard Business Review. (2017). The impact of employee engagement on performance.
Harvard Business Review.
Herring, C. (2009). Does diversity pay? Race, gender, and the business case for diversity.
American Sociological Review, 74(2), 208-224.
https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240907400203
Hewlett, S. A., Rashid, R., & Sherbin, L. (2017). Disrupt bias, drive value: A new path toward
diverse, engaged, and fulfilled talent. Rare Bird Books.
Hill, T., Smith, N. D., & Mann, M. F. (1987). Role of efficacy expectations in predicting the
decision to use advanced technologies: The case of computers. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 72(2), 307. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.72.2.307
Hochschild, J. L. (2001). Affirmative action as culture war. In M. Lamont (Ed.) The cultural
territories of race: Black and white boundaries (pp. 343-368). University of Chicago
Press.
Holbeche, L. (2019). Designing sustainably agile and resilient organizations. Systems Research
and Behavioral Science, 36(5), 668-677. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2624
Holzer, H. J., & Neumark, D. (2006). Affirmative action: What do we know? Journal of Policy
Analysis and Management, 25(2), 463-490. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20181
Hong, L., & Page, S. E. (2001). Problem solving by heterogeneous agents. Journal of Economic
Theory, 97(1), 123-163. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeth.2000.2709
Horner, C. J. (2002). Executive coaching: The leadership development tool of the future?
[Doctoral dissertation, Management School, Imperial College London].
Hudson-Weems, C. (1998). Resurrecting Emmett Till: the catalyst of the modern civil rights
movement. Journal of Black Studies, 29(2), 179-188.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002193479802900203
Hunt, V., Dixon-Fyle, S., Prince, S., & Dolan, D. (2020). Diversity wins: How inclusion matters.
McKinsey & Company.
https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/featured%20insights/diversity%20and%2
0inclusion/diversity%20wins%20how%20inclusion%20matters/diversity-wins-howinclusion-matters-vf.pdf

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 123
Hunt, V., Prince, S., Dixon-Fyle, S., & Yee, L. (2018). Delivering through diversity. McKinsey
& Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizationalperformance/our-insights/delivering-through-diversity
Ishimaru, A. M., & Galloway, M. K. (2014). Beyond individual effectiveness: Conceptualizing
organizational leadership for equity. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 13(1), 93-146.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2014.890733
Ivancevich, J. M., & Gilbert, J. A. (2000). Diversity management: Time for a new
approach. Public Personnel Management, 29(1), 75-92.
https://doi.org/10.1177/009102600002900106
Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. (2006). Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy
of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies. American Sociological Review,
71(4), 589–617. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240607100404
Kaul, K. (2021). Refining the referral process: Increasing diversity for technology startups
through targeted recruitment, screening and interview strategies. Strategic HR Review,
20(4), 125-129.
Kelly, E., & Dobbin, F. (1998). How affirmative action became diversity management:
Employer response to antidiscrimination law, 1961 to 1996. American Behavioral
Scientist, 41(7), 960-984. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764298041007008
Kerman, B., Freundlich, M., Lee, J. M., & Brenner, E. (2012). Learning while doing in the
human services: Becoming a learning organization through organizational
change. Administration in Social Work, 36(3), 234-257.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03643107.2011.573061
Khilji, S. (2020, February 20). Doing dei work: The experiences of dei practitioners. Medium.
https://shaistakhilji.medium.com/doing-dei-work-the-experiences-of-dei-practitioners1df710dd8e4b
Kiradoo, G. (2022). Diversity, equity, and inclusion in the workplace: Strategies for achieving
and sustaining a diverse workforce. Advance Research in Social Science and
Management, Edition, 1, 139-151.
Klafehn, J., Li, C., & Chiu, C. Y. (2013). To know or not to know, is that the question?
Exploring the role and assessment of metacognition in cross-cultural contexts. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(6), 963-991. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022113492893
Kluch, Y., Wright-Mair, R., Swim, N., & Turick, R. (2022). “It’s like being on an island by
yourself”: Diversity, equity, and inclusion administrators’ perceptions of barriers to
diversity, equity, and inclusion work in intercollegiate athletics. Journal of Sport
Management, 1, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2021-0250

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 124
Kochhar, R., & Cilluffo, A. (2018, July 12). Key findings on the rise in income inequality within
America's racial and ethnic groups. Pew Research Center.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/07/12/key-findings-on-the-rise-inincome-inequality-within-americas-racial-and-ethnic-groups/
Kossek, E. E., Lautsch, B. A., & Eaton, S. C. (2006). Telecommuting, control, and boundary
management: Correlates of policy use and practice, job control, and work–family
effectiveness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(2), 347-367.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.07.002
Kotter, J. P. (2007). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review
Press.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002) A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into
Practice, 41(4), 212-218, https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Kunz, J. L. (1949). The United Nations declaration of human rights. American Journal of
International Law, 43(2), 316-323. https://doi.org/10.2307/2193039
Ladson-Billings, G. (2013). Lack of achievement or loss of opportunity. In P. L. Carter & K. G.
Welner (Eds.), Closing the opportunity gap: What America must do to give every child an
even chance (pp. 11-22). Oxford University Press.
Lane, H. C. (2007, January). Metacognition and the development of intercultural competence.
In Proceedings of the workshop on metacognition and self-regulated learning in
intelligent tutoring systems at the 13th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence
in Education (pp. 23-32).
Lee, J., Waung, M., & Beatty, J. E. (2022). Internships and promises of diversity: How
anticipatory psychological contracts shape employment intentions in the US. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 33(17), 3560-3590.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2021.1916775
Leon, R. A. (2014). The chief diversity officer: An examination of cdo models and
strategies. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 7(2), 77-91.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0035586
Leonard, J. S. (1990). The impact of affirmative action regulation and equal employment law on
black employment. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 4(4), 47-63.
https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.4.4.47
Levin, H. M., McEwan, P. J., Belfield, C., Bowden, A. B., & Shand, R. (2017). Economic
evaluation in education: Cost-effectiveness and benefit-cost analysis. Sage Publications.

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 125
Levit, N. (2012). Changing workforce demographics and the future of the protected class
approach. Lewis & Clark Law Review, 16, 463-498.
Livingston, R. (2020). How to promote racial equity in the workplace. Harvard Business Review,
98(5), 64-72. https://hbr.org/2020/09/how-to-promote-racial-equity-in-the-workplace
Lockwood, N. R. (2005). Crisis management in today’s business environment. SHRM Research
Quarterly, 4, 1-9.
Los Angeles Times Staff. (2021, December 15). Majority of U.S. employers have implemented
dei initiatives in 2021. The Los Angels Times.
https://www.latimes.com/b2b/diversity/story/2021-12-15/majority-of-u-s-employershave-implemented-dei-initiatives-in2021#:~:text=More%20than%20eight%20in%2010,a%20new%20survey%20by%20Wor
ldatWork
Lorenzo, R., Voigt, N., Tsusaka, M., Krentz, M., & Abouzahr, K. (2018). How diverse
leadership teams boost innovation. Boston Consulting Group.
https://www.bcg.com/publications/2018/how-diverse-leadership-teams-boost-innovation
Luger, L. (2011). Enhancing cultural competence in staff working with people with drug and
alcohol problems—A multidimensional approach to evaluating the impact of
education. Social Work Education, 30(02), 223-235.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2011.540398
Lunenburg, F. C. (2011). Self-efficacy in the workplace: Implications for motivation and
performance. International Journal of Management, Business, and Administration, 14(1),
1-6. https://doi.org/10.12691/education-6-1-3
Luthra, P., & Muhr, S. L. (2023). Leading with accountability: Addressing systemic bias. In P.
Luthra & S. L. Muhr (Eds.), Leading through bias: 5 essentials skills to block bias and
improve inclusion at work (pp. 134-199). Springer.
Maese, E., & Lloyd, C. (2021). Understanding the effects of discrimination in the workplace.
Gallup. https://www.gallup.com/workplace/349865/understanding-effects-discriminationworkplace.aspx
Mandle, J. (2009). Rawls's ‘A theory of justice': An introduction. Cambridge University Press.
Maan, A. T., Abid, G., Butt, T. H., Ashfaq, F., & Ahmed, S. (2020). Perceived organizational
support and job satisfaction: a moderated mediation model of proactive personality and
psychological empowerment. Future Business Journal, 6, 1-12.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-020-00027-8

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 126
Maye, A. A. (2023). Chasing the dream of equity: How policy has shaped racial economic
disparities. Economic Policy Institute. https://www.epi.org/publication/chasing-thedream-of-equity/#full-report
McCormick, M. J. (2001). Self-efficacy and leadership effectiveness: Applying social cognitive
theory to leadership. Journal of Leadership Studies, 8(1), 22-33.
https://doi.org/10.1177/107179190100800102
McIsaac, E., & Moody, C. (2014). Diversity and inclusion: Valuing the opportunity. Mowat
Centre for Policy Innovation.
Melson-Silimon, A., Salter, N. P., & Carter, N. T. (2020). A historical review of the study of us
LGBTQ employees’ workplace experiences. In L. Bryan (Ed.), Historical perspectives in
industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 171-183). Routledge.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
Merry, J. (2013). Aon Hewitt's 2013 trends in global engagement: Where do organizations need
to focus attention? Strategic HR Review, 13(1), 24-31. https://doi.org/10.1108/SHR-07-
2013-0073
Milanesi, C. (2023, April 20).The business impact of diversity, equity and inclusion. Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinamilanesi/2023/04/20/the-business-impact-ofdiversity-equity-and-inclusion/?sh=67639d566300
Moon, T. (2010). Emotional intelligence correlates of the four‐factor model of cultural
intelligence. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25(8), 876-898.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02683941011089134
Moores, T. T., Chang, J. C. J., & Smith, D. K. (2006). Clarifying the role of self-efficacy and
metacognition as predictors of performance: Construct development and test. ACM
SIGMIS Database, 37(2-3), 125-132. https://doi.org/10.1145/1161345.1161360
Mor, S., Morris, M. W., & Joh, J. (2013). Identifying and training adaptive cross-cultural
management skills: The crucial role of cultural metacognition. Academy of Management
Learning & Education, 12(3), 453-475. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2012.0202
Morgan, K., & Rodriguez, M. (2020). The American lgbtq rights movement: An introduction.
Humboldt State University Press.
Mull, A. (2020, June 3). Brands have nothing real to say about racism. The Atlantic.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/06/brands-racism-protests-amazon-nflnike/612613

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 127
Ng, E. S., & Sears, G. J. (2012). CEO leadership styles and the implementation of organizational
diversity practices: Moderating effects of social values and age. Journal of Business
Ethics, 105, 41-52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0933-7
Ng, E. S., & Wyrick, C. R. (2011). Motivational bases for managing diversity: A model of
leadership commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 21(4), 368-376.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2011.05.002
Nishii, L. H., & Leroy, H. (2022). A multi-level framework of inclusive leadership in
organizations. Group & Organization Management, 47(4), 683-722.
https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011221111505
Nussbaum, M. C. (2003). Upheavals of thought: The intelligence of emotions. Cambridge
University Press.
Page, S. E. (2007). Making the difference: Applying a logic of diversity. Academy of
Management Perspectives, 21(4), 6-20. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMP.2007.27895335
Paglis, L. L. (2010). Leadership self‐efficacy: Research findings and practical
applications. Journal of Management Development, 29(9), 771-782.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02621711011072487
Paluck, E. L. (2006). Diversity training and intergroup contact: A call to action research. Journal
of Social Issues, 62(3), 577-595. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2006.00474.x
Paradies, Y., Ben, J., Denson, N., Elias, A., Priest, N., Pieterse, A., & Gee, G. (2015). Racism as
a determinant of health: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PloS Oone, 10(9),
e0138511. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138511
Patten, E. (2016, July 1). Racial, gender wage gaps persist in U.S. despite some progress. Pew
Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2016/07/01/racial-genderwage-gaps-persist-in-u-s-despite-some-progress/
Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and
practice. Sage Publications.
Pless, N., & Maak, T. (2004). Building an inclusive diversity culture: Principles, processes and
practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 54, 129-147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-004-
9465-8
Prasad, P., Mills, A. J., Elmes, M., & Prasad, A. (Eds.). (1997). Managing the organizational
melting pot: Dilemmas of workplace diversity. Sage Publications.

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 128
Pruitt, A. S., Brinkworth, C., Young, J., & Aponte, K. L. (2018). 5 things we learned about
creating a successful workplace diversity program. Harvard Business Review.
https://hbr.org/2018/03/5-things-we-learned-about-creating-a-successful-workplacediversity-program
PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC). (2017). Breakthrough Innovation and Growth: Top innovators
expect US$250 billion five-year revenue boost. PricewaterhouseCoopers.
https://www.pwc.co.uk/assets/pdf/achieving-business-growth.pdf
Qin, D. (2016). Positionality. The Wiley Blackwell encyclopedia of gender and sexuality studies,
1-2. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118663219.wbegss619
Quiroz-Gutierrez, M. (2021, May 6). American companies pledged $50 billion to Black
communities. Most of it hasn’t materialized. Fortune. https://fortune.com/2021/05/06/uscompanies-black-communities-money-50-billion/
Rawls, J. (2017). A theory of justice. In L. May (Ed.), Applied ethics: A multicultural approach
(pp. 21-29). Taylor Francis.
Ray, V. (2020). Antiracism is a constant struggle. Contexts, 19(3), 74-76.
https://doi.org/10.1177/15365042209504
Reyhan Ayas, R., Tilly, & P., Rawlings, D., (2023) Cutting cost at the expense of diversity: is big
tech revealing its true colors, https://www.reveliolabs.com/news/social/cutting-costs-atthe-expense-of-diversity/
Robinson, R. (2023, July 1). As Supreme Court erases college affirmative action, new reports
find companies refusing to deliver on dei promises. Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bryanrobinson/2023/07/01/as-supreme-court-erasescollege-affirmative-action-new-reports-find-companies-refusing-to-deliver-on-deipromises/?sh=622cdae35a85
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2011). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Sage.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. Teachers College Press.
Ryan, A. M., & Kossek, E. E. (2008). Work‐life policy implementation: Breaking down or
creating barriers to inclusiveness? Human Resource Management, 47(2), 295-310.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20213
Sabharwal, M. (2014). Is diversity management sufficient? Organizational inclusion to further
performance. Public Personnel Management, 43(2), 197-217.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026014522202
Schein, E. H. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (5th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 129
Seijts, G. H., & Milani, K. Y. (2022). The application of leader character to building cultures of
equity, diversity, and inclusion. Business Horizons, 65(5), 573-590.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2021.07.007
Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom (1999). Oxford University Press.
Sen, A. (2007). Identity and violence: The illusion of destiny. Penguin Books.
Shore, L. M., Cleveland, J. N., & Sanchez, D. (2018). Inclusive workplaces: A review and
model. Human Resource Management Review, 28(2), 176-189.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.07.003
Simon, M. K., & Goes, J. (2013). Scope, limitations, and delimitations. DERS.
https://www.ders.es/limitationscopedelimitation1.pdf
Sims, C. M. (2018). The diversity intelligent servant leader: Developing leaders to meet the
needs of a diverse workforce. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 20(3), 313-
330. https://doi.org/10.1177/152342231877800
Singal, J. (2023, January 17). What if diversity training is doing more harm than good. The New
York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/17/opinion/dei-trainings-effective.html
Smith, E. A. (2001). The role of tacit and explicit knowledge in the workplace. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 5(4), 311-321. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270110411733
Solomon, D., Maxwell, C., & Castro, A. (2019). Systematic inequality and economic
opportunity. Center for American Progress.
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/systematic-inequality-economic-opportunity/
Sorkin, A., Mattu, R., Warner, B., de la Merced, M., & Hirsch, L. (2023, June 30). Why
corporate America is worried about affirmative action: Many businesses have adopted
policies to diversify hiring but the Supreme Court’s ruling to end the policy in
universities endangers those efforts. The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/30/business/dealbook/corporate-diversity-affirmativeaction.html
Stajkovic, A. D., Lee, D., & Nyberg, A. J. (2009). Collective efficacy, group potency, and group
performance: Meta-analyses of their relationships, and test of a mediation model. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 814. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015659
Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A metaanalysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 240. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
2909.124.2.240
Stanley, C. A., Watson, K. L., Reyes, J. M., & Varela, K. S. (2019). Organizational change and
the chief diversity officer: A case study of institutionalizing a diversity plan. Journal of
Diversity in Higher Education, 12(3), 255. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000099

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 130
StrategyR. (2023). Diversity and inclusion world market report. StrategyR.
https://www.strategyr.com/market-report-diversity-and-inclusion-forecasts-globalindustry-analysts-inc.asp
Stein, M. (2020). Historical landmarks and landscapes of lgbtq law. In K. Crawford-Lackey &
M. Springate (Eds.) Communities and place: A thematic approach to the histories of
lgbtq communities in the United States, 104. Berghahn.
Suarez, K. (2018). The role of senior leaders in building a race equity culture. The Bridgespan
Group. https://www.bridgespan.org/insights/senior-leaders-role-in-building-raceequity?gclid=CjwKCAiA_OetBhAtEiwAPTeQZ1Uw31oAu9nnKjUrJqxlX8c0PMshVvC3S-Sr-xRfuHodqDqLJEjiBoCekoQAvD_BwE
Tenney, M. (2024). Why forward thinking companies are investing in dei. Business Leadership
Today. https://businessleadershiptoday.com/why-are-companies-investing-in-dei/
Thadani, T. (2023, July 4). Affirmative action ruling could be a blow to diversity in tech: The
industry already struggled to recruit a diverse workforce. Last week’s ruling could make
things worse. The Washington Post.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/07/04/affirmative-action-techindustry-diversity-equity-inclusion/
Thomas, D. A., & Gabarro, J. J. (1999). Haven't you forgotten something? The Journal of
Business Strategy, 20(3), 5.
Tomic, M. (2015). "Gender fund:" Creating a virtual mutual fund investing in firms with gender
diversity [Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology]).
https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/98991/921181062-
MIT.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Totenberg, N. (2023, June 29). Supreme Court guts affirmative action, effectively ending raceconscious admissions. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2023/06/29/1181138066/affirmativeaction-supreme-court-decision
Trau, R. N. (2015). The impact of discriminatory climate perceptions on the composition of
intraorganizational developmental networks, psychosocial support, and job and career
attitudes of employees with an invisible stigma. Human Resource Management, 54(2),
345-366. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21630
Travis, D. J., Shaffer, E., & Thorpe-Moscon, J. (2019). Getting real about inclusive leadership:
Why change starts with you. Catalyst. https://www.catalyst.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/03/Getting-Real-About-Inclusive-Leadership-Report2020update.pdf
Waddock, S. (2000). The multiple bottom lines of corporate citizenship: Social investing,
reputation, and responsibility audits. Business and Society Review, 105(3), 323-345.
https://doi.org/10.1111/0045-3609.00085

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 131
Umoh, R. (2024) From tenure to turnover, heres how chief diversity officers compare to every
single C-suite role. https://fortune.com/2024/01/10/diversity-officers-ceo-csuite-tenureturnover-fortune500/
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (USEEOC). (2023). Office for civil rights,
diversity, and inclusion. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
https://www.eeoc.gov/office-civil-rights-diversity-and-inclusion
Waring, C. G., Lapointe, J. R., Bell, R., Cate, J. G., deBoer, J., Funkhouser, M. Goodson, S.,
Heer, J., Hogan, A., & Schaefer, R. (2012). The role of auditing in public sector
governance. The Institute of Internal Auditors. https://www.cailg.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/auditing_in_public_sector.pdf?1441835528
Wasserman, I. C. (2015). Dialogic od, diversity, and inclusion: Aligning mindsets, values, and
practices. In A. B. Shani & D. A. Noumair (Eds.), Research in organizational change
and development (pp. 329-356). Emerald Publishing.
Wigfield, A. (1994). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: A developmental
perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 6, 49-78.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02209024
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68-81.
https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1015
Williams, D. A., Berger, J. B., & McClendon, S. A. (2005). Toward a model of inclusive
excellence and change in postsecondary institutions. Association of American Colleges
and Universities. https://operations.du.edu/sites/default/files/2020-04/model-of-inclusiveexcellence.pdf
Williams, D. A., & Clowney, C. (2007). Strategic planning for diversity and organizational
change. Effective Practices for Academic Leaders, 2(3), 1-16.
Williams, D. A., & Wade-Golden, K. C. (2023). The chief diversity officer: Strategy, structure,
and change management. Taylor & Francis.
Wilson, J. L. (2013). Emerging trend: The chief diversity officer phenomenon within higher
education. Journal of Negro Education, 82(4), 433-445.
https://doi.org/10.7709/jnegroeducation.82.4.0433
Wilson, V., & Rodgers, W. M. (2016). Black-white wage gaps expand with rising wage
inequality. Economic Policy Institute. https://www.epi.org/publication/black-white-wagegaps-expand-with-rising-wage-inequality/

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 132
Workbuzz. (2023). The state of employee engagement 2023/24: Exploring hr professionals’ top
priorities and biggest challenges as we move into 2024. Workbuzz.
https://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://6803499.fs1.hubspotusercontentna1.net/hubfs/6803499/State-of-Employee-Engagement-2023-WorkBuzz.pdf
Work Institute. (2019). 2019 retention report. Work Institute.
https://info.workinstitute.com/hubfs/2019%20Retention%20Report/Work%20Institute%2
02019%20Retention%20Report%20final-1.pdf
Young, I. M. (2016). Justice and the politics of difference. In R. Blaug & J. Schwarzmantel
(Eds.), Democracy: A reader (pp. 553-557). Columbia University Press.
Zaccaro, S. J., Blair, V., Peterson, C., & Zazanis, M. (1995). Collective efficacy. In J. Maddox
(Ed.), Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment (pp. 305-328). Springer.
Zheng, L. (2022, December 1). The failure of the dei-industrial complex—and the practitioners
they work with—accountable for measurably improving outcomes for marginalized
populations. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2022/12/the-failure-of-the-deiindustrial-complex

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 133
Appendix A

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 134
Interview Protocol
Introduction
Thank you for agreeing to participate in this study. My name is Nicole and I am a doctoral
student at the University of Southern California Rossier School of Education. I am studying
Organizational Change and Leadership and the purpose of this study is to explore the impact of
organizational leaders on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts.
Informed Consent
During this interview I will be collecting information relevant to this topic. Please be assured that
your responses will be kept completely confidential. The information I collect during the
interview will be shared in the form of aggregate findings. Individuals and organizations will not
be shared. In the event I make reference to individuals or organizations, pseudonyms will be
used and no identifying information will be shared. There is no cost to you for taking part in this
study.
The interview should take approximately 60 minutes. Your participation in this research is
voluntary. You have the right to withdraw at any point during the study, for any reason, and
without any prejudice.
Do you consent to participate in this study?
In order for me to be attentive to you and your responses while also capturing all the information,
I will be capturing a transcript of the interview and would also like to record. Both the transcript
and the recording will be for my recollection only, will not be shared with anyone, and will be
destroyed after the study is complete. Do you consent to the recording?
May I begin recording now?
Study Interview
Do you have any questions before we begin?

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTS FOR DEI 135
Interview Questions RQ Addressed Key Concept
Addressed
1. What is your role in your organization and
how long have you been in the role?
Background
2. When did [company name] begin to
engage in DEI work?
Background
3. How does [company name] define DEI? 1 Factual & conceptual
knowledge
4. What, if any, do you see as the role of
executives in relation to organizational
DEI?
1 Metacognitive
knowledge
5. Can you share a bit about your personal
confidence in engaging with diversity,
equity, and inclusion efforts.
2 Self efficacy
6. What is your sense of the confidence of the
executive team in engaging with diversity,
equity and inclusion efforts here at [name
company]?
2 Collective efficacy
7. What is your sense of the executive teams
confidence that they can have a positive
impact on DEI here at [company name.
2 Expectancy value
8. What has been the role of the executive
team in DEI?
1 & 2 Organizational supports
9. What are some of the things the executive
team has done to support DEI?
1 & 2 Organizational supports
10. What are some of the things that get in the
way of supporting DEI?
3 Barriers
Conclusion to the Interview
Thank you for your time and very thoughtful responses. Your insights will help inform our
understanding of how executives impact organizational DEI. Your individual responses will not
be shared or connected to you or your organization and the recording will be destroyed when the
study is complete. As I review my notes and recording may I contact you if I have any clarifying
questions? Thank you. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns
at a later date? And I will be happy to share the findings with you at the conclusion of this study.
Thank you again for your participation.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The role of organizational leaders in creating sustainable diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives in the workplace

PDF

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

PDF

Canaries in the mine: centering the voices of Black women DEI practitioners in a period of DEI resistance

PDF

An examination of the impact of diversity initiatives and their supporting roles on organizational culture: an experiential study from the perspective of diversity personnel

PDF

Environmental influences on the diversity of professional sports executive leadership

PDF

For DEI practitioners of color who’ve considered leaving when the rainbow isn’t enough: the impact of DEI fatigue on the retention of Black women in big tech

PDF

Diversity management in local government: a gap analysis

PDF

Advancing equity and inclusion in higher education: the role of the chief diversity officer and the institution in creating more diverse campus climates

PDF

What university equity and diversity leaders are doing to deal with issues of equity, access, and inclusion

PDF

Identifying diversity solutions for the cybersecurity workforce shortage: a phenomenological qualitative study

PDF

Cultivating workplace belonging through managerial impact

PDF

Black leaders: the unicorns of the biopharmaceutical industry

PDF

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

PDF

The case for leader self-reflection in the workplace

PDF

No officer left behind? The promotion experiences of retired and separated Black commissioned officers in the United States Army

PDF

The continuous failure of Continuous Improvement: the challenge of implementing Continuous Improvement in low income schools

PDF

Shattering the glass ceiling: examining invisible barriers to women’s career progression in South Korean international schools

PDF

The underrepresentation of Black women general officers in a U.S. military reserve component

PDF

Equity and access: meeting the needs of diverse learners with UDL in elementary general education

PDF

“A thread throughout”: the KMO influences on implementing DEI strategic plans in state and municipal governments

Asset Metadata

Creator Butts, Nicole (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Educational Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2024-05

Publication Date 04/15/2024

Defense Date 04/12/2024

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

Tag collective efficacy,DEI,diversity, equity & inclusion,executive leadership teams,Executives,gap analysis,knowledge,Motivation,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational DEI,self-efficacy

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Freking, Frederick (committee chair), Grad, Richard (committee member), Hinga, Briana (committee member)

Creator Email nbutts@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113872136

Unique identifier UC113872136

Identifier etd-ButtsNicol-12807.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-ButtsNicol-12807

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Butts, Nicole

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20240415-usctheses-batch-1140 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

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

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

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

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu