University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

"We belong": women of color in technology (WOCT)

(USC Thesis Other)

"We belong": women of color in technology (WOCT)

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

"We Belong": Women of Color in Technology (WOCT)
by
Janine Lee

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

August 2023

© Copyright by Janine Lee 2023
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Janine Lee certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Jennifer Phillips
Don Trahan
Helena Seli, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2023

iv
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to explore the lived experiences of WOC at Technology companies
(WOCT) with a particular focus on a sense of belonging (SOB) in driving retention and
ultimately, to make practice recommendations. The Bronfenbrenner ecological framework
informed by critical race theory (CRT) were the theoretical frameworks utilized for the study.
This mixed methods study began with a quantitative survey with 145 participants completing all
survey questions and concluded with twelve qualitative virtual interviews. The target population
was WOCT residing within the United States who currently work within technology companies
of over 100 people, particularly large Fortune 500 companies. The following research questions
guided the study: 1) What levels of workplace SOB do WOCT report? 2) How does each
ecological system impact workplace SOB as reported by WOCT? 3) How does WOCTs’
intersectional identity impact their workplace SOB and retention? and 4) What recommendations
do WOCT report to increase workplace SOB of WOC in technology? For research question 1,
the data indicated that there was wide variation in WOCT SOB scores, higher SOB scores for
tenured roles, and lower SOB scores for Latinas. For research question 2, the data showed that
peer relationships and community groups contributed positively to SOB whereas company
culture and lack of representation detracted SOB. For research question 3, the interview findings
highlighted both intersectional identity and systemic racism served as barriers to WOCT SOB.
Lastly, for research question 4, WOCT interviewees recommended allyship, mentorship,
sponsorship, and action-oriented organizational changes to improve SOB. There are three
recommendations identified to address critical results and findings: (1) investing in spaces to
foster peer-based relationships, (2) enabling and growing allies and sponsors, and (3) leaders and
corporations to enact in action-oriented accountability.

Keywords: allyship, belonging, BIPOC, DEI, DEIB, diversity, employee resource groups,
ERGs, equity, inclusion, inclusive leadership, intersectionality, lack of representation,
organizational culture, POC, sense of belonging, sponsorship, women in technology, women in
STEM, women of color in STEM, women of color, women of color in technology, workplace
belonging

vi
Dedication
To my husband Jordan, you are the most amazing partner I could have ever asked for. I love you
today, tomorrow, and always. I could not have accomplished this degree without you. As you
said, we share this doctorate!

To my FamiLee, I could not have achieved this without your unconditional love, support, and
generosity. I am so blessed to have such an incredible father Tony, mother Susan, brother
Nathan, sister-in-law Queenie, and nephew Noah! Thank you for believing in me and cheering
me on with every milestone.

To my Blevins family, thank you to my mother-in-law Faith and father-in-law Mark for keeping
me well-fed with homecooked meals during my long hours and watching Kingsley so we could
catch a break. To the rest of the Blevins family, thank you for supporting me, being patient and
understanding with me, and welcoming me to the family.

To all the women of color in technology striving to belong, I dedicate this to you. I hope this
research will inspire and motivate technology leaders and companies to take tangible actions
informed by research to increase belonging in the workplace.

vii
Acknowledgements
Thank you first and foremost to my dissertation committee for believing in me, providing
guidance, and sharing your expertise. Dr. Helena Seli, I could not have asked for a better
dissertation chair. I felt a connection with you from the first moment we met and I am so grateful
that we were matched together. Your diligence, attention to detail, and unwavering support has
meant the world to me. Dr. Jennifer Phillips, thank you for co-chairing our dissertation meetings,
providing such valuable advice, and your invaluable wisdom. Dr. Don Trahan, I’m so grateful to
have had you as my EDUC523 DEI professor and to have had you on my committee. The DEI
course refueled my passion for this work and also planted the seed for my problem of practice. I
aspire to be a world-renowned DEI practitioner and expert like you.
To my Cohort-19 classmates and honorary C-19 classmates, you have all welcomed me
with open arms and made me feel so accepted in this program. I am so grateful for our friendship
and for all of you who have uplifted me in good times and bad. Thank you to my study group
Adri, Francesca, and Nicholas for constantly checking in on me! To all of my C-19 professors,
thank you for preparing me for my dissertation. Dr. Marc Pritchard, you were by far the most
difficult professor that I had, but you really prepared me to improve my academic writing. Dr.
Eric Canny, thank you for setting aside the time to brainstorm my dissertation topic together. Dr.
Patricia Burch and Dr. Jessica DeCuir-Gunby, I learned so much in your Inquiry classes with
practical application of my homework assignments towards my dissertation.
Next, this dissertation would not be possible without my 145 WOCT survey participants
and 12 WOCT interview participants. Thank you for sharing your powerful stories in the spirit of
research. Adriana, Andrea, Catalina, Deanna, Francesca, Jenny, Katie, Monique, Mya, Stacey,
Tahirah, and Vanessa: your resilience, dedication, and passion shines! I’m so impressed with

viii
each of you; I’ve learned so much in this journey and you have all inspired me in many ways.
Thank you also to all my colleagues, friends, and LinkedIn connections who helped me repost
my survey for a wider reach. Your kind gesture has created this opportunity for published
research.
Thank you to my bridesmaids – Ching-Wen Ni, Jenna Garcia, Queenie Lau, Yonnie
Leung, Vanessa Means, and Vanessa Tang -- who have stood by my side through my most
challenging, emotional, and stressful years with encouragement and support. You made my
bridal shower, bachelorette, and wedding day the most special during my doctoral program!
Also, thank you to my friends and colleagues who have constantly checked in on my academic
progress and have been rooting for me on the sidelines! It would be challenging for me to name
all of you. Just know that I appreciate each of you for your patience with me as I’ve juggled
more insurmountable in my personal, professional, and academic life than ever imagined
possible. Lastly, thank you Alice, Ching-Wen, Jeffrey, Peter, and Sylvia for being there for my
commencement, it means the world to me!
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Janine Lee.
Email: me@janinelee.com.

ix
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ...................................................................................................................................... vi
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. xi
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... xii
List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................... xiii
Chapter One: Introduction to the Problem of Practice.................................................................... 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 2
Field Context and Mission .................................................................................................. 4
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions .................................................................... 4
Importance of the Study ...................................................................................................... 5
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology .................................................... 7
Definitions........................................................................................................................... 8
Organization of the Dissertation ......................................................................................... 9
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 10
Workplace SOB and Retention ......................................................................................... 11
WOCT Challenges with Workplace Belonging ................................................................ 15
Current Strategies to Address Lack of Sense of Belonging .............................................. 25
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 32
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 37
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 38
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 38
Overview of Methodology ................................................................................................ 38
The Researcher.................................................................................................................. 41

x
Data Sources ..................................................................................................................... 43
Ethics................................................................................................................................. 54
Chapter Four: Results and Findings .............................................................................................. 56
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 57
Research Question 1: What Levels of Workplace SOB Do Participants Report? ............ 69
Research Question 2: How Does Each Ecological System Impact Workplace SOB
As Reported By WOCT? .................................................................................................. 85
Research Question 3: How Does WOCTs’ Intersectional Identity Impact Their
Workplace SOB And Retention? .................................................................................... 101
Research Question 4: What Recommendations Do WOCT Report to Increase
Workplace SOB? ............................................................................................................ 113
Summary of Results and Findings .................................................................................. 128
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 131
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations....................................................................... 132
Discussion of Findings and Results ................................................................................ 132
Recommendations for Practice ....................................................................................... 138
Implementation Plan ....................................................................................................... 141
Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................................... 149
Implications for Equity and Connection to the Rossier Mission .................................... 152
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 152
References ................................................................................................................................... 154
Appendix A: Survey Questions .................................................................................................. 170
Appendix B: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................. 176

xi
List of Tables
Table 1: Data Sources 41
Table 2: Demographics of WOCT Interview Participants 61
Table 3: WOCT Survey Jean and Pradhan (2018) SOB Scale Index (Question 11) 73
Table 4: WOCT Interview SOB Score 76
Table 5: Survey and Interview: SOB Score Comparisons 78
Table 6: Comparably Work Environment Scores of Select Major Technology Companies 79
Table 7: SOB Score (Question 6) Compared to Years at Current Company (Question 4) 81
Table 8: SOB Score (Question 6) Compared to Ethnicity (Question 1) 82
Table 9: Positive SOB Contributors 88
Table 10: Negative SOB Detractors 96
Table 11: Implementation Plan 144
Table A1: Survey Questions 171
Table A2: Interview Questions 176

xii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Integrative Framework for Belonging 12
Figure 2: Framework of Workplace Acculturation Belonging 13
Figure 3: Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Model 35
Figure 4: Critical Race Theory Overlay with Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Theory 36
Figure 5: WOCT Survey Participant Ethnic Background 58
Figure 6: WOCT Survey Participant Level of Seniority 59
Figure 7: WOCT Survey Participant Years in Industry 60
Figure 8: WOCT Survey Self-Reported SOB Score (Question 6) 72
Figure 9: WOCT Survey Jean and Pradhan (2018) SOB Scale Index (Question 11) 74
Figure 10: WOCT Survey SOB Score Over Time (Question 10) 75
Figure 11: WOCT Survey SOB Contributors (Question 8) 86
Figure 12: WOCT Survey SOB Detractors (Question 9) 94

xiii

List of Abbreviations
CRT Critical Race Theory
CRM Customer Relationship Management
ERG Employee Resource Group(s)
IT Information Technology
POC People of Color
SOB Sense of Belonging
S&E Science & Engineering
STE Science, Technology, Engineering
STEM Science, Technology, Engineering, Math
UX User Experience
WOC Women of Color
WOCT Women of Color in Technology
1

Chapter One: Introduction to the Problem of Practice
Systemic barriers have caused a leaky pipeline for women to join and remain in the U.S.
science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) workforce. A leaky pipeline refers to a
linear metaphor where a fraction of women in a particular discipline decreases at each
educational and career growth stage, surfacing challenges from undergraduate, graduate, first
hire, next job rank, and so forth (Buckles, 2019). Significant gender differences transpire through
the amalgamation of gaps throughout the pipeline and become a persistent problem in the U.S.
(Glass et al., 2013). Although many companies have tried to improve the statistics, the leaky
pipeline remains a long-standing problem with small gains. For example, women comprised 8%
of STEM workers in 1970 compared to 27% in 2019, with men dominating the field at 73%
(Martinez & Christnacht, 2021). Unfortunately, the story is magnified for Women of Color
(WOC); National Science Foundation (2015) shared WOC comprise less than one in 10 of the
STEM workforce. Foundationally, improving the scarcity of the WOC workforce is critical to
meeting the growing demands of STEM jobs and maintaining U.S. global competitiveness.
The most critical element of fixing the leaky pipeline is not solely focusing on WOC
majoring in STEM but exploring the retention of existing WOC in STEM. In fact, the National
Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (2021) emphasized women earn more STEM
degrees than ever before. Within the 2018 Science and Engineering (S&E) degrees awarded,
women acquired 50% bachelor's, 44.7% master's, and 41.2% doctorate degrees (National Center
for Science and Engineering Statistics, 2021). In contrast, only 38% of women who majored in
computer science remain in the technology field, compared to 53% of men (National Center for
Science and Engineering Statistics, 2019). Consequently, the challenge of retaining women in
STEM jobs post-graduation becomes a recurring theme that companies must address.

2

Background of the Problem
Women comprise 27% of STEM professionals in the United States, whereas Women of
Color (WOC) comprise approximately 10% (Martinez & Christnacht, 2021; National Science
Foundation, 2015). The statistics vary depending on the STEM industry and the ethnic group. Of
U.S. employed adults, women comprise 47% but only hold 25% of technology roles (Ashcraft et
al., 2016). Of the 25% of women in technology, Asian women make up 5%, Black women 3%,
and Hispanic women 1%. WOC disparity in STEM, particularly in technology, is a concern, and
companies must take action to retain existing talent.
The highest attrition occurs in the STEM field after the first few years in comparison to
those women who are not in STEM (Women in Tech Network, 2019). Ashcraft et al. (2016)
shared the turnover rate for Science Technology Engineering (STE) women is 41% compared to
17% for men and worsens to 56% for technology. Women in STEM exhibit the lowest retention
rates in professional fields, resulting in the highest exit rates and job dissatisfaction (Glass et al.,
2013; Hunt, 2010; Preston, 2004). In 2008, approximately 52% of STEM women left their jobs,
with 51% leaving the STEM industry and 22% becoming self-employed (Hewlett et al., 2008).
Five years later, the statistics have not changed; women are twice as likely as men to quit their
technology job, with 32% of STE Women likely to quit within a year (Hewlett et al., 2014).
Consequently, WOC who leave the STEM industry are highly unlikely to return. Glass et al.
(2013) confirmed through their study that only 6% of women ever moved back to STEM through
healthcare professions after leaving the field.
The focus on WOC is critical because WOC are the most marginalized in comparison to
White women and often excluded from conversations about gender equality due to complex
intersectional identities (Flores, 2018). WOC in technology (WOCT) report feeling undervalued

3

and are 37.6% less likely than White women to see a long-term future at their company
(Williams, 2021). Williams added WOC are more likely than White women to find challenges
with stark biases in hiring, compensation, performance evaluations, promotion, and network
building.
To remain within the STEM industry, WOC need to feel valued and as if they belong.
Sense of belonging, specifically workplace belongingness, is defined as the degree to which an
individual feels personally accepted, respected, included, and supported by others within an
organizational environment (Cockshaw & Shochet, 2010). Research shows the correlation
between workplace belongingness with a positive climate, peer group interaction, perceived
organizational support, and supervisory relationship to be essential to female retention (Srikumar
& Shalini, 2019). Branham (2012) summarized four fundamental human needs in the workplace:
trust, hope, sense of worth, and feeling competent.
Female technology professionals will experience higher levels of job satisfaction and are
less likely to leave an organization if they are in a positive work environment and organizational
culture (Lemons & Parzinger, 2008). However, 72% of women of color in technology (WOCT)
report working in an uncomfortable, male-dominated work environment with a lack of diverse
representation, deemed as "bro culture" (White, 2021a). In addition, 78% of WOCT report they
have to work harder than their male counterparts to prove their worth (White, 2021a). Glass et al.
(2013) contended isolation to be a critical barrier to belonging, discouraging women from
remaining within the industry. Furthermore, women in STEM experience increased
discrimination and sexual harassment, with 50% of women in STEM reporting discrimination in
contrast to 40% of women in non-STEM roles (Funk & Parker, 2018). As a result, corporations

4

must take action to retain WOC talent, build a psychologically safe environment, and promote a
sense of belonging.
Field Context and Mission
The STEM field employs 13.1 million people in science and engineering-oriented
professions, while the STEM workforce comprises 23% of the U.S. Workforce (Burke et al.,
2021a; Burke et al., 2021b). Historically, the U.S. government has recognized the STEM
workforce shortage; President Obama created opportunities to increase pipeline diversity through
entrepreneurship initiatives since Startup America in 2011 (Nekuda, 2016). In brief, in the next
10 years, the U.S. anticipates an estimated 821,300 new STEM job openings, representing a 9%
increase (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2021). The technology industry makes up 35% of the global
market as of 2021 (Flynn, 2022). In 2021, there were more than 585,000 tech companies in the
U.S. with the Big Four (Amazon, Apple, Google and Facebook) collectively worth $4 trillion
(Flynn, 2022). The study will draw from WOC participants who have worked for or are currently
working for U.S. technology companies.
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The purpose of the study was to explore the lived experiences of WOC at technology
companies (WOCT) with a particular focus on a sense of belonging (SOB) in driving retention
and ultimately, to make practice recommendations. The study explored organizational assets that
have supported the SOB of women of color in technology (WOCT) and barriers to success that
may impact retention. In addition, the study inquired WOCT about their recommendations to
improve systemic challenges within technology companies. Of specific focus was enhancing
workplace SOB, established in organizational research as a significant factor contributing to
retention. The following research questions guided the study:

5

1. What levels of workplace SOB do WOCT report?
2. How does each ecological system impact workplace SOB as reported by WOCT?
3. How does WOCTs’ intersectional identity impact their workplace SOB and retention?
4. What recommendations do WOCT report to increase workplace SOB of WOC in
technology?
Importance of the Study
The study of WOCT and workplace belonging is critical because there currently no
academic studies on this topic. Most academic studies have been focused predominately on
STEM as a broad category, or more specific fields within science, engineering, or math.
Additionally, there is a lack of research on workplace belongingness. Belonging has been a core
topic in research for students, but only recently has begun making traction in the workplace. As
belonging correlates to retention, the primary reasons to study WOC in STEM are due to four
critical areas: the STEM workforce shortage, lack of academic interest of WOC, degrading
company innovation and market share, and retaining U.S. global competitiveness.
First, the retention of WOC in STEM is critical to address because the U.S. will need to
fill 3.5 million STEM jobs by 2025, with 60% going unfilled due to a lack of skilled candidates
and only 5% comprised of WOC (Catalyst, 2017; Recruiting Daily, 2018). The statistics show
the demand in the workforce, but the disparity in supply. Since 1990, STEM jobs have outpaced
the growth of overall employment in the country, growing 79%, while overall employment has
only increased by 34% (Funk & Parker, 2019).
As WOC in STEM depart from the industry, the already underrepresented landscape
activates concerns for future WOC majoring in STEM fields. The observed gender disparity
serves as a cue that shape women's perceptions and best explain a low interest in male-dominated

6

STEM fields (Cheryan & Plaut, 2010). Madera et al. (2019) uncovered the concept of signaling
theory, where women look at the number of women in management at a prospective company to
signal how companies accept women in the workplace. If companies do not retain WOC in
STEM, future WOC generations are likely to continue to lose interest in STEM due to a lack of
role models, further perpetuating the leaky pipeline.
In addition, the lack of gender diversity poses a challenge for companies striving to
acquire market share. Davidson and Burke (2016) emphasized women as the world's most
significant market opportunity, holding the largest purchasing decisions in the household in
several areas. With women in the workforce, companies benefit from higher profits, improved
policies, more robust integration of family values, diversity of new ideas, and increased
commitment to personal and corporate responsibility (Davidson & Burke, 2016). The inability to
solve for STEM attrition will ultimately produce increased gender segregation in the workforce
and simultaneously detriment company profits.
Lastly, Diekman and Benson-Greenwald (2018) emphasized the lack of STEM workforce
supply for the United States to retain its current position at the forefront of science and
technology. The STEM workforce shortage is exacerbated by the long lead time for the existing
pipeline, variability of degree completion, and scarcity in granting degrees to U.S. domestic
students compared to international students, lagging far behind other countries such as China
(National Science Board, 2017). Retention of the existing STEM workforce, particularly WOC,
is essential to meet current demands through the diversity of ideas. The STEM workforce
contributes significantly to improving U.S. living standards, global competitiveness, and
economic growth while simultaneously fueling innovative capacity, which the nation can only
accomplish through a robust and diverse workforce (Burke & Okrent, 2021).

7

In summary, this study supports the goal of achieving gender and racial equity for WOC at
Fortune 500 Tech Companies. The research will benefit WOCT, technology leaders, current
employees, future pipeline, customers, DEI practitioners, the technology industry, and U.S.
society. Retaining WOC in STEM is critical to increase pipeline of WOC majoring in STEM,
retain U.S. global competitiveness, increase innovation and company market share, and
simultaneously resolve the U.S. STEM workforce shortage.
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
The theoretical framework for this dissertation was grounded in Bronfenbrenner and
informed by critical race theory (CRT). The Bronfenbrenner ecological model contended human
development results from multiple systems, factors, and settings that change over time
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979). The theory explored the macrosystem, chronosystem, exosystem,
mesosystem, and microsystems impacting an individual. Because the problem of practice in
which this study is grounded centered around WOCT, the Bronfenbrenner theoretical framework
was appropriate to explore the multiple layers affecting WOCT's decision to leave the STEM
industry. The four major concepts of Bronfenbrenner's theory – proximal processes, person
characteristics, context, and time (PPCT) served as central concepts explored to ensure the
proper application of the model (Tudge et al., 2016).
Furthermore, CRT provided additional context in understanding the layers of complexity
and systemic issues impacting WOCT. Martinez (2014) defined CRT as a theoretical framework
that originated in U.S. law schools to explain power imbalances due to systemic issues of power,
race, and racism. Ladson-Billings (2013) elaborated by stating systemic racism is prevalent in
U.S. Society and embedded within society; furthermore, those who ignore racial differences
perpetuate deep-rooted inequities for people of color. Recognizing these power imbalances

8

affecting WOCT was critical to understanding barriers to achieving a sense of belonging and
unlocking potential solutions to resolving deeply institutionalized injustices in the workplace
(Martinez, 2014). Together, Bronfenbrenner and CRT unlocked the ability to ground research in
theory.
The study implemented mixed methods. The study began with a quantitative assessment
of WOCT's positive contributors to SOB, negative detractors from SOB, and a SOB score.
Following the quantitative analysis, the study progressed to a qualitative interview of WOCT's
lived experiences to understand central themes contributing to their sense of belonging rating.
Creswell and Creswell (2018) recommended a qualitative design when researchers explore a
problem that is best understood by examining a concept or a phenomenon. Qualitative interviews
allowed interpretation of how WOCT constructed their worlds, meaning attributed to
experiences, and an in-depth understanding of how they made sense of their lives (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016).
Definitions
This section will define key terminology central to understanding the dissertation study:
• Retention refers to the percentage of employees remaining in the organization, focusing
on retaining talent (Phillips & Connell, 2003). Companies desire a high degree of
retention for business continuity, return on talent investment, and decreased cost of
hiring. However, when an employee leaves the organization, the opposite of retention is
high turnover (Goldstein et al., 2017).
• Sense of belonging, specifically workplace belongingness, is defined as the degree to
which an individual feels personally accepted, respected, included, and supported by
others within an organizational environment (Cockshaw & Shochet, 2010). Several

9

quantitative psychological SOB scales exist, such as the sense of belonging Instrument-
Psychological (SOBI-P) and Psychological Sense of Organizational Membership Scale
(PSOM) (Goodenow, 1993; Hagerty & Patusky, 1995).
Organization of the Dissertation
Chapter One included the introduction to the problem of practice, context,
and background of the lack of women, particularly WOC, within STEM. The chapter detailed the
importance of the study, research questions, theoretical framework, research methodology, and
key definitions. Chapter Two provides a comprehensive review of literature on critical
components contributing to lack of retention and SOB in the workplace. In addition, Chapter
Two introduces a conceptual framework with vital concepts. Chapter Three shares a mixed-
method research methodology, beginning with quantitative analysis and ending with qualitative
experiences. Chapter Four presents the key results and findings of the research. Lastly, Chapter
Five provides recommendations based on the study's findings to improve SOB and retention for
WOCT.

10

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
The literature review begins with an overview of workplace SOB and why it matters, and
then unveils five core focus areas that provide challenges for WOCT workplace belonging. The
first area starts with examining gender bias and added complexities of racial stereotypes due to
intersectionality. These established biases and stereotypes lead to stereotype threat and code-
switching when WOCT feel they do not belong. The next area explores microaggressions and
how they contribute to an unhealthy, day-to-day environment for WOCT in the workplace. The
literature then explores "The Old Boys Club," also known as "Tech Bro Culture," and the
adverse effects on belonging. Fourth, the literature discusses WOCT's lack of career progression,
resulting in the "Queen Bee Syndrome" effect and companies deploying tokenism. Lastly, the
literature emphasizes the evidence of pay disparity for WOCT, partially attributed to the limited
career progression as formerly discussed.
After discussing the five challenges in WOCT workplace belonging, the literature
examines three current strategies companies are deploying to address the lack of belonging. The
first strategy revolves around providing counterspaces, also known as informal networks, to
provide a safe environment for WOCT. Next, the literature explores support structures for formal
mentorship and sponsorship to alleviate the lack of belonging. And lastly, the literature dives into
how leadership strives to set a positive organizational climate and culture to address belonging
systemic challenges for WOCT.
The final section of the literature review focuses on the Bronfenbrenner theoretical
framework informed by critical race theory (CRT). Both frameworks uncover a lens by which to
tackle the lack of SOB for WOCT. Ultimately, these frameworks inform future research and
shape the core concepts in the conceptual framework.

11

Workplace SOB and Retention
Sense of belonging (SOB) is a fundamental human need with a subjective feeling of deep
connection with social groups, physical places, and individual and collective experiences (Allen
et al., 2021). Many definitions of SOB have focused primarily on social belonging aspects such
social isolation, loneliness, and a lack of connection to others (Allen et al., 2021). Recently, a
person’s dynamic interactions with location, culture, and workplace spawn additional focus areas
for belonging. Workplace belonging is specifically defined as the degree to which an individual
feels personally accepted, respected, included, and supported by others within an organizational
environment (Cockshaw & Shochet, 2010). Coleman (2021) described workplace belonging as
an organizational environment where individuals feel welcomed and operate with accountability
and responsibility for the well-being of one another. A lack of workplace belonging where
employees do not feel accepted or valued at work can be enormously detrimental to
psychological well-being and sense of self, and can impact engagement, motivation and
performance (Waller, 2022).
Workplace belonging does not have a widely adopted theoretical framework, however,
there are several frameworks that are applicable to this study. Allen et al. (2021) proposed an
integrative framework for belonging where belonging is a dynamic feeling and experience that
emerges from four interrelated components of competencies (skills and abilities), opportunities
(enablers and barriers), perceptions (positive or negative experiences), and motivations (inner
drive). These four interrelated components provide additional areas of focus when researching
workplace belonging for WOCT. Figure 1 depicts the integrative framework for belonging by
Allen et al. (2021).

12

Figure 1
Integrative Framework for Belonging

Note. From “Belonging: a review of conceptual issues, an integrative framework, and directions
for future research” by K. Allen, M. L. Kern, C. S. Rozek, D. M. McInerney, G. M. Slavich,
2021, Australian Journal of Psychology, 73,(1), 87-102 (https://doi-
org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1080/00049530.2021.1883409). Copyright 2021 by the Australian
Journal of Psychology.

Additionally, Komisarof (2022) created a framework for workplace belonging and
utilized the specific case of workplace foreigners in Japan to validate the framework. The
workplace acculturation framework emphasizes the understanding of how social inclusion at
multiple levels impact working individuals’ broader intercultural relationships with colleagues,
sense of belonging at work, and latitude to fulfill professional goals (Komisarof, 2018). This
framework provides a perspective of in-group and out-group membership with a focus on the
individual’s subjective sense of membership based on socio-professional relations and
communication dynamics (Komisarof, 2022). Four distinct ontological interpretive spaces (OIS)
are detailed which resemble workplace belonging sentiments and can be similarly utilized as OIS

13

for WOCT based on in-group and out-group memberships. Moreover, the framework re-
emphasizes the importance of positive intercultural relationships, social acceptance, and feeling
empowered to actualize professional skills (Komisarof, 2018). Figure 2 visualizes Komisarof’s
framework for workplace acculturation belonging.

Figure 2
Framework of Workplace Acculturation Belonging

Note. From “A new framework of workplace belonging: Instrument validation and testing
relationships to crucial acculturation outcomes” by A. Komisarof, 2018, Journal of Intercultural
Communication, 21, 15-37. Copyright 2018 by Journal of Intercultural Communication.

14

Similarly, to workplace belonging theoretical frameworks, research shows there are
several methods of measuring SOB, however, there fails to be one widely adopted method. Allen
et al. (2021) agreed there is little consensus regarding how to measure belonging. Several
quantitative SOB scales exist from a psychological perspective, such as the Sense of Belonging
Instrument-Psychological (SOBI-P) and Psychological Sense of Organizational Membership
Scale (PSOM) (Goodenow, 1993; Hagerty & Patusky, 1995). Within the STEM industry, a math
sense of belonging scale was developed to determine belonging within a specific field of study
by assessing membership, acceptance, affect, trust, and desire to fade (Good et al., 2012).
Subsequently, Jena and Pradhan (2018) recognized the need for a workplace belongingness scale
and developed a 12-question workplace belongingness assessment with a 5-point Likert scale
response through extensively analyzing belongingness constructs and expert research. The study
was a first attempt to capture and measure workplace belonging by establishing psychometric
properties and a relatively high level of consistency and validity (Jena & Pradhan, 2018).
However, there are still limitations and future studies required to further validate the scale across
populations. Given individual workplace belonging is challenging to quantify, corporations have
looked at a macro-level signals to determine the importance of SOB.
Workplace belonging is critical for WOCT retention; research findings indicate that lack
of workplace SOB results in negative consequences for corporations, teams, individuals, and
profit. Struggles to belong have been particularly evident in minorities and other historically
marginalized groups (Allen et al., 2021). SOB can be more variable for some than others,
depending on one’s awareness of and perceptions of environmental context and social cues
(Schall et al., 2016). For example, a smile from a coworker could be perceived by a coworker as
a sign of inclusion, while another coworker might interpret the smile as an artificial gesture and a

15

symbol of exclusion (Allen et al., 2021). Research suggests that these types of belonging-related
stressors can result in intense adverse effects for those who identify with outgroups, also known
as minority groups (Walton & Brady, 2017). Ultimately, a lack of workplace belonging is a
crucial factor in a decision for minorities to leave a specific company or industry.
Companies with low workplace SOB will result in decreased employee retention. Phillips
and Connell (2003) defined retention as the percentage of employees remaining in the
organization to retain talent. Companies desire a high degree of retention for business continuity,
return on talent investment, and decreased cost of hiring. Jena and Pradhan (2018) discovered
organizations would benefit through fostering belongingness to promote job satisfaction. To
achieve sustainable competitive advantage, companies recognize they need highly motivated and
committed employees (Jena & Pradhan, 2018). In addition, a diverse workforce and diverse
perspectives improve the bottom line for companies (Waller, 2022). When many employees
leave an organization, the company suffers from high turnover rates, which are terrible for the
business, stakeholders, and team morale (Goldstein et al., 2017).
WOCT Challenges with Workplace Belonging
This section of the literature review explores challenges WOCT face within a corporate
ecosystem, which detract from their workplace SOB, causing them to feel unwelcome,
disrespected, or unincluded. The literature explores five critical areas: biases and stereotypes,
microaggressions, alienation from the Old Boys Club, lack of career progression and tokenism,
and pay inequity. Each area interplays to decrease SOB for WOCT and presents challenges
organizations must overcome.

16

Stereotypes and Biases
Gender biases disadvantage women overall in the workplace. Davidson and Burke (2016)
spoke to deeply rooted socio-cultural traditions and values which stereotype women as maternal
figures. Sex categorization happens automatically when a decision-maker classifies someone as
male or female, activating gender stereotypes and impacting performance evaluations,
opportunities for promotion, and project assignments (Correll, 2017). As a result, employer bias
has segregated women into less profitable industries and roles. Gender segregation transpires
into distinct industries; men are more likely to work in engineering, construction, mining, and
manufacturing, whereas women are more prevalent in human resources, marketing, and public
relations (Davidson & Burke, 2016). These segregations fundamentally contribute to the lack of
WOC in STEM, particularly within technology.
Furthermore, negative consequences occur for women when they differ from the
prototype and standards are violated on how women should behave (Braddy et al., 2020; Correll,
2017). For example, in a study conducted by Braddy et al. (2020), companies penalized women
if they overrated themselves during performance reviews, typically a masculine stereotype,
whereas men are not similarly reprimanded. Additionally, these gendered biases become even
more complex as we introduce added stereotypes due to race for WOCT.
Gender biases provide substantial challenges; however, intersectionality with race adds
another layer of complexity that further divides WOCT. Intersectionality overlaps race, gender,
class, and sexuality (Cole, 2009). WOCT inherently are disadvantaged by gender and race in the
workplace; some WOCT experience additional disadvantages through sexuality and class.
Understanding these intersectional disadvantages are critical to unlocking SOB for WOCT. Page
(2017) emphasized that separately considering the effects of race and gender can obscure

17

discrimination and miss forms of oppression. The complexity of intersectionality highlights how
multiple identities could be operating simultaneously to a person's disadvantage (Cole, 2009;
Ladson-Billings, 2013; Page, 2017).
Likewise, Curtis-Boles (2009) shared that WOC are faced with challenges of both racism
and sexism, coupled with anxiety and uncertainty. Additionally, Gause (2021) contended the
double bind of gender and racial norms creates systemic and institutional barriers. The history of
segregation engrains the United States culture dating back to slavery, inaccessibility to quality
education, and late entry of women into the workforce, driving a historic radical divide for
women of color. This results in themes of invisibility, alienation, and evaluation that provide a
constant battle for WOC to establish credibility, competency, and a sense of belonging in the
workforce (Curtis-Boles, 2009).
Due to the increased complexity of intersectional disadvantages happening
simultaneously, female biases are compounded by racial prejudices, worsening the perception of
WOCT to be influential leaders. Popular culture and the media perpetuate stereotypes of WOC,
creating a heightened sense of group identity (Sanchez-Hucles et al., 2010). For example, Black
women share stereotypes of the "Angry Black Woman" or "laziness" that they mitigate through
overcompensating in all scenarios as dependable, hardworking, and optimistic (Nixon, 2017).
Hall et al. (2012) highlighted other Black stereotypes in their study, including negative biases of
hostility, incompetence, and intellectual inferiority. Asian American women are often
stereotyped as "mail-order brides;" typically perceived as passive, reserved, modest,
hardworking; and not personified as desirable managerial traits. Asian women who strive to
pursue a leadership role through self-promotion and self-assertion become negatively perceived
because this behavior is divergent from their stereotypes (Sanchez-Hucles et al., 2010).

18

Similarly, Chicanas and Latinas also face historical stereotypes about their abilities due to low
socioeconomic, language barriers where English is a second language, and the educational levels
of their immigrant parents (Valenzuela, 2006). As a result, Sanchez-Hucles et al. (2010)
contended that WOC often succumb to pressure to conform to White prototypes of behavior,
mannerisms, and speech to blend in.
In brief, WOCT face a heightened level of scrutiny due to their intersectionality, where
ethnic stereotypes layer on top of their gender biases. The data show that 100% of women in a
recent STEM gender bias study reported encountering one or more of these patterns of gender
bias (Williams et al., 2014). WOCT are very well aware of these biases and stereotypes, causing
stereotype threats to transpire. Casad and Bryant (2016) defined stereotype threat as the fear or
anxiety of confirming a negative stereotype about one's social group (e.g., women are bad at
math). Research has shown that in evaluative situations, these members of stereotyped groups,
typically women or minorities, will experience stereotype threat and perform poorer as a result
(Steele & Aronson, 1995). These stereotype threats also translate beyond the academic evaluative
situations to the workplace. Often, companies subtly communicate White male leadership
capabilities as prototypical business leaders and unintentionally culturally endorse norms to hire
White male leaders. Jones and Carpenter (2014) emphasized that these interactions create signals
to WOC, which decrease self-confidence and could result in underperformance. Focusing on
understanding the types of factors or situations that heighten employees' awareness of
stereotypes, how this awareness influences their work behavior, and whether the elements can be
removed (Jones & Carpenter, 2014). Organizations may be perpetuating stereotype threat and
decreasing SOB in the workplace through hiring, systems, processes, and underlying messages.

19

As a result of these situations, WOCT are well-aware of stereotypes and biases which
transpire in the workplace but grow fatigued from navigating these barriers. For example, many
WOCT protect themselves through code-switching. Gardner-Chloros (2009) defined code-
switching originating as varying combinations of two or more linguistic varieties. Code-
switching in the corporate environment could include altering your outer appearance, speech,
personality, and other factors that might make you "othered." Hall et al. (2012) highlighted
interviews with Black Women who Code-switch to overcome barriers in the workplace by being
“whiter” in their speech, mannerisms, and behaviors. Ultimately, code-switching is an internal
process that chips away from a WOC's sense of self, wholeness, and centeredness (Hall et al.,
2012). As code-switching often becomes well-received by their White counterparts, the corporate
environment further confirms the need for WOCT to alter themselves to fit in if they want to feel
like they belong.
In summary, biases prevalent in the workplace contribute to sex categorization, role and
industry discrimination, and decreased performance ratings. In addition, WOCT face increasing
challenges by simultaneously experiencing gender and race biases due to intersectionality. These
challenges are exacerbated by stereotype threat which leads to underperformance, and code-
switching, which leads to fatigue and decreased self-worth. Consequently, inherent biases present
immense SOB challenges and impact another systemic issue, microaggressions.
Microaggressions
WOCT face microaggressions in the workplace, which prevent an inclusive environment
and diminish their SOB (Estrada et al., 2018; Flores, 2018; Gause, 2021; McKinsey & Company,
2021, Sue et al., 2007). While harassment or discrimination due to someone's gender or race is
easy to identify and socially unacceptable, microaggressions are so subtle and frequently

20

indiscernible that they often occur in the workplace (Flores, 2018). Sue et al. (2007) articulated
that microaggression exchanges are so pervasive and automatic in daily interactions that they are
often dismissed and glossed over as innocent. Microaggressions are everyday slights, snubs, or
insults in a verbal or nonverbal queue that communicates hostile, negative messages, creating
"otherness" and targeting underrepresented people (Gause, 2021). Estrada et al. (2018)
elaborated microaggressions even further to define them as subtle acts of racism, discrimination,
prejudice, hate, and rejection that threaten social inclusion in STEM.
Peer-reviewed research studies display data to show WOC professionals prevalently
experience microaggressions. For example, in a STEM gender bias study, nearly half of Latinas
reported being mistaken for administrative or custodial staff (Williams et al., 2014). In another
study among high-achieving African Americans, three categories of racial microaggressions
emerged: assumption of criminality and being a second-class citizen, underestimation of personal
ability, and racial isolation were revealed and correlated to adverse outcomes including stress,
depressive symptoms, and decreased mental health (Torres et al., 2010). Seventy three percent of
women in the workplace report experiencing microaggressions—or everyday discrimination—
rooted in bias (LeanIn.org, 2019). These harmful interactions, whether intentional or
unintentional, lead to decreased self-confidence, worth, and a lack of sense of belonging. As a
result, Torres et al. (2010) shared many African Americans deployed active coping strategies to
moderate the racial microaggression-perceived stress.
The types of microaggressions vary in severity and impact, fostering different
environments depending on the company, colleagues, manager, and daily experience for
minorities. Sue et al. (2007) expressed three distinct forms of microaggressions: microassault,
microinsult, and microinvalidation (Sue et al., 2007). Microinvalidations are often unconscious

21

and negate psychological thoughts or feelings of a person of color; similarly, microinsults are
unconscious and convey insensitivity to demean a racial heritage or identity (Sue et al., 2007). In
contrast, microassaults are violent verbal or nonverbal attacks through name-calling or
purposeful discriminatory actions (Sue et al., 2007). Regardless of the type of microaggression,
each negative interaction, whether conscious or unconscious, fosters an environment that
decreases sense of belonging.
Furthermore, microaggressions occur at all levels of seniority and positions for WOC.
For example, academic WOC leaders reported experiencing a heightened level of racial
microaggressions rather than overt racism, making these behaviors more challenging to discern
(Gause, 2021). Similarly, WOC university Chief Diversity Officer roles expressed similar
microaggressions in the workplace that invalidated their ideas or presence (Nixon, 2017).
There is a strong correlation between microaggressions and decreased sense of belonging
in the workplace. Sue et al. (2007) contended microaggressions cause psychological dilemmas
for people of color with increased levels of racial anger, mistrust, and loss of self-esteem.
Moreover, racial minorities are challenged with how to respond to the perpetrator as they
maintain they are neutral and not directly attacking the victim in more discernable ways (Bonilla-
Silva, 2006). As a result, WOCT are left defenseless in these situations and often do not say
anything as the minority.
“Old Boys Club”
Due to the history of many men prevalently working in the technology space, company
cultures begin alienating women, particularly WOCT. Seventy two percent of women in
technology report men regularly outnumbering them by a minimum of a 2:1 ratio, with 26% of
women reporting a ratio of 5:1 or more (Sullivan-Hasson, 2021). The notion of an "Old Boys

22

Club" transpires where men become more comfortable working with men and favor male hires
over women (Davidson & Burke, 2016). For that reason, women experience extra scrutiny of
their accomplishments during the hiring process. Correll (2017) shared that female candidates
experience four times more doubt on credentials, grants, and publications than men.
Furthermore, long-standing organizational structure, hierarchy, and culture promote
White males into positions of power. An Old Boys Club creates barriers for WOC to access
informal networks, sponsorship, mentorship, and alliances (Gause, 2021; Nixon, 2017). The Old
Boys Club is also known as a technology "bro culture." "Bro culture" is broadly defined as
anything from an uncomfortable work environment to even sexual harassment and assault
(Sullivan-Hasson, 2021). Unfortunately, WOCT are accustomed to the "bro culture," with 72%
reporting they have worked for a company where this is pervasive, in contrast to 41% of men
who said the same (White, 2021a). A discrepancy in perception materializes as those who are not
negatively affected or in power do not recognize the problems with their culture and systemic
challenges (White, 2021a).
As a result, WOCT inherently face challenges with the "Old Boys Club" and "Bro
Culture" in building their network. The sense of belonging decreases when WOCT do not have
an informal social network to lean on. Alfred et al. (2019) spoke to the notion of "Social Capital"
and the importance of social capital for relationship building, support, networking, and career
advancement for WOC in STEM. Consequently, WOCT feel further alienated in a male-
dominated industry where they have to work harder to prove themselves.
Lack of Career Progression and Tokenism
WOCT lack access to management and executive roles in technology. Despite
representing about 18% of the U.S. population, WOC represented only 4% of C-Level positions

23

in the workplace (McKinsey & Company, 2021). The disparity is consistent within technology
management roles. Although women made up 44.7% of the technology workforce in 2019,
White men held 73.3% of Fortune 500 boardroom executive positions, whereas WOCT
disparagingly held only 3.2% (Alfred et al., 2019; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2020).
Meanwhile, WOCT strive to advance their career and aspire for promotions. Eighty three
percent of Asian women, 80% of Black women, and 76% of Latinas say they want to be
promoted, compared to 75% of men and 68% of White women (LeanIn.org, 2019; McKinsey &
Company, 2021). The disparity can be attributed to a variety of reasons. However, 39% of
women view gender bias as the primary reason (Daley, 2021). The lack of career progression and
the hypothesis of gender bias signal to WOCT that they do not belong, nor will they be rewarded
for their hard work.
This challenge of career advancement for women has been defined as the "glass ceiling."
The "glass ceiling" is defined as an artificial barrier that prevents qualified women from
advancing within their companies into high-ranking positions (Baumgartner & Schneider, 2010).
Furthermore, Baumgartner and Schneider (2010) stated statistics may show more satisfactory
progress at lower levels of an organization but less gain at the top executive levels.
As WOCT encounter significant challenges due to their gender, they face additional
barriers to their career growth due to their race which are challenging to surface. McKinsey and
Company (2021) shared that while 42% of companies check for bias in reviews and promotions
based on gender, only 18% actually track outcomes that compound intersectional biases for race
and gender. Furthermore, Bartol et al. (2003) emphasized the "glass ceiling" for women without
the importance of factoring in ethnic group differences. For example, Hyun (2005) shared an
additional ceiling, the "bamboo ceiling" layer facing Asians in the workplace. The "bamboo

24

ceiling" is defined as a combination of cultural perceptions, organizational challenges, and
individual circumstances that impede the career progression of Asian-American professionals
(Hyun, 2005). Furthermore, Asians made up 27.2% of the professional workforce at top
technology companies; however, they only accounted for 13.9% of top executives (Gee & Peck,
2016). The numbers are less favorable for Asian women, who are the least represented as
technology executives. Amongst 9,254 Asian women (13.5%), only 3.1% were Asian women
executives (Gee & Peck, 2016).
Due to the limited opportunity for women to rise into leadership roles, the "Queen Bee
Syndrome" develops when women become more territorial in their position. Baumgartner and
Schneider (2010) defined the Queen Bee Syndrome's adverse effects where high-ranking women
refrain from helping other women, treating them even more critically than their male peers. In
addition, women refrain from assisting other women because they fear losing their position,
further exacerbating the glass ceiling.
As more companies have been under scrutiny for their lack of diversity, tokenism has
become prevalent in major companies that want to appear equitable and to perceive they have
made progress in the workplace. Madera et al. (2019) defined tokenism as when companies give
"token" roles to individuals, in this case, WOC, to represent their organization. Although tokens
provide the appearance of progress, these roles are genuinely powerless and marginalizing
(Baumgartner & Schneider, 2010).
Pay Inequity
Although more women have joined the technology workforce, the pay gap inequity is still
a significant challenge. According to the U.S. Census, women are strongly disenfranchised in the
workplace, earning only 80 cents for every dollar men make (U.S. Census, 2017). Unfortunately,

25

these statistics are only average; the wage gap is even more disparate in STEM and Technology.
WOC experience the most significant wage gap than their White male or female counterparts for
the same roles (Hired.com, 2020). While White women were paid 7% less than their White male
counterparts, Hispanic women were paid 8% less, and Black women were paid 11% less on
average (Hired.com, 2020). The pay gap is partially attributed to the lack of female
representation in management roles, lack of negotiation skills, and imposter syndrome.
Wage gaps detriment a sense of belonging, signaling WOC that they are worth less than
their White male counterparts. Hired.com (2020) reported that 54% of women knew they were
paid less than their male colleagues for the same job compared to 19% of men who experienced
the same dynamic. Inequitable pay for similar talent fosters an uncomfortable working
environment for WOCT and sends signals for future hires. Broyles (2009) shared that there will
be limited success in recruiting women in STEM if a substantial wage gap exists. Women will
remain concentrated in lower-paying occupations such as education, social services, and nursing
(Wilson et al., 2018). Inequities in pay structure also result in negative press coverage, reduced
brand loyalty, and degraded company image for technology companies. Overwhelmingly 84% of
women shared negative publicity on a company's gender pay gap would adversely impact their
interest in working for that company (Hired.com, 2020).
Current Strategies to Address Lack of Sense of Belonging
Technology companies acknowledge they need to foster an inclusive environment and a
sense of belonging to retain top talent. Most companies have recently hired Chief Diversity
Officers (CDOs) to implement critical initiatives, training, and various programs to drive change.
Paikeday (2019) shared approximately 47% of S&P 500 index companies currently have a chief
CDO or equivalent, with 63% being appointed or promoted in the last three years. The literature

26

explores three crucial areas: network development, mentorship and sponsorship, and
organizational culture, which encompass current strategies companies utilize to address the lack
of SOB. However, the effectiveness of these programs and the extent to which technology
companies have implemented them is debatable. Therefore, this literature review will explore
current strategies and research to tackle the lack of belonging.
Provision of Counterspaces and Informal Network Development
Various companies have begun creating proper counterspaces in their work to promote a
sense of belonging and solve the complexity of the inequity faced by WOCT. Counterspaces are
conceptual or ideological, physical settings promoting the psychological well-being of
individuals who experience oppression (Case & Hunter, 2012; Ong et al., 2018). In the study,
Ong et al. (2018) shared five distinct types of academic counterspaces that assisted WOC in
continuing their STEM higher education which also translates accordingly in the corporate
setting: peer-to-peer relationships, mentoring relationships, national STEM diversity
conferences, campus student groups, and campus departments. These peer-to-peer relationships
foster a sense of empathy, security, psychological safety, and shared community (Case & Hunter,
2012).
Many companies have created formal Employee Resource Groups (ERGs) or Allyship
groups to create a counterspace allowing WOCT informal network opportunities. Alfred et al.
(2019) emphasized the importance of implementing ERGs that contribute to fundamental
organizational objectives. This counterspace creates social support with others who can
empathize with their experiences, decreases the feeling of isolation, increases a shared sense of
security for their identity, opens up a dialogue on confronting oppression, and mitigates distress
and psychological implications of oppression (Case & Hunter, 2012). Some additional benefits

27

include retaining employees, cultivating leadership talent, outreach, recruitment, and developing
social capital whereby women will have access to networks. In addition, ERGs provide equitable
access to available resources, training, and peer support typically offered to privileged majority
groups (Alfred et al., 2019). However, ERGs can only be successful with the time, commitment,
resources, and sponsors a company invests. Therefore, ERGs should not be 100% volunteer-run
and require extensive executive sponsorship (Montilla, 2020). This increased social capital for
WOCT begins the critical journey to employee development and success for this marginalized
group.
WOCT benefit companies who get insights to lay the groundwork for their global
diversity and inclusion strategies and retain existing talent. For example, Diversity Best Practices
(2011) spoke to the correlation between case studies of investment in ERGs to company profit,
highlighting Ford Motor Company's partnership with 11 ERGs in the past ten years to solicit
customer feedback. Since the program's inception in 2004, total car sales have reached $80
million (Diversity Best Practices, 2011).
Having a sense of community and unlocking opportunities for WOCT to build their
informal network could be the first step in addressing the problem. A person's network is their
net worth (Gale, 2013). Interacting with colleagues and establishing positive relationships
derives social capital for WOC (Sanchez-Hucles et al., 2010). Building this robust network and
community will help alleviate the marginalization; however, mentoring is a higher level of social
capital which we will explore next.
Support Structures for Mentorship and Sponsorship
Many technology companies have invested in corporate mentorship programs to foster a
SOB for WOCT, but fewer have invested in sponsorship programs. Builtin.com (n.d.) published

28

685 technology companies with mentorship programs. Mentorship and sponsorship are proven to
advance career goals; the main difference is that mentorship provides advice and feedback,
whereas sponsorship has someone who directly advocates for you because they believe in your
ability and potential (Omadeke, 2021). As a result, women expressed the need for more
mentorship and sponsorship as the second most important issue raised in a recent workplace
study (McKinsey & Company, 2021). While both are valuable to increasing SOB for WOCT,
sponsorship is extremely rare and more impactful. The literature will first explore mentorship as
a company strategy and then the importance of sponsorship.
Mentorship as a common strategy is critical to WOC's success in STEM. WOC need
mentors to remove barriers to career advancement and support their career journey (Curtis-Boles,
2009; Gause, 2021; Ong et al., 2011). As early as college, Ong et al. (2011) attested to the
importance of having a mentor for WOC, particularly in careers where WOC are
underrepresented, such as STEM. In addition, these challenging transitions from college to
graduate school, including finding funding, assimilating to a social climate, learning how to
influence faculty, and creating a graduate network, are all essential areas a mentor can help with
(Ong et al., 2011). Furthermore, mentors in the workplace are a vital resource for facilitating
professional development and can serve multiple functions, including guidance, support,
sponsorship, coaching, encouragement, connectedness, and confirmation (Curtis-Boles, 2009).
Both schools and workplaces can create nurturing environments that embrace identities and
ensure culturally competent mentoring (Kachchaf et al., 2015).
There is a vast difference in WOCT’s lived experience and sense of belonging when they
have a mentor. WOC who lack developmental relationships, such as mentoring and informal
peer networks, are vulnerable to discrimination and harassment, further exacerbating the

29

organization's culture (Buzzanell et al., 2015). Creating an avenue of support helps combat the
challenges of isolation, tokenism, and stereotype threat, which could be a critical factor in
accomplishing career goals, retention, and advancement for WOC (Casad & Bryant, 2016;
Kachchaf et al., 2015). Unfortunately, mentorship is not often offered to WOC readily; these
opportunities occur with explicit solicitation and asking of others compared to their White male
counterparts (Gause, 2021). Pace (2018) agreed that women who successfully attained mentors
needed to take the initiative across identities and up, down, and across their company to cultivate
relationships.
Most importantly, structured, strategic, and culturally competent mentoring must be
deployed within an organization to succeed in addressing belonging. Alfred et al. (2019) argued
systemic inequity for mentoring WOC exists. In a study conducted by Buzzanell et al. (2015),
WOC in STEM attested that their experience with mentoring lacked discussions about career
development or support. Instead, mentors focused the discussions on performance evaluation,
apprenticeship, and even intellectual property theft, further alienating them (Buzzanell et al.,
2015). Companies must provide resources to create culturally competent and structured
mentoring to drive outcomes on career progression. Strategic mentoring exists when corporations
are looking to make lasting and meaningful changes to transform their corporate culture;
mentoring must be intentionally facilitated and supported by the company to be successful
(Alfred et al., 2019).
With successful mentorship, WOCT benefit from receiving the coaching and access to
the network they need to advance their careers. When an organization's values and goals are
aligned in partnership with mentors, it can be critical to changing the workplace's demographic
composition and disrupting the inequity within the organization (Alfred et al., 2019). In addition,

30

the mentor highlights their community contributions to drive more equitable outcomes, and the
company benefits by having more WOCT in leadership roles. Furthermore, the mentor begins
learning about the realities faced by WOC and becomes more self-aware of workplace biases and
systemic issues in the workplace (Pace, 2018).
More beneficial than mentorship is sponsorship for WOCT career advancement. In a
recent workplace study, an average of 86% of STEM women reported lack of sponsorship as the
biggest challenge for retention, career advancement, and sense of belonging (Ashcraft et al.,
2016). Sponsorship is defined as senior leaders who sponsor a protégé and invest in their success
by giving them exposure to other executives, considering them for promising opportunities,
fighting for their promotion, and protecting their protégé from any negative publicity (Ibarra et
al., 2010). Contrary to mentors, sponsors advocate for their protégé or sponsee's career
advancement, often championing their ideas, cultural background, and job opportunities (Dozier
& Meiksin, 2019). Leaders draw their power, network, resources, social capital, and influence to
advocate, recommend, and protect their proteges with their power and influence (De Vries &
Binns, 2018). As a result, WOCT who can secure a dependable sponsor can advance within their
careers quickly. Contrastingly, sponsorship can also disadvantage WOCT when company
executives choose only to sponsor White men in the Old Boys Club. These targeted sponsorships
can be utilized as a mechanism in patriarchal reproduction as it reproduces males occupying
positions of power through reinforcing ties between men (O'Conner et al., 2020). For example,
O'Connor et al. conducted a study in STEM higher education institutions that revealed men's
invisible advantage where men were more likely to receive sponsorship than women and had
more access to senior staff. Both mentorship and sponsorship programs can be powerful catalysts

31

to offset the lack of SOB by providing someone who genuinely cares for the mentee/protégé,
gives career advice, and expresses empathy for their workplace experiences.

Setting a Positive Organizational Culture and Climate
Work environments can positively impact a sense of belonging or intensify negative
experiences. Researchers have linked the importance between an employee and organizational
culture through empirical evidence (Lemons & Parzinger, 2008). Leadership, in particular, has an
ethical responsibility to foster and create a positive work environment (Alfred et al., 2019).
However, companies must cultivate a work culture over time to introduce psychological safety
and allow employees to talk openly. Women in technology experience higher levels of job
satisfaction when an organizational climate is healthy with affiliation and involvement than with
competition and work pressure (Lemons & Parzinger, 2008).
Many technology companies have fundamentally implemented visions, values, mission
statements, and other organizational infrastructure to set a positive culture to drive a sense of
belonging. For example, Microsoft released a five-year plan on racial inequity for the Black
community and other historically marginalized groups by investing an additional $150 million
into DEI efforts; they strive to double the number of Black managers, senior individual
contributors, and senior leaders by 2025 (White, 2021b). Diekman and Benson-Greenwald
(2018) spoke to the importance of goal congruity, where an individual’s role should align with
their valued goals, such as communal goals. Furthermore, corporate DEI scorecards are utilized
to drive institutional accountability, similar to academic equity scorecards used to measure equity
concerning educational outcomes for traditionally marginalized students (Harris III & Bensimon,
2007). Some organizations have implemented Multicultural Organizational Development

32

(MCOD) change models to foster organizational shifts. The MCOD change model is utilized as a
diagnostic assessment tool to measure mission, structure, policies, informal systems,
relationships, leadership, environment, technology, and language use to transition organizations
from monocultural to multicultural (Holvino, 2008). Regardless of the model utilized, these
scorecards and assessment frameworks have been helpful to corporations in setting baselines and
monitoring progress towards organizational DEI goals.
In addition to organizational infrastructure, companies tactically implement DEI
initiatives and programs to foster cultural changes to support their broader strategy. Technology
companies have implemented various programs such as talent pipeline building, diversity hiring
efforts, DEI training, and career progression programs. Roberts and Mayo (2019) spoke to some
of the gaps in traditional DEI programs due to lack of C-suite support, siloed implementation in
HR departments, the burden placed on underrepresented employees to implement, broad-brush
approaches to diversity, preemptive training, and limited impact to advancement. In brief, DEI
initiatives and programs may or may not affect the organizational culture and climate, depending
on how effectively they are launched and how honestly they are measured.
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework for exploring the construct of workplace SOB for WOCT was
grounded in Bronfenbrenner’s ecological framework and critical race theory (CRT). The
Bronfenbrenner ecological framework contended that human development results from multiple
systems and settings that change over time and a multitude of factors (Bronfenbrenner, 1979).
Gardiner and Kosmitzki (2008) emphasized the focal point of Bronfenbrenner’s theory is the
declaration that human beings create the environments in which they live, and reciprocally those
environments shape their development. An individual is in the center of the framework,

33

surrounded by the macrosystem, chronosystem, exosystem, mesosystem, and microsystems that
impact them. First, the macrosystem explores attitudes and ideologies of the culture, whereas the
chronosystem is a pattern of environmental events through sociohistorical conditions. Next, the
exosystem refers to events that may indirectly affect the individual. The mesosystem is a broader
interrelation among multiple settings of participation, and the microsystem is one in which a
given individual has particular experience with interpersonal interactions (Bronfenbrenner,
1979). The model views behavior and development as a shared function of the individual,
environment, and present surroundings integrated with larger historical and societal contexts
(Gardiner & Kosmitzki, 2008).
This dissertation focused specifically on the original Bronfenbrenner ecological
theoretical framework, although Bronfenbrenner's model has evolved over the last 30 years.
Rosa and Tudge (2013) shared the evolution of Bronfenbrenner's ecological model in Phase 1
(1973-2006) on ecological contexts, to Phase 2 (1980-1993) focused on the individual
development process, and lastly to Phase 3 (1993-2006) with proximal processes at the heart of
bioecological theories. More recent iterations of Bronfenbrenner's theoretical framework have
been renamed the Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model, which emphasizes a child’s biology as
a critical environmental factor affecting development along with environment and time
(Bronfenbrenner, 2005; Bronfenbrenner & Evans, 2000; Gardiner, & Kosmitzki, 2008).
Although mature, the Bronfenbrenner Bioecological model is less applicable to the problem of
practice.
Bronfenbrenner's original ecological model allowed examination of the problem of
practice by uncovering various systems contributing to WOCT's lack of sense of belonging in the
workplace. Gardiner and Kosmitzki (2008) emphasized the individual’s perception of the

34

environment is often more important than the “objective reality.” As mentioned previously,
Alfred et al. (2019) spoke to the notion of "social capital" and the importance of social capital for
relationship building, support, networking, and career advancement for WOC in STEM.
Companies are employing these solutions through counterspaces, building a mesosystem that can
combat WOCT's challenges. In addition, microsystem pressures pose challenges that intertwine
macrosystem ideals. For example, WOC's familial upbringing and cultural backgrounds
discourage a career in STEM with female traditions of getting married, raising a family, and
providing childcare (Ong et al., 2011).
Lastly, stereotypes in the exosystem are significant barriers for WOCT. Sanchez-Hucles
et al. (2010) spoke to the disadvantages WOC face due to stereotypes that perceive them as
ineffective leaders. The exosystem impacts the mesosystem and can lead to an environment of
workplace colleagues enacting behaviors that do not drive a sense of belonging for WOCT. As
such, Bronfenbrenner emphasized the individual to be dynamic and evolving, where individuals
may restructure the many environments with which they come into contact; interactions are two-
directional and characterized by reciprocity (Gardiner & Kosmitzki, 2008). Figure 3 depicts
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model with WOC in STEM at the center of the model.

35

Figure 3
Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Model

While the Bronfenbrenner ecological theory provides a lens to view the problem of
practice, critical race theory (CRT) built upon the theoretical model and provides additional
insights. CRT speaks to racism as a systemic issue within the U.S. exacerbated by the layers of
intersectionality (Ladson-Billings, 2013). Recognizing these power imbalances affecting WOCT
is critical to unlocking potential solutions to resolving deeply institutionalized injustices
(Martinez, 2014). Critical race theory (CRT) believes systemic racism is prevalent in U.S.
society and is embedded within society (Ladson-Billings, 2013). Martinez (2014) took this
argument further by stating that color blindness and ignoring racial differences perpetuate deep-
rooted inequities for people of color. Race has been a social construct that has detrimentally
contributed to the disparities in WOC career advancement (Ladson-Billings, 2013). Treviño

36

(2008) emphasized how these social constructs constrain and control people of color through
tactics such as microaggressions. Those who believe racism does not exist contributes to the lack
of action on workplace inequity (Ladson-Billings, 2013; Martinez, 2014).
WOCT experience conflict with cultural upbringing, microaggressions, isolation, racial
identification, stereotyping, tokenism, and other substantial challenges resulting in their lack of
belonging. CRT views institutional and structural racism as the ongoing source of inequity;
institutions should look inward at policies and practices that perpetuate injustice (Estrada et al.,
2018). The Old Boy’s Club, Tech Bro Culture, pay inequity, lack of career progression, and the
glass ceiling are all forms of institutional and structural racism in the technology industry.
Focusing Bronfenbrenner’s theoretical framework in the context of racialized experience allowed
for a more focused set of solutions which may address the root causes of systemic problems in
the workplace. Figure 4 overlays CRT with the Bronfenbrenner ecological theory previously
visualized in Figure 3.

Figure 4
Critical Race Theory Overlay with Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Theory

37

Conclusion
This literature review explored three primary areas regarding WOCT's sense of
belonging. First, the literature reviewed potential focal points attributing to a decreased sense of
belonging. As discussed, WOCT face challenges such as stereotypes and biases,
microaggressions, the Old Boys Club, lack of career progression, tokenism, and pay inequity.
These challenges contribute to a workplace lacking psychological safety, inclusiveness, and
belonging. Next, the literature reviewed strategies corporations may be undertaking to address
the problem of practice. Current strategies include the provision of counterspaces and informal
networks such as Employee Resource Groups (ERGs). In addition, some companies are
providing support structures for mentorship and sponsorship and fostering cultural changes
through DEI programming. Lastly, the literature review discussed the Bronfenbrenner Ecological
framework informed by Critical Race Theory (CRT) to conceptualize different challenges
impacting WOCT. Key concepts interplay in the Conceptual Framework to create feelings of
anxiety, uncertainty, hopelessness, “otherness,” marginalization, powerlessness, and inadequacy.
To foster inclusion, equity, and a sense of belonging in the workplace, companies must address
the challenge of WOCT workplace belonging to prevent current WOCT talent from departing the
technology workforce and simultaneously attract future WOCT talent.

38

Chapter Three: Methodology
The methodology for this research study was a mixed methods study with both
quantitative and qualitative research. This chapter includes the research questions, methodology,
researcher positionality, data sources, data analysis, and ethical considerations. The purpose of
this study was to explore the experiences of WOC at technology companies (WOCT) with a
particular focus on workplace sense of belonging (SOB) in driving retention and making practice
recommendations. The following section outlined the research questions about SOB,
emphasizing Bronfenbrenner's ecological theory and critical race theory (CRT). Grant and
Osanloo (2016) highlighted that the theoretical framework lays the foundation for the research
study by which all knowledge is constructed for methods and analysis.
Research Questions
1. What levels of workplace SOB do WOCT report?
2. How does each ecological system impact workplace SOB as reported by WOCT?
3. How does WOCTs’ intersectional identity impact their workplace SOB and retention?
4. What recommendations do WOCT report to increase workplace SOB of WOC in
technology?
Overview of Methodology
The methodological design for this study was a mixed methods study utilizing a
quantitative survey and then diving in deeper with qualitative semi-structured interviews to
further elaborate on the research questions. The design provided the intermixing method where
two or more data collection methods were used; the intermixing method provided a strengthened
approach to provide multiple sources of evidence (Johnson & Christensen, 2015). The first
research method utilized a quantitative survey, which uncovered general sentiments on SOB

39

levels reported by WOCT, along with varying factors that may impact SOB, such as ethnicity,
role, tenure, and other ecological factors. Surveys, also known as questionnaires, are self-
reported data instruments each research participant fills out (Johnson & Christensen, 2015).
Surveys are ideal for capturing respondents’ attributes, such as sentiments, feelings, and
opinions, which are not already available in existing data sources (Robinson & Leonard, 2019).
The survey indicated how ecological systems interplay at a high level and provide insights on
purposeful sampling for the interview. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) described the value of
surveys to determine how variables are distributed across a population or a phenomenon.
Additionally, surveys describe facts and characteristics between events and phenomena to better
predict the causes of similar events in the future (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
The second method of research leveraged qualitative interviews. Interviews are a data
collection method in which an interviewer asks questions of interviewees (Johnson &
Christensen, 2015). Creswell and Creswell (2018) recommended a qualitative design when
exploring a research problem that can be best understood by studying a concept or a
phenomenon. The qualitative interview allowed an opportunity to obtain in-depth information
about the participants’ thoughts, beliefs, knowledge, reasoning, motivations, and opinions about
SOB in the technology workspace (Johnson & Christensen, 2015). The qualitative research
problem was an immature concept due to a lack of previous research; therefore, a qualitative
need existed to explore WOCT in detail (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The inquiry strategy
leveraged interviews to build patterns, categories, and themes to understand the core research
questions above (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The participants were purposefully selected to be
WOCT from various ethnic backgrounds within the technology industry. The quantitative survey
research allowed the opportunity for potential candidates who may be willing to share more

40

information in an interview setting. When WOCT expressed their interest, they were also asked
to share their ethnic background so that purposeful sampling could occur. In addition, the survey
allowed the opportunity to uncover themes before conducting interviews to shape any focus
areas that are driving the detraction of SOB and brainstorm recommendations. Table 1 shows
each research question outlined according to the research method.

41

Table 1
Data Sources
Research questions Survey Interview
RQ1: What levels of workplace SOB do
WOCT report?
X X
RQ2: How does each ecological system
impact workplace SOB as reported by
WOCT?
X X
RQ3: How does WOCTs’ intersectional
identity impact their workplace SOB and
retention?
X
RQ4: What recommendations do WOCT
report to increase workplace SOB of WOC
in technology?
X

The Researcher
As an Asian-American woman in technology, I resonate deeply with WOCT's challenges
in lacking a sense of belonging. My positioning helps me understand the problem by factoring in
the oppression, lack of power, and privilege many WOCT face at work. I also recognize the
systemic impacts of family, culture, and lack of access to education and network contribute to
the problem. My relationship with the participants is that we are in the same industry and may
have mutual contacts. My connection to the setting fosters a safe environment by relating to
WOCT as part of the population.
Despite the advantages of this positionality, I may not have seen or understood the unique
challenges each ethnic group faces as a WOCT and may have been biased toward my experience
as Asian American. Although some challenges are similar, WOCT inherently experience

42

different challenges depending on their ethnic background, and I cannot make assumptions. I am
not Black, Hispanic, or Indigenous, and those identities may carry additional cultural barriers,
oppression, or lack of access that contribute to the decreased sense of belonging. My
assumptions and biases may be that WOCT experience a sense of belonging similar to my
experience. To mitigate this, I intentionally sampled from various WOCT from different ethnic
backgrounds so that there were diverse voices, not just one background. In addition, the data
collection was focused on accuracy through the interviews and the additional checks through the
recording and participant member check.
My theory of change (TOC) uncovered underlying assumptions and preconditions from
point A to point B through a sequence of outcomes to achieve the long-term goal, which
informed practices and policy (Hinga, n.d.). My point A current state was where WOCT do not
feel a sense of belonging in the Fortune 500 technology workplace to a point B future state
where WOCT feel like they belong and stay within the industry. The assumptions in my
definition were that the problem(s) can be fixed and that potential solutions exist to advance
WOCT from point A to point B. The research contributed to the conversation by providing the
most significant contributing factors and possible solutions to fix the problem. My assumptions
in the study were that participants were honest and opened up to me about their personal
experiences, shared barriers they have encountered, and brainstormed potential solutions.
Researchers must factor in epistemological factors of historical explanation, and social
constructions of facts while recognizing axiological biases of world views, cultural experience,
and upbringing (Saunders, 2019). Potential assumptions and biases were mitigated by
minimizing my upbringing and cultural experience in the study and focusing more on the factors
of historical explanation, facts, and world views. The worldview I most closely aligned with

43

when tackling this topic was the critical transformative paradigm. The critical transformative
worldview focused on discrimination, social justice, power struggles, and oppression for
marginalized individuals (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The critical transformative paradigm
looked beyond 'empirical' observed events to the 'actual' that may or may not be observed and
dig deeper into the 'real' structures and mechanisms that exist (Bhaskar, 2008). This paradigm
affirmed my experiences related to historically situated power and steered my research
techniques to focus on investigator and participant dialogue. Through qualitative research, I
unlocked common themes that WOCT were experiencing rather than my personal experiences,
potential biases, or assumptions.
Data Sources
Two primary data sources were leveraged for this study. The first mechanism was a
quantitative survey, and the second mechanism was qualitative interviews. Leveraging both data
sources allowed for triangulation by combining two methods, supporting this study's credibility
and internal validity (Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Survey
The survey followed the design thinking approach to survey design through empathizing,
understanding, brainstorming, prototyping, and testing (Robinson & Leonard, 2019). The
instrumentation method was conducted online through Qualtrics to gather anonymous
information. The survey provided an overview of the study, what the research will be used for,
and additional contact information for questions regarding the survey. In addition, there was a
pre-qualifying question to ask participants if they were a WOCT before being admitted into the
survey population.

44

Participants
The target population for the quantitative survey study were WOC in technology
(WOCT). Pazzaglia et al. (2016) defined the target population as the entire group the researcher
wants to infer findings based on the survey results. The problem of practice (PoP) was focused
on WOCT which is why they were the appropriate target audience for the research questions and
study focus. Unfortunately, this population was exceptionally challenging to calculate. As a
high-level estimate, Howarth (2022) extrapolated current statistics to show approximately 79,163
WOCT across a sample of 552,751 technology employees.
Although random sampling was ideal, I conducted purposeful sampling due to time and
budget limitations. Random sampling was an ideal selection process in which each individual in
the population had an equal probability of being selected (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). To
achieve random sampling, I needed to conduct outreach to the entire WOCT community and
retrieving such a consolidated list was impossible. Instead, purposeful sampling attempted to
select a typical sample representative of the population to the best of the researcher’s knowledge
(Pazzaglia et al., 2016). Compelling invitations were short, direct, and expressed the most
important information for the respondent to make an informed decision on participation
(Robinson & Leonard, 2019).
To have a targeted approach for recruitment outreach and reach the accessible population,
I recruited and sampled participants by reaching out to WOCT Facebook groups, LinkedIn
groups, non-profit, and professional associations. For example, the WOCT Silicon Valley group
had 2,000 members, and the WOC in Technology LinkedIn group has 24,480 members. The
hypothesis was that through this outreach, participants would enroll, and these populations would
be similar in representation to a random sample of the broader WOCT community. The target

45

sample size was determined based on the balance between accuracy and the time-consuming cost
of recruiting participants (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Based on an assumption of an outreach to
the largest volume community group of 25,000 members, I selected 5% of the sample size due to
the small number of potential participants as an aspirational target of 1,250. This sample size
allowed for a 2.5% margin of error (Pazzaglia et al., 2016). However, a more realistic sample
size of 370 allowed for a 5% margin of error with a goal of a probability sampling design to
extrapolate sentiments of the larger WOCT population (Pazzaglia et al., 2016). The goal was to
have a similar ethnic breakdown as the current WOCT population. Based on the research, Asian
women made up approximately 50%, Black women made up approximately 30%, Hispanic
women made up 10%, and other ethnicities made up 10% (Ashcraft et al., 2016). As the
researcher, I monitored diversity across ethnic groups during the study and adjusted outreach
accordingly. For example, when there was a lack of Latina participants, I did a secondary level
of outreach to the Latina in Tech networking groups.
Instrumentation
The instrument for collecting data was an online survey through Qualtrics. Questions
were written and designed for the respondents instead of making analysis easy (Robinson &
Leonard, 2019). To leverage existing workplace belongingness scales with a high level of
consistency and validity, the survey utilized several questions from the Jena and Pradhan (2018)
workplace belongingness scale to analyze belongingness constructs through utilizing a 5-point
Likert scale response. The survey instrument is presented in Appendix A. The online survey
began with some demographic information (Q1-5) to understand the participant’s background.
Then, the survey quantified the participant’s existing sense of belonging in the industry, whether
it has increased or decreased, the most significant contributors, the largest detractors, and five

46

sentiment statements on an agree or disagree Likert scale which impact belonging (Q6-11). Next,
the survey attempted to correlate retention to SOB, uncovering the importance of SOB to the
participant as it relates to retention and impacts their interest in staying within the industry (Q12-
14).
The questions provided a quantitative assessment of the current state of SOB for WOCT
and address RQ 1 on how ecological systems interplay to impact SOB. The survey explored and
probed common themes such as managers, peers, promotion, and other ecological systems that
may be contributors or detractors. Each component was a part of the Bronfenbrenner ecological
system. In addition, the demographic information provided an understanding of ethnicity as it
relates to Critical Race Theory and potentially systemic issues that specific ethnic groups may
face in common themes.
Data Collection Procedures
The data collection procedures' first goal was to illuminate information within the data
according to the theoretical framework (Grant & Osanloo, 2016). Furthermore, the overarching
data collection procedures continued to respect ethical considerations at the highest levels of
integrity. Standardized procedures allowed for objectivity in questions and answers (Morgan,
2014). Creswell and Creswell (2018) emphasized the importance of disrupting as little as
possible, ensuring all participants receive the benefits, avoiding deceiving participants,
respecting potential power imbalances, avoiding exploitation of participants, and refraining from
collecting harmful information. The logistical procedure began with sending the survey for peer
reviews to ensure accuracy before being sent to actual participants. Once peer reviews were
completed, final participants were targeted via Facebook groups, LinkedIn groups, non-profits,
and professional associations. The outreach had a flyer, detailed communications linking to the

47

survey, the targeted demographics, what the information would be used for, and the benefits of
participating. I raffled one $100 Amazon gift card as a thank you to the participants. Once the
communications plan was in effect, I left the survey open for approximately 3 weeks to see how
many respondents I received. After two weeks, I reminded the various outlets of the 1week
deadline and the raffle prize. I tracked and monitored the survey respondent demographics were
similar to the researched demographical breakdown of WOCT. If I need to increase traction in
one particular group, I outreached to specific ethnic affiliate groups for those WOCT.
The survey was collected via Qualtrics, and only I, as the researcher, had access to the
results. The survey was anonymous, so I did not collect the participants’ names or email
addresses. A subsequent section after completion of the survey directed the participants to a
separate link to express interest in the qualitative interview to prevent tying participant
identification to responses. The data collected was stored in Qualtrics and password protected
through my USC login. A copy of the results of Qualtrics were exported to my personal drive,
which is password protected in case there are any issues retrieving data or if the Qualtrics system
encounters issues. In terms of frequency, a backup of the results was run every 24 hours on my
computer.
Data Analysis
Robinson and Leonard (2019) emphasized the importance of valuable data and stress
there is no point in collecting information if it cannot be analyzed. For the survey, the data was
administered in Qualtrics and exported into a spreadsheet for descriptive analysis. Descriptive
analysis indicated the means, standard deviations, and range of scores for all the variables in the
study (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The spreadsheet allowed flexibility for multiple charts and
graphs to determine trends of each of the answers to the questions in aggregate. The data analysis

48

enabled an emerging quantitative index on SOB for WOCT, along with critical themes on SOB
contributors and detractors. The data showed the severity of WOCT considering leaving their
industry and company. In summary, the quantitative data analysis provided a numerical pulse
check on WOCT SOB and unlocks key focus themes for the qualitative interview.
Reliability and Validity
The reliability of a survey is defined as the consistency or repeatability of the survey
instrument (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The logistical procedure began with sending for peer
reviews to ensure accuracy and consistency before being sent to actual participants. I promoted
survey reliability by outlining standard definitions, such as SOB, retention, and putting controls,
such as multiple-choice options, in place to complete key questions. The same questions were
utilized for each survey participant with no differentiation in survey questions, responses, and
required questions. In addition, pretesting the survey allowed for an assessment of survey
reliability by assessing whether survey questions were answered consistently (Robinson &
Leonard, 2019). External reliability was held by documenting the survey setup so other
researchers can reproduce the same study method, sample, and questions.
Validity measures whether the researcher can draw meaningful and useful inferences
from the survey instrument (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Survey validity was maximized by
ensuring a sizeable random representative sample. The initial analysis determined a suitable
sample size with a low error rate above, ensuring the estimated participation rate was
representative of the larger population. The survey tested all the RQ concepts to allow myself to
infer the relationship between the variables. In addition, the survey leveraged the Jena and
Pradhan (2018) workplace belongingness scale to assess SOB. I extracted the five most relatable
questions from an existing workplace belonging scale where research reported a relatively high

49

level of consistency and validity. These five questions augmented the survey by digging a layer
deeper into statements which infer workplace belonging or lack of workplace belonging around
values, othering, inspiration, career development, and support.
Interviews
Interviews allowed for a qualitative analysis of deeper discussion and meaning around the
topic of a sense of belonging. Sense of belonging was challenging to observe, and interviews
allowed researchers to discover things we cannot directly observe (Patton, 2002). The survey
provided some quantitative analysis on focus areas and themes for the interview, refined and
improved existing interview questions. The interview was semi-structured to allow flexibility for
diving deeper into specific topics of interest to participants (Morgan, 2014).
Participants
The target population for the interview study were WOCT. The goal was to enter
WOCT’s perspective through interviewing to understand thoughts, behaviors, and intentions
(Patton, 2002). The problem of practice was focused on WOCT, which was why they were
appropriate for the research questions and study focus. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) shared that
purposeful sampling is best utilized when wanting to discover, understand, and gain insight.
Based on this definition, the sampling and recruitment approach was purposeful sampling by first
targeting WOCT who responded to the quantitative survey and were interested in participating in
the interviews. The target sample size was 12 interviews from WOCT who currently worked in
technology. The sample had 3 Asian women, 3 Black women, 3 Hispanic women, and 3 mixed-
race women, including a mixed-race Native American woman. When I was unable to recruit 12
interviewers from the quantitative survey participation, I conducted additional purposeful
sampling outreach through my network and existing participants. For example, I was missing

50

one Hispanic woman and leveraged one of my participants to outreach to the Latinas in Tech
organization. Researchers who are looking to replicate the study can also directly outreach to
WOCT who are members of technology associations, non-profits, Facebook groups, and
LinkedIn groups.
Instrumentation
An interview protocol is a tool for asking questions and recording answers during a
qualitative interview (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). In other words, the interview protocol is a
script the interviewer reads to the interviewee and develops by the researcher (Johnson &
Christensen, 2015). The protocol included the questions, additional probing questions, and a
section to take down notes. The preparation of probing questions allowed greater clarity or depth
from the interviewee (Johnson & Christensen, 2015). In addition, the interview questions were
semi-structured. Highly structured interviews have predetermined wording, questions, and
sequencing; therefore, obtaining demographic data for qualitative studies may be too constrained
to provide lived experiences and recommendations for SOB (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The
semi-structured approach included a mixture of structured questions, but all questions allowed
flexibility without a predetermined wording or order.
Additionally, the interview protocol had a standard sequencing of questions for flow with
predetermined questions. However, I allowed flexibility in questions as the interview transpires.
Morgan (2014) shared the importance of induction which enables interview topics to emerge
naturally during the conversation. I started with 12 semi-structured questions but adjusted as
needed to probe into crucial questions. Throughout each interview, I noticed if respondents had
any challenges interpreting the questions. Following each interview, I made slight adjustments
and improvements to the wording so participants had increased clarity. The interview questions

51

addressed the research question, and critical concepts outlined and addressed all three research
questions. The final version of the interview protocol following these iterations is presented in
Appendix B.
Data Collection Procedures
The logistical procedure for collecting the interview data started with scheduling the
interview. Once mutual availability was confirmed, I sent a calendar invite and a link to a Zoom
call. In addition, an e-mail reminder was provided approximately 24 hours before the interview.
Before the interview begun, I introduced myself, the dissertation, and the problem of practice
explored. I asked if the participant had any questions and reassured them a pseudonym would be
assigned to their name to protect their identity. In addition, I received a second consent to
proceed to record. Patton (2002) shared the importance of an excellent mechanism to record the
conversation, such as a tape recorder, describing it as indispensable for gathering good
quotations.
Once questions were answered and the participant was comfortable with beginning, I hit
the Zoom record button and enabled closed captions, which recorded the entire interview and
created the transcript. Transcription is defined as transferring audio-recorded statements into a
printed format, such as notes (Burkholder et al., 2019). During the interview, I maintained focus
during the interview and transcribe minimal notes on key points and observable emotions, which
allowed me to hear the participant's voices and became more intimately acquainted with their
verbatim statements (Burkholder et al., 2019). Each interview took approximately 60 minutes. I
went through the interview protocol questions one by one and paused to ensure the interviewee
had time to process and answer the questions. I also leveraged the probing questions identified

52

whenever necessary to dig deeper. During the interview, I only took notes on key points.
Translation procedures were not needed as all discussions took place in English.
At the end of the interview, I thanked the participant for their time and express gratitude
for how this research will benefit WOCT. I also mentioned that I may reach out to the participant
for accuracy and offered to send a copy of the dissertation when complete. Each participant
received a $20 Amazon Gift Card over email to thank them for their time. Following the
interview, I immediately assigned the participant a pseudonym. The participant's real identity
was stored in a spreadsheet mapping to the pseudonym. All materials such as the transcript,
recording, notes, and other materials were renamed to the pseudonym name to protect identity.
Next, I reviewed the transcript, my notes, synthesize, and cross-referenced the recording for the
accuracy of the transcription. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) emphasized verbatim transcription of
recorded interviews as the best database for analysis. The last step was to share the notes with the
participant for accuracy confirmation. These procedures ensured trustworthy data was collected
by looking at both transcribed notes and confirming with the recording.
Data Analysis
The data analysis for the interviews were conducted throughout the interview. First, note-
taking was minimal since the interview was automatically transcribed and recorded. Capturing
the actual words of the interviewee was essential because nothing can substitute this data (Patton,
2002). Following the interview, a first quality check was conducted to ensure transcripts were
cleaned-up and personally identifiable information was redacted. The second quality check
occurred by playing the recording of the interview to ensure transcripts were accurately captured.
Throughout the interview data analysis process, the research analysis was grounded by the
conceptual framework. Finally, themes were labeled in Atlas.ti; I documented the ecological

53

model's common themes that contributed positively or negatively to SOB. In addition, volume
counts were calculated in Atlas.ti for each common theme to obtain a stack ranking of the
highest percentage mentioned in the interviews across the interviewees for similarities and
differences. Patton (2002) emphasized the importance of making sense of what interviewees say,
looking for patterns, and integrating what different people say together. These interview response
patterns emerged into concrete themes for each research question. Ultimately, the goal was to
strive for coherence when separate study pieces fit together with a storyline as a functioning unit
(Weiss, 1999).
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Credibility is defined as whether a researcher presents data and findings that are
plausible, believable, and accurate (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). I leveraged an automated transcript,
took notes, and played back the recording to confirm the transcript and notes were correct.
Triangulation allowed for more than one data collection method, such as the Zoom transcript,
interviewer notes, the interviewee feedback, and the video recording, to increase accuracy
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Credibility can also be confirmed through respondent verification
and sharing the interview notes with participants before finalizing. Merriam and Tisdell (2016)
defined respondent verification as an opportunity to solicit feedback on accuracy of the interview
notes, which is often also called interview transcript verification.
Trustworthiness, also known as dependability, is the research process's consistency,
trackability, and logic (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Trustworthiness was ensured by recording the
interviewer's notes and cross-checking with the interview recording. In addition, reliability refers
to the extent the research findings can be replicated (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Documenting the

54

process for sampling, interview protocol, and other conditions ensured the replicability of the
research process which increased trustworthiness.
Ethics
There were many ethical responsibilities to consider when involving human participants
in research. The goal was to foster psychological safety and trust with the participant that their
information will be protected, so they feel comfortable sharing. First, the research study began
with USC IRB (Institutional Review Board) approval and the appropriate informed consent or
information sheet (Hinga, n.d.). An information sheet was utilized for this exempt study and
provided the participant with relevant information such as the purpose of the study, potential
compensation, alternatives to participation, confidentiality, and relevant contact information.
Participants received a link to the information sheet during the introduction of the survey and
prior to signing up for the interview.
Next, the data collection procedures ensured voluntary participation throughout each
process step. The survey participants had the option to exit at any time without the survey
recording their responses. Always asking for the participant's permission and comfort level is
essential (Burkholder et al., 2019). Before recording the interviews, participants were asked for
verbal permission to record the interview to ensure I did not miss any details during the
discussion and to double-check the accuracy of the transcription. Only I, myself, was provided
access to the recording during the entire study. Should the participant decide to stop the study at
any time, they had the right to withdraw from the research at any step of the process. The data
was stored on a secure drive which only I had access.
In addition, the participant's data was be kept confidential and anonymous throughout the
study by anonymizing or redacting information. Johnson and Christensen (2015) emphasized the

55

importance of maintaining response anonymity (no name or identification will be attached to the
respondent’s data) and confidentiality (the researcher will never divulge the name of the
participant to anyone). Participants were reminded that all their personally identifiable
information would remain anonymous so that their employers cannot identify them within the
study. Participants were all assigned pseudonyms immediately after their interviews were
completed. Furthermore, technology company names were labeled anonymously as “Big
Technology Company A.”
Overall, the study intended not to harm any participant’s credibility, reputation, or career
growth at their current companies. As a researcher, I was cognizant of any power issues in the
interview process, which could be ameliorated by not interviewing people in the same company
or people I knew (Burkholder et al., 2019). Awareness of perceived power differentials
throughout the interviews was critical, and I was perceptive of any clues of shifts in behavior or
modifications in responses (Burkholder et al., 2019). The research serves the interests of WOC
so that they can break down barriers to a sense of belonging and advance their careers. Both
WOC in technology and technology corporations will benefit from the research. Technology
corporations can utilize the research to understand the pain points of WOCT and implement the
recommended solutions to increase talent retention. WOCT will benefit from these solutions
through an improved work environment, decreasing the likelihood of moving to another industry
or company.

56

Chapter Four: Results and Findings
The purpose of the study was to explore the lived experiences of WOC at technology
companies (WOCT) with a particular focus on a sense of belonging (SOB) in driving retention
and based on findings, make recommendations for practice. This mixed methods study began
with a quantitative survey with 145 participants who completed the full survey and concluded
with 12 qualitative virtual interviews. The target population was WOCT residing within the
United States who currently work within technology companies of over 100 people, particularly
large Fortune 500 companies. The purpose of this chapter is to present the quantitative results of
the survey and the qualitative findings of the interviews aligned with the following research
questions:
1. What levels of workplace SOB do WOCT report?
2. How does each ecological system impact workplace SOB as reported by WOCT?
3. How does WOCTs’ intersectional identity impact their workplace SOB and retention?
4. What recommendations do WOCT report to increase workplace SOB of WOC in
technology?
I collected quantitative and qualitative data to determine sentiments and experiences of
WOCT as they related to their sense of belonging in the workplace. Each section of this chapter
begins with the research question, the theme, and what was uncovered within each data
collection method. The survey provided insights for research questions 1 (RQ1) and 2 (RQ2),
while the interviews provided insights for all four research questions. The survey ran from
January 30, 2023, to February 17, 2023, allowing responses to 18 days or two and a half weeks. I
assessed the survey data to uncover common themes to refine the qualitative interview questions
and deep dive further into WOCT lived experiences, which also allowed for data triangulation

57

for RQ1 and RQ2. The twelve qualitative interviews took place over a month’s timeframe from
March 13, 2023, to April 10, 2023.
There were eight emerging themes uncovered as a result of the research. The survey
results were determined based on the quantitative data calculations, highlighting the highest
percentage of responses to questions based on multiple choices. The interview themes were
selected based on detailed coding utilizing Atlas.ti software which aggregated common mentions
based on the cumulative frequency of the theme throughout each interview. These emerging
topics aligned with the Bronfenbrenner theoretical framework, informed by critical race theory
(CRT). The eight themes which emerged were (a) variation in WOCT scores, (b) higher scores
for tenured roles and lower scores for Latinas, (c) peer relationships and community groups, (d)
company culture and lack of representation, (e) intersectional identity barriers, (f) systemic
racism, (g) action-oriented organizational recommendations, and (h) allyship, mentorship, and
sponsorship. The seventh and eighth themes had subthemes emerge, which will be presented
within each section.
Participants
There were two sets of participants in this study. The first were survey participants who
were self-elected through social media marketing through random sampling. The second set of
participants were interview participants who expressed interest in a separate survey following
their participation in the survey as well as additional participants for purposeful sampling. The
following section describes the population of both participants.
Survey Participants
The survey participants were all self-elected WOCT who resided within the United
States. The survey was publicly posted online on Qualtrics and promoted through social media

58

such as LinkedIn and Facebook. The prequalification question asked if the survey taker is within
the study's target population as a WOCT residing within the United States, along with a
definition of WOC and the technology industry. Because survey participants were allowed to
stop the survey at any given time, approximately 145 completed the entire survey. However, 230
participants began the study and either skipped some of the questions or stopped the survey at
some point. Therefore, the sample size (n) will vary in the research results based on the question
asked for this reason.
The survey participant demographics mirrored similarly to the broader U.S. WOCT
population with 51.7% Asian Pacific Islander, 34.1% Black, 14.7% Hispanic or Latino, 5.2%
mixed-race/other, and 1.4% Native American or Indigenous. Figure 5 shows the breakdown of
the participants by ethnicity which demonstrated diversity in the backgrounds of participants.

Figure 5
WOCT Survey Participant Ethnic Background

Note. Survey Participants (n = 231).
Asian or
Pacific
Islander
48%
Black
32%
Hispanic
or Latino
14%
Mixed Race
or Other
5%
Native American or
Indigenous…
Asian or Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic or Latino
Mixed Race or Other
Native American or
Indigenous

59

The population also had diversity in the number of years of work experience as well as
their roles. Figure 6 depicts the level of seniority within the company where 55.6% are within
individual contributor roles. 38.3% are within management roles and the remaining 6.1% are in
other capacities with leadership capabilities such as Principal.

Figure 6
WOCT Survey Participant Level of Seniority

Note. Survey Participants (n = 214).

60

The WOCT survey participants were very diverse in their years of experience, from less
than one year to more than 30 years of experience. Specifically, 62.6% of respondents were
between one to 10 years of experience, the largest population of the survey participants. Figure 7
shows the distribution of the number of years of experience.

Figure 7
WOCT Survey Participant Years in Industry

Note. Survey Participants (n = 214).

61

Interview Participants
The qualitative interview participants were invited to participate after the quantitative
survey by expressing interest through a separate interest form where they disclosed their identity
and contact information to learn more. These 12 interview participants were purposefully
sampled, so there were three Asians, three Latinas, three Blacks, and three mixed-race. They
varied in role, tenure, and position. Table 2 summarizes their demographic makeup utilizing
pseudonyms and the type of technology company to protect confidentiality.

Table 2
Demographics of WOCT Interview Participants
Participant
n = 12
Ethnicity # of years in
tech
Role Company Location
Mya Black <1 year Account
Manager

Ride-Hailing
App
Philadelphia, PA

Tahirah Black 1 year Customer
Success
Manager

EdTech 1 Atlanta, GA
Adriana Latina 4 years Cybersecurity Major Bank New York, NY
Andrea Asian &
White
16 years UX Researcher Internet
Search and
Ads
Mountain View, CA

Stacey Asian 26 years Co-Founder &
COO
EdTech 2 Seattle, WA

Catalina Latina 2 years Business
Development
Software
Company 1
San Francisco, CA

Deanna Native
American
& Mexican
25 years System
Software
Semiconductor
Manufacturing
Phoenix, Arizona

62

Participant
n = 12
Ethnicity # of years in
tech
Role Company Location
Quality
Engineer

Katie Asian 3 years Executive
Assistant
Software
Company 2
Redwood City, CA

Jenny Asian 3 years UX/Product
Design
Software
Company 3
Hayward, CA

Monique Black 4 years Product
Marketing
Social Media
Platform
Oakland, CA

Francesca

Latina

4 years

Consultant

IT Consulting

New York, NY
Vanessa Black &
White
4 years Vice President CRM Platform San Francisco, CA

Note. Participants were all assigned a pseudonym and their company name has been kept
confidential.

Mya
Mya is a Black female who has been in the technology industry for about seven to eight
months. Her current role is her first since graduating with her undergraduate degree, working
full-time at a large technology company, a Ride-Hailing Application with 23,000 employees. She
manages Pennsylvania and surrounding areas as an Account Manager. Mya is also the sole
caretaker for her brother and son. She describes her sense of belonging experience as mixed and
varied. Mya was incredibly open with sharing both her positive and negative experiences. She
participates in Ride-Hailing Application Company’s Women’s Employee Resource Group

63

(ERG) and Black ERG. Mya has an active mentor and a close peer, a White female, who has
served as an ally in the workplace. However, her manager does not support her diversity of
thought or career progression.
Tahirah
Tahirah is a Black female Customer Success Manager for a small, EdTech 1 company
with about 200-500 employees based out of Atlanta, Georgia. She is a former educator and has
spent the last 15 years as a teacher. Tahirah highlighted her mixed experiences at her company
through her current negative leadership interactions, peers she interacts with, and financial
struggles. She is very observant and understands very quickly who is an ally and who is someone
who she does not want to interact with. She is a single mother of two teenagers and highlighted
her need for promotion and increased pay. Tahirah intends to stay in technology because of the
stability and income but is looking to transition to a UX Researcher role. She is an active
member of internal ERGs and external associations, which have provided her with two mentors.
Adriana
Adriana is a Latina female working in Cybersecurity Business Management for a Major
Bank, which has over 200,000 employees and is based in New York. Before this role, she was a
consultant at a Big Consulting Firm. Adriana shared the lowest sense of belonging score because
she compared her current SOB to her previous company, a Big Consulting Firm where she did IT
(Information Technology) consulting and which had more inclusive events and activities. At her
core, Adriana loves getting to know people from different backgrounds, mainly through team-
building events. However, Adriana finds she is always invited last minute and changes her
schedule to accommodate. The lack of advance notice for company events makes her feel
excluded. Adriana is Puerto Rican and the first in her family to go to college, as her parents were

64

factory workers. She has actively sought out relationships with her peers and the one WOC
Director on her team, but they have not reciprocated. Adriana is an active member of the Latino
ERG and several other external associations outside of her company which helps foster increased
belonging. Because she is currently pregnant, Adriana plans to remain at her company for fear
and risk of financial instability and start all over. However, she does not feel like she belongs.
Andrea
Andrea is a user experience (UX) Researcher for a large Internet Search and Ads
corporation with about 175,000 employees. This company was her first job out of undergraduate,
and she has stayed there for about 16.5 years. Andrea is of mixed-race, White and Asian descent,
living in the Bay Area, CA. She has had various roles and moved to other teams within the
company, primarily UX design and UX research roles. Andrea felt some imposter syndrome at
the beginning of her career, but that has changed due to her tenure and being a people manager.
Due to her longevity and tenure at the company, she feels a sense of belonging because she
knows the company well and has a sense of seniority for her experience. Andrea has incredible
experiences currently with her peers and Employee Resource Groups (ERGs) that give her a
sense of belonging. She has two kids, one who is three years old and one who is seven years old.
Andrea has a fantastic manager, but one poor manager in the past almost drove her to leave the
company. Because she wants a supportive and understanding manager, she has expressed that
she cannot work for someone who is not a parent.
Stacey
Stacey has been in the technology industry for over 26 years and is based in Seattle,
Washington. She is Asian, the Co-Founder and Chief Operating Officer (COO) of EdTech
Company 2, which is approximately 500 people. Stacey spoke about her high sense of belonging

65

score as she hand- picked the first 20 people hired within her company. Although Stacey is the
COO and reports to the CEO, they have a peer working relationship as Co-Founders and a third
Co-Founder, so her experiences are very different in this position of power. However, these
experiences were quite the opposite when she was at a larger corporation prior, an Online Travel
Company. Stacey is a single mother with one child; her parents are college-educated immigrants.
She spoke a lot about how she has proactively taken charge of her career by actively managing
her network, nurturing relationships with sponsors and VCs, and having people who believed in
her, ultimately getting to where she is today.
Catalina
Catalina is a Latina female, 100% Puerto Rican, originally from Chicago and now based
in the Bay Area, California. She has been in the technology industry since 2021 at the same
company, Software Company 1, and has had the same role in Business Development. Her
company size is approximately 35,000 employees. Before working in technology, she spent over
ten years in the Video Production industry. Catalina met her future Manager at an event, stayed
in touch, and encouraged her to apply for the role. The Manager was an active sponsor for her
transition into the technology industry. As she initially started in her position due to lack of
experience, she felt a strong sense of imposter syndrome. Catalina had difficulty understanding
all the acronyms in the industry, and the virtual work environment made it even more
challenging. However, Catalina rates her experience as mixed and enjoys her role and company
culture but does not like the lack of representation. Her peers, manager, and ERGs all positively
contribute to her experience.

66

Deanna
Deanna is a mixed-race, Native American and Mexican female based in Arizona. She has
been in the technology industry for 25 years. She has a Bachelor of Science in Electrical
Engineering from Northern Arizona University. Her first role was working in an IT Computer
and Printing Device company of 135,000 employees in California for seven years as a Product
Engineer and then in Software Validation. She currently works for Semiconductor
Manufacturing Corporation, a 125,000-person company, as a System Software Quality Engineer
and has been at this company since 2005. At Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation, she has
had various roles, including as a Validation Engineer, Program Manager, and Diversity Staffing
Program Manager. With 25 years of experience in the industry, she is pretty confident about her
capabilities. In addition, she is not afraid to speak up, which contrasts with the beginning of her
career when she felt imposter syndrome. Deanna is a member of many external-facing
community groups.
Katie
Katie is an Asian woman who is a first-generation Chinese American. Her parents were
refugees from China to Hong Kong. She lives in Redwood City, California, and works as an
Executive Assistant for Software Development Company 2, a start-up with about 600 employees
in Silicon Valley. She has worked at two different Silicon Valley technology start-ups as an
Executive Assistant but has a nontraditional background. She formerly ran a private practice as
an Acupuncturist in New York City and worked at a Healthcare Education company. During the
pandemic, she moved with her husband and child to California. Her first start-up experience was
largely hostile due to the company culture, her manager, and microaggressions in the workplace.

67

In contrast, she enjoys her experience at Software Development Company 2, with a positive
culture, an open communication manager, inclusive leaders, and ERGs.
Jenny
Jenny is an Asian American female in technology who is 80% Chinese and 20% Filipino.
She obtained her Masters around 2020 and has been in the technology industry for the last three
years primarily in UX Design and Product Design roles. Jenny lives in Hayward, California, and
currently works for Software Development Company 3, which is approximately 500 employees.
She loved the first technology company she worked at, about 1,000 employees in size, where she
had a robust peer-based network but then got laid off. Most of her SOB experiences reflect on
her previous company, where she had an excellent female manager but later had a male manager
she did not enjoy working for as much. This male manager was the decisionmaker in selecting
Jenny to be laid off while a poor-performing White Male peer was able to stay. Eventually,
Jenny found a new role at Software Development Company 3. She has been working for a few
months but has not felt the same positive sense of belonging she had at her previous company.
She also had to take a pay cut when she transitioned to Software Development Company 3 but is
resilient that she can “prove herself.”
Monique
Monique is a Black female, Nigerian American, who has been in the technology industry
for about four years. She started as a Contractor at an Internet Search and Ads company in
Brand/Product Marketing. Then, she transitioned to a Product Marketing employee role for a
Social Media Platform company with about 100,000 employees. Monique resides in Oakland,
CA, and was recently laid off by the Social Media Platform company. Monique spoke about the
contrasting experience of being a Contractor at the Internet Search and Ads company, where she

68

did not belong, compared to an employee with the Social Media Platform company, where she
felt she did belong. She spoke a lot about how the senior leadership at the top levels set the tone
and culture at the bottom levels, both positively in her last technology company and negatively in
her former technology company. Monique was very involved within her ERG group and had
many allies within her previous company.
Francesca
Francesca is a Latina female, specifically Ecuadorian, and has been in the technology
industry for four years. She is an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Consultant at an IT
Consulting company with approximately 400 employees. Although her company is based out of
Canada, Francesca lives in New York. Francesca found her job at a career fair during college and
secured her position even before graduating. She has a bachelor's degree in Economics and did
not think about technology until her senior year when the IT Consulting company recruited her
and has stayed there ever since. In addition, Francesca is actively involved as a leader in the
Latinas in Tech organization. During her interview, Francesca shared her challenges and
negative onboarding experience as a Junior Consultant. She spoke a lot about the lack of
representation impacting her lack of SOB. However, Francesca was grateful to have a female
manager, female mentor, and female and male allies who supported her in the workplace.
Outside of work, Francesca’s parents recently divorced, and she has been committed to helping
her younger sister by taking her to school while her mother works 2-3 different jobs.
Vanessa
Vanessa is a mixed-race female, Black and White, currently working in her first role in
technology and based in San Francisco, California. She has her Ph.D. and is a Vice President
focused on responsible, ethical, and inclusive product technology at Customer Relationship

69

Management (CRM) Platform Company which has about 72,000 employees, where she has been
working for 3.5 years. Before technology, she worked in Consulting for about six years, advising
technology companies on various issues in the geopolitical space, trust and safety, and
government affairs. Vanessa transitioned to technology after a Black female friend highly
recommended her current manager, which compelled her to interview for the role. The Black
female friend worked for the same manager before and had a very positive experience. In the 3.5
years Vanessa has been in her role, she was promoted from Director to Senior Director to Vice
President. Vanessa worked hard and asked for these opportunities in conjunction with her
manager playing a positive role in championing her, giving her visibility, and making the
business case to upper-level management.
Research Question 1: What Levels of Workplace SOB Do Participants Report?
The first research question sought to uncover the sense of belonging WOCT feel in the
workplace within their current roles. The data was collected by first publishing Question 6 in the
quantitative survey. Question 6 asks, “On a scale of 1-10, 10 being very high, how would you
rate your sense of workplace belongingness?” Additionally, the definition of workplace
belongingness is defined within the footnote “Workplace belongingness or SOB, is defined as
the degree to which an individual feels personally accepted, respected, included, and supported
by others within an organizational environment.” Question 7 asks for some context on why they
gave this quantitative rating, and then Question 10 inquires whether the belongingness score has
increased or decreased over time. In addition to the workplace belongingness scale question, I
utilized a subset of five statements from Jean and Pradhan’s (2018) Workplace Belongingness
Scale Instrument to drive consistency and validity, which used a 5-point Likert scale. The scale

70

instrument was captured in Question 11: “How much do you agree or disagree with the
following statements?” with the five following statements:
a. I am able to work in this organization without sacrificing my principles.
b. I refer to our team as “we/us” rather than “they/them” when I refer my organization to
outsiders.
c. Being a part of this organization inspires me to do more than what is expected.
d. Whenever I have any personal or professional issues, my organization extends
necessary help and support.
e. My career goals are considered by my organization.
The complete survey questions are in Appendix A for reference.
Next, I conducted a qualitative interview to dive deeper into the scores. Question 2 was
similar to the survey question, “How would you score your SOB on a scale of 1-5? How do you
describe the sense of belonging at your workplace?” The initial question was, “How do you rate
or describe your SOB?” However, the twelve participants all requested to rate it on a numerical
scale first and then elaborate after. The question evolved after the first interviewer initially asked
for a quantitative score for grounding before explaining. The findings in the qualitative
interviews gave additional context because many participants talked about how their scores
varied when they first started at a company or how their scores varied depending on which
company within their technology career they worked for.
Overall, two themes emerged from both the survey results and interview findings. The
first theme was that the SOB scores on average varied across WOCT and were somewhat mixed
or in the middle. In addition, there was a significant variation in scores between all survey and
interview respondents, however, statistical tests did not reveal statistically significant differences

71

between the individuals based on their ethnic background, years in the technology industry, level
of seniority, years at current company, or type of job function. The second theme was that the
means of those more tenured or in higher positions of authority appeared to rank a higher SOB,
and the Latina population appeared to rank a lower SOB. Statistical significance did not emerge,
likely due to low sample sizes. Future studies can explore these factors more precisely through
additional research.
Theme 1: Workplace SOB Scores on Average Varied Widely Across WOCT
The study’s results demonstrate workplace SOB scores varied widely across WOCT
experiences. The score is complex to measure and dependent on a variety of factors. For the most
part, WOCT experiences were, on average mixed and somewhere “in the middle”—the positive
contributors associated with a higher score and the lower detractors associated with a lower
score. Because the workplace environment is mixed with contributors and detractors, the result is
that WOCT experiences on average were generally mixed or in the middle. However, the survey
results and the interview findings were similar in scores and SOB sentiments.
Survey Results
WOCT SOB scores were average and varied across the sample size of 156 respondents.
The mean of WOCT SOB scores were 6.7 out of a 10-point scale, while the median of WOCT
SOB scores were 7 out of a 10-point scale. A mean of 6.7 and median of 7 is slightly higher than
an average or mixed score of 5. However, the standard deviation was at 2.1 where WOCT rated
as low as 0 and as high as 10. Figure 8 depicts the variation in the self-reported SOB score. As
the researcher, I triangulated these survey data with the interview data to conclude the mixed
results were due to contrastingly positive and negative experiences in the workplace on an
ongoing basis. WOCT tended to report SOB scores as somewhere in the middle because of the

72

fluctuation in their experiences with different team members, some of which contributed and
some that detracted from their experiences. Additionally, the complexity of a work environment
is comprised of multiple factors such a peer relationship, compensation and pay, career
advancement, their manager or leader, and other factors. WOCT may have ranked some work
environment factors higher and lower than others which then on average become a rather neutral
sentiment when looking at these factors in aggregate. Due to the contribution of these different
factors, the mean score did not center on the low or high end but rather in the middle as seen in
Figure 8.

Figure 8
WOCT Survey Self-Reported SOB Score (Question 6)

Note. Survey Participants (n = 156).

0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
% of Survey Participants
Self-Reported SOB Score (From 0 Low - 10 High)
Sample Size (n) 156
Mean 6.7
Median 7.0
Standard Deviation 2.1

73

The Jean and Pradhan (2018) Workplace Belongingness Scale Index was comprised of five agree
or disagree statements to further measure workplace SOB. However, the results did not show
much of a noticeable difference for each statement, except for the fifth statement on career goals
which ranked the lowest at 3.3 on average. These scores are presented in Table 3.

Table 3
WOCT Survey Jean and Pradhan (2018) SOB Scale Index (Question 11)
Statement (n = 154) Mean Standard
deviation
Median
I am able to work in this organization without
sacrificing my principles.
3.8 1 4
I refer to our team as “we/us” rather than
“they/them” when I refer my organization to
outsiders.
4 1 4
Being a part of this organization inspires me to
do more than what is expected.
3.5 1.1 4
Whenever I have any personal or professional
issues, my organization extends necessary help
and support
3.5 1 4
My career goals are well considered by my
organization
3.3 1.1 3

Note. Likert scale with five options: 1 – Strongly Disagree, 2 – Disagree, 3 – Neutral, 4 – Agree,
5 – Strongly Agree.

74

Additionally, the Jean and Pradhan (2018) Workplace Belongingness Scale Index shared
similar results as the self-reported belongingness score which were measured on a five-point
scale. However, once normalized to be out of a 10-point scale, the mean was 7.2, and the median
was 7.6, slightly higher than the self-reported score mean of 6.7 and median of 7.0. This is
depicted in Figure 9.

Figure 9
WOCT Survey Jean and Pradhan (2018) SOB Scale Index (Question 11)

Note. Survey Participants (n = 154).

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8
Number of Respondents (Count)
SOB Scale Index Score from 1 (Low) to 5 (High)
Original Score (out of 5)
Sample Size (n) 154
Mean 3.6
Median 3.8
Standard Deviation 0.8

Normalized Score (out of 10)
Sample Size (n) 154
Mean 7.2
Median 7.6
Standard Deviation 1.6

75

However, the Jean and Pradhan (2018) Workplace Belongingness Scale Index highlighted the
lowest scoring statement within the five statements: "My career goals are well considered by my
organization.” This statement scored slightly less on average at 3.3 compared to the other four
statements, which averaged 3.5, 3.5, 3.8, and 4.0, respectively. However, similar to survey
Question 6, statistical tests for Question 11 did not reveal statistically significant differences
between the individuals based on their ethnic background, years in the technology industry, level
of seniority, years at current company, or type of job function.
Overall, WOCT SOB sentiments seem to have been varied over time. The highest at
31.9% report that their scores have stayed the same over time. About 40% have reported SOB
has increased over time and 28.2% have reported that their SOB has decreased over time. These
responses are depicted in Figure 10.

Figure 10
WOCT Survey SOB Score Over Time Measured Subjectively Based on Participant Tenure Within
Technology Industry (Question 10)

Note. Survey Participants (n = 159).
11.3%
16.9%
31.9%
26.9%
13.1%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
1 – Decreased
substantially
overtime
2- Decreased
slightly over time
3- Remained
relatively the
same
4- Increased
slightly over time
5- Increased
substantially over
time
% of Participants
SOB Score Over Time Response

76

Interview Findings
The interview findings on the WOCT SOB self-reported score for Question 2 asking
“How would you score your SOB on a scale of 1-5? How do you describe your SOB in the
workplace?” were similar to the survey results for Question 6 “On a scale of 1-10, how would
you rate your SOB in the workplace?” Most interview participants ranked SOB at 3 of 5 in the
middle. The lowest score reported was 1 for poor, and the highest score was a 5 for excellent: the
mean was 3.5, the median was 3.3, and the standard deviation was 1.1. Table 4 depicts the
interview participants' scores along with any additional context on the score itself.

Table 4
WOCT Interview SOB Score Title Case Name of Table
Participant
n = 12
Ethnicity # of years
in tech
Role Current
SOB score
Additional context
Mya Black <1 year Account
Manager

3 “Varied”

Tahirah Black 1 year Customer
Success
Manager

3 “Mixed experience”
Adriana Latina 4 years Cybersecurity 1 Lowest score
Andrea Asian &
White
16 years UX
Researcher
4.5 “I never give anything a
perfect score.”

Stacey Asian 26 years Co-Founder
& COO
5 2-3 in earlier career

Catalina Latina 2 years Business
Development
3 “Some days a 1,
some days a 5.”

Deanna Native
American
25 years System
Software
3.5 “Hard to answer. 3 or
maybe a 4.”

77

Participant
n = 12
Ethnicity # of years
in tech
Role Current
SOB score
Additional context
&
Mexican
Quality
Engineer

Katie Asian 3 years Executive
Assistant
4 Previous company:
Likely a 2 or below

Jenny Asian 3 years UX/Product
Design
3 Previous company: 5

Monique Black 4 years Product
Marketing
4 Previous company: 2

Francesca

Latina

4 years

Consultant

2.5

Score may be lower

Vanessa

Black &
White

4 years

Vice
President

5

5 for immediate team, 3-
4 for broader company

Some WOCT participants had a more challenging time quantifying SOB scores than others. But,
overall, experiences were mixed in general. Catalina’s sentiments probably captured it best, “I
would say it's a nice round 3, because on some days I feel like it's a one, and other days it's a 5,
and part of that is because of never having worked in tech before.” Deanna’s experience echoed
the same, “That's really hard to answer…because there are sometimes where I feel like I don't
belong. But then the sometimes like, I'm supposed to be here, and I am very comfortable, being
where I'm at.”
Summary
On average, WOCT SOB scores are varied and mixed. The survey indicated a mean of
6.7 for Question 6 and 7.2 grand mean for Question 11’s Jean & Pradhan five statements. The
interviews similarly gave a normalized average of 6.9. The median for the interview was lowest
at 6.5 of 10 maximum and the survey medians were at 7.0 out of 10 for Question 6 and 7.6 out of

78

10 for Question 10, respectively. These scores indicate on average that most WOCT SOB
participants are scoring slightly above an average or mixed 5 out of 10 score. However, a more
favorable score would be in the 8 to 10 range. The standard deviation ranged from 1.6 to 2.2,
demonstrating the difference in experiences across WOCT. Table 5 details the score comparisons
across the quantitative survey and the qualitative interviews.

Table 5: Title Case Name of
Survey and Interview: SOB Score Comparisons
Instrument Survey: Q6
SOB score
Survey: Q10
Normalized workplace
belongingness scale
index
Interview: Q2
Normalized SOB
score
Mean 6.7 7.2 6.9
Median 7.0 7.6 6.5
Standard Deviation 2.1 1.6 2.2

79

Additional benchmarking research data highlight that WOCT SOB scores on average are
lower than the larger employee workforce population. Comparably (2023), an online business
information platform company, calculates happiness scores to make workplace data more
transparent and accessible to employees, potential hires, and companies. These happiness scores
are based on sentiment ratings provided by anonymous employees over the past year based on
questions on topics related to their overall happiness at work. The questions were asked in a
variety of data driven formats and the answers were given a numerical score compared to
companies of similar size. One of the key data points collected from employees answered the
question, “Is your work environment positive or negative?” Table 6 presents the data collected
on employee experience in response to this question which can be utilized as a comparable
measurement to the WOCT SOB scores once normalized.

Table 6
Comparably Work Environment Scores of Select Major Technology Companies
Technology
company
Positive work
environment score
(Out of 100%)
Normalized score to
WOCT survey
(Out of 10)
Difference from
WOCT SOB scores
Amazon 77% 7.7 -1.0
Apple 75% 7.5 -0.8
Google 84% 8.4 -1.7
LinkedIn 88% 8.8 -2.1
Meta 84% 8.4 -1.7
Microsoft 83% 8.3 -1.6
Uber 91% 9.1 -2.4

80

Technology
company
Positive work
environment score
(Out of 100%)
Normalized score to
WOCT survey
(Out of 10)
Difference from
WOCT SOB scores
Average 83% 8.3 -1.6
Note: Difference from WOCT SOB scores is calculated by subtracting the normalized
technology company score by the WOCT SOB survey mean score of 6.7

By comparing employee experience scores across the largest technology companies, the data
show WOCT scores in this study are on average 1.6 points lower than the average employee
populations at a subset of top technology companies.
Overall, an average WOCT SOB mean score of 6.7, out of a maximum of 10 highlights
that improvements can still be made to increase SOB in the workplace for WOCT. The average
score across the employee populations at a subset of technology companies were approximately
1.6 points higher than the WOCT SOB mean. This poses a question as to why WOCT SOB
scores are lower than the rest of the workforce on average. Furthermore, the higher WOCT self-
reported scores demonstrate that it is possible for WOCT to achieve a higher score of 9 or 10
with optimum company environment and culture. Additionally, the low scores of 0 or 1
demonstrate that even if WOCT are at a 6.7on average, there is still significant work to be done
for WOCT who score dramatically lower and feel that they do not belong.
Theme 2: SOB Scores Higher for More Tenured Roles and Lower for Latinas
The survey and the interviews highlighted similar trends for higher SOB scores and lower
SOB scores. I ran statistical significance tests within Qualtrics; however, no statistically
significant differences between groups based on tenure and ethnicity emerged potentially due to
low sample sizes in each specific group. A substantial amount of additional data would be
collected to try to draw hypothesis testing on these other factors. However, the sample data did

81

demonstrate women in higher positions of authority and tenure within the technology industry
tended to have a higher SOB. And based on the data collected and available, Latinas scored
lower on SOB on both the survey and interview.
Survey Results
The survey respondents indicated a higher SOB score for those who had been within their
current technology company with more tenure. Question 4 measured “How many years have you
worked at your current company?” WOCT with more than 10 years of work (n = 17, 8% of
respondents) experience showed a higher SOB score with an average of 7.8 and a median of 9.0.
The most significant jump came in the data when respondents had more than 21 years of
experience, with an average of 9.0 and a median of 9.0 compared to the broader average of 6.7
and median of 7.0. In fact, respondents with 21-30 years within their company gave a SOB score
of 9.0. Statistical significance tests did not reveal differences, possibly due to low sample sizes in
each group. Table 7 showcases the SOB score compared to the years of experience at their
current company.

Table 7C
SOB Score (Question 6) Compared to Years at Current Company (Question 4), n = 156
Years of
Experience
0-1
(n = 76)
2-5
(n = 89)
6-10
(n = 32)
11-20
(n = 16)
21-30
(n = 1)
Mean 6.3 6.3 6.9 7.8 9.0
Median 7.0 7.0 7.0 9.0 9.0

82

The current company's higher average SOB for more tenured years is possible, though
did not emerge as statistically significant. However, the survey results did not showcase score
increases based on title or years within the technology industry. Similar comparisons to the SOB
score were run on Question 2 and Question 3. The respondents who have been in the technology
industry longer, measured in Question 2, did not demonstrate too much difference in scores.
Similarly, Question 3, which captured the title for Individual Contributors, Managers, Directors,
and VP/Executives, revealed scores that remained relatively the same within each population.
Contrastingly, Native American, mixed/other, and Latina women scored lower than the
other ethnic groups in both mean and median. Asians achieved the highest SOB, with an average
of 7.2 and a median of 8.0. Black women were slightly lower in the average at 6.3 but similar in
median at 7.0. The sample size for Native American and Indigenous was very small with three
respondents (1.4%) and Mixed/Other was only 11 respondents (5.2%). However, 31 respondents,
or 15% of respondents, were Latina. Table 8 displays the SOB score grouped by ethnicity.

Table 8Case Name of Table
SOB Score (Question 6) Compared to Ethnicity (Question 1)
Ethnicity Asian or
Pacific
Islander
(n = 109)
Black
(n = 72)
Hispanic or
Latino
(n = 31)
Native
American
(n = 3)
Mixed or
other
(n = 11)
Total
sample
(n = 211)
Mean 7.2 6.3 6.5 2.5 6.0 6.7
Median 8.0 7.0 6.0 2.5 6.0 7.0

83

Interview Findings
WOCT participants who scored higher were in much more visible senior-level roles or
had many more years of experience. For example, Stacey, a Co-Founder and COO of EdTech 2
company with 26 years of experience, scored a 5 out of 5 articulated:
I was employee number 5. I basically have hired or had a hand in hiring everybody in the
company. We are now at about 500 employees. Being a co-founder, and the only female
executive in the company, I am in this privileged position where people have to be nice to
me.
Similarly, Vanessa, a VP at CRM platform company who also scored a 5 voiced, “Definitely [I
have experienced microaggressions in the workplace]. But I again, I am the type like, you know,
I feel confident in my seat in my role, you know…I am sure the microaggressions would feel
different…like earlier in my career.” Additionally, Andrea who scored a 4.5 is a people manager
and not in an executive-level role. However, her 16 years of experience and tenure at the same
company have also given her tremendous credibility. She stated:
I've been at Internet Search and Ads Company for so long that others tell me that I belong
when they talk to me. They're looking to me for like, tell me about the company... As a
result of my longevity at Internet Search and Ads Company, I think people expect that I
am one who belongs. I think I have, and because I've been there for so long, I think I
have felt a greater sense of belonging over time.
Although Deanna scored her SOB at 3.5, she attributed a positive SOB to her 25-year tenure
within the technology industry:
My current role. I actually really feel like I belong here, because I've had all this
experience. I've gotten to that point because I'm almost 50. And for me to have that 25-

84

year career. I'm at a point where I'm very confident of what skills I have, and I'm not
afraid to like speak up for myself, because I've learned over the years that's what you
have to do.
Overall, the three highest scoring SOB interviewees commented on their tenure, knowledge, title,
and position of authority as contributing to their high SOB score.
Contrastingly, the lowest scoring WOCT participants were Adriana at 1 and Francesca at
2.5, both Latina participants, with the remaining Latina, Catalina, scoring a mixed score of 3.
Catalina commented:
And with Latinos in particular, I feel like a lot of times we are the forgotten minority,
especially in Tech, where there's not a lot of us, and no offense to like Black people or
Asian people. But I think there's a lot more Asian representation in tech. And when I’ve
seen some numbers of like it internally, like how much they want to grow, and each of the
categories, and how many people are Latino, and it's a small piece of the pie.
The average SOB score and sentiment for this ethnic population were lower than the other
populations based on their interview findings.
Summary
The research concludes that there were observable trends between career advancement
and belonging as they attribute to the SOB score although via statistical analysis, statistically
significantly differences between trends did not emerge. WOCT who have stayed within the
same company long enough to “navigate the ropes,” have developed a proactive nature and
resilience to stay and assimilate to the culture. Additionally, those in positions of power, such as
Vanessa as a VP and Stacey as a COO, highlighted the confidence the titles give them as they
navigate the workplace. Another assumption could be that the WOCT who did not feel they

85

belonged would have left the technology industry much sooner than the 11-30-year mark,
meaning that the remaining tenured WOCT inherently have a greater SOB. Additional research is
warranted to understand differences in SOB scores across the various ethnic groups. However,
the survey and interviews identified Latinas requiring further attention due to their lower scores.
Research Question 2: How Does Each Ecological System Impact Workplace SOB As
Reported By WOCT?
This research question strives to understand the contributors and detractors to workplace
SOB for WOCT by leveraging Bronfenbrenner’s ecological system theoretical framework,
specifically the role each macrosystem, chronosystem, exosystem, mesosystem, and microsystem
play in impacting workplace SOB (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). The results and findings are
presented within two concrete themes. Theme 3 focuses on the substantial contribution peers,
employee resource groups (ERG), and community organizations make in strengthening SOB.
Theme 4 communicates managers' and leaders' important role in fostering organizational culture.
In both instances, these ecological systems strongly impact SOB for WOCT and can be a
positive or negative experience in the workplace.
Theme 3: Strong Relationships with Peers, Employee Resource Groups, and Community
Groups Strengthen SOB
The shared sentiment from WOCT research participants showed that positive interactions
with peers can foster an increased SOB. Based on the top ranked contributors from WOCT
survey respondents and interviewees, workplace SOB begins first and foremost with the peer
groups WOCT interact with daily. These peer groups can “make” or “break” their experience
within the workplace. This section shares the survey results, followed by the interview findings
as it relates to peer-based relationships in the workplace.

86

Survey Results
The survey results highlighted peers as the top response to Question 8 “Which of the
following do you feel most contribute to (positively affect) your sense of belonging?” The
highest ranked response for positive contributing factors to WOCT came in at 73.4% as peers,
followed by Manager at 60.1% and Organizational Culture at 32.3%. Participants were allowed
to select a maximum of three total choices. The SOB positive contributors for Question 8 are
listed in Figure 11.

Figure 11
WOCT Survey SOB Contributors (Question 8)

Note. Survey Participants (n = 158).

73.6%
60.4%
32.1%
24.5%
23.9% 23.3%
16.4%
10.7%
4.4%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
% of Survey Participants
SOB Positive Contributors

87

Some of the open text comments from respondents in Question 7, “Please explain why you
selected your SOB score,” alluded to the importance of peer and co-worker relationships such as,
“Feel like I belong in my everyday experiences with my colleagues,” and “My experience has
been largely positive within my organization across various offices and teams where I am
accepted and respected.” Another respondent similarly responded, “I work incredibly hard to
carve space for me to fit in and find friends; I feel like I've always had dependable work friends.”
Although ERGs and community groups were not listed as a survey selection option, the
open-text comments show they are essential. Examples included, “I feel belonging because I
have created community.” and “My sense of workplace belongingness mostly comes from my
relationships built outside of my immediate team (via mentors) or participation in ERGs.”
Similarly, another survey respondent commented, “I appreciate that my company has ERGs
related to being a woman and a Black professional.” These community-based groups or ERGs
are essential to fostering SOB in addition to peer-based relationships.
Interview Findings
The interview findings were similar to the survey results expressing the importance of
peer-based relationships, particularly within respective teams, ERGs, and even external
organizations, in fostering SOB. Using Atlas.ti, the common themes were tagged based on the
number of mentions. Three subthemes also emerged: peers, ERGs, and external organizations.
The most positively associated themes from the findings are shown in Table 9.

88

Table 9Case Name of Table
Positive SOB Contributors
Contributor (+) Number of mentions Interview participant density
(n = 12)
Peers 68 100% (12 of 12)
ERGs 45 92% (11 of 12)
Culture 40 75% (9 of 12)
Manager 34 75% (9 of 12)
Leadership Team 26 67% (8 of 12)
External Organizations 24 67% (8 of 12)
Representation 22 83% (10 of 12)
Career Advancement 21 50% (6 of 12)
Mentorship 15 83% (10 of 12)
Compensation 12 58% (7 of 12)
Sponsorship 11 42% (5 of 12)

Peers. Several participants mentioned that peers, or friends at work, positively contribute
to SOB for WOCT by providing psychological safety, vulnerability, and other support systems. A
hundred percent of the interview participants talked about positive associations of peers to
contributing to their SOB. Stacey said it best:
You know it's having those people that are kind of your tribe, you know, and they're not
always women, right? I think you know a company questionnaire always asks, do you
have a friend in the company? And it's true, and if you don't have a friend in the
company, you know, it's it really will diminish your experience a lot, even if they're just

89

work friends right, even if they're people that you wouldn’t necessarily see outside of
work.
Participants reported these peer-based relationships as being essential to SOB and prevent
isolation for WOCT regardless of the background or ethnicity of the peer. Catalina spoke about
how she got paired up with a male buddy which drastically improved her SOB. She shared:
My manager assigned me to a particular buddy on my team, and he and I got along super
great. To this day, we actually collaborate quite a bit on work projects…Because of the
nature of that foundation that we had, I felt a very tight SOB, because of those one-on-
one meetings with him, and also being able to like, ask the silly questions like, ‘Hey,
what does CAB stand for?’ Oh, it means Customer Advisory Board… I also felt a sense
of belonging, because one of the longer-term members on my team offered to do weekly
calls with myself… I felt like, okay, this is a safe space for me to ask any questions, and I
didn't have to do my own introspection of why was I scared to ask questions and things.
Additionally, Monique spoke about how their team formed a tight bond and tag teamed some big
projects which built comradery. Furthermore, many of these relationships deepen into friendships
and transcend into their personal lives. Jenny shared:
I tend to talk about like the times that we hung out outside of work. There were a lot of
points where, you know, we're hanging at each other's houses or spending weekends
together, going on trips like to the beach right? So, a lot of those moments, I think,
culminated in me, feeling like I belonged with that particular group of friends to the point
that it really became like we are friends not just coworkers. And even after I had left I
still keep in contact with them. And we are still quite close. So those are probably some
of the moments. And then, obviously like the support throughout our working days, was

90

probably like how I felt like, you know, oh, okay, like, I can trust these people, and I can
lean on them for different things. Yeah, so kind of like the moments outside, we're really
like what cemented me feeling that way.
Moreover, participants reported peers as providing advocacy, allyship, and a support system for
the complexities of racial identity and potential microaggressions in the workplace for WOCT.
For example, Tahirah discussed her experience with her peer, “The police brutality thing last
August, [my peer] was very vocal, and very supportive. She actually shared a personal story. And
you know that made me feel more comfortable with being able to talk to her about my cultural
identity.” These peer relationships, whether organically in social settings or through structured
peer networking opportunities such as buddy relationships, are highly critical to SOB for WOCT.
ERGs and Internal Community Groups. In addition to peers, more structured internal
community groups or ERGs contributed to positive SOB for interview participants with 92% of
the interview participants attributing this to their SOB. Tahirah shared:
ERGs: That’s something that I needed that I did not realize I needed…So like in the
Black ERG, like, we'll share YouTube videos of, like, you know, music that relates to
something that's going on or like for Black History month, we got to talk about HBCUs
that we may have attended. For Justice ERG, literally it's even though I might be talking
to white people, they’re allies, because anytime there's like an issue with the police we
can talk about it in Justice. When the abortion laws came down we were able to talk
about it in Justice, so like, you know, having an outlet where actually, people understand
you.
Interestingly, according to the participants, the ERGs or Community Groups did not need to be
groups where people shared the same identity. Adrianna shared similar in her previous company,

91

where they had a community group dedicated for analysts, “We all were analysts, and that's
something I've been looking for. How can I look beyond culture and gender and connect with
people across the business?”
The participants reported that ERGs also provide a community group to celebrate one
another’s uniqueness. Andrea added, “The things that have been most impactful for me at my
company is the communities and the events that the communities do, not only for us to celebrate
ourselves, [but also] talking about being people of color etc.” Vanessa’s comments echoed
Tahirah, Adrianna, and Andrea’s statements of positive associations of ERGs and shared that
they do not need to be formal organizations. She formed her own group of individuals that she
meets with informally and formally:
We'll get together, share information. I think just being sounding boards, for you know
those conversations like with my manager to ask for a raise or ask for promotion again. I
can be plugged in and know what's going on from a higher level. I think it's sort of being
able to have the informal insider knowledge. I feel like often women and women of color,
particular can feel like we're left out of that insider information.
These ERG organizations are a critical support system for WOCT internally. However, many
WOCT spoke about the power of external organizations which will be explored next.
External Organizations and Community Groups. WOCT participants spoke about
seeking out external organizations, which increased their SOB within the workplace. These
external organizations provided them with a network, mentors, sponsors, and another peer group
to foster belonging. Some of these organizations provided an opportunity to network internally
and form a smaller internal subset of the external-facing organization. At the same time, some of
the peer-based groups remained external to WOCT’s companies. Monique spoke about a non-

92

profit organization, Management Leadership for Tomorrow (MLT), which focuses on upward
mobility for talent of color:
I had that core group of people that I could be like I need help. And so that was the safety
cocoon, at least within work walls or how to slide into certain things that only full-time
employees could get access to, but because I had a friend, they were like, yeah, just come
in.
Similarly, Adriana and Francesca spoke to the positive impacts of Latinas in Tech (LiT)
contributing to their SOB in the workplace, even though it is an external organization. Adriana
googled Latinas in Tech, found the organization, and immediately got involved in their
leadership team. She’s been part of this amazing network for two years and said, “It’s just been a
very satisfied and overwhelmingly good experience. It’s meeting people across this technology
industry. But it came from me saying, okay this is who I am, this is my background [as a Latina
in tech].” Francesca also had a positive experience with the organization, “I think part of joining
Latinas in Tech is, regaining sense of belonging and finding a community that will support me. I
can reach out to them at any time, and I have someone that's willing to listen to me.”
Furthermore, Deanna spoke to the Native American organizations she has been involved
with, including the American Indian Science and Engineering Society (AISES) and PFLAG, a
national non-profit for LGBTQ+ people and their family, friends, and allies. Finally, Stacey
discussed forming her own personal network and organization of individuals who were former
executives at her previous Online Travel company. The group initially was a support system
within the organization when they worked there as colleagues but has evolved to be ex-
colleagues of that organization who support and encourage one another.

93

Summary
Both the survey and interviews were consistent in their top-rated contributor to SOB,
peers, followed closely by culture and managers. Peers or peer-based groups such as ERGs are
essential to positive SOB experiences for WOCT. WOCT need peers they can confide in, go to
with questions, and have psychological safety on their good and bad days. Some of these peer-
based relationships happen organically, while others happen through more structured company
programs such as onboarding buddies, company events, or employee resource groups (ERG).
However, companies should not put the burden on the WOCT to lead and drive these ERGs.
Instead, companies invested in WOCT should continue to support ERGs along with budget and
resources to keep these groups running. Furthermore, external-facing organizations are
commended for the excellent work they are doing to promote SOB for WOCT. Interestingly,
these are unrelated organizations that WOCT have found which have improved their SOB
internally as a result.
Theme 4: Organizational Culture, Specifically Lack of Representation, Can Be the Largest
Detractor To SOB
Organizational culture was a common theme in both the survey and interviews as a
detractor for SOB. The survey highlighted pay and compensation also as detractors closely
following organizational structure, then followed by the manager. The interview findings also
highlighted organizational structure as a top detractor tied to lack of representation; however,
they did not highlight pay and compensation as heavily.
A discrepancy is that the survey did not have as much granularity in detractor themes as
the interview. For example, lack of representation came up heavily as a detractor within
interviews, which survey-takers may have perceived as the same as organizational culture.

94

Additionally, the interview uncovered other themes not mentioned in the survey, such as lack of
respect and imposter syndrome. The lack of respect theme revealed in interviews contributed to
adverse SOB outcomes within the company. The organizational culture detractors will first be
explored in the survey results and then in the interview findings.
Survey Results

Organizational culture was the highest-rated detractor for WOCT survey participants.
The survey results highlighted organizational culture at 42.4% as the highest detractor to SOB,
followed closely by pay and compensation at 34.0% and promotion at 32.6%. The manager and
leaders both respectively came shortly after at 25.7% each. This is depicted in Figure 12.

Figure 12
WOCT Survey SOB Detractors (Question 9)

Note. Survey Participants (n = 144).

42.4%
34.0%
32.6%
25.7% 25.7%
24.3%
22.9%
15.3%
10.4%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%
% of Participants
SOB Negative Detractors

95

The negative organizational culture sparked disparaging comments for WOCT. Some WOCT
commented that they had challenges fitting in, “To be accepted means that you are able to be
yourself in the work environment and because that is never case for me, I can never be
accepted.” And, “my workplace is set to a standard of assimilation not inclusion.” Comments
were added such as “[I] don't feel like fit in completely since not a part of the clicks. They have
made it hard to get promoted no matter how hard I work. Is kind of a boys club.”
Several survey participants shared sentiments that spoke to the challenges of lack of
representation. Some of these statements were, “I don't belong or accepted in the mostly white
extremely male dominant workplace.” and “The company overall is primarily white male
driven…so there are moments where I feel outnumbered or as if I need a White Man to speak on
my behalf to get through to people.” Specific ethnic groups highlighted the lack of diversity,
such as “As for inclusion, I am usually one of a few or the only black woman in engineering
leadership in my organization. I never feel included or represented.” Additionally, another black
woman commented:
The more I work in tech, the more I realized this culture is unaligned with my values.
Corporate culture/modes of professionalism here don't feel like there's space for me as a
Black woman, and I feel generally unsafe in my workplace since there are no Black
people on my team and little to no Black people that I work directly with.
Similarly, a Latina respondent commented, “There aren't many other Latinas. There are literally
none in the c-suite that I know of. The internal "fun" groups are very homogenous.”
Lastly, working remotely seems to have exacerbated the negative culture for WOCT,
making it even more challenging to have a sense of belonging. Although there were only six
respondents out of fourteen who commented on remote work in the “Other” category, working

96

remotely was the most frequent mentioned area in the “Other” category where additional
research is warranted. A survey respondent stated, “The workplace for me is more transactional.
It could be for me that I'm more task driven but it's harder in a remote environment to connect
and feel a sense of belonging.” Another respondent echoed, “The connection from school and
work has been hard. Understanding how to fill in blanks especially learning through Covid.”
Additionally, fostering inclusiveness across different work types becomes more challenging as a
participant said, “As a remote employee, we're not set up well to make those out of the office feel
included in the special programs, activities available to those on site.”
Interview Findings
The interview findings were similar to the survey results but surfaced the importance of
representation to sense of belonging even more so. Table 10 highlights company culture and lack
of representation as the most mentioned detractor from the interviews. Additionally, these
detractors both had the highest level of density of participant mentions at 92%.

97

Table 10Case Name of Table
Negative SOB Detractors
Detractors (-) Number of mentions Interview participant density
(n = 12)
Company Culture 53 92% (11 of 12)
Lack of Representation 53 92% (11 of 12)
Peers 40 75% (9 of 12)
Leadership 26 67% (8 of 12)
Promotion 22 83% (10 of 12)
Compensation 20 50% (6 of 12)
Lack of Respect 18 67% (8 of 12)
Imposter Syndrome 17 50% (6 of 12)
Manager 16 58% (7 of 12)
Tokenism 9 42% (5 of 12)
Microaggressions 8 42% (5 of 12)

Organizational Culture. First, participants stated uninclusive company culture is a
prominent detractor for WOCT. The beginning stages of onboarding could be isolating for new
WOCT, particularly with lack of support. Catalina spoke about her experience when she started
at her company, “The main trigger, I would say that affected me when I first started was just the
language I didn't understand. Tech terms…So I would be sitting in meetings and be like I don't
know what we talked about.” Similarly, Francesca commented on her initial experience joining
as a Junior Consultant. Her company’s culture was not approachable with unrealistic
expectations to self-learn without any help without any onboarding or ramp-up time. As a result,

98

Francesca shared how the culture decreased her SOB, “The team wasn't very approachable, so I
found myself working nights. I didn't get any sleep like sometimes I would get 3-4 hours of
sleep, or sometimes I would be running off no sleep at all.”
WOCT reported as they assimilated into their companies, the importance of day-to-day
social interactions that exemplified the company culture were negative. Deanna shared, “The
culture at my company is very competitive. It's very competitive. That was one thing [I was
warned about]. It's horrible! Blah blah blah.” Stacey shared her sentiments about the culture at
her previous company, “There's a lot of politics. There's a lot of white men in positions of power
that would discredit you and you know, talk over you.” In day-to-day meetings, Katie similarly
struggled with being talked over in a hostile culture where she lacked psychological safety. Katie
highlighted:
I was constantly interrupted in meetings or like when I was giving a presentation at the all
hands I would be interrupted with no apology or explanation of like, oh, I'm sorry, I
interrupted you…but ultimately the values that they said on a piece of paper did not line
up with the values that I feel I felt from them, and did not align with my personal values,
and it felt actually like a hostile work environment. I don't think the perpetrators knew
that they were being hostile. I think they didn't know any better, and I didn't feel safe
speaking up. I had a lot of anxiety there. It was just not real, right culture fit, because I
realized what I was up against.
Furthermore, participants reported that these day-to-day interactions within the company
culture are equally crucial as significant social events. Many WOCT highlighted cultural events,
networking opportunities, and peer-based connections lacking in their culture. Tahirah speaks

99

specifically about her experience during Black History Month and the organizational culture’s
lack of interest:
[The company] talks a lot about valuing in diversity…It was like 10 or 15 min where the
Black ERG talked about what they were doing, for the whole black history month. Man,
those Zoom numbers started declining so fast because people just were like not paying
attention to it! So, I was like you already know. Now, if I saw who they were, I would
like be more cautious of interacting with those individuals.
Additionally, Adriana spoke to her attempts to join company network events and wanting to
build peer relationships. However, she seems to be left off invitations or informed at the last
minute within her work culture. Adriana shared a few different instances where there were
important events in which she had to cancel previous appointments with family or commitments
outside of work to attend. She stated, “You're just telling me the night before…It was pretty
important, like the CEO was there. Everyone was there. Everyone that is someone is there.” Also
craving a social connection, Jenny invited her new company's peers to social events like her last
company. However, she commented on the stark differences in the culture from her old company
to her new company, “I try to invite them, [but they] don’t always follow through… within my
last company, anytime we plan something a lot of people showed up or tried to make it. So, there
may be just a difference in culture.”
Ultimately, the culture starts at the top through the senior leadership team and could act
as a detractor WOCT’s SOB. Deanna spoke to the importance of the CEO who sets the tone at
the top. She highlighted that different CEOs within her company had different values. Deanna
talked about the current values at her company, “Our current, CEO does not really care about any
of the diversity stuff at all. He tries…but I feel like the diversity and inclusion initiatives have

100

gone away in the last 5-6 years, and that's because the change of CEO.” Monique had a
particularly negative experience as a contractor in her previous company. She highlighted that it
was “frightening and reminiscent of an animal farm.” She shared about how the VP of Marketing
was talking about her at an event and how he didn’t know who she was. Once he realized she
was a contractor, she overheard him saying that he didn’t feel bad to not know her name. She
elaborated, “That's just bad to come out of a senior leader. It was in that moment that I didn't feel
bad. I don't ever want to role under within your marketing organization, because that's rotten
from the top down.” The importance of culture was prevalent in the WOCT interviews in
detracting from SOB. Similarly, lack of representation which is a large part of the culture at a
company were highlighted.
Lack of Representation. Many WOCT spoke about the challenges they faced in SOB
when there were others who did not look like them in the workplace. Adriana shares, “It’s 90%
white men.” Vanessa highlighted, “There’s a lot of Bros you know visually. You don’t see
yourself well represented.” Tahirah echoed the same sentiment, “Until February, there was one
other woman of color on my team… so I never felt like I had like an identity with my team.”
And, Francesca also shared similar sentiments, “It's very male, dominated, or you don't see a lot
of diversity within the company.”
The interview data revealed there is a strong signal or sentiment correlated with
companies which lack diversity. For example, Adriana reflected on the lack of representation at
the leadership level despite seeing other women, “Oh, they're all females, and they're in
leadership. But I realize that none of them were Latinas, and that got me thinking about where
are the Latinas?” Mya more precisely stated, “What are the opportunities for growth here as well
if I don't see as many people look like me in higher positions.” Additionally, with layoffs

101

happening in the industry, Mya built upon her concern with focus on diversity hiring, “Well,
these are the last people to come in. So, when there are massive layoffs, they are the first to go a
lot of the times, too. So now it’s like, okay, we're back to square one.”
Summary
Participants reported both organizational culture and lack of representation consistently
as the lowest scoring detractors to SOB for WOCT. Organizational culture consists of multiple
components from day-to-day interactions in the company, company values, peer-based events,
honoring diversity celebrations, and more. WOCT strive to have psychological safety, to be able
to speak up, to not be interrupted, and to bring their whole selves to work rather than trying to
“fit in.” Additionally, the lack of representation and “Tech Bro” culture give women a feeling of
isolation. Many WOCT had a hard time acclimating to an environment where the team did not
“look like them, talk like them, or think like them.” Furthermore, the lack of representation at the
leadership levels drove signals to lack of opportunities for career advancement for WOCT.
Research Question 3: How Does WOCTs’ Intersectional Identity Impact Their Workplace
SOB And Retention?
This section highlights the interview findings related to intersectionality. The two key
themes that emerged were that intersectional identity presents barriers for WOCT and that
WOCT still encounter systemic racism issues. Additionally, these intersectional identity barriers
vary dependent on the ethnicity of the WOCT. Therefore, this first theme will discuss findings
based on the ethnic group of the interviewee.
Theme 5: Intersectional Identity Presents Barriers For WOCT
The findings in this theme validate the literature review where WOCT are inherently
disadvantaged by gender and race in the workplace, more so than White women or non-White

102

men. This theme explores the complexity of intersectionality and highlights how multiple
identities could be operating simultaneously to a person's disadvantage through interview
findings. The interview findings are presented based on the ethnic group of each participant.
Interview Findings
Intersectional identity challenges varied by WOCT ethnic groups as it relates to SOB. As
each group had different findings, this section will have subheadings for the group and key
takeaways. Intersectional identity is extraordinarily complex, and additional dimensions are not
measured in this section, such as sexuality, class, and other areas. Additionally, some
participants' mixed-race introduced other considerations to intersectionality. However, the
common sentiment was the lack of representation which was depicted in Theme 4.
Asian. The model minority myth and conflict with Eastern norms were brought up in
some of the interviews. Katie expressed the challenges of her upbringing with Confucian values
not to speak up or talk back, contrasting to an American culture where they value people who
speak up and what she calls an “interrupting culture.” She elaborated, “That’s at odds with my
Asian upbringing. And so, it’s uncomfortable for me to [speak up]. When I try to do that, it's not
received well. It's like a clash, plus whatever model minority mindset people may have.” Katie
further elaborated that biases with her previous manager also came into play. Her previous
manager once told her, “Oh Katie, you don’t seem like the kind of person who would really
speak up on things like that.” This comment stuck with Katie as a cultural bias her manager used
to judge her.
Another interviewee, Jenny, shared how she had challenges speaking up and negotiating
for a raise and a promotion, even though she was doing two jobs for the compensation of one
job. Additionally, Jenny spoke about common Asian biases of looking young or pale and how

103

it’s compelled her to wear make-up daily. Jenny stated, “I've gotten a lot of comments that I look
younger than I am, which is fairly common for Asian women, so that also contributes to why I
feel the need to dress up or feel the need to prove myself.”
Contrastingly, Stacey did not comment on any intersectional challenges as being Asian.
Her outlook was very different when she shared, “I never think they're treating me that way
because I'm a woman or Asian, that's putting me in the victim’s position, the blame on me. I
always just think you're an asshole, and that has nothing to do with me.” It’s unknown whether
the challenges she faced at her previous company related to her identity as an Asian American
female. Andrea, a mixed-race Asian and White, shared similar sentiments that her Asian identity
has not interfered with her SOB. She stated that Asians are not disadvantaged, “I don't think
anyone discriminates [against Asians], at least in tech. No one is like and Asians don't know
anything. I feel like Asians are decently respected, at least from a skill perspective.”
Black. The Black women spoke to the importance of having someone who could relate to
them as both Black and female. Mya highlighted how her intersectionality is how she views the
world, particularly when she was affected by police brutality in the news. Mya elaborated, “As a
black woman, you’re very conscious of your race, and how you navigate the world differently
than others. If you’re not a person of color, you don’t think about race as much. It doesn’t really
affect you as much.” Mya built on her intersectional challenges where she sometimes feels she
belongs because there is a Women ERG where they can relate as women and a Black ERG to
relate as being Black but where Black men also attend. However, she said, “There’s nothing like
speaking to someone who has a first-hand experience of like what you go through. It's a different
type of connection.” Mya elaborated, “The workshop was great, but again I was only Black

104

woman there. There’s no one here to really to say, ‘Oh, yeah, I understand that as well.’ We
could connect here as women, but not as black women.”
As it relates to identity, Tahirah put a strong emphasis on her identity based on her name.
However, a white female colleague mispronounces her name, making her skin crawl and
intentionally disrespecting her. Tahirah built upon her thought, “A name means a lot. You know
that’s your identity.” In comparison, Monique described her intersectional identity as “loaded”
or “nuanced” as a first-generation Nigerian American. Her identity as a Black woman is evolving
due to the bifurcation of her roots in African culture and first-generation immigrant African-
American culture. She said, “If you don’t see my name on paper, you see me walking down the
street, you’re probably just thinking I’m African American.”
Additionally, there were other financial and economic differences the Black women
spoke to, which made them feel excluded. Tahirah is a single mother of two teenagers who
expensed a company trip on her personal credit card and had challenges getting approval for
reimbursement. Her leadership team delayed approval and didn’t think it was a big deal.
However, she elaborated, “I need to pay my credit card…I don’t have an extra $250 just laying
around to pay this expense that wasn’t planned.” Monique shared a similar sentiment as her co-
workers talk about their weekend spending $350 on a dinner in San Francisco. She echoed, “I
wasn’t there yet. There were times where I did have that income. But there wasn’t an awareness
of people having different experiences or coming from different backgrounds.”
Lastly, all three women spoke to how the news and the media, particularly the events
surrounding George Floyd impacted their SOB at work. How their companies and ERGs reacted
to the situation either increased or decreased SOB. Vanessa commended her company, “They
actually set up a whole racial equality and justice task force that did a bunch of work and I

105

participated in that. So, I'd say that gave me more of a sense of belonging.” She also mentioned
how it may have created tension and backlash for others in the company with differing beliefs.
There is also a stark difference between how a company reacts in comparison to the ERGs.
Monique highlighted that her company reacted positively, “After George Floyd, they did some
exceptional programming to the point that I learned about like I didn't know a lot about
Juneteenth. This is something that was very Texas centered.” Additionally, how peers interacted
with current news made a difference in SOB. Tahirah said, “I'm very observant. Let's say there's
a zoom call, and you were talking about [George Floyd], I'd be looking to see how other people
are reacting to what you're saying so that gets filed away for later.” These acts of care should
also not just be a trend, but longer-term commitments from companies. Mya shares:
I feel like, especially 2020-2021 with Black Lives Matter being really big. During that
time of George Floyd, a lot of companies put out statements and showed support and
have raised money. But one thing I said was ‘Let’s see in 2-5 year who's still committed
to the things they say.’ Otherwise, obviously this was just a trend to hop on.
Latina. Latina participants spoke about how their intersectionality impacted their SOB
primarily due to lack of representation. Some of the participants also spoke about some familial
pressures and responsibilities. For example, Francesca’s parents separated and her mother
worked multiple jobs. As a result, Francesca reported supporting her younger sister, bringing her
to school, picking her up, and preparing her for college. She added, “I have to take a sick day if I
need to do something for my sister. It effects the time I put into work. I’m always making up for
it, whether it be working after hours or on the weekends.” Catalina echoed the sentiment by
sharing that her parents do not understand what working remotely means. When she worked
remotely from her parents’ house, she had to instill a rule that they could not come in because

106

they did not understand she was on a video call. Catalina shared, “I’m home so for them oh
you’re available. And I’m like, no, I’m working so there’s a lack of understanding with my
family.” Additionally, as someone in her family who is technologically savvy, Catalina is
responsible for booking all of the travel for her aunt undergoing chemotherapy back and forth
from Puerto Rico because the family is uncomfortable with online research and booking.
Nonetheless, she shared this is a “drop in the bucket” in comparison to her cousins and friends
with what other women are going through with familial obligations.
Some participants spoke of a lack of understanding of their careers or someone to talk to
for advice. Adriana has parents who were factory workers who are very proud of her
accomplishments in technology. Nonetheless, her family does not understand her day-to-day
work struggles nor can advise. She shared, “When you mentioned the word support and family,
it’s like, it is a complete disconnection because I don't think they even know. Won’t have an idea
what I'm into, what I'm facing.” Catalina added she only has one cousin who works in
technology, but no immediate family members. She finds it particularly challenging not to have a
family member to go to for longer-term decisions. Catalina shared that when her coworkers have
personal conversations about 401k, solar panels, and investments, she feels left out because she
is not having investment conversations with her family. She added, “I'm in a different place than
my team from a life standpoint so I do feel out of place. It is hard, I wish I did have like a
familial person other than my cousin to turn to.”
Mixed-Race. Mixed-race participants emerged from the survey demographics, which
sparked a focus on interviewing three mixed-race women participants. Their ethnic backgrounds
were each incredibly unique, which spoke to an even more complex identity where they may not

107

necessarily fit into one group. Deanna shared her background as being both Native American and
Mexican, along with the cultural differences:
I have 2 different cultures that I come from. My mom is Navajo and my dad’s Mexican,
and that’s like night and day cultures. Because my dad, my mom, is her Navajo are
matrilineal, so like the woman like, everything's about the woman. And you go with the
woman, and then Mexican side is not that way. So yeah, I think that impacted my
confidence a little bit.
However, she embraces both identities and highlighted, “I celebrate both sides of myself, or you
know my both my cultures. I wanna show people the positive side of my cultures because there's
like a lot of stereotypes that you know I wish weren't there.” Additionally, she shared how she
chose to associate more with her Native American peers. Deanna voiced, “I just felt like I didn’t
belong [in the Latina groups], and the reason why is a lot of people spoke Spanish and I didn’t
speak Spanish, so that was one of the reasons why I gravitated towards more of my native roots.”
Andrea shared her experiences of being white-passing and how it has benefited her. She
explained, “I’m white-passing with like a little there’s something there, so I don’t feel like
people have put me in a box in any way, because of my ethnicity.” Andrea compared this to
other mixed-race individuals where there might be a disadvantage due to visual appearances that
are more prevalent for White and Black, or White and Latino people. However, she also
expressed how her father raised her as Asian when she was neither Asian nor White, but both.
Andrea summarizes her experience well when she shared, “There are challenges beyond just the
Asian. I celebrate your Asianness, but I think there are unique challenges to being mixed.” At
work, she attributes her SOB to a new Mixed Race ERG at her company. Andrea highlights:

108

It really, really helped with my sense of belonging partially, because [the ERG] taught me
a lot about myself. I didn’t necessarily identify with, like the mixed-ness as much until I
discovered this group and realized this camaraderie. While we were different, we still
were able to share this like idea of like, I didn't belong in either group.
Vanessa shared she felt she embraced her identity more as a Black woman than a White
woman, particularly with the peers she surrounded herself with in the workplace. She uncovered
more about her upbringing being raised by her White family and navigating learnings in college,
“My first time going into Black spaces, I had to navigate tension around colorism and
assumptions that I was better. Now I feel fully comfortable. I fully identify as African American.
I don’t really identify as Bi-racial.” Although she had a stronger affinity with her Black identity,
this Bi-racial identity has also given her more access comparatively than her Black female
colleagues and an increased SOB. She highlighted, “Being Black, there’s the common barriers
we face, but I think being Bi-racial, I think it benefits me relative to my full Black colleagues just
with issues of colorism.” Vanessa felt comfortable as she was raised moving comfortably within
White and Black spaces with diverse viewpoints, political views, and perspectives. Additionally,
she has leveraged this benefit to advocate for Black women who might not be invited into the
room. Vanessa stated, “Colleagues might be more comfortable bringing me into the room... I’m
happy to take that seat and worked to represent my community. But I don’t want to see my
colleagues excluded because my white colleagues might feel less comfortable around them.”
Throughout her career, she has seen this as a pattern: she seemingly has more access as a Bi-
Racial woman than her Black female colleagues to these rooms.

109

Theme 6: Systemic Racism Still Prevalent For WOCT
The theoretical framework utilized for this research was Bronfenbrenner, informed by
Critical Race Theory (CRT). CRT emphasizes racism as a systemic issue within the U.S.,
exacerbated by layers of intersectionality (Ladson-Billings, 2013). Furthermore, power
imbalances cause deeply institutionalized injustices that must be recognized to be reconciled
(Martinez, 2014). Throughout the interviews, systemic racism was common through biases
towards favoring white men, lack of respect or microaggressions, and tokenism.. The interview
findings go through each of these three subthemes one by one.
Interview Findings
The interview findings uncovered four common subthemes as it relates to systemic
racism. The first subtheme is favoritism towards white men. The second subtheme is around lack
of respect or microaggressions. The last subtheme discusses tokenism and the summary section
highlights the takeaways.
Favoritism towards White Men. The participants predominately felt the technology
industry still continues to favor White men over WOC. Most of the interview participants talked
about the lack of representation as a detractor. However, their interview responses made it clear
that systemic favoritism was at play. Stacey elaborated, “A lot of people left my previous
company because they were left out of the succession plan, even though they were the most
natural next person. But it was promised to another white man.” Jenny shared her experience of
recently getting laid off at her previous company. Her previous manager, a White male, decided
to keep her White male peer over her although her performance reviews have all been positive
and his have been quite negative. She commented, “There was definitely a feeling of bitterness,

110

of like what was the reason why? I can't necessarily say with certainty that it was because of my
race or age. But there were definitely times where I felt that way.”
Monique shared her challenges in the workplace and her lack of career progression,
promotion, and wanting a pay increase. In a discussion with a White female colleague, she
explained the price of diversity tax. She commented:
I had to explain to her. I don't think I'm better than you. I just think that I should have the
same access to options. Don't you think I have 2 degrees? You have one. I have the same
amount of industry, experience, pre-tech as many of my colleagues do. Why wouldn't I
have access to the same opportunities? We call that the diversity tax.
Furthermore, Tahirah spoke to her frustration with the mispronunciation of her name. She
recognizes the systemic racism she’s surrounded with. Tahirah expressed, “It's 2023. We've been
dealing with this for [how long]? We could say almost 500 years, but literally for over 60 years
we've been dealing with this, and it's not getting easier, I shouldn't have to jump through more
barriers.” Additionally, she shared an experience where her White colleagues were overtly acting
racist without realizing it. Tahirah’s company curriculum was recently updated to a newer
edition with more diverse characters. Her sales representatives were complaining that the
customers wanted the characters to be more “Eurocentric” as if it was the norm and wanting to
revert back to the original characters. There is an uphill battle in changing the culture Tahirah
said:
This is not something that you could just change overnight, and it's also like how you
were raised, like racism is not something that you're engrained with when you're born. It's
something that you're taught. So, if this is something that a 50-year-old has been taught

111

their whole lives, there’s got to be some sort of like catastrophic event that's going to get
them to see things differently.
Sadly, Mya echoed the same and shared that this problem won’t go away no matter what
industry she goes to, “It’s in a lot of companies, no matter what industry. I could try to run away
but I’m going to keep finding it in different forms, different ways. It’s really a Corporate
America thing, a society thing period.”
Lack of Respect or Microaggressions. Furthermore, WOCT reported experiencing
scenarios at work that were disrespectful and, in some instances, microaggressions. For example,
both Stacey and Deanna reported being talked over in meetings and discredited for their work.
Stacey shared, “There’s a lot of white men in positions of power that would discredit you, talk
over you. If you didn’t come from [Ivy League] pedigrees, there’s definitely a lot of looking
down on everybody else being inferior.” She elaborated further that the White men wanted
people to be like them. Similarly, Deanna felt like her voice wasn’t being heard. She stated,
“Somebody would take exactly what I said and say it, and then everyone listened to that person.
Happened a lot with me and I can’t stand that.”
Next, Andrea shared a negative experience with her previous male manager. He was
highly challenging to work with, they would argue often, and he would take things off her desk
or use them without permission. She was unsure if these were microaggressions.
Microaggressions are everyday snubs, slights, or insults in a verbal or nonverbal action that
communicates hostile, negative messages, creating "otherness" and targeting underrepresented
people (Gause, 2021). In contrast, Katie recognized and called out the microaggressions from her
previous female manager. She stated, “[My manager] was not aware they were
microaggressions. I experienced them on multiple occasions and they made me extremely

112

uncomfortable. Even though she invited me to give her feedback, I didn’t feel comfortable and
ultimately feel there was retaliation.”
Lastly, Adriana shared an experience of a lack of respect for her time. She came into the
office to meet a co-worker and reconfigured her personal schedule for this introduction. The
colleague cancelled on her at the last minute and said something came up, but if she stays in the
office, Adriana could still catch the co-worker later. Adriana waited and waited, eventually
seeing the colleague grabbing their jacket and packing their things to walk out of the office. The
colleague completely forgot about Adriana, and she had to chase the co-worker before they left
to still get the introductory meeting.
Tokenism. References to tokenism were prevalent in many of the interviews. Tokenism
is defined as when companies given “token” roles to individuals to represent their organization
which give appearance of progress but are genuinely powerless and marginalizing (Baumgartner
& Schneider, 2010; Madera et al., 2019). Deanna shared a story of when a male Product
Engineer got laid off and was upset Deanna still remained in her role. On his way out, he went to
Deanna’s desk and said “I hope you’re happy” to discredit her capabilities. “You’re a token.
Come right out and say you’re a token. He said, you fit in the Hispanic and Native American
box.” Deanna talked about how awful that comment made her feel and how she worked so hard
to accomplish her career. When she was in college, she was a first-generation college graduate
and had kids at the same time. She was able to get a 3.3 GPA and has a degree in Electrical
Engineering.
In a vastly different scenario, Monique shared about how her colleagues’ good intentions
ended up instead making her feel tokenized, “What it actually did is just put a spotlight on me. It
just made me feel tokenized. There were days where I just didn’t feel like doing my hair and put

113

it in a wrap.” Her colleagues commented, “Oh my God, wow! It’s so beautiful.” Monique felt
she had not done anything special and the wrap was not hard to do, but instead her co-workers
made it into a big deal. She emphasized the importance of trying to find commonality and
understanding you more as a person rather than your race.
Furthermore, Vanessa highlighted her invitations to speak in panels, attend meetings, or
other work-related engagements might not be always for the same reason. She illustrated,
“Sometimes it’s not always meaningful inclusion, it can be Tokenism. They are looking for one
Black person to be on the panel…I don’t always see as much sourced from my full black
friends.” Vanessa shared how she is often invited but observes that she does not see the same
effort made for her colleagues who are 100% Black.
Summary
The intersectional identity of WOCT present SOB barriers that White women do not
commonly experience. These barriers varied based on their ethnic identities as Asian, Black,
Latina, or mixed-race. The mixed-race identities introduced even more complexity for WOCT in
sense of belonging. Additionally, systemic racism is embedded within technology companies
which further lock in the “Old Boys Club” and “Tech Bro” culture. These acts of racism ranged
from favoritism towards White men, lack of respect, microaggressions, tokenism, and other
behaviors.
Research Question 4: What Recommendations Do WOCT Report to Increase Workplace
SOB?
Although Research Question 3’s results might be negatively perceived regarding
sentiments on intersectionality and CRT, Research Question 4 focuses on questions that were
designed to probe recommendations where WOCT interviewees report companies are doing

114

exceedingly well or new recommendations WOCT specifically suggests to increase SOB. In
addition, there are actions that companies, leaders, managers, and allies can take to increase SOB
within the workplace as reported by WOCT. In this section, the research explores two themes to
increase SOB. The first theme focuses on what actions WOCT want their leaders to take to foster
SOB within their company culture. The second theme focuses on what you can do as an ally or
manager to increase SOB within the workplace.
Theme 7: WOCT Need Actions from Leaders (Not Just “Corp Speak”)
WOCT spoke to the importance of their leaders and executive teams taking action in a
variety of different areas to demonstrate their commitment to DEIB. Some of these
recommendations were already taking place within their companies, and some of these
recommendations were in addition to what their company is already doing. The seven subtheme
actions ranged from continuing to invest more in Employee Resource Groups (ERGs), increase
representation, build career progression programs, WOCT in leadership roles, increase budget
and time allocation for community events, promote safe space listening sessions, and following
through on their commitments.
Interview Findings
Investing More In ERGs. Research Question 2 shows ERGs were one of the highest
contributors to SOB for WOCT. So naturally, interview participants recommended investing
even more in the ERGs. Vanessa shared, “I think a lot of folks really do get a lot out of ERGs
and having that community. That’s a way to make friends. Just having friends at work period is
valuable.” Tahirah mentioned this is one of the first things she looks for when she is applying for
roles, “Do you have ERGs, like that’s something I’ve realized I needed that I didn’t know. Do
you have a DEI team? Are you just saying that on your website or are you actually doing it?”

115

Furthermore, the burden of resourcing ERGs should not be put on people of color (POC).
Catalina shared, “[We need] more support to the employee Resource group to help with that,
because we're kind of like boots on the ground. We're the ones, you know, who have a lot of the
connections we can recruit directly from families and friends and our networks.” Similarly,
Francesca elaborated, “People in ERGs are doing extra labor for no extra pay. A lot of times I
find myself [volunteering] at night, for me it’s more of a passion project.” Monique shared the
importance of supporting POC’s who want to give their time, “Think about innovative ways to
compensate them for their extra time. That is not their full-time role unless they are the Director
of Inclusion or Belonging… present them options for compensation for extra time outside their
role or switch their role.” Katie comments reflected agreement, “If someone expresses interest in
doing it, giving them the support and space to do it and letting them create it based on their own
personal interest.” She also commended her company for its ERG support, “It’s basically still a
volunteer position. There can be ERG Lead burnout, but they realize it’s not people’s full-time
job. And they have put full-time resources towards making sure all the ERG stuff gets attended
to, which is reassuring. They’re walking the talk.”
Additionally, ERGs need a budget to execute their purpose and increase SOB for their
community groups. Katie surfaced the question about the budget for her ERGs, and within a few
months, her company announced funding for each ERG to provide help, resources, and cross-
collaborate. She further elaborated, “I mean, honestly like everything my company's doing. I
would say we should do like I'm a big fan of my company. I think it's a great place for
belonging.”
Next, participants emphasized there is also an importance in having dedicated Executive
Sponsors and access for the ERGs. Katie shares how her Black ERG did not have any senior-

116

level members after their reorg and the company took that feedback to heart to find a new
sponsor. Mya expressed in particular having a sponsor who does not belong to that community,
“A sponsor for one of our newest ERGs is a man. I think it’s someone who doesn’t necessarily
belong to the community. So maybe they learn or contribute.” Moreover, providing access to
ERGs to valuable networks are also important. Catalina highlighted, “We have a member on
from HR. And I think that's been super valuable because we get way more insight, and intel into
like, how do access promotions? Those kinds of things, have been like super valuable to me.”
Lastly, WOCT participants encouraged that companies should recognize the
contributions of employees who do decide to contribute their time to ERGs. For example, Katie
shared her experience supporting her company’s Black ERG for Black History Month. Although
she did not expect anything from this contribution, the company gave her a big shout-out at a
company-wide all-hands in public. She illustrated, “I wasn’t looking for public recognition but it
still felt good to be publicly recognized. And then, I saw my manager smile and it felt good to be
at a company that prides itself on giving each ERG it’s spotlight.”
Increasing Representation. Given lack of representation was one of the largest
detractors reported for WOCT, companies need to increase representation of WOCT to increase
SOB. Francesca stated, “For me, it would be more about making sure they hire more people of
color.” Catalina shared how they would do that, “I think financial investment in hiring and
recruitment for those specific groups of people that they want to hire is important. It is what it is,
invest more financial resources.”
Francesca spoke to specific examples on how they can make investments through
pipeline building with college students. She shared, “Try to have networking events with more
POCs. Make sure we have internships for us undergraduates. It’s very important that companies

117

focus on undergraduates because that’s where everything starts. It’s building inclusivity from the
beginning.” Additionally, Francesca emphasized there are many POC who want to break into the
technology industry. Her ideas also include having boot camps and providing resources.
Another way to increase diverse representation is through inclusive hiring training and
ensuring a diverse pool. Vanessa shared that her company has dedicated recruiters to bring
diverse candidates into pools of interviewees. These recruiters partnered with diverse candidates
to help them feel more included and answer specific questions. Particularly, Vanessa expressed
the importance of having diverse employees interview candidates. However, she cautioned, “It
can be challenging because then it overburdens the women and POC because you’re always
asked to interview. But, I think that’s really valuable and raise a different perspective to the
hiring process.”
Career Progression Programs. Interview data demonstrated career progression
programs for WOC are essential to increasing representation and increasing SOB. Mya stated:
“Maybe there's like a type of program. I'm a part of a mentorship program. But just like
opportunities or programs for like growth and movement.” Catalina furthered this
recommendation by sharing about her company’s Women Employee Shadow Program, where
women apply to shadow someone at the Director level. She also recommended structured
opportunities for Sponsors. Mya summed up her thoughts, “If there was clear [career] paths or
opportunities created. A lot of companies get the diversity part but if we all stay here, and there's
not any type of growth then where's the equity part? Where's the inclusion part?”
Participants reported WOCT need to understand how the promotion process works
through transparency and visibility. Vanessa elaborated, “Give some incentive to managers to
really make sure they’re valuing and representing folks. There’s not transparency and again it

118

ends up being people they trust the most who are handed opportunities and promotions.”
Vanessa suggested increasing visibility of work by putting WOC on bigger projects. Being given
the chance to be on large projects then feeds into promotions. Systematizing more fair and equal
distribution of these projects could help promotion across the board. However, it really happens
at the individual manager level. In addition, talent management and succession planning where
leaders are keeping in mind WOCT can go a long way. Stacey emphasized the importance of
succession planning, mainly being very deliberate about nurturing high potentials. Her
experience at her previous company was that many people left because they were left out of the
succession plan.
WOCT In Leadership Roles. Deanna suggested that companies need to have more
WOC at the top ranks of the company. She added, “I want to see the CEO of my company be a
woman and a person of color. That would be like insanely awesome! All the CEOs of tech
companies are [predominately] white males.” Stacey recommended the most impactful increase
to SOB will be diversifying boards because they are the ones who are going to hire executives.
She shared, “If your board is a bunch of white men, their network is going to be a bunch of white
men. By adding diverse boards, they can have candidates come from a much more varied
background.”
In addition, WOCT highlighted there is an importance of normalizing WOC executives,
without tokenizing them. Vanessa expressed, “It is nice to see executive Black women receive
the spotlight a bit more. It can have an impact on Black women lower down the ranks…spotlight
on stage in important meetings. That’s encouraging and gives you sense of belonging.” She
further explained the importance of everyone in the company, including “White Bros” to see
Black women in high-powered positions so that it becomes normalized and not a token. Vanessa

119

believed this can do a fair amount for culture on both sides because she sees challenges where
Black women executives have their reports challenging them and not respecting them as they
would a White male.
Budget and Time Allocation for Community Events. Similar to creating budget and
time for ERGs, WOCT requested their companies to invest budget and time for community-
building events. Adriana said, “Number one would be assigning a budget. This is just assigning a
budget for our teams to get together today.” Next, she talked about leadership investing resources
to plan events such as a committee as she sees only one Latina woman in her company planning
events for the entire office. Beyond in-person events, Adriana recommended forming a
committee to focus on belonging remotely. She would love to see SOB regardless of where you
are at in the hybrid work environment.
Jenny emphasized the importance of “putting your money where your mouth is.” She
shared the examples of Women’s History Month events and what companies may be doing to
promote SOB. From a budgetary standpoint, they should be paying for meals during these events
or cancelling meetings so they don’t have to stay late if they attend. She elaborated, “Make sure
people are free to attend different events. Host them in a convenient way, whether its on-property
or something that’s catered.”
Embedding community events into company culture and creating opportunities for
connection are also important to WOCT interviewees. Stacey shared a best practice of what they
do at her company. The company pays for a meal delivery where everyone orders their lunch and
the lunch arrives at the same time. By default, everybody as a result eats together. She
highlighted, “It’s not that you are always sitting with your teams. It’s a great way for people to
connect with each other. Not necessarily talk about work but be able to sit and eat together

120

organically.” Her previous company also created events to bring people together. Stacey recalled
a Senior Director and above group that got together once a year and hosted events for the next
layer down to meet cross-functionally.
Safe Spaces and Listening Sessions. Companies that create safe spaces and listening
sessions organically create awareness and educational opportunities for their leaders are
appreciated by WOCT interview participants. For example, Mya requested, “I think if there were
more spaces created where our leadership came and listened to our experiences. Rather, we
create our own spaces and so it’s like we’re preaching to the choir.” Monique similarly
suggested, “Ask the people of color in your organization for feedback. But do not put the onus of
the programs on the back of your employees.”
Some of the WOCT participants highlighted positive experiences through listening
sessions. Adriana attended a listening session at her previous company which helped build
belonging. She shared, “Wow! There were identity sessions where people will talk out there
around being a mom, being veterans, being disabled. And it was very tech talk type of stuff.
5 min, just minutes, very powerful. And that opens you to so many different people experiences
like I never thought about.” Katie facilitated a listening circle by psychiatrists around the Atlanta
shootings. They opened up the session to allies and the CEO, C-suite leaders, and managers all
attended which fostered a collaborative environment.
DEIB Training and Education. WOCT expressed the need for training and education to
increase SOB. Katie shared, “Even using the word [SOB] and defining it is a good start. I’m
recognizing inclusion and belonging are different.” Monique recommended starting with
celebrations to foster education. She said, “Just opening the conversation and then depending on

121

your organization you can dial in a bit more.” Andrea found it essential to educate people not
part of that group and bring more awareness.
Although not always popular, WOCT recommended mandatory training as a potential
solution. Andrea shared about her experience participating in really powerful trainings and how
some of them were not ones that she voluntarily chose. She described team training goals of
100% of people participating in a training but she ended up benefitting from it as a person.
Andrea explained, “Some mandatory training can be very effective cause the idea behind it tells
me leadership values this enough that we are gonna make all of our employees do it, and that we
all need to have this knowledge.” Monique added, “Make it mandatory. I don’t care if you don’t
like it. You gotta sit through it, and maybe one thing will land on your ears, maybe the person
who isn’t necessarily the intended audience.” Her approach is to hope someone will learn to do
better and say they never knew that. If possible, the company should also set aside the time for
the training.
Some WOCT specifically recommended additional training for managers of WOC.
Catalina suggested, “Who is managing is a big deal at lease for me personally and providing
them more opportunities to become a better manager, to grow on their experiences, would be
super valuable.” Vanessa built upon this idea further and said she would focus on managers in
particular by giving them tools and setting expectations from day one when they are onboarded.
She said, “A lot of people mean well, but don’t know how to manage people of different
backgrounds…Your manager is someone who is giving opportunity, is giving you the promotion
or not. That’s the most immediate area I would focus for impact.”
In summary, there is a delicate balance on how much training to provide. Vanessa
recommended there may be specific events that come up where it is practical to give a few

122

suggestions for conversation and reminders of best practices. Or, she suggests best practices on
how to run inclusive meetings. Vanessa said, “People get annoyed if they are just reading
through stuff that is not applicable. They should know how to use it.”
Follow-Through. Lastly, WOCT shared that they wanted to hold their companies
accountable to follow-through and not just “Corp Speak” on their DEIB commitments. It’s also
important to recognize where you are and what progress you want to make. Monique candidly
stated, “Start where you are. Don’t go for the gold. If you’ve got two Black women in your
organization, start where you are.” Tahirah added, “I feel like DEI is the buzzword…Do you
really focus on including everyone? Not just POC, but are you including Trans and LGBTQ and
disabled? Are you including everyone?” She went on to say she would love to see a video or one
page fact sheet of what the company has done such as supporting the community. Tahirah
wanted her company to take a stance and action, for example, around the diversity of their
curriculum characters.
According to WOCT participants, larger corporations have an uphill battle regarding the
perception of their DEIB activities. Andrea spoke to the challenges of larger companies, “It’s
hard because the larger the company is, the colder, or more, I don’t want to say patronizing.
Even if my company truly believes it, I don’t know that everybody feels that of they’re just doing
lip service.” She suggested that companies need to make it feel more genuine, “Some way of
showing that authenticity, like leadership being more directly involved, not just sponsoring
events, but showing that they care and are involved.” An example Andrea shared was going
beyond checking the box and demonstrating it through staying for an entire event, not just a pop-
in for 5 minutes to say hello. She commended that some leaders at her company do this well

123

when they explain why they believe DEIB is relevant to their work and how it will make them
better, demonstrating authenticity.
Katie expressed what authenticity would look like for her at her company. She shared it
would include understanding what DEIB terms mean, putting resources in place, having
executive sponsors, a meeting cadence to address issues, setting goals around belonging, and
then putting a structure and mechanism in place to address it. Katie added that she wants
companies to continue showing that they value feedback and addresses it in a conversation,
rather than taking it as criticism. For Monique, it is “putting your money where your mouth is.”
She highlighted the Juneteenth boxes she received and how her company partnered with local
black women owned businesses.
Lastly, Vanessa discussed the importance of carrots and sticks within an organization.
The carrots would be the appropriate training and effective tools to help people who want to
support their employees. For example, she recommended sticks if a manager has a history of
employees with a bad experience. Vanessa shared, “There should be consequences. You should
not keep just promoting that manager. Frustration is people who are a problem for a lot of folks
and they just keep rising, even though the company says they care about inclusion.”
Theme 8: Allyship, Mentorship, and Sponsorship Make a Difference
The last theme focuses more on findings about anyone within a team can do to foster
SOB whether an individual contributor, manager, or leader. These previous themes highlight
specific findings that WOCT interviewees share that have or would increase their SOB. This
section covers five distinct subthemes – onboarding, embracing their identity, building team
camaraderie, allyship and public support, and mentorship and sponsorship.

124

Interview Findings
Onboarding. The onboarding phase is most needed to setting the tone of their SOB
experience as reported by WOCT. For example, Catalina had an assigned onboarding buddy who
helped her answer questions, understand acronyms, and provided her with a safe space as she
was ramping up. She shared, “My recommendation I would have is my buddy program which
really worked out. I think POC in particular really need.” Francesca similarly had a peer which
she was able to count on in her early phases. Monique also demonstrated how comfortable she
felt asking questions, figuring out things together, and having a support system when she started
at her company. She also expressed how incredible her VP was in sending individual emails to
every person who began within his team. Every gesture during the onboarding period sets the
tone for the rest of their SOB experience.
Embrace Their Identity. Many WOCT shared distinct experiences where their peers or
managers took the time to get to know them and embraced their identities. Tahirah’s previous
supervisor talked about raising kids since they both found a commonality in having teenagers.
Similarly, Vanessa shared about her manager, “She genuinely sees me as her colleague. Having a
personal relationship allows you the trust and her to speak about me when I'm not around, and to
trust me with work. People tend to relate to people most like them." Adriana expressed similar
views:
When you get to know someone personally and they share their trials, tribulations,
experiences, that seems to be a positive for your SOB regardless of their background.
You get to that level of intimacy where you actually get to know a person for who they
are.

125

WOCT participants also want their team members to embrace their WOCT identity
through listening and learning. Mya expressed the importance of diversity of thought and new
ideas, “How could you know if there is an issue if you don’t even know it exists, or even talking
to the people that are there. Once there is awareness, then maybe a solution can come from it?”
Monique had a unique relationship with a White male leader who told her to call him out on
anything as he was learning and being really authentic. Tahirah shared about Justice ERG where
White allies would come and listen for people to understand them better when situations arose.
Building Team Camaraderie. Fostering team camaraderie is essential to increasing
SOB in the workplace according to WOCT interviewees. Catalina emphasized, “Our team is
pretty tight nit, and very supportive of one another. Overall, the way my manager runs the group
is very healthy.” Katie took this a step further when she talks about the importance of
psychological safety. She said, “Place a value on creating psychologically safe spaces which
includes not just different ethnicities, but also communication styles like introverts and
extroverts, and how they might want to be seen and heard.”
Social events came up as a common theme throughout many interviews. Adriana in
particular was left out of events and did not know about events until the last minute. Jenny found
her SOB at her previous company through events. She shared, “A big part of belonging was
hanging out, having meals, and doing activities outside of work.” Deanna positively spoke about
a specific staff meeting where they all brought in different cultural foods. She was so happy for
the opportunity to share more about her culture and her food.
Allyship and Public Support. Allyship, particularly in a public forum, is extremely
important for WOCT SOB as reported by participants. Deanna highlighted she had a White male
ally who was a big supporter. Catalina also had an ally which was very transparent with her.

126

Monique’s ally, a White woman, offered support on Monique’s first performance review. She
read the draft and told Monique she was not giving herself enough credit and gave
recommendations on how to improve the review. Monique emphasized, “Those are pivotal
experiences that even if you have really, really bad experiences with people who don’t look like
you, it gives you enough of a second look to say, ‘Okay, not everyone is like that.’”
Extending allyship beyond private spaces to public settings is even more critical, as stated
by WOCT interviewees. Mya shared, “I would love to see [them bring up the news about police
brutality], but in a public space, maybe like a team meeting… we can't do the work
ourselves…Okay, this is important for all of us.” Monique talked about a White female manager
she had who was so intentional about talking about Juneteenth programming and asking the team
which sessions they are attending. She did the same for PRIDE week and other major DEIB
events. Monique said, “It was small and intentional, and it did make people go. Oh, I really
enjoyed, or I'm part of this panel, you know, you guys want to come, support your co-worker and
learn something again.”
Interview data demonstrated peers and allies can also increase SOB by supporting ERGs
and increasing their awareness. Tahirah shared, “Black ERG is siloed. It’s company-wide but not
everybody supports it. The slack channel is open, anybody can come in, it’s not just for Black
people to join, there’s quite a few people that don’t support it.” Andrea similarly stated,
“Cultivate allies. It’s not just women celebrating women and Black people celebrating Black
History Month. Helping people understand how they should participate.” She further explained
that ERGs should similarly promote these events and ask that they want allies present to learn
more.

127

Francesca summarized, “It’s very important to have allies. If they’re not able to hire a lot
of POCs, in the early phases of hiring, I understand. But if there aren’t any allies for POCs, then
you know, you’re really working with nothing.” She elaborated that allies should be open to
supporting POCs, hearing their ideas, and looking for success inclusively for everyone regardless
of their background, not just POCs.
Mentorship and Sponsorship
WOCT highlighted both mentorship and sponsorship as essential to increase SOB. Jenny
recommends mentorship to feel a sense of connection and to have someone to talk to. Stacey
encouraged mentorship programs only where organic relationships form and mentees know what
they want to get out of that relationship and come prepared with a clear purpose for discussion.
And Monique spoke about a VP at her company who successfully executed mentorship at scale
in group settings. She shared that the VP created cohorts to meet with him for an hour every
other week with different levels of VPs and Directors from other organizations, giving access to
POC.
Sponsorship was also vital for WOCT participants, although few mentioned they had
sponsors. Stacey has had many sponsors in her career who believed in her and made her more
visible within the organization. And Monique had Black women higher up in position sponsor
her and others. She shared they would create inclusive bubbles for Black and Latina women
within the organization. Monique also knew how to improve her performance reviews with the
support she received from allies. Lastly, Catalina shared how she met her sponsor, connected
personally at an event, and eventually, he hired her. She observed CEOs and C-suite level
sponsors not having the time to vouch for you and recommended that WOCT go for the middle
layer of management.

128

Summary
WOCT provided practical recommendations on how to increase SOB for WOCT. The
first theme explored systematic opportunities for larger organizations amongst seven themes.
These seven subthemes included investing more in ERGs, increasing representation, career
progression programs, WOCT in leadership roles, increasing budget and time allocation for
community events, promoting safe space listening sessions, and lastly most importantly,
following through on their commitments through their actions. The second theme recommended
actions that individuals within the organization could participate in such as onboarding,
embracing their identity, building team camaraderie, allyship and public support, and mentorship
and sponsorship. Any and all of these recommendations can increase SOB for WOCT.

Summary of Results and Findings
Four research questions were addressed through Chapter 4, which highlighted eight
themes. Research Question 1 (RQ1) focused on ‘What levels of workplace SOB do WOCT
report?’ In RQ1, the WOCT participants uncovered two different themes. Theme 1 was that
workplace SOB scores varied across WOCT from 0 to 10. An average WOCT SOB score of
between 6 to 7 in both the survey and the interview highlights that improvements can still be
made to increase SOB in the workplace for WOCT. By analyzing data from Comparably (2023),
the employee experience data across a subset of the largest technology companies demonstrate
that WOCT scores on average are 1.6 points lower than the average employee populations at a
subset of top technology companies. Furthermore, the higher self-reported WOCT survey scores
demonstrate that WOCT can achieve a high score of 9 or 10 in the ideal company environment
and culture. Additionally, the low scores of 0 or 1 indicate that even if WOCT are at a 6 or 7 on

129

average, there is still significant work to be done for WOCT who score dramatically lower and
feel that they do not belong.
The second theme in RQ1 uncovered SOB Scores are higher for more tenured roles and
lower for Latinas. The survey respondents indicated a higher SOB score for those who had been
within their current technology company with more tenure. For example, WOCT with more than
10 years of work (n = 17, 8% of respondents) experience showed a higher SOB score with an
average of 7.8 and a median of 9.0. The most significant jump came in the data when
respondents had more than 21 years of experience, with an average of 9.0 and a median of 9.0
compared to the broader average of 6.7 and median of 7.0. In fact, respondents with 21-30 years
within their company gave a SOB score of 9.0. Contrastingly, both the survey and interview
participants showed lower scores for Latinas. Their median score was 6.0 out of 10, the same as
with mixed-race, and in the interviews, they had the lowest average at 4.3 out of 10.
Next, Research Question 2 (RQ2) asked, ‘How does each ecological system impact
workplace SOB as reported by WOCT?’. Two themes emerged here – one favorable contributing
theme and one unfavorable detracting theme. The positive contributing factor across the survey
and interviews were the peers at the company. Theme 3 highlights strong relationships with
peers, ERGs, and community groups strengthen SOB. 73.4% of respondents highlighted peers,
followed by their Manager at 60.1%. Additionally, there were 68 mentions within the interviews
with 100% interview participant density for peers and 45 mentions and 92% interview
participant density for ERGs. Theme 4 acknowledged detractors within corporate culture,
particularly the lack of representation. The largest detractor in the survey had company culture
listed at 42.4%; lack of representation was not listed as a factor; however, it was prevalent in the

130

open comment text. Company culture and lack of representation were both mentioned 53 times
with a 92% density in interviews.
Furthermore, Research Question 3 (RQ3) explored, ‘How does WOCTs’ intersectional
identity impact their workplace SOB and retention?’ Theme 5 confirms intersectional identity
presents barriers for WOCT. The intersectional identity of WOCT presents SOB barriers that
White women do not commonly experience. These barriers varied based on their ethnic identities
as Asian, Black, Latina, or mixed-race. The mixed-race identities introduced even more
complexity for WOCT in the sense of belonging. Theme 6 uncovered systemic racism is still
prevalent for WOCT exemplifying critical race theory (CRT). Systemic racism is embedded
within technology companies, which further lock in the “Old Boys Club” and “Tech Bro”
culture. These acts of racism ranged from favoritism towards White men, lack of respect,
microaggressions, tokenism, and other behaviors.
Lastly, Research Question 4 (RQ4) summarized, ‘What recommendations do WOCT
report to increase workplace SOB for WOCT?’ Two central themes emerged from the interviews
– theme 7 and theme 8. Theme 7 shared WOCT need actions from leaders, not just “corp speak.”
The seven subthemes ranged from continuing to invest more in ERGs, increase representation,
build career progression programs, WOCT in leadership roles, increase budget and time
allocation for community events, promote safe space listening sessions, and following through
on their commitments. Additionally, theme 8 highlighted things anyone within a team could do
to foster SOB, particularly as an ally, mentor, or sponsor. These last themes highlight specific
findings that WOCT interviewees share that have or would increase their SOB. Five distinct
subthemes were uncovered – onboarding, embracing their identity, building team camaraderie,
allyship and public support, and mentorship and sponsorship.

131

Conclusion
Companies still have more work to do in the WOCT SOB space due to the disparity
between those who rank SOB a 1 to those who rank SOB a 10. Furthermore, there is much to be
learned from the lived positive and negative experiences of SOB for WOCT. None of the
interview participants waited for anything to be given to them without hard work. Chapter 5 will
present final, consolidated recommendations for the results and findings that need to be
addressed through evidence-based recommendations.

132

Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations
The purpose of the study was to explore the lived experiences of WOC working in
technology (WOCT) with a particular focus on workplace sense of belonging (SOB) in driving
retention. The study explored organizational assets that have supported the SOB of women of
color in technology (WOCT) and barriers to SOB that may impact retention. In addition, the
study inquired WOCT about their recommendations to improve SOB challenges within
technology companies. The following research questions guided the study:
1. What levels of workplace SOB do WOCT report?
2. How does each ecological system impact workplace SOB as reported by WOCT?
3. How does WOCTs’ intersectional identity impact their workplace SOB and retention?
4. What recommendations do WOCT report to increase workplace SOB of WOC in
technology?
Discussion of Findings and Results
Chapter Four presented the survey results and interview findings, with two themes
emerging for each of the four research questions. For research question 1, the data indicated that
there was wide variation in WOCT scores, higher scores for tenured roles, and lower scores for
Latinas. For research question 2, the data showed that peer relationships and community groups
contributed positively to SOB whereas company culture and lack of representation detracted
SOB. For research question 3, the interview findings highlighted both intersectional identity and
systemic racism served as barriers to WOCT SOB. Lastly, for research question 4, WOCT
interviewees recommended allyship, mentorship, sponsorship, and action-oriented organizational
changes to improve SOB. Chapter Five takes the Chapter 4 themes and organizes them according
to systems aligned to the literature review. The six areas of focus in Chapter Five are the

133

following: (a) microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and macrosystem impact workplace
belonging, (b) systemic issues prevent SOB in the workplace, (c) intersectionality adds a layer of
complexity for WOCT, (d) ERGs are a powerful counterspace, (e) lack of representation detracts
SOB, and (f) WOCT are proactive and resilient.
Microsystem, Mesosystem, Exosystem, and Macrosystem Impact Sense of Belonging (SOB)
Based on the survey results and interview findings, each layer of the Bronfenbrenner
ecological framework contributes or detracts SOB for WOCT. The Bronfenbrenner ecological
framework contends human development results from multiple systems and settings that change
over time (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Gardiner and Kosmitzki (2008) emphasized the focal point of
Bronfenbrenner’s theory is the declaration that human beings create the environments in which
they live, and reciprocally those environments shape their development. An individual is in the
center of the framework, surrounded by the macrosystem, chronosystem, exosystem,
mesosystem, and microsystems that impact them. The study validated that each layer impacted
SOB, as uncovered in the interview findings. The microsystem for WOCT was compromised of
peers, family, friends, and their direct manager. The WOCT mesosystem encompassed senior
leadership, ERGs, and external organizations. The WOCT exosystem consisted of the promotion
process, tokenism, microaggressions, and the Old Boy’s Club culture. The WOCT macrosystem
highlighted the lack of representation of WOCT in the workplace, specifically within their
organization and in visible leadership roles detracted SOB. Lastly, the chronosystem impacted
WOCT specifically due to racial inequity events in the news such as George Floyd’s murder and
how companies responded to those current events.

134

Systemic Issues Prevent Sense of Belonging (SOB) In the Workplace
WOCT are experiencing systemic issues within their respective companies which detract
from their SOB. Critical Race Theory (CRT) believes systemic racism is prevalent in U.S.
society and is embedded within society (Ladson-Billings, 2013). For example, these systemic
issues become prevalent when looking specifically at lack of WOCT career advancement and
pay inequity. WOC experience the most significant wage gap than their White male or female
counterparts for the same roles (Hired.com, 2020). While White women were paid 7% less than
their White male counterparts, Hispanic women were paid 8% less, and Black women were paid
11% less on average (Hired.com, 2020). Hired.com (2020) reported that 54% of women knew
they were paid less than their male colleagues for the same job compared to 19% of men who
experienced the same dynamic.
Furthermore, long-standing organizational structure, hierarchy, and culture promote
White males into positions of power. An “Old Boys Club” creates barriers for WOC to access
informal networks, sponsorship, mentorship, and alliances (Gause, 2021; Nixon, 2017). As a
result, WOCT have less access to sponsorship, mentorship, and career development
opportunities. Normative male dominance prevents women from freely expressing their
opinions, feeling their work is valued, gaining recognition for accomplishments, receiving
unbiased feedback for professional growth, and genuinely feeling belonging at work. (Wilson &
VanAntwerp, 2021).
Aligned with the literature review, both the survey results and interview findings
highlighted organizational culture, primarily lack of representation, to be the highest ranked
detractor from SOB at 42%. The organizational cultural elements, specifically lack of
representation, are due to systemic inequities. Secondarily, the dissatisfaction with pay and

135

compensation was the second highest at 34%. Similarly, interview findings confirmed WOCT
experienced microaggressions, tokenism, biases, organizational favoritism towards White men,
and other inequitable scenarios which detracted from their SOB.
Intersectionality Adds a Layer of Complexity for WOCT
Intersectionality creates a disadvantage for WOCT SOB in comparison to White women
or non-White men. Intersectionality is a complexity which overlaps multiple dimensions of race,
gender, class, and sexuality (Cole, 2009). The literature review aligns with the research data
highlighting that WOC are faced with challenges of both racism and sexism (Curtis-Boles,
2009). Additionally, Gause (2021) contended the double bind of gender and racial norms creates
systemic and institutional barriers. WOCT face ethnic stereotypes layered on top of their gender
biases. Williams et al. (2014) conducted a study that showed 100% of women in a STEM gender
bias study reported encountering a pattern of gender bias. Another study similarly demonstrated
that female candidates experienced four times more doubt on credentials and work experience
than men (Correll, 2017).
The study validated the literature review highlighting WOCT as inherently disadvantaged
by both gender and race in the workplace. The interview findings explored the complexity of
intersectionality and confirmed literature about how multiple identities could operate
simultaneously to a person's disadvantage (Cole, 2009; Ladson-Billings, 2013; Page, 2017). Each
ethnic group of interviewees highlighted different SOB challenges they were facing due to their
intersectional identity. This is similar to research conducted by Rainey et al. (2018) which
confirmed white men were most likely to report high scores on SOB whereas WOC the least
likely to report high SOB when majoring in STEM. Sax et. al (2018) expressed very similar
findings of SOB in Computing majors where White men scored a higher SOB than WOC. These

136

negative sentiments are carried with WOC from their educational experiences into the
workforce.
Employee Resource Groups (ERGs) are a Powerful Counterspace
Based on both the survey and interviews, employee resource groups (ERGs) have a
significant impact for WOCT to increase SOB. ERGs are a group of peers or community groups
based on demographic backgrounds, interests, or other identified interests. Case and Hunter
(2012) emphasized the importance of ERGs, which create a social counterspace with others who
can empathize with employee’s experiences, decrease the feeling of isolation, increase a shared
sense of security for their identity, open up a dialogue on confronting oppression, and mitigate
distress and psychological implications of oppression. The survey results and interview findings
confirmed the importance WOCT perceived in having peers and peer groups, including ERGs
which were favorably mentioned in both the survey and the interviews. These peer-to-peer
relationships foster a sense of empathy, security, psychological safety, and shared community
(Case & Hunter, 2012). The literature review did not encompass specific research on the
importance of 1:1 peer-based relationships or workplace friendships. However, workplace
friendships were highlighted in the interview findings to be equally as crucial as ERGs.
Lack of Representation Detracts SOB
One of the largest detractors for WOCT SOB was attributed to lack of representation.
The survey results and interview findings confirmed WOCT associated their sense of belonging
with being surrounded by colleagues, managers, and leaders who shared similar identities. Due
to the history of a White male-prevalent technology space, 72% of women in technology report
men regularly outnumbering them by a minimum of a 2:1 ratio, with 26% of women reporting a
ratio of 5:1 or more (Sullivan-Hasson, 2021). The notion of an "Old Boys Club" transpires where

137

men become more comfortable working with men and favor male hires over women (Davidson
& Burke, 2016). For that reason, women experience extra scrutiny of their accomplishments
during the hiring process and it becomes even more challenging to increase representation in the
workforce.
Both the survey results and interview findings identified lack of representation to be the
top detractor of SOB for WOCT. Lee (2022) emphasized the importance of inclusive work
environments which lead to high levels of employee engagement, social interaction, social
equity, and organizational effectiveness. There is positive psychological effect to be surrounded
by people “who look like you.” Sense of belonging is tied to social identity with shared beliefs
which requires unity amongst similar members of your group (Brower, 2021). Therefore, the
importance of representation centers from social identity, familiarity, and shared beliefs.
Additionally, Widdicks et al. (2021) emphasized role models who look similar to one as being
key to belonging in Computer Science education. González-Pérez et al. (2020) confirmed the
importance of STEM role models to be inspirational, reducing the self-stereotyping of
stigmatized groups, and increasing sense of belonging. Ultimately, the lack of representation
downplays confidence and discourages self-efficacy (Widdicks et al., 2021).
WOCT are Proactive and Resilient
As demonstrated in the interview participants’ stories, despite all odds, WOCT are
proactive, resilient, and continue to preserve in the workplace regardless of their SOB. Yu et al.
(2022) identified resilience as valuable capacity developed from adversity that enables
individuals to work in stressful environments, to achieve career success, and how “what does not
kill you makes you stronger.” What inspired me most was the resilience of the women in fighting
imposter syndrome and biases, combating microaggressions and biases, advocating for

138

themselves, learning to speak up, finding a network and resources they could rely on, and not
feeling sorry for themselves. Their proactive nature showed that they were trying to fight the
systemic barriers encountered daily and needed more support from their peers, managers,
leaders, and their company through accountability and action.
Recommendations for Practice
There are three recommendations identified to address critical results and findings. The
first recommendation will discuss investing in providing spaces to foster peer-based
relationships. The second recommendation will focus on enabling and growing allies and
sponsors. Lastly, the third recommendation highlights the need for leaders and corporations to
“walk the talk” through action-oriented accountability.
Recommendation 1: Companies Need to Invest in Providing Spaces to Foster Peer-Based
Relationships
Both 73.4% of WOCT survey respondents and 100% of WOCT interview participants
stated peer-based relationships to be the highest-ranking contributor to their SOB in the
workplace. Furthermore, 92% of WOCT interviewees also commended Employee Resource
Groups (ERGs) as contributing to their SOB. These peer-to-peer relationships foster a sense of
empathy, security, psychological safety, and shared community (Case & Hunter, 2012). Because
WOCT need peer-based relationships, companies should continue to invest in programs which
foster peer-based relationships whether organically or more structurally.
For example, interview participants highlighted onboarding buddy programs, additional
ERG budgetary investments, hosting cross-functional events, and mentoring programs. The goal
is for WOCT to develop relationships with peers they can count on, regardless of their
background to increase SOB. Additionally, companies that are too small to have resources to

139

create ERGs should consider other informal networking settings at social events and provide
resources to access external-facing community organizations, which can also help foster
belonging.
Recommendation 2: Enable and Grow Allies and Sponsors
The highest ranked detractor to SOB was a negative organizational culture at 42.4% for
survey results and 92% of interview respondents. Researchers have linked the importance
between an employee and organizational culture through empirical evidence (Lemons &
Parzinger, 2008). A negative or toxic organizational culture is challenging to combat based on
systemic issues, workplace norms, and a variety of other factors. Women in technology
experience higher levels of job satisfaction when an organizational climate is healthy (Lemons &
Parzinger, 2008). However, enabling and growing solid allies in the workplace can serve as
ideological counterspaces to support WOCT during negative experiences of microaggressions,
biases, and favoritism. Counterspaces are conceptual or ideological, physical settings promoting
the psychological well-being of individuals who experience oppression (Case & Hunter, 2012;
Ong et al., 2018). Furthermore, counterspaces can create social support with others who can
empathize with their experiences, decrease the feeling of isolation, increase a shared sense of
security for their identity, open up a dialogue on confronting oppression, and mitigate distress
and psychological implications of oppression (Case & Hunter, 2012). Fostering allyship will
provide immediate impact for allies to speak up during meetings, sensitive workplace situations,
and times of need for WOCT to combat toxic workplace culture.
Additionally, allies in positions of power or leadership roles will provide a heightened
level of support for WOCT as sponsors. Leadership has an ethical responsibility to foster and
create a positive work environment (Alfred et al., 2019). An average of 86% of STEM women

140

reported lack of sponsorship as the biggest challenge for retention, career advancement, and
sense of belonging (Ashcraft et al., 2016). Leaders draw their power, network, resources, social
capital, and influence to advocate, recommend, and protect their proteges with their power and
influence (De Vries & Binns, 2018). These sponsorship relationships can elevate WOCT and
their work to support career advancement and SOB in the workplace.
Recommendation 3: Leaders Need to “Walk the Talk”
One hundred percent of WOCT interviewees suggested recommendations for leaders to
be more accountable with follow-through, specifically budget and resources. Additionally, 92%
of interviewees commented lack of representation to be tied to culture as their biggest detractor
of SOB in the workplace. CRT views institutional and structural racism as the ongoing source of
inequity; institutions should look inward at policies and practices perpetuating injustice (Estrada
et al., 2018). To mitigate institutional and structural racism in the technology industry, leaders
need to “put their money whether their mouth is,” as several WOCT interview participants
stated. More robust investments in hiring WOCT, advancing WOCT into leadership roles, and
ERG groups are essential. Recognizing and removing these power imbalances affecting WOCT
is critical to unlocking potential solutions to resolving deeply institutionalized injustices
(Martinez, 2014).
Furthermore, leaders need to demonstrate through their own individual actions and
advocacy that they want WOCT to feel they belong. Race is a social construct that has
detrimentally contributed to the disparities in WOC career advancement (Ladson-Billings, 2013).
Those who believe racism does not exist contribute to the lack of action on workplace inequity
(Ladson-Billings, 2013; Martinez, 2014). Leaders need to educate themselves on these disparities
and inequities to take action. Whether making firm commitments within their organizational

141

goals or sponsoring an ERG, leaders can take decisive action, not just “corp speak” that they
want to make a difference.
Implementation Plan
This section highlights an actionable implementation plan utilizing the Awareness,
Desire, Knowledge, Ability, Reinforcement (ADKAR) change model to execute the three
recommendations for practice (Galli, 2018). The ADKAR change model is sequenced by how an
individual experiences cultural change within an organization based on awareness, desire,
knowledge, ability, and reinforcement. The following steps outline the implementation plan in
the same sequence.
Awareness
First, the company must provide an understanding to all employees as to why change is
needed to increase workplace belonging for WOCT. The key questions to be answered include
why the change is needed, the nature of the change, and the risk of not changing. The research
data highlight the disparity between WOCT sense of belonging in comparison to other
benchmarks such as Comparably (2023) to greater company belonging. Companies can tailor
their messaging based on internal employee experience data, hiring data, diversity report data,
and other key messaging which aligns to company-wide goals and priorities. A communications
plan is recommended to disseminate the message to employees.
Desire
Next, the change involves a personal decision to be made in the desire phase. Companies
must understand that whether an employee chooses to engage is a personal choice which can be
influenced but cannot be controlled. The key is for companies to focus on increasing desire for
the organizational change to increase SOB. Employees will feel a stronger case for change if

142

they understand “What’s in it for me?” Key messaging around the desire to change can include
the need to increase psychological safety, improve cross-team collaboration, and other tangible
benefits SOB bring into the workplace. The key is to tailor messaging across different
stakeholder groups, particularly those who may be resistant to the change.
Knowledge
Knowledge is the next step with understanding how to change to increase workplace
SOB for WOCT. This phase is key to educating key decision makers on the three
recommendations: 1) investing in providing spaces to foster peer-based relationships, 2) enabling
and growing allies and sponsors, and 3) action-oriented accountability for leaders. Leaders and
budgetary decision makers must have the awareness, desire, and knowledge to begin considering
investments in pipeline hiring programs, counterspaces that encourage peer-based relationships
such as ERGs, training for allies and sponsors, and increasing funding for SOB commitments.
Additionally, allies must understand how to provide a heightened level of support for
WOCT. Training for allies can provide concrete examples for allies to take action in the
workplace including how to speak up if a WOCT’s idea is overlooked during a meeting, along
with how to reach out and provide support to WOCT within their team. Similarly, leaders who
are in positions of power must be educated about the difference between mentorship and
sponsorship, specifically, how to leverage their status and position to sponsor WOCT. Leaders
who understand how to use their social capital more effectively can unlock the benefits for
WOCT through intentional network connections, highly visible projects, career development
opportunities, and endorsing the WOCT’s skills and capabilities.

143

Ability
Once knowledge is established on WOCT SOB opportunities, the company must progress
to understanding capability for change. The organizational change to increase SOB requires
action, which requires individuals to achieve the desired change in performance or behavior. A
key question may be whether the organization is set up effectively to execute on the change. For
example, the company can consider whether their hiring processes, performance goals,
incentives, budget, resources, and organizational structure is aligned to support the change. This
phase may be the most challenging for companies to execute due to budgetary and resource
constraints. Companies may need to be innovative by partnering with external agencies,
nonprofits, and by soliciting employee volunteers to roll-out the SOB recommendations. For
instance, technology companies can partner with universities such as HBCU’s to build a pipeline
of Black talent.
Reinforcement
Lastly, organizational change must be sustained and reinforced once executed. The key is
to focus on actions which will increase the likelihood that the change will be continued. For
example, recognition and rewards are an effective way to sustain the change. Companies can
recognize allies and sponsors at company meetings for their contributions, testimonials can be
shared in newsletters, and ERGs can continue reinforcing the value of SOB initiatives.
Companies who have a consistent rhythm of key SOB messaging, host DEI related talks and
social activities, and continue to invest budget and resource into the change will be more
successful. The five steps utilizing the ADKAR organizational change model with practice
recommendations are depicted in Table 11.

144

Table 11
Implementation Plan
Change Phase Goal Recommendations for practice
Awareness Understand the need
for change
• Provide an understanding to all employees
as to why change is needed in order to
increase workplace belonging for WOCT.
• Empower CEO and key leaders to articulate
why the change is needed, the nature of the
change, and the risk of not changing.
• Leverage external research data to highlight
the disparity between WOCT SOB
compared to other benchmarks such as
Comparably (2023).
• Tailor messaging based on internal
employee experience data, hiring data,
diversity report data, and other key
messaging aligned to company-wide goals
and priorities.
• Create a change management and
communications plan with multiple
communication vehicles and modalities to
disseminate message to employees.
• Provide opportunities and forums to ask
questions and provide feedback.
Desire To participate and
support the change
• Focus on increasing desire for
organizational change.
• Create key messages on “What’s in it for
me?”
• Articulate key benefits of improving SOB
such as increasing psychological safety,
improving cross-team collaboration,
diversity of ideas, and other tangible
benefits of SOB in the workplace.
• Tailor messaging across different
stakeholder groups, particularly for those
who may be resistant to the change.
Knowledge Know how to
change
• Educate key decision makers on the three
recommendations: 1) investing in providing
spaces to foster peer-based relationships, 2)
enabling and growing allies and sponsors,
and 3) action-oriented accountability for
leaders.
• Encourage consideration of additional
investments in pipeline hiring programs,

145

Change Phase Goal Recommendations for practice
counterspaces that encourage peer-based
relationships such as ERGs, training for
allies and sponsors, and increasing funding
for SOB commitments.
• Provide training for allies with concrete
steps to take action in the workplace,
including how to speak up if a WOCT’s
idea is overlooked during a meeting, along
with how to reach out and provide support
to WOCT within their team.
• Host training for leaders on the difference
between mentorship and sponsorship,
specifically, and how to leverage their status
and position to sponsor WOCT.
• Create tangible examples for sponsors such
as intentional network connections, highly
visible projects, career development
opportunities, and endorsing the WOCT’s
skills and capabilities.
Ability Implement required
skills and behaviors
• Assess whether the organization is set up
effectively to execute change.
• Consider whether the hiring processes,
performance goals, incentives, budget,
resources, and organizational structure is
aligned to support the change.
• Execute adjustments to improve processes,
budgets, and organizational structure where
needed to maximize recommendations.
• Partner with external agencies, nonprofits,
and other strategic partners to amplify
ability.
• Solicit engaged employee volunteers to roll-
out the SOB recommendations.
• Implement the three recommendations: 1)
investing in providing spaces to foster peer-
based relationships, 2) enabling and
growing allies and sponsors, and 3) action-
oriented accountability for leaders.
Reinforcement Sustain the change • Focus on actions to increase the likelihood
that the change will be continued.
• Implement recognition and rewards
program to sustain change.
• Recognize allies and sponsors at company
meetings for their contributions.

146

Change Phase Goal Recommendations for practice
• Share testimonials in newsletters.
• Amplify ERGs to reinforce the value of
SOB initiatives.
• Create, track, and monitor key metrics
aligned to the recommendations tied to
business goals.
• Integrate into existing business cadences
such as town halls, quarterly business
reviews, diversity reports, and other
channels.
• Create a consistent rhythm of key SOB
messaging through hosting DEI-related
talks and social activities
• Continue to invest budget and resources into
the change.

Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations and delimitations were taken into consideration for the research study.
Creswell and Creswell (2018) explained limitations as the uncontrollable influences affecting the
study beyond the researcher's control. Delimitations are choices made by the researcher that play
a role in the design decisions of the study which impact the results received (Leedy & Omrod,
2018).
As in every study, there are several limitations in this study. First, the global Covid-19
pandemic influenced the future of work for many technology companies. Some technology
companies had WOCT employees who are now 100% remote, some are hybrid, and some 100%
in the office. There were limitations to accurately measure SOB given how some participants
may or may not have been in favor of returning to the office. Specific dynamics of SOB could be
impacted dependent upon the company’s work environment and return to office (RTO) policy.
Furthermore, the survey was administered on January 30
th
, shortly after many big technology

147

company layoffs occurred. Due to the economic environment, the technology industry had a
series of layoffs across many big companies such as Google, Meta, Amazon, Microsoft,
Salesforce, and LinkedIn. Some WOCT may have been recently laid off or had team members
who were laid off.
Next, the research subjects all had multiple opportunities for human error. For example,
the participants responding to the survey may have identified as WOCT, but may not work at a
technology company or live in the U.S. Although there was a prescreening question before
participants entered, they may still have identified themselves as WOCT even if they are in
adjacent fields such as marketing, advertising, or financial services. Furthermore, the economic
climate or recent layoffs may have impacted their sentiments to be negatively skewed.
Additionally, the survey taker could have misinterpreted the Likert scale and mistakenly reversed
the scores. In addition, participants' mental state when taking the survey could have been a good
day at work or a terrible day at work.
Patton (2002) stated that the interview quality is primarily based on the interviewer. As
the interviewer, I am prone to human error and may have missed an opportunity to dig deeper
into a particular question. In addition, there were days where I had multiple interviews and my
attention span and energy was low. As a result, I may have misunderstood or misinterpreted what
the interviewee was trying to convey. Finally, the scores or interviews may have been based on a
moment in time due to a recency bias and not a normalized viewpoint in the last year or a
specific duration of time. These limitations were mitigated as much as possible through proper
instructions, tips, and definitions throughout the survey, and by putting controls in place for
questions through standardized options and mandatory questions.

148

Additionally, the truthfulness of participants in both research methods was a limitation of
the study that is challenging to determine. What a participant chose to disclose or not disclose
was based on their comfort level and willingness to share the truth about their experiences at
companies. I noticed some participants were more open to sharing than others. Building trust and
rapport are essential to overcome this limitation by explaining who the sponsoring organization
is, why you are conducting the study, and emphasizing participation as necessary for the integrity
of the study (Johnson & Christensen, 2015). Furthermore, fear of retaliation may have been a
limitation that was mitigated by redacting personally identifiable information.
Finally, the research was also limited by time and geographical limitations of individuals
within my network, second, third degree, and social media groups participating in the study. For
example, the study was limited by the knowledge and experience of myself, along with the
number of participants in the study and the diversity of the participants who participated. The
semi-structured approach of interviews may have also posed challenges due to less systematic
data that were retrieved from a structured approach and potentially lacking the flexibility of a
purely unstructured approach (Johnson & Christensen, 2015). Another issue that arose was
regarding compensation and incentives. Participants may not have wanted to spend the time to
invest in the interviews and wanted to understand what is in it for them. My goal was to explain
the study results in detail, inform technology companies on how to be more inclusive of WOCT,
and increase the sense of belonging through proposed solutions that we could produce together.
The benefits of the study provided to participants empowered them to be part of the change and
understood that the study will help WOCT overall.
Delimitations included the research study's design, including the research method, survey
questions, number of questions, number of interviews, purposeful sampling of interviews, and

149

other key design factors. First, the study was bounded by the selection of Women of Color in
technology (WOCT) which posed limits to who can opt into the survey and interview process.
These participants were also restricted to those working for technology companies only. Next,
the selection of the Bronfenbrenner theoretical framework informed by critical race theory
(CRT) narrowed the direction of the questions and the lens by which the problem of practice is
viewed. Next, the methodology selected consisted of a sequenced survey and interview, which
also had impacts. Finally, beginning with a quantitative survey and diving in through a
qualitative study had benefits. Still, there were delimitations in each study's sample size and the
sequencing of engagement with participants. Purposeful sampling occurred primarily based on
ethnic background and diversity for the 12 interviews. However, additional layers of diversity
such as sexual orientation, religious beliefs, geographical location, remote work vs. in-person
work, employee vs. contractor, and parenthood were not factored into the sampling. Another
delimitation was meeting participants over a video call instead of in-person interviews for local
interviewees, which can be less personable.
Additionally, recording the interviews may have limited credibility if participants were
skeptical and worried about how I would use the recording. Weiss (1994) shared the
disadvantages of recording an interview: interviewees may have been less candid and feel
constrained in their responses. Finally, depending on the participant's comfort level and
understanding, they may have been delimited by the interview questions selected. In summary,
all limitations and delimitations were factored into the study as potential considerations for the
final research strategy.
Recommendations for Future Research
Based on the findings and conceptual framework of this study, there are four different

150

recommendations for future research discussed within this section based on limitations and
delimitations of the study. First, expanding the sample size to create statistical significance could
benefit the survey results. As a high-level estimate, Howarth (2022) extrapolated current
statistics to show approximately 79,163 U.S. WOCT across a sample of 552,751 technology
employees. A sample size of approximately 383 survey respondents provides a 95% confidence
level and 5% margin of error (Pazzaglia et al., 2016). With a larger sample size that yields
statistical significance, a researcher can analyze additional factors such as ethnicity, position
type, location, and years of work experience to further build upon the identified themes. For
example, the themes can yield additional recommendations to focus on onboarding programs for
newer employees, role-based career development programs, or make additional investments in
specific ERG affinity groups. Best practices can be shared for higher performing locations, roles,
or subgroups.
Next, the research has the potential to expand to other demographic factors impacting
intersectionality, such as socioeconomic status, marital status, having children, and sexual
orientation. Currently, the study was focused only on the intersectional identity of being female
and a person of color. Based on the survey results, there are WOCT who score 0 and 1 for their
workplace SOB but the study was not able to determine the subgroup to which the individuals
belong. The WOCT experiencing additional intersectional identities may be within this subgroup
because this was not measured in the study as additional contributing factors. Additional
researchers should update the survey and the interview instruments to gather data about
socioeconomic status, marital status, whether the WOCT has biological or nonbiological
children, and sexual orientation. These additional factors of intersectionality will introduce

151

further understanding on additional layers of complexity for WOCT and how it may impact SOB
in the workplace.
Third, the technology industry and other industries can benefit from additional research
on how remote work environments impact workplace SOB. As seen in both the survey and
interview results, some of the survey and interview participants alluded to moments that were
challenging to foster SOB based on virtual work environments and in-person work where
employees rarely come into the office. Additionally, WOCT expressed they felt excluded when
they were remote and other employees were present in person. As the technology industry is still
adjusting after the Covid-19 pandemic, companies need to factor in ways to foster an inclusive
culture when complexity of hybrid work and 100% remote work change social dynamics.
Researchers can update the survey and interview instruments to request participants to designate
whether they are working 100% in-person, hybrid and how many days, or 100% remote.
Additionally, researchers should ask what the remote workplace setup looks like across their
company and immediate team. There may be disparities and differences between the WOCT
participant and the rest of their team or company.
Lastly, additional research is recommended for the different experiences of WOCT
employees versus contractors. WOCT experiences may vary disproportionately for the contractor
workforce; many WOCT may initially begin their career in technology as a contractor before
being offered a full-time role as an employee. To cover all WOCT within the workforce,
researchers must expand their pool of research to include both employees and contractors. The
researcher can update the survey and interview instruments to request participants to self-identify
whether they are an employee or contractor. Additionally, the researcher should understand the
current landscape to get a representative sample size of contractors and employees that is

152

representative to the larger technology industry. In fact, some technology companies may
employ more contractors than employees.
In conclusion, these recommendations for future research are critical to continue
increasing SOB in the workplace for WOCT. Both survey and interview participants spoke to the
integral role workplace SOB plays to their psychological safety, retention, work performance,
and employee satisfaction. The ability to bring your “whole self to work” allows companies to
thrive in innovative ideas, a healthy culture, and high-performing workforce.
Implications for Equity and Connection to the Rossier Mission
The mission of the University of Southern California (USC) Rossier School of Education
is to prepare leaders to advance educational equity through practice, research, and policy.
Through this dissertation research, I am now ready as a leader to understand research-backed
recommendations to achieve equity in the workplace. I will take forward my dissertation
research to influence recommendations for WOCT in technology within my company and also
the industry-at-large. Additionally, I intend to publish public-facing articles for a corporate
audience to understand how to improve SOB within the workplace. This dissertation is only the
first step for me as a leader to push for diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging for WOC.
Furthermore, the problem of practice strives to address disparities that affect historically
marginalized groups by increasing SOB for WOCT. The research builds upon theories such as
critical race theory (CRT) and intersectionality within the WOCT population which will benefit
the research community.
Conclusion
The study aimed to explore the lived experiences of WOC in technology (WOCT),
focusing on a sense of belonging (SOB) in driving retention and, ultimately, making practice

153

recommendations. The contributors and detractors of WOCT SOB aligned to Bronfenbrenner’s
theoretical framework and informed by CRT are highlighted in this study. In addition, the study
explored ecological systems that have increased the SOB of women of color in technology
(WOCT) and ecological system barriers that have decreased SOB. Overall, the findings show
there is still more work to be done to increase SOB in the workplace despite some progress. On
the survey, WOCT ranked their SOB only slightly higher than average at 6.7 out of 10.
Additionally, some WOCT ranked their SOB as low as 1 which signifies that although most are
above average, there are some WOCT who are having very negative experiences in the
workplace. Furthermore, the study explored the challenges of intersectionality and shared
practice recommendations to increase SOB in the workplace for WOCT. The title of this study
“We belong” emphasizes that WOCT are striving to belong in the technology industry. The
resilience of WOCT despite the adversity they have faced demonstrates they want to remain in
the technology industry and are fighting to stay despite the adverse experience they are having.
Companies, leaders, and peers all need to do their part to foster belonging in the workplace.

154

References
Alfred, M. V ., Ray, S. M., & Johnson, M. A. (2019). Advancing women of color in STEM: An
imperative for U.S. global competitiveness. Advances in Developing Human
Resources, 21(1), 114-132. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422318814551
Allen, K., Kern, M. L., Rozek, C. S., McInerney, D. M., & Slavich, G. M. (2021). Belonging: a
review of conceptual issues, an integrative framework, and directions for future research.
Australian Journal of Psychology, 73(1), 87–102. https://doi-
org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1080/00049530.2021.1883409
Ashcraft, C., McLain, B., & Eger, E. (2016). Women in tech: The facts. The National Center for
Women & Information Technology (NCWIT). https://wpassets.ncwit.org/wp-
content/uploads/2021/05/13193304/ncwit_women-in-it_2016-full-report_final-
web06012016.pdf
Bartol, K. M., Martin, D. C., & Kromkowski, J. A. (2003). Leadership and the glass ceiling:
Gender and ethnic group influences on leader behaviors at middle and executive
managerial levels. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(3), 8–19.
https://doi-org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1177/107179190300900303
Baumgartner, M. S. & Schneider, D. E. (2010). Perceptions of women in management: A
thematic analysis of razing the glass ceiling. Journal of Career Development, 37(2), 559–
576. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845309352242
Bhaskar, R. (2008). A realist theory of science. Verso.
Bonilla-Silva, E. (2006). Racism without racists (2nd ed.). Rowman & Littlefield.
Branham. (2012). The 7 hidden reasons employees leave: How to recognize the subtle signs and
act before it's too late. AMACOM.

155

Braddy, P. W., Sturm, R. E., Atwater, L., Taylor, S. N., & McKee, R. A. (2020). Gender bias still
plagues the workplace: Looking at derailment risk and performance with self–other
ratings. Group and Organization Management, 45(3), 315–350.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601119867780
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Harvard University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005). Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives on human
development. Sage Publications.
Bronfenbrenner, U. & Evans, G. W. (2000). Century: Emerging questions, theoretical models,
research designs and empirical findings. Social Development., 9(1), 115–125. https://doi-
org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1111/1467-9507.00114
Brower, T. (2021, January 10). Missing your people: why belonging is so important and how to
create it. https://www.cio.com/article/193856/how-top-tech-companies-are-addressing-
diversity-and-inclusion.html
Broyles, P. (2009). The gender pay gap of STEM professions in the United States. International
Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 29, 214–226.
https://doi.org/10.1108/01443330910965750
Buckles, K. (2019). Fixing the leaky pipeline: Strategies for making economics work for women
at every stage. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 33(1), 43–60. https://doi-
org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1257/jep.33.1.43
Builtin.com. (n.d.). Top companies offering mentorship program.
https://builtin.com/companies/perks/mentorship-program
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2021). Employment projections — 2020–2030. U.S. Department of
Labor. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecopro.pdf

156

Burke, A., Hale, K., Okrent, A. (2021a, January 18). The state of U.S. science and engineering
2022. Science & Engineering Indicators 2022. National Science Board.
https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20221/u-s-and-global-stem-education-and-labor-force
Burke, A., & Okrent, A. (2021b, August 31). Science & Engineering Indicators. The STEM
labor force of today: Scientists, engineers, and skilled technical workers.
https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20212
Burkholder, G. J., Cox, K. A., Crawford, L. M., & Hitchcock, J. H. (Eds.). (2019). Chapter 10:
Interviewing essentials for new researchers. In Research Design and Methods: An
Applied Guide for the Scholar-Practitioner. Sage.
Buzzanell, P. M., Long, Z., Anderson, L. B., Kokini, K., & Batra, J. C. (2015). Mentoring in
academe: A feminist poststructural lens on stories of women engineering faculty of color.
Management Communication Quarterly, 29, 440-457.
Casad, B. J. & Bryant, W. J. (2016). Addressing stereotype threat is critical to diversity and
inclusion in organizational psychology. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 8–8. https://doi-
org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00008
Case, A. D., & Hunter, C. D. (2012). Counterspaces: A unit of analysis for understanding the role
of settings in marginalized individuals' adaptive responses to oppression. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 50(1), 257–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-012-
9497-7
Cheryan, S. & Plaut, V. C. (2010). Explaining underrepresentation: A theory of precluded
interest. Sex Roles, 63(7-8), 475–488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9835-x

157

Cockshaw, W. D. & Shochet, I. (2010). The link between belongingness and depressive
symptoms: An exploration in the workplace interpersonal context. Australian
Psychologist, 45(4), 283–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/00050061003752418
Cole, E. R. (2009). Intersectionality and research in psychology. American Psychologist, 64(3),
170-180. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014564
Coleman, L. M. "Belonging & a new different." LinkedIn, 14 July 2021,
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/belongingnew-different-lisa-m-coleman-ph-d-she-hers-
/?trackingId=%2FgeSYDTETMOpMxAMSSxIbw
Comparably. (2023). Amazon happiness score.
https://www.comparably.com/companies/amazon/happiness
Comparably. (2023). Apple happiness score.
https://www.comparably.com/companies/apple/happiness
Comparably. (2023). Google happiness score.
https://www.comparably.com/companies/google/happiness
Comparably. (2023). LinkedIn happiness score.
https://www.comparably.com/companies/linkedin/happiness
Comparably. (2023). Meta happiness score.
https://www.comparably.com/companies/meta/happiness
Comparably. (2023). Microsoft happiness score.
https://www.comparably.com/companies/microsoft/happiness
Comparably. (2023). Uber happiness score.
https://www.comparably.com/companies/uber/happiness

158

Correll, S. J. (2017). SWS 2016 feminist lecture: Reducing gender biases in modern workplaces:
A small wins approach to organizational change. Gender and Society, 31(6), 725–750.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243217738518
Creswell, J. W. & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (4
th
ed.). Sage Publications.
Curtis-Boles, H. (2009). Finding my professional voice: A woman of color's professional
journey. Women & Therapy, 32(2-3), 209-221. https://doi.org/10.1080/02703140902852060
Daley, S. (March 31, 2021). Women in tech statistics show the industry has a long way to go.
Builtin.com. https://builtin.com/women-tech/women-in-tech-workplace-statistics
Davidson, M. J. & Burke, R. J. (2016). Women in management worldwide: Progress and
prospects: Second Edition, December, 1–395. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315546759
De Vries, J., & Binns, J. (2018). Sponsorship: Creating career opportunities for women in higher
education. Canberra: Universities Australia Executive Women (UAEW).
https://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/UAEW/SponsorGuide
Diekman, A. B. & Benson-Greenwald, T. M. (2018). Fixing STEM workforce and teacher
shortages: How goal congruity can inform individuals and institutions. Policy Insights
from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5(1), 11–18.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732217747889
Diversity Best Practices (2011). Measuring success of employee resource groups.
https://www.diversitybestpractices.com/sites/diversitybestpractices.com/files/import/emb
edded/anchors/files/_attachments_articles/rr-ergsuccessmeasureoct2011.pdf
Dozier, D. & Meiksin, J. (2019). No “finish line” for diversity in U.S. STEM workforce. MRS
Bulletin, 44(7), 528–529. https://doi.org/10.1557/mrs.2019.166

159

Estrada, M., Eroy-Reveles, A., & Matsui, J. (2018). The influence of affirming kindness and
community on broadening participation in STEM career pathways. Social Issues and
Policy Review, 12(1), 258–297. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12046
Flores. (2018). Spotlight on women of color in STEM. Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, 11(2), 291–296. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2018.17
Flynn, J. (February 1, 2022). Tech industry statistics [2002]: The state of the U.S. tech industry.
Zippia Research. https://www.zippia.com/advice/tech-industry-statistics/
Funk, C. & Parker, K. (2018, January 9). Women and men in STEM often at odds over workplace
equity. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-
trends/2018/01/09/women-and-men-in-stem-often-at-odds-over-workplace-equity/
Gale, P. (2013). Your network is your net worth unlock the hidden power of connections for
wealth, success, and happiness in the digital age. Atria Books.
Galli, J. B. (2018). Change management models: A comparative analysis and concerns.
IEEE Engineering Management Review, 46(3), 124–132.
https://doi.org/10.1109/emr.2018.2866860
Gardiner, H. W. & Kosmitzki, C. (2008). Lives across cultures : cross-cultural human
development (4th ed.). Pearson Allyn and Bacon.
Gardner-Chloros. (2009). Code-switching. Cambridge University Press.
Gause, S. A. F. (2021). White privilege, black resilience: Women of color leading the
academy. Leadership , 17(1), 74-80. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715020977370
Gee B. & Peck D. (2016) The illusion of Asian success: Scant progress for minorities in cracking
the glass ceiling from 2007–2015. ASCEND.
https://www.ascendleadershipfoundation.org/research/the-illusion-of-asian-success

160

Glass, J. L., Sassler, S., Levitte, Y., & Michelmore, K. M. (2013). What's so special about
STEM? A comparison of women's retention in STEM and professional occupations.
Social Forces, 92(2), 723–756. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sot092
Goldstein, H. W., Pulakos, E. D., & Semedo, C. (2017). The Wiley Blackwell handbook of the
psychology of recruitment, selection and employee retention (Goldstein, E. D. Pulakos, &
C. Semedo, Eds.). Wiley. https://doi-org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1002/9781118972472
González-Pérez, S., Mateos de Cabo, R., & Sáinz, M. (2020). Girls in STEM: Is it a female role-
model thing? Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 2204–2204.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02204
Good, C., Rattan, A., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Why do women opt out? Sense of belonging and
women’s representation in mathematics. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 102(4), 700–717. https://doi-org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1037/a0026659
Grant, C., & Osanloo, A. (2016). Understanding, selecting, and integrating a theoretical
framework in dissertation research: Creating the blueprint for your “house”.
Administrative issues journal: connecting education, practice, and research, 4(2), 7.
Hagerty, B. & Patusky, K. (1995). Developing a measure of sense of belonging. Nursing
Research (New York), 44(1), 9–13. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-199501000-00003
Hall, J. C., Everett, J. E., & Hamilton-Mason, J. (2012). Black women talk about workplace
stress and how they cope. Journal of Black Studies, 43(2), 207–226. https://doi-
org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1177/0021934711413272
Harris III, F. & Bensimon, E. M. (2007). The equity scorecard: A collaborative approach to
assess and respond to racial/ethnic disparities in student outcomes. New Directions for
Student Services, 2007(120), 77–84. https://doi-org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1002/ss.259

161

Hinga, B. (n.d.) Theory of Change and Ethics: Briana Hinga [Recorded lecture]. 2sc.
https://2sc.rossieronline.usc.edu/
Hewlett, S., Luce, C., Servon, L., Sherbin, L., Shiller, P., Sosnovich, E., Sumberg, K. (2008).
The athena factor: Reversing the brain drain in science, engineering, and technology.
Harvard Business Review. https://lawcat.berkeley.edu/record/1127365/files/0-
Athena_Factor_
Hewlett, S., Sherbin, L. (2014). Athena factor 2.0: Accelerating female talent in science,
engineering & technology. Center for Talent Innovation.
https://www.talentinnovation.org/_private/assets/Athena-2-ExecSummFINAL-CTI.pdf
Holvino, E. (2008). Developing multicultural organizations: A change model. NAAEE.
https://naaee.org/sites/default/files/mcodmodel.pdf
Howarth, J. (2022). 74+ shocking women in tech statistics. Exploding Topics.
https://explodingtopics.com/blog/women-in-tech
Hunt. (2016). Why do women leave science and engineering? Industrial & Labor Relations
Review, 69(1), 199–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/0019793915594597
Hyun, J. (2005). Breaking the bamboo ceiling: Career strategies for Asians: The essential guide
to getting in, moving up, and reaching the top. Collins.
Ibarra, H., Carter, M., & Silva, C. (2010). Why men still get more promotions than women.
Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2010/09/why-men-still-getmore-promotions-
than-women
Jena, L. K. & Pradhan, S. (2018). Conceptualizing and validating workplace belongingness
scale. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 31(2), 451–462. https://doi-
org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1108/JOCM-05-2017-0195

162

Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2015). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches (5th ed.). Sage.
Jones, K. & Carpenter, N. C. (2014). Toward a sociocultural psychological approach to
examining stereotype threat in the workplace. Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
7(3), 429–433. https://doi-org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1111/iops.12174
Kachchaf, R., Ko, L., Hodari, A., & Ong, M. (2015). Career-life balance for women of color:
Experiences in science and engineering academia. Journal of Diversity in Higher
Education, 8(3), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039068
Komisarof, A. (2018). A new framework of workplace acculturation: The need to belong and
constructing ontological interpretive spaces. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 21,
15-37.
Komisarof, A. (2022). A new framework of workplace belonging: Instrument validation and
testing relationships to crucial acculturation outcomes. Journal of International and
Intercultural Communication, 15(3), 311–332. https://doi-
org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1080/17513057.2021.1897152
Ladson-Billings, G. (2013). Critical race theory—What it is not!. In M. Lynn & Dixson, A. D.
(Eds.), Handbook of Critical Race Theory in Education. Routledge. 37-47.
LeanIn.org. (2019). The "broken rung" is the biggest obstacle women face.
https://leanin.org/women-in-the-workplace-2019?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIvLvxmNb-
5wIVTNbACh0w4wQBEAAYAiAAEgI_ofD_BwE#
Lee. (2022). Perceived racial discrimination in the workplace: Considering minority supervisory
representation and inter-minority relations. Public Management Review, 24(4), 512–535.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1846368

163

Leedy, P. & Omrod, J.E. (2018). Practical research: Planning and design [ebook]. Pearson.
Lemons, M. A. & Parzinger, M. (2008). Psychological congruence: The impact of organizational
context on job satisfaction and retention of women in technology. Advancing Women in
Leadership, 28, N_A.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-
1767(85)90062-8
Madera, J. M., Ng, L., Sundermann, J. M. & Hebl, M. (2019). Top management gender diversity
and organizational attraction: When and why it matters. Archives of Scientific
Psychology, 7(1), 90–101. https://doi.org/10.1037/arc0000060
Martinez, A. Y . (2014). Critical race theory: Its origins, history, and importance to the discourses
and rhetorics of race. Frame, 27(2) 9-27.
Martinez, A., & Christnacht, C. (2021, October 8). Women are nearly half of U.S. workforce but
only 27% of STEM workers. Census.gov.
https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/01/women-making-gains-in-stem-
occupations-but-still-underrepresented.html
McKinsey & Company. (2021). Women in the workplace. https://wiw-
report.s3.amazonaws.com/Women_in_the_Workplace_2021.pdf
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Langara College.
Morgan, D. L. (2014). Integrating qualitative and quantitative methods. Sage Publications.
Montilla, E. (2020). The real problem with employee resource groups.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2020/09/28/the-real-problem-with-
employee-resource-groups/?sh=1a431cf6535b

164

National Science Foundation. (2015). Report on women, minorities, and persons with disabilities
in science and engineering. https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2015/nsf15311/start.cfm
National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2019). Women, minorities, and persons
with disabilities in science and engineering: 2019. Special Report NSF 19-304. National
Science Foundation. https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd.
National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2021). Women, minorities, and persons
with disabilities in science and engineering: 2021. Special Report NSF 21-321. National
Science Foundation. https://ncses.nsf.gov/wmpd.
National Science Board, N. S. F. (2017). S&E indicators 2016: NSF - National Science
Foundation. NSF. https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsb20161/#/
Nekuda Malik, J. A. (2016). U.S. administration makes efforts to increase inclusiveness in
STEM industries: www.whitehouse.gov/demo-day. MRS Bulletin, 41(5), 355-356.
https://doi.org/10.1557/mrs.2016.103
Nixon, M. L. (2017). Experiences of women of color university chief diversity officers. Journal
of Diversity in Higher Education, 10(4), 301-317. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000043
O'Connor, P., O'Hagan, C., Myers, E. S., Baisner, L., Apostolov, G., Topuzova, I., Saglamer, G.,
Tan, M.G., & Caglayan, H. (2020). Mentoring and sponsorship in higher education
institutions: Men's invisible advantage in STEM? Higher Education Research and
Development, 39(4), 764–777. https://doi-
org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1080/07294360.2019.1686468
Omadeke, J. (2021). What's the difference between a mentor and a sponsor? Harvard Business
Review. https://hbr.org/2021/10/whats-the-difference-between-a-mentor-and-a-sponsor

165

Ong, M., Smith, J. M., & Ko, L. T. (2018). Counterspaces for women of color in STEM higher
education: Marginal and central spaces for persistence and success. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 55(2), 206–245. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21417
Ong, M., Wright, C., Espinosa, L. L., & Orfield, G. (2011). Inside the double bind: A synthesis of
empirical research on undergraduate and graduate women of color in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics. Harvard Educational Review, 81(2), 172-
208. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.81.2.t022245n7x4752v2
Pace, C. (2018). How women of color get to senior management. https://hbr.org/2018/08/how-
women-of-color-get-to-seniormanagement
Page, S. (2017). The diversity bonus: How great teams pay off in the knowledge economy.
Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage.
Paikeday, N. (2019). A leaders guide: Finding and keeping your next Chief Diversity Officer.
https://www.russellreynolds.com/en/insights/reports-surveys/a-leaders-guide-finding-
and-keeping-your-next-chief-diversity-officer
Pazzaglia, A. M., Stafford, E. T., & Rodriguez, S. M. (2016). Survey methods for educators:
Selecting samples and administering surveys (Part 2 of 3) (REL 2016-160). U.S.
Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education
Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast &
Islands. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/
Phillips, J. & Connell, O. (2003). Managing employee retention a strategic accountability
approach. Butterworth-Heinemann.

166

Preston. (2004). Leaving science: Occupational exit from scientific careers. Russell Sage
Foundation.
Rainey, K., Dancy, M., Mickelson, R., Stearns, E., & Moller, S. (2018). Race and gender
differences in how sense of belonging influences decisions to major in STEM.
International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 10–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-
018-0115-6
Recruiting Daily. (2018). Why the U.S. has a STEM shortage and how we fix it (Part 1).
https://recruitingdaily.com/why-the-u-s-has-a-stem-shortage-and-how-we-fix-it-part-1/
Roberts, L. M. & Mayo A. J. (2019). Toward a racially just workplace. Harvard Business
Review. https://hbr.org/2019/11/toward-a-racially-just-workplace
Robinson, S. B. & Leonard, K. F. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. Sage.
Rosa, E .M. & Tudge, J. (2013). Urie Bronfenbrenner’s theory of human development: Its
evolution from ecology to bioecology. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 5(4), 243–
258. https://doi-org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1111/jftr.12022
Sanchez-Hucles, J. V ., & Davis, D. D. (2010). Women and women of color in leadership:
Complexity, identity, and intersectionality. American Psychologist, 65(3), 171–181.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017459
Saunders, M. N. (2019). Understanding research philosophy and approaches to theory
development. In Research Methods for Business Students, 5/e. Pearson Education India.
Sax, L. J., Blaney, J. M., Lehman, K. J., Rodriguez, S. L., George, K. L., & Zavala, C. (2018).
Sense of belonging in computing: The role of introductory courses for women and
underrepresented minority students. Social Sciences (Basel), 7(8), 122-122.
https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci7080122

167

Schall, J., LeBaron Wallace, T., & Chhuon, V. (2016). ‘Fitting in’ in high school: How
adolescent belonging is influenced by locus of control beliefs. International Journal of
Adolescence and Youth, 21(4), 462–475. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843. 2013.866148
Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of
African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797-811.
https://doi-org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.797
Srikumar, S. & Shalini, P. (2019). Retention of women employees in an organization.
International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering, 8(3), 4507–4510.
https://doi.org/10.35940/ijrte.C6813.098319
Sullivan-Hasson, E. (2021, March 8). TrustRadius 2021 women in tech report.
https://www.trustradius.com/buyer-blog/women-in-tech-report
Torres, L., Driscoll, M. W., & Burrow, A. L. (2010). Racial microaggressions and psychological
functioning among highly achieving African-Americans: A mixed-methods approach.
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 29(10), 1074–1099.
Treviño, A. J., Harris, M. A., & Wallace, D. (2008). What's so critical about critical race theory?
Contemporary Justice Review, 11(1), 7–10. https://doi-
org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1080/10282580701850330
Tudge, J., Payir, A., Merçon-Vargas, E., Cao, H., Liang, Y., Li, J., & O'Brien, L. (2016). Still
misused after all these years? A reevaluation of the uses of Bronfenbrenner's
bioecological theory of human development. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 8(4),
427–445. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12165
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Table 1: Employed and experienced unemployed persons by
detailed occupation, sex, race, and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, annual average

168

2019," Current Population Survey (unpublished data) (2020).
https://www.catalyst.org/research/women-in-management/
V alenzuela, Y . (2006). Mi fuerza/my strength. The academic and personal experiences of
Chicana/Latina transfer students in math and science. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Waller. (2022). A sense of belonging at work : a guide to improving wellbeing and performance.
Routledge.
Walton, G. M., & Brady, S. T. (2017). The many questions of belonging. In A. Elliot, C. Dweck,
& D. Yeager (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation: Theory and application
(2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. The Free Press.
White, S. K. (2021a, February 4). How top tech companies are addressing diversity and
inclusion. https://www.cio.com/article/193856/how-top-tech-companies-are-addressing-
diversity-and-inclusion.html
White, S. K. (2021b, March 8). Women in tech statistics: The hard truths of an uphill battle.
https://www.cio.com/article/201905/women-in-tech-statistics-the-hard-truths-of-an-
uphill-battle.html
Widdicks, K., Ashcroft, A., Winter, E., & Blair, L. (2021). Women’s sense of belonging in
computer science education: The need for a collective response. United Kingdom and
Ireland Computing Education Research Conference.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3481282.3481288
Williams, J. (2021, December 12). New study: Women of color in tech aren't just
underrepresented, they're also undervalued. VentureBeat.

169

https://venturebeat.com/2021/12/12/new-study-women-of-color-in-tech-arent-just-
underrepresented-theyre-also-undervalued/
Williams, J. C., Phillips, K. W., & Hall, E. V. (2014). Double jeopardy? Gender bias against
women of color in science. University of California Hastings College of Law.
https://worklifelaw.org/publications/Double-Jeopardy-Report_v6_full_web-sm.pdf
Wilson, B. L., Butler, M. J., Butler, R. J. & Johnson, W. G. (2018). Nursing gender pay
differentials in the new millennium. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 50(1), 102–108.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12356
Wilson, D. & VanAntwerp, J. (2021). Left out: A review of women’s struggle to develop a sense
of belonging in engineering. SAGE Open, 11(3).
https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211040791
Women in Tech Network. (2019). Pipeline is not the only issue.
https://womenintechnetwork.com/retention/
Yu, W., Zhu, F., Foo, M. D., & Wiklund, J. (2022). What does not kill you makes you stronger:
Entrepreneurs’ childhood adversity, resilience, and career success. Journal of Business
Research, 151, 40–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.06.035

170

Appendix A: Survey Questions
Target Population: Women of Color working at Technology companies.
Survey Overview:
My name is Janine Lee and I’m a Doctor of Education (EdD) student at the University of
Southern California (USC), focusing on Organizational Change and Leadership. My dissertation
study is on Women of Color (WOC) in Technology and understanding their lived experiences as
they relate to workplace sense of belonging (SOB) within the United States.
You are invited because you have been identified to be potentially within this
demographic of Women of Color in Technology through various networking channels such as
LinkedIn groups, Facebook groups, and other professional affiliations. To qualify, you must be
a WOC located within the U.S. currently working within the technology industry at a for-profit,
corporation (i.e., Government and non-profit institutions are excluded from the study).
The research will inquire WOC in Technology about your recommendations to address
the systemic challenges related to belonging within technology companies, particularly Fortune
500 companies. Of specific focus will be on enhancing workplace sense of belonging, which has
been established in organizational research as a factor contributing to retention. Workplace
belongingness or SOB, is defined as the degree to which an individual feels personally accepted,
respected, included, and supported by others within an organizational environment.
The survey should not take more than 10 minutes of your time. All results will be
aggregated anonymously solely for the purpose of the dissertation research. To read more about
the study and your rights, please view this study's Information Sheet. Please complete your
response by February 17th 11:59pm PST. Thank you in advance for your time!

171

Pre-Screen Information:
Before we begin, are you within the target population (Women of Color in the Technology
Industry based in the United States) of the study?
A: Yes, I am U.S. based WOC who is currently working in the Technology industry.
B: No, I am not a U.S. based WOC who is currently working in the Technology industry.
If A is selected, the survey taker proceeds to the Survey Questions.
If B is selected, the following is displayed: “We thank you for your time spent taking this survey.
Unfortunately, you are not eligible to participate at this time.”
Table A1
Survey Questions Case Name of Table
Question Open or
closed?
Level of
measurement
Response options Concept being
measured
1. What is your
ethnic background?
Please select all that
apply.
Closed Nominal Asian or Pacific
Islander
Black
Hispanic or Latino
Native American or
Indigenous
Other (open text)

Intersectionality,
Demographic
Information
2. How many years
have you worked in
the Technology
industry?
Closed Ratio <1
1-5
6-10
11-20
21-30
30+

Demographic
Information
3. What is your
level of seniority
within your
company?
Closed Ordinal Individual
Contributor,
Manager,
Director+
VP/Executive
Other (with open
text)

Demographic
Information,
Tenure

172

Question Open or
closed?
Level of
measurement
Response options Concept being
measured
4. How many years
have you worked at
your current
company?
Closed Ordinal 0-1
2-5
6-10
11-20
21-30
30+

Demographic
Information,
Tenure
5. What type of job
function or role do
you work in within
your company?
Closed Nominal Software Engineer
Product Manager
UX/Design
Program/Project
Manager
Finance
HR/People
Operations
Legal
Other (open text)

Demographic
Information,
Seniority
6. On a scale of 1-
10, 10 being very
high, how would
you rate your sense
of workplace
belongingness*?

*Workplace
belongingness or
SOB, is defined as
the degree to which
an individual feels
personally
accepted, respected,
included, and
supported by others
within an
organizational
environment.
Closed Ordinal 1 (Very Low) –
10 (Very High)
Sense of
Belonging

7. Please explain
why you selected
the score above.
Open N/A Sense of
belonging

173

Question Open or
closed?
Level of
measurement
Response options Concept being
measured
8. Which of the
following do you
feel most contribute
to (positively
affect) your sense
of belonging?
(Select 3
maximum)
Closed Nominal My relationships with
my Manager,
My relationships with
my
Director/VP/Higher
leader than Manager,
My relationships with
my peers/co-workers,
Organizational
culture,
Promotion,
Pay and
Compensation,
Career Opportunities,
DEI Initiatives,
Other (open text),
None of the above
Sense of
belonging

9. Which of the
following do you
feel most detract
from (negatively
affect) your sense
of belonging?
(Select 3
maximum)

Closed Nominal My relationships with
my Manager
My relationships with
my
Director/VP/Higher
leader than Manager
My relationships with
my peers/co-workers
Organizational
culture
Promotion
Pay and
Compensation
Career Opportunities
DEI Initiatives
Other (with open
text)
None of the above

Sense of
belonging
10. Has your
workplace
belongingness score
evolved over time
through your work
Closed Ordinal 1- Decreased
substantially
overtime
2 - Decreased slightly
over time
Sense of
belonging

174

Question Open or
closed?
Level of
measurement
Response options Concept being
measured
experiences within
the Technology
industry? Has it
increased or
decreased?
3 - Remained
relatively the same
4 - Increased slightly
over time
5 - Increased
substantially over
time

11. How much do
you agree or
disagree with the
following
statements?

a. I am able to work
in this organization
without sacrificing
my principles.
b. I refer to our
team as “we/us”
rather than
“they/them” when I
refer my
organization to
outsiders.
c. Being a part of
this organization
inspires me to do
more than what is
expected.
d. Whenever I have
any personal or
professional issues,
my organization
extends necessary
help and support
e. My career goals
are well considered
by my organization.
Closed Ordinal 1 – Strongly Disagree
2 – Disagree
3 – Neutral
4 – Agree
5 – Strongly Agree
Sense of
belonging

12. On a scale of 1-
10 (10 being very
high and 1 being
very low) how
Closed Ordinal 1 (Very Low) -10
(Very High)
Retention

175

Question Open or
closed?
Level of
measurement
Response options Concept being
measured
important is
workplace sense of
belonging to you as
it impacts your
desire to remain at
your company?

13. Please explain
why you selected
the score above.

Open N/A Retention
14. To what degree
has sense of
belonging impacted
your thoughts about
staying within the
technology
industry?
Closed Ordinal 1- Not at all
2 - Partially
impacted, not really
3 - Neutral/Mixed
4 - Likely impacted
5 - Likely impacted a
great deal
Retention

176

Appendix B: Interview Protocol
Introduction to the Interview: Hi! My name is Janine Lee and I’m a Doctor of Education (EdD)
doctoral candidate at USC, focusing on Organizational Change Leadership. My dissertation
study is on Women of Color (WOC) in Technology and sense of belonging (SOB)which has
been established in research as a factor contributing to retention. Workplace belongingness or
SOB, is defined as the degree to which an individual feels personally accepted, respected,
included, and supported by others within an organizational environment.

I myself am very passionate about this topic because my mom was a WOCT and I am a WOCT.
The research will be utilized to hopefully make some recommendations to tech companies on
how to improve SOB in the workplace.

[Do you have any questions before we proceed? Do I have your consent to proceed with the
interview?] I will be recording this interview so that I don’t miss any details during our time
together. [Do I have your consent to record this interview?] And, how do I pronounce your
name, and what gender pronouns should you like me to use?
Case Name of Table
Table A2
Interview Questions Case
Interview
questions
Potential probes RQ Key concept
addressed
Q type (Patton)
1. First, I’d love to
hear a little bit
more about your
background. Tell
me a little bit
about you and
your past or
current roles in
Tech Companies.
How many years have
you been in Tech?
Which
companies/roles did
you work for during
your job in Tech?
What is your current
company and current
role?
What did you enjoy
about the role? What
did you not enjoy
about the role?

RQ2 N/A –
Introductory
Question
Demographics
Experiences/Behaviors
2. How would you
score your SOB on
a scale of 1-5?
How do you
describe sense of
belonging at your
workplace?

What makes you feel
that way?
RQ1
RQ2
Sense of
belonging
Opinions/Values

177

Interview
questions
Potential probes RQ Key concept
addressed
Q type (Patton)
3. What are the
experiences or
moments where
you may have felt
you belonged at
your company?

Tell me more. Why? RQ2 Sense of
belonging
Experiences/Behaviors
4. What are the
experiences or
moments where
you may have felt
you did not
belong?

Tell me more. Why? RQ2 Sense of
belonging
Experiences/Behaviors
5. How does your
company culture,
management team,
and peers impacted
your sense of
belonging?
[Walkthrough each
of the three
components one
by one]

How has your
company or your
management team
promoted or detracted
your SOB in the
workplace? Do you
feel your company or
your management
team promotes SOB
and/or a healthy
culture in the
workplace?

RQ2 Bronfenbrenner
Theoretical
Framework
Opinions/Values
6. How if at all has
pay and
compensation, and
promotion
impacted your
sense of
belonging? [Added
from quantitative
survey low scores]

What about your
career goals?
RQ2 Bronfenbrenner
Theoretical
Framework
Opinions/Values
Experiences/Behaviors
7. How, if at all,
has your SOB
contributed to your
future plans to stay
within the
company and/or
industry?
Have you considered
leaving the technology
industry? [If yes] What
is contributing to your
thoughts of leaving the
industry
RQ1
RQ2

Sense of
belonging,
Retention
Experiences/Behaviors

178

Interview
questions
Potential probes RQ Key concept
addressed
Q type (Patton)
How important is
sense of belonging to
contributing to your
decision to stay within
your industry?

8. I’m going to
pivot now to talk
about your identity
as a woman and
your ethnic
background. What
is it specifically
about your identity
as both a female
and [insert
ethnicity] that has
contributed to your
SOB in the
workplace?

Tell me more about
your background.
Please share some
specific examples?
RQ3 Intersectionality Demographics
Values/Opinions
9. Tell me more
about your SOB
beyond the
workplace. What
do you believe are
some of the critical
things happening
in the technology
industry at large?

How do you feel about
what is happening in
the news, media,
politics?
RQ2
RQ3
Bronfenbrenner Values/Opinions

10. What do you
believe are some
critical things
happening in
society - within
your gender
community or
ethnic community?
How do you feel about
what is happening in
the news, media,
politics?
How does that
transcend if at all into
the workplace?
Probing specific
events based on their
ethnicity: Example
Asian Hate Crimes,
George Floyd, etc.

RQ3 Bronfenbrenner
Intersectionality
Opinions/Values
Experiences/Behaviors

179

Interview
questions
Potential probes RQ Key concept
addressed
Q type (Patton)
11. How has your
family perceived
(supported/not
supported) your
career in
Technology? Have
you had any
familial
obligations that
conflicted with
your work?

Do you have a
community group you
interact regularly
with?
RQ2
RQ3
Bronfenbrenner
Intersectionality
Opinions/Values
Experiences/Behaviors
12. What potential
solutions would
you recommend
your employer
implement to
promote a
workplace sense of
belonging for
WOC?
What specific
recommendations
would you give to
your employer to
retain WOC?
RQ4 Sense of
belonging
Values/Opinions

Conclusion: Thank you so much for your time, this concludes our questions for the day. Again, I
wanted to remind you that your identity will be kept confidential, a pseudonym will be assigned
to your name, and the recording will only be utilized by me for transcript purposes. I may reach
out to you for accuracy. I appreciate your support of my doctoral studies, and the broader
research community to drive an increase sense of belonging for WOC in the workplace.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Increasing representation of women in executive technology leadership roles

PDF

The paucity of women of color in senior leadership roles in higher education administration

PDF

Outside the concrete wall: a qualitative study of Black women persisting in technology

PDF

Understanding queer leadership in corporate America

PDF

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

PDF

Gender-based leadership barriers: an exploratory study of the underrepresentation of women of color in technology

PDF

Leading from the margins: an intersectional qualitative analysis of the leadership experiences of Black mothers

PDF

“Black” workplace belonging: an examination of the lived experiences of Black faculty sense of belonging factors in community colleges

PDF

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

PDF

Enduring in silence: understanding the intersecting challenges of women living with multiple sclerosis in the workplace

PDF

The underrepresentation of Black, indigenous, and people of color in executive-level information technology positions

PDF

Retaining racially minoritized students in community college STEM programs

PDF

Environmental influences on the diversity of professional sports executive leadership

PDF

Exploring inequitable experiences of remote employees of color in biotechnology organizations in the United States who face less favorable remote work conditions…

PDF

Black women in tech: examining experiences in tech industry workplaces

PDF

Sense of belonging and inclusion among non-Christian students at Jesuit Catholic universities: a qualitative study

PDF

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

PDF

Identifying the environmental and systemic factors contributing to the underrepresentation of women leaders in the male-dominated information technology sector in the United States

PDF

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

PDF

Addressing the underrepresentation of women in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math: a focus on African American and Hispanic women in community college and university programs

Asset Metadata

Creator Lee, Janine (author)

Core Title "We belong": women of color in technology (WOCT)

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2023-08

Publication Date 07/10/2023

Defense Date 06/22/2023

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

Tag allyship,belonging,BIPOC,DEI,DEIB,diversity,employee resource groups,equity,ERGs,inclusion,inclusive leadership,intersectionality,lack of representation,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational culture,POC,sense of belonging,sponsorship,women in STEM,women in technology,women of color,women of color in STEM,women of color in technology,workplace belonging

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Seli, Helena (committee chair), Phillips, Jennifer (committee member), Trahan, Don (committee member)

Creator Email jflee@usc.edu,msjaninelee@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113262905

Unique identifier UC113262905

Identifier etd-LeeJanine-12039.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-LeeJanine-12039

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Lee, Janine

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230710-usctheses-batch-1063 (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