Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Applying best practices to optimize racial and ethnic diversity on nonprofit boards: an improvement study
(USC Thesis Other)
Applying best practices to optimize racial and ethnic diversity on nonprofit boards: an improvement study
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 1
APPLYING BEST PRACTICES TO OPTIMIZE RACIAL AND ETHNIC DIVERSITY ON
NONPROFIT BOARDS: AN IMPROVEMENT STUDY
By
Richard J. Grad
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2020
Copyright 2020 Richard J. Grad
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 2
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thank you to my fellow cohort nine members for setting the bar high with an outstanding
level of discourse, academic rigor, and mutual encouragement. Thank you to my professors—
experts in their field—who are consistently excellent, dedicated, and fully engaged. I will be
eternally thankful to my dissertation committee for their tireless, thoughtful, and incisive
feedback on the theoretical and practical aspects of my study. I am forever grateful to Dr. Cathy
Sloan Krop, my dissertation chair, for her brilliance and constant encouragement to think broadly
and to dive into the literature in elucidating my conceptual framework and recommendations. I
am profoundly grateful to Dr. Kimberly Ferrario for serving on my dissertation committee and
for her guidance in framing my original problem of practice and input regarding my discussion
of group dynamics. I am eternally grateful to Dr. Douglas Lynch for his expertise in economic
theory and its applicability to diversity and inclusion issues, deep thinking on my conceptual
knowledge components, and advice early on to interface with leading experts in the field. I am
deeply appreciative of the valuable input of Dr. Alexandra Wilcox, my leadership professor and
capstone advisor, for her academic expertise and valuable suggestions in aligning my
recommendations with industry best practices.
Thank you to Dr. Mahzarin Banaji, Richard Clarke Cabot Professor of Social Ethics in
the Department of Psychology at Harvard University, for her generous time in sharing her astute
views about implicit bias in the context of law firms and nonprofit boards, especially in
consideration of incentive structures that apply to diversity change initiatives. Thank you to Dr.
Robin Ely, Diane Doerge Wilson Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business
School, for taking time during her sabbatical to share insights regarding inclusivity traps for the
unwary, including unintentionally marginalizing individuals by using language that fails to
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 3
denote diversity as a group rather than an individual characteristic. Thank you to Andrew Davis,
Senior Director of Education and Outreach at BoardSource, for his generous time and input in
discussing board diversity and countervailing considerations for framing board racial and ethnic
diversity performance goals. Thank you to my former colleagues at Sidley Austin LLP,
especially Gordon Todd, for their invaluable assistance on a museum diversity project that
ultimately inspired me to conduct the study outlined in this dissertation.
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgments 2
List of Tables 7
List of Figures 9
Abstract 10
Chapter One: Introduction of the Problem of Practice 12
Organizational Context and Mission 13
Organizational Expressions of Multiculturalism 14
Organizational Performance Status 16
Related Literature 19
Importance of Addressing the Problem 20
Organizational Performance Goal 23
Description of Stakeholder Groups 24
Stakeholder Groups’ Performance Goals 25
Stakeholder Group for the Study 26
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions 26
Methodological Framework 28
Definitions 29
Organization of the Project 32
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 33
Nonprofit Organizations and Board Governance 33
Nonprofit Organizations 33
Nonprofit Organization Boards’ and Directors’ Responsibilities 34
The Persistent Problem of Board Diversity 35
Organizational Performance and Benefits of Board Diversity 38
Organizational Outcome Benefits 39
Financial Outcome Benefits 42
Reduced Groupthink 44
Board Cohesion 47
Considerations Specific to Nonprofit Boards 48
Social Science Perspectives on Diversity 50
Agency Theory 51
Resource Dependence Theory 52
Human Capital Theory 53
Stakeholder Theory 54
Moral and Social Justice Arguments for Diverse NPO Boards 55
Optimizing Representative Diversity and Moving Toward Inclusion 58
Representativeness 59
Inclusiveness 60
The Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis Conceptual Framework 63
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences 64
Knowledge and Skills 64
Motivation 69
Assumed Organizational Influences 75
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 5
Conceptual Framework: Interaction of Stakeholders’ KMO Influences 81
Conclusion 84
Chapter Three: Methods 86
Participating Stakeholders 88
Sampling Criteria and Rationale 90
Interview Sampling Criteria 91
Interview Sampling Strategy and Rationale 92
Data Collection and Instrumentation 93
Interviews 95
Documents and Artifacts 98
Data Analysis 101
Analysis of Interview Data 103
Analysis of Documents and Artifacts 103
Credibility and Trustworthiness 104
Ethics 107
Limitations and Delimitations 108
Chapter Four: Results and Findings 111
Participating Stakeholders 111
Results for Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences 112
Knowledge Results 113
Motivation Results 137
Organizational Results 152
Synthesis 175
Chapter Five: Recommendations 179
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences 180
Knowledge Recommendations 180
Motivation Recommendations 192
Organization Recommendations 199
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan 212
Implementation and Evaluation Framework 212
Organizational Purpose, Needs, and Expectations 214
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators 215
Level 3: Behavior 218
Level 2: Learning 222
Level 1: Reaction 227
Evaluation Tools 228
Data Analysis and Reporting 230
Implementation and Evaluation Plan Summary 230
Future Research 231
Conclusion 232
References 234
Appendix A: Interview Protocol 261
Appendix B: Document Review Rubric 264
Appendix C: Artifact Review Rubric 265
Appendix D: Acronym Key For Alignment and Assessment Matrix 266
Appendix E: List of Internal MMA Documents and Artifacts 267
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 6
Appendix F: Detailed KMO Alignment and Assessment Matrix 268
Appendix G: Program Implementation Post-Interview Protocol 269
Appendix H: Instructor Training Checklist and Observation Form 271
Appendix I: Participant Follow-Up Interview Protocol 272
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 7
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals 25
Table 2: Knowledge Influences, Types, and Assessments for Knowledge Gap Analysis 68
Table 3: Motivational Influences and Assessments for Motivation Gap Analysis 74
Table 4: Assumed Organizational Influences on the MMA Board 80
Table 5: Mapping of Presumed Influences and the Data Collection Method used in the
Evaluation 100
Table 6: Stakeholder Demographics 112
Table 7: Summary of Presumed Knowledge Needs and Evaluation Results 117
Table 8: Summary of Concepts Probed Regarding Conceptual Knowledge Influences 123
Table 9: Summary of Concepts Probed Regarding Procedural Knowledge Influences 128
Table 10: Summary of Concepts Probed Regarding Metacognitive Knowledge Influences 131
Table 11: Summary of Presumed Motivation Needs and Evaluation Results 140
Table 12: Summary of Concepts Probed Regarding Motivational Influences 148
Table 13: Summary of Presumed Organizational Needs and Evaluation Results 153
Table 14: Summary of Concepts Probed Regarding Organizational Alignment Influences 158
Table 15: Summary of Concepts Probed Regarding Organizational Best Practices Influences 160
Table 16: Summary of Concepts Probed Regarding Board Leadership Influences 164
Table 17: Summary of Concepts Probed Regarding Diversity Management Organizational
Influences 166
Table 18: Summary of all Needs, Influences, and Evaluation Results 177
Table 19: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 182
Table 20: Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations 194
Table 21: Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations 200
Table 22: Summary of Key Recommendations 210
Table 23: Four Levels of the New World Kirkpatrick Model 214
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 8
Table 24: Level 4 Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for Internal and External Outcomes 217
Table 25: Level 3 Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation 219
Table 26: Required Drivers to Support and Monitor Critical Behaviors 221
Table 27: Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program 226
Table 28: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program 228
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 9
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Board racial demographics by percentage (BoardSource, 2015; United States
Census Bureau, 2012; MMA, 2019). 18
Figure 2: Board racial and ethnic diversity (BoardSource, 2015). 36
Figure 3: Gap analysis process. 63
Figure 4: The interaction of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on
MMA’s board of directors. 83
Figure 5: Organizational chart of the full board, the executive committee, and MMA
leadership as well as participant selection criteria. 89
Figure 6: Data collection design adapted from Creswell (2014). 95
Figure 7: Board chair & CEO satisfaction. 156
Figure 8: The New World Kirkpatrick Model. 213
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 10
ABSTRACT
Inadequate racial and ethnic diversity on nonprofit boards is a perennial problem. Although
nonprofit boards consistently identify improving racial and ethnic diversity as an imperative,
they significantly underperform in their representativeness. Researchers have consistently noted
that the problem requires remediation not just as a matter of social policy, but also to maximize
board operational performance. Stakeholders are also increasingly demanding that boards pursue
social justice imperatives reflecting public interest values that facilitate diversity, equity,
accessibility, and inclusion. This study employed a Clark and Estes gap analysis in evaluating
knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) influences that serve as barriers or facilitators
to improving racial and ethnic diversity on a museum of art’s board of directors. A review of
relevant literature identified presumed KMO influences potentially limiting the board’s racial
and ethnic diversity. Identified stakeholder needs and influences were assessed and validated or
partially validated through analysis of data from multiple sources. Findings suggest increased
knowledge and motivation will facilitate adoption of policies, procedures, and best practices to
improve the board’s diversity. Triangulated data analysis also confirmed the study’s conceptual
framework suggesting that organizational influences present significant impediments to
achieving board diversity performance goals, including a misalignment between culture and
climate. Under the New World Kirkpatrick Model, a set of recommendations together with an
implementation and evaluation plan based on validated influences is provided. The
recommendations are intended to implement a concrete range of policies, procedures, strategies,
and best practices that will serve to facilitate increased board racial and ethnic diversity.
Keywords: nonprofit boards, board diversity, diversity best practices, board of directors,
board governance, museum diversity, organizational culture and climate, diversity recruiting,
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 11
diversity and inclusion, inclusive practices, organizational change, groupthink, heterogeneity,
diversity management, diversity leadership, unconscious bias, implicit bias, agency theory,
human capital theory, resource dependence theory, stakeholder theory, social justice
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 12
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION OF THE PROBLEM OF PRACTICE
Inadequate racial and ethnic diversity on nonprofit boards is a perennial problem
(BoardSource, 2010, 2015, 2017a; Buse, Bernstein, & Bilimoria, 2014; Eckel & Trower, 2016;
Harris, 2014). Although nonprofit boards consistently identify diversity as an organizational
imperative, research shows that the vast majority of boards significantly underperform in their
racial and ethnic diversity, which negatively impacts the operational success of nonprofit
organizations (NPOs) (BoardSource, 2017a). Despite efforts by boards and chief executive
officers (CEOs) to improve the situation, recent studies demonstrate that board diversity across
the United States continues to be suboptimal, with 84% of board members being White and 27%
of boards being all-White (BoardSource, 2017a, 2017b). Researchers have consistently noted
that this problem requires remediation, as more egalitarian and diverse representation can
enhance nonprofit board decisions and better facilitate NPO outcomes (BoardSource, 2017a;
Thomas-Breitfeld & Kunreuther, 2017). When boards fail to address diversity issues, their
effectiveness diminishes, as diversity generates robust debate, counteracts groupthink, and is
positively linked to stakeholder support and enhanced financial performance (BoardSource,
2017a, 2017b; Harris, 2014).
Moreover, stakeholders are increasingly demanding that boards pursue equity-focused
and social justice imperatives that emphasize the generation of creative ideas from multiple
perspectives and varying stakeholder viewpoints (BoardSource, 2017a, 2017b; Nielsen & Huang,
2009; Thomas-Breitfeld & Kunreuther, 2017; Weisinger, Borges-Méndez, & Milofsky, 2016).
For example, Goldman Sachs Group Inc., one of the world’s largest underwriters of initial public
offerings, recently issued a policy pronouncement and ultimatum indicating that it will no longer
take companies public in the U.S. and Europe unless they have at least one director who is either
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 13
female or non-White (Levine, 2020). When boards are not adequately diverse, they also may
experience blind spots in their mission fulfillment and risk implementing ineffective strategies to
address societal change and inequities (BoardSource, 2017a; Harris, 2014). In the museum
community, several industry leaders have noted, “if museums want to continue to receive the
trust and economic support of the public, they will need to reflect the diversity of the
communities they serve” (American Alliance of Museums, 2018, p. 9).
Organizational Context and Mission
Founded in the late 1800s, the Midwestern Museum of Art (MMA), located in the
Midwest, is one of the largest and oldest museums in the United States (the organization’s name
has been anonymized for this study). The MMA has an extensive collection of over 50,000
pieces from countries around the world, spanning thousands of years of human history. The
museum hosts cutting-edge national and international exhibitions as well as innovative art-
related programs and special events throughout the year. The museum has over 200 dedicated
employees, including a world-class director and five preeminent curators. The MMA’s
endowment has surpassed $160 million, and its operating budget was between $10,000,000 to
$15,000,000 as of 2019 and will exceed that range in the 2020 fiscal year.
MMA’s board of 35 to 40 members (averaging 37% women and 17.5% people of color
over the past five years) represents a wide range of industries and fields. The board has an
executive committee and key operational committees, including acquisitions, audit,
development, diversity and inclusion, finance, marketing, nominations, and governance. MMA’s
mission is to bring people and art together in the broadest way to contribute to a more vibrant
community by inspiring its people and connecting communities to educate, inspire, and
transform everyday lives. MMA’s five-year strategic plan is comprehensive and forward-
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 14
thinking to better serve its mission, stakeholders, and the community at large, including
increased appeals to diverse audiences through exhibitions and community outreach designed to
have a positive impact on the region’s economic, social, and artistic appreciation.
Organizational Expressions of Multiculturalism
Diversity and inclusion as multicultural expressions of MMA’s identity are integral to its
mission. The museum’s focus mirrors the early principles articulated by the MMA’s founders, to
manifest a profound appreciation for art, public service, educational values, and social cohesion
as a city and community. This mission planted the seeds for modern-day inclusivity where the
galleries and collections would expand the connection to multiple cultures, and, importantly, the
institution would act as an agent of broad community enlightenment and civic pride (MMA,
2019). MMA resisted historical inertia for museums to become centers of social power, with
exclusivity creating a rarified class of art museum patrons. For many museums, particularly in
the mid-20th century, stratification mirrored the racial, economic, and educational divides in
broader society and sought to remain far more ecumenical (MMA, 2019). Despite the vibrancy
of the racial and ethnic diversity in its city and sounding communities, and MMA’s desire to
remain more inclusive of a multiplicity of cultures, barriers remain to be eliminated, including
those related to the board’s racial and ethnic diversity. The current MMA board is striving to be
more proactive and intentional about optimizing its racial and ethnic diversity to be more
representative of the city in which it thrives (MMA, 2020).
An alchemy of diverse exhibitions, programs, accessibility, intergenerational learning,
scholarship, and inclusive admissions policies have opened the doors to broader MMA
audiences. MMA is focused on actively integrating the museum campus with its economically
distressed but vibrant immediate neighborhoods (MMA, 2019). More intractable field-wide
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 15
norms, such as lack of diversity in curatorial careers and art history graduate education, are
frontiers the museum is focused on expanding. Similarly, broad societal economic and class
immobility makes the work of diversifying museum trusteeship a mission imperative rather than
a passive reflectivity of the power structures of its city. In that regard, MMA’s public programs
and exhibitions are diverse by design (MMA, 2016). Ranging from Samurai-era Japan to
contemporary African American discourse, or from ancient China to 19th-century Indian
photography, the museum seeks to explore creativity and artistic excellence across cultures.
While the collections of the museum are disproportionate in Euro-centric and male-centric work,
the historical omissions are less pronounced than at many museums founded later in 20th century
America (MMA, 2016, 2019). The museum’s leadership and curatorial staff are focused on non-
dominant and typically underrepresented artistic and historical cultures that balance the expected
Impressionism and Modernism of Europe and America. Planned exhibitions celebrate the
importance of women to the museum, its collections, and the broader community it serves
(MMA, 2019). The MMA board actively encourages multiplicity in curatorial practice as an
intentional choice (MMA, 2019).
While the museum itself has made strides in terms of its exhibitions and programs
embracing cultural and racial diversity, the board itself remains predominantly White (MMA,
2020). This phenomenon is endemic to NPO boards but is especially prevalent with art museums
(American Alliance of Museums, 2018, 2019a; BoardSource, 2017b; Foundation Center, 2019).
In an effort to counteract this historical inertia, MMA has undertaken several initiatives and is
currently evaluating an array of best practices to improve racial and ethnic board diversity
(MMA, 2019). At a recent board retreat to discuss strategic and operational imperatives, the
board’s intentionality and responsiveness to improve racial and ethnic diversity and inclusion
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 16
became the center of discussion. Among 19 initiatives proposed as critical imperatives, the
museum’s trustees voted to focus on institutional diversity as the second highest priority, behind
only an expansive investment in museum operations and planned site and structural
enhancements. Trustees also found institutional diversity to be the third highest of 19 priorities in
likely appeal to external stakeholders and financial donors (MMA, 2019).
Despite greater community engagement and expressions of multiculturalism, there is
additional work to be done, particularly concerning board racial and ethnic composition. This
recognition of the need to improve board, curatorial, and educational staff members’ racial/ethnic
diversity is reflected by the recent vote and intensified leadership focus in this area (MMA,
2019). In addition to MMA’s work in this area, diversifying museum leadership and improving
board racial and ethnic diversity and inclusion is the subject of an initiative by the American
Alliance of Museums (AAM). In expressing the importance of accessibility, equity, diversity,
and inclusion to museums and their boards, AAM observed,
Museums hold a unique and trusted place in society. They reveal the power of ecological,
artistic, and human diversity. In our current moment of rapid political and social change,
museums remind us that beauty and justice are both fragile and resilient. The struggle for
equity in our field—and in our society at large—precedes the working group’s
convenings by many, many decades and will demand our vigilance in the decades to
come. (AAM, 2019a, p. 12)
Organizational Performance Status
The organizational performance problem at the root of this study is finding avenues and
best practices that will enhance the MMA board’s racial and ethnic diversity. Optimization of
MMA’s mission success and implementation of several critical aspects of its strategic plan will
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 17
be facilitated through effective best practices on diversity related to the larger problem of U.S.
nonprofit boards having inadequate racial and ethnic representation. BoardSource, a nationally
preeminent nonprofit institution dedicated to improving nonprofit organizational effectiveness by
strengthening nonprofit boards and their governance practices, has conducted extensive surveys
and data analysis since 1994 (BoardSource, 2015). BoardSource has consistently found that most
boards are failing in the area of racial and ethnic diversity.
As of January 2019, the number of people of color on the MMA board falls below the
U.S. Census data for the Midwest region of the United States: White, 76%; Black, 10%; Native
American, 1%; Asian, 3%; Islander, 0%; Hispanic, 8%; Two+, 2% (United States Census
Bureau, 2017). Despite being located in a richly diverse community, over the past five years, the
percentage of racially diverse board members at MMA has averaged approximately 17.5%
(currently six board members identify as African American/Black, one as Hispanic/Latinx, one
as Asian, and none as American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander,
“Mixed” or “Other”). Effective with the new slate of MMA board members, elected after
completion of this study, racial and ethnic diversity increased to 19.51% (MMA, 2020). These
numbers in the aggregate are consistent with the national NPO average of 19% non-White board
members (BoardSource, 2010, 2015, 2017a, 2017b), but are substantially higher than the 10.7%
average for museum boards (BoardSource, 2107b).
Figure 1 presents a comparison of MMA’s board diversity with national statistics on
board diversity and the general regional population.
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 18
Figure 1. Board racial demographics by percentage (BoardSource, 2015; United States Census
Bureau, 2012; MMA, 2019).
The MMA board is focused on improving its racial and ethnic diversity, including
fortifying its diversity and inclusion committee by including a member of the board executive
committee who is serving as the committee chair (MMA, 2019). Currently, the MMA board does
not have a board diversity mission statement, action plan, or diversity management platform as
part of its strategic plan. However, in reconstituting the diversity and inclusion committee, the
board has committed to broader racial and ethnic representation, reflecting MMA’s mission and
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 19
strategic plan to bring people and art together as a key priority (MMA, 2019). The strategic plan
calls for broader and deeper community engagement and earmarks certain funds to be generated
and used to improve MMA’s current diversity status (MMA, 2016).
Enhancing board representativeness reflects a recognition that suboptimal racial and
ethnic diversity may limit organizational performance, potentially alienate certain external
stakeholders, and limit the realization of MMA’s mission to represent the broadest possible
community (that is, people from as many different backgrounds as possible).
Related Literature
Demographically, boards in North America look the same today as they did over two
decades ago (BoardSource, 2015; Buse et al., 2014; Harris, 2014). In 2017, a survey of over
1,200 NPOs revealed that only 8% of board members were African American or Black, 5% of
board members were Hispanic or Latinx, 3% were Asian, 1% were American Indian or Alaska
Native, and 0.2% were Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (BoardSource, 2017a). Indeed, recent data
shows a slight decline in board racial representativeness: 27% White in 2017 versus 25% White
in 2015 (BoardSource, 2015, 2017a, 2017b; Harris, 2014). While research on the benefits of
racial and ethnic diversity is not conclusive for all contexts (Bradshaw & Fredette, 2013; Gazley,
Chang, & Bingham, 2010; Hawkins, 2014; Nielsen & Huang, 2009), much of the evidence
demonstrates that diversity on NPO boards improves decision-making, increases stakeholder
support, enhances innovation and creativity, and improves organizational performance
(BoardSource, 2015; Brown, 2002a; Fredette, Bradshaw, & Inglis, 2006; Harris, 2014; Thomas-
Breitfeld & Kunreuther, 2017). Although the literature discusses certain narrow limitations to
enhanced board heterogeneity, diverse boards generally provide better stewardship and
innovative responses to challenging issues by drawing upon a broader range of perspectives
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 20
when analyzing complex problems (Daley, 2008; Fredette, Bradshaw & Krause, 2016: Prieto,
Phipps, & Osiri, 2011; Thomas-Breitfeld & Kunreuther, 2017; Weisinger et al., 2016).
Additionally, several prominent social science theories provide useful models that support the
operational, economic, and social value of diverse boards: agency, resource dependence,
stakeholder, and human capital theory (Carter, D’Souza, Simkins, & Simpson, 2010; Gazley et
al., 2010; Hillman, Cannella, & Harris, 2002; Van der Walt & Ingley, 2003). A moral argument
for diverse boards can also be made based on principles of accessibility, equity, social justice,
and under social contract theories (AAM, 2018; Buse et al., 2014; Fredette et al., 2016; Hawkins,
2014; Weisinger et al., 2016).
Creating an environment of inclusion within NPO boards is a sine qua non to deriving the
multifaceted benefits of racial and ethnic diversity (Buse et al., 2014; Fredette et al., 2016;
Weisinger et al., 2016). Research has demonstrated that making a case for diversity alone—
purely for demographic reasons—is not enough to satisfy the business and operational benefits
or social justice cases suggested by social science theories (Bradshaw & Fredette, 2011; Brown,
2002a; Kreitz, 2007; Russell Reynolds Associates, 2009; Weaver, 2009). Fostering a
representative and inclusive environment, where board members are valued for their
backgrounds and decisions rather than race, is important for optimizing board and NPO
outcomes (Buse et al., 2014; Fredette et al., 2016; Sessler Bernstein & Bilimoria, 2013; Walker,
2012).
Importance of Addressing the Problem
The underrepresentation of racial and ethnic minorities on nonprofit boards is an
important problem to solve for a variety of reasons. Whether in the context of museums of art,
universities, corporations, or any other organization with a board governance structure, diversity
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 21
on boards is both socially just and is being demanded by many stakeholders, donors, and
communities at large (AAM, 2018; Buse et al., 2014). Indeed, NPO and board commitments to
equal opportunity and diversification of backgrounds are now more than ever being heavily
scrutinized (AAM, 2018; BoardSource, 2017a; Harris, 2014; Levine, 2020; Thomas-Breitfeld &
Kunreuther, 2017). A number of studies have demonstrated that diverse boards facilitate
enhanced leadership, are more innovative in resolving challenging issues, and avoid potential
blind spots by analyzing problems from multiple perspectives (Bernstein & Davidson, 2012;
Brown, 2002b; Brown, 2005; Harris, 2014; Thomas-Breitfeld & Kunreuther, 2017). As noted by
BoardSource, while board composition is “not one-size-fits-all,” a board that is homogeneous
risks having blind spots that negatively impact its ability to make the best decisions and plans for
the organization” (BoardSource, 2017a, p. 12).
Moreover, diverse boards that create truly inclusive environments are better at
fundraising, tend to be more effective at recruiting, and materially improve board member
retention (BoardSource, 2015; Bradshaw & Fredette, 2011, 2013; Bradshaw, Fredette, &
Sukornyk, 2009a; Brown, 2002a). To fulfill NPOs’ missions effectively, boards need to
acknowledge the importance of diversity, intensify their retention efforts, and make members
feel valued in decision-making and policy-formation (BoardSource, 2015, 2017a). In the context
of art museums and broader art forums, there is an ever-present need to remain relevant in the
larger community (AAM, 2016, 2018; Association of Art Museum Directors, 2014;
BoardSource, 2017b). Diversity, equity, accessibility, and inclusion are “essential, sustainable
values for museums to pursue. These principles are not only bedrocks of ethical and morally
courageous museum work, but they also signal how the field can remain relevant to an ever-
diversifying US population” (AAM, 2018, p. 4).
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 22
To remain relevant today and in the future, art institutions need to be sufficiently diverse
to attract audiences reflecting the racial, ethnic, and cultural societies in which they operate
(AAM, 2018, 2019a, 2019b, 2019c; Association of Art Museum Directors, 2014; Cleveland
Museum of Art, 2017). Thus, NPO boards that reflect optimized racial and ethnic diversity will
better facilitate meaningful experiences across social and demographic differences, keeping them
relevant in an increasingly culturally diverse society (Eiteljorg Museum, n.d.; LACMA, 2017).
Although diversity and inclusion are identified as core principles “central to the effectiveness
and sustainability of museums” (AAM, 2018, p. 8), underrepresentation persists. Despite the
“wide reach of museums’ workforces and audiences,” while non-Whites “make up 23 [to 33]
percent of the overall U.S. population, they comprise only 9 percent of museum visitorship”
(AAM, 2018, p. 9). African Americans and Latinx professionals hold only 4% and 3%,
respectively, of museum leadership positions in U.S. art museums (AAM, 2018).
On January 15, 2019, the AAM, a nonprofit organization that facilitates standards and
best practices for museums in the United States, launched a national diversity, equity,
accessibility, and inclusion (DEAI) initiative to diversify museum leadership and improve
inclusion on museum boards (AAM, 2019a, 2019b, 2019c). The DEAI initiative is being funded
by a large grant from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the Allice L. Walton Foundation, and
the Ford Foundation. AAM’s call to action was based in large measure on research conducted in
partnership with BoardSource in 2017, which revealed that 46% of museum boards are entirely
White, versus 27% to 30% of non-museum NPO boards (see BoardSource, 2017b; Foundation
Center, 2019). This study of 1,600 museum directors and board chairs found that 77% of
directors believed that racial/ethnic board diversity was imperative to advancing their museum’s
mission, yet only 10% of museum boards had implemented action plans to prioritize and address
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 23
the problem (BoardSource, 2017b). The AAM has championed the importance of change in this
area, noting “When a museum empowers its staff, executives, and trustees to prioritize inclusive
practices, it generates a culture of inclusion that radiates through the institution and into the
community” (AAM, 2018, p. 11).
Another study of the racial and ethnic composition of 400 arts organization boards found
that the majority comprised a single racial or ethnic group, mostly White (Ostrower, 2007). The
study further found that organizations with more diverse boards were more likely to focus on
multi-ethnic forms and/or art or artists associated with a particular ethnic cultural heritage, more
likely to be media or dance organizations, and more likely to be located in counties with higher
underrepresented populations (Ostrower, 2007). Notably, the study found that the percentage of
arts organizations with any minority board members was lower than the percentage in every field
other than environmental and animal-rights organizations (Ostrower, 2007). Similarly, a recent
Mellon Foundation study found that employment in national museums lacked appropriate focus
on racial and ethnic diversity, failing to reflect the demographic makeup of the communities they
serve (Westermann, Sweeney, & Schonfeld, 2019). Failure to improve in this area will limit
optimized NPO board governance and performance and will result in diminished external
stakeholder support from organizations demanding improvement in this area (Bastons, Mas, &
Rey, 2017; Hayibor & Collins, 2016; MMA, 2019).
Organizational Performance Goal
MMA’s goal is that, by May 2022, its board will be comprised of highly qualified
racially and ethnically diverse individuals who are committed to organizational excellence and
mirror the U.S. Census data for the Midwest region of the United States. The primary goal is to
both mirror the Midwest region communities’ demographics and to find high-performing and
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 24
exceptionally skilled board members who are passionate about MMA’s mission. This goal is an
outgrowth of discussions with industry and academic experts as well as consultation with the
MMA board diversity and inclusion committee (diversity committee). At a minimum, MMA
aspires to have a net increase in the representation of people of color on the board with each new
slate of trustees. In assessing whether improvement is made by May of 2022, the diversity
committee will track current racial and ethnic representation against the most recent census data
for the community in which it operates.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
The MMA board exercises fiduciary duties in providing legal, regulatory, and fiscal
oversight to ensure MMA’s continuing operational success and fulfillment of its mission. The
MMA board sets policies for the organization, exercises oversight and stewardship, monitors
compliance with applicable laws, and assists management in optimizing operations. In setting
long-term strategy and policy, including matters pertaining to diversity and inclusion, the MMA
board makes decisions that best facilitate the mission and continued vitality of the organization.
While the board sets policy and focuses on governance, MMA management conducts the daily
operations of the organization, including the execution of its strategic plan. MMA management
consists of an executive director and senior leadership in areas of curatorial oversight,
development and fundraising, finance, marketing, operations, and human resources. MMA’s
executive director and senior leadership have articulated to the board that diversity and inclusion
are important to donors, foundations, grant providers, and other stakeholders (MMA, 2019).
MMA leaders have also expressed the view that diversity is essential to mission fulfillment,
community engagement, and optimized board operations (MMA, 2019).
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 25
MuseumAngel (a pseudonym) is a prominent stakeholder in the local community that
provides significant financial and other support to MMA and other organizations devoted to the
arts. MuseumAngel is one of MMA’s largest donors—a nonprofit organization devoted to
broadening the depth and scope of art appreciation in the local community and beyond.
MuseumAngel cares about diversity and inclusion as a matter of social policy and justice and as
an important manifestation of multiculturalism in the arts.
Stakeholder Groups’ Performance Goals
Table 1
Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational Mission
MMA’s mission is to bring people and art together in the broadest way possible to contribute to a
more vibrant city by inspiring its people and connecting our communities.
Organizational Performance Goal
By May 2022, MMA’s board will be composed of highly qualified racially and ethnically diverse
individuals who are committed to organizational excellence and mirror the U.S. Census data for
the Midwest region of the United States.
MMA Board of Directors MMA Management Team MuseumAngel
By January 2021, (1) the
MMA board will modify its
nomination process to ensure
that 25% of all potential board
candidates interviewed are
high-performing racially and
ethnically diverse individuals;
(2) the board will implement
strategic, structural, and
operational measures designed
to enhance inclusivity for
board members of color.
By January 2021, (1) MMA’s
executive director will identify
at least four racially/ethnically
diverse board candidates for
nominating committee
consideration; (2) MMA’s
executive director will
interview six stakeholders who
have articulated a desire for
broader diversity and propose
five suggested diversity best
practices to recruit racially and
ethnically diverse candidates.
By January 2021,
MuseumAngel will evaluate
whether MMA has
implemented best practices,
procedures, processes, and
structures designed to promote
the nomination of racially and
ethnically diverse individuals
to the MMA board.
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 26
Stakeholder Group for the Study
While all stakeholders’ joint efforts will contribute to the MMA board achieving its
organizational goal—aspiring to attract excellent candidates who mirror the region’s racial and
ethnic diversity—the board itself is the key stakeholder necessary for implementing that
objective. Therefore, the stakeholders of focus for this study will be all MMA board members.
At the time of this study, the MMA board had 35 members (37% women and 17% racially and
ethnically diverse) representing a wide range of industries and fields and is comprised of an
executive committee and key operating committees (audit, development, finance, governance,
marketing, nominating, and strategic planning). The MMA board’s intermediate goal is that, by
January 2021, it will modify its nomination process to ensure that 25% of all potential board
candidates interviewed are racially and ethnically diverse. The board will also focus on
implementing strategic, structural, and operational measures designed to enhance inclusivity for
board members of color. These goals are highly ambitious but attainable based on consultation
with diversity and inclusion experts regarding contemplated best practices. Failure to accomplish
these organizational and stakeholder goals will limit the board’s ability to represent more broadly
the community and to derive operational and other benefits that flow from improved racial and
ethnic board diversity.
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The purpose of this improvement study is to examine the impediments, facilitators, and
potential best practices associated with optimizing racial and ethnic diversity on the MMA board
of directors. This problem is related to the persistent national problem of underperformance of
NPO boards in the area of racial and ethnic composition (BoardSource, 2017a, 2017b, 2015).
While a complete gap analysis would focus on all MMA stakeholders, for practical purposes, the
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 27
stakeholder focus of this analysis is the MMA board. This qualitative assessment will explore
knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) factors that facilitate and/or impede the
MMA board from achieving its global performance goal related to board representativeness. The
global performance goal is that, by May 2022, the board will be comprised of highly qualified
racially and ethnically diverse individuals who are committed to organizational excellence and
mirror the U.S. Census data for the Midwest region of the United States. The board’s
performance goal is consistent with its concomitant desire to broaden the scope of community
engagement and art appreciation that cuts across diverse backgrounds and cultures. As such, the
research questions that guide this study are as follows:
1. What stakeholder knowledge, skills, and motivation are related to the MMA board being
comprised of highly qualified racially and ethnically diverse individuals who are
committed to organizational excellence and mirror the U.S. Census data for the Midwest
region of the United States?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture/context and stakeholder
knowledge that either facilitates or limits the MMA board from being comprised of
highly qualified racially and ethnically diverse individuals who are committed to
organizational excellence and mirror the U.S. Census data for the Midwest region of the
United States?
3. Which recommended solutions will allow the board to be comprised of highly qualified
racially and ethnically diverse individuals who are committed to organizational
excellence and mirror the U.S. Census data for the Midwest region of the United States?
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 28
Methodological Framework
The methodological approach for this qualitative research study will utilize the gap
analysis proposed by Clark and Estes (2008). This analysis is a systematic method that clarifies
organizational goals and identifies the gaps between the actual performance level and the
preferred performance level within an organization. The assumed interfering elements associated
with the lack of optimized MMA board racial and ethnic diversity will be evaluated based on
assumed KMO influences, and related literature (Maxwell, 2013).
Since the MMA board drives operational culture and climate, creates organizational
strategy, and implements board diversity recruitment/nomination practices, purposeful
exploration of KMO influences and processes will be evaluated through a triangulated analysis
of interviews, document review/artifact evaluation, and content analysis. According to Creswell
(2014), qualitative research is especially useful when, as in the case of the MMA board,
particularized, personal, and subjective factors will likely drive theory generation and inductive
analysis. Purposeful interviews of MMA board members and management (including core
members of the board executive committee, which consists of the board chair, president, and
chairs of key operational committees), collection of documents, and an analysis of artifacts, will
afford maximum flexibility in exploring the identified problem of practice, meaning and process,
and emerging themes (Creswell, 2014; Malloy, 2011; McEwan & McEwan, 2003). Qualitative
approaches are particularly effective in analyzing organizations like the MMA board, where
interviews, document review, and artifact analysis will facilitate a deeper and more meaningful
evaluation of self-contained environments (Clark & Estes, 2008; McEwan & McEwan, 2003).
Research-based solutions and potential interventions will be comprehensively and systematically
analyzed and recommended in accordance with empirical findings.
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 29
Definitions
Board of directors: The term “board of directors” refers to individuals who represent
stakeholders and oversee the overall strategic and financial activities of an organization
(Bradshaw, Murray, & Wolpin, 1992; Erhardt et al., 2003; Hall, 2003; Miller-Millesen, 2003).
Boards have essentially three critical functions: (a) setting strategic direction for the
organization, (b) ensuring the NPO has adequate resources, and (c) corporate governance and
oversight (BoardSource, 2010). In addition to exercising their fiduciary and strategic roles, this
study defines (nonprofit) board of directors’ responsibilities in the generative mode, which
allows the governing board to effectively frame threshold issues and handle the sense of
problems and opportunities within an organization (Chait, Ryan, & Taylor, 2005). Based on the
seminal work of Chait and colleagues (2005), generative governance is evolved, adaptive,
forward-thinking, and anticipates the needs and solutions to problems facing organizations.
Diversity and inclusion: Diversity, an experiential and functional facilitator for both
business and societal success, emphasizes how people from varied backgrounds differ from each
other (e.g., class, race, sex, gender identity, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, religion,
caste, age, and physical/mental ability). In the context of nonprofit boards, diversity refers to the
“varied combination of attributes, characteristics and expertise contributed by individual board
members in relation to the board process and decision-making” (Van der Walt & Ingley, 2003, p.
219). Inclusion, on the other hand, goes a step further in that it recognizes diversity, respects
people for their varied experiences, and creates a viable environment in which people can choose
to put diversity into praxis. Embracing this form of variability enables an inclusive climate that is
both demographically-diverse and uses multiple perspectives and innovative ideas to achieve
organizational goals and success (Banaji & Greenwald, 2013). Inclusion thus involves
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 30
intentional acts that create environments where individuals or groups feel welcomed, respected,
supported, and valued in their full participation in board or other organizational engagement
(AAM, 2018; BoardSource, 2015; Bradshaw & Fredette, 2011; Equity in the Center, 2019). An
inclusive and welcoming climate embraces differences and offers respect in words and actions
for all people (University of Manitoba, 2019). As noted by AAM, “While a truly ‘inclusive’
group is necessarily diverse, a ‘diverse’ group may or may not be ‘inclusive’” (AAM, 2018, p.
8).
Racial and ethnic diversity: The terms “racial and ethnic diversity” are often conflated in
surveys and studies (Buse et al., 2014; Cook & Glass, 2015; Dressel & Hodge, 2013). Diversity
case studies typically do not focus on or address ethnicity specifically, but, rather, group
ethnicity with race to create one definition of diversity (Cokley, 2007; Soo Lee et al., 2008).
Some studies refer simply to “minorities” or “people of color” without further unpacking (Carter
et al., 2010; Erhardt et al., 2003; Walker, 2012; Weisinger et al., 2016). For purposes of this
study, the term “racial and ethnic diversity” will subsume the multiplicity of characteristics, as
detailed in Chapter Two. When used herein, the phrase “racially and ethnically diverse board
member” will subsume the broadest application of this definition, including where language
inadvertently denominates people of color in their individual capacity, recognizing that the term
should properly refer to the diverse characteristics of groups rather than individuals. Similarly,
the use of the terms “minority,” “people of color,” and “underrepresented” is meant to convey
the broadest inclusion of racial/ethnic groups identified in the U.S. Census Bureau data and
BoardSource research and survey data cited herein (see Figure 1).
Representativeness: Gazley and colleagues (2010) note that the terms “diversity” and
“representativeness” are often conflated but should not be used interchangeably. Whereas
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 31
“diversity” is often viewed as synonymous with demographic heterogeneity or other defined
traits, “representativeness” is deemed more intentional and purposeful, calling out constituent
characteristics that often include “more inclusive taxonomies incorporating both biological and
socioeconomic attributes” (Gazley, 2010, p. 610). Gazley et al. observed that
“representativeness” often narrowly refers to the extent to which organizational stakeholders
reflect the characteristics of their constituents. To avoid adopting overly narrow constructions,
“representation” and “representativeness” herein refer to board members of color who provide a
broad range of characteristics, skills, abilities, and competencies, beyond merely reflecting
constituencies’ demographics. As noted above, the term “diversity” more broadly subsumes
concepts of board heterogeneity/composition, representation, and inclusivity.
Equity: The concept of equity contemplates fair access, opportunity, and advancement
“while at the same time striving to identify and eliminate barriers that have prevented the full
participation of some groups” (Equity in the Center, 2019, p. 24). In the context of diversity and
inclusion, the definition acknowledges that there are historically underserved and
underrepresented populations and that fairness regarding certain “unbalanced conditions is
needed to assist equality in the provision of effective opportunities to all groups” (Equity in the
Center, 2019, p. 24).
Social justice: The notion of social justice contemplates equal access and fairness in
competing for precious societal resources and privileges (Rhode & Packel, 2014; Tomlinson &
Schwabenland, 2009; Weisinger et al., 2016). In particular, social justice focuses on the impact
of power, privilege, and oppression on social identities, especially in the distribution of power,
wealth, education, healthcare, and community engagement (Tomlinson & Schwabenland, 2009).
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 32
Social justice presupposes a vision of society in which the distribution of resources is equitable
(Equity in the Center, 2019).
Unconscious bias: Drawing from Hardin and Banaji’s (2013) research on hidden biases
and blind spots, this study uses the term “unconscious bias” to refer to the ethnocentrisms and
social stereotypes people hold about groups and individuals outside their typical circles and
knowledge.
Organization of the Project
Five chapters are used to organize this study. This chapter provided the reader with the
key concepts and terminology commonly found in a discussion associated with nonprofit board
racial and ethnic diversity. The organization’s mission, goals, and stakeholders, as well as the
initial concepts of gap analysis were introduced. Chapter Two provides a review of current
literature surrounding the scope of the study, including the history of nonprofit boards,
organizational, financial, and social policy benefits and justifications associated with more
diversified boards. It also discusses social science theories supporting racial and ethnic diversity,
the critical importance of inclusion in implementing diversity initiatives, and assumed KMO
barriers potentially impeding board diversity. Chapter Three details the assumed KMO elements
to be examined and evaluated, as well as the methodology for selecting participants, data
collection, choice of participants, and analysis. In Chapter Four, the data and results are assessed
based on a thematic analysis of stakeholder interviews, documents, and artifacts. Chapter Five
provides proposed solutions, based on data analysis and the literature, for closing the validated
gaps as well as an implementation and evaluation plan for identified solutions.
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 33
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This chapter provides a comprehensive review of the literature relating to the
underrepresentation of people of color serving on nonprofit boards. After describing the history
of NPOs and the panoply of functions boards serve, the chapter reviews the social science
research and theoretical constructs supporting calls for more racially and ethnically diverse
boards as well as the operational, financial, stakeholder, and social equity benefits that flow from
heterogeneous boards. The chapter will further evaluate the critical importance of inclusive
practices for maximizing the benefits of diversified boards. It will conclude by reviewing the
relevant research associated with Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis and the multiple KMO
influences affecting the MMA board’s ability to recruit and nominate racially and ethnically
diverse members. Identifying these KMO influences will be key to addressing gaps to facilitate
change in optimizing MMA’s racial and ethnic board diversity.
Nonprofit Organizations and Board Governance
NPO effectiveness is often achieved through optimized strategic planning, effective
organizational and operational controls, and generative thinking (Chait et al., 2005; Herman &
Renz, 2008). Effective organizational controls are typically conceived and/or implemented
through successful oversight of the organization’s board of directors (Herman & Renz, 2008).
Effective boards are important to mission fulfillment, stakeholder support, and effective
operations of the NPO (Miller-Millesen, 2003).
Nonprofit Organizations
An NPO is an organization “formed with the intention of providing some good or service
without the promise of monetary rewards” (Jones, 2006, p. 13). In implementing their missions,
NPOs and their boards are stewards of the public interest, devoted to charitable and philanthropic
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 34
causes that are the hallmark of public service (BoardSource, 2017a; Brody, 2007; Hall, 2003;
Neem, 2003). Most NPOs are categorized under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue
Service Code, which means that they are “formal organizations operating under law that do not
distribute profits to shareholders; they are (or became) self-governing; they are (or became)
voluntary; and they serve a ‘public benefit’” (Neem, 2003, n. 1). NPOs with 501(c)(3) status are
exempt from taxation (26 U.S.C. § 501(a); Jones, 2006).
Nonprofit Organization Boards’ and Directors’ Responsibilities
Board action and oversight are critical in framing NPO organizational behavior and
strategy (BoardSource, 2010; Miller-Millesen, 2003). Absent evolved and well-functioning
boards, NPO operations will be diminished (BoardSource, 2010, 2015, 2017a; Chait et al., 2005).
The literature identifies a broad array of key areas of board responsibility, which may change
over time. These areas include understanding the NPO’s mission and providing financial, legal,
and ethical oversight, including monitoring legislative and regulatory issues (BoardSource, 2010;
Chait et al., 2005; Miller-Millesen, 2003). Core functions also include supporting and guiding
the CEO, evaluating the CEO, and knowing the NPO’s programs as well as the board’s roles and
responsibilities (Blackwood, Dietz, & Pollak, 2014; Larcker, Donatiello, Meehan, & Tayan,
2015). Additional duties involve adopting, following, and monitoring organizational
performance against a strategic plan, conducting community-building and outreach, and
fundraising, which has increasingly become a central board function (Blackwood et al., 2014;
Miller-Millesen, 2003). In terms of optimal leadership and oversight, boards serve fiduciary,
strategic, and generative governance functions (Chait et al., 2005).
An NPO board is expected to “represent” the “organization’s community as a way to
create accountability and form a link with the public” (BoardSource, 2017b, p. 9). Boards are
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 35
responsible for understanding the changing environment of the NPO, developing creative
solutions to new problems, understanding the client populations served by the organization, and
planning effectively (Chait et al., 2005). Hall (2003) lists additional NPO board responsibilities,
including managing resources effectively, enhancing the NPO’s programs and its public
standing, ensuring legal/ethical integrity and accountability, and recruiting new board members.
In short, the board is charged with optimizing interactions among its members,
stakeholders, and managers running the organization as well as positively influencing policy and
strategy (Carter, Simkins, & Simpson, 2003; Cook & Glass, 2015). In connection with these
duties and functions, the lack of adequate racial and ethnic representation on boards has
consistently been identified as a pervasive issue that must be tackled, as will be discussed below.
The Persistent Problem of Board Diversity
Inadequate racial and ethnic diversity on nonprofit boards is a persistent and vexing
problem (BoardSource, 2010, 2015, 2017a; Buse et al., 2014; Harris, 2014). Demographically,
boards in North America look the same today as they did over two decades ago (BoardSource,
2010, 2015; Buse et al., 2014; Harris, 2014). In 2017, a survey of over 1,200 NPOs revealed that
only 8% of board members were African American or Black, 5% were Hispanic or Latinx, 3%
were Asian, 1% were American Indian or Alaska Native, and 0.2% were Hawaiian/Pacific
Islander (BoardSource, 2017a). These numbers are even more problematic in the museum sector:
as of 2017, 89.3% of board members were Caucasian, 5.2% were African American or Black,
5% were Hispanic or Latinx, 1.9% were Asian, 1.4% were American Indian or Alaska Native,
and 0.4% were Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (BoardSource, 2017b).
As reflected below in Figure 2, these survey results mirror the results of similar surveys
conducted over the past decade (BoardSource, 2010, 2015, 2017a; Sessler Bernstein &
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 36
Bilimoria, 2013; Thomas-Breitfeld & Kunreuther, 2017). Indeed, board diversity has slightly
decreased in the past two years: 27% of all boards in 2017 indicated in survey data that they were
all-White versus 25% in 2015 (BoardSource, 2017a). This stasis in board diversity numbers is
perplexing, considering that census data indicate that, by 2044, the majority of the population
will be comprised of current racial and ethnic minorities (Colby & Ortman, 2015; United States
Census Bureau, 2012, 2017; Vespa, Armstrong, & Medina, 2018).
Figure 2. Board racial and ethnic diversity (BoardSource, 2015).
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 37
The figure represents the trend of racial and ethnic board diversity based on
BoardSource’s extensive data collection and survey process over the past 26 years. The 2015
BoardSource report presents data on the percentage of board members who are White and the
percentage of board members who are people of color. The indicated 20% represents the
percentage of board members who are people of color.
Despite the persistent trend of low board heterogeneity, and even facing widespread
board opinion that diversifying is a mandate, few boards have taken meaningful action to do so
(Gomez-Mejia, Balkin, & Cardy, 2010; Halpern, 2006; Virgil, Wyatt, & Brennan, 2015), with
only 25% of board chairs placing a high priority on recruiting members of color (BoardSource,
2017a). One explanation noted by BoardSource (2017a) for this trend concerning homogeneity
may be boards’ misperception that they are adequately diverse and view board racial
representation as less of a serious problem, a view evidenced by a divide in CEO and board
opinions on the subject. While both board members and CEOs believe boards are
underperforming in racial/ethnic diversity, CEOs see diversity as a more serious problem
(BoardSource, 2017a, 2017b; Ostrower, 2007), which may result from a deeper appreciation of
how diversity affects organizations. Surveys show CEOs have consistently been more critical of
their NPO boards’ lack of diversity than board chairs or board members (BoardSource, 2017a,
2017b; Sessler Bernstein & Bilimoria, 2013). In the museum sector, 64% of museum directors
indicated they are dissatisfied with their board’s racial and ethnic diversity (BoardSource,
2017b). Recent data suggests nearly 80% of CEOs say that expanding racial and ethnic diversity
is important or greatly important to increasing their NPO’s ability to advance its mission; 80% of
CEOs report that diversity is important or very important to improving their organization’s
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 38
reputation; and 72% of CEOs report that diversity is important or greatly important for
increasing fundraising efforts (BoardSource, 2017a; Dobbin, Kim, & Kalev, 2011).
The problem of suboptimal racial and ethnic diversity on NPO boards is complex and,
absent aggressive and enlightened board intervention, is bound to persist (BoardSource, 2017a).
Understanding the wide array of operational, fundraising, social policy, and stakeholder benefits
that flow from board representativeness helps explain the need for racial and ethnic board
diversity.
Organizational Performance and Benefits of Board Diversity
Research demonstrates that inadequate racial and ethnic diversity on boards potentially
limits NPO operational performance (BoardSource, 2015, 2017a; Harris, 2014). Optimizing
racial and ethnic diversity on boards has the potential to enhance decision-making, increase
stakeholder support and fundraising, catalyze innovation and creativity, and generate robust
debate that counteracts groupthink (BoardSource, 2015; Brown, 2002a; Buse et al., 2014;
Fredette et al., 2006; Harris, 2014; Kim & Mason, 2018; Thomas-Breitfeld & Kunreuther, 2017).
Studies have demonstrated that racially/ethnically diverse groups produced optimized outcomes
on creative and strategic tasks versus homogenous groups (Weisinger et al., 2016). Moreover,
potential blind spots from a lack of board diversity may result in ineffective strategies to address
societal challenges and inequities increasingly important to NPO stakeholders (BoardSource,
2017a, 2017b; Ramirez, 2000; Walker, 2019). Bradshaw and Fredette (2013) also found that
diverse boards facilitate broader community responsiveness and support, have increased success
in recruiting racially/ethnically diverse board members, and have more effective executive
leadership.
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 39
Organizational Outcome Benefits
AAM and BoardSource are unequivocal in articulating their view that museum board
members with different backgrounds and experiences, including varying racial, cultural, and
ethnic backgrounds, enhance the quality of boards, their decision-making, and operational
performance (AAM, 2018, 2019a; BoardSource, 2010, 2015, 2017a, 2017b; Kim & Mason,
2018). BoardSource (2015) has observed that having a diverse and multifaceted board is a major
determinant of effective board performance:
Research using BoardSource’s 2012 index data reveals that having the right mix of board
member expertise and experience is important to the board’s ability to provide oversight
of the organization, to support the CEO, and to connect with the community. (p. 12)
Studies have also shown that racially and ethnically diverse boards can improve organizational
outcomes (Fredette et al., 2006; Harris, 2014; Prieto et al., 2011; Weisinger et al., 2016).
Specifically, studies show that diverse boards enhance NPO operational performance
generally (e.g., enriching board deliberations, improving policy analysis, and optimizing
strategic planning) and result in more innovative decision-making that is not hampered by
groupthink (Brown, 2002b; Daley, 2008; Gazley et al., 2010; Kidder, 2014; Miller & Triana,
2009; Thomas-Breitfeld & Kunreuther, 2017; Van der Walt & Ingley, 2003). Bradshaw et al.
(2009a, 2009b) found a positive correlation between board diversity and numerous board metrics
(including fiduciary oversight factors, mission fulfillment, and strategic planning). Similarly, an
empirical study of 1,456 NPO boards and CEOs found “board governance can be improved with
more diverse memberships, but only if the board behaves inclusively and their policies and
practices allow diverse members to have impact” (Buse et al., 2014, p. 179). Sessler Bernstein
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 40
and Bilimoria (2013) data showed NPOs that simultaneously encourage integration and inclusion
of racial/ethnic minorities have more success in board operational activities.
Additionally, a few studies make the business case for diversity, arguing that enhancing
cultural diversity is a way for NPOs to obtain a strategic competitive advantage (Konrad, 2003;
Weisinger et al., 2016) and is critical to organizational effectiveness, including improving
operational successes (Carter et al., 2003; Cox, 1991; Weisinger et al., 2016). For example, a
2015 study analyzing how the racial and ethnic composition among CEOs and boards affect firm
governance and product development showed that board diversity strengthened corporate
governance and increased product innovation (Cook & Glass, 2015). Other studies are less
supportive of a pure business case, showing only small or no associations between racial/ethnic
diversity and board performance (Carter et al., 2010; Gazley et al., 2010; Rhode & Packel,
2014). For instance, a 2010 study of 170 community mediation agencies found that stakeholder
and board representativeness had only a limited but relevant measurement of organizational
effectiveness (Gazley et al., 2010). Harris (2014) studied 554 nonprofit U.S. colleges and found
that board member gender and racial/ethnic diversity was correlated to NPO performance (citing
Brown, 2002a), noting for-profit studies show increased financial performance, fundraising, and
the receipt of larger foundation grants. In the context of for-profit organizations, as will be noted
below, a number of researchers have seriously questioned linkages between business-specific
benefits and racial and ethnic diversity (Kochan et al., 2003; Thomas & Ely, 1996; Van der Walt
& Ingley, 2003).
Diverse boards also draw upon their expertise to address stakeholder needs and generate
increased community responsiveness (Cox, 1991; Daley, 2008; Fredette et al., 2006; Kim &
Mason, 2018). Ostrower (2007) found that less diverse boards have difficulty responding to
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 41
varied community demands and are less accountable to the constituencies they serve. In parallel,
studies have shown that having diverse directors motivates employees by establishing that
leaders are devoted to promoting diversity within the organization (Kidder, 2014; Taylor, Chait,
& Holland, 1991). This perceived commitment may improve the attraction and retention of
diverse employees, increase employee productivity and morale, and generate stakeholder loyalty
(Kidder, 2014). Stakeholder loyalty and respect have a further positive effect of enhancing the
reputation of the NPO in the broader community (Daley, 2008). As articulated by Alice Walton,
philanthropist and founder of the Alice L. Walton Foundation, building relationships between art
institutions and the local community anchors mutual engagement which is “strengthened when
diversity, equity, and inclusion are fully realized within institutional leadership” (AAM, 2018, p.
3). The presence of a diverse board also sends a powerful message about the organization’s
values and commitment to “understanding constituent needs, cultivating community connections,
and establishing credibility” (BoardSource, 2015, p. 10).
Overall, the effects of diversity on board performance are similar to the effects of
diversity in other contexts social scientists have studied, including economic markets, social
capital, neighborhoods and cities, organizations, work teams, and jury deliberations (Levine et
al., 2014). In the economy, the market benefits from the unique information and skills that
diverse traders contribute to the market and because the very presence of minority traders
impacts the decision-making among all traders (Levine et al., 2014). Similarly, the mere
presence of minority board members may impact the decision-making of non-minority board
members based on the multiplicity of views considered and expressed (Levine et al., 2014).
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 42
Financial Outcome Benefits
Studies attempting to show a direct link between financial performance and diverse
boards in the for-profit context are mixed. For example, some studies have found positive
relationships between the presence of minorities on the board and firm value as measured by
Tobin’s Q (Carter et al., 2003) or financial performance under a return on assets (ROA) analysis
(Ujunwa, Okoyeuzu, & Nwakoby, 2012). Similarly, a study of 112 large companies found a
strong correlation between minority representation and gender correlated with return on
investment (ROI) and ROA (Erhardt et al., 2003). A study of large companies listed in the S&P
500 found a positive link between gender and ethnic diversity and ROA but no association with
Tobin’s Q (Carter et al., 2010). Another study by Carter and colleagues (2003) found a
significant relationship between percentages of women and minorities on the board and return on
equity (ROE). One of the most frequently cited studies used to support board diversity based on
improved financial performance is a 2007 Catalyst study (Mijntje Luckerath-Rovers, 2013). The
study ranked Fortune 500 companies based on percentages of women on the board and found
positive correlations in ROE, return on sales, and return on invested capital. However, in
addition to focusing on gender and not racial diversity, scholars have noted the study is
vulnerable based on significant methodology limitations (Rhode & Packel, 2014).
In addition to methodological limitations, other studies have found limited or no
correlation between ethnicity and financial performance (Cook & Glass, 2015). For example, a
study of diverse boards and performance, as measured by ROA, ROE, and total shareholder
returns, in an international setting found no association between ethnic diversity and
performance (Wang & Clift, 2009). Similarly, a 1988 study of 100 Fortune 500 companies
examining gender and ethnic diversity together, found that the association between females and
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 43
racial minority group board members and corporate financial performance, measured in part by
ROE, profit margins on sales, and net sales-to-equity, was not significant (Zahra & Pearce,
1989). A study of the relationship between ethnic diversity and firm effectiveness in the banking
industry, as measured by employee productivity, ROE, and market performance, was minimal
and depended on context (Richard, 2000). Interestingly, however, the research demonstrated that
firms with racial diversity and a growth strategy experienced a higher ROE than did firms with
the same diversity and no growth or downsizing strategy (Richard, 2000).
Ely and Thomas (2001) concluded that the empirical literature is “more complex than
implied by the popular rhetoric” and “does not support the simple notion that more diverse
groups, teams, or business units necessarily perform better, feel more committed to their
organizations, or experience higher levels of satisfaction” (p. 6). Based on their findings, these
researchers propose a more “nuanced view” that seeks to leverage benefits from diversity by
reframing the “business case” argument as follows:
To be successful in working with and gaining value from this diversity requires a
sustained, systemic approach and long-term commitment. Success is facilitated by a
perspective that considers diversity to be an opportunity for everyone in an organization
to learn from each other how better to accomplish their work and an occasion that
requires a supportive and cooperative organizational culture as well as group leadership
and process skills that can facilitate effective group functioning. Organizations that invest
their resources in taking advantage of the opportunities that diversity offers should
outperform those that fail to make such investments. (Ely & Thomas, 2001, p. 31)
Financial metrics studies are less applicable in the NPO context, as for-profit
organizations define performance using financial measures such as ROI, ROE, and ROA (Carter
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 44
et al., 2010; Ujunwa et al., 2012; Wang & Clift, 2009; Zahra & Pearce, 1989). Indeed, Harris
(2014) notes that NPOs serve a non-monetary mission, where more appropriate financial metrics
include fundraising capability, external grants, and general community support and
contributions. In the nonprofit context, several studies indicate that increased diversity improves
fundraising and donor support. For example, a 1996 study that reviewed data from 240 YMCA
organizations found that when board members were more diverse, there were higher levels of
financial performance and more positive attitudes of community members toward the
organizations (Brown, 2002a; Ely & Thomas, 2001; Erhardt et al., 2003; Ostrower, 2007;
Siciliano, 1996).
Additionally, the majority of NPO chief executives surveyed in 2017 believe that
diversity is at least somewhat important for increasing fundraising or expanding donor networks
(BoardSource, 2017a, 2017b). A 2014 study of 554 NPO universities demonstrated that boards
with more underrepresented members were positively linked to the NPO, generating
substantially more direct and indirect donations and government grants, which are the three main
components of total typical contributions (Harris, 2014). Ethnic diversity on foundation boards is
also necessary to respond comprehensively to grant-making needs (Harris, 2014). These
considerations are important as more than half of 3,000 nonprofit sector stakeholders surveyed in
a 2017 study reported that their organizations struggled with fundraising, including meeting
foundation and major gift goals (Meehan & Jonker, 2017).
Reduced Groupthink
Numerous scholars have noted that increased diversity can counteract the negative effects
of groupthink in small groups (Fernandez, 2007; Guest, 2019; Kamalnath, 2017; Leslie, 2010).
Groupthink is a phenomenon where groups can become predisposed to cognitive biases that
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 45
impair optimized decision-making (Kamalnath, 2017). Irving Janis, a prominent psychologist
from Yale University who developed the theory in the early 1970s, believed that cognitive
limitations often imperiled group decisions, including impairing rational decision-making
through blind obeisance to group norms (Janis, 1972, 1973; Leslie, 2010). Insular groups
reinforcing dominant leaders and “concurrence-seeking” can unconsciously become so prevalent
that focusing on consensus “tends to override realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action”
(Howard, 2011, p. 426). Janis (1972) defined groupthink as follows:
A mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-
group, when the members’ striving for unanimity overrides their motivation to
realistically appraise alternative courses of action. (p. 84)
For groupthink to manifest, one or more antecedent conditions must be present (Janis,
1972). The cohesiveness of the group is the most critical antecedent condition, which typically
exists in small oversight or decision-making bodies based on long-standing strong social,
business, or operational relationships (Janis, 1972; Kamalnath, 2017). Groupthink can pervade
prestige groups like boards of directors, particularly when they have an insular culture that
emphasizes cohesion, collegiality, and minimized dissent (Fernandez, 2007; O’Connor, 2003).
Scholars have identified prominent historical examples where groupthink pervaded decision-
making in considering multiple competing alternatives, including the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban
Missile Crisis, and the Challenger space shuttle disaster (Turner & Pratkanis, 1998). In such
cases, small and insular groups create pressure among members (through unconscious fear of
disapproval and public ridicule) where dominant members perpetuate flawed decisions that often
reaffirm the status quo (Janis, 1972; Leslie, 2010). There are also numerous well-publicized
examples involving financial improprieties (including Arthur Anderson, Enron, and World
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 46
Bank), where warning signs regarding flawed decisions were ignored to “preserve the status quo
in order to reduce stress under the ‘illusion of normalcy’” (O’Connor, 2003, p. 1278).
Other antecedent conditions identified by Janis (1972) include insular organizational
structures, high-stress, controversial, or provocative situational issues requiring immediate
action. In the context of structural and organizational limitations, Janis identifies four typical
potential deficiencies: (a) insulating discussion within a small group of stakeholders in a larger
group or organization; (b) a strong group leader with a propensity to announce decisions in
advance of a thorough vetting of differing points of view, signaling a putative consensus or a
preordained result; (c) a flawed or abbreviated process for soliciting external, expert, discrepant
data, or contrary views; and (d) homogeneous groups, particularly those lacking economic,
social, cultural, and ideological diversity (Janis, 1972, 1973). The fourth factor, lack of adequate
diversity leading to potential groupthink, is especially prevalent on boards of directors (Leslie,
(2010)). As noted by Fernandez (2007):
Groupthink occurs when one or two people or personality types dominate a group’s
culture so completely that there is no room for those with other styles, perspectives,
needs, or beliefs to get their ideas on the table. This can take the form of people hiring
only those who do as they do, or of the dominant thinkers badgering others into accepting
their ideas, critically downplaying of the value of others’ ideas, or simply failing to listen.
(p. 870)
Leslie (2010) and other researchers have noted that nonprofit boards are particularly
susceptible to groupthink, often because of a lack of heterogeneity in board composition and a
shared interest in the organization’s mission. Additionally, because most board members join for
a public interest, charitable or philanthropic purpose, there is often a collective desire for
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 47
collegiality and consensus. Board members also typically come from similar social, networking,
professional, and economic backgrounds, which creates inertia for consensus-building and
reduced conflict, sometimes at the expense of rigorous debate on important issues (Leslie, 2010).
That level of board cohesion can perpetuate concurrence-seeking attitudes, which limits
counterfactual analysis and appraisals of alternative courses of action (Howard, 2011).
If not effectively mitigated, an over emphasis on consensus-building on boards often
results in the selection of individuals for membership and committee service based on perceived
similarity to the group (Kamalnath, 2017). While Kamalnath (2017) cautions that race and
gender are not necessarily a proxy for diversity of opinions and thought, board nomination
committees that select candidates reflecting the status quo are necessarily limited in their
potential for gaining a broader perspective on complex organizational issues (Beecher-Monas,
2007).
Board Cohesion
Research suggesting that groupthink can be successfully counteracted by having diverse
board members is complicated by the social psychological literature suggesting it is difficult for
one person to change group dynamics (Solan, Fanto, & Darley, 2011). Some studies even caution
that diverse boards may impair board cohesion, create conflict, and potentially marginalize
certain underrepresented board members (DiTomaso, Post, & Parks-Yancy, 2007; Hawkins,
2014; Levine et al., 2014; Nielsen & Huang, 2009). Although these identified theoretical
limitations have legitimacy, most studies have shown that modestly impaired cohesion is
outweighed by the pronounced benefits of diversified decision-making, enhanced innovation,
and reduced groupthink (Buse et al., 2014; Fredette et al., 2016; Harris, 2014; Walker, 2012).
Fredette and his colleagues (2016) found that diverse Boards with higher levels of both social
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 48
and functional inclusion tend to have better board-level outcomes (effectiveness, cohesion, and
commitment). Findings suggested that functional and social inclusion efforts were more likely to
minimize any loss of cohesion associated with demographic heterogeneity.
Additionally, numerous countervailing benefits mediate diluted cohesion based on group
dynamics associated with diversity. For example, members of underrepresented groups who hold
board and other senior executive positions are effective mentors and recruiters, which, in turn,
enhances the operational environment (Hillman, 2015). Similarly, Upadhyay and Zeng (2014)
demonstrated that increased ethnic diversity noticeably enhances the quality of organizational
information flow in internal governance systems. Other researchers have noted that diversifying
boardrooms, while creating some conflict, had positive benefits on evaluating strategic
opportunities from multiple perspectives (Kong-Hee & Rasheed, 2014). Moreover, as will be
noted below, several NPO studies advocate for more diverse boards purely on stakeholder and
social justice grounds, irrespective of operational and financial performance benefits.
In understanding the reasons behind this in-praxis advocacy, it is important to analyze
diversity from a theoretical perspective as well. Diversity scholars utilize research-based theories
to contextualize board diversity, along with their potential limitations. In that regard, as the
following section makes clear, several social science theories, rooted in organizational, human
capital, and stakeholder dynamics, are increasingly being used to support social justice, business
case, or stakeholder arguments supporting the need for racial and ethnic board diversity.
Considerations Specific to Nonprofit Boards
Nonfinancial factors are also particularly important to nonprofit boards and the
organizations they serve. Having a diverse board may enhance the NPO’s reputation and
influence with certain stakeholders, thereby indirectly affecting financial outcomes (Bastons et
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 49
al., 2017; Daley, 2008; Miller & Triana, 2009). For example, “constituent groups (including
funders and organizations that are affected by agency policies) may view board diversity as a
reflection of an agency’s inclusive philosophy,” which, in turn, may advance fundraising efforts
(Daley, 2008, p. 37). More recent studies support this finding, concluding that increasing board
diversity can insure against the negative financial implications of being the target of publicity
campaigns critiquing non-diverse organizations (Dent, 2014; Kidder, 2014; Levine et al., 2014).
State and federal governments, external stakeholders, outside funding agents, and other
constituents are also imposing more pressure to diversify boards (Kidder, 2014; Levine, 2020).
Moreover, since NPO and board commitments to equal opportunity and diversification of
backgrounds are being heavily scrutinized, financial penalties and other disincentives may be
associated with failure to improve in this area (Buse et al., 2014; Nielsen & Huang, 2009;
Thomas-Breitfeld & Kunreuther, 2017; Walker, 2019). Indeed, some foundations and grant
providers are expressly demanding support for social causes in exchange for continuing
contributions (Bastons et al., 2017; Gazley et al., 2010; Hayibor & Collins, 2016; MMA, 2019;
Solan et al., 2011; Van der Walt & Ingley, 2003). Nielsen and Huang (2009) have noted NPOs
will more rapidly respond to social and moral arguments requiring change when
donors/funders/regulators impose incentives or penalties associated with more diverse boards.
Lastly, diverse boards may appeal to investors/contributors who consider diversity when
deciding whether, and how much, to invest in capital campaigns and future expansion plans of
organizations (Kidder, 2014). Given the multiplicity of interests and divergent perspectives from
different stakeholders, a number of social science theories provide useful models for analyzing
these financial and nonfinancial considerations.
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 50
Social Science Perspectives on Diversity
Depending on the unique composition of boards and the NPOs they serve, different
arguments may resonate with board members, stakeholders, and major donors regarding why
diversity and inclusion matter (BoardSource, 2017a). For example, certain board members may
be susceptible to arguments that invoke concepts of corporate governance and fiduciary
obligation as imperatives that mandate enhanced diversity (Gazley et al., 2003). Other board
members may be persuaded by the view that fundraising and enlisting broader stakeholder
support can occur only if the board mirrors the community it serves (BoardSource, 2015;
Bradshaw & Fredette, 2013; Van der Walt & Ingley, 2003). Based on differences in background
and professional orientation, other board members may be moved by the notion that human
capital and individualized traits and experiences are essential to optimizing board functioning
(Carter et al., 2010; Cook & Glass, 2015).
The literature identifies numerous social science theories that create models for analyzing
nonprofit structure, processes, goals, and culture (Cook & Glass, 2015). These theories include
agency theory, resource dependence theory, human capital theory, stakeholder theory, and social
contract theory. Another is contingency theory, which suggests that certain aspects of board
diversity may be desirable in some contexts but not in others, depending on the organization and
circumstances (Carter et al., 2010). Social impact theory predicts individuals who have majority
status have the potential to exert a disproportionate amount of influence in group decisions
(Carter et al., 2010), and network theory posits that firms increase their chance of survival and
acquisition of resources by becoming more central within a network of other firms and entities or
by increasing connections to other firms (Hillman et al., 2002). Agency theory, resource
dependence theory, human capital theory, and stakeholder theory provide distinct but
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 51
complementary models helpful in conceptualizing rationales for enhancing nonprofit board
diversity (Carter et al., 2010; Gazley et al., 2010; Hillman et al., 2002; Van der Walt & Ingley,
2003). They further provide a theoretical basis to demonstrate the importance of a recognition of
the complexity of interpersonal board relationships and elucidate cultural and climatic dynamics
that impact different stakeholders (The Denver Foundation, 2007). Importantly, depending on the
context, these theories also help to expand the rationales and justifications that underpin the
arguments for the positive benefits of increasing board racial and ethnic diversity.
Agency Theory
Agency theory envisages NPO boards as having an obligation to improve racial/ethnic
diversity as part of their governance function (Brown, 2005; Gazley et al., 2010; Van der Walt &
Ingley, 2003). Under agency theory, the board serves a monitoring role in protecting
organizational and stakeholder interests (Gazley et al., 2010; Van der Walt & Ingley, 2003). In
the NPO context, legislators and regulators are the principals who rely on the board, as the agent,
to represent public interests (Gazley et al., 2010). Agency theory suggests that diverse board
oversight may facilitate the monitoring of management (Carter et al., 2010; Cook & Glass, 2015;
Van der Walt & Ingley, 2003) and may optimize the board’s ability to represent the public
interest (Cook & Glass, 2015). Since boards serve to protect stakeholder interests, agency theory
also holds they should have diverse members to adequately represent divergent community
interests (Gazley et al., 2010). Agency allows boards to understand the interpersonal relations
behind the board as an organization and the importance of interconnectivity with the NPO and
potentially external stakeholders (Carter et al., 2010).
Given increased stakeholder scrutiny on racial/ethnic diversity and inclusion, and the
financial penalties potentially resulting from failure to improve, agency theory provides a
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 52
mechanism for assessing accountability, transparency, and incentive structures. By more fully
relying upon agency theory in evaluating board candidates for nomination and effective board
governance, racial and ethnic diversity serves as a facilitator for more effective diversity
management (Carter et al., 2010; Cook & Glass, 2015).
Resource Dependence Theory
The resource dependency theory also provides a framework to assess and promote the
organizational benefits of racial and ethnic board diversity. This theory draws links between the
NPO, its diversity objectives, and the resources (e.g., access to capital, competitors, donors,
regulators, and industry intelligence) needed to maximize the organization’s performance
(Sessler Bernstein & Bilimoria, 2013; Van der Walt & Ingley, 2003; Van der Walt & Ingley,
2003). Under the resource dependency theory, NPOs serve as civic partners that promote
diversity relevant to community imperatives (Kim & Mason, 2018; Van der Walt & Ingley,
2003). Additionally, this theory recognizes that diverse board members may provide
organizations more valuable resources, improving performance and access to additional
constituencies (Carter et al., 2010).
In the context of articulating the benefits associated with racial and ethnic diversity,
resource dependency theory allows boards to focus on numerous palpable benefits to the NPO,
including
(1) provision of resources such as information and expertise; (2) creation of channels of
communication with constituents of importance to the firm; (3) provision of
commitments of support from important organizations or groups in the external
environment; and (4) creation of legitimacy for the firm in the external environment.
(Carter et al., 2010, p. 398)
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 53
For example, a 2017 study demonstrated that arts nonprofits that serve people of color are more
actively involved in resource allocation and advocacy efforts than those serving mostly White
constituents (Kim & Mason, 2018). Resource dependency theory thus intersects with agency
theory in linking board member associations with broader community outreach (BoardSource,
2017a). Given MMA’s mission to enhance outreach to more diverse audiences, resource
dependency theory allows a strategic focus on benefiting from board members of color
connections and broader communication channels to solicit MMA support. That form of
engagement from board members of color provides the corollary benefit of creating connection
and legitimacy with the broader community.
To the extent that diverse board members have access to communities and resources that
serve MMA’s mission (not otherwise typically accessed by nondiverse members), such resources
serve as additional human capital benefits that also contribute to the value of the board as a
whole (BoardSource, 2017b).
Human Capital Theory
A complement to the resource dependency argument for diversity is the human capital
theory, which suggests that a person’s education, experience, and skills can be used to benefit an
organization (Carter et al., 2010; Cook & Glass, 2015; Smith, 2007; Terjesen, Sealy, & Singh,
2009; Zweigenhaft & Domhoff, 2014). This theory posits that diverse members bring varied
human capital—characteristics, backgrounds, expertise, and experiences—that may inform the
roles they play and decisions they make and, ultimately, make them more effective on a board
(Carter et al., 2010; Hillman et al., 2002; Russell Reynolds Associates, 2009). For example, one
study found that most racial minority directors come from nonbusiness careers, possess advanced
degrees, and join additional boards at a faster rate, compared to White male directors (Hillman et
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 54
al., 2002). And by bringing diverse human capital to the board, minority board members may be
especially important in a crisis period to diffuse operational risk (Ooi, Hooy, & Som, 2017). By
recognizing the unique social, intellectual, and cultural capital characteristics that more
representative boards bring, the human capital theory allows nominating committees to broaden
their views on racial and ethnic diversity and inform their strategies on recruiting and nominating
more effective board members (Hillman et al., 2002; Weaver, 2009).
Since board members strive to be good stewards in realizing MMA’s mission to
maximize art appreciation, expanding community engagement based on board member of color
networks and relationships may be viewed as assets under the human capital theory. In the
context of nonprofit boards, human capital relationships and networks provide the groups’
members with a broader social capital to accomplish important organizational objectives
(Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 2002). An understanding of human capital theory provides a prescriptive
basis for increasing board racial and ethnic diversity and informs the board on the critical
importance of interfacing with key stakeholders.
Stakeholder Theory
Stakeholder theory emphasizes the importance of organizations being interconnected
with their donors, investors, and customers, as well as the broader financial, cultural and
diversified communities they serve (Gazley et al., 2010; Van der Walt & Ingley, 2003). This
framework focuses on the benefits that board members of color bring to the general community
(Gazley et al., 2010). It also addresses the need to be responsive to stakeholder demands,
including requests to improve board diversity (AAM, 2018; BoardSource, 2017a; MMA, 2019;
Van der Walt & Ingley, 2003). As racially diverse board members may have connections to
important community resources (Singh, 2007), the stakeholder theory considers reciprocal
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 55
benefits that board members of color bring to the community (Gazley et al., 2010). Realizing
these benefits is typically challenging, as research suggests that lack of diversity on NPO boards
is often related to networking barriers: 91% of White Americans’ social networks are other
White Americans, the same group that dominates NPO board membership (BoardSource,
2017b).
These theoretical views of the roles board members and boards themselves play for
organizations and communities provide conceptual support for the view that racial and ethnic
diversity serves NPO, donor, investor, and constituent groups’ interests. An understanding of
these theories will help inform nominating committees, and other board members, of the critical
linkage between culture and climate as judged and evaluated by external stakeholders (The
Denver Foundation, 2007). But, individually or collectively, some commentators have noted that
these social science theories may not in all contexts adequately make a case for diversity in the
boardroom (BoardSource, 2017a). For example, the stakeholder theory, by focusing on the
board’s awareness of and responses to constituents’ interests, may overlook group dynamics in
the boardroom and societal externalities that may be at play (Fredette et al., 2016). Thus, many
scholars and stakeholders also champion the need for optimized board diversity based on social
justice and equity grounds (Rhode & Packel, 2014).
Moral and Social Justice Arguments for Diverse NPO Boards
Apart from the business case or social science justifications for diversity, moral
arguments are increasingly being made on social justice grounds and social contract theories,
particularly for mission-driven NPOs (BoardSource, 2015, 2017a; Bradshaw & Fredette, 2013;
Fama & Jensen, 1983; Fredette et al., 2016; Gazley et al., 2010; Rhode & Packel, 2014; Solan et
al., 2011; Van der Walt & Ingley, 2003; Weisinger et al., 2016). These arguments see diversity
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 56
as a moral corrective to societal injustices, which is particularly germane to the nonprofit sector
where social movements related to the development, expression, and political representation of
identities has an important presence (Ely & Thomas, 2001; Fredette et al., 2016; Sessler
Bernstein & Bilimoria, 2013; Van der Walt & Ingley, 2003; Weisinger et al., 2016). The case for
diversity also rests on the notion that equal opportunity should be afforded to groups “historically
excluded from positions of power” (Rhode & Packel, 2014, p. 382). According to these
arguments, the focus is not that diversity will improve organizational performance and NPO
processes but, rather, that it will serve to remediate historically entrenched organizational
cultures inhospitable to underrepresented groups (Gazley et al., 2010). The argument is that
diversity’s focus on equality, fairness, and empowerment helps remediate the effects of past
discrimination and allows organizations to compete more effectively in diverse global markets
and communities (Rhode & Packel, 2014; Tomlinson & Schwabenland, 2009; Weisinger et al.,
2016). In the context of nonprofit boards, these arguments presuppose the board has a social
responsibility to serve multiple stakeholders, including the larger community and society at large
(Gazley et al., 2010; Van der Walt & Ingley, 2003).
Some researchers also call for an emotional commitment to social justice that empowers
organizations to be a vehicle for social change (Hawkins, 2014). They argue that democratic
values and an evolved sense of civic duty compel NPOs to ensure that their boards reflect the
society they exist to serve (Buse et al., 2014; Carter et al., 2010; Lau & Murnighan, 1998; Van
der Walt & Ingley, 2003). These researchers call for board awareness and the creation of
strategic plans and diversity mission statements that demonstrate strong commitments to social
justice and empower organizations to be vehicles for social change (BoardSource, 2017a;
Hawkins, 2014). In that regard, AAM’s recent strategic plan envisages diversity, equity,
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 57
accessibility, and inclusion as core values of American museums and critical components of their
continued vitality and mission fulfillment (AAM, 2016). Such views rest on a sense of
philanthropic duty and social responsibility and posit that diversity will only occur in boards that
operate in accepting, supportive, and inclusive environments (Van der Walt & Ingley, 2003;
Weisinger et al., 2016).
External stakeholders, particularly recently in the artistic community, are increasingly
insisting that NPOs represent an egalitarian image and substantively reflect fundamental ideas of
fairness and community representation (AAM, 2016, 2018; Association of Art Museum
Directors, 2014; BoardSource, 2017b). Therefore, representing society’s interest in diversity is a
matter of protecting stakeholder interests and moral leadership in the philanthropic and public
interest sector (AAM, 2016; Association of Art Museum Directors, 2014; Gazley et al., 2010). In
noting the social justice, business case, and stakeholder implications of demographic trends, Dr.
Johnnetta Betsch Cole, co-chair of AAM’s working diversity group, noted “in the next 30 years,
the U.S. will become a majority-minority country” where
the future of philanthropy will be influenced by increasing racial and ethnic diversity,
with funders prioritizing efforts that positively affect historically underrepresented
populations. Diversity, equity, accessibility, and inclusion make both moral and financial
sense for museums in today’s climate of rapid social and demographic change. (AAM,
2018, p. 9)
Similarly, the director for the Cleveland Museum of Art (2017) affirmed the institution’s
commitment to diversity in a press release: “With issues of tolerance and diversity so prominent
in the current national conversation, we feel it is important to emphasize the museum’s role as a
welcoming place for all” (p. 2). Another museum’s diversity statement reads, “The Eiteljorg
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 58
strives for a culturally diverse staff, board and volunteer base [to] reflect the diversity of its
communities and its subject matter” (Eiteljorg Museum, n.d., p. 3). The Los Angeles County
Museum of Art adopted a diversity policy in 2017 that reflects that 54% of its voting trustees are
women and that it has “embarked upon a plan to increase representation of people of color on the
Board with every new class of trustee” (Los Angeles County Museum of Art, 2017, p. 2). Like
BoardSource, the United Philanthropy Forum of The Center for Effective Philanthropy has noted
that ethnic diversity still lags the country’s demographic dispersion of ethnic minorities and
strongly advocates in favor of remediation (Biemesderfer, 2017; Nonprofit Quarterly, 2014).
Whether based on the belief that racial and ethnic diversity on boards is a philanthropic
mandate, a moral imperative for social responsibility, or a desire for broader mission fulfillment
and stakeholder support, there is a perceived urgency at MMA and in the arts sector that signifies
a deep commitment to equitable board representation that reflects the local community (MMA,
2019). Museum directors and board chairs agree that the board’s commitment to diversity,
accessibility, equity, and inclusion are important to “understanding the museum’s visitors and
enhancing the organizations standing with the general public” (BoardSource, 2017b, p. 9).
Whatever confluence of factors motivates a desire for change, diversity can only occur with an
intense, overall focus on sustaining a culture of acceptance and inclusion (AAM, 2018;
BoardSource, 2017a, 2017b; Gazley et al., 2010).
Optimizing Representative Diversity and Moving Toward Inclusion
Meyers declared, “Diversity is being invited to the party. Inclusion is being asked to
dance” (as cited in Sherbin & Rashid, 2017, p. 1). The terms “diversity” and “inclusion” are
often thought to be the same or are conflated in ways that misconstrue and dilute the importance
of both. Whereas diversity is about the richness that flows from the plurality of representation,
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 59
inclusion envisages the crucial connections that encourage and foster acceptance and
interconnection to the group or organization. Numerous studies show that representativeness
alone will not generate the array of benefits associated with racial and ethnic diversity (Hawkins,
2014; Herdman & McMillan-Capehart, 2010; Monterio, 2018; Price, 2019). Importantly,
diversity initiatives that fail to focus on creating inclusive cultures can backfire because board
members will potentially feel marginalized based on the perception that their demographic status
matters more than their substantive contributions (BoardSource, 2017a; Sherbin & Rashid,
2017). Diversity occurs through an evolved candidate selection process, but retaining its
sustained value involves creating an atmosphere where all members feel they are a valuable and
integrated part of an organization (BoardSource, 2017a; Herdman & McMillan-Capehart, 2010).
Representativeness
The distinction between diversity and representativeness, where board members are
selected for their skills and commitment to the mission of the NPO rather than purely based on
demographic characteristics, cannot be underestimated (BoardSource, 1999; Brown, 2002a).
Gazley and her colleagues (2010) note that diversity and representativeness are often conflated
but should not be used interchangeably. Representativeness implies that members mirror the
community in which they serve (Weisinger et al., 2016). Weisinger and colleagues (2016) have
noted that chasing demographic representativeness of traditionally underrepresented groups will
result in marginalization unless such groups are valued for their insights, opinions, and
substantive qualities. Members’ perceptions of inclusion also counteract board passivity
(Herdman & McMillan-Capehart, 2010; Price, 2019). Studies indicate that, although many
boards have mandatory diversity initiatives, reaping the benefits of diversity requires a
corresponding set of skills, abilities, and characteristics that create connections and synergy with
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 60
the mission and values of the organization (BoardSource, 2015). Ideally, diverse candidates
should reflect the demographic characteristics of the communities in which the NPO operates,
but they will perform better when they simultaneously incorporate constituent opinions and ideas
reflecting the needs and values of the institutions they serve (Taylor et al., 1991).
Demographic representativeness alone is not adequate to realize the panoply of benefits
associated with improved diversity (Brown, 2002a; Daley, 2008; Herdman & McMillan-
Capehart, 2010; Monterio, 2018; Price, 2019; Weisinger et al., 2016). Creating an environment
of inclusion within NPO boards is a sine qua non to deriving the multifaceted benefits of racial
and ethnic diversity (BoardSource, 2017a, 2017b; Gazley, a al., 2010; Sessler Bernstein, &
Bilimoria, 2013; Weisinger et al., 2016).
Inclusiveness
Outcomes-based studies have increasingly highlighted that heterogeneous diversity
alone—appointment of minority board members solely based on demographics—is not adequate
(Brown, 2002a; Daley, 2008; Hawkins, 2014; Russell Reynolds Associates, 2009; Sherbin &
Rashid, 2017). Rather, NPOs must view diversity and representativeness as a first step and focus
equally intently on creating inclusive boardrooms (Weaver, 2009; Weisinger et al., 2016). Brown
(2002a) found that heterogeneous boards are not necessarily inclusive, confirming that merely
adding board members of color without other supportive infrastructure and behaviors will not
increase inclusiveness. Laura Lott, president and CEO of AAM, noted that “building a more
inclusive museum field is achievable only with museum trustees and leaders committed to long-
term change and improvement,” where “museum boards in particular set the tone for their
institutions and are well-positioned to be agents of change” (AAM, 2019b, p. 1).
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 61
Inclusion has been defined as that which “authentically brings traditionally excluded
individuals and/or groups into processes, activities, and decision-making” and “policymaking
[that] involves authentic and empowered participation and a true sense of belonging for diverse
individuals and/or groups” (Eckel & Trower, 2016, p. 5). An inclusive board is also one that does
“not tolerat[e] insensitive or offensive comments, ensur[es] that the dominant group does not
exclusively control power, [and] gear[s] board communications equally toward all members”
(Sessler Bernstein & Bilimoria, 2013, p. 650). Bernstein and Davidson (2012) found that
racial/ethnic diversity was only positively linked with enhanced NPO performance when
inclusion was used as a mediator. Creating an inclusive environment, where board members are
valued for their decisions rather than for their race, is critically important for optimizing board
and NPO outcomes (Bradshaw & Fredette, 2011; Buse et al., 2014; Fredette et al., 2016; Sessler
Bernstein & Bilimoria, 2013; Walker, 2012; Weisinger et al., 2016). Paradoxically, board
members who are elected purely for racial/ethnic diversity will potentially face marginalization
and feel like tokens, which is counterproductive to morale, effectiveness, and retention (Eckel &
Trower, 2016; Ramirez, 2000; Rhode & Packel, 2014; Stevens, Plaut, & Sanchez-Burks, 2008;
Weisinger et al., 2016). Board inclusion activities are those behaviors “that enable members from
underrepresented and marginalized communities to feel respected and engaged in the
organization’s governance” (Buse, 2013, p. 180). These actions include “interactions that the
dominant members of small groups engage in consciously or unconsciously which signal the
authentic inclusion of diversity” (Bernstein & Bilimoria, 2013, p. 640).
NPO boards that adopt inclusive practices make board members of color feel valued and
invested in the organization (Sessler Bernstein & Bilimoria, 2013). Efforts at inclusivity also
enhance overall board performance, and materially improve board member retention (Brown,
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 62
2002a; Miller & Triana, 2009; Nielsen & Huang, 2009; Sessler Bernstein & Bilimoria, 2013).
Board activities that enhance feelings of inclusion include the use of diversity statements,
actively recruiting diverse members, providing training for board members, and creating
diversity task forces (Sessler Bernstein & Bilimoria, 2013). As noted by Weisinger and
colleagues (2016), inclusive boards adopt more evolved board recruitment practices and are
more sensitive to diversity issues, irrespective of demographic makeup. Moreover, long-term
change requires that diversity be absorbed into a board’s core values and reflected in its cultural
climate (Brown, 2002a; Buse et al., 2014; Herdman & McMillan-Capehart, 2010; Sessler
Bernstein & Bilimoria, 2013) To adopt such a culture, many researchers have noted that
unconscious bias training and other diversity initiatives are especially helpful in making boards
more inclusive (Banaji & Greenwald, 2013; Hardin & Banaji, 2013; Thomas-Breitfeld &
Kunreuther, 2017). Diversity initiatives are much more effective in positively affecting
organizational climate when actual diversity is present or improvement occurs during the
deployment of such programs (Herdman & McMillan-Capehart, 2010).
Research in multiple fields demonstrates that diversity initiatives focused exclusively on
improving heterogeneity will likely fail without fostering an inclusive environment that supports
racial/ethnic diversity. Successful change in optimizing racial and ethnic diversity thus requires
careful attention to inclusion and representativeness while strategically avoiding the perils of
tokenism and marginalization. Chapter Five will discuss in greater detail certain additional
proactive measures that MMA can undertake to enhance further progress toward developing a
board culture of inclusivity.
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 63
The Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis Conceptual Framework
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis provides an evidence-based framework for
systemically identifying root causes of organizational performance gaps. Under gap analysis,
influences are diagnosed and solved based on extensive evidence in educational, social, and
organizational research (Clark & Estes, 2008). The model evaluates three primary KMO
performance influences that affect achievement of organization and stakeholder goals. The first
is lack of knowledge, identified by Krathwohl (2002) in his discussion of Bloom’s taxonomy as
factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive information. The second is lack of motivation,
identified by Rueda (2011) as including attribution, expectancy-value, and self-efficacy factors.
The third are deficiencies in organizational policies, processes, resources, and structures (Clark
& Estes, 2008). As reflected in Figure 3 below, a systematic gap analysis involves (a) identifying
organizational goals, (b) assessing whether current organizational structures are optimized for
attaining performance goals, (c) identifying the factors that create performance gaps and impede
organizational goal attainment, (d) identifying critical KMO influences impacting performance
gaps, and (e) evaluating, recommending, and implementing solutions (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Figure 3. Gap analysis process. This figure illustrates the iterative, exploratory, and recursive
nature of the process used in gap analysis.
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 64
Each of these Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analyses processes and KMO factors will be
evaluated in assessing attainment of the MMA board’s performance goal that, by January 2021,
at least 25% of all potential board candidates interviewed will be persons of color. Nominating
candidates of color is a critical first step in achieving the global organizational goal of having a
highly talented racially and ethnically diverse board that operates in an inclusive environment.
The analysis will initially explore assumed knowledge and skill needs and deficiencies
associated with achieving the stated stakeholder goal. The analysis will then assess motivational
issues implicated in attaining the board’s goal of improving its current racial and ethnic
composition. After knowledge and motivational influences are thoroughly analyzed, the analysis
will evaluate the assumed organizational influences associated with attaining the board’s stated
performance goals. These assumed stakeholder KMO influences on performance will then be
sequentially examined in Chapter Four through interviews, document review, and artifact
analysis, consistent with the methodology outlined in Chapter Three. The final stages of gap
analysis, discussed in detail in Chapter Five, involve making recommendations and presenting a
holistic plan for their implementation and evaluation.
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
This review of the literature on stakeholder KMO influences focuses on the factors
impacting the MMA’s goal of addressing suboptimal racial and ethnic diversity on its board.
This section examines KMO barriers associated with the MMA board reaching its intermediate
goal that 25% of all board candidates interviewed be racially and ethnically diverse.
Knowledge and Skills
There are four types of knowledge associated with learning and meeting performance
goals: factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Each
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 65
component has a different level of specificity based on the nature, type, and complexity of
information (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Factual knowledge consists of basic elemental facts,
terminology, and details underlying a process, domain, function, or discipline (Krathwohl, 2002;
Rueda, 2011). Conceptual knowledge is more multifaceted, nuanced, and complex and includes
knowledge categories, classifications, principles, generalizations, theories, schemas, and models
(Rueda, 2011). Collectively, factual and conceptual knowledge is known as declarative
knowledge, which includes information individuals typically already know and which is
necessary to complete certain tasks and processes (Bruning, Schraw, & Norby, 2011). Procedural
knowledge captures the sequential or intricate processes and steps necessary to perform essential
functions (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Metacognitive knowledge is an awareness of one’s
cognitive processes and involves self-reflection about contextual aspects of problems and
learning methodologies (Bruning et al., 2011; Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Metacognitive
knowledge also implicates self-efficacy, self-regulation, and an awareness of a person’s
knowledge acquisition process (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011).
In evaluating how MMA will reach its performance goal of improving board racial and
ethnic diversity, this review examines factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive
knowledge assumed to be needed to effectuate that objective.
Board awareness of the importance of diversity. To make enlightened decisions
regarding improving their racial and ethnic composition, boards need a deeper understanding of
the complex factual and procedural dynamics associated with the benefits of diversity described
earlier in this chapter. For example, board members need to understand the myriad of
operational, decision-making, fundraising, and stakeholder benefits of diversity (BoardSource,
2017a). They also need to appreciate that stakeholders are increasingly demanding racial and
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 66
ethnic diversity that equitably represents the broader community (Gazley et al., 2010; Solan et
al., 2011; Van der Walt & Ingley, 2003). Knowing that stakeholders are demanding support for
social causes in exchange for continuing contributions is equally important information for
boards (Bastons et al., 2017; Shi, Connelly, & Hoskisson, 2017), lest they risk losing financial
and other forms of support (Hayibor & Collins, 2016). Hayibor and Collins (2016) note that the
level of expectancy and outcome valance associated with organizational support for an external
stakeholder’s values determines the motivational force of its support. On a deep conceptual level,
understanding the knowledge-based positive organizational benefits of diverse boards (including
increased financial, operational. and stakeholder benefits), as well as their potential liabilities, is
critically important to a systematic analysis of knowledge gaps in attaining racial and ethnic
diversity goals (Gaziano, 2017; Ramirez, 2000).
Board proficiency in diversity recruiting. In order to implement strategies and
procedures to improve racial and ethnic diversity, board members need in-depth procedural
knowledge of the mechanics of board recruitment and nomination processes, including resources
to help identify diverse candidates (BoardSource, 2017a; Bradshaw & Fredette, 2012). The
literature suggests that, while most boards have well-formed operational committees with deep
domain expertise (audit, development, finance, and marketing), they often lack a fully engaged
and knowledgeable recruiting apparatus and diversity committee (BoardSource, 2015).
Moreover, even when a formal diversity and inclusion committee exists, members typically lack
training and an understanding of the complexities of diversity recruiting and retention (Bradshaw
& Fredette, 2013). Knowledge of diversity best practices, including retaining board diversity
experts and establishing diversity action plans, creating diversity-based recruiting
subcommittees, and adopting diversity taskforces and nominating procedures, is important to
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 67
diversity improvement (Kreitz, 2007; Weaver, 2009). Specialty diversity firms can also assist
boards in broadening their local, informal networks, and expand their candidate pools (Kreitz,
2007; Nonprofit HR, 2014). Such knowledge also includes establishing written diversity policies,
developing intentional plans to recruit board members of color, providing equal access to board
leadership opportunities, and paying careful attention to social inclusion practices (BoardSource,
2015; U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2005).
Board awareness of the potential for unconscious bias. Board members need to adopt
self-reflective metacognitive practices to limit unconscious bias to facilitate and optimize
recruiting and nominating processes (Baker, 2006; Banaji & Greenwald, 2013; Stanley, Sokol-
Hessner, Banaji, & Phelps, 2011). Metacognition allows a person to reflect on their learning
practices and cognitive performance and identify contextual limitations (Baker, 2006; R. E.
Mayer, 2011). One contextual limitation of which board members must be aware of is potential
biases that may impact diversity recruitment and nomination. Social science research suggests
that all individuals carry potential unconscious biases from exposure to cultural attitudes about
race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, social class, sexual orientation, disability status, and
nationality (Banaji & Greenwald, 2013; Moule, 2009). Implicit mental attitudes or beliefs
“operate relatively automatically and without awareness, [and] can also be oppositional to our
intended goals” (Stanley et al., 2011, p. 7710). As noted by Hardin and Banaji (2013), “Implicit
prejudice (a) operates unintentionally, and outside awareness, (b) is empirically distinct from
explicit prejudice, and (c) uniquely predicts consequential social judgment and behavior” (p. 15).
Numerous studies have found that subconscious attitudes can affect decision-making in
almost every organizational context and can lead individuals, inadvertently, to act on stereotypes
that might consciously be rejected, particularly in the context of recruiting diverse candidates
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 68
(Banaji & Greenwald, 2013; Greenwald & Pettigrew, 2014; Moule, 2009). Organizations that are
aware of the importance of mitigating unconscious bias and fostering broad inclusion to facilitate
diversity initiatives will be more effective (Banaji & Greenwald, 2013; Erhardt et al., 2003;
Miller & Triana, 2009; Moule, 2009; Sessler Bernstein & Bilimoria, 2013; Walker, 2012).
Table 2 below provides MMA’s organizational mission and goal, along with information
specific to knowledge influences, types, and influence assessments. As Table 2 indicates, three
knowledge influences (conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive) will be used to gain insights
into the MMA board’s knowledge.
Table 2
Knowledge Influences, Types, and Assessments for Knowledge Gap Analysis
Organizational Mission
MMA’s mission is to bring people and art together in the broadest way possible to contribute to a more
vibrant city by inspiring its people and connecting our communities.
Organizational Global Goal
By May 2022, MMA’s board will be composed of highly qualified racially and ethnically diverse
individuals who are committed to organizational excellence and mirror the U.S. Census data for the
Midwest region of the United States.
Stakeholder Goal
By January 2021, the MMA board will modify its recruiting process to ensure that 25% of all potential
board candidates interviewed are racially and ethnically diverse.
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type (i.e.,
declarative (factual or
conceptual), procedural, or
metacognitive)
Knowledge Influence
Assessment
MMA board members need knowledge of
the financial, organizational, and
stakeholder benefits of racial and ethnic
diversity.
Declarative
(Conceptual)
Interviews,
document/artifact review,
data analysis.
MMA board members need to know the
mechanics of effective diversity
recruitment, including the use of best
practices to optimize recruiting and
nomination outcomes.
Procedural Interviews,
document/artifact review,
data analysis.
MMA board members need to know how
unconscious views and beliefs may affect
their predispositions about racial/ethnic
board recruiting and nominations.
Metacognitive Interviews,
document/artifact review,
data analysis.
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 69
Motivation
Analyzing motivational influences is an equally important component of gap analysis.
Motivation is critically important in goal attainment and in remedying human capital,
operational, and performance problems (Clark & Estes, 2008). Research has consistently shown
that motivated stakeholders are more focused and contribute to enhanced organizational
performance (Grossman & Salas, 2011; Jensen, 2012). The three primary indicators of motivated
behavior are choice, persistence, and mental effort (R. E. Mayer, 2011). Clark and Estes (2008)
note that active choice typically focuses on whether stakeholders take the first steps in
implementing goals or decisions. Persistence relates to the ability of individuals to continue with
tasks and goals despite distractions, resource constraints, or other impediments (Clark & Estes,
2008; R. E. Mayer, 2011). Mental effort refers to the intensity, and rigor employees exert in
attaining goals, solving problems, and implementing decisions (Clark & Estes, 2008; Jensen,
2012; R. E. Mayer, 2011). Additionally, R. E. Mayer (2011) identified four related components
of motivation: the extent to which a task is personal, activates and serves to prompt behavior,
energizes and perpetuates the desired behavior, and is directed and focused on goal attainment.
In evaluating potential stakeholder performance gaps, this study will focus on three
motivational influences that potentially affect MMA’s ability to achieve its stakeholder goals: (a)
attribution theory, (b) expectancy-value theory, and (c) self-efficacy theory.
Attribution theory. Attributions are examined through the prism of three dimensions:
stability, locus, and control (Rueda, 2011). The first dimension, stability, focuses on examining
an attribute’s degree of permanence and whether it is susceptible to variable or short-term
factors. The second, locus, refers to whether and to what extent an attribution relates to internal
versus external factors, and the third, control, focuses on the extent to which an individual
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 70
believes they can regulate a particular attribution. Motivation will be reduced or increased based
on an individual’s belief that their inherent traits and abilities, rather than uncontrollable external
factors, will predict expected outcomes (Anderman & Anderman, 2006; R. E. Mayer, 2011;
Rueda, 2011). Motivation will be invigorated when individuals believe they can directly affect
outcomes (R. E. Mayer, 2011). In the context of board racial and ethnic diversity, L. Mayer’s
(2016) reasoning suggests that motivation will be energized if board members become invested
in the process based on the perceived attainment value of being effective fiduciaries and the
perception that they are capable of improving historically-low racial and ethnic representation.
Based on social cognitive theory and attainment value principles, motivation will also be
enhanced if board members view improving diversity as achievable, part of their governance
function, and a leadership responsibility reflective of their self-identity (R. E. Mayer, 2011;
Rueda, 2011). Moreover, under attribution theory analysis, board motivation will likely be
enhanced when members receive training to build their skills and confidence and when they
become more successful in diversity recruiting outcomes such that they conclude they have
fulfilled an important stewardship function (Anderman & Anderman, 2006; R. E. Mayer, 2011).
Self-efficacy regarding diversity and inclusion improvement can be enhanced through attribution
theory by encouraging board members to engage in an internal reflective process regarding their
success or failure at recruiting and their degree of control in influencing recruiting outcomes
(Rueda, 2011). Under attribution theory analysis, board members need to appreciate the problem
can be remediated with proper training and resources, contingent on their efforts, not solely
controlled by external factors (R. E. Mayer, 2011; Rueda, 2011). Those who view the problem as
repairable and external will more likely view current challenges as situational and changeable
(Anderman & Anderman, 2006). In contrast, board members who attribute suboptimal diversity
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 71
to their lack of ability (internal and not controllable), or to limited resources or a perceived
paucity of candidates necessary to meet board recruiting goals (external and not controllable),
may have active choice and persistence problems (Eccles, 2006).
Expectancy-value theory. To be motivated to improve diversity, MMA board members
need to appreciate the utility value associated with racial and ethnic diversity and believe in their
ability to improve recruiting and nominating processes and outcomes (Eccles, 2006; Rueda,
2011). Under the social-cognitive constructs of expectancy-value theory, one’s motivation,
persistence, and mental effort increases as a function of the value and importance a person places
on tasks and goals (Eccles, 2006; R. E. Mayer, 2011) and as a function of a belief one can
change valuable outcomes (Bandura, 2000). Whereas self-efficacy theory focuses on a person’s
self-perception of competency, expectancy-value theory targets an individual’s internal processes
and cognitive predictions regarding the likelihood of completing a task successfully. Thus,
expectancy-value theory presupposes that, if individuals believe they can accomplish a task (self-
efficacy) and view the task as important (utility value), they will be strongly motivated (Eccles,
2006; Rueda, 2011). Expectancy outcomes are externally oriented and not dependent upon self-
judgments regarding competency or specialized expertise. Instead, the locus of control is external
such that the degree of effort and persistence depends on whether the individual expects a
positive outcome due to external factors (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). Improving knowledge of the
benefits associated with diversity and inclusion may thus generate expectancy/utility value that
incentivizes board members to focus on diversity.
Enhanced motivation occurs when individuals have high expectations regarding their
ability to complete tasks and they place a high value on the task being performed (Eccles, 2006).
According to Eccles (2006), there are four primary components to task value affecting
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 72
motivational beliefs: (a) attainment value, as previously noted, refers to how tasks or activities
reinforce an individual’s assessment of their self-identity and particular activities become more
important to their self-schema; (b) intrinsic value refers to whether an individual enjoys a
particular activity or task; (c) utility value involves whether tasks or goals fit within an
individual’s perception of the usefulness or importance of meeting existing or future goals; and
(d) cost belief involves the perceived cost of engaging in an activity (e.g., time, financial
resources, and cognitive or emotional drain).
Under expectancy-value theory, if a person does not believe a task is particularly
important either personally or professionally, they may relegate it to a lower priority or avoid it
altogether (Eccles, 2006; R. E. Mayer, 2011). Explaining the importance and benefits of an
activity to an individual may, therefore, inspire them to perform, persist, and complete the task
(Eccles, 2006; R. E. Mayer, 2011). Moreover, as noted under attainment value principles, if an
individual believes that a task connected to their self-image is important, valued, and appropriate,
they will be more focused on completing the task (Eccles, 2006). Stated differently, attainment
value and motivation are high when a person feels a connection between the task and their self-
identity and identity preferences (Pintrich, 2003). Individuals tend to feel more motivated to
work on issues that reflect their self-image or perceived concerns of stakeholders, and that, in
turn, results in better outcomes (Bastons et al., 2017; Taylor et al., 1991). Scholarly research
establishes that the expectancy value and perceived utility of the task at hand influence NPO
board motivation (Ford, Gresock, & Peeper, 2011; Porter & Lawler, 1968). According to Ford et
al.’s (2011) references to the Siciliano YMCA study, motivating board members is a major
challenge essential to board recruitment and engagement. What motivates a board member to
perform governance tasks (whether for social engagement, public service, social policy
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 73
objectives, civic pride, economic self-interest, or networking opportunities) is their assessment of
the value of reaching performance goals based on expectancy-value and utility theory (Ford et
al., 2011).
Self-efficacy theory. To effectively implement protocols, procedures, and strategies to
improve the MMA board’s racial and ethnic diversity, its members need a strong belief that they
have the tools necessary to attain their stated performance goals. Through education, training,
and ongoing recruiting successes, board members can enhance beliefs about their effectiveness
in nominating candidates of color. Self-efficacy theory focuses on such beliefs and expectations
about an individual’s capabilities for achieving certain outcomes. Self-efficacy manifests through
mastery of tasks and vicarious experiences (effectively completing tasks, obtaining feedback,
and observing models), social and contextual influences as well as emotional and physiological
states (Bandura, 2005; Pajares, 2006; Usher & Pajares, 2009). Self-efficacy enhances self-
awareness of one’s talents and serves as a mediator of active choice, persistence, and mental
effort (Bandura, 2000; Eccles, 2006), making it an effective predictor of motivational outcomes
(Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009; Bandura, 2000; Pajares, 2006). When individuals have high
confidence in their ability to complete tasks, they are much more likely to persist in the face of
challenges (Eccles, 2006; Pajares, 2006). Under this reasoning, recruiting success will improve
board member self-efficacy by demonstrating that diversity improvement is attainable and self-
perpetuating.
Kotter (2012) found that short-term wins increase motivation, fuel success, and enhance
morale. Thus, if board members learn procedures for increasing the number of diverse candidates
interviewed and ultimately nominated, self-efficacy will increase. Research also demonstrates
that learning about diversity facilitates motivation in training and workshop environments
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 74
(Jensen, 2012). Abramovitz and Blitz (2015) demonstrated that when certain employees
appreciated the importance of racial and ethnic diversity, their understanding transferred to more
effective recruiting processes and improved outcomes. The study also found that equity and
inclusion programs are more successful when leaders openly support them, particularly when
they articulate the utility value of proposed initiatives. Additionally, studies have found that
knowledge transfer is more successful when racial and ethnic diversity training is delivered by
experts who can facilitate knowledge assimilation (Weisinger et al., 2016).
Table 3 below identifies three motivational influences that focus on expectancy value,
attributions, and self-efficacy. These influences will be used to more fully understand how
motivation affects board engagement in connection with racial and ethnic recruiting and
nominating processes.
Table 3
Motivational Influences and Assessments for Motivation Gap Analysis
Organizational Mission
MMA’s mission is to bring people and art together in the broadest way possible to contribute to a
more vibrant city by inspiring its people and connecting our communities.
Organizational Global Goal
By May 2022, MMA’s board will be composed of highly qualified racially and ethnically diverse
individuals who are committed to organizational excellence and mirror the U.S. Census data for
the Midwest region of the United States.
Stakeholder Goal
By January 2021, the MMA board will modify its recruiting process to ensure that 25% of all
potential board candidates interviewed are racially and ethnically diverse.
Assumed Motivation Influences Motivational Influence Assessment
Expectancy Value—Board members need to
appreciate the utility value of racial and ethnic
diversity for improving MMA’s operational
success, stakeholder support, and community
engagement.
Interviews, document/artifact review, data
analysis.
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 75
Table 3, continued
Assumed Motivation Influences Motivational Influence Assessment
Attributions—Board members need to believe
that improving racial and ethnic diversity is part
of their governance function and that they can be
effective diversity recruiters, despite a potentially
limited candidate pool.
Interviews, document/artifact review, data
analysis.
Self-Efficacy—Board members need to believe
they can become effective diversity recruiters and
improve board racial/ethnic diversity.
Interviews, document/artifact review, data
analysis.
Assumed Organizational Influences
An evaluation of organizational barriers is also critically important to conducting an
effective gap analysis and attaining performance goals (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). The
following section examines assumed organizational barriers that potentially impact the MMA
board’s ability to attain the goal of optimizing its recruiting and nomination outcomes.
Cultural models, settings, and climate. An organization’s culture and climate
significantly influence the effectiveness of attempted change initiatives (Clark & Estes, 2008;
Schein, 2004). Therefore, examining an organization’s culture provides insight into the factors,
processes, and procedures that may be implicated in identified performance gaps (Clark & Estes,
2008; Rueda, 2011). In the social sciences, culture is examined in terms of cultural climate,
models, and settings. Cultural models include the shared schemas, values, beliefs, and
considerations that are generally invisible and often unconscious within organizations (Erez &
Gati, 2004; Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Schein, 2004). While organizational cultures are
deeply embedded within organizational structures and not always visible, cultural climate is
manifested through visible characteristics within the working environment (Schein, 2004).
Cultural settings and climate are visible manifestations of cultural models and reflect the
“who, what, when, where, why, and how of the routines which constitute everyday life” within
organizations (Rueda, 2011, p. 57). These artifacts and processes reflect the organizational
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 76
priorities and values that affect members’ collective perceptions and motivations (Burke, 2018;
Schein, 2004; Schneider, Brief, & Guzzo, 1996). Therefore, strategically modifying the
workplace climate—tangibly altering everyday policies, practices, procedures, routines, and
structures—is essential to reforming workplace culture, and members’ perceptions and attitudes
about what the organization prioritizes (Schneider et al., 1996). While the conceptual framework
of this improvement study theorizes that the MMA board culture embraces diversity and
inclusion as core values, the study will investigate whether a disparity exists between embedded
culture and manifested climate.
Organizational environment. Although MMA’s cultural norms and shared values and
beliefs may support diversity and inclusion, a climate lacking support and reinforcement of the
importance of focusing on diversity may limit organizational change (Bolman & Deal, 2003;
Clark & Estes, 2008; Kezar, 2000; Schein, 2004). Culture can evolve through tangible efforts
that alter everyday practices, policies, procedures, routines, and resources (Schein, 2004).
Without artifacts, structures, and processes that consistently demonstrate diversity is a priority,
institutions will fail to deploy adequate resources and effort to support change initiatives
(Schneider et al., 1996). Organizational environment structures and practices refer to processes
that positively influence how diversity is embedded within the organizational culture and climate
(Hyde, 2003; Hyde & Hopkins, 2004). For board diversity to improve, an organizational
environment that palpably supports diversity is critically important (BoardSource, 2017a, 2017b,
2015).
Bond, Haynes, Toof, Holmberg, and Quinteros (2013) identify artifacts and structures
designed to attract, recruit, and retain diverse individuals as examples of positive workplace
environment practices. Failure to implement such practices in board recruitment or nomination
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 77
can reflect a climate that fails to reinforce diversity and will serve to minimize diversity
resources in budget and human capital resource allocations (The Denver Foundation, 2007;
Fletcher, 1999; Gitin, 2001). The process of actively cultivating a board climate that openly
embraces diversity and inclusion greatly facilities improvement and mitigates cultural conflict,
marginalization, and perceptions of racial bias (Bond et al., 2013; Feagin & Sikes, 1994; Hyde &
Hopkins, 2004). An organizational environment that openly discusses the perils of unconscious
bias as a potential barrier to board diversity also tends to positively influence overall diversity
cultural climate (Bonilla-Silva, 2003; Tidwell, 2005).
Contradictions between expressed and demonstrated commitments to diversity are also
part of the organizational environment (Schwartz, Weinberg, Hagenbuch, & Scott, 2011; Virgil
et al., 2015). Becoming more diverse requires intentionality: “It requires an action plan and the
examining of interpersonal dynamics and cultural fabric of the board and organization”
(BoardSource, 2017b, p. 9). A lack of focus on the organizational importance of diversity
contributes to diversity sensitivity not being at the forefront of institutionalized practices
(Allison, 1999; Schwartz et al., 2011; Virgil et al., 2015). Virgil and colleagues (2015) find that,
while 98% of NPOs express a high commitment to diversity, only 31% share a definition of
diversity among their members, and only 33% identify diversity as a core value. BoardSource
(2010) similarly found that only 63% of NPO boards surveyed formally incorporated diversity
into their organization’s core values, 56% modified policies and procedures to be more inclusive,
15% developed a diversity and inclusion action plan, 46% conducted training for staff, and only
12% conducted diversity training for board members.
The extent to which the MMA board is creating an organizational environment that fosters
and reinforces diversity will be carefully examined in Chapters Four and Five. Whether and the
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 78
extent to which the operational environment utilizes diversity best practices and targeted
recruiting and nominating processes is important to MMA board success in effecting positive
change.
Presence of diversity best practices. Targeted diversity initiatives, policies, practices, and
structures (e.g., dedicated diversity committees, recruiting consultants, strategic diversity plans)
positively affect diversity outcomes (Brown, 2002a; Hyde, 2003; Kreitz, 2007). When
meaningful processes are embedded in the core of the organization’s structure, financial and
human capital resources reinforce diversity as a concrete goal and an organizational priority
(Madera, 2013). Allison (1999) argues that concrete best practices, processes, and procedures are
required to optimize diversity outcomes, noting that many organizations have a disconnect
between expressed organizational goals and member conduct. Similarly, Madera (2013) found
that organizational climate was enhanced when organizations utilized diversity best practices,
including (a) creating an in-house corporate diversity council; (b) implementing diversity
training programs; (c) focusing on diversity awareness, mentoring, and support for culturally
disadvantaged and other marginalized groups; (d) preparing, disseminating, and discussing
formal, written guidelines and policies to increase diversity; and (e) intensifying focus on
diversity recruitment and advancement of ethnic minorities. Importantly, these best practices also
serve a monitoring and accountability function that reinforces diversity as an organizational core
value (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2005).
Board leadership in institutionalizing diversity. Leadership is essential to establishing,
perpetuating, and fortifying cultural values supporting causes like diversity (Burke, 2018;
Schein, 2004). To effectively align and communicate their shared visions, leaders must
continually explain and reinforce the who, what, where, why, and how of organizational change
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 79
initiatives (Lencioni, 2004; Lipton, 1996). Members pay attention to leader action and
commitment to orchestrating organizational change (Schneider et al., 1996). Sustained leadership
communication and a tangible focus on diversity and inclusion is thus a critical factor that
influences organizational culture and successfully facilitates a climate that reflects that culture
(Bolman & Deal, 2003; Kezar, 2000; Kotter, 1995, 2012).
The board is the primary leadership body focused on providing strategic guidance on
important change initiatives that benefit stakeholder and organizational interests (Bainbridge,
2002; Brown, 2002b, 2005; Chait et al., 2005; Harris, 2014; Jaskyte, 2012). Since boards have
identified diversity and inclusion as critically important issues facing NPOs, diversity
improvement is effectively a board leadership function (AAM, 2018; BoardSource, 2017a,
2015). The MMA board thus needs to view diversity and inclusion as a leadership and
governance function to effectuate adaptive change in this area.
Organizational focus on diversity management. Diversity management is a strategy that
employs social responsibility, as well as organizational design and effectiveness, to embed
diversity into all internal and external areas of an organization (Llopis, 2011). To effectively
mitigate organizational barriers to embrace diversity fully, Kumra and Manfredi (2012)
emphasize the importance of continual communication and building deeper diversity awareness,
not solely to tolerate differences (diversity) but to celebrate them (inclusion). Effective team
building and conflict resolution strategies are part of diversity management and can further allow
for the development of expanded interpersonal relationships, which is integral to fostering
cultural growth and inclusion in the workplace (Arredondo, 1996). A well-designed diversity
management strategy ideally involves more holistic measures that enhance the adoption of
diversity initiatives, rather than merely mechanically adopting specific best practice structures or
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 80
protocols (Arredondo, 1996; Dass & Parker, 1999; Kumra & Manfredi, 2012). Diversity
management potentially remediates diversity performance gaps through a more strategic,
holistic, and generative approach that encourages cultural intelligence (Llopis, 2011). A broader
diversity management strategy may thus facilitate processes and committee structures that will
assist the MMA board in accomplishing its performance goals to recruit, nominate, and retain
talented members of color who serve as integral contributors to the organization.
Table 4 below provides MMA’s organizational mission and goal, along with information
related to organizational influences, types, and influence assessments. As Table 4 indicates, four
organizational influences (organizational setting/alignment with culture, resources and structure
devoted to recruiting/nomination, leadership focus on diversity and inclusion and unconscious
basis, and strategic diversity management) will be evaluated to gain insights into the MMA
board’s organizational structure, culture/setting, and processes.
Table 4
Assumed Organizational Influences on the MMA Board
Organizational Mission
MMA’s mission is to bring people and art together in the broadest way possible to contribute to a more
vibrant city by inspiring its people and connecting our communities.
Organizational Global Goal
By May 2022, MMA’s board will be composed of highly qualified racially and ethnically diverse
individuals who are committed to organizational excellence and mirror the U.S. Census data for the
Midwest region of the United States.
Stakeholder Goal
By January 2021, the MMA board will modify its recruiting process to ensure that 25% of all potential
board candidates interviewed are racially and ethnically diverse.
Assumed Organizational Influences Organizational
Influence Type
Assessment Method
The MMA organizational
environment needs to align expressed
and demonstrated commitments to
diversity.
Cultural setting Interviews, document review,
artifact analysis of cultural setting,
structures, procedures, resources,
nominating process.
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 81
Table 4, continued
Assumed Organizational Influences Organizational
Influence Type
Assessment Method
The MMA organization needs to
devote resources/budget, structures,
training, policies, and procedures to
facilitate better recruiting and
nominating outcomes.
Cultural setting Interviews, document review,
artifact analysis of cultural setting,
structures, procedures, resources,
nominating process.
The MMA organization needs
thoughtful leadership focus on
diversity and inclusion and
unconscious bias.
Cultural setting Interview-based questions about
the importance of board racial and
ethnic diversity, diversity
recruitment, and nominating
processes.
The MMA organization needs
strategic diversity management
policies, procedures, and practices.
Cultural setting Interviews/document review, and
artifact analysis of cultural setting
and structures, processes, and
resources.
Conceptual Framework: Interaction of Stakeholders’ KMO Influences
Conceptual frameworks serve as key theoretical components for the study of phenomena,
the development of research questions, and the design of research studies (Maxwell, 2013;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). According to Maxwell (2013), the conceptual framework reflects a
system of concepts, assumptions, beliefs, expectations, theories, experimental knowledge,
models, and thoughts that connect relationships to studied phenomena. The framework guides
the research design, sampling procedures, and data collection and identifies analysis strategies
and potential design flaws (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Conceptual frameworks should be
emergent: proposed theories are constructed, not found, through key concepts, factors, variables,
and assumed influences (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Using experiential
knowledge, existing theory, exploratory research, and thought experiments, the conceptual
framework proposes a structure, relationship, and model that reflects the researcher’s preliminary
theory of how the world operates (Maxwell, 2013).
The primary focus of this dissertation is to investigate KMO influences that serve as
potential barriers to the MMA board in optimizing its racial and ethnic diversity, a problem that
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 82
has challenged NPO boards for decades (BoardSource, 2010, 2015, 2017a; Buse et al., 2014).
KMO influences, while analytically distinct, are interconnected with potential reciprocal effects
and should not be compartmentalized or conceptualized in a vacuum (Clark & Estes, 2008). The
conceptual framework for this study envisages that the MMA board has the best of intentions
and that its organizational culture embraces racial and ethnic diversity and inclusion as core
values, but that KMO factors are impeding improvement. It further theorizes that an abstract
desire for diversity and inclusion is insufficient without enhanced board knowledge and
motivation, and an organizational climate that consistently supports and reinforces diversity,
through tangible recruiting and nominating processes, procedures, and structures.
Thus, the conceptual framework theorizes that the MMA board climate does not
adequately reflect that culture in reinforcing its organizational goals, values and beliefs, budget
allocations, diversity training, nominating processes and committee infrastructure, and other
indicia of diversity and inclusion. The study outlined in Chapter Three will test these
assumptions and potential influences through interviews, document and artifact review, and
rigorous data analysis.
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 83
Figure 4. The interaction of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on MMA’s
board of directors.
Figure 4 illustrates KMO influences impacting the MMA board’s ability to optimize its
racial and ethnic diversity. Knowledge influences (conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive
factors) directly impact the board’s ability to implement structures for improving diversity
recruitment, nomination, and related processes. Board motivational factors (attributions, self-
efficacy, and expectancy value/utility value) are limited by lack of knowledge, and cultural
models and climate are overly abstract and attenuated. The framework presupposes that there is a
misalignment between culture and climate regarding whether improving board diversity is a
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 84
priority. These barriers affect the implementation and reinforcement of diversity goals and
initiatives for the MMA board and its key stakeholders, thus creating a need for erecting
processes, procedures, and structures to facilitate improving diversity. The figure depicts the
flow down from cultural/climatic factors and interconnected KMO influences that need to
permeate from MMA to the board. Remediating KMO barriers and enhancing climatic
conditions and infrastructure to achieve desired outcomes will help effectuate the attainment of
the board’s diversity performance goals.
Conclusion
Research shows that racial and ethnic diversity on NPO boards enhances decision-
making, improves operational outcomes, catalyzes creativity and innovation, and limits myopic
tendencies that impede organizational success. Although the business case for financial benefits
is uncertain, studies and social science theories demonstrate that improved diversity on NPO
boards facilitates fundraising, improves organizational outcomes, and encourages stakeholder
support and community engagement. The literature also shows that board member awareness of
the benefits of diversity, the need for diversity leadership (including focusing on minimizing
unconscious bias), and social policy and stakeholder arguments championing diversity will
facilitate board member motivation to improve in this area.
The literature also makes clear that boards must actively cultivate more inclusive
environments, as heterogeneity alone is not enough to realize the full array of benefits of
diversity and may backfire, generating tokenism that potentially marginalizes minority board
members. Given demographic trends, without diversity leadership targeted on improving board
diversity, adaptive change will be challenging, and boards risk becoming less representative of
the stakeholders, communities, and populations they serve. Implementing a board diversity
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 85
management strategy employing diversity best practices may help limit these KMO barriers and
create a climate that demonstrates racial and ethnic diversity is an important organizational
priority. Chapter Three will set forth the methodology for evaluating these barriers in the context
of MMA’s performance goals, utilizing Clark and Estes’ (2008) KMO analysis.
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 86
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
This chapter presents the research design and methods used to identify, collect, and
analyze data pertinent to barriers and facilitators to the MMA board realizing its performance
goal of improving board racial and ethnic diversity. In particular, by May 2022, the board seeks
to be comprised of highly qualified racially and ethnically diverse individuals who are
committed to organizational excellence and mirror the U.S. census data for the Midwest region
of the United States. Set forth below are details regarding the study sample, data collection
procedures, and instrumentation used in this qualitative improvement study. The chapter then
addresses details regarding trustworthiness, credibility, ethics, limitations, and delimitations
pertinent to the study. The research questions that guide this study are as follows:
1. What stakeholder knowledge, skills, and motivation are related to the MMA board being
comprised of highly qualified racially and ethnically diverse individuals who are
committed to organizational excellence and mirror the U.S. Census data for the Midwest
region of the United States?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture/context and stakeholder
knowledge that either facilitates or limits the MMA board from being comprised of
highly qualified racially and ethnically diverse individuals who are committed to
organizational excellence and mirror the U.S. Census data for the Midwest region of the
United States?
3. Which recommended solutions will allow the board to be comprised of highly qualified
racially and ethnically diverse individuals who are committed to organizational
excellence and mirror the U.S. Census data for the Midwest region of the United States?
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 87
The methodological approach to this study utilized a Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis
to explore influences and processes, potentially limiting the MMA board’s racial and ethnic
diversity. Qualitative data were collected to assess and validate assumed KMO influences on
board members’ abilities to achieve the stated performance goals. A total of 14 purposeful
interviews were conducted with 12 board members and two members of senior leadership. Of the
12 board members interviewed, 10 serve on the board executive committee, including two
representatives who also serve on the nominating committee and another who serves on the
diversity and inclusion committee. Two of the 12 board members interviewed are on the
nominating committee but do not serve on the executive committee. There is typically an annual
or biennial assignment and rotation on operational committees. While there is some overlap in
committee assignments, in order to maintain the confidentiality of participants, additional details
regarding specific committee involvement have not been provided. Three of five board members
of color were also interviewed to gain insight into KMO influences, particularly issues related to
diversity recruiting and nominating processes, board culture and climate, and factors related to
board inclusivity. Additionally, two of three members of MMA senior leadership were
interviewed to assess KMO barriers and core assumptions in the conceptual framework.
Finally, an extensive array of documents and artifacts was collected and analyzed to
facilitate a deeper understating of KMO influences and emerging themes developed during
interviews. Documents included board, executive, nominating, and diversity and inclusion
committee reports and committee minutes covering the period 2015–2018, as well as certain
contemporaneous business records and emails dating back over a decade. Analysis of artifacts
included viewing approximately 100 pieces of art and exhibits at MMA and related posters,
pamphlets, photographs, marketing information, and other promotional material at the museum.
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 88
Participating Stakeholders
While numerous stakeholders’ joint efforts may contribute to the MMA’s organizational
goal of attracting excellent candidates who mirror the region’s racial and ethnic diversity, the
MMA board of directors is the key stakeholder group for accomplishing that objective. The
board sets policies for the organization, exercises fiduciary oversight and stewardship, monitors
compliance with applicable laws, optimizes operations, and assists management in community
engagement. As of the time this research was conducted, the MMA board had 35 members, of
whom 37% are women and 17% are persons of color, representing a wide range of interests,
industries, and fields.
The MMA board includes an executive committee, which comprises committee chairs
from each of the key board operating committees (including acquisitions, audit, development,
diversity and inclusion, finance, governance/nominating, investment, and marketing). The
executive committee regularly engages with MMA’s senior leadership and representatives of the
museum staff. The executive committee evaluates strategic issues, facilitates setting policy for
the organization, and acts on behalf of the full board between meetings of the trustees. The
executive committee reports to the board and has the authority to act unilaterally under certain
exigent and other circumstances. Excluding board interventions or major policy changes,
operational issues (including matters pertaining to staff diversity) are addressed by MMA
leadership and staff. Board diversity and inclusion issues fall under the oversight of the diversity
and inclusion committee, the executive committee, and the full board.
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 89
Figure 5 depicts an organizational chart of the full board, the executive committee, and
MMA leadership, as well as the criterion for selecting participation in the study, as will be
discussed in greater detail below.
Figure 5. Organizational chart of the full board, the executive committee, and MMA leadership
as well as participant selection criteria.
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 90
The chart indicates that, as of the date of the study, the MMA board comprised 35
members, five of whom identified as persons of color. Sixty percent of board members of color
were interviewed. Additionally, board members who served on key committees, including the
executive committee, the nominating committee, and the diversity and inclusion committee, were
also interviewed. In total, interviews of 34% of the full board were completed to seek data-rich
information relating to the four criteria discussed below. The study obtained 100% participation
in the requested interviews. Precise board size, certain committee names, the number of leaders
and their titles, and some committee assignments were camouflaged to maintain confidentiality.
Sampling Criteria and Rationale
In qualitative studies, sampling approaches should maximize discovery and insight, as
well as obtain salient information about the core issues being researched (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Thus, this purposeful convenience study utilized criterion-based selection, targeting board
participants who possess key experience, knowledge, and competency in the areas under
investigation. Such knowledge included numerous data points related to KMO influences and
related conceptual framework elements (Johnson & Christensen, 2015; Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Targeted board participants developed their deep domain expertise relating to KMO
influences based on their many years of involvement with MMA and by serving on core
committees, including the executive committee and/or key operational committees. Executive
committee members also have information-rich data as they serve as committee chairs for the
board’s key operational committees (see Figure 5). Additionally, board members of color were
interviewed to get their unique perspectives on race and ethnicity in the context of board service,
MMA diversity and inclusion, and potential issues pertaining to marginalization, tokenism, and
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 91
unconscious bias. Board members of color also possessed data-rich information regarding KMO
influences and matters pertaining to the recruitment and nomination of candidates of color.
Members of the MMA diversity and inclusion committee and nominating committee
were interviewed as they have the greatest depth of experience and insights into challenges and
processes associated with racial/ethnic board recruitment. Finally, two members of MMA senior
leadership were interviewed based on their deep expertise regarding MMA operations, board
engagement, stakeholder support, board diversity/inclusion practices, and fundraising.
Interview Sampling Criteria
Criterion 1. Members of the board who lead key operational committees that implicate
KMO influences, including allocation of financial and human capital resources, marketing,
stakeholder engagement, fundraising, diversity and inclusion efforts, and MMA culture and
climate. As reflected in Figure 5, such operational committees include the executive committee,
the nominating committee, and the diversity and inclusion committee.
Criterion 2. Board members of color who have gone through MMA board
recruiting/selection and nomination processes, and who likely have rich opinions and beliefs
regarding board diversity and inclusion practices, potential marginalization, MMA board
inclusivity, and KMO influences (including metacognitive factors and unconscious bias).
Criterion 3. Members of MMA senior leadership with deep involvement in board
member selection and operations, stakeholder engagement, fundraising, community engagement,
diversity/inclusion practices, and board resource allocation (including committee operations and
recruitment/nomination processes).
Criterion 4. Members of the MMA board nominating committee who are deeply
involved in identifying, recruiting, and nominating board members of color.
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 92
Interview Sampling Strategy and Rationale
Consistent with the sampling criteria and subject to redundancy and saturation principles
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), the researcher conducted interviews with 12 board members (10 of
whom serve on the executive committee) or approximately 34% of the full board. These
interviews included three of the five board members who identify as persons of color (one of
who serves on the executive committee and another who serves on the diversity committee).
These members were selected based on their expertise in board operations and matters germane
to KMO influences, including board resources, culture/climate, committee processes/structures
(including diversity recruiting and nominations), and policies/procedures affecting board
diversity and inclusion (see Figure 5). A subset of committee chair/executive committee
members was interviewed (e.g., finance, marketing, development, diversity and inclusion,
nominating) as these members regularly engage in functions directly related to board culture and
climate, diversity and inclusion, diversity recruiting and nomination processes, and board
resource allocation.
As reflected in Figure 5, the executive committee (100%) and board member interviews
(34%) were with members who either lead or actively participate in the committees most
germane to KMO influences. For example, a member of the marketing committee was
interviewed but not a member of the building and grounds committee because that latter
committee only peripherally implicated KMO influences. Four of the eight members of the
nominating committee were interviewed (50%) because they had the richest potential
information related to KMO influences involving diversity recruiting and nomination processes.
Finally, two members of senior leadership were interviewed (66%) as they had the deepest
knowledge and domain expertise related to the stated criterion. Given the total sample size
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 93
relative to the board population, redundancy and saturation were reached for most issues after
completion of approximately three-quarters of the interviews, except as to issues related to
nominating committee structure and processes, where saturation was completed after all
participants were interviewed (see Chapter Four).
Data Collection and Instrumentation
Many workplace problems remain elusive and disruptive until a proper inquiry analysis is
undertaken (Duke & Martin, 2011). Inquiry analysis has multiple uses in evaluating problems of
practice in professional and other contexts (Clark & Estes, 2008). Evidence-based inquiry makes
use of empirical data through exploratory (inductive) or confirmatory (deductive) methods of
data collection and analysis (Creswell, 2014; Duke & Martin, 2011; McEwan & McEwan, 2003).
Deductive approaches are effective for larger-scale systemic problems and use quantitative
scientific methodologies (hypothesis testing of causation and predicted outcomes). By using
adequate sample size and sophisticated statistical methodologies, conclusions can be drawn that
apply to broader populations (Creswell, 2014; McEwan & McEwan, 2003). Qualitative research,
on the other hand, is useful in teasing out potential problems of practice by using words,
observation, document analysis, and experiential tools (Creswell, 2014; Duke & Martin, 2011;
McEwan & McEwan, 2003). Qualitative research is particularly useful when, as in the case of
the MMA board, personal, and subjective factors will drive theory generation and inductive
analysis (Creswell, 2014).
Investigating ways to optimize the MMA board’s racial and ethnic diversity was
contextually-dependent and involved a relatively small population; therefore, doing so was
amenable to qualitative study and analysis (Clark & Estes, 2008). Since the MMA board drives
organizational culture and climate, executes strategy, sets policy, and implements diversity
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 94
recruitment/nomination processes, purposeful exploration of KMO influences was evaluated
through triangulation of interviews, document review, and artifact evaluation (McEwan &
McEwan, 2003). Purposeful interviews of key board members and senior leadership, and the
collection and analysis of key operational documents and artifacts, afforded maximum flexibility
in exploring the problem of practice, perceiving meaning and process, and identifying emerging
themes (Creswell, 2014; McEwan & McEwan, 2003). The extensive collection of
contemporaneous historical documents was effective in providing a textured historical analysis
and a vivid picture of board culture and climate. Interviews were particularly effective in
generating data regarding the presence or absence of board member knowledge of the
multifaceted benefits of diversity (e.g., increased innovation and creativity, minimization of
groupthink, increased stakeholder support, and improved fundraising). The interviews also
assisted in exploring metacognitive issues, including potential unconscious bias, as well as
potential motivation factors (e.g., attributions, utility value, and self-efficacy).
Interviews and document analysis initially occurred sequentially in two phases but was
thereafter an integrated process. Phase 1 involved the collection and review of relevant
documents, including a 370-page reaccreditation report, three years of board, executive,
nominating, and diversity and inclusion committee minutes, various contemporaneous business
records and emails, and documents generated by the board’s previous diversity committee. The
second phase involved conducting interviews with identified stakeholders and collecting
additional documents identified in interviews to further evaluate KMO needs and influences
identified in the conceptual framework. This two-phase approach afforded the greatest potential
to yield key information regarding KMO influences that undergird the conceptual framework.
After the interviews were completed, documents and artifacts were reevaluated to facilitate a
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 95
deeper understanding of emerging themes and to confirm preliminary findings.
Interviews afforded participants maximum opportunity to share their feelings, thoughts,
and intentions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) and optimized a deep understanding of board internal
processes, knowledge, and motivation concerning racial/ethnic diversity recruitment, nomination
practices, organizational climate, and board inclusion. Document review was essential to
triangulation in gaining a deep understanding of historical practices and processes, including
assessing resource allocation, competing board and MMA priorities, and assessing
cultural/climatic factors. Surveys, focus groups, and observations were not utilized in this study
because those methods would not have provided sufficiently detailed data about meaning,
context, and board processes in a natural setting (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) and because such a
high percentage of board members was interviewed.
The figure below provides a graphic representation of the data collection process for this
evaluation.
Figure 6. Data collection design adapted from Creswell (2014).
Interviews
Interview protocol. Semi-structured interviews (see Appendix A) of 12 board members,
or approximately 34% of the total board, three of five board members of color (60%), and two
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 96
members of senior leadership (66%), were the primary method utilized to evaluate the KMO
elements of the Clark and Estes (2008) framework. These interviews adopted an interview-guide
approach consisting of open-ended questions designed to elicit participants’ experiences, beliefs,
knowledge, and motivation about topics implicated in the conceptual framework (Johnson &
Christensen, 2015). Interviews explored the KMO and assumed causes outlined in Appendix F.
The interviews consisted of 12 open-ended primary questions, with identified potential
follow-up prompts containing probing and clarification questions (see Appendix A). The
questions were guided by Patton’s (2015) six categories to elicit detailed descriptions of
participants’ experiences and behaviors, opinions and values, and knowledge that provides
insights into the researcher’s conceptual framework and research questions. Each interview
began with general preliminary questions before transitioning to substantive inquiries focusing
on potential KMO influences. Specifically, interview questions explored core assumed
procedural, conceptual, and metacognitive knowledge elements, as well as motivation influences
(e.g., attributions, utility value, and self-efficacy) embedded in the conceptual framework. The
interviews were also designed to explore cultural phenomena within MMA board and committee
interactions and to enable an evaluation of organizational structures that pertain to board
members’ knowledge and motivation to succeed (Clark & Estes, 2008; Lencioni, 2004; Rueda,
2011; Schein, 2004). The process of utilizing a semi-structured protocol afforded richer insights
through the flexibility to probe participants’ answers and clarify incomplete or ambiguous
responses (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Weiss, 1994). The process of facilitating open-ended
answers during interviews, and avoiding leading questions, allowed participants to
extemporaneously share knowledge, beliefs, insights, and information regarding their emergent
worldviews (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 97
By interviewing individuals most knowledgeable in the key areas of inquiry (including
theorized barriers envisaged in the conceptual framework to limit improved board racial and
ethnic diversity), cultural factors and interconnected KMO influences impacting performance
goals could be carefully evaluated. This strategy facilitated a high success rate for recruitment, as
participants served on key committees and were among the most highly engaged and proprietary
members of the organization.
Interview procedures. Before commencing interviews, the researcher obtained informed
consent from participants to confirm their voluntary participation and to assure them of data
confidentiality and security (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). A description of the study, a discussion
of interview procedures and participant questions, and a verbal affirmation of informed consent
were obtained after the researcher read verbatim a prepared prefatory script (see Appendix A).
The researcher minimized inconvenience to participants by conducting in-person
interviews at times and in locations convenient to the interviewees (Patton, 2015). Interviews
lasted approximately one hour and were audio-recorded to ensure accuracy in transcription and
data analysis (see Table 6). The total amount of interview time across participants was
approximately 14 hours (see Table 6). To protect the identity of interviewees and facilitate
coding and data analysis (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), participant names were not recorded, but,
instead, temporary labels were assigned based on board committee involvement, whether the
participant was a person of color, or whether the participant was a member of senior leadership
(see Table 6). Recruitment was facilitated by the researcher’s preexisting relationship with MMA
and his active board and committee involvement, and his existing relationships with targeted
participants. The researcher made in-person, email, and telephonic requests to conduct interviews
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 98
with each of the targeted participants. No individual so requested declined to participate in the
study.
Documents and Artifacts
In addition to interviews, the researcher evaluated documents and artifacts based on the
processes identified by Creswell (2014). Document review is particularly effective in eliciting
meaning, developing empirical knowledge, gaining an understanding of contemporaneous and
historical practices, and triangulating data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Documents such as
business plans, financial and other reports, contemporaneous records, and memoranda typically
exist before commencing the study and can supplement the data collected by other methods
(Creswell, 2014; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Additionally, use of documents (a) provides data on
the context of the environment in which participants operate, including historical insight into past
events; (b) helps contextualize information gleaned during interviews; (c) suggests areas for
additional research or provides potential divergent or counterfactual information; (d) provides a
basis to track change, development and processes relevant to research questions; and (e)
facilitates verification of findings that emerge from interviews and corroborates evidence
obtained from other data collection methods.
For this study, the researcher created a written rubric that defined the universe of
potentially relevant documents related to research questions, KMO influences, and theoretical
underpinnings of the conceptual framework (see Appendix B). Documents included, among
other materials, strategic plans, mission statements, MMA operational and financial reports,
contemporaneous business records, presentations, operational reports, and PowerPoint
presentations. Document review and analysis also included hundreds of pages of materials
compiled in connection with MMA’s most recent museum accreditation. Many of these
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 99
documents were also available and reviewed previously by the researcher in connection with his
role as an active MMA board and executive committee member.
Additionally, to explore emergent themes and to mitigate biased selectivity in the
document collection, the researcher requested and evaluated a full set of the board, executive,
and nominating committee minutes going back three years. The researcher also obtained from
senior leadership documents generated from a prior diversity committee to gain greater insight
into the board’s historical views, treatment, and analysis of diversity and inclusion issues. That
committee, which existed intermittently from 2010 through 2017, was disbanded because the
existing board chair felt the work could be done by designated board members. In connection
with his duties as current chair of the current diversity and inclusion committee, and to facilitate
data collection and analysis for this study, the researcher requested and received from MMA
digital copies of the documents mentioned above. All documents were stored by the researcher
on a password-protected encrypted flash drive. Many of these documents directly related to
KMO influences and working theories reflected in the researcher’s study questions and
conceptual framework. Such issues included whether MMA resources and processes are devoted
to diversity and recruiting; whether the board has received unconscious bias and diversity
training; whether diversity best practices are employed, including the hiring of diversity
consultants; what factors and criteria are utilized by the nominating committee in evaluating
board candidates; and the extent to which board members are knowledgeable about operational,
fundraising, and stakeholder benefits associated with diversity. In total, approximately 800 pages
of documents were compiled and evaluated during data collection and analysis.
Finally, the researcher evaluated MMA and board artifacts related to identified KMO
influences (e.g., artistic works, exhibition and marketing materials, advertising and social media
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 100
materials, placards, signs, posters, and other identifiable monikers). These artifacts provided
valuable information to triangulate and crosscheck data obtained during the researcher’s
interviews, document analysis, and other data collection activities (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). As
will be noted in Chapter Four, the absence, paucity, or incompleteness of documents or artifacts
related to diversity and inclusion may suggest a lack of focus and limited allocation of resources
devoted to organizational matters, which are the subject of study research questions.
A comprehensive mapping of presumed influences and the data collection method used in
the evaluation is included in Table 5.
Table 5
Mapping of Presumed Influences and the Data Collection Method used in the Evaluation
Category Assumed Need Assessment Tool
Knowledge influences
Conceptual MMA board members need knowledge of the financial,
organizational, fundraising, operational, decision-making, and
stakeholder benefits of racial and ethnic diversity.
Interviews
Procedural MMA board members need to know the mechanics of effective
diversity recruitment, including the use of best practices to
optimize recruiting and nomination outcomes.
Interviews
Metacognitive MMA board members need to know how unconscious views
and beliefs may affect their predispositions about racial/ethnic
board recruiting and nominations.
Interviews
Motivation influences
Attributions Board members need to believe that improving racial and ethnic
diversity is part of their governance function and that they can be
effective diversity recruiters, despite a potentially limited
candidate pool.
Document
analysis,
interviews
Self-Efficacy Board Members need to believe they can become effective
diversity recruiters and improve board racial/ethnic diversity.
Document
analysis,
interviews
Expectancy
Value
Board members need to appreciate the utility value of racial and
ethnic diversity for improving MMA’s operational success,
stakeholder support, and community engagement.
Document
analysis,
interviews
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 101
Table 5, continued
Organizational influences
Cultural
Setting
The MMA organizational environment needs to align
expressed and demonstrated commitments to diversity.
Interviews
Cultural
Setting
The MMA organization needs to devote resources/budget,
structures, training, policies, and procedures to facilitate better
recruiting and nominating outcomes.
Document
analysis,
Interviews
Cultural
Setting
The MMA organization needs thoughtful leadership focus on
diversity and inclusion and unconscious bias.
Document
analysis,
Interviews
Cultural
Setting
The MMA organization needs strategic diversity management
policies, procedures, and practices.
Document
analysis,
Interviews
Data Analysis
Data analysis commenced in two phases. The first phase involved an extensive analysis
of the approximately 800 pages of documents, including board and committee minutes;
operational reports, emails, files, and financial and accounting materials; strategic and
operational plans; reaccreditation materials; and diversity and inclusion committee memoranda
and related materials. The data analysis involved a qualitative review of the documents with
NVivo qualitative analysis software (NVivo) based on a priori and axial codes derived from the
conceptual framework and KMO influences and identified needs. The second phase of data
analysis involved qualitative coding of interview data based on similar a priori and axial codes
that aligned with KMO influences. Those codes were analyzed independently and then examined
holistically to generate themes that served as precursors to findings. The section below includes a
detailed discussion aligned with the analysis of each data source. For interviews, data analysis
began during data collection. The researcher wrote analytic memos after each interview
documenting his thoughts, concerns, reflections, and initial conclusions about the emergent data
in relation to the conceptual framework and research questions. Once the researcher left the field,
he transcribed and thematically coded with NVivo the recorded interviews.
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 102
Interview questions were designed to investigate participants’ conceptual knowledge of
financial, organizational, and stakeholder benefits associated with board racial and ethnic
diversity. Questions also probed board members’ procedural knowledge of the mechanics of
board recruitment and nomination processes. Board members’ metacognitive knowledge of
potential implicit bias and how it might affect their predispositions about racial/ethnic
nominations were also evaluated. The coding process was incremental, progressive, and
commenced with open, in vivo, empirical coding where the data emerged inductively. That was
followed by a deductive approach where a priori codes were created based on constructs
identified in the literature review and conceptual framework of the study. Axial codes were then
compiled based on aggregating relevant analytic concepts/constructs reflecting categories
derived from the substance and frequency of responses. Identified categories were then analyzed
to identify patterns that generated emergent themes. Findings and assertions were generated
based on careful data analysis of patterns and themes that emerged concerning the conceptual
framework and research questions. Conclusions regarding the frequency and viability of
identified emerging themes were conveyed quantitively in the findings and results and expressed
as percentages.
The researcher also analyzed documents and artifacts for evidence consistent with the
concepts and themes in the conceptual framework. Documents were evaluated to determine
whether they implicated KMO influences regarding factual, procedural, and/or conceptual
knowledge, including diversity benefits and recruitment/nominating processes. The researcher
also evaluated documents for evidence of metacognitive influences and potential unconscious
biases associated with board recruitment and nomination. Additionally, the researcher evaluated
motivational factors related to board member attributions, utility value, and self-efficacy.
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 103
Organizational culture and climate influences (e.g., reinforcing behaviors and structures,
diversity leadership, diversity resources, and diversity management) were also analyzed based on
the models of analysis proposed by Schein (2004) and Schneider et al. (1996). The researcher
identified and analyzed themes in the data to support or refute assumed influences from
discoveries and findings. Like knowledge and motivational factors, conclusions regarding the
frequency and viability of identified emerging themes involving organizational influences were
conveyed quantitively in the findings and results and expressed as percentages.
Analysis of Interview Data
Analysis, reflections, and preliminary conclusions concerning the data contained in
interview transcripts relative to the study’s research questions and the conceptual framework
were compiled following the real-time transcription of each interview. Transcripts were initially
transcribed using an online transcription service and then carefully reviewed by the researcher to
ensure the accuracy of the transcription. After the completion of the 14 interviews, the researcher
used deductive reasoning and analysis of emerging themes to apply a priori codes developed
from the literature and conceptual framework to all interview responses using NVivo. The codes
were then aggregated among each KMO influence into analytic codes that served as data points
that supported or refuted the KMO need assumption under evaluation. Interview results served as
the principal decision point for each KMO influence and augmented data analysis of the
documents and artifacts. Qualitative coding for KMO influences summarizing this analysis is
included in Tables 7 through 17 and Appendix F.
Analysis of Documents and Artifacts
An analysis of MMA documents and photos of artifacts was conducted electronically by
highlighting relevant provisions, generating notes and reflections, and then commencing NVivo
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 104
coding (see Appendix E for a list by category of internal documents). The documents and
artifacts were analyzed based on the same criteria and methodology utilized in evaluating the
interview data. Previously established a priori and axial codes (as well as identified patterns and
emerging themes derived from the conceptual framework and literature review) were captured
and aligned with relevant KMO factors. Excerpts from the documents and descriptions of
artifacts that supported emerging themes are identified in the findings section contained in
Chapter Four.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Ensuring credibility and trustworthiness regarding the researcher’s positionality and
biases were essential to this study as he was the primary agent of data collection (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Awareness of researcher positionality was critical to mitigating bias, limiting data
misinterpretation, and regulating reflexivity that might impair the study’s credibility and
trustworthiness (Creswell, 2014; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Seeking to get in
touch with potential biases that may impact objectivity in research design and data analysis
requires reflection by the principal investigator to fortify the integrity, credibility, and qualitative
validity of the study’s findings (Maxwell, 2013). Positionality also implicates reactivity, as the
relationship the principal researcher has with the study participants may influence responses and
data collection (Creswell, 2014; Maxwell, 2013). Reactivity is the influence that occurs on study
participants as a result of the researcher’s presence during data collection (Maxwell, 2013).
Researchers should actively reflect on the potential influence of bias and reactivity on data
collection and analysis, not merely attempt to eliminate such influences. By employing a
systematic process of self-awareness and reflexivity, the researcher sought to mitigate personal
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 105
bias and the potential for data misinterpretation (Creswell, 2014; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016).
The credibility of research findings was facilitated through triangulation of interviews
with document and artifact analysis (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Additionally, the extensive
document review and the researcher’s comprehensive knowledge of the MMA board enhanced
the credibility of findings. Member checks and enlisting subject matter diversity experts to
provide feedback on emerging findings facilitated content-oriented validation of preliminary
findings (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In particular, the researcher conferred with
several university professors who specialize in access, equity, diversity, and inclusion issues
regarding theoretical constructs in the literature, preliminary conclusions, and emergent findings.
In addition to self-reflection and peer debriefing to enhance the accuracy of findings, the
researcher discussed preliminary conclusions, and interview interpretations with his dissertation
chair as part of the reflectivity process (Creswell, 2014). The peer-review process increased the
face, content, and construct validity of the instrumentation used in the study.
As the primary instrument for data collection and analysis, the researcher was aware that
he might have some internal bias regarding the issues under study based on his current MMA
roles and his prior professional experiences. For example, the researcher was previously a
partner in an international law firm where one of his administrative functions was serving as
chair of the firm’s recruiting committee, which partially involved improving law firm diversity
and inclusion. These experiences impact his role as chair of the board diversity and inclusion
committee. The researcher was also keenly aware that his relationship with participants and the
power dynamics of his board service might create a social desirability effect or cause subjects to
shade their responses in ways that might contaminate the data. Given these potential biases,
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 106
multiple additional strategies were employed to maintain trustworthiness and credibility. These
strategies included disclosure of study parameters, extensive field time, rich data collection, and
extensive self-monitoring for researcher biases and assumptions (Creswell, 2014; Maxwell,
2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). As the researcher interviewed participants and examined
documents/artifacts, he sought to engage in a continual self-reflective process, making a note of
personal thoughts and experiences that could lead to researcher bias (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
The researcher was also vigilant in not advocating for responses during interviews and
allowing insights to emerge holistically (Glesne, 2011; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). As an
attorney, the researcher also relied on his extensive training in interviewing, document review,
and factual analysis to correlate the evidence and remain objective, striving to suspend
conclusions until the data collection process was completed. Triangulation increased the
credibility of research findings by ensuring data were evaluated through multiple lenses and
sources (Clark & Estes, 2008; Creswell, 2014; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Because of positionality and reactivity concerns, the researcher drafted nonleading interview
questions to ensure they were not suggestive of answers. Similarly, given his multiple insider
roles on the board, the researcher disclosed potential experiential biases and received MMA
executive committee approval to conduct the study.
The researcher employed other mechanisms to mitigate further potential researcher bias,
including creating verbatim transcripts from interviews to allow for consistency in data analysis
and interpretation (Maxwell, 2013). Additionally, the researcher used objective words reflecting
participants’ views to enhance accurate coding and analysis of responses. Whenever any
ambiguity or uncertainty in data became apparent during interviews, the researcher asked follow-
up questions for clarification that further assisted in the researcher’s self-reflection process
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 107
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Additionally, the researcher employed a negative or discrepant case
analysis and considered counterfactual theories and interpretations in evaluating data to
challenge expectations and emergent findings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Finally, to further
reduce the risk of data misinterpretation, the researcher relied on debriefing with his dissertation
chair and conferred with diversity and inclusion experts to enhance the accuracy of the findings
(Creswell, 2014). Thus, analysis of the data from the interviews, document/artifact review, and
content analysis facilitated validation through cross-verification from multiple sources (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016).
Ethics
The researcher followed the University of Southern California (USC) Institutional
Research Board (IRB) guidelines for this study. In approving research studies, USC’s IRB
adheres to the ethical principles of The Nuremberg Code and the Report of the U.S. National
Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research
(1978). The researcher ensured that sufficient information was provided to participants for them
to make informed decisions about the risks and benefits of participating in the study.
Additionally, the researcher advised participants that they have the right to withdraw from the
study at any time. The study was also designed to eliminate any unnecessary risks to research
participants. Finally, before commencing the study, the researcher obtained IRB certification
from the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative as a qualified investigator to conduct the
study.
While the researcher serves on the MMA board and its executive committee, he is not a
supervisor of the participants. This parity in affiliation status minimized any risk of confusion,
bias, or conflict. Other than serving in his official board capacities, the researcher had no
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 108
personal or professional relationships with the research participants. To mitigate any conflicts of
interest or potential breaches of ethical constraints, the researcher conferred with his dissertation
chair, who agreed to serve as an ethical advisor for this study (Creswell, 2014; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Other than the reciprocity of experiences in board members sharing their views
on business and diversity/inclusion issues, no incentives were offered to participants for their
involvement in the study (Glesne, 2011).
The researcher informed the MMA executive committee and MMA senior leadership of
the research’s purpose, its role in developing his doctoral dissertation, and the steps taken to
ensure the anonymity of the organization and participants. Participants were informed that the
primary purpose of the project is to gather information to facilitate improving MMA board racial
and ethnic diversity. They were also advised that identifiable information (e.g., names, ages, job
positions/titles) obtained during the study would remain confidential and be anonymized to
maintain the highest possible level of participant confidentiality. Participant conversations and
data were secured in an encrypted, password-protected flash drive. Electronic media and hard
copies of research documents and artifacts were stored in a highly-secure, industrial-grade safe.
Audio recordings were destroyed upon transcription.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations are the influences on the study that the researcher cannot control (Creswell,
2014). Triangulation through document and artifact review, interviews, and data analysis can
mitigate limitations, but certain aspects of a qualitative study cannot be fully controlled
(Creswell, 2014; Merriam, & Tisdell, 2016). For example, participant-based influences are
idiosyncratic and beyond researcher control. Such responses are influenced by a multitude of
factors, including respondent cognition, the interaction between the investigator and the
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 109
participant, exaggeration, untrue responses, masked willingness to participate, and respondent
state of mind (Borg & Mohler, 1994; Iarossi, 2006). Researcher bias is also a potential limitation,
as is self-reporting bias where participants provide answers they believe are socially or
professionally desirable, rather than their true beliefs and experiences (Creswell, 2014). Another
limitation is that the duration of the study may not have captured the full array of diversity issues
and agenda items considered by the organization. That limitation was mitigated as much as
possible through triangulation, including extensive witness interviews and document review.
Finally, board member rotation (trustees typically serve successive multi-year terms), may not
reflect historical or future views regarding board diversity and inclusion processes and practices.
Delimitations are influences that the researcher can control through a carefully-designed
study (Creswell, 2014). While the study design was based on convenience and access, it also
targeted a rich environment for testing and analyzing various theories and influences in the
conceptual framework. The researcher’s service on the board and committees provided extensive
knowledge of organizational operations and facilitated access to key MMA documents and
leaders. By selecting interviews, document review, and artifact analysis, rather than surveys and
focus groups, the study was more targeted and purposeful in obtaining data-rich information
(Creswell, 2014). Although the entire board was not interviewed, the sample targeted all
executive committee members who chair key operational committees closely aligned with
processes and practices associated with assumed KMO influences.
Moreover, given the depth and scope of participant representation, saturation and
redundancy mostly occurred before interviews were completed. Because the study was
purposeful and limited in scope, results were delimited to MMA and may not be generalizable to
a larger population. Nevertheless, the influences subject to examination are common to nonprofit
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 110
boards, particularly those with operating budgets and demographic representation similar to
MMA. As such, results can potentially inform practice by adding to an understanding of the
knowledge in this area. Finally, while an analysis of other stakeholders was beyond the scope of
this study, it is possible that the board perspective may or may not be representative of other
stakeholders and the broader community MMA serves.
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 111
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS
The purpose of this improvement study was to examine the impediments, facilitators, and
best practices associated with optimizing racial and ethnic diversity on the MMA board of
directors. Additionally, the study investigated assumed KMO needs and influences—identified in
the literature review and conceptual framework outlined in Chapter Two—necessary to achieve
the MMA board’s racial and ethnic diversity performance goals. The study further utilized a
Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis to identify the organizational performance gaps impeding
the attainment of these diversity performance goals. Three research questions guided this study:
1. What stakeholder knowledge, skills, and motivation are related to the MMA board being
comprised of highly qualified racially and ethnically diverse individuals who are
committed to organizational excellence and mirror the U.S. Census data for the Midwest
region of the United States?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture/context and stakeholder
knowledge that either facilitates or limits the MMA board from being comprised of
highly qualified racially and ethnically diverse individuals who are committed to
organizational excellence and mirror the U.S. Census data for the Midwest region of the
United States?
3. Which recommended solutions will allow the board to be comprised of highly qualified
racially and ethnically diverse individuals who are committed to organizational
excellence and mirror the U.S. Census data for the Midwest region of the United States?
Participating Stakeholders
Twelve members of the MMA board of directors were interviewed as key stakeholders
for this study. These stakeholders comprised the entire MMA executive committee, including the
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 112
chairs of key board operating committees. Certain stakeholders served on more than one board
committee. Three racially and ethnically diverse board members were interviewed. Additionally,
two members of MMA senior management were interviewed, including the executive director.
Ten stakeholders were men, and four stakeholders were women. Table 6 provides demographic
information regarding these stakeholders.
Table 6
Stakeholder Demographics
Stakeholder Gender
and
Race*
Interview
length
(minutes)
Committee engagement Interview location
S1 M/W 67 Executive committee MMA
S2 F/W 57 Executive and diversity
committees
MMA
S3 M/B 61 Diversity committee MMA
S4 M/B 65 MMA
S5 M/W 59 Nominating committee MMA
S6 F/W 58 Executive and diversity
committees
MMA
S7 F/W 59 Executive and diversity
committees
MMA
S8 F/W 60 Executive committee MMA
S9 M/B 57 Executive committee MMA
S10 M/W 63 Executive committee MMA
S11 M/W 61 Executive and nominating
committees
MMA
S12 M/W 60 Executive committee MMA
S13 M/W 59 Leadership MMA
S14 M/W 38 Leadership MMA
*Male (M); Female (F); White (W); Black (B); Stakeholder (S)
Results for Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
The information presented in this chapter tracks the conceptual framework discussed in
Chapter Two and is guided by the research methodology identified in Chapter Three. Interviews,
documents, and artifacts were evaluated first independently and then collectively to determine
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 113
whether assumed KMO influences were validated, invalidated, or partially validated (see Table
18). As used herein, validated influence means that analysis of triangulated data confirmed the
need exists and that a solution is required to close the identified performance gap. Invalidated
influence means that the assumed need identified in the conceptual framework as a barrier to
achieving the organization’s performance goals was not confirmed by a preponderance of the
evidence. Partially validated means that the assumed need was confirmed by a preponderance of
the evidence, but that data analysis suggested the influence did not present a critical barrier. Each
KMO results section below begins with a summation of the findings and is supported by a table
identifying the need associated with specific assumed KMO influences. A detailed discussion
follows the summary of findings for each section and includes the crucial data points and quotes
obtained from various data sources supporting the researcher’s findings. Chapter Four concludes
with a synthesis of aggregated findings associated with KMO needs and influences.
Recommendations associated with remediating validated performance barriers are presented in
Chapter Five.
Knowledge Results
This study examined three knowledge influences through interviews and extensive
document and artifact analysis. First, the interviews evaluated board members’ and MMA
leaders’ conceptual knowledge of the financial, organizational, and stakeholder benefits of racial
and ethnic diversity (KC-DB; see Appendix E for acronyms used in this chapter). Second, board
members’ and MMA leaders’ procedural knowledge of the mechanics of recruitment and
nominating committee processes, including how to identify and successfully recruit diverse
candidates, were also evaluated in the interviews and documents (KP-DRN). The results show
that these first two types of knowledge were closely linked; that is, procedural knowledge of
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 114
strategies, procedures, and best practices for diversity recruiting and nomination was closely
aligned to stakeholders’ conceptual knowledge of constructs and best practices associated with
committee structure and diversity management concepts. This link aligns with the literature,
which indicates that while conceptual and procedural knowledge is distinct, they are nevertheless
substantially interrelated (Clark & Estes, 2008). Finally, board members’ and MMA leaders’
metacognitive knowledge of how unconscious views and beliefs may affect their predispositions
about racial/ethnic board recruiting and nominations were also evaluated (KM-UB).
Thematic analysis of stakeholder interviews, documents, and artifacts showed that, while
board members generally desire to improve MMA’s diversity, there was a limited focus on board
representativeness and inclusivity. As a group, participants lacked detailed conceptual,
procedural, and metacognitive knowledge associated with realizing the board’s racial and ethnic
diversity performance goals. Representatives of the diversity and inclusion committee (diversity
committee) are actively focused on improving MMA racial/ethnic diversity and inclusion,
although intensified activity appears to be a relatively recent phenomenon. The nominating
committee targeted board candidates of color, but member focus was intermittent and
predominantly outcome-based. As is the case with the majority of boards (BoardSource, 2017a,
2015), the nominating committee did not display rich familiarity with conceptual, procedural,
and metacognitive knowledge necessary to facilitate deliberate diversity outcomes. Both senior
leaders were more strategic, knowledgeable, and focused on improving staff and board diversity.
Although their familiarity with the social science data was limited, leaders’ responses suggested
a deeper appreciation of the broad array of operational and stakeholder benefits associated with
improved board diversity. Moreover, and importantly, both MMA leaders articulated concerns
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 115
regarding potential stakeholder repercussions and potential diminished funding for NPOs that
fail to focus adequately on diversity, equity, accessibility, and inclusion.
Most board members are unaware of the broad array of benefits flowing from board
racial and ethnic diversity. While several participants recognized that greater diversity was
important for bringing new and different ideas to the board, most were unaware of the social
science data suggesting operational, decision-making, fundraising, and stakeholder benefits
associated with improved representativeness. For instance, less than half of board members
interviewed had concrete knowledge of external stakeholders’ (e.g., foundations, major donors,
oversight organizations, grant providers) increasing demand for board racial and ethnic
composition that equitably reflects the broader community. For example, Stakeholder 1 (S1)
indicated that “we have not paid much attention to our stakeholders’ concerns about our
diversity. I had not heard they were focused on this before, but that matters.” Stakeholder 7 (S7),
in noting that she could not recall being briefed on stakeholder concerns about MMA diversity,
stated, “it’s obvious we need to care about what matters to our donors and supporters.”
Stakeholder 6 (S6) conveyed similar sentiments, noting, “I think most of our board members are
not aware of concerns from external funding sources. I think we should do a better job of
connecting the dots for people and showing them that not having a diverse board has potentially
negative consequences.” Similarly, most board members, including certain members of the
nominating committee, were unfamiliar with evolving nonprofit best practices, strategies, and
procedures designed to improve board diversity (e.g., retention of consultants, cross-functional
committee engagement, diversity action plans, diversity leadership paradigms, diversity
management initiatives, unconscious bias training, networking/retention strategies).
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 116
Several board members had previously attended diversity training and generally
appreciated the purpose was to mitigate unconscious bias. However, most board members were
not aware of the benefits that flow from self-reflective, metacognitive practices that limit
unconscious bias and foster forward-thinking regarding access, equity, and board inclusiveness.
Although MMA senior leadership and approximately half of board members were familiar with
the concept of implicit bias and the benefits of unconscious bias training, most stakeholders
could not adequately define the term unconscious bias and were unfamiliar with how such bias
might manifest and inhibit board representativeness or impair inclusivity. In that regard, only
four participants unprompted suggested the value of unconscious bias training, and only two
noted such intervention could mitigate a lack of awareness, which adversely affects diversity
outcomes. S1, for example, noted “unconscious bias training might be a good idea, “while
Stakeholder 10 (S10) went further, observing that “my [organization] used the training to
improve multicultural and gender awareness.”
Although most stakeholders articulated a link between MMA’s mission and the need for
community interactivity, most did not associate engagement with underrepresented groups as
interconnected with improved board racial and ethnic diversity. Table 7 presents a summary of
presumed knowledge needs and evaluation results based on participant responses and
frequencies.
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 117
Table 7
Summary of Presumed Knowledge Needs and Evaluation Results
Assumed knowledge
influence*
Knowledge
type
Knowledge influence
assessment
Validation
(KC-DB) MMA board
members need knowledge
of the financial,
organizational, and
stakeholder benefits of
racial and ethnic diversity.
Declarative
(Conceptual)
Interviews,
document/artifact review,
data analysis.
Validated
(KP-DRN) MMA board
members need to know the
mechanics of effective
diversity recruitment,
including the use of best
practices to optimize
recruiting and nomination
outcomes.
Procedural Interviews,
document/artifact review,
data analysis.
Validated
(KM-UB) MMA board
members need to know
how unconscious views
and beliefs may affect their
predispositions about
racial/ethnic board
recruiting and nominations.
Metacognitive Interviews,
document/artifact review,
data analysis.
Validated
*Knowledge Conceptual-Diversity Benefits (KC-DB); Knowledge Procedural-Diversity
Recruiting/Nominating (KP-DRN); Knowledge Metacognitive-Unconscious Bias (KM-UB)
Conceptual knowledge of board diversity benefits. MMA board members and leaders
were asked multiple questions to elicit their understanding of the benefits of enhanced board
racial and ethnic diversity. The researcher evaluated whether respondents’ answers identified
familiarity with direct or indirect benefits identified in the social science literature as associated
with board decision-making and governance, the potential for enhanced creativity/innovation,
improved fundraising, the potential to mitigate groupthink, and enhanced stakeholder support
and engagement.
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 118
Analysis of interviews showed that 11 stakeholders (78%) possessed some knowledge of
diversity’s importance in bringing new ideas to the board and improving decision-making
processes. S1 said, “Well, the benefits are just a stronger texture to your decision-making,” while
S7 opined that “to run a healthy and vibrant organization” you need “more than one point of
view expressed.” Stakeholder 3 (S3) believed a diverse board brought “a different perspective”
and a greater quantity of ideas:
The exhibitions might change a little bit. The marketing of the exhibitions would change.
Your marketing of the art museum might change with people with different ideas. Let’s
say if we had all engineers who were all on the board of the art museum, we’d probably
have a highly efficient organization. Different peoples’ not only education but life
experience, bring different ideas or aspects to it. I think if you had more ideas, you’d
have more to choose from. Then, if you use a process of determining the merit of those
ideas, not the person who suggested the ideas, you would get a better process.
Stakeholder 12 (S12) expressed similar sentiments, stating that “we benefit from different points
of view.” S12 further analogized the benefits of diversity in economic terms, rather than from the
perspective of improving strategic thinking or mitigating groupthink, noting, “We need a greater
mix of what matters to the museum in terms of board assets.” S12 elaborated, “Even within a
financial model, diversification is exactly what is needed to maximize versatility.”
Only five of the 14 stakeholders (35%) expressed the view that increased board diversity
had the potential to lead to greater MMA fundraising. Additionally, only four participants (28%)
indicated they believed there was a direct link between greater diversity and improved financial
strength. Stakeholder 4 (S4) made a connection between racial and ethnic diversity and financial
benefits, noting, “I think it’s very important for funding. The community that you serve, again, if
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 119
you’re looking at a [city like ours] that has a large African American population, I think serving
that community is important.” S3 similarly believed diverse segments of the community were an
“untapped market for museum funds,” and individuals in these communities may be “more
willing to financially contribute to the museum” if there was greater board diversity.
Other stakeholders only recognized that greater board diversity might be linked to more
funding abstractly. Stakeholders acknowledged that the financial health of the museum was
board members’ primary concern, yet these stakeholders were unable without prompting to
articulate how increasing MMA board diversity would translate to greater funding. However,
when stakeholders were asked whether being presented with social science data demonstrating
that greater diversity was positively associated with greater NPO funding, almost half felt most
they would be more intently focus on improving diversity. For example, S1 observed, “If you
could demonstrate that racial and ethnic diversity would increase [MMA’s funding], board
members would pay attention to that, and it would have more intense meaning.” S6 also thought
such data could be used effectively to incentivize the board toward greater diversity, noting,
“sometimes people need to have the dots connected for them.” Only four stakeholders (28%)
were aware of recent increased scrutiny of NPOs’ lack of diversity by external funders.
Stakeholder 8 (S8) did not believe most board members were aware the board was under such
scrutiny:
Showing other benefits would absolutely move them, absolutely. Many don’t care about
[board diversity] or just don’t think about it or may believe it is the right thing to do but
would intensely care about financial impact. If educated on this, the benefits of diversity,
they likely will be more inclined to engage on the issue. Absolutely.
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 120
Another board member, S6, suggested a lack of conceptual knowledge in this area, noting, “I
think most of our board members are not aware of recent scrutiny from external funding sources
and how it affects their funding decisions.” One member of the executive committee, S12, was
reflective and self-aware concerning this issue, suggesting, “I personally have not done a good
job of thinking about this issue or communicating it to our peers.”
Regarding the connection between improving board racial and ethnic diversity and board
governance, only four board members (28%) without prompting said they viewed board diversity
as an organizational mandate rising to the level of a fiduciary obligation. For example, S11
stated, “I have not really thought about it that way before. I don’t think most other board
members ponder diversity very often.” S11 continued, “I don’t believe they view it as a
‘governance’ function, more of an administrative function or something society is focusing on.”
S1 put this succinctly: “I have not really reflected about this before, but as you pose the question,
I think so.” Similarly, when asked if focusing on board racial and ethnic diversity and inclusion
was a board governance function, S6 said, “I have not thought about that before in quite that
way.”
Nevertheless, over half of the board believed that, if presented with reliable social science
evidence of the benefits of board diversity, the board would much more readily embrace
improving board representativeness and inclusion as a critical organizational priority, rising to
the level of a governance obligation. S3’s response was typical of that sentiment: “I think data
would help a lot of people get there in terms of accepting diversity as a board leadership
responsibility.” This lack of connection between board diversity and governance also suggests a
lack of adequate conceptual and procedural knowledge, which implicates cognitive processes
related to attainment and task values discussed in Chapter Two. Board members who see
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 121
improving racial and ethnic diversity as part of their fiduciary obligations may also see external
barriers as temporary and less intractable. Numerous social science scholars, including Eccles
(2006) and Eccles and Wigfield (2002), have noted that when individuals view a task as
important to the way they perceive their values, responsibilities, and self-schema, motivation to
perform an activity will substantially increase. Board members who view improving board
diversity as achievable and part of their governance functions may thus be catalyzed by
additional conceptual and procedural knowledge demonstrating optimized racial/ethnic board
diversity and inclusion are attainable.
Many participants failed to identify diversity, equity, accessibility, and inclusion as
beneficial to boards independent of a societally expressed moral imperative to improve in this
area. As noted by S4, “Until recently, the board did not really focus in this area, and even the
[prior] diversity committee did not focus on the inclusion part.” S14 stated, “nominating
committee members were not aware of its critical linkage to recruitment, retention, inclusion,
and board benefits.” Because of other pressing financial and operational priorities, including an
intense focus on exhibitions which directly implicate mission fulfillment, 11 board members
(78%) acknowledged they had not adequately educated themselves on potential benefits that
flow from improved board diversity. S8’s observation was typical:
No single person would say, “That’s my raison d’etre for serving on this board.” I don’t
think there’s any part of the board right now that sees [improving racial/ethnic diversity]
as their core responsibility. I’m afraid to say that I don’t hear a clarion call from our
board to go beyond [the status quo].
Most board members also failed to appreciate that enhanced racial and ethnic diversity
had the potential benefit of limiting board groupthink. Only seven out of 14 participants (50%)
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 122
were familiar with groupthink principles as applied to board diversity practices, and only four
members (28%) believed increased board representativeness would potentially improve board
decision-making and committee operations. For example, S4, a former member of the
nominating committee, noted, “We often have a narrow view of our function and think we’re
[just] gatekeepers for the reputation of the museum and think it’s all about fundraising and board
prestige.” S12, another nominating committee member, articulated similar sentiments,
expressing the view that,
Sometimes, it’s like an echo chamber within the nominating committee. And our network
tends to be high net-worth and high-status people, which is a feedback loop that seems to
recruit and nominate the same kinds of folks. I have been guilty of this at times myself.
Eight participants also linked board racial and ethnic diversity with community
representation, highlighting their partial knowledge of the benefits of increased engagement and
external stakeholder support. For example, Stakeholder 2 (S2) felt the benefits of diversity were
obvious and that “the additional representation of underserved communities would only send a
signal loud and clear to those communities that, ‘yes, you are welcome here.’” Greater board
diversity could also help increase visitor count, according to S3. S8 recognized that because the
MMA was “built for the broader community,” which is “a racially and ethnically diverse
community,” board representativeness was important to reflect that “enhanced vision of
diversity.”
These highly variable participant responses regarding conceptual knowledge of racial and
ethnic diversity benefits were anticipated in the conceptual framework and presumed needs
assessment. Participant responses strongly suggest that knowledge transfer to the board in this
area will be highly valuable in limiting identified barriers. Table 8 identifies the themes and
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 123
concepts probed during interviews and document analysis that implicate a lack of conceptual
knowledge and identifies participants who articulated some familiarity with utility value benefits
or other constructs identified in the literature associated with racial and ethnic board diversity.
Table 8
Summary of Concepts Probed Regarding Conceptual Knowledge Influences
Participant Knowledge
of some
aspect of
utility value
or benefits
associated
with board
diversity
Knowledge
of potential
for improved
creativity/
innovation
Knowledge
of potential
stakeholder
benefits or
adverse
funding
Knowledge
of potential
for
minimized
groupthink
Knowledge
of potential
for improved
fundraising
Knowledge
of
unconscious
bias and the
importance of
reflection
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
S11
S12
S13
S14
Procedural knowledge. Stakeholders as a group demonstrated limited procedural
knowledge of strategies, processes, and structures that might increase recruitment and
nomination outcomes of racially diverse board candidates. As predicted by the conceptual
framework, most participants lacked in-depth procedural knowledge of the processes and
procedures (mechanics, structures, committee practices, or networking strategies) considered
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 124
best practices for improving board diversity recruitment and nomination outcomes. Similarly,
participant data suggest most stakeholders lack procedural knowledge of processes and
procedures effective in enhancing board inclusivity. Although the overwhelming majority of
board members were eager and open to learning strategies to improve the problem (13 out of 14
members, or 93%), most stakeholders (11 of 14 participants, or 78%) had not received any
formal training in best practices for attaining diversity performance goals, like most board
members nationally (BoardSource, 2017a, 2017b; Weaver, 2009).
In terms of stakeholders’ procedural knowledge of diversity recruiting, most board
members had minimal knowledge of best practices and procedures. Additionally, most board
members lacked experience in drafting diversity mission statements, creating diversity action
plans, working with diversity experts, or establishing cross-functional diversity teams. Indeed,
S4 noted, “when we started in terms of the diversity committee, we didn’t have a plan there or
anything like that. We [mostly] talked about contractors, not the board.” The respondent also
noted that the diversity committee did not “consider changes to general committee structure,
modified diversity procedures, or the use of diversity consultants or academic experts.” The
majority of board members also lacked knowledge about procedures for adopting diversity
taskforces or nominating committee best practices focused on improving board representatives.
Only approximately 30% of participants noted that putting diversity on the agenda at
board and committee meetings was essential to raising awareness of its importance. When
prompted, approximately 70% of board members thought agenda setting was a good idea.
However, S10 thought, “highlighting diversity can backfire, as members may think a social
imperative is being forced upon them.” Only three participants (21%) expressed the view that
putting racially diverse members on the nominating committee might improve diversity
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 125
recruiting outcomes. S4 said, “I do think the nominating committee has to consist of people who
are diverse as well, and you could put a member of the diversity and inclusion committee on the
nominating committee.” The lack of appreciation of the value of cross-functional teams and the
benefits of diverse expertise to improve nomination processes, suggest the absence of formalized
training or procedural knowledge in enhancing board diversity outcomes.
A significant number of board members were unaware that written policies might be
effective in highlighting the need for improved board diversity. For instance, upon prompting,
six participants (47%) noted that the board lacked written procedures and guidelines for formally
vetting candidates based on identified criteria. As S8 stated, “I believe that our nominating
committee lacks guidelines to objectively vet candidates, which limits productivity.” However,
S7, also an executive committee member, suggested the value of “a rubric of quality skills,
passion, diversity, [all] the things that we think are most important in a board member, and how
we could begin to evaluate candidates.” Expressing similar sentiments, S8 noted, “Another thing
that I believe is missing is a long-term set of guidelines or strategic plan that describes in a
meaningful way the cultivation of potential diverse board members.” One member of senior
leadership, S13, echoed the notion that a rubric of board experience and qualifications would
encourage a focus on racial and ethnic board diversity: “In other words, [the rubric] would focus
on all the things we believe are important to a great board member, to our oversight, fiduciary
and governance functions, not just let’s find someone highly successful and well-known in the
community.”
Although there was a lack of procedural knowledge regarding many of the processes and
procedures described above, a significant number of participants recognized the importance of
targeting improved board diversity in the strategic plan. Five participants (43%) indicated that
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 126
the strategic plan should be fortified to expressly call out with explicit goals the need for
improved board racial and ethnic diversity. As noted by S8,
If you look at the strategic plan, only a few references to diversity exist, and they broadly
relate to serving the mission and community engagement. It doesn’t really talk much
about board racial diversity or staff racial diversity, and we only have a few racially
diverse candidates on our board.
Another member of the executive committee, S12, expressed similar views, stating,
“Intentionality means action and a concrete plan, not just occasionally talking about something.”
Other board members acknowledged, upon prompting, that current committee procedures
and structures need coordination and oversight from the executive committee. As S7 stated, “it’s
probably a good idea to facilitate the nomination committee regarding what its purpose is and the
criteria for selection.” Additionally, when prompted, approximately half of the participants
believed that external experts and consultants would constitute a best practice to improve board
racial and ethnic diversity. S10 noted the potential benefit of external expertise to the board,
observing, “I would say some sensitivity training for the board is a good idea, particularly when
it comes to unconscious bias, with our board is key.” Two board members expressed some
hesitation about diversity consultants, noting, “they have to be very deliberate and focused” (S1)
lest they “serve no purpose or backfire” (S10).
Consistent with the expectations of the conceptual framework regarding limited
procedural knowledge of diversity best practices, almost all participants reported there was
virtually no discussion of improving racial and ethnic diversity at board and committee meetings.
According to S12, other pressing matters, including issues about “finance, governance, HR
management, raising capital, the site master plan, and the strategic plan,” were the topics that
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 127
dominated the discussions. This significant limitation in procedural knowledge awareness is
consistent with participants’ limited knowledge of the importance of diversity agenda setting and
diversity improvement as a board governance function. As S1 stated, “There is only a rare, active
discussion about [racial/ethnic diversity], and when it is discussed, people are perplexed about
what they can do about it.” S13 stated such discussions typically occur only when “I raise the
issue based on an external stakeholder raising a concern or something reported in the trade press,
or when [your newly established diversity and inclusion committee] brings it up.” S7 also noted
the absence of discussion as a procedural gap at board and committee meetings: “Most of the
conversation is about a [prospective] board member’s willingness to serve on the board, and their
technical or professional skills, as opposed to how to recruit diverse candidates.” One participant,
S8, went so far as to say he had not heard any board member “speak directly about why
increasing board diversity matters or was important.” Other participants, like S10, only recalled
hearing diversity discussed in connection with museum exhibitions or “a very occasional passing
reference.”
Table 9 identifies the themes and concepts probed during interviews and document
analysis that implicate a lack of procedural knowledge of strategies, processes, and best practices
associated with improving board diversity. The table also identifies participants who articulated
some familiarity with such procedures as elucidated in the literature.
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 128
Table 9
Summary of Concepts Probed Regarding Procedural Knowledge Influences
Participant Knowledge
of diversity
best practices
regarding
recruitment
and
nomination
processes
Knowledge
of potential
uses for
diversity
experts/
consultants
Confirmed
limited board
and
committee
focus on
board racial
diversity
Knowledge
of use of
rubrics,
diversity,
inclusion
mission
statements,
diversity
action and
strategic
plans
Knowledge
of agenda
setting and
discussion at
board,
executive,
nominating
committee
Suggested
use of
diversity and
inclusion and
unconscious
bias training
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
S11
S12
S13
S14
Metacognitive knowledge. Consistent with predicted outcomes in the study’s conceptual
framework, fewer than half of the participants demonstrated knowledge of the role unconscious
bias may play in affecting their predispositions about racial/ethnic board recruiting and
nomination outcomes. As noted, metacognition allows a person to reflect on their learning
practices and cognitive performance and identify contextual limitations that can impact
performance outcomes (Baker, 2006; R. E. Mayer, 2011). One such limitation relates to potential
biases from unconscious views that may adversely impact diversity recruitment and nomination.
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 129
(Banaji & Greenwald, 2013; Moule, 2009). While several participants demonstrated a basic
familiarity with the term unconscious bias, most lacked familiarity with how an ongoing
reflective process could potentially limit implicit biases affecting board decisions and
nomination processes.
Over half of the participants expressed a basic familiarity with the concept of
unconscious bias and could articulate a working definition. A typical expression of the concept
was articulated by S1, who noted, “You can have a person who cares deeply about gender and
racial diversity, but when you probe about friends and colleagues, he only spends time with
White folks.” Similarly, S3 articulated that implicit bias is problematic, “Not because [people
are] affirmatively prejudiced, not because [they are] bigoted, but just because people are
comfortable with what they’re familiar with and that may serve to exclude others.” When asked
if unconscious bias might be a factor limiting MMA board diversity, S1 responded, “I think that
both consciously and unconsciously we are focused on getting the money in, our number one
priority, and we may assume White members have better fundraising ties.” Recognizing that
unconscious bias may limit diversity, Stakeholder 13 (S13) said, “That brings a mindset, a
sameness, which isn’t always bad, but that sameness does not promote change. We rarely ever
take a chance on someone from a diverse background.”
S3, who identifies as a person of color, described unconscious bias in this way:
People have certain subconscious assumptions, attitudes, beliefs that create basic
stereotypes. Like women are not good at math, or women are not aggressive, or
that minorities are not ambitious. Most White people are privileged in our society
at an early age but are not aware of it because they don’t face feeling people react
to them based on their race.
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 130
S3 continued, “Most people are comfortable socializing with people they know. That they may
be more comfortable with other White board members than racially diverse board members is
intuitive to me.” S7 expressed virtually identical sentiments, noting, “unconscious bias is very
much at play in the world and on our board, not just in terms of diversity, but also as to wealth,
income, and social status.” Similarly, S4, who also identifies as a person of color, noted, “There
are a cadre of folks that have that country club mentality of the board, and I feel it.” In terms of
board member awareness, S4 continued, “They are not aware that they’re more comfortable with
the people they know, more than people outside their social circle.” S7 expressly articulated the
linkage between unconscious attitudes, a lack of awareness, and board nomination outcomes,
noting,
I think it impacts who we go after recruiting-wise, and it has been serving as an invisible
ceiling. I don’t think people [on the board] or on the nominating committee are aware of
this, or how board members actually recommend potential candidates.
The majority of board members (78.6%) did not engage in self-reflection in mitigating
the effects of unconscious bias in recruiting or other contexts, validating the conceptual
framework’s assumption of the need for greater knowledge of unconscious bias. Only four
stakeholders (28%) unpromoted identified unconscious bias training and self-reflection as
important factors impacting recruiting and nomination outcomes. Table 10 identifies the themes
and concepts probed during interviews and document analysis that implicate metacognitive
influences associated with improving board diversity. The table identifies participants who
articulated familiarity with the listed themes and constructs as elucidated in the literature.
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 131
Table 10
Summary of Concepts Probed Regarding Metacognitive Knowledge Influences
Board
Member
Knowledge
that
metacognitive
reflection has
the potential
to mitigate
implicit bias
Articulated
a working
definition
of implicit
bias
Participant
received
prior
diversity or
unconscious
bias training
Participant
self-reflects
about how
their own
implicit
bias may
affect
board
outcomes
Participant noted
nomination
recommendations
often based on
inner-circle,
economic, social,
professional status
Participant
observed
nominations
affected by
limited access to
underrepresented
communities
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
S11
S12
S13
S14
Artifact analysis. Analysis of an extensive repository of artifacts included viewing
artwork and exhibits of many cultures on display at MMA and related posters, pamphlets,
photographs, and other promotional material at the museum. Artifact analysis provided limited
evidence-based data directly addressing conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge.
To the extent that images reflect snapshots of the museum and the broader community it serves,
many pieces and photographs support MMA’s desire to extend community engagement through
broad community outreach and multicultural exhibitions. Although much of the artifact
symbology was abstract, it was consistent in reflecting MMA and board values supporting
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 132
openness to expanding board racial and ethnic diversity. Indeed, as noted below, S10 articulated
his view that the richly eclectic array of artwork and exhibitions at MMA reflect in their own
right a deep form of intrinsic inclusivity and multiculturalism.
In terms of MMA’s collections and exhibitions, artifact analysis revealed a diverse array
of artworks and sculptures coming from numerous countries, cultures, and ethnicities from
different periods of human history. The researcher’s in-person inspection of artifacts, and a
review of photos of art exhibitions and other museum events, demonstrated that people of
different races, ages, genders, and backgrounds attended museum events. A broad array of
cultural expression is reflected in the permanent collection. The collection showcases an array of
works inclusive of a multiplicity of cultures and reflective of diverse exhibitions, programs,
accessibility, and artistic scholarship. Artifacts represent an expansive range from Samurai-era
Japan to more contemporary Korean, Southeast Asian, and Islamic art, to contemporary African
American discourse and works from ancient China and nineteenth-century Indian photography.
Many MMA marketing materials and brochures have photographs reflecting multicultural
attendance and interaction with staff, visitors, and patrons from varying racial and ethnic
communities at museum events, reflecting core values embracing inclusivity. There are
numerous artifacts represented that disproportionately reflect Euro-centric and male-centric
work, which is common for many museums founded later in 20th century America. However, as
noted by S10, while sometimes others can view such artifacts as supporting an “art palace on the
hill mythology,” it “also reflects multicultural acceptance.” Moreover, artifacts reflect examples
of non-Western art and pieces that prominently showcase artists of color.
Several weeks after his interview, S10 called the researcher to discuss the subject of
inclusivity at the museum, as reflected in MMA’s artifacts, artworks, and exhibitions. The
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 133
researcher asked the participant to memorialize his thoughts in an email for potential inclusion in
the study findings. The excerpts that follow are from the participant’s reflective comments. In
articulating his view that MMA’s culture of diversity and inclusion is vibrant and broadly
reflected in the paintings and pieces on display at the museum, S10 stated,
As part of a pluralistic culture, people have different lenses on inclusion and diversity. In
other words, there’s pluralism about pluralism. These different lenses exist across the full
spectrum of viewpoints. For example, consider the White Jewish student who doesn’t
“look” diverse but who has very inclusive outlooks because of her family’s Holocaust
experience. Or consider the Appalachian White student and the Black student who both
experienced non-inclusion in the form of the underfunded [public schools] they attended
and socio-economic inequality in education.
While S10 acknowledged he did not intend to understate the “important need to make progress in
board member inclusion,” he suggested that “the fundamentally inclusive nature of the artwork at
the Museum (and by extension the Board) is reflected” by its artifacts. S10 observed,
A central factor in my life that has shaped my values about inclusion has been [my]
lifelong involvement in diverse art communities. The creative arts, from an artist’s
perspective, have for centuries been powerful shapers of culture and people. For example,
[MMA] has masterpieces on display by an [prominent] African American (a slave
descendant) landscape painter and an abolitionist and MMA’s showing of a monumental
[African American Art Exhibit] evidences, once again, the way masterpieces both include
and transcend the maker of the work. A vast amount of [MMA’s] collection itself is
powerfully inclusive.
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 134
At a minimum, the participant’s observations express his view that great masterpieces are
inclusive in universal human ways and that certain board members care about the need for
diversity and inclusion at the museum. These participant observations are further support that the
MMA culture itself is supportive of diversity and inclusion, but that KMO barriers may be
curtailing improvement.
Document analysis. Documents analyzed include three years of board meeting minutes,
as well as minutes covering the same period from the nominating, executive, and diversity
committees, yielding hundreds of pages of data. Additional documents include a 378-page
compendium accreditation materials and business records (totaling approximately 800 pages of
documents; see Appendix E). With certain notable exceptions described below, document
analysis revealed only minimal mention of processes, practices, procedures, or discussions
related to improving board racial and ethnic diversity.
Other than several concrete goals and activities identified in MMA’s 2016 diversity plan,
and two board-related diversity references in MMA’s five-year strategic plan, the documents
rarely reference MMA diversity and inclusion activities. None of the documents reference any
social policy or utility value benefit justifications associated with improving board diversity. The
documents also do not reference any best practices under consideration for improving MMA
board racial and ethnic diversity. While the MMA strategic plan articulates MMA’s strong
commitment to diversity at all levels of museum operations, most references are aspirational
without identified goals or action items. For example, although MMA’s thoughtful five-year
strategic plan speaks to “becoming a hub for dialogue and innovative programming that serves
the needs of the museum’s diverse communities,” there is no articulated direct linkage to staff
and board racial and ethnic diversity (MMA, 2016, p. 6). The plan identifies a desire to “actively
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 135
eliminate barriers—economic, social, physical and psychological—to bringing people and art
together” but fails to callout concrete action items for improving board or staff diversity (MMA,
2016, p. 6). To further expand community impact and outreach, the strategic plan identifies the
need for exhibitions and public programming to “educate and build community through
culturally rich and diverse experiences” (MMA, 2016, p. 7). In making that goal a reality, the
plan calls for a “3-year exhibition calendar that reflects diversity as well as scholarly appeal to
educate and build community” (MMA, 2016, p. 7).
The strategic plan contains two significant references to improving staff and board
diversity. In the first reference, MMA expresses its desire to “represent our community through
greater diversity on our board and staff” (MMA, 2016, p. 14). In another section, MMA
articulates the plan to “invest in community engagement resources and staffing” (MMA, 2016, p.
8). While the board has not yet allocated funds to that effort, the executive director has made
clear that planned fundraising activities are designed to obtain those resources (MMA, 2019). In
terms of a desire for increased organizational diversity, MMA is intent on creating “cross-
departmental teams to execute the strategic plan and to integrate the museum’s mission and
ideology” in “hiring criteria for all museum positions” (MMA, 2016, p. 8). The plan does not
discuss what benefits flow from these desired outcomes, what resources will be deployed upon
funding, and what procedural best practices will be utilized for achieving desired outcomes.
Significantly, however, after completion of the study, MMA approved an internship and
scholarship program targeted at improving staff racial and ethnic diversity:
We believe the staff and volunteers who serve the [MMA] should reflect the
demographic vibrancy of our city. Greater racial and ethnic diversity is an area that we,
and many museums, are dedicated to improving. Your museum is taking a broader view
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 136
of cultivating future staff and volunteers with an eye toward increased diversity and
inclusion. The museum will design and execute a mix of paid co-op and internship
positions with a specific focus on recruiting and training diverse talent to introduce them
to professional opportunities in the museum sector and cultivate the next generation of
museum professionals. (MMA, 2020)
The MMA 2016 diversity plan sets more ambitious and concrete goals and
recommendations for improving staff and board diversity. In stating that “[MMA] actively
embraces diversity as a key initiative and a business imperative integral to all aspects of the
organization’s culture and daily operations,” the plan called for “sustaining African American
participation in the Board of Trustees at no less than 15% of membership” and increasing
“involvement of Asian participation to no less than 5% of board membership.” Additionally, the
plan recommends an “increase representation of the Hispanic communities to attain 5% of board
membership” and to “sustain at least 20% African Americans in board leadership” (MMA,
2016). Like the strategic plan, there is no discussion of benefits or identified best practices. In
responding to a question about whether the board ever acted on these diversity plan goals, S4,
who was a then member of the nominating committee, noted, “it fell on deaf ears because the
board was working on other pressing matters at the time, so nothing happened.”
In the aggregate, the data analysis of the documents reinforces participant findings from
interviews that validate a lack of adequate conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge
related to improving racial and ethnic board diversity. The absence of a systematic, sustained and
focused discussion in the documents regarding the need and importance of diversity (including
extensive board and committee minutes) served as a critical data point in supporting interview
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 137
findings and confirming the conceptual framework’s working theory that the MMA board’s
organizational climate is not adequately focused on improving diversity and inclusion.
Knowledge results summary. Knowledge results validated that board members would
benefit from enhanced conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge associated with
board racial and ethnic diversity and inclusion. Most board members were unaware of the
decision-making, operational, fundraising, and stakeholder benefits associated with increased
board heterogeneity. Most board members acknowledged that more concrete information
confirming such benefits would affect whether they would increase their focus on diversity in
assessing completing board priorities. The needs assessment of the study’s conceptual
framework also confirmed that most board members lacked knowledge of recognized strategies,
procedures, and best practices associated with improving board diversity. Consistent with
predicted outcomes, most participants were unaware of the role awareness and self-reflection play
in mitigating unconscious bias, which may affect their predispositions about recruitment and
nomination priorities.
MMA board members’ cognizance of these knowledge influences is correlated to their
motivation and their awareness of governance functions, behaviors, and organizational
performance (Clark & Estes, 2008). Separate but interrelated motivation influences assumed to be
affecting board member behavior regarding prioritizing board diversity will comprise the next
section of the results.
Motivation Results
The study evaluated three assumed motivational needs through interviews, document
review, and artifact analysis. Through interviews, the researcher evaluated MMA leaders’ and
board members’ motivations in addressing racial and ethnic diversity as an important
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 138
organizational performance goal. This evaluation included three components of motivation
assumed in the conceptual framework to be barriers to improving MMA board racial diversity:
(a) attribution theory (M-AT), or the belief of MMA board members and leaders that improving
diversity is attainable and part of their board governance functions; (b) expectancy-value theory
(M-EVT), or the appreciation MMA board members and leaders have for the utility value of
improving board racial and ethnic diversity; and (c) self-efficacy theory (M-SE), or the belief of
MMA board members and leaders that they are capable of being effective diversity recruiters.
Results validated or partially validated the assumed motivational needs in the conceptual
framework in each of the three areas under study. The majority of board members did not
without prompting regard improving racial and ethnic board diversity as a governance function.
Board members’ priorities were largely motivated not by attainment value or attributions
associated with internal or external forces, or self-perception of their role as MMA board
members, but by the saliency of matters perceived as most pressing. However, most board
members indicated that, if the board identified racial and ethnic diversity as a strategic
imperative, they would intensify their focus and view improvement as a core responsibility. The
majority of participants stated that, if external shareholders expressly tied diversity improvement
to financial support, or imposed aggressive penalties for suboptimal performance, most members
would view diversity as necessarily implicating governance obligations.
MMA leaders, on the other hand, were more focused on board diversity from an
attainment perspective and viewed diversity as a core leadership responsibility. Both leaders
reported regularly conferring with colleagues at similar organizations about the importance of
improving staff and board diversity. Additionally, both leaders stated they regularly consult
industry reports and publications about museum diversity and confer internally about the subject.
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 139
Similarly, MMA senior leaders regularly engage with members of the newly formed diversity
committee on diversity and inclusion issues. Based on a lack of appreciation of utility value
concepts, most board members did not appear strongly motivated to prioritize board racial and
ethnic diversity. While some board members recognized certain utility value concepts, the level
of appreciation was abstract and not linked to improved decision-making, operational successes,
or stakeholder benefits.
Board members provided mixed responses regarding self-efficacy and their self-
perceptions about whether they could be effective diversity recruiters. Almost half of the
participants believed there was a paucity of available diverse candidates and acknowledged that
perception might limit their motivation to participate actively in diversity recruiting.
Additionally, approximately 35% of stakeholders (5 of 14 participants) believe that recruiting
outcomes are uncertain because potential board candidates of color may be overextended by
serving on multiple boards. For example, S11 noted that “many diverse candidates are serving on
multiple boards, so it’s not clear how interested they will be to serve on the [MMA] board, or
how active they would be.” S1 raised a similar concern, noting that “some believe potential
minority candidates are overtaxed serving on so many boards, as diverse candidates are wanted.
A number of folks believe we have a limited pool of diverse candidates.” However, those who
believed they could be effective did not see external barriers as insurmountable and were much
more likely to participate in recruitment and nomination processes. Table 11 summarizes the
concepts probed respecting motivation influences.
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 140
Table 11
Summary of Presumed Motivation Needs and Evaluation Results
Assumed motivation
influence
Motivation influence
assessment
Validation
(M-AT) Attributions—Board
members need to believe that
improving racial and ethnic diversity
is part of their governance function
and that they can be effective
diversity recruiters, despite a
potentially limited candidate pool.
Interviews, document/artifact
review, data analysis.
Partially
Validated
(M-EVT) Expectancy Value—Board
members need to appreciate the
utility value of racial and ethnic
diversity for improving MMA’s
operational success, stakeholder
support, and community
engagement.
Interviews, document/artifact
review, data analysis.
Validated
(M-SE) Self-Efficacy—Board
members need to believe they can
become effective diversity recruiters
and improve board racial/ethnic
diversity.
Interviews, document/artifact
review, data analysis.
Partially
Validated
*Motivation-Attribution Theory (M-AT); Motivation-Expectancy-Value Theory (M-EVT);
Motivation-Self-Efficacy (M-SE)
Attribution theory. Participants were asked a series of questions regarding external and
uncontrollable factors potentially impacting diversity recruiting, and whether they perceived
improving board racial and ethnic diversity as a governance function. If MMA board members
and leaders view improving racial and ethnic diversity as a board governance function,
attainment value principles and attribution theory suggest that they will be more motivated to
fulfill this function. Additionally, attribution theory would predict a lack of motivation if board
members believe that external forces limit their ability to successfully recruit qualified board
members of color (Rueda, 2011). Data analysis of documents and interviews revealed that most
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 141
stakeholders viewed strategic planning, fundraising, and financial oversight as primary fiduciary
obligations but had not reflected on the governance implications of improving board racial and
ethnic diversity. In terms of external forces at play, as discussed in detail below in the self-
efficacy section, five participants (approximately 36%) perceived a limited pool of qualified
candidates and other factors as barriers to successful diversity recruiting.
In reflecting on whether promoting MMA board diversity is a governance obligation,
several participants captured the sentiments of Stakeholder 11 (S11), who stated, “express
discussion of the reach of fiduciary oversight is not often discussed, and there is not a
comprehensive written description of duties.” S1 similarly indicated he had not previously
considered whether diversity was a board governance function:
Racial diversity in any institution is not going to happen unless the person at the top is
absolutely committed to it, period. I think most board members are bombarded by
competing priorities, much of which relates to the financial health [of the museum], so
they may not reflect as much on whether diversity is a top priority, so we might not [give]
it enough attention. The biggest concerns of any board member are financial health and
diversity is much lower on the totem pole. And it’s like Maslow’s hierarchy of needs: you
need food and water and shelter before other comforts. (S1)
The majority of participants identified financial oversight and more pressing operational issues
as core governance responsibilities. Stakeholder 9 (S9) noted, “In terms of governance functions,
I view my board responsibility as a fiduciary responsibility to make sure obviously we have
funds to think about those kinds of things.” Other board members, when promoted, understood
how diversity would implicate board governance but failed to articulate why diversity mattered:
“I would think it’s a governance function, because I feel that it’s tied into the mission and the
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 142
values of what the institution is, so the health of the institution depends on that” (S7). Although
Stakeholder 5 (S5) did not initially suggest increasing diversity was a governance function, upon
prompting he said, “I would think so, if diversity played a significant role in improving funding
opportunities and community engagement.”
While some stakeholders associated improving diversity with fiduciary responsibility,
they failed to identify any linkage to their motivation. S1 equated board governance with a duty
to resolve competing resources, where the financial health of the organization is “promoted at the
expense of other needs.” Stakeholders mostly identified governance as related to the board’s
“health and vitality” (S13), making “appropriate decisions and [ensuring] that input occurs about
hard issues” (S6), and setting the “strategic plan for what’s going on” (S4). Only five of 14
stakeholders (35%) directly identified improving racial and ethnic diversity as a formal
governance function, and three of those individuals served on the diversity and inclusion
committee.
Consistent with attribution theory, if board members gain greater conceptual and
procedural knowledge and view diversity as important to the health and vitality of the
organization, they may be more motivated from an oversight perspective to prioritize change.
Many stakeholders noted that, while they were uncertain about the formal governance
implications of diversity, additional information on its value would likely significantly move
them. For example, S6 noted, “I think some people just intuitively get it, other people may need
to be shown the way, [to] connect the dots for them.” S4 expressed similar sentiments, noting, “I
believe the board could be powerfully affected if they knew the lack of the board’s diversity was
impacting [MMA] fundraising capabilities.”
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 143
Given that only 50% of board members view improving board diversity as an express or
indirect governance function, and because of the contingent nature of certain of the responses,
the researcher views this influence as only partially validated.
Expectancy value. Stakeholder interviews validated the conceptual framework
assumption that lack of appreciation of the expectancy/utility value of racial and ethnic diversity
was a barrier to board member motivation in improving board representativeness. As noted
previously, interviews revealed that the majority of stakeholders have minimal knowledge of the
benefits of improved racial and ethnic diversity. Without a deep and comprehensive
understanding of the utility value of diversity, or a belief that improving diversity is important as
a matter of social policy, expectancy theory anticipates that board member motivation will be
diluted by other perceived competing priorities (Eccles, 2006; R. E. Mayer, 2011). A statement
S3 made supported this assertion:
[Board members] might not champion it because it’s [not] the most important thing to
them in their belief system or personal priorities. If [they] can see it will affect funding,
then absolutely. It’s going to be very, very important. For me, I will be motivated based
on business incentives where you can show me racial diversity will affect my financial
returns.
Other stakeholders articulated a similar link between diversity and its expectancy value, but the
concept of utility was primarily limited to the fiduciary and operational concerns of the board.
For example, S11 discussed utility value in the context of positive and negative incentives that
might implicate diversity but no other benefits: “Yeah, I think the utility value comes up and it is
linked to our largest rate single funder.” S1 and S10 recognized that increased diversity added
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 144
value in certain decision-making contexts but did not articulate a general understanding of
diversity utility value.
In responding to interview questions regarding the ideal background of board candidates,
many participants focused on professional status, corporate and social affiliations, substantive
experience, and net worth. When asked what the most important characteristics were of current
or prospective board members, S11 stated, “I think the goal would be to try and get the smartest
people in the room with different professional experiences. That would be my bias.” S8 was
especially focused on judgment, noting, “Fiduciary minded would be number one. And I think
the ability to be objective and understand what our mission is.” Similarly, S5 thought a good
MMA board member was someone who knew and “cared about art and who could help with
fundraising and networking.” The majority of board members failed to identify social policy
reasons, stakeholder concerns, or diversity-based benefits as a significant factor in selecting
board candidates. Instead, as predicted by the conceptual framework, board members identified
more conventional factors related to financial and business acumen, fundraising capabilities, and
social cachet.
Lack of conceptual knowledge resulted in limited expectancy, particularly given most
board members did not engage in an analysis of the comparative tradeoffs and benefits of
focusing on diversity versus other competing priorities.
Self-efficacy. In an effort to test conceptual framework assumptions regarding self-
efficacy serving as a barrier to diversity improvement, participants were asked questions about
beliefs in their ability to be effective diversity recruiters, either currently or with training. Self-
efficacy principles strongly support the idea that individuals who do not believe they can be
effective recruiters, or who conclude that external factors limit their ability to recruit successfully
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 145
diverse candidates, will lack the motivation to prioritize diversity recruiting. The converse is also
true: board members with high levels of self-efficacy are much more likely to volunteer to focus
on diversity recruiting and other initiatives.
Participants provided varying responses to questions based on their particularized
interests in diversity as well as identified self-efficacy concerns. Some board members and
leaders felt they were or could be very effective diversity recruiters. For example, S3 thought he
was effective based on his love of the organization and “the importance of recruiting.” Similarly,
S4 thought it was important to strive to be a “champion of diversity” because it “should matter to
the organization.” Other participants thought they could be effective recruiters because of “their
natural ability to engage people” (S8). Those stakeholders who believed without prompting they
could be effective diversity recruiters (4 of 14 participants, or 28%) acknowledged they were
“tapped into diverse communities in the city and could bring candidates who were not only
African American but who belonged to other communities and ethnic minority groups” (S8).
Four participants (28%) were unsure as to whether they would be effective diversity
recruiters. Five participants had doubts about their effectiveness, partially based on perceptions
about a limited pool of candidates or their lack of networking connection within diverse
communities. As predicted by the conceptual framework, several board members lacked self-
efficacy based on “external factors” they believed limited their chances to recruit diverse
candidates. Several MMA board members cited the limited number of racially and ethnically
diverse people in the community “who might meet historical criteria” for board candidacy (S9).
S4 attributed recruiting challenges to the fact that qualified diverse candidates already sat on
many organizations’ boards and may not have the time or resources to serve on an additional
board:
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 146
Part of the issue is when you have a list of [potential board candidates of color] like that,
a very limited amount of African American diverse people who are there, who are
probably on another five or six or seven or eight boards or whatever it is. And I don’t
know if they have time. You really have to think about expanding your list based on that
capacity.
Two stakeholders linked unconscious bias to their perceived inability to be effective
diversity recruiters. These stakeholders did not necessarily believe that the pool of qualified
diverse candidates in the community was limited but, instead, thought their lack of networking
connections with candidates of color was an impediment. As stated by S11, “I think unconscious
bias [and limited access to the community] is a potential barrier.” S8 felt that “networking
[occurs] in a bubble,” which leads board members to see the candidate pool as small even if the
concern is illusory. Expressing a similar sentiment, S5 stated,
I think the majority of the people on the board don’t know many Black folks. That may
make them uncomfortable to recruit. They don’t know many people who are ethnically
diverse. People tend to associate with the people they know and are comfortable with.
There is no racial animus here, but it’s simply human nature to spend time with people
like you.
Other participants deemphasized the potential of unconscious bias and believed there was simply
a limited pool of qualified diverse board candidates. For example, S1 expressed the view that
there was a “paucity of candidates in this region.” S9 expressed similar sentiments, stating, “As
you know, there’s kind of a limited pool if you’re trying to go diverse.” Two out of three racially
diverse board members did not believe the candidate pool was limited and believed that “other
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 147
factors” were at play, mostly based on “intentionality” and a “need to prioritize the board’s
focus” on diversity (S4).
One additional barrier to diversity recruiting was mentioned by several stakeholders
related to the financial requirements associated with annual board giving. Stakeholder 14 (S14)
stated improving racial and ethnic diversity was partially limited by the MMA board’s inability
to look at candidates beyond their ability to afford the annual dues. S12 agreed, noting,
I would argue, and this is an issue as it relates to diversity, is that the primary role that
management is interested in is financial contributions. That dramatically limits the
population that you’d be interested in. The board is overly focused on recruiting high net
worth status people or well-known individuals.
S11 also noted that dues payments and other financial contribution requirements are an
impediment and disincentive for certain prospective diverse candidates, particularly those
already serving on multiple boards:
I think one of the things that I’ve struggled with, and I’ve talked about it openly, is the
notion that the expectation is to give [a substantial amount] per trustee. And that, by
definition, that precludes those that don’t have that amount of wealth to give personally.
So that’s a filter, or a barrier, in and of itself.
Table 12 identifies the concepts and themes associated with motivational influences.
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 148
Table 12
Summary of Concepts Probed Regarding Motivational Influences
Participant Participant
knowledge of
any aspect of
board
benefits or
utility value
Participant
when
prompted
attributes
board
diversity as a
core
governance
function
Participant
believes
diversity
improvement
limited by
competing
priorities
Participant
knowledge of
utility value
will facilitate
board
prioritization
of diversity
Participant
can be an
effective
diversity
recruiter
Recruiting
impeded by
external
factors (e.g.,
limited
candidate
pool or
serving on
multiple
boards)
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
S11
S12
S13
S14
Document analysis. Of the hundreds of pages of documents reviewed and analyzed as
part of this study and gap analysis, the researcher only found and coded portions of eight
documents expressly related to motivation influences. As mentioned previously, the 2016
diversity report identified the need for diversity improvement, although there was no express
discussion of MMA board benefits, utility value, or stakeholder implications (MMA, 2016).
Similarly, the strategic plan refers to expanding MMA’s community outreach and diversifying
the board, but there are no references to benefits associated with such action (MMA, 2016). The
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 149
reaccreditation documents contained four coded references, potentially implicating attainment
and attribution theory, but they merely comprised generic descriptions of board governance and
MMA’s bylaws. For example, in the trustee responsibilities section of the reaccreditation report,
the document states, “The [MMA] trustees must be loyal to the purpose of the Museum and
should always seek to understand and to act in accordance with its policies and in a manner that
is supportive of its mission” (MMA, 2019). There is no discussion of improving racial and ethnic
diversity as part of mission fulfillment or board governance functions.
Efforts to recruit diverse board candidates were mentioned at four board meetings in the
last three years, according to meeting minutes, while the board’s diversity and inclusion
initiatives were discussed more frequently. For example, on one occasion, the chair of the
diversity committee reported to the board that “the committee met on October 20th and reviewed
the 2010 goals set forth by the committee and their need for updating.” The chair also
“highlighted that [art] organizations had been invited to this [multicultural] event, which was a
great success” (MMA, 2015). On another occasion, the chair of the nominating committee
reported on the status of board recruiting and noted, “they were particularly looking to add
diversity to [the board]” (MMA, 2016). In another board meeting, the diversity committee
reported about a “diversity vendor fair” and that “the nominating committee is working on a list
of available potential diverse Board nominees and working with the nominating committee to
contact these individuals” (MMA, 2016). That list, appended to the previously identified
diversity report, was generated by the 2016 diversity committee. The following year, the chair of
the nominating committee acknowledged reviewing the “list of individuals recommended by the
Diversity Committee of diverse individuals to cultivate for the Board of Trustees,” and “asked
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 150
the Board to review this list and return with any notes on personal contacts with names on this
list (MMA, 2017).
The strongest indication of a desire to significantly improve the board’s racial and ethnic
diversity occurred in October of 2017 when the board chair announced that a new diversity and
inclusion initiative would be led by a board member of color. Although there was no discussion
of the reasons for or potential benefits associated with this effort, the activity demonstrates that
board leadership believes board diversity should be a priority. The chair noted that, while the
2016 diversity committee had “been engaged on this, they have not been able to achieve a
holistic approach to diversity throughout the museum.” The board member of color designated to
lead the effort stated his goals in this initiative “were to create a vision for this year, review the
current diversity goals and how they might be improved, and attend board committee meetings
throughout the fiscal year to see how they may be thinking about inclusion in their work”
(MMA, 2017). In December of 2017, the board chair attended a nominating committee meeting
and “recommended the committee discuss the diverse needs of the Board at a future meeting,”
including “the importance of all different aspects of diversity, such as income, expertise, and
cultural background” (MMA, 2017). Unfortunately, before the initiative could get underway, the
trustee leading this effort moved to another city and resigned from the board.
Recruiting diverse candidates came up over 12 times at the executive and nominating
committees, but there was no substantive discussion of diversity benefits, stakeholder
implications, or diversity best practices. For example, there are six nominating committee
meetings where a “slate of candidates” is “being considered by the committee to develop a long-
term cultivation plan for diversity” (MMA, 2018). The nominating committee meeting minutes
also note one board member’s suggestion to establish “a financial goal for the Board, so that a
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 151
wider range of candidates can be considered who would otherwise be unable to meet the [dues
and financial] requirements” (MMA, 2018). This statement is consistent with several participant
comments, like S1, who noted that since “potential diverse candidates serve on multiple boards,
the financial obligation to join the [MMA] board might be a huge burden.”
Motivation results summary. Board members and senior leaders are proprietary, fully
engaged, and actively support MMA’s mission. The data demonstrate participants consistently
and diligently seek to optimize the financial, operational, and strategic objectives that serve the
best interests of the organization. However, as predicted by the conceptual framework, the
absence of strong conceptual and procedural knowledge limits board members’ and MMA
leaders’ diversity focus in favor of other competing priorities. Additionally, because many board
members historically have not viewed diversity as a core governance function, they focus with
less intensity on optimizing board diversity. Participants provided mixed attribution and
attainment responses regarding whether diversity recruiting was a critical aspect of their board
responsibilities. Given the variability and contingent nature of participant responses, the
attribution influence was only partially validated. Based on perceived internal and external
factors, participants also provided mixed responses regarding whether they could be effective
diversity recruiters. Given the nature and variability of responses, while self-efficacy was a
motivational factor for some participants, the influence was only partially validated.
In addition to board member knowledge and motivation, analysis of organizational
influences impacting MMA’s ability to effect diversity outcomes is important to gap analysis. An
organization’s cultural climate (including processes, structures, and initiatives), is critical to
meeting organizational performance and operational goals (Clark & Estes, 2008; Schein, 2017).
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 152
The organizational influences assumed to be impacting attainment of the MMA board’s diversity
objectives are evaluated in the following section.
Organizational Results
The study evaluated a combination of data sources to examine four identified
organizational influences and needs suspected to either facilitate or limit MMA from optimizing
board racial and ethnic diversity. Based on an analysis of participant interviews, documents, and
artifact analysis, the review evaluated the need for MMA’s organizational environment to more
fully align expressed and demonstrated commitments with diversity empowerment (OCS-A), the
need for thoughtful leadership focus on diversity and inclusion and potential unconscious bias
(OCS-DL), the need to devote resources/budget structures, training, policies, and procedures to
facilitate better recruiting and nominating outcomes (OCS-DR-P), and the organizational need
for strategic diversity management policies, procedures, and practices (OC-DM).
Consistent with the third research question and the study’s conceptual framework, the
data suggests that, while the MMA board culture embraces diversity and inclusion as core
values, there is a disparity between embedded culture and manifested climate. Concerning the
organizational environment, although MMA’s cultural norms and shared values and beliefs may
support diversity, the findings suggest that the climate is lacking in reinforcing diversity’s
importance as an organizational priority. An organizational environment supportive of diversity
through processes, structures, and strategic focus is critically important to improving board
diversity (BoardSource, 2017a, 2017b). Without artifacts, structures, and processes that
consistently demonstrate diversity is a priority, institutions will fail to deploy adequate resources
and effort to support change initiatives (Schneider et al., 1996).
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 153
The findings also indicate that MMA would benefit from implementing diversity best
practices and targeted recruiting and nominating processes for improving board racial and ethnic
diversity. Most participants confirmed limited or no diversity/unconscious bias training, a
minimal focus on improving board diversity, no routine diversity agenda setting, and virtually no
discussion of diversity at board or committee meetings. Additionally, while most participants
believe the board has dedicated and gifted leaders, they are typically focused on other perceived
pressing priorities at the expense of focusing on diversity. Finally, study findings indicate that
leadership communication is limited in expressing the importance of diversity and inclusion to
the board and key external stakeholders. Table 13 provides a summary of the assertions aligned
to each of these needs and influences.
Table 13
Summary of Presumed Organizational Needs and Evaluation Results
Assumed organizational
influence
Organizational
type
Organizational influence
assessment
Validation
(OCS-A) The MMA
organizational environment
needs to align expressed and
demonstrated commitments
to diversity.
Cultural setting Interviews,
document/artifact review,
data analysis.
Validated
(OCS-DL) The MMA
organization needs to devote
resources/budget, structures,
training, policies, and
procedures to facilitate better
recruiting and nominating
outcomes.
Cultural setting Interviews,
document/artifact review,
data analysis.
Validated
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 154
Table 13, continued
Assumed organizational
influence
Organizational
type
Organizational influence
assessment
Validation
(OCS-DR-P) The MMA
organization needs thoughtful
leadership focus on diversity
and inclusion and
unconscious bias.
Cultural setting Interviews,
document/artifact review,
data analysis.
Validated
(OCS-DM) The MMA
organization needs strategic
diversity management
policies, procedures, and
practices.
Cultural setting Interviews,
document/artifact review,
data analysis.
Validated
*Organizational Culture Setting-Alignment (OCS-A); Organizational Culture Setting Diversity
Leadership (OCS-DL); Organizational Culture-Diversity Resources-Policies (OCS-DR-P); Organizational
Culture Setting-Diversity Management (OCS-DM)
Organizational environment. Analysis of documents and stakeholder interviews
confirm the needs assessment that the MMA organizational environment should align expressed
and demonstrated commitments to diversity. Artifacts and structures designed to attract, recruit,
and retain diverse individuals are examples of positive workplace climate environment practices.
Failure to implement such practices in board recruitment or nomination can reflect a climate that
fails to reinforce diversity and will serve to minimize diversity resources in budget and human
capital resource allocation (The Denver Foundation, 2007). An organizational environment that
openly discusses the perils of unconscious bias for board diversity also tends to positively
influence overall diversity cultural climate (Bonilla-Silva, 2003; Tidwell, 2005). Becoming more
diverse requires intentionality: “It requires an action plan and the examining of interpersonal
dynamics and cultural fabric of the board and organization” (BoardSource, 2017b, p. 9). A lack
of focus on the organizational importance of diversity contributes to diversity sensitivity not
being at the forefront of institutionalized practices (Allison, 1999; Schwartz et al., 2011; Virgil et
al., 2015).
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 155
Eleven participants (78%) expressed having an abiding commitment to racial and ethnic
diversity but noted a lack of cultural alignment with those values in board and committee
operations. Most participants noted that, in prioritizing which problems they focus on, they
largely rely on the agenda set by the executive committee and MMA’s executive director. In
expressing the view that the board did not adequately prioritize improving racial and ethnic
diversity, S6 noted, “There are many people who want to talk about diversity but never do much
about it.” Similarly, S7 stated, “We almost never talk about diversity here, except as to our
exhibitions. Having a desire for a more diverse institution or board is not the same as concrete
action to make it a reality.” S9 affirmed those sentiments, stating, “Something becomes real
when you devote time, money, and resources to it. I think [board diversity] is a priority on paper,
but the occasional reference to solving the problem is not enough.” Another board member
observed that “only a few members of the board, and two leaders [S13 and S14], focus on
improving racial and ethnic diversity,” noting “[the executive director] is very focused on this, as
is the newly formed diversity committee. I think our lack of progress on board ethnic diversity is
more a function of benign neglect than an intent to remain mostly White” (S12).
Several participants, including S1, S8, and S12, indicated that the executive director was
a champion of staff racial and ethnic diversity. Participants also consistently praised the
executive director and other leaders for their stewardship in fulfilling MMA’s mission. These
participants expressed the view that, given the executive director’s strong position of trust and
confidence with the board, he should be encouraged to advocate forcefully for improvement in
this area. As noted by S12, “while the board is the ultimate guardian of the museum, and
acknowledging it’s a very difficult thing for [the executive director] to push hard on the board to
take action, that’s his job.” The view articulated by these participants is consistent with certain
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 156
studies discussed in Chapter Two, which noted a significant disparity between board and CEO
perceptions as to the urgency of the issue. As noted in Figure 7, while board members and CEOs
both believe boards are insufficiently diverse, CEOs view a lack of diversity as a more pressing
problem requiring action (BoardSource, 2015, 2017a; Brown, 2002a; Sessler Bernstein &
Bilimoria, 2013). However, board chairs and CEOs are both becoming increasingly dissatisfied
with a persistent lack of diversity over time (BoardSource, 2017a).
Figure 7. Board chair & CEO satisfaction. This figure illustrates the chair and CEO satisfaction
with the level of diversity for boards for the periods 2010, 2015, and 2017.
As reflected in Figure 7, less than half of board chairs and chief executives are satisfied
or very satisfied with their board’s current diversity. The percentage of CEOs who are satisfied
with their board’s diversity in 2017 was the same as that of CEOs who are neutral toward their
74%
53%
55%
31% 31%
35%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Board Chair or Member Chief Executives
Board Chair and CEO Satisfaction
2010 2015 2017
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 157
board diversity, but 65% of CEOs report being dissatisfied with their board’s diversity
(BoardSource, 2017a). Of CEOs who report being “extremely dissatisfied” with their board’s
racial and ethnic diversity, only 25% make demographics a “high priority in recruiting board
members” (BoardSource, 2017a, p. 14).
Other participants expressed similar sentiments that the board did not reinforce a sense of
focus or urgency on solving the problem, noting that “the cultural climate of the board does not
consistently support my belief that diversity and inclusion matters” (S5). Another board member
articulated the view that limited resources and competing priorities result in board diversity
being relegated to a “lofty” aspirational goal without any concrete implementation plans: “We
have not made this a priority on the board because it’s out of sight out of mind” (S8). S14
expressed a similar sentiment, noting, “We have so many things to focus on, unless someone
talks about it, it isn’t a problem.” Many participants noted that improving board diversity is
rarely openly discussed: “I have never heard anyone on the board talk about the lack of diversity
on the board or with the staff. I think that is telling” (S3). Another participant connected a lack of
open discussion with its effects on both inclusivity and board priorities: “If you’re a newly
minted diverse board member and you walk around the staff and there are few diverse folks
there, it’s not going to make you feel all warm and fuzzy” about the “environment you’re in.
Talking about it means it’s something that needs to be improved” (S3).
Another participant, S2, observed that “diversity improvement is seldom discussed at the
board or committee level.” The majority of stakeholders (85%) shared a common belief that
“When you think about that, I think you have to bring it to people’s attention, and when they
become aware of it, they can improve in a way consistent with board values” (S5). The lack of
alignment between culture and climate was astutely explained by S6, who noted,
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 158
A great example is Nordstrom’s. People talked about the importance of customer service
all the time, so it became part of the dominant culture. If you never talk about something,
it does not get reinforced, and people don’t really talk about it or care much about it.
Nordstrom’s created lore and stories about customer service representatives going above
and beyond the call of duty on tasks to serve customer needs, so the concept of customer
service was, or is, ever-present as part of their cultural climate.
Table 14 identifies concepts probed that thematically implicate a lack of organizational
environmental alignment.
Table 14
Summary of Concepts Probed Regarding Organizational Alignment Influences
Participant Participant
believes
candidate
selection
primarily
based on
corporate,
social/financial
factors
Participant
confirms
limited
diversity
discussions
at board and
committee
meetings
Participant
believes
artifacts and
exhibitions
reflect
underlying
diversity
culture
Participant
identified
activities
indicative of
an inclusive
culture
Participant
perception
that diversity
minimally
reflected in
operational
activities and
climate
Participant
identified
need for
diversity
management,
diversity
leadership, or
diversity best
practices
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
S11
S12
S13
S14
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 159
Presence of diversity best practices. Stakeholder interviews confirmed the presumed
needs assessment that MMA would benefit from additional resources/budget, training, policies,
and procedures to facilitate board recruiting and nominating outcomes. Except for the limited
diversity activities discussed above, the participants stated they were unaware of any strategic
board diversity management focus (e.g., agenda setting, diversity action plans, use of diversity
recruiting consultants, adoption of rubrics) or leadership practices targeted on diversity
outcomes. Most participants also indicated they believe the implementation of concrete best
practices, processes, and procedures to improve diversity would be welcomed by the board.
Although some stakeholders noted they had participated in diversity training in other
professional or nonprofit contexts, most suggested only limited board diversity training programs
existed at MMA. As noted by S7, “There are consultants that work with board culture or even
conferences for boards to interact and understand other aspects of board work, but I have not
experienced that here.” Another participant noted that agenda setting and heightened sensitivity
to external stakeholder engagement were practices that needed to be tied to MMA’s mission and
strategic plan: “There needs to be regular board communication on major donors and foundations
and their scrutiny of diversity, like the Mellon Foundation, about the importance of this issue to
people outside the museum” (S13). Another participant confirmed a lack of awareness of
stakeholder oversight of MMA’s diversity status, noting, “We don’t do that and need to” (S14).
S12 expressed similar sentiments, stating, “we have to tie this to our strategic plan and have
people hear it, and then develop a consensus about what the action statements are. Putting this on
the agenda is half the battle.”
S2 also noted the importance of placing board diversity on formal committee agendas,
noting, “Yes, I do think it comes down to what individuals do, reminding us, you know, sort of
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 160
on it and who are champions of it and keeping it on the agenda.” S6 noted being sensitive to
increased stakeholder scrutiny “is something the board needs to care about, or we will not focus
on it or support [it].” S5 confirmed that diversity agenda setting rarely occurs, observing, “If you
want diversity to be important, you put it on the agenda every time. That is the culture walking
the talk, rather than just saying you care about something and not having intentionality.” Another
participant echoed the perception that the board rarely “discussed formal, written guidelines and
policies to increase board awareness of racial and ethnic diversity” (S14). Table 15 identifies
concepts probed that thematically implicate a lack of organizational best practices.
Table 15
Summary of Concepts Probed Regarding Organizational Best Practices Influences
Participant Participant
believes the
board
provides
education on
stakeholder
implications
to diversity
Participant
suggested
diverse board
members
should serve
in leadership
positions
Participant
believes the
board is
adequately
assessing
stakeholder
diversity
concerns
Participant
suggested a
long-term
approach to
cultivating
diverse
candidates
Participant
suggested
increased
resources,
training,
policies on
diversity
Participant
believes the
board is
“walking the
talk” on the
importance of
diversity
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
S11
S12
S13
S14
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 161
Board leadership in institutionalizing diversity. The data in the aggregate confirms
that the MMA board needs focused diversity leadership fortified with conceptual and procedural
knowledge that prioritizes improving board diversity and inclusion. Strategic and informed
leadership is essential to establishing, perpetuating, and fortifying a cultural climate that
communicates to the board that supporting racial and ethnic diversity is an organizational
mandate (Burke, 2018). The majority of participants noted that there was a lack of sustained and
targeted communication that powerfully conveyed to the board, staff, and broader community
that the organization viewed improving diversity as a board imperative.
More than half of the participants indicated that they believed diversity improvement
requires board leadership and a more intensified focus by the executive committee. Upon
prompting, every member noted that promoting diversity awareness, mentoring, and inclusivity
was ultimately a board leadership function. As noted by S1, “Racial diversity in any institution is
not going to happen unless the persons at the top make it clear that it is a mandate, no matter how
limited or ample resources are, or how many competing priorities are involved.” S11 expressed a
similar sentiment, expressing the view that “the board chair, the executive committee, and the
executive director have to lead the board by example, making it clear, ‘This is important.’”
Another member of the executive committee observed, “If board leaders frequently discussed
racial and ethnic board diversity and inclusion at board and committee meetings, and members
become more conversant, that would likely make [things improve]” (S10).
Several participants expressed the belief that diversity leadership is an act of
intentionality and concreteness. For example, S13 noted, leadership in this area is “expressed in
terms of intentionality about the importance diversity. Leadership needs to say, ‘This is what we
want to achieve, and this is what it looks like.” In expressing the view that concrete action is a
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 162
form of intentionality, S13 continued, “Let’s establish a formal goal that says this is what we
need to do, why we need to do it, and how we should do it.’” Similarly, S10 stated,
Diversity leadership is about intentionality and putting board diversity on the agenda. We
focus on fundraising, we focus on community engagement, we focus on our board
processes, but we don’t seem to have formal agenda items with diversity focus, so it’s not
seen as a priority.
Diversity leadership was also identified as something that should be embedded in the
climate through a connection to MMA’s strategic plan. For example, S11 shared,
More detail, texture and depth in the strategic plan regarding board and staff racial and
ethnic diversity [would] be an effective diversity leadership practice. I think the point is
the culture wants diversity and cares about it, but if it’s not called out in our ultimate
leadership statement, the strategic plan, the board won’t see it as a priority.
S13, in affirming the theme that board members care about diversity but fail to express those
values by concrete actions, stated, “Maybe we should create a separate diversity plan” that calls
out “a need to improve in this area, or we can add a section in the strategic plan on board
diversity, so it is highlighted as concretely as fundraising objectives.”
Finally, certain participants identified committee member dominance as an area
implicating diversity leadership. As noted in Chapter Two, groupthink can pervade prestige
groups like boards of directors, especially when they have a tightly connected culture that
emphasizes the avoidance of conflict, collegiality, and minimized dissent (Fernandez, 2007;
O’Connor, 2003). Groupthink can become prevalent on boards when certain dominant members
participate in smaller meetings where there is a shared interest in effectuating the organization’s
mission (Leslie, 2010). Several board members noted that occasional strong personalities have
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 163
the potential to dominate committee discussions, sometimes at the expense of more rigorous
questioning about board nominating priorities. For example, S6 noted certain members are very
forceful in advocating for “high net worth candidates, socially connected individuals, or
prominent leaders in the corporate community,” potentially at the expense of candidates who
might bring a broader array of backgrounds and skillsets. In pointing out that these categories are
not mutually exclusive, S6 noted: “there are nevertheless far greater numbers of White corporate
executives than Black in [our city], which may at times limit the candidate pool.”
Another participant acknowledged this propensity to focus on status and corporate
affiliation, observing,
This is a leadership issue. Dealing with group pressure is something we need to focus on.
Some think they are doing a good job as gatekeepers for the status and reputation of the
museum. Certain members sometimes think about fundraising and board prestige. They
are within the echo chamber within the area of [their] committee. (S12)
Another board member, S8, expressed a similar perception, noting, “It’s a priority to them, and
it’s a focus, but finding people who are engaged in the museum, who are passionate, and who are
already known to the committee and meet their criteria is a challenge.” In further elucidating the
point, S8 noted,
I’m sure this is all well-meaning, but certain individual’s personalities can have a
tendency to quiet others. I have been in the room, argued for a particular diverse
candidate, and have been shot down. I should have spoken up more forcefully but didn’t
feel comfortable as I didn’t want to rock the boat.
Acquiescing to group pressure in this manner is noted by Leslie (2010), particularly where board
members may come from similar social, networking, professional, and economic backgrounds,
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 164
which creates inertia for consensus-building and reduced conflict, sometimes at the expense of
rigorous debate on important issues.
Table 16 below identifies concepts probed that thematically implicate a need for board
leadership in institutional diversity.
Table 16 below identifies concepts probed that thematically implicate a need for board
leadership in institutional diversity.
Table 16
Summary of Concepts Probed Regarding Board Leadership Influences
Participant Participant
noted the use
of diversity
action plans,
diversity
consultants,
diversity-
focused
strategic
plan
Participant
believes upon
prompting
diversity
requires
intentionality,
including
agenda
setting
Participant
stated upon
prompting
board should
adopt
diversity
awareness,
mentoring,
and
inclusivity
practices
Participant
mentioned
potential
group
member
dominance
Participant noted
importance of
candidate
recruiting,
vetting/evaluation
process
Participant
mentioned
need for
leadership
and board
focus on
diversity
improvement
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
S11
S12
S13
S14
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 165
Organizational focus on diversity management. Most board members validated the
presumed needs assessment that MMA needs a diversity management strategy created in the first
instance by the diversity and inclusion committee with input from the executive committee. The
strategy would identify specific policies, procedures, and practices designed to improve MMA
board representativeness. Effective diversity management should employ social responsibility, as
well as organizational design and effectiveness, that includes operational goals with
implementation and accountability mechanisms (Llopis, 2011). Kumra and Manfredi (2012)
emphasize the importance of continual communication and building deeper diversity awareness
as essential to realizing diversity and inclusion performance goals.
Virtually all participants indicated that there was limited organizational design or
intentionality associated with board racial and ethnic diversity. As stated by one executive
committee member, “The board lacks intentionality in this area. Intentionality means action and
a concrete plan, not just very occasionally talking about something. It needs to be top of mind,
and that occurs by creating institutional processes where racial diversity is brought up,
ventilated, discussed, and actively considered” (S12). Another member, S3, articulated a similar
view, stating,
A concrete goal is key to improvement in this area. When we intentionally focus on racial
diversity and go after people, we have done well. When we have sat back and just let the
process run without intention, we’ve done very poorly.
In noting an absence of targeted diversity and inclusion initiatives, many participants
suggested a need for a more comprehensive and strategic focus on improving board inclusivity.
For example, S3 noted, “I have discussed diversity and inclusion in my professional
environment, but not here, which suggests to me that there is limited focus on making members
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 166
welcome.” In echoing the need for board internationality, S13 noted, “We are never going to
improve in this area unless we show we care about making everyone feel included.” These
expressions of a need for more targeted diversity management practices embrace the value of
differences, as well as celebrating the inclusive nature of a thriving organizational environment
(Kumra & Manfredi, 2012). Table 17 identifies the concepts and themes associated with
validated needs respecting fortifying diversity management practices.
Table 17
Summary of Concepts Probed Regarding Diversity Management Organizational Influences
Participant Participant
perceived a
lack of
alignment
between
culture and
climate
Participant
perceived
inadequate
diversity
discussion
and agenda
setting
Participant
noted lack of
committee
processes,
structures,
and targeted
diversity
practices
Participant
volunteered
individual
member
dominance in
recruiting and
nomination
process
Participant
mentioned
setting
concrete
goals and
value of
accountability
Participant
mentioned
social
responsibility
as a core
value of
diversity
improvement
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
S11
S12
S13
S14
Document analysis. The triangulation of data, including extensive document and artifact
analysis, validated the study’s conceptual framework and assumed KMO influences. As noted,
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 167
data analysis included a review of approximately 800 pages of documents, including a 372-page
compendium of MMA accreditation materials. Additionally, data analysis included reviewing
board, executive, diversity, and nominating committee minutes for the years 2015 through 2018.
Numerous artifacts were evaluated that implicate organizational climate, including 100 objects
from MMA exhibitions, its permanent collection, gift shop, and photos of events and museum
activities.
Board accreditation materials. The materials cover numerous aspects of museum
operations, including financial, fundraising, and community engagement. The documents also
included information on the history of the museum, its mission statement and strategic plan,
challenges facing the organization, and a broad array of educational and exhibition materials.
MMA’s focus on attracting more diverse audiences and removing physical and financial barriers
to admission is also discussed in detail. Based on NVivo coding, the materials contain 10
references that implicate issues of racial/ethnic diversity and inclusion (MMA, 2019). The report
contains several references to a desire to connect to “more diverse audiences” through a “vast
cross-section of artists from various nations and cultures” (MMA, 2019).
In highlighting the museum’s imperatives, the report overviews MMA’s strategic plan,
which includes over a dozen references to appealing to diverse audiences, including persons
from underrepresented communities. The strategic plan affirms that “community outreach and
community impact will be [broadly defined as] critical measures of [MMA’s] success going
forward” (MMA, 2016). The plan speaks optimistically about “actively eliminating barriers—
economic, social, physical and psychological—to bringing people and art together” (MMA,
2016). Additionally, the plan speaks to fostering a culture that “drives the mission and ideology
of the art museum” by “representing the community through greater diversity on our board [and]
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 168
staff” (MMA, 2016). Consistent with the conceptual framework, this expression reflects an
organization that values diversity. However, the materials do not include a dedicated section on
strategy or concrete action items intended to facilitate increased board racial and ethnic diversity.
Although the plan contemplates using resources to improve in this area, it does not indicate how
those funds will be used or the assumed benefits that flow from increased board
representativeness.
Board of directors’ meetings. Analysis of three years of board of directors’ minutes
revealed only seven instances where board or staff racial and ethnic diversity was substantively
discussed. None of the references suggested any discussion of conceptual, procedural, or
metacognitive knowledge principles associated with improving board racial and ethnic diversity.
No discussions are recorded involving declarative knowledge or metacognitive factors
potentially implicated in recruiting and nomination processes, including any dialogue about the
need for diversity or unconscious bias training. As anticipated under the conceptual framework,
most of the discussions related to MMA operations, committee reports, financial matters,
exhibitions, the board’s strategic plan, and a broad array of oversight and governance activities.
Other than the previously discussed October 2017 minutes, there is limited discussion of
diversity management or leadership initiatives, or diversity-related action items flowing from the
2016 strategic plan.
There were five reports given to the board by the previously disbanded diversity
committee. One of the reports discussed staff and operational issues (MMA, 2015). Another
report mentioned the success of MMA’s African art gallery, but there was no discussion of its
potential linkage to board representativeness (MMA, 2016). In another meeting, the nominating
committee chair noted, “We have been hard at work reviewing a great and diverse roster of
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 169
candidates recommended by the diversity committee of diverse individuals to cultivate for the
Board of Trustees” (MMA, 2016). Two updates to that report were provided in subsequent
meetings (MMA, 2017). This form of cross-functional collaboration reflects a rare but concrete
and positive manifestation of aligned culture, climate, and resources. The notion of “cultivating”
membership also reflects a long-term view of strategic diversity management designed to
improve MMA board racial and ethnic diversity. This type of forward-thinking plan to cultivate
candidates of color was mentioned by several stakeholders, including S7, S12, and S14. It is also
a recognized best practice repeatedly identified in the literature (BoardSource, 2015; Russell
Reynolds Associates, 2009; Weaver, 2009).
Numerous board discussions occurred regarding the status of multicultural exhibitions,
including those showcasing African, African American, Chinese, Indian, and Japanese art.
During some of those meetings, cultural exhibitions were noted to serve the mission and to
effectuate certain of the objectives stated in the strategic plan. However, those discussions were
limited to community engagement with diverse audiences and not directly linked to improving
board racial and ethnic diversity (MMA, 2016).
Board executive committee meetings. NVivo coding for the three years of minutes
revealed 13 executive committee references to diversity discussions mostly related to MMA’s
mission and desire for broader community engagement. Additionally, as noted previously, in
2017 the executive director, with support from the executive committee, launched an initiative
targeted at improving MMA racial and ethnic diversity. The board member of color designated
to lead the initiative was also provided a seat on the executive committee. In describing the
initiative, the executive director observed that MMA needed “to achieve a holistic approach to
diversity throughout the museum” (MMA, 2017). To assist in those efforts, the executive
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 170
committee expressed an openness to enlist the assistance of a diversity consultant (MMA, 2018).
Committee minutes do not reflect any discussion of the goals, objectives, best practices, or
benefits believed to be associated with the initiative. Although the initiative was primarily
focused on improving staff and not board diversity, these actions provide strong evidence of an
underlying culture that embraces improving diversity throughout the organization. Additionally,
after completion of the study, the executive committee discussed and approved unconscious bias
training for museum staff (MMA, 2019).
Board nominating committee minutes. NVivo coding identified 22 instances where the
nominating committee discussed recruiting persons of color. Like the board and executive
committee meetings, there was limited discussion of the potential operational, financial, or
stakeholder benefits associated with improving board diversity. There was also no discussion of
the potential adverse consequences of not improving board diversity. There are four instances
where the nominating committee focused on internal lists of racially diverse candidates and
strategies to recruit those individuals. There are several instances where candidates of color are
discussed in the context of potential barriers to recruitment (e.g., individuals serving on multiple
boards, no connection to MMA’s mission or the art community, potential financial constraints,
and a limited knowledge base among board members). For example, one committee member
noted persons of color are in “high demand for board service and may already be serving on
multiple boards” (MMA, 2017). The committee also discussed how the dues requirements in
serving on multiple boards might create financial challenges for candidates of color (MMA,
2018).
There were several meetings where MMA senior leadership or board members addressed
the need to enhance board racial and ethnic diversity. For example, S14 “emphasized the
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 171
importance of identifying diverse candidates” (MMA, 2018). In another meeting, S13 noted, “the
need to identify more diverse candidates now and in the future [should be] a long-term action
item” (MMA, 2018). On another occasion, S8 requested that she be “tasked with compiling a
diverse slate of candidates for the committee’s consideration” (MMA, 2018). S11 also noted the
committee should “discuss the diverse needs of the board,” including differences in “cultural
background” (MMA, 2017). S11 suggested more open recruitment requirements where
“candidates can be considered who would otherwise be unable to meet the [current dues]
requirement” (MMA, 2017). The focus on financial barriers is another instance where leadership
is taking a generative approach to considering policy modifications designed to facilitate board
representativeness.
Diversity committee minutes. The diversity committee minutes reflect substantial
activity around improving MMA staff diversity, though with comparatively limited discussion of
improving board racial and ethnic diversity. However, a diversity committee report initially
drafted in 2010 and substantially revised in 2016 underscores a strong desire to improve staff and
board diversity:
[MMA] is committed to an ongoing effort to improve diversity as a way of supporting the
organization’s mission to connect people with art. [MMA] actively embraces diversity as
a key initiative and a business imperative, integral to all aspects of the organization’s
culture and daily operations. Diversity is vital among all levels of management, trustees,
volunteers, exhibitions, programs, business decisions, the general workforce, and vendor
base. (MMA, 2016)
As noted earlier, the plan proposed specific target percentage goals for improving “African
American, Hispanic and Asian representation on the board” (MMA, 2016, p. 2). African
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 172
American trustee participation is targeted at 15%; Asian participation, 5%; Hispanic
participation, 5% (MMA, 2016, p. 2). Additionally, there are several proposals designed to
identify organizational and cultural solutions to MMA diversity. The plan states,
The plan defines the need for greater diversity in several different areas - governance,
staffing, visitation, volunteers, vendors, exhibitions/programs and visitation - and
assumes that the responsibility for addressing this issue should be shared by staff and
Board of Trustees. The plan also recognizes the [MMA’s] strong commitment to
operating in a manner that fully recognizes diversity as an institutional priority. (MMA,
2016, p. 2)
As part of that stated commitment, the committee created a list of potential board candidates of
color for submission to “the Nominating Committee for review as part of their upcoming
nominations to the Board of Trustees” (MMA, 2016, p. 2). The diversity committee also called
for “at least one African American art exhibition per fiscal year” (MMA, 2016, p. 3).
The 2016 diversity plan contemplated “strengthening the opportunities for leadership and
involvement given to current diverse staff” and to “develop and implement a mentor program for
diverse talent” (MMA, 2016, p. 4). To further improve staff diversity, the committee called for
“developing a recruitment plan which focuses on identifying and enrolling African American,
Asia, and Hispanic candidates for docent and volunteer positions” (MMA, 2016, p. 4). The
committee also “encouraged the growth and utilization of minority-owned firms [to work with
MMA] while seeking to maintain the highest level of service to this institution and an economic
return on investment” (MMA, 2016, p. 6). Finally, the committee sought to “work with the board
to ensure funding for [diverse] internships” (MMA, 2016, p. 6). In connection with its goal to
fund diversity internships, as noted earlier in the metacognitive knowledge discussion, MMA
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 173
recently announced a paid co-op and internship program focused on “recruiting and training
racially and ethnically diverse talent to cultivate professional opportunities for the next
generation of museum professionals” (MMA, 2020, p. 1).
Organizational results summary. The participant data supports the conceptual
framework’s working theory that, although racial and ethnic diversity is valued within the culture
of the MMA board, the board climate does not reinforce those values and beliefs as a core
organizational priority. The data also suggests that there is limited reinforcement of the
importance of inclusivity to board culture and climate. Since most respondents’ answers note that
racial and ethnic diversity is rarely discussed, limited attention is paid at the operational level
that supports a climate prioritizing diversity and inclusion. Similarly, the absence of established
procedures, protocols, and structures focused specifically on improving the board’s racial and
ethnic diversity conveys the message to board members and senior leadership that improvement
in this area is not an organizational imperative. The absence of a board infrastructure that visibly
manifests a desire to prioritize racial and ethnic board representation allows those core cultural
values to atrophy. The lack of institutional mechanisms supporting diversity improvement
highlights a schism between cultural values and an operational climate positioned to empower
adaptive change.
Study data also strongly suggested that operational resources, budget, and dedicated
diversity best practices would facilitate board recruiting and nominating outcomes. Participant
interviews and document analysis revealed limited use of such practices, including adopting a
diversity action plan, relying on diversity training and recruiting consultants, and creating a goal-
driven and actionable diversity strategic plan. Chapter Five will discuss these and other
recommended practices.
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 174
The data validated a presumed need for the MMA board to focus more on diversity
leadership to improve recruitment and nomination outcomes. Diversity leadership was also
identified as key to improving board inclusivity. Most participants acknowledged a lack of
targeted focus in this area, affirmed that diversity improvement should be a board leadership
priority, and conveyed a willingness to devote adequate resources and attention to improving
outcomes. Several participants suggested that the board chair, the executive committee, and the
executive director should create an aggressive diversity action plan that champions improvement
in this area. Additionally, several board members noted the importance of mitigating potential
group member dominance in committee operations, the need for a more rigorous agenda-setting
process, and the desirability of targeted efforts to align the culture with an operational climate
that supports diversity leadership.
Most board member responses strongly suggested that a strategic diversity management
approach would improve MMA board racial and ethnic diversity. In addition to noting the
paucity of formal diversity processes, infrastructure, and best practices, many participants
expressed the view that improvement requires intentionality. Those participants noted that a
focus on improvement sends a powerful message to board members, stakeholders, and the
broader community that diversity and inclusivity matter to the organization.
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 175
Synthesis
This study evaluated ten KMO influences assumed to be impacting the organization’s
ability to improve its board’s racial and ethnic diversity. The study identified significant
opportunities for improving stakeholders’ conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge.
Additionally, the study identified several areas for improvement linked to motivational factors
impacting stakeholders’ current focus and prioritization in improving board racial and ethnic
diversity. The study also validated a series of organizational barriers related to the alignment
between board culture and climate, diversity leadership, use of diversity best practices and
resources, and diversity management practices. The interaction between these interconnected
areas represents a principal component of the validated conceptual framework in answering the
study’s research questions.
The study revealed how conceptual and procedural knowledge is inextricably tied to
perceived utility value, which is a sine qua non to board member motivation. In the aggregate,
study findings suggest the MMA board has insufficient knowledge of the multifaceted array of
benefits associated with board representativeness, including operational, stakeholder, and
fundraising outcomes that may be impaired if the problem is not adequately addressed. In
particular, interview results indicated that most board members lacked a deep appreciation of the
decision-making, fundraising, stakeholder, and organizational benefits of increased diversity.
Nor were participants deeply aware of the ways implicit bias might impair optimal diversity
recruiting and nominating outcomes. Although study findings suggest that diversity, equity,
accessibility, and inclusion matter to many participants, the majority of stakeholders focus more
intently on competing priorities related to the financial, operational, and programmatic aspects of
serving MMA’s mission. While many board members did not unprompted see improving board
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 176
diversity as a direct governance function, most were keenly aware of the importance of valuing
incentives and penalties in strategic planning and board decision-making. Data analysis also
suggests that while attributions and self-efficacy were not prominent barriers, board member
motivation would be powerfully affected by a deeper appreciation of the incentives, benefits, and
avoidance of adverse consequences that are associated with improving board racial and ethnic
board diversity.
Evidence from multiple data sources confirms that organizational influences present
significant impediments limiting the board’s ability to attain its diversity performance goals. The
findings strongly suggest that a misalignment between culture and climate serves as a formidable
barrier to achieving optimized diversity outcomes. MMA, like other highly successful nonprofits
flourishing in fulfilling its mission, faces competing financial, operational, and stakeholder
demands. To adequately focus on competing resources and priorities, organizations tend to triage
issues perceived as the most immediate and salient. Saliency is often defined by what is placed
on the agenda, particularly where issues are highlighted as being organizationally the most
pressing. While interviews show that MMA culture embraces board racial and ethnic diversity,
the organization’s climate does not adequately reaffirm those values though concrete
organizational processes and practices. The lack of discussion about diversity, coupled with an
absence of displayed policies, procedures, and best practices, unwittingly signals to stakeholders
that board racial and ethnic diversity is not a priority. The absence of targeted diversity
leadership and diversity management practices serve to reinforce that perception.
In sum, all ten KMO influences studied were either validated or partially validated. Clark
and Estes (2008) affirm that these types of deficiencies are a primary cause of stakeholder
performance gaps. Table 18 provides a summary of the evaluation’s results.
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 177
Table 18
Summary of all Needs, Influences, and Evaluation Results
Category Need
Evidence
assertion
Knowledge
Conceptual (KC-DB) MMA board members need knowledge of the
financial, organizational, and stakeholder benefits of
racial and ethnic diversity.
Validated
Procedural (KP-DRN) MMA board members need to know the
mechanics of recruitment and nominating committee
processes, including how to identify diverse candidates.
Validated
Metacognitive (KM-UB) MMA board members need to know how
unconscious views and beliefs may affect their
predispositions about racial/ethnic board recruiting
and nominations.
Validated
Motivation
Attributions (M-AT) Board members need to believe that
improving racial and ethnic diversity is part of their
governance function and that they can be effective
diversity recruiters, despite a limited candidate pool.
Partially
Validated
Expectancy
Value
(M-EVT) Board members need to appreciate the
utility value of racial and ethnic diversity for
improving MMA’s operational success and
stakeholder support.
Validated
Self-Efficacy (M-SE) Board members need to believe they can
become effective diversity recruiters and improve
board racial/ethnic diversity.
Partially
Validated
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 178
Table 18, continued
Category Need
Evidence
assertion
Organizational
Cultural
Setting
(OCS-A) The MMA organizational environment
needs to align expressed and demonstrated
commitments to diversity.
Validated
Cultural
Setting
(OCS-DL) The MMA organization needs to devote
resources/budget structures, training, policies, and
procedures to facilitate better recruiting and nominating
outcomes.
Validated
Cultural
Setting
(OCS-DR-P) The MMA organization needs thoughtful
leadership focus on diversity and inclusion and
unconscious bias.
Validated
Cultural
Setting
(OCS-DM) The MMA organization needs strategic
diversity management policies, procedures, and
practices.
Validated
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 179
CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS
Chapter Four presented KMO influence findings pertaining to the study’s first two
research questions:
1. What stakeholder knowledge, skills, and motivation are related to the MMA board being
comprised of highly qualified racially and ethnically diverse individuals who are
committed to organizational excellence and mirror the U.S. Census data for the Midwest
region of the United States?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture/context and stakeholder
knowledge that either facilitates or limits the MMA board from being comprised of
highly qualified racially and ethnically diverse individuals who are committed to
organizational excellence and mirror the U.S. Census data for the Midwest region of the
United States?
Based on those findings, this chapter seeks to answer the third research question guiding the
study:
3. Which recommended solutions will allow the board to be comprised of highly qualified
racially and ethnically diverse individuals who are committed to organizational
excellence and mirror the U.S. Census data for the Midwest region of the United States?
Analysis of data gathered from interviews, documents, and artifacts validated or partially
validated all presumed KMO performance barriers anticipated by the study’s conceptual
framework. Chapter Five answers the third research question by delivering concrete
improvement recommendations for each supported influence identified in Chapter Four. Each
recommendation is supported by an implementation and evaluation strategy grounded in the
Kirkpatrick New World Evaluation Framework (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016a, 2016b). The
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 180
recommendations identify a broad range of actions, procedures, and best practices to facilitate
increased board racial and ethnic diversity. The recommendations and implementation and
evaluation plan are synergistically linked and work holistically to mitigate identified KMO
influences gaps. This chapter will conclude with a discussion of possible areas for future
research and a brief reflection on the potential value of the study for other nonprofit boards
facing similar challenges.
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
Each of the KMO recommendations in Chapter Five are derived from principles
discussed in the literature or are best practices noted in case studies or commentaries on
behaviors and strategies potentially useful in improving board diversity. This section begins with
a discussion of evidence-based solutions associated with validated conceptual, procedural, and
metacognitive knowledge influences and then moves to proposed solutions for confirmed
motivational influences. This section concludes with a discussion of solutions designed to
address organizational setting barriers that limit the realization of the MMA board’s racial and
ethnic diversity and inclusion goals.
Knowledge Recommendations
As noted in Chapter Two, inadequate knowledge can profoundly impair the achievement
of stakeholder performance and organizational goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). Chapter Four
confirmed that a lack of conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge serves as a
significant barrier to achieving MMA board diversity performance goals. Conceptual knowledge
is an understanding of categories, classifications, principles, generalizations, theories, schemas,
and models (Rueda, 2011). Procedural knowledge captures the sequential or intricate processes,
steps, or tasks necessary to perform essential functions (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011).
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 181
Metacognitive knowledge is an awareness of one’s cognitive processes and involves self-
reflection about contextual aspects of problems and learning methodologies (Bruning et al.,
2011; Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). It also implicates self-efficacy, self-regulation, and an
awareness of a person’s knowledge acquisition process (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011).
In implementing recommendations based on identified knowledge gaps, Clark and Estes
(2008) use four protocols for enhancing stakeholder knowledge: information, job aids, training,
and education. Providing information fills in necessary gaps in knowledge, reduces uncertainty,
and enables stakeholders to focus on performance by drawing on their past experiences. Job aids
serve as a guide to facilitate procedures and tasks by providing substantial relevant learning
materials (e.g., manuals, visuals, diagrams, flow charts, and checklists) and are often more
substantive than merely providing information. Training involves using an identified curriculum,
guided by goal-oriented learning objectives, that provides structured feedback to enhance
participants’ knowledge. Education is a more comprehensive assembly of detailed information
that provides “conceptual, theoretical, and strategic knowledge” to handle complex and novel
situations (Clark & Estes, 2008, at p. 59).
Table 19 provides recommendations aligned with Clark and Estes’s (2008) framework to
address conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge needs identified in the conceptual
framework and the scholarly literature and authenticated during data collection and analysis.
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 182
Table 19
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Validated Knowledge
Influence
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
MMA board members need
knowledge of the financial,
organizational, and
stakeholder benefits of racial
and ethnic diversity. (K-D)
Creating schemata helps learners to
organize declarative knowledge in a
domain (Schraw, Veldt, & Olafson,
2009). Procedural knowledge
increases when declarative
knowledge required to perform the
skill is available or known (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
Social interaction, cooperative
learning, and cognitive
apprenticeships (such as reciprocal
teaching) facilitate the construction
of new knowledge (Scott &
Palincsar, 2006).
Conduct board member
educational seminars and training
to provide detailed information on
the multifaceted benefits of board
racial and ethnic diversity.
Provide information that gives
foundational data on the structure,
drivers, and outcomes of racial
diversity flowing from best
practices.
Provide education and information
on data supporting the need and
benefits associated with diversified
boards.
Diversity experts will facilitate
learning by leading in-house group
discussions.
MMA board members need
to know the mechanics of
effective diversity
recruitment, including the use
of best practices to optimize
recruiting and nomination
outcomes. (K-P)
Acquiring skills for expertise
frequently begins with learning
declarative knowledge about
individual procedural steps (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
Social interaction, cooperative
learning, and cognitive
apprenticeships (such as reciprocal
teaching) facilitate the construction
of new knowledge (Scott &
Palincsar, 2006).
Modeling to-be-learned strategies or
behaviors improve learning and
performance (Denler, Wolters, &
Benzon, 2006).
Provide board recruiting and
nomination training to facilitate
effective diversity recruiting; after
training, provide a datasheet of
desired targeted diversity best
practices.
Create cross-functional teams
where diversity consultants
demonstrate best practices by
modeling and mock candidate
reviews and provide group
discussion and feedback to
facilitate learning.
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 183
Table 19, continued
Validated Knowledge
Influence
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
MMA board members need to
know how unconscious views
and beliefs may affect their
predispositions about
racial/ethnic board recruiting
and nominations. (K-M)
Use of metacognition allows
reflecting on learning practices and
improves cognitive
performance and identifies
contextual limitations (Baker, 2006;
Mayer, 2011).
Encouraging self-talk facilitates
learning by helping people guide
and direct their own behavior
through difficult tasks in the same
way more capable others may have
previously guided them (Mikulincer,
Shaver, Cooper, & Larsen, 2015).
Provide annual diversity and
implicit bias training with an
emphasis on opportunities to
engage in effective reflection on
nominating and recruiting
practices.
The diversity, executive, and
nominating committees should
work together regularly to facilitate
integrated support of diversity
goals.
Board members will be encouraged
to engage in a self-reflective
dialogue after sessions, including
self-talk, to solidify metacognitive
knowledge and insights from group
sessions.
*Indicates knowledge type for each influence listed using these abbreviations: Declarative (K-D); Procedural
(K-P); Metacognitive (K-M)
Conceptual knowledge recommendations. Data analysis confirmed board members
lack adequate conceptual knowledge of how racially and ethnically diverse boards may optimize
board decision-making, enhance creativity/innovation, improve fundraising, mitigate groupthink,
and increase stakeholder support and engagement. During interviews, most board members
acknowledged more information about such benefits would have a profound effect on whether
they would prioritize diversity as a board imperative. The study results show conceptual
knowledge was closely linked to procedural knowledge of strategies, procedures, and best
practices for diversity recruitment and nomination processes and related diversity management
concepts. Inadequate knowledge impacts the board’s ability to prioritize and implement
structures for improving diversity recruitment and nominating processes to achieve performance
goals. The lack of knowledge also directly limits board motivational factors (attributions, self-
efficacy, and expectancy value/utility value), which exacerbates a misalignment between culture
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 184
and climate regarding the improvement of board diversity (Clark & Estes, 2008). In an effort to
close this conceptual knowledge gap, four recommendations rooted in information processing
theory and sociocultural theory offer potential solutions.
Stakeholder training on multifaceted benefits of board racial and ethnic diversity.
Providing board members with information on diversity benefits will supply data necessary for
them to implement solutions on their own (Clark & Estes, 2008). Moreover, more substantive
education and training will provide “guided practice and corrective feedback,” and “conceptual,
theoretical, and strategic knowledge,” to handle “novel and unexpected future challenges and
problems” (Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 59). Educational information and materials in the form of
books and subject matter treatises can also be supplied by diversity consultants. Numerous
researchers have found creating schemata involving complex concepts and analytical structures
helps learners to organize declarative knowledge in a domain (Schraw, Veldt, & Olafson, 2009).
As noted by Clark and Estes (2008), procedural knowledge increases when declarative
knowledge required to perform the skill is available or known. The process of deconstructing,
simplifying, and reordering schemata to help board members learn and organize declarative
knowledge will be highly effective at closing existing knowledge gaps. This type of substantive
training and knowledge immersion has been particularly effective in the context of small groups,
including boards (Russell Reynolds Associates, 2009; Weaver, 2009).
Outside experts can provide in-house training, seminars, and facilitate on-campus
academic immersions at local universities to educate board members on utility value and other
relevant diversity concepts. Given the need for more complex information described in Chapter
Two, education through academic immersion with presentations from university professors and
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 185
diversity experts may be most effective. Educational information and materials in the form of
books, white papers, and subject matter treatises can also be provided by diversity consultants.
Provide foundational data on best practices in board diversification. Relevant materials
can include information on the racial dispersion in the city/region, potential networking
opportunities to expand the candidate pool, identified best practices for soliciting interest in the
board, and concrete examples of racial and ethnic diversity best practices successful in increasing
board representativeness. Providing board members with information on the multifaceted
benefits of board racial and ethnic diversity, as well as data on successful diversity best practices
associated with improved board representativeness, will facilitate the learning of key diversity
knowledge concepts. Providing information that imparts foundational data on the structure,
drivers, and outcomes of racial diversity flowing from best practices is a strong first step to close
knowledge gaps. Additionally, diversity consultants can facilitate internal group discussions of
relevant declarative knowledge associated with recruiting and nominating best practices. Social
interaction of this kind, including cooperative learning, and cognitive apprenticeships—such as
reciprocal teaching—have been found to facilitate the construction of new knowledge (Scott &
Palincsar, 2006).
Expert training also allows for needed guidance and corrective feedback to facilitate goal
attainment and refined learning (Clark & Estes, 2008). Feedback from diversity consultants will
provide opportunities for scaffolding and other forms of assisted performance (Scott & Palincsar,
2006). For example, Abramovitz and Blitz (2015) demonstrated that, when certain employees
appreciated the importance of racial and ethnic diversity, their understanding transferred to more
effective recruiting processes and improved outcomes. The study also found equity and inclusion
programs to be more successful when leaders openly support such programs, particularly when
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 186
they articulate the utility value of proposed initiatives. Some studies have also found that
knowledge transfer is more successful when diversity training is delivered by experts who can
facilitate knowledge assimilation (Weisinger et al., 2016). Such experts can also assist in drafting
a diversity action plan, advise on augmenting the strategic plan, and implement safeguards that
limit certain risks (noted below in the metacognitive recommendations section) associated with
implicit bias training.
Procedural knowledge recommendations. Procedural knowledge is knowledge of the
skills, techniques, and methods specific to a particular subject and people’s application of the
knowledge to perform tasks (Bruning et al., 2011; Krathwohl, 2002). As noted in Chapter Four,
the majority of participants lacked in-depth procedural knowledge of the procedures, committee
practices, and strategies associated with optimizing diversity recruitment and nomination
outcomes. More particularly, most stakeholders lacked procedural knowledge regarding the
mechanics of establishing diversity performance goals, setting committee agenda and action
items, implementing board inclusivity practices, drafting diversity mission statements and action
plans, or establishing cross-functional teams to enhance board racial and ethnic diversity. To
close these procedural knowledge gaps, two recommendations rooted in social cognitive and
sociocultural theory offer potential solutions.
Immersive training in how to engage in board recruiting and nomination. Since
acquiring skills for expertise frequently begins with learning declarative knowledge about
individual procedural steps (Clark & Estes, 2008), board members should receive detailed
education and information on diversity procedural knowledge concepts, diversity best practices,
and targeted desirable behaviors (Van der Walt & Ingley, 2003). The information will include
how-to steps to optimize diversity recruiting and nominating outcomes. For example,
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 187
information should be provided regarding potential groups, associations, networking
opportunities, committee activities, and diversity best practices identified in the academic
literature as having the potential to improve diversity and recruiting outcomes. BoardSource
(2017a) recommends a number of specific actions and procedures it views as best practices,
including (a) make explicit the benefits of diversity and inclusion relative to the organizations’
mission; (b) create action items directing that diversity and inclusion be added to operational
reports and included in the strategic board plan (c) develop a detailed diversity action plan; (d)
draft a diversity mission statement focused on increased representativeness and inclusivity; (e)
highlight diversity in organizational communications as a core value; (f) conduct comprehensive
diversity training; and (g) prepare a written diversity and inclusion policy statement.
To improve individual and collective board self-reflection on the importance of diversity
and inclusion, training should also include discussion of diversity-targeted questions designed to
ensure a sustained focus on achieving performance goals. BoardSource (2107a) views
organizational self-reflection as essential and encourages board members to reflect on whether
the organization’s reputation is being negatively (or positively) impacted by the board’s racial
and ethnic diversity. Boards should question how well they are “cultivating a deeper
understanding of the communities that [they] serve and bringing their perspectives, needs,
feedback, and priorities into our strategic boardroom discussions?” and “if we were to make a
deeper commitment to diversity, inclusion, and equity, what would that mean for our mission,
our work, and the people we serve?” (BoardSource, 2017a, p. 51). Other self-reflection questions
pertain to (a) how the board responds when someone proposes a diversity and inclusion idea, (b)
how board members interact with each other and interface with management in exploring
diversity and inclusion issues, (c) whether time is allocated at board and committee meetings to
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 188
discuss diversity and inclusion issues, and (d) how knowledgeable members perceive themselves
to be regarding board racial and ethnic recruiting and nomination processes (BoardSource,
2017a, pp. 51–52).
Knowledge generation through cross-functional teams. Sociocultural theory informs that
social interaction, cooperative learning, and cognitive apprenticeships (such as reciprocal
teaching) facilitate learning and the construction of new knowledge (Scott & Palincsar, 2006).
As such, it is recommended board members receive recruiting and nominating training with
feedback in small groups to facilitate effective learning. Such training can also include the use of
cross-functional teams in which diversity consultants demonstrate through modeling, mock
candidate reviews, and other exercises, best practices for improving diversity recruiting. Under
social cognitive theory, these forms of modeling to-be-learned strategies or behaviors improve
learning and performance outcomes (Denler et al., 2006). For example, experts could conduct a
series of mock board and committee discussions to demonstrate consideration of self-reflection
questions, putting diversity on the agenda, diversity resource allocation, social policy
considerations, and board qualifications. Such exercises can also demonstrate effective
networking techniques and recruiting best practices. Exercises could also simulate discussion
between the chairs of the executive committee, diversity and inclusion committee, and
nominating committee about overcoming potential barriers associated with racially and
ethnically diverse candidates (e.g., interest in the arts and the board, size of the candidate pool,
service on multiple boards, financial requirements).
To efficiently achieve organizational goals related to optimized board diversity,
organizations must be able to apply knowledge on the full array of procedural best practices.
Such procedural knowledge should also include strategic knowledge (Anderson & Krathwohl,
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 189
2001). These recommendations, which call for board members and diversity experts to provide
step-by-step training through mock exercises and group discussion, holds promise, as modeling
is especially effective in facilitating learning and acquiring new behaviors (Denler et al., 2006).
The use of social interaction and cooperative learning in the context of small group meetings
similarly facilitates the construction of new knowledge (Scott & Palincsar, 2006). In connection
with board member training, it may also prove effective for diversity consultants to encourage
learners to set productive goals for themselves that are challenging but achievable and to
encourage self-evaluation and reflection (Denler et al., 2006).
Metacognitive knowledge recommendations. Metacognitive knowledge focuses on
awareness of internal cognitive processes and self-awareness of knowledge in acquiring
knowledge (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Metacognitive knowledge also relates to how one
knows when and how to use applicable learning processes to acquire further knowledge (R. E.
Mayer, 2011). As noted in Chapter Two, social science research shows all individuals carry
potential unconscious biases from exposure to cultural attitudes about race, ethnicity, gender,
religion, age, social class, sexual orientation, disability status, and nationality (Banaji &
Greenwald, 2013; Moule, 2009). Implicit mental attitudes or beliefs “operate relatively
automatically and without awareness,” and “can also be oppositional to our intended goals”
(Stanley et al., 2011, p. 7710). Metacognition allows individuals to reflect on their learning
practices and cognitive performance and identify contextual limitations (Baker, 2006; R. E.
Mayer, 2011). One contextual limitation of which board members must be aware is potential
implicit biases, which may influence diversity recruitment and nominating processes and
outcomes. While individuals may be intellectually aware of the existence of potential heuristic
and implicit biases, they often perceive them as external to themselves (Banaji & Greenwald,
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 190
2013; Pronin, 2007). Two recommendations rooted in metacognitive theory and sociocultural
theory provide interventions to limit such biases.
Incorporate reflection to solidify knowledge and mitigate implicit bias. MMA study
findings demonstrated that, while certain board members previously attended diversity and
unconscious bias training, most lacked awareness of how self-reflection and metacognitive
practices might mitigate predispositions limiting board recruiting and nominating outcomes.
Metacognition facilitates reflecting on learning practices, improves cognitive performance, and
identifies contextual limitations (Baker, 2006; R. E. Mayer, 2011). As such, the MMA board
should receive a carefully crafted series of implicit bias training modules that emphasize
nominating and recruiting practices. Because such training is often short-lived or ineffective, it
should be comprehensive, sustained, and coupled with broader mitigating interventions (AAM,
2018; Dobbin & Kalev, 2018). For example, Devine, Forscher, Austin, and Cox (2012) found
that multiple training sessions over a sustained period, coupled with an enhanced curriculum
predicated on evidence-based strategies, reduced measured bias. Additionally, because training
carries risks of certain unintended consequences (e.g., reinforcement of stereotypes, resistance to
mandatory programs, backlash based on perceived forced multiculturism), training should
include carefully constructed safeguards to avoid these perils (see Dobbin & Kalev, 2018; Von
Bergen, Soper & Foster, 2003). AAM recommends unconscious bias training be coupled with
the use of implicit bias association tests, intercultural competence assessments with cultural
competency training, and self-awareness work (AAM, 2018). Consistent with the findings of
Dobbin and Kalev (2018), AAM notes “unconscious bias training and cultural competence
building are only valuable if they inform museums’ approaches to structural change” (AAM,
2018, p. 4).
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 191
In order to optimize the effectiveness of the recommended training, the board should
ensure that these Chapter Five recommendations are integrated and implemented holistically into
MMA’s larger diversity and inclusion initiative (see Dobbin & Kalev, 2018). Whoever is
retained to provide the unconscious bias training should adopt evidence-based best practices to
maximize training effectiveness. For example, research suggests that the risk of reinforcing
stereotypes from antibias training can be reduced by participants practicing behaviors that
increase interaction with members of diverse groups (Devine et al., 2012). Similarly, alienation
of nonminority participants can be mitigated by framing multicultural training as designed to be
inclusive of the majority culture (Dobbin & Kalev, 2018; Plaut, Thomas, & Goren, 2009; Von
Bergen, Soper & Foster, 2003). The risk of engendering feelings of forced participation can be
reduced by highlighting to participants that training is a natural part of board service subsumed
within board governance. Ely and Thomas (2001) found that framing diversity efforts in terms of
business or organizational motivations, rather than legal or socially mandated conduct, reduces
resistance and minimizes backlash.
Establish structures supporting the committees to work together toward established
goals. The diversity, executive, and nominating committees should work together regularly to
facilitate integrated support of diversity goals. For the reasons noted above, an integrated and
holistic approach to coordinating diversity recruiting and nomination practices, training, and
strategies to improve board diversity is essential to achieving desired performance goals. As
noted by Clark and Estes (2008), change initiatives require buy-in from multiple groups and
constituencies, as well as complementary expertise from different operating arms of the
organization. Efforts to effectuate change in a vacuum without sustained input from board
leadership committees will be ineffective. Moreover, diversity interventions are more effective
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 192
when complemented by less stratified participation, including engaging in activities such as
mentorship, brainstorming sessions, and cross-functional engagement (Dobbin & Kalev, 2018).
Solidify metacognitive knowledge and insights from group sessions. Social science
research has shown encouraging self-talk (engaging in an internal dialogue about targeted
activities or behaviors) facilitates learning by helping people guide and direct their behavior
through difficult tasks in the same way others may have previously guided them (Dembo &
Eaton, 2000; Denler, Wolters, & Benzon, 2006; Mikulincer, Shaver, Cooper, & Larsen, 2015).
As a result, it is also recommended that the diversity committee meet periodically with the
executive and nominating committees to engage in self-reflective dialogue about potential
unconscious biases and other matters related to candidate selection. Board members will be
encouraged to engage in a self-reflective dialogue after sessions, including self-talk (internal
dialogue flowing from self-reflection about potential biases affecting board candidate
recruitment), to solidify knowledge and insights from group sessions. The diversity consultants
should build in self-reflection components to implicit bias training modules to facilitate insights
flowing from this form of self-reflection.
Motivation Recommendations
This section proposes recommendations drawn from research-based motivation theories
supporting the achievement of stakeholder and organizational performance goals. Motivation is
critically important in goal attainment and in remedying organizational performance problems
(Clark & Estes, 2008). Research has consistently shown motivated stakeholders to be a
catalyzing force contributing to targeted organizational performance (Grossman & Salas, 2011;
Jensen, 2012). The three primary indicators of motivated behavior are choice, persistence, and
mental effort (R. E. Mayer, 2011). Clark and Estes (2008) note active choice typically focuses on
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 193
whether stakeholders take the first steps in implementing goals or decisions. Persistence relates
to the ability of individuals to continue with tasks and goals despite distractions, resource
constraints, or other impediments (Clark & Estes, 2008; R. E. Mayer, 2011). Mental effort refers
to the intensity, and rigor stakeholders exert in attaining goals, solving problems, and
implementing decisions (Clark & Estes, 2008; Jensen, 2012; R. E. Mayer, 2011). Study findings
indicated that the majority of the board had a combination of active choice, persistence, and
mental effort issues associated with expectancy/utility value, attribution, and self-efficacy
influences.
Findings indicated stakeholder motivation is limited by a failure to perceive the utility
value of board diversification or limited expectancy. Additionally, certain board members lacked
motivation based on attributions associated with the belief that improvement is an insoluble
problem caused by external factors, including a limited candidate pool, modest networking
opportunities, serving on multiple boards, and board member dues requirements. The data also
suggests that certain board members lacked motivation based on attainment and attribution
factors linked to perceived governance responsibilities or limited self-efficacy in their capability
to achieve desired recruiting outcomes. Table 20 identifies motivational influences, principles
related to assumed influences, and corresponding recommendations aligned with the Clark and
Estes framework (2008) designed to close validated gaps.
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 194
Table 20
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Validated Motivation
Influence
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Board members need to
appreciate the utility value of
racial and ethnic diversity for
improving MMA’s operational
success, stakeholder support,
and community engagement.
(M-UV)
Rationales that include a
discussion of the importance
and utility value of the work or
learning can help learners
develop positive values
(Eccles, 2006; Pintrich, 2003).
Individuals are more likely to
engage in an activity when it
provides value to them (Eccles,
2006).
Learning and motivation are
enhanced if the learner
values the task (Eccles, 2006).
MMA should demonstrate
leadership in the field by
becoming a research center for
board diversity, hosting
symposia and other events on
diversifying museum boards
with interested nonprofits.
Board members need to believe
that improving racial and ethnic
diversity is part of their
governance function and that
they can be effective diversity
recruiters, despite a potentially
limited candidate pool. (M-A)
Attributions related to
expectancy and attainment tend
to determine future behavior
and motivation for tasks
(Anderman & Anderman,
2006).
An individual’s motivation to
complete a task is influenced
by their belief that the effort
they put towards the task, as
opposed to their ability or other
external factors, will result in
the expected outcome
(Anderman & Anderman,
2006; R. E. Mayer, 2011).
Provide board member
education on governance
theory showing diversity is an
essential board oversight
obligation.
Symposia should include Chief
Diversity Consultant providing
examples of best practices that
improve diversity recruiting
and nominating outcomes
despite perceived external
barriers.
Board members need to believe
they can become effective
diversity recruiters and
improve board racial/ethnic
diversity. (M-SE)
High self-efficacy can
positively influence motivation
(Pajares, 2006).
Board members should engage
in modeling and mock
exercises to increase self-
efficacy related to board
recruiting.
*Indicates motivation type for each influence listed using these abbreviations: Utility Value (M-UV);
Attribution (M-A); Self-Efficacy (M-SE)
Utility value recommendations. Interviews and document analysis suggested that over
80% of board members lacked appreciation of the full array of financial, organizational,
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 195
decision-making, and stakeholder benefits associated with improved diversity. The absence of
in-depth knowledge of the utility value of diversity resulted in the board limiting its focus on
diversity and diverting resources to other activities perceived as critical. While certain board
members associated positive expectancy outcomes with improving board diversity, the level of
appreciation was limited and not directly linked to the benefits identified in the literature. The
comprehensive recommendations suggested in the conceptual knowledge section are expected to
have the concomitant effect of addressing utility value-based motivational barriers. Stakeholder
motivation will also be enhanced through MMA’s leadership in the field, effectively showcasing
and reinforcing to board members the substantial value of enhanced board diversity.
Demonstrate leadership in the field of museum board diversity. Board members’
perceptions of the utility value of diversification could also be built through MMA
demonstrating leadership in the field around board racial and ethnic diversity. Such leadership
could include becoming a research center and hosting symposia on diversifying museums and
other nonprofit boards. This assumed leadership might be undertaken in coordination with other
nonprofit groups dedicated to improving board diversity (e.g., AAM, BoardSource, Equity in the
Center, and the National Council of Nonprofits). Sponsoring symposia that promote forwarding-
thinking theories and best practices for improving diversity will enhance board expectancy value
through engagement with key stakeholders and industry leaders. Board members will also see in
practice that this is part of their charge and may be motivated by being leaders in the field. Once
these events become part of MMA’s operational rhythm, board members will perceive increased
engagement in diversity and inclusion issues as a natural part of their governance activities.
Moreover, positive reinforcement and social encouragement through stakeholder
engagement and feedback at these events will further incentivize board members to increase their
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 196
diversity focus and efforts. Discussing board and staff diversity at MMA sponsored symposia
will also facilitate a multicultural conversation aimed at understanding the historical context of
museum diversity and the importance of improving diversity moving forward. These activities
will underscore to board members and external stakeholders MMA’s commitment to diversity,
equity, accessibility, and inclusion.
Attribution theory recommendations. Once stakeholders appreciate the multifaceted
benefits associated with improved board diversity, they will have a governance-based reason to
ensure MMA has a well-balanced and diverse board. As noted by Rueda (2011), facilitating the
perceived link between attainment value, tasks, and a person’s own identity is highly effective in
catalyzing motivation. What we care about as a person (in this context, being a dedicated board
member) ascribes greater value to identified tasks and goals because they connect to our self-
schema (Rueda, 2011). Additionally, interventions targeted at demonstrating to board members
that diversity outcomes are subject to their control will serve to enhance motivation.
Show diversity is an essential board oversight obligation. As noted in Chapter Two’s
discussion of attainment value, if an individual believes that a task is important and connected to
their self-image, they will be more focused on completing the task (Eccles, 2006; Pintrich, 2003).
Individuals tend to be more motivated to work on issues reflecting their perceived obligations to
their organizations and stakeholders (Bastons et al., 2017; Taylor et al., 1991). In the context of
nonprofit boards, improving racial and ethnic diversity is increasingly being viewed as a core
leadership responsibility (AAM, 2019a; BoardSource, 2017a, 2017b). Based on the reasoning
underlying attainment analysis, adopting the series of recommended board member education
programs and participating in MMA’s research activities will potentially increase motivation by
reinforcing the leadership and governance implications of achieving the board’s diversity goals.
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 197
Break down perceived external barriers to board diversity outcomes. Attribution theory
predicts a lack of motivation when stakeholders believe external forces are limiting their ability
to accomplish goals or objectives (Rueda, 2011). Selected attributions, particularly those deemed
uncontrollable, adversely affect motivation (Anderman & Anderman, 2006). The data
demonstrated that when promoted, approximately 50% of board members associated external
and uncontrollable factors with negative recruiting outcomes (e.g., dues requirements, limited
candidate pool, service on multiple boards, and insular networks). Other members viewed
outcomes as internal, controllable, and achievable based on their belief that recruiting barriers
are not insurmountable. Based on the reasoning of Anderman and Anderman (2006), board
members who view suboptimal diversity as repairable and external may view current challenges
as situational and changeable. In contrast, board members who attribute inadequate diversity
outcomes to their lack of ability, inadequate resources, or external limitations will likely continue
to experience active choice and persistence problems. Since motivation becomes stronger based
on demonstrated successes (Anderman & Anderman, 2006; R. E. Mayer, 2011; Rueda), diversity
consultants should provide board members with concrete examples where other boards have
successfully adopted best practices to improve recruiting and nomination outcomes. Education,
training, and recruiting successes may fortify board member beliefs regarding their capacity to
implement change in this area. These board members will more likely perceive suboptimal
diversity as repairable and external and subject to change.
Self-efficacy recommendations. Board members provided mixed responses regarding
whether they perceived themselves as having the capacity to be effective diversity recruiters.
Less than half of the participants self-identified as being proficient in racial and ethnic diversity
recruiting. Most board members who lacked perceived self-efficacy in this area believed that
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 198
external barriers presented significant obstacles to diversity recruiting. Almost 36% of
participants believe a limited candidate pool is an impediment to diversity recruiting.
Additionally, approximately 40% of board members believe potential candidates of color may be
overextended with financial and time constraints in serving on multiple boards. Other members
indicated limited access to diverse networks poses a significant recruiting barrier. Board
members with high self-efficacy believed these perceived barriers as manageable and not
insurmountable.
Engage in modeling and mock exercises to increase recruiting self-efficacy. Self-
efficacy theory focuses on beliefs and expectations about an individual’s capabilities for
achieving certain outcomes (Eccles, 2006). Self-efficacy manifests through mastery of tasks and
vicarious experiences (effectively completing tasks, obtaining feedback, and observing models),
social and contextual influences, as well as emotional and physiological states (Bandura, 2005;
Pajares, 2006; Usher & Pajares, 2009). Individuals’ self-efficacy regarding their talents and
abilities serves as a mediator of active choice, persistence, and mental effort (Bandura, 2000;
Eccles, 2006), making it an effective predictor of motivational outcomes (Aguinis & Kraiger,
2009; Bandura, 2000; Pajares, 2006). When individuals have high confidence in their ability to
complete tasks, they are much more likely to persist in the face of challenges (Eccles, 2006;
Pajares, 2006). Feedback and modeling are especially effective in increasing self-efficacy
(Pajares, 2006). As such, training sessions should be augmented to provide modeling, mock
exercises adopting best practices, and feedback on board member successes to enhance board
members’ beliefs in their recruiting abilities. As noted by Clark and Estes (2008), “beliefs are
(almost) everything” in generating positive attitudes and self-efficacy about one’s ability to be
successful in completing tasks and accomplishing performance goals (p. 79).
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 199
Organization Recommendations
Even when individuals have adequate knowledge and motivation to achieve stated
performance goals, organizational influences may serve as significant barriers to achieving
desired outcomes (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). As such, mitigating undesirable
organizational influences must be considered when evaluating potential root causes associated
with performance gaps (Clark & Estes, 2008). This section proposes recommendations for
closing validated gaps in organizational culture, processes, resources, leadership and diversity
management associated with improving MMA board racial and ethnic diversity.
This study focused on several organizational influences theorized to limit achievement of
MMA’s board diversity performance goals. Study findings confirmed that, while the board
embraces diversity and inclusion as core values, a disparity exists between embedded culture and
its climate. Additionally, findings validated the need for targeted diversity leadership and
strategic management practices dedicated to improving board diversity outcomes (e.g., additional
resources, diversity training, agenda setting, and the use of diversity best practices). Table 21
provides recommendations aligned with Clark and Estes’s (2008) framework to address these
validated organizational needs. The table identifies organizational influences, principles related
to assumed influences, and corresponding context-specific recommendations designed to close
identified performance gaps.
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 200
Table 21
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Validated Organization
Influence
Principle and Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
The MMA organizational
environment needs to align
expressed and demonstrated
commitments to diversity.
(CS-E)
Without artifacts, policies, structures,
and processes that consistently
demonstrate cultural values are a
priority, institutions will fail to
deploy adequate resources and effort
to support change initiatives (Clark &
Estes, 2008; Schneider et al., 1996).
Effective change efforts use
evidence-based solutions and adapt
them, where necessary, to the
organization’s culture (Clark & Estes,
2008).
The board should prioritize
practices, such as placing
diversity on the agenda at
quarterly board meetings and
put goals related to diversity in
the strategic plan that move
express commitment to
diversity into action.
The MMA organization
needs to devote
resources/budget, structures,
training, policies, and
procedures to facilitate better
diversity recruiting and
nominating outcomes. (CS-
R)
Meaningful change occurs when
diversity initiatives are supported by
the organization’s financial and
human capital resources
(BoardSource, 2017a; Brown, 2002a;
Hyde, 2003).
Effective change efforts ensure that
everyone has the resources (e.g.,
equipment, personnel, time) needed
to do their job and that if there are
resource shortages, then resources are
aligned with organizational priorities
(Clark & Estes, 2008).
MMA should appoint a chief
diversity officer.
MMA needs to dedicate
resources to diversity and
inclusion in its strategic plan.
MMA should accelerate efforts
to obtain funding for diversity
and inclusion initiatives.
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 201
Table 21, continued
Validated Organization
Influence
Principle and Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
The MMA organization
needs thoughtful leadership
focus on diversity and
inclusion and unconscious
bias. (CS-L)
Effective leaders demonstrate a
commitment to valuing diversity
through inclusive action. They
promote an organizational culture
that promotes equity and inclusion
and cultivate an atmosphere where
diversity is viewed as an asset to the
organization and its stakeholders
(Angeline, 2011; Prieto et al., 2011).
The board should implement
targeted inclusivity practices,
including expanding new board
member orientation,
establishing inclusive
onboarding practices, and
implementing a mentorship
program.
To effectively align and communicate
their shared visions, leaders must
continually explain and reinforce the
who, what, where, why, and how of
organizational change initiatives
(Lencioni, 2004; Lipton, 1996).
Board leadership should make
periodic presentations to the
board and operational
committees on the status of
diversity initiatives.
In making annual committee
assignments, the board chair
should periodically rotate
members to mitigate the risk of
groupthink.
The MMA organization
needs diversity management
policies, procedures, and
practices. (CS-DM)
Diversity management strategies that
adopt policies, processes, and
procedures that seek to remedy
holistically diversity performance
gaps are more effective by creating
cultural intelligence (Kumra &
Manfredi, 2012; Llopis, 2011).
Organizations that strategically adopt
diversity management best practices
to improve nonprofit board racial and
ethnic diversity can positively affect
diversity outcomes (BoardSource,
2017a).
The diversity and inclusion
committee, in consultation with
the executive committee,
should draft a diversity action
plan.
Effective change efforts ensure that
all key stakeholders’ perspectives
inform the design and decision-
making process leading to the change
(Clark & Estes).
The executive director and
executive committee should
open conversations and
communication around
diversity with key
organizational stakeholder
groups.
*Indicates Organization type for each influence listed using these abbreviations: Cultural Setting-
Environmental (CS-E); Cultural Setting-Resources (CS-R); Cultural Setting-Leadership (CS-L); Cultural
Setting-Diversity Management (CS-DM)
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 202
Organizational setting recommendations. Although there is limited evidence-based
empirical data in the literature on the efficacy of suggested diversity best practices, numerous
expert-identified strategies are embraced by diversity scholars (Kreitz, 2007). These include, but
are not limited to, leadership commitment to diversity change, strategic diversity management
practices, diversity as part of the organization’s strategic plan, organizational incentive structures
linked to performance, setting clearly defined diversity goals, use of quantitative and qualitative
benchmarking structures to assess the impact of diversity management programs, diversity
accountability plans, optimized diversity recruiting practices, and effective diversity training
(Kretiz, 2007; U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2005). Many of these best practices are
specifically targeted at improving the organization’s culture and climate.
In the social sciences, culture is examined in terms of cultural climate, models, and
settings. Cultural models include the shared schemas, values, beliefs, and considerations that are
generally invisible and often unconscious within organizations (Erez & Gati, 2004; Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001; Schein, 2004). While organizational cultures are deeply embedded within
organizational structures and not always visible, cultural climate is manifested through visible
characteristics within the working environment (Schein, 2004). Although MMA’s cultural norms
and shared values and beliefs support diversity and inclusion, study findings suggest a climate
that lacks adequate reinforcement of the importance of board diversity. For board diversity to
improve, the environment needs to demonstrably support diversity as an organizational priority
(BoardSource, 2017a, 2015). Without artifacts, policies, structures, and processes that
consistently demonstrate cultural values are a priority, institutions will fail to deploy adequate
resources and effort to support change initiatives (Clark & Estes, 2008; Schneider et al., 1996).
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 203
For change initiatives to be effective, interventions must use evidence-based solutions and adapt
them, where necessary, to the organization’s culture (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Prioritize practices that move expressed commitment to diversity into action. The
participant data supported the conceptual framework’s theory that although diversity and
inclusion are valued within the culture of MMA, the board climate rarely reinforces them as core
values. The proposed recommendations to implement policies, practices, resources, and
structures to demonstrate the importance of diversity as part of the dominant culture are
identified in the literature as diversity best practices (BoardSource, 2017a, 2017b; Bradshaw &
Fredette, 2013; Kreitz, 2007; Ostrower, 2007; U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2005;
Weaver, 2009). Placing diversity on the agenda at quarterly meetings, creating a diversity action
plan, fortifying the strategic plan, hiring consultants, and creating cross-functional teams also
serve to affirm board diversity as an organizational priority (Kreitz, 2007; Sessler Bernstein &
Bilimoria, 2013; U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2005; Weaver, 2009).
Creating a rubric that considers a full range of board member competencies,
relationships, and the perspectives needed to include experiential, demographic, and personal
attributes that form those perspectives also reinforces a culture of diversity and inclusion.
(Russell Reynolds Associates, 2009). BoardSource (2015) espoused the view that the ideal board
should be composed based on the particular priorities and direction of the organization. A matrix
of desired board composition “facilitates strategic recruiting” and “provides a tool for analyzing
the qualities, characteristics, and perspectives” needed to implement organizational strategies and
future needs (BoardSource, 2015, p. 14). Encouraging open conversations around diversity with
key organizational stakeholder groups will similarly affirm and reinforce diversity as a core
value. The board should be encouraged to hold listening sessions and actively engage
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 204
stakeholder groups in diversity discussions to guide their leadership forward. Leaders should
periodically report back regarding the status of diversity activities and seek additional input from
interested stakeholders to refine and evolve MMA diversity management strategy.
MMA should appoint a chief diversity officer or establish a change management team.
Industry experts are increasingly recommending devoting human capital resources to promoting
diversity. Deployed resources might include creating a diversity committee or a diversity task
force, appointing a chief diversity officer (CDO), or developing a change management team
(CMT; Bradshaw & Fredette, 2013; Kalev, Dobbin, & Kelly, 2006; Weaver, 2009). Task forces
or committees devoted to diversity efforts are significantly associated with more inclusive boards
(Brown, 2002a). Other options include creating an external diversity advisory board that advises
on governance-related issues or an internal diversity executive council (U.S. Government
Accountability Office, 2005; Weaver, 2009). A CMT charged with providing ongoing leadership
during a time of planned change might include the executive director, board leaders, a
consultant, and other key stakeholders (Daley, 2008). Any of these interventions would provide
tremendous support to MMA in adopting these recommendations and administering the
implementation and evaluation plan. Appointing a CDO would be particularly effective, given
the importance of these issues and the expansive scope of proposed solutions.
MMA needs to dedicate human capital and financial resources to diversity and
inclusion activities. Stakeholder interviews strongly suggested that MMA needs to devote
additional resources, budget, structures, training, policies, and procedures to facilitate improved
board diversity recruiting and nominating outcomes. Except for the diversity initiative proposed
by an MMA board member of color discussed in Chapter Four and the relatively short-term,
intensified activity associated with the current study, most participants indicated they were
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 205
unaware of any leadership-directed focus on improving board racial and ethnic diversity
outcomes. Although MMA recently launched a staff diversity and inclusion and implicit bias
training program (MMA, 2019), stakeholders confirmed no such programs are in place at the
board level. In addition to certain funds currently earmarked in its strategic plan, MMA should
dedicate additional human capital and financial resources to implement the recommendations
contemplated in Chapter Five and to adopt other contemplated diversity and inclusion activities.
MMA should accelerate efforts to obtain the diversity funding contemplated in its
strategic plan. Meaningful change occurs when diversity initiatives are supported by the
organization’s financial and human capital resources (BoardSource, 2017a; Brown, 2002a;
Daley, 2008; Hyde, 2003; Kreitz, 2007; U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2005).
Effective change efforts ensure that everyone has the resources needed to do their job, and if
there are resource shortages, then resources will be aligned with organizational priorities (Clark
& Estes, 2008). Based on these controlling principles, the board should accelerate efforts to
obtain the diversity funding identified in the strategic plan and to use those resources to improve
diversity recruiting and nominating outcomes. As noted in Chapter Four, while the strategic plan
contemplates that certain financial resources will be dedicated to future MMA diversity
initiatives, funds have not yet been obtained. Once funds are received, they can help underwrite
the diversity and inclusion activities contemplated by these recommendations.
Create a task force devoted to diversity efforts. The use of internal and external diversity
task forces is significantly associated with more inclusive boards (Brown, 2002; Daley, 2008;
Kreitz, 2007; U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2005; Weaver, 2009). BoardSource
(2017a) found that most boards are ineffective in improving their racial and ethnic diversity
because of a lack of effort and necessary internal and external resources devoted to solving the
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 206
problem. Additionally, Allison (1999) concluded that expertise in applying best practices,
processes, and procedures is required to optimize diversity outcomes, noting that many
organizations have a disconnect between expressed organizational goals and member conduct. A
dedicated task force can serve the important function of assisting leadership in conceptualizing a
diversity action plan and in communicating the linkage between diversity objectives to the vision
and the mission of the organization. These types of interventions also facilitate problem-solving
strategies that promote objectivity, equity, and inclusivity (Bensimon, 2005; DiTomaso et al.,
2007). These uses of a task force and a CDO are not mutually exclusive. If MMA decides not to
appoint a CDO, appointing a diversity task force would provide a highly effective alternative.
The board should implement targeted inclusivity practices. The former vice president of
consulting and training of BoardSource recommends the following strategies to create an
inclusive board: generate a welcoming and inviting environment; provide time for board
members to get to know each other outside of the boardroom, such as before or after meetings or
during a retreat; and have an open and honest dialogue about diversity with the board (Walker,
2012). MMA has recently implemented a new board member onboarding and orientation
program that includes a “mentorship and buddy system” and a series of “new welcoming
activities” designed to facilitate the integration of new board members (MMA, 2019). Based on
the literature and input from diversity consultants, these and other activities should focus on
functional and social inclusivity best practices that allow new and existing board members of
color to feel fully engaged in decision-making processes and board governance activities
(Bradshaw & Fredette, 2011; Buse et al., 2014; Fredette et al., 2016; Sessler Bernstein &
Bilimoria, 2013; Walker, 2012; Weisinger et al., 2016). These actions and social microprocesses
of inclusion will empower the trustees to prioritize inclusive practices that create a culture of
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 207
inclusion that benefits MMA and the broader community. Additionally, MMA should seek to
promote board members of color to leadership positions, highlight successes and acknowledge
leaders for outstanding inclusion efforts, provide recurring training that facilitates broader
inclusion, and facilitate community coalitions to address diversity barriers (AAM, 2018).
Importantly, however, these inclusivity practices should reject ridged and binary
conceptions of diversity and inclusion by encouraging majority and minority board members to
meaningfully engage in behaviors, not merely adopt superficially appealing inclusive policies
and practices that merely optically promote inclusivity (Fredette, 2016; Sesslar et al., 2013;
Weisinger, 2016). Given the “nuanced, complex, and, at times, tenuous relationships among
diversity, inclusion, and performance,” best practices should be designed and implemented with
a structural and cultural infrastructure that drives genuine participation and engagement
(Fredette, 2016, p. 255).
Board leadership should make periodic presentations to the board and operational
committees on the status of diversity initiatives. Participant data strongly suggests that the MMA
board needs more diversity-focused leadership centered around concrete action to improve board
diversity and inclusion. Almost all participants noted there was a lack of targeted activity that
powerfully communicated to the board, staff, and external stakeholders the organization views
improving diversity to be an organizational priority. To effectively align and communicate their
shared vision, leaders must continually explain and reinforce the who, what, where, why, and
how of organizational change initiatives (Lencioni, 2004; Lipton, 1996). In connection with
diversity initiatives, effective leaders should regularly communicate a vision of an organizational
culture promoting equity and inclusion (Angeline, 2011; Prieto et al., 2011). As such, the
executive director, board chair, and chair of the diversity and inclusion committee should make
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 208
quarterly presentations to the board and key committees regarding the status of ongoing diversity
initiatives. These periodic reports should include a discussion of the critical importance of
diversity to MMA’s mission, stakeholders, and operations. This type of regular communication
reflects a shared vision of leadership in promoting equity and inclusion and cultivating an
atmosphere where diversity is viewed as on organizational priority (Angeline, 2011; Prieto et al.,
2011).
The board chair, during annual committee assignments, should periodically rotate
members to mitigate the risk of groupthink. As noted in Chapter Four, certain participants
identified committee member dominance and groupthink as areas of potential concern.
Individual member dominance and associated groupthink can pervade prestige groups like
boards of directors, especially when they have a tightly connected culture that emphasizes the
avoidance of conflict, collegiality, and minimized dissent (Fernandez, 2007; O’Connor, 2003).
Efforts to limit member dominance should include periodically rotating committee membership
and staggering the number of years of committee service. These measures will facilitate robust
debate and allow all members to participate fully during committee activities.
The diversity and inclusion committee, in consultation with the executive committee,
should draft a diversity action plan. Most board members validated the assessment that MMA
needs an effective diversity management strategy that adopts policies, procedures, and practices
designed to improve board racial and ethnic diversity. The use of diversity management practices
designed to improve nonprofit board racial and ethnic diversity can positively affect diversity
outcomes (BoardSource, 2015; Kreitz, 2007; Russell Reynolds Associates, 2009; U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 2005). As such, the diversity committee, in consultation with
the executive committee and the full board, should draft a diversity action plan that adopts
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 209
diversity management best practices targeted at improved board diversity outcomes.
Additionally, the executive director and chair of the diversity committee should meet annually
with key stakeholders to report on the status of key MMA diversity and inclusion initiatives and
to seek input and feedback on reported activities.
The executive director and executive committee should open conversations around
diversity with key organizational stakeholder groups. Diversity management strategies that
adopt diversity policies and practices to holistically remedy diversity performance gaps are more
effective in creating cultural intelligence (Kumra & Manfredi, 2012; Llopis, 2011). As noted by
Kreitz (2007),
Single-threaded diversity solutions, such as focusing only on recruitment or requiring
every employee to take diversity training, do not result in lasting change. Bringing about
the changes needed to build and sustain diversity require commitment, strategy,
communication, and concrete changes in organizational structure and processes. (p. 1)
Strategic management plans that focus on effective and open communication, team building, and
conflict resolution allow for the development of expanded interpersonal relationships, which is
integral to fostering cultural growth and inclusion (Arredondo, 1996). Stakeholder input helps
crystalize an action plan based on contextually appropriate diversity best practices that facilitate
social responsibility and outcomes (BoardSource, 2017a; Llopis, 2011). Change initiatives are
typically more successful when careful input is received from multiple relevant stakeholders
(Clark & Estes, 2008). Obtaining key stakeholders’ perspectives also strategically informs the
design and decision-making process leading to effective change (Clark & Estes, 2008;
Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016b). Accordingly, in addition to the annual meetings with
stakeholders noted above, the executive director and executive committee should open
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 210
conversations around diversity with key organizational stakeholder groups. Such discussions
should include major donors known to care deeply about diversity and inclusion, board
committees, human resources representatives, and other members of MMA leadership and staff.
Recommendations summary. Table 22 below provides a summary of key
recommendations that cut across KMO influences and inform the critical behaviors and drivers
referenced in the proposed implementation and evaluation plan.
Table 22
Summary of Key Recommendations
KMO Influences Recommendation
Conceptual knowledge
Stakeholders should attend educational seminars and receive
training on the multifaceted benefits of board racial and ethnic
diversity.
Stakeholders should receive information prepared by diversity
consultants that provide foundational data on the structure,
drivers, and outcomes of racial diversity flowing from identified
best practices.
Diversity consultants should facilitate learning and lead in-house
group discussions of relevant declarative knowledge, including
information associated with recruiting and nominating best
practices.
Procedural knowledge Stakeholders should participate in immersive training in board
recruiting and nomination best practices.
Diversity consultants should demonstrate best practices
with cross-functional teams by modeling and mock
candidate review, including group discussion and feedback.
Metacognitive knowledge Provide sustained diversity and implicit bias training with an
emphasis on effective reflection on nominating and recruiting
practices.
Board members will be encouraged to engage in a self-reflective
dialogue after sessions, including self-talk, to solidify
metacognitive knowledge and insights from group sessions.
Motivation
Utility Value
In addition to conceptual knowledge recommendations, MMA
should demonstrate leadership in the field by becoming a
research center for board diversity, hosting symposia, and
sponsor other events on diversifying museum boards.
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 211
Table 22, continued
KMO Influences Recommendation
Motivation
Attribution Theory
Provide board member education on governance theory and
practices showing diversity is an essential board oversight
obligation.
Symposia should include the chief diversity officer providing
examples of best practices that improve diversity recruiting and
nominating outcomes despite perceived external barriers.
Motivation
Self-Efficacy
Board members should engage in modeling and mock exercises
to increase self-efficacy related to board recruiting
Organization Setting
Cultural Alignment
The board should prioritize practices, such as placing diversity on
the agenda at quarterly board meetings and placing diversity
goals in the strategic plan, to more fully express commitment to
diversity into action.
Organizational Setting
Diversity Resources
MMA should appoint a chief diversity officer or establish a
change management team.
MMA needs to dedicate human capital and financial resources to
diversity and inclusion activities.
MMA should accelerate efforts to obtain the diversity
funding contemplated in its strategic plan.
Organizational Setting
Diversity Leadership
The board should implement targeted inclusivity practices,
including seeking to promote board members of color, expanding
new board member orientation, establishing inclusive onboarding
practices, implementing a mentorship program, and
acknowledging leaders for outstanding inclusion efforts.
Board leadership should make periodic presentations to the board
and operational committees on the status of diversity initiatives.
The board chair, during annual committee assignments, should
periodically rotate members to mitigate the risk of group member
dominance.
Organizational Setting
Diversity Management
The diversity and inclusion committee, in consultation with the
executive committee, should draft a diversity action plan.
The executive director and executive committee should open
conversations around diversity with key organizational
stakeholder groups.
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 212
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and evaluation are the final steps in the process of recommending
solutions to any problem of practice (Clark & Estes, 2008). In order to determine the
effectiveness of the solutions proposed to optimize board recruiting and nominating outcomes,
MMA will consider the use of several prominent social science evaluation models of the kind
evaluated by the Campbell Collaboration (Boruch, Soydan, Moya, 2002; Campbell Collaboration
Steering Committee, 2004). For example, Maxwell and Loomis (2003) utilize a high-quality,
evidence-based mixed-methods approach to implementation and evaluation plans. For theoretical
purposes and simplicity of discussion, the following section adopts the implementation and
evaluation framework and strategies outlined in the New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick
& Kirkpatrick, 2016b). The model examines training evaluation levels in reverse order,
commencing with Level 4 down to Level 1 (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016b).
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
Clark and Estes (2008) have observed that change initiatives are typically unsuccessful
because organizations fail to evaluate and track effectively implemented solutions. In mitigating
this shortcoming, the interventions proposed in this study combine an evaluation of proposed
solutions’ effectiveness with an action plan that follows implementation of recommendations.
The New World Kirkpatrick Model, derived from the original model developed in the late 1950s,
is comprised of four training evaluation and evaluation levels designed to ensure that
improvements (a) are effective and are sustained with appropriate vigor, (b) demonstrate
concrete value to the organization, and (c) produce measurable results and behaviors that
facilitate positive organizational outcomes (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016a). These four-tiered
levels to training are reaction, learning, behaviors, and results, designated as Levels 1 through 4.
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 213
Reverse engineering from Level 4 outcomes to lower tiers facilities a concentrated focus
on optimized outcomes and serves as an organizational result guide to critical aspects of training
and knowledge transfer (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016b). As reflected in Figure 8 below,
Level 4 commences with a focus on results, which is the most important objective of any training
or intervention program (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016b).
Figure 8. The New World Kirkpatrick Model. Reprinted from Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels of
Training Evaluation (p. 11), by J. D. Kirkpatrick and W. K. Kirkpatrick, 2016, Alexandria, VA:
ATD Publications. Copyright 2016 by Kirkpatrick Partners, LLC.
Obtaining the ultimate performance objectives of the training is the principal focus of
Level 4. Optimized outcomes are facilitated by targeting leading indicators and desired results.
Level 4 identifies desired outcomes in the change program and the extent to which such
outcomes occur as a proximate result of the improvement program (Clark & Estes, 2008;
Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016b). Level 3 involves identifying critical behaviors that must be
consistently performed by relevant stakeholders to achieve success and desired results from the
performance improvement program. Level 3, which is the most important and resource-intensive
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 214
of the four tiers, is designed to monitor, reinforce, and encourage identified critical behaviors
during implementation. Level 3 also seeks to maintain systems and processes that drive to
reward and reinforce critical behaviors. Level 2 assesses the extent to which stakeholders acquire
the intended knowledge, skills, attitudes, confidence, and commitment from their participation in
the improvement program. Level 1 of the framework accumulates summative and formative
information that evaluates individual reactions to training providers, program relevance, and
overall satisfaction (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016b). Table 23 summarizes the elements of the
New World Kirkpatrick Model and its primary components.
Table 23
Four Levels of the New World Kirkpatrick Model
Level Measure Description Components
4 Results The extent to which targeted MMA board outcomes
occur as a proximate result of the improvement program.
leading indicators,
desired outcomes
3 Behavior The extent to which MMA board member and senior
leader learning translate to action from the performance
improvement program.
monitor, adjust
reinforce, and
reward
2 Learning The extent to which MMA board members and senior
leaders acquire program directed knowledge, skills,
attitudes, confidence, and commitment as a result of their
participation in the performance improvement program.
knowledge, skills,
attitude,
confidence,
commitment
1 Reaction The extent to which board members and leaders find the
performance improvement program favorable, engaging,
and relevant to their jobs.
engagement,
relevance, customer
satisfaction
Note. Adapted from Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels of Training Evaluation (p. 11) by Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick (2016b)
Organizational Purpose, Needs, and Expectations
MMA is one of the largest and oldest museums in the Midwestern United States, with an
encyclopedic collection of art from countries around the world. MMA’s mission is to bring
people and art together in the broadest way to contribute to a more vibrant community by
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 215
inspiring and connecting its people and communities to educate, inspire, and transform everyday
lives. MMA cares deeply about diversity and inclusion and multicultural expression. However,
like most nonprofit boards, MMA has found it challenging to improve its board
representativeness. MMA’s goal is for the board to be comprised of highly qualified racially and
ethnically diverse individuals who mirror the racial and ethnic composition of the region. This
study examined the knowledge and skills, motivational, and organizational barriers to achieving
such board diversity. Data collection and analysis supported ten areas for improvement
associated with the identified KMO influences.
Based on those findings, the recommendations presented in Chapter Five seek to mitigate
identified gaps by
(a) providing detailed education and training on declarative, procedural, and
metacognitive knowledge of the financial, organizational, social policy, and stakeholder
benefits of racial and ethnic diversity
(b) using education, training, modeling, and feedback to facilitate motivation based on
perceived utility value, the importance of diversity as a governance responsibility, and
enhanced stakeholder self-efficacy, and
(c) deploying MMA resources, an intensified leadership focus, and employing diversity
management strategies to better align MMA culture with its organizational climate.
The recommended solutions and procedural interventions should improve recruiting and
nominating processes to progressively increase MMA board racial and ethnic diversity.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Leading indicators refer to the “short-term observations and measurements that suggest
that critical behaviors are on track to create a positive impact on the desired results” (Kirkpatrick
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 216
& Kirkpatrick, 2016b, p. 60). Internal leading indicators are observed within organizations and
include measurable results for desired outcomes, while external leading indicators are related to
how external stakeholders benefit from or respond to the performance of organizations
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016b). In the case of MMA and its board, successfully realizing
internal outcomes from training, procedures, and infrastructure changes will translate to
optimized recruiting and nomination outcomes (e.g., increased number of candidates identified,
interviewed, and nominated for a seat on the board). External outcomes will likely be perceived
as effective when they satisfy external stakeholder aspirations for the organization and
correspond to successful internal outcomes (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016a, 2016b).
The recommended improvements will result in four internal outcomes and two external
outcomes. The four internal outcomes are
(a) an enhanced MMA cultural climate that is manifestly aligned with cultural values and
beliefs supporting board diversity and inclusion,
(b) demonstrated synergy in a more cross-functional committee structure, board and
committee agenda setting, and implemented best practices focused on improved
recruiting and nomination outcomes,
(c) increased focus on strategic diversity management and leadership practices, including
resource allocation and diversity training, and
(d) increased board awareness of the importance of board diversity to MMA and its
shareholders, resulting in improved recruiting and nomination processes and outcomes.
The successful realization of these outcomes will help MMA reach its performance goals to
optimize board racial and ethnic diversity. That, in turn, will communicate to key internal and
external stakeholders MMA’s commitment to enhanced processes and practices designed to
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 217
improve board diversity. Table 24 presents the desired internal and external outcomes, metrics
used to measure success, and methods for collecting data to assess the desired Level 4 results of
this implementation plan.
Table 24
Level 4 Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for Internal and External Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
Internal Outcomes
Enhanced MMA cultural climate
manifestly aligned with cultural
values and beliefs supporting
board diversity and inclusion.
Biannual assessment of
alignment of board culture and
climate, including an analysis of
the use, frequency, and
effectiveness of recommended
best practices.
Biannual Board Member and
Leadership interviews with
select members of executive and
operational committees.
Demonstrated synergy in cross-
functional board and committee
structure, board and committee
agenda setting, and
implementation of best practices
focused on improved recruiting
and nominating outcomes.
Biannual assessment of use,
frequency, and amount of
diversity resources (human
capital), budget allocation
(expenditures), best practices
(new procedures), stakeholder
engagement (obtained from
feedback), and improved
committee operations (review
minutes to quantify behaviors).
Biannual interviews with select
members of executive and
operational committees and
leadership.
Increased focus on strategic
diversity management and
diversity leadership.
Biannual assessment of
frequency and use of diversity
management and leadership
strategies, including
recommended solutions as
reflected in board and committee
minutes.
Biannual interviews with select
members of executive,
operational committees, and
senior leadership.
Increased board awareness of the
importance of board diversity to
MMA and its shareholders,
resulting in improved recruiting
and nominating processes.
Results from delayed 4-Level
follow-up assessment based on
the above criteria and metrics.
Delayed interviews with board
members and leaders on their
perceptions of the initiative and
program one year after training
completion.
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 218
Table 24, continued
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcome
Demonstrated stakeholder
perceptions of financial
commitment based on MMA
improved processes and
practices designed to improve
board racial and ethnic diversity.
Avoidance of financial penalties
in funding threatened by donors
for art organizations not focused
on improving diversity
An annual report describing
stakeholder engagement and
their financial contributions, or
avoidance of penalties, and
feedback regarding board
diversity and inclusion practices.
Receipt of 100% of expected
donor funding and community
perception of diversity
improvement.
Annual board member and
leadership interviews with select
members of executive and
operational committees.
Annual commitment from
anticipated donors at the
expected funding levels.
Note. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016b) indicate that it is helpful for organizations to have
methods in place to capture stakeholder appreciation for initiatives that are core to stakeholder
support.
Level 3: Behavior
Level 3 focuses on how effectively recipients demonstrate that they have learned the
intended knowledge and skills during the training program. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016b)
note that this level is the most critical because optimized outcomes will rarely occur unless
recipients demonstrate they are applying learned knowledge and behaviors in the intended
context. Level 3 evaluation of recipients’ behaviors also reinforces training and facilitates
accountability (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016b). To successfully implement Level 3
evaluations, organizations must identify critical behaviors and required drivers of such behaviors
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016b).
Critical behaviors. Critical behaviors are “specific, observable, achievable” activities
consistently performed in the change environment by “the primary training audience” to achieve
Level 4 organizational outcomes (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016b, p. 50). Critical behaviors
need to be “specific, observable, and measurable” to be effectively evaluated (Kirkpatrick &
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 219
Kirkpatrick, 2016b, p. 51). Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016b) state that defining critical
behaviors will be more effective when collaborating with supervisors, managers, and high
performers to determine which behaviors will likely lead to Level 4 results. The first critical
behavior is quarterly discussions between the board chair and nominating committee chair about
expanding the scope of the board candidate pool to improve diversity recruiting and nominating
outcomes. The second critical behavior is retaining diversity experts to facilitate board
engagement and intensify diversity recruiting. The third critical behavior is implementing
periodic diversity and inclusion and unconscious bias training for board members and senior
leadership. The final critical behavior is members of the executive committee and the nominating
committee will have quarterly discussions about diversity management strategies and best
practices to improve board diversity. Each critical behavior, measure of success, data collection
method, and frequency are provided in Table 25.
Table 25
Level 3 Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s) Method(s) Timing
1. Nominating committee
chair and board chair
should have a quarterly
discussion of expanded
pool of candidates to
optimize diversity
outcomes.
Enhanced efforts
reflected by number
of candidates targeted
and interviewed.
The chair of the diversity
committee will review board
and committee minutes and
interview select members of
the board, executive, and
nominating committees.
Quarterly for the
first two years,
then reevaluate
the frequency.
2. Nominating committee
and executive committee
work with diversity
experts to facilitate board
engagement and diversity
recruiting.
Frequency of diversity
consultant
engagement with the
board, executive, and
key committees.
Review diversity experts and
training reports and interview
select members of the board,
executive, and nominating
committees.
Biannually for
two years, then
reevaluate the
frequency.
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 220
Table 25, continued
3. Implement diversity
and inclusion and
unconscious bias training
for board members and
senior leadership.
Evidence that training
is periodically
occurring.
The chair of the diversity
committee will review board
and committee minutes and
interview select members of
the board, executive, and
nominating committees.
Biannually for
two years, then
reevaluate the
frequency.
4. Members of the
executive and nominating
committee should have
quarterly discussions
about diversity
management strategies
and best practices.
Collection of data
from committee
minutes and tracking
of critical behavior
metrics.
Review relevant board and
committee minutes and
conduct select board member
interviews.
Quarterly for the
first two years,
then reevaluate
the frequency.
Required drivers. Critical behaviors are influenced by drivers. Required drivers, in turn,
directly and reciprocally impact critical behaviors (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016b). Required
drivers comprise four types of processes, systems, or methods that “reinforce, monitor,
encourage, and/or reward critical behaviors on the job” (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016b, p.
53). Required drivers are not mutually exclusive and are essential to ensure support and
accountability in producing desired Level 4 outcomes (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016b).
Training, on the job performance, individual coaching, and use of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards
are recognized to be valuable support drivers (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016b). The required
drivers identified in Table 26 will enable board members and senior leaders to engage in the
necessary critical behaviors through a variety of tools, including communication of declarative
and procedural knowledge of diversity and inclusion concepts, diversity management practices,
and public recognition of individuals who have made substantial contributions to effect positive
changes in board diversity.
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 221
Table 26
Required Drivers to Support and Monitor Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical
Behaviors
Supported
Reinforcing
Board workshops on best practices in diversity recruitment and
nominating processes. Follow-up modules and self-directed learning.
Board member modeling and feedback.
Ongoing 1, 2, 3, 4
Diversity and inclusion updates on board recruiting successes. Semi-Annually 1, 2, 3, 4
Encouraging
Board presentations on the status of recruiting efforts with highlights
of notable achievements, including financial, community, and
stakeholder engagement. Experts will model, provide feedback, and
coach/mentor stakeholders.
Semi-Annually 1, 2, 3, 4
Chair of diversity committee to have meetings with select members of
key operational committees to discuss strategic diversity management
and leadership successes and challenges.
Ongoing 1, 2, 3, 4
Rewarding
Board members highly engaged in diversity and inclusion activities
should be identified at board and committee meetings for their
successful efforts.
Quarterly 1, 2, 3, 4
Highlight high-performing board members and activities in the
executive director report at executive committee meetings.
Semi-Annually 1, 2, 3, 4
Monitoring
The board chair will review nominating committee and executive
committee minutes to ensure engagement on required drivers.
Quarterly 2, 3, 4
Select members of the executive, nominating, and diversity
committee shall meet annually to review progress on diversity
initiatives, nominating outcomes, and board engagement.
Annually 1, 2, 3, 4
Organizational support. To ensure that the required drivers are implemented, MMA
personnel and consultants will need to provide support for the activities described in Table 26.
MMA leadership, staff, and diversity consultants should establish a small dedicated team of
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 222
administrators with adequate resources to coordinate the synchronous and asynchronous training
sessions, group discussions, video modules, and working sessions. The diversity committee
should coordinate the review progress on initiatives, nominating outcomes, and board
engagement. Sufficient staffing levels should be present to ensure that formative and summative
feedback is obtained efficiently. The diversity committee should coordinate with diversity
experts and board consultants to coordinate the asynchronous video training. The same team
should interface with local universities and academics to compile the training materials described
in the implementation and evaluation plan. These consultants should provide training to board
members designated to facilitate the workshops and training sessions described in Table 26.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. Establishing learning goals is critical in guiding the design and delivery
of an effective training program. Level 2 focuses on the degree of effectiveness in participants’
acquisition of the intended knowledge, skills, and behaviors intended from training. As
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016b) note, evaluation at Level 2 can be either formative, which is
more common, or summative. This section identifies Level 2 evaluation considerations
associated with the specific knowledge and skills MMA board members and senior leaders need
to support in executing the critical behaviors identified in Table 26. Following the
implementation of the recommended training solutions, MMA board members and senior leaders
will be able to
1. Recognize the financial, organizational, and stakeholder benefits of board racial and
ethnic diversity. (Conceptual)
2. Demonstrate knowledge of strategies and procedures to improve racial and ethnic
diversity. (Conceptual; Procedural)
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 223
3. Understand how unconscious views and beliefs may affect their predispositions about
racial/ethnic board recruiting and nominations. (Metacognitive)
4. Discern the utility value of racial and ethnic diversity for improving MMA’s operational
success and stakeholder support. (Utility Value)
5. Recognize how improving racial and ethnic diversity is a governance function and that
they can be effective diversity recruiters, despite potential external barriers. (Attributions)
6. Indicate confidence that they can become effective diversity recruiters and improve board
racial/ethnic diversity. (Self-Efficacy)
7. Facilitate creating an organizational environment that aligns expressed and demonstrated
commitments to racial and ethnic diversity. (Cultural Climate)
8. Identify strategic diversity management and leadership practices to facilitate improved
diversity recruiting and nominating outcomes, including the use of resources, structures,
training, policies, and procedures. (Cultural Climate)
Program. The learning goals outlined above will be achieved through a carefully
constructed program providing in-depth academic immersion and training. Experts and
consultants will provide informational diversity and inclusion training, unconscious bias training,
and nominating and recruiting workshops. In implementing the program, diversity experts will
review content, as misconceptions and insufficient levels of knowledge can negatively impact
stakeholder performance (Clark & Estes, 2008). Certain studies have found that knowledge
transfer is more successful when racial and ethnic diversity training is delivered by experts who
can facilitate knowledge assimilation (Weisinger et al., 2016). Some of the training will be
synchronous, occurring at MMA, local universities, or seminars, and other learning will be
provided asynchronously through e-learning from industry modules on subjects of interest.
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 224
Preparing the board for change includes identifying who will be involved and in what capacity,
developing a framework that considers information available and identified information gaps,
exploring potential outcomes and strategies, and securing authority from the board to make
changes (see Daley, 2008).
During synchronous learning, stakeholders will receive training from diversity experts on
the multifaceted benefits of board diversity, board recruiting, and nominating practices to
facilitate effective diversity outcomes. After training, stakeholders will receive a datasheet of
recognized diversity best practices and foundational data on the structure, drivers, and outcomes
flowing from diversity best practices. Additionally, diversity consultants will facilitate in-house
group discussions of successful recruiting practices. These experts can also provide experiential
data chronicling diversity recruiting successes to clarify attributions and fortify self-efficacy in
overcoming perceived recruiting obstacles. After completing academic immersion, in-house
training, and targeted seminars, follow-up sessions with experts and subgroups of board
members should occur to reinforce knowledge attainment and transfer. Under the principles of
sociocultural theory, group discussions facilitate knowledge construction through social
interaction and cooperative learning (Scott & Palincsar, 2006).
Synchronous learning will also include annual diversity and implicit bias training with an
emphasis on opportunities to engage in effective self-reflection. Additionally, apart from the
formal education and diversity training, the diversity committee should periodically meet with
the executive and nominating committee to engage in discussions about potential biases affecting
recruiting and candidate selection. Board members will be encouraged to engage in a self-
reflective dialogue after sessions to solidify knowledge and insights from group sessions. During
asynchronous e-learning, board members and senior leaders will complete educational modules
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 225
(obtained from nonprofit leadership organizations such as BoardSource, GuideStar, Equity in the
Center) on nonprofit governance practices related to diversity and inclusion, diversity recruiting
and nominating best practices, and stakeholder engagement and incentives. Additionally, board
members and senior leadership will be encouraged to undertake Harvard University’s online
Project Implicit (n.d.) program and to participate in related online unconscious bias training.
Evaluation of the components of learning. Protocols and procedures designed to
evaluate degrees of learning are integral to the implementation of effective training solutions
(Clark & Estes, 2008). Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016b) identify five components of learning
essential for effective evaluation in training programs: knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence,
and commitment. The knowledge learning component measures the degree to which trainees
know information (declarative knowledge), and the skill learning component assesses their
ability to perform learned tasks (procedural knowledge). The attitude component appraises
stakeholders’ beliefs and perceptions about the value or worth from training to their jobs (value).
The confidence learning component evaluates stakeholder beliefs in their ability to demonstrate
in the work environment what they learned from the training (self-efficacy). These components
align with the research presented in Chapter Two regarding the significance of stakeholder KMO
influences (Bandura, 1997; Clark & Estes, 2008; Eccles, 2006; R. E. Mayer, 2011). Table 27
identifies the proposed evaluation method and timing for each of these components of learning.
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 226
Table 27
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Conceptual Knowledge “I know it.”
Knowledge checks from questions posed during
training sessions.
In the synchronous portions of the course during
and after training, expert discussions, and
demonstrations.
Knowledge checks of key concepts in breakout
groups.
Periodically during each synchronous
module/lesson/unit/mock session.
Documented notes captured by instructors and
board member facilitators.
During and after each synchronous
module/lesson/unit/mock session.
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
During the course, training instructors ask
questions of participants.
In the synchronous portions of the course at the
end of each module/lesson/unit/mock session.
Use of mock scenarios in classes where trainees
receive peer and instructor feedback.
During each synchronous
module/lesson/unit/mock session.
Documented notes captured by the instructors. During and after each synchronous
module/lesson/unit/mock session.
Discuss concepts among small groups and report
back to the entire class.
Feedback from board facilitators and instructors
during group sharing.
During each synchronous
module/lesson/unit/mock session.
At the end of each synchronous
module/lesson/unit/mock session.
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Instructor’s observation of participants’
statements and actions demonstrating that they
see the benefit of the training.
Discussions of the value of what they are being
asked to do on the board or at MMA.
During and after each synchronous
module/lesson/unit/mock session.
During each module/lesson/unit/mock session.
Post-training assessments and board member
discussion at the executive committee.
After synchronous module/lesson/unit/mock
sessions.
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 227
Table 27, continued
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Documented notes captured by Instructors. During and after in-person training.
Post-training assessments. After each synchronous module/lesson/unit/mock
session.
Discussions following practice and feedback. After each synchronous module/lesson/unit/mock
session.
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Discussions following practice and feedback.
During each module/lesson/unit/mock session.
Post-training assessment discussion.
During each module/lesson/unit/mock session.
Level 1: Reaction
Level 1 focuses on the degree to which stakeholders are satisfied with their training and
perceive its relevance to their work or professional environment. Level 1 reaction components
include engagement, relevance, and customer satisfaction (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016b).
MMA board member and senior leader reaction data will be obtained through formative
evaluations such as diversity expert and instructor observations to assess engagement, relevance,
and customer satisfaction (see Appendix H). Summative measures, such as stakeholder
interviews, will also be used as they are an effective method to capture reaction data (Kirkpatrick
& Kirkpatrick, 2016a). Table 28 identifies the methods used to collect Level 1 reaction data from
MMA board members and senior leaders.
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 228
Table 28
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Data analytics captured through
module/lesson/unit/mock sessions.
Ongoing during the synchronous portion of the
training.
Completion of online modules/lessons/units. Ongoing during the asynchronous portion of the
course.
Observation by instructors/experts/facilitators.
Evaluation and debrief with the executive
committee and senior leaders.
During the training.
Two weeks after the training.
Relevance
Brief pulse-check with participants through a short
questionnaire.
After each synchronous
module/lesson/unit/mock session.
Synchronous and asynchronous training evaluation. After the training.
Customer Satisfaction
Course evaluation. Two weeks after the training.
Evaluations after module/lesson/unit/mock
sessions.
After the training event.
Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation. During the synchronous portion
of the training, a training coordinator will collect data from board members and senior leaders at
the start, during the training sessions lessons, and after completion. Diversity instructors and
consultants will capture levels of engagement by documenting their observations during each of
the training sessions, modules, and mock exercises (see Appendix H). After these observations
are compiled and reviewed, training coordinators will discuss relevant concepts with select board
members and senior leaders. These post-test data will reflect the level of participant engagement
with the course material, training modules, mock exercises, and small group discussions.
Following the completion of synchronous training events, participants will be interviewed using
an established interview protocol (see Appendix G) to address levels of satisfaction,
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 229
commitment, attitude, training value, and their level of confidence applying what they learned. In
a follow-up meeting with members of the executive committee, participants will be asked to
express their candid perceptions of the relevance of the material to their MMA responsibilities
and their overall satisfaction with the content and delivery of the training material. Following the
completion of the asynchronous training modules, a designed representative (e.g., one of the
diversity consultants or training administrators) will conduct brief interviews with participants to
assess levels of satisfaction, commitment, attitude, training value, and perceived level of
confidence in applying materials to their board and senior leadership activities.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. At both approximately four
weeks and three months after the implementation of the training, a member of the MMA
executive committee, ideally the chair of the diversity committee, in consultation with the
diversity consultants, will conduct post-training interviews with participants. The interview
protocol (see Appendix I) will solicit information corresponding to each of the four levels in this
evaluation and implementation plan, including board member and senior leadership satisfaction
and the relevance of the training (Level 1); levels of participants’ knowledge, skills, associated
value, confidence, and commitment associated with the training (Level 2); participants
perceptions regarding execution of the critical behaviors in the context of board recruiting and
nomination processes (Level 3); and the extent to which participants’ perceive an increase in
their proficiency implementing strategic management and diversity best practices (Level 4).
Every subsequent quarter, the executive committee should discuss each of the above items
aligning with Level 1 through Level 4 objectives.
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 230
Data Analysis and Reporting
In the year following the training, the diversity committee should prepare quarterly
reports to the executive committee on the implementation of diversity best practices associated
with each of the behavioral and critical drivers identified in the implementation and evaluation
plan. Reported items will include the extent and frequency with which diversity is placed on
board and committee meeting agendas, newly implemented diversity processes and procedures,
human capital and financial resources dedicated to diversity, and the status of diversity and
inclusion and unconscious bias training. The report will also highlight efforts to establish cross-
functional teams to engage on diversity issues, stakeholder engagement, status reports on newly
implemented recruiting and nomination practices, and data on prospective candidates of color
who have been identified, interviewed, and offered a seat on the board. The report should also
discuss the status of efforts to align MMA diversity culture and climate. After the first year, such
reports should be presented on a biannual basis, and the chair of the diversity committee should
report out findings to the full board.
Implementation and Evaluation Plan Summary
The New World Kirkpatrick Model provides a holistic framework that aligns
organizational outcomes with identified critical behaviors to facilitate learning and the adoption
of new skills and practices. The wide array of recommended diversity management activities and
best practices presented in Chapter Five will serve to facilitate enhanced board processes
associated with improving board racial and ethnic diversity. The comprehensive approach
adopted in the implementation and evaluation plan will maximize learning, facilitate motivation,
and improve the alignment of board culture and climate while maintaining accountability and
transparency.
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 231
Future Research
Further research would facilitate a deeper understanding of how attainment and
attribution theory apply to board governance in the context of improving board racial and ethnic
diversity. Economic theory and incentive structure research on how nonprofit boards prioritize
and allocate scarce resources would also be valuable. Research on positive and negative reward
structures may provide important insights into motivating factors associated with improving
board diversity. Further research considering the type, size, and industry of nonprofits would also
be useful in isolating controlling influences affecting board diversity outcomes (e.g., NPO
budget, number of employees/volunteers, mission of the organization). Many of the studies on
board diversity and organizational performance either conflate or fail to disaggregate categories
of demographic status (e.g., age, socioeconomic status, gender, or racial/ethnic diversity).
Further quantitative and qualitative research on nonprofit board performance that isolates racial
and ethnic diversity would be highly beneficial. Although BoardSource’s multidecade
longitudinal survey work and research are important to the field, data that expressly link the
efficacy of suggested practices with intended outcomes would be desirable. In particular,
additional evidence-based research should be undertaken on the viability and effectiveness of
suggested industry-based diversity best practices. Future study on the required increase in board
racial and ethnic diversity—or the optimal ratio—where positive organizational benefits are
realized would also be highly beneficial.
Additionally, most of the research examining financial performance associated with
board diversity has been conducted on for-profit organizations using traditional finance-based
metrics such as ROI, ROE, and ROA. Future research in the nonprofit context focusing on
broader indicia of financial performance would be helpful. Finally, evidence-based data about
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 232
the types of practices and behaviors that positively affect board members of color perceptions of
inclusivity would also be beneficial to the field.
Conclusion
Suboptimal racial and ethnic board diversity is a challenging problem of practice
requiring careful consideration of formidable barriers to improvement. The problem is especially
prevalent in the museum sector, where stakeholders are increasingly demanding NPOs prioritize
diversity and inclusion initiatives. This study used Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis in
evaluating ten KMO influences that serve as barriers to the MMA board realizing its racial and
ethnic diversity performance goals. Based on detailed findings identified through data collection
and analysis, context-specific recommendations were proposed to close identified KMO gaps.
Using the Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016b) New World Model, this study also outlined a
detailed plan for implementation and evaluation in assessing the efficiency and effectiveness of
implemented solutions.
The study validated all ten assumed influences identified in the conceptual framework,
with certain influences manifesting as less critical than others. Findings suggest increased
conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge will facilitate the adoption of
organizational policies, resources, and best practices to improve board racial and ethnic diversity.
The findings also suggest that MMA board member motivation may be limited by a lack of
appreciation of the utility value associated with board representativeness, as well as attributions
and self-efficacy constraints that adversely impact diversity engagement. Most significantly, the
data suggests that organizational influences may present significant barriers to MMA achieving
its diversity performance goals. Study findings suggest that reinforcing alignment between board
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 233
culture and climate, as well as fortifying diversity management and leadership practices, may
have significant potential to improve diversity outcomes.
In light of the board’s recent intensified focus on improving its racial and ethnic
diversity, the proposed recommendations may prove particularly timely and useful. Beyond the
context of this study, increased industrywide attention to improving board diversity suggests
NPOs should increasingly view improvement in this area as an imperative. As noted above, the
AAM has launched a national initiative to diversify museum leadership and improve inclusion
on museum boards. This call to action reflects an appreciation of the multifaceted organizational
and societal reasons why improving diversity is important. AAM’s efforts further reflect a desire
to address access, equity, and inclusion challenges facing museums and other institutions.
BoardSource’s multidecade findings show the paradox of nonprofit boards identifying racial and
ethnic diversity as a critical imperative, but failing to adequately improve their
representativeness and inclusivity, demonstrating the need for deep thinking in this area.
Given that the most recent census data indicates that, by 2044, the majority of the
population will be comprised of current racial and ethnic minorities, disparities in nonprofit
board diversity will become exponentially worse unless forward-thinking, creative solutions are
enacted to address this problem.
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 234
REFERENCES
Abramovitz, M., & Blitz, L. V. (2015). Moving toward racial equity: The undoing racism
workshop and organizational change. Race and Social Problems, 7(2), 97–110.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12552-015-9147-4
Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and
teams, organizations, and society. Annual Review of Psychology, 60(1), 451–474.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163505
Allison, M. T. (1999). Organizational barriers to diversity in the workplace. Journal of Leisure
Research, 31(1), 78–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.1999.11949852
American Alliance of Museums. (2016). American Alliance of Museums 2016-2020 strategic
plan. Retrieved from https://www.aam-us.org/programs/about-aam/american-alliance-of-
museums-strategic-plan/
American Alliance of Museums. (2018). Facing change: Insights from the American Alliance of
Museums’ diversity, equity and inclusion working group. Retrieved from
https://www.aam-us.org/programs/facing-change1/
American Alliance of Museums. (2019a). American Alliance of Museums to launch national
museum board diversity and inclusion initiative [Press release]. Retrieved from
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/american-alliance-of-museums-to-launch-
national-museum-board-diversity-and-inclusion-initiative-300778647.html
American Alliance of Museums. (2019b). 51 museums selected for board diversity and inclusion
program as part of $4 million national initiative. Retrieved from https://www.aam-
us.org/2019/07/23/51-museums-selected-for-board-diversity-and-inclusion-program-as-
part-of-4-million-national-initiative/
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 235
American Alliance of Museums. (2019c). American alliance of museums names ten diversity,
equity, accessibility, and inclusion fellows. Retrieved from https://www.aam-
us.org/2019/05/16/american-alliance-of-museums-names-ten-diversity-equity-
accessibility-and-inclusion-fellows/
Anderman, E., & Anderman, L. (2006). Attributions. Retrieved from http://www.education.com/
reference/article/attribution-theory/
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and
assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NY:
Longman.
Angeline, T. (2011). Managing generational diversity at the workplace: Expectations and
perceptions of different generations of employees. African Journal of Business
Management, 5(2), 249–255.
Arredondo, P. (1996). Successful diversity management initiatives: A blueprint for planning and
Implementation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Association of Art Museum Directors. (2014). Message from the executive director – summer
2014. Retrieved from https://www.aamd.org/for-the-media/press-release/message-from-
the-executive-director-summer-2014
Bainbridge, S. M. (2002). Why a board? Group decision-making in corporate governance.
Vanderbilt Law Review, 55, 1–58. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.
cfm?abstract_id=266683
Baker, L. (2006). Metacognition. Retrieved from http://www.education.com/reference/article/
metacognition/
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 236
Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2013). Blindspot: Hidden biases of good people. New York,
NY: Delacorte.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00064
Bandura, A. (2005). The evolution of social cognitive theory. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt
(Eds.), Great minds in management (pp. 9–35). Oxford, England: Oxford University
Press.
Bastons, M., Mas, M., & Rey, C. (2017). Pro-stakeholders motivation: Uncovering a new source
of motivation for business companies Journal of Management & Organization,
23(5),621–632. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2016.14
Beecher-Monas, E. (2007, January 01). Marrying diversity and independence in the boardroom:
Just how far have you come, baby? Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Law School
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.985339
Bensimon, E. (2005). Closing the achievement gap in higher education: An organizational
learning perspective. New Directions for Higher Education, 2005(131), 99–111.
https://doi.org/10.1002/he.190
Bernstein, R. S., & Davidson, D. (2012). Exploring the link between diversity, inclusive
practices, and board performance: An analysis of the National BoardSource Nonprofit
Governance Index. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Research
on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action, Washington, DC.
Biemesderfer, D. (2017, November 6). The nonprofit sector’s board diversity problem. United
Philanthropy Forum. Retrieved from https://www.unitedphilforum.org/news/nonprofit-
sector-s-board-diversity-problem
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 237
Blackwood, A., Dietz, N., & Pollak, T. (2014). The state of nonprofit governance. Retrieved
from https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publication-pdfs/413229-The-
State-of-Nonprofit-Governance.pdf
BoardSource. (1999). Perspectives on nonprofit board diversity. Retrieved from
https://seepnetwork.org/files/galleries/Perspectives_on_nonprofit_board_Diversity.pdf
BoardSource. (2010). BoardSource nonprofit governance index 2010. Retrieved from
https://leadingwithintent.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Governance-Index_2010.pdf
BoardSource. (2015). Leading with intent: A national index of nonprofit board practices.
Retrieved from https://leadingwithintent.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/LWI2015-
Report.pdf
BoardSource. (2017a). Leading with intent: 2017 national index of nonprofit board practices.
Retrieved from https://leadingwithintent.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/LWI2017.pdf
BoardSource. (2017b). Museum board leadership 2017: A national report. Washington, DC:
D.C.: Retrieved from https://www.aam-us.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/eyizzp-
download-the-report.pdf
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership (3rd
ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bond, M. A., Haynes, M. C., Toof, R. A., Holmberg, M., & Quinteros, J. R. (2013). Healthy
Diversity: Challenges of staffing for diversity in community health centers. Journal of
Community Practice, 21(1–2), 62–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705422.2013.788334
Bonilla-Silva, E. (2003). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the persistence of
racial inequality in the United States. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 238
Borg, I., & Mohler, P. P. (Eds.). (1994). Trends and perspectives in empirical social research.
Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110887617
Boruch, R., Soydan, H., de Moya, D., & Campbell Collaboration Steering Committee. (2004).
The Campbell collaboration. Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention, 4(3), 277–287.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Boruch/publication/31504228_The_Campbe
ll_Collaboration/links/541992ed0cf25ebee9887137.pdf
Bradshaw, P., & Fredette, C. (2011). The inclusive nonprofit boardroom: Leveraging the
transformative potential of diversity. The Nonprofit Quarterly, 15, 21–26. Retrieved from
https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2018/08/17/spring-2011-digital-issue/
Bradshaw, P., & Fredette, C. (2013). Determinants of the range of ethnocultural diversity on
nonprofit boards: A study of large Canadian nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(6), 1111–1133. https://doi.org/10.1177/08997640124
53085
Bradshaw, P., Fredette, C., & Sukornyk, L. (2009a). A call to action: Report on diversity on
Canadian not-for-profit boards. Toronto, Canada: Schulich School of Business.
Retrieved from http://www.yorku.ca/mediar/special/diversityreportjune2009.pdf
Bradshaw, P., Fredette, C., & Sukornyk, L. (2009b, November). Diversity on Canadian not-
forprofit boards: Findings from a national survey. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action,
Cleveland, OH.
Bradshaw, P., Murray, V., & Wolpin, J. (1992). Do nonprofit boards make a difference? An
exploration of the relationships among board structure, process, and effectiveness.
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 239
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 21(3), 227–249.
https://doi.org/10.1177/089976409202100304
Brody, E. (2007). The board of nonprofit organizations: Puzzling through the gaps between law
and practice. Fordham Law Review, 76, 521–566. Retrieved from
http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol76/iss2/2
Brown, W. A. (2002a). Inclusive governance practices in nonprofit organizations and
implications for practice. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 12(4), 369–385.
https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.12404
Brown, W. A. (2002b). Racial diversity and performance of nonprofit boards of directors. The
Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 7(4), 43–57. Retrieved from
http://socialeconomyaz.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/racialdiversityandboard
performance.pdf
Brown, W. A. (2005). Exploring the association between board and organizational performance
in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 15(3), 317–339.
https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.71
Bruning, R. H., Schraw, G. J., & Norby, M. M. (2011). Cognitive psychology and instruction.
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon/Pearson.
Burke, C. (2018). Nonprofit history’s new numbers (and the need for more). Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30(2), 174–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764001302002
Buse, K., Bernstein, R. S., & Bilimoria, D. (2014). The influence of board diversity, board
diversity policies and practices, and board inclusion behaviors on nonprofit governance
practices. Journal of Business Ethics, 133(1), 179–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-
014-2352-z
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 240
Carter, D., D’Souza, F., Simkins, B., & Simpson, W. G. (2010). The gender and ethnic diversity
of US boards and board committees and firm financial performance. Corporate
Governance, 18(5), 396–414. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2010.00809.x
Carter, D., Simkins, B., & Simpson, W. G. (2003). Corporate governance, board diversity, and
firm value. Financial Review, 38(1), 33–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6288.00034
Chait, R., Ryan, W. P., & Taylor, B. E. (2005). Governance as leadership: Reframing the work
of nonprofit boards. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Cleveland Museum of Art. (2017). Cleveland Museum of Art affirms its commitment to diversity
and inclusion. Retrieved from https://www.clevelandart.org/about/press/media-
kit/cleveland-museum-art-affirms-its-commitment-diversity-and-inclusion
Cokley, K. (2007). Critical issues in the measurement of ethnic and racial identity: A referendum
on the state of the field. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54(3), 224–234.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.54.3.224
Colby, S. L., & Ortman, J. M. (2015). Projections of the size and composition of the U.S.
population: 2014 to 2060 (Current Population Reports No. P25-1143). Washington, DC:
U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/
publications/2015/demo/p25-1143.pdf
Cook, A., & Glass, C. (2015). Do minority leaders affect corporate practice? Analyzing the
effect of leadership composition on governance and product development. Strategic
Organization, 13(2), 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127014564109
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 241
Cox, T. H., Jr. (1991). The multicultural organization. The Academy of Management Executive,
5, 34–47. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/4165006
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Daley, J. (2008). An action guide for nonprofit board diversity. Journal of Community Practice,
10(1), 33–54. https://doi.org/10.1300/J125v10n01_03
Dass, P., & Parker, B. (1999). Strategies for managing human resource diversity: From
resistance to learning. The Academy of Management Executive, 13(2), 68–80. Retrieved
from https://www.jstor.org/stable/4165541 https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.1999.1899550
Dembo, M., & Eaton, M. J. (2000). Self-regulation of academic learning in middle-level schools.
The Elementary School Journal, 100(5), 473–490. https://doi.org/10.1086/499651
Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2006). Social cognitive theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/social-cognitive-theory/
Dent, G. W., Jr. (2014). Corporate governance without shareholders: A cautionary lesson from
non-profit organizations. Delaware Journal of Corporate Law, 39.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2285730
The Denver Foundation. (2007). A report from the pipeline: Reflections on the nonprofit sector
from people of color in metro Denver. Retrieved from http://www.nonprofitinclusiveness.
org/files/Pipeline_Report_2007_0.pdf
Devine, P. G., Forscher, P. S., Austin, A. J., & Cox, W. T. L. (2012). Long-term reduction in
implicit race bias: A prejudice habit-breaking intervention. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 48(6), 1267–1278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.06.003
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 242
DiTomaso, N., Post, C., & Parks-Yancy, R. (2007). Workforce diversity and inequality: Power,
status, and numbers. Annual Review of Sociology, 33(1), 473–501.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.33.040406.131805
Dobbin, F., & Kalev, A. (2018). Why doesn’t diversity training work? Anthropology Now, 10(2),
48–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/19428200.2018.1493182
Dobbin, F., Kim, S., & Kalev, A. (2011). You can’t always get what you need: Organizational
determinants of diversity programs. American Sociological Review, 76(3), 386–411.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122411409704
Dressel, P., & Hodge, G. (2013). Analysis of policies, practices, and programs for advancing
diversity, equity, and inclusion. Retrieved from http://www.d5coalition.org/wp-
content/uploads/2013/09/PPP-Full-Report-11.14.13.pdf
Duke, N. K., & Martin, N. M. (2011). Ten things every literacy educator should know about
research. The Reading Teacher, 65(1), 9–22. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.65.1.2
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53(1), 109–132. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153
Eckel, P. D., & Trower, C. A. (2016). Boards and institutional diversity: Missed opportunities,
points of leverage. New York, NY: TIAA Institute. Retrieved from
https://www.tiaainstitute.org/sites/default/files/presentations/2017-
02/boards_and_institutional_diversity.pdf
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 243
Nonprofit Quarterly. (2014, September 14). The declining diversity of nonprofit boards and what
to do about it [Editorial]. Retrieved from https://nonprofitquarterly.org/declining-
diversity-nonprofit-boards/
Eiteljorg Museum (n.d.). Diversity statement. Retrieved from https://www.eiteljorg.org/about/
diversity-statement
Ely, R., & Thomas, D. (2001). Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity perspectives
on work group process and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2), 229–273.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2667087
Equity in the Center. (2019). Awake to woke to work: Building a race equity culture. Retrieved
from https://www.equityinthecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Equity-in-Center-
Awake-Woke-Work-2019-final-1.pdf
Erez, M., & Gati, E. (2004). A dynamic, multi-level model of culture: From the micro level of
the individual to the macro level of a global culture. Applied Psychology, 53(4), 583–598.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2004.00190.x
Erhardt, N. L., Werbel, J. D., & Shrader, C. B. (2003). Board of director diversity and firm
financial performance. Corporate Governance, 11(2), 102–111.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8683.00011
Exemption From Tax on Corporations, Certain Trusts, Etc. 26 U.S. Code § 501. (2006).
Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. The Journal of Law &
Economics, 26(2), 301–325. https://doi.org/10.1086/467037
Farrell, B., & Medvedeva, M. (2010). Demographic transformation and the future of museums.
The Journal of Law and Economics,26(2), 301-325. doi: 10.1086/467037
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 244
Feagin, J. R., & Sikes, M. P. (1994). Living with racism: The Black middle-class experience.
Boston, MA: Boston.
Fernandez, C. P. (2007). Creating thought diversity: The antidote to group think. Journal of
Public Health Management and Practice, 13(6), 670–671.
https://doi.org/10.1097/01.PHH.0000296146.09918.30
Fletcher, K. (1999). Perspectives on nonprofit board diversity. Retrieved from http://cmaps
public3.ihmc.us/rid=1L6PNNM57-5T174L-Z8M/Perspectives%20on%20Nonprofit
%20Board%20Diversity.pdf
Ford, R. C., Gresock, A. R., & Peeper, W. C. (2011). Board composition and CVB effectiveness:
Engaging stakeholders that can matter. Tourism Review, 66(4), 4–17.
https://doi.org/10.1108/16605371111188704
Foundation Center. (2019, January 23). Foundations award $4 million to diversify museum
leadership, boards. Philanthropy News Digest. Retrieved from http://philanthropynews
digest.org/news/foundations-award-4-million-to-diversify-museum-leadership-boards
Fredette, C., Bradshaw, P., & Inglis, S. (2006). Creating diverse non-profit boards: Engaging
multiple dimensions of power. In Proceedings from Administrative Sciences Association
of Canada, 27, 64–81. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?
doi=10.1.1.583.1906&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Fredette, C., Bradshaw, P., & Krause, H. (2016). From diversity to inclusion: A multimethod
study of diverse governing groups. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,
45(1_suppl, 1S), 28S–51S. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764015599456
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 245
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3601_5
Gaziano, C. (2017). Knowledge gap: History and development. In P. Rössler, C. A. Hoffner, &
L. Zoonen (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of media effects. Chichester, England:
Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118783764.wbieme0041
Gazley, B., Chang, W. K., & Bingham, L. B. (2010). Board diversity, stakeholder representation,
and collaborative performance in community mediation centers. Public Administration
Review, 70(4), 610–620. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02182.x
Gitin, M. (2001). Beyond representation: Building diverse board leadership teams. New
Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising, 2001(34), 77–100.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pf.3404
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Balkin, D. B., & Cardy, R. L. (2010). Managing human resources. NJ:
Pearson.
Greenwald, A. G., & Pettigrew, T. F. (2014). With malice toward none and charity for some:
Ingroup favoritism enables discrimination. American Psychological Association, 69(7),
669–684. doi: 10.1037/a0036056
Grossman, R., & Salas, E. (2011). The transfer of training: What really matters. International
Journal of Training and Development, 15(2), 103–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
2419.2011.00373.x
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 246
Guest, P. M. (2019). Does board ethnic diversity impact board monitoring outcomes? British
Journal of Management, 30(1), 53–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12299
Hall, P. (2003). A history of nonprofit boards in the United States. Washington, DC:
BoardSource. Retrieved from http://beech.ait.fredonia.edu/nfp/ReadingRoom/PDFs/
BoardSource-AHistoryOfNonprofit BoardsInTheUnitedStates.pdf
Halpern, R. P. (2006). Workforce issues in the nonprofit sector: Generational leadership change
and diversity. Retrieved from http://dev.orgwise.ca/sites/osi.ocasi.org.stage/files/
resources/Workforce%20Issues%20in%20the%20Nonprofit%20Sector-%20Generational
%20Leadership%20Change%20and%20Diversity.pdf
Hardin, C., & Banaji, M. (2013). The nature of implicit prejudice: Implications for personal and
public policy. In E. Shafir (Ed.), The behavioral foundations of public policy (pp. 13–31).
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv550cbm.7
Harris, E. E. (2014). The impact of board diversity and expertise on nonprofit performance.
Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 24(2), 113–130.
https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21115
Hawkins, P. H. (2014). Diversity for nonprofits: Mission drift or mission fulfillment? Journal of
Diversity Management, 9(1), 41–50. https://doi.org/10.19030/jdm.v9i1.8621
Hayibor, S., & Collins, C. (2016). Motivators of mobilization: Influences of inequity,
expectancy, and resource dependence on stakeholder propensity to take action against the
firm. Journal of Business Ethics, 139(2), 351–374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-
2638-9
Herdman, A. O., & McMillan-Capehart, A. (2010). Establishing a diversity program is not
enough: Exploring the determinants of diversity climate. Journal of Business and
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 247
Psychology, 25(1), 39-53. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.libraries.uc.edu/10.1007/s10869-
009-9133-1
Herman, R., & Renz, D. (2008). Advancing nonprofit organizational effectiveness research and
theory. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 18(4), 399–415.
https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.195
Hillman, A., Cannella, A., Jr., & Harris, I. (2002). Women and racial minorities in the
boardroom: How do directors differ? Journal of Management, 28(6), 747–763.
https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630202800603
Hillman, A. J. (2015). Board diversity: Beginning to unpeel the onion. Corporate Governance,
23(2), 104–107. https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12090
Howard, A. (2011). Groupthink and corporate governance reform: Changing the formal and
informal decision making processes of corporate boards. Southern California
Interdisciplinary Law Journal, 20(2), 425.
Hyde, C. A. (2003). Multicultural organizational development in nonprofit human service
agencies. Journal of Community Practice, 11(1), 39–59.
https://doi.org/10.1300/J125v11n01_03
Hyde, C. A., & Hopkins, A. (2004). Diversity climates in human service agencies. Journal of
Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 13(2), 25–43.
https://doi.org/10.1300/J051v13n02_02
Iarossi, G. (2006). The power of survey design: A user’s guide for managing surveys,
interpreting results, and influencing respondents. Washington, D.C.: World Bank;
Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10986/6975 https://doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-
6392-8
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 248
Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and
fiascoes. Boston, MA: Houghton, Mifflin.
Janis, I. L. (1973). Groupthink and group dynamics: A social psychological analysis of defective
policy decisions. Policy Studies Journal: The Journal of the Policy Studies Organization,
2(1), 19–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1973.tb00117.x
Jaskyte, K. (2012). Boards of directors and innovation in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit
Management & Leadership, 22(4), 439–459. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21039
Jensen, O. B. (2012). The engagement of employees as a key to corporate success. Dynamic
Relationships Management Journal, 1(2), 45–56.
https://doi.org/10.17708/DRMJ.2012.v01n02a05
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2015). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed approaches (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Jones, M. (2006). The growth of nonprofits: A reality check. Bridgewater Review, 25, 13–17.
Retrieved from http://vc.bridgew.edu/br_rev/vol25/iss1/8
Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. (2006). Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy
of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies. American Sociological Review,
71(4), 589–617. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240607100404
Kamalnath, A. (2017). Gender diversity as the antidote to “groupthink” on corporate boards.
Deakin Law Review, 22(1), 85–106. https://doi.org/10.21153/dlr2017vol22no1art723
Kezar, A. (2000). Pluralistic leadership-bringing diverse voices to the table. About Campus, 5(3),
6–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/108648220000500304
Kidder, R. (2014). Diversity on corporate boards—Why it matters. Retrieved from
https://perma.cc/46ZX-PBDA
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 249
Kim, M., & Mason, D. P. (2018). Representation and diversity, advocacy, and nonprofit arts
organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47(1), 49–71.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764017728364
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. (2016a). Evaluation blunders and missteps to avoid.
Training & Development, (November), 36–40.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016b). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Alexandria, VA: ATD Press.
Kochan, T., Bezrukova, K., Ely, R., Jackson, S., Joshi, A., Jehn, K., . . . Thomas, D. (2003). The
effects of diversity on business performance: Report of the diversity research network.
Human Resource Management, 42(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.10061
Kong-Hee, K., & Rasheed, A. A. (2014). Board heterogeneity, corporate diversification and firm
performance. Journal of Management Research, 14(2), 121–139.
Konrad, A. M. (2003). Special issue introduction: Defining the domain of workplace diversity
scholarship. Group & Organization Management, 28(1), 4–17.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601102250013
Kotter, J. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review,
73, 59–67. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/1995/05/leading-change-why-transformation-
efforts-fail-2
Kotter, J. (2012). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 250
Kreitz, P. A. (2007). Best practices for managing organizational diversity. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information
https://doi.org/10.2172/907707
Kumra, S., & Manfredi, S. (2012). Managing equality and diversity: Theory and practice.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Larcker, D. F., Donatiello, N. E., Meehan, B., & Tayan, B. (2015). 2015 Survey on board of
directors of nonprofit organizations. Retrieved from https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/sites/
gsb/files/publication-pdf/cgri-survey-nonprofit-board-directors-2015.pdf
Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. (1998). Demographic diversity and faultlines: The compositional
dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 325–340.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.533229
Lencioni, P. (2004). The five dysfunctions of a team. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Leslie, M. B. (2010). The wisdom of crowds?: Groupthink and nonprofit governance. Florida
Law Review, 62(5), 1179–1226.
Levine, S., Apfelbaum, E., Bernard, M., Bartelt, V., Zajac, E., & Stark, D. (2014). Ethnic
diversity deflates price bubbles. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America, 111(52), 18524–18529.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1407301111
Levine, M. (2020, January 24). Goldman won’t underwrite just anyone. Bloomberg News.
Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2020-01-24/money-stuff-
goldman-won-t-underwrite-just-anyone
Lipton, M. (1996). Demystifying the development of an organizational vision. Sloan
Management Review, 37(4), 83–92. Retrieved from
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 251
https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/demystifying-the-development-of-an-organizational-
vision/
Llopis, G. (2011, June 13). Diversity management is the key to growth: Make it authentic.
Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/glennllopis/2011/06/13/diversity-
management-is-the-key-to-growth-make-it-authentic/#4e8a4ab766f3
Los Angeles County Museum of Art. (2017). Policy on diversity. Retrieved from
http://www.lacma.org/sites/default/files/Board_Diversity_Policy.pdf
Luckerath-Rovers, M. (2013). Women on board and firm performance. Journal of Management
& Governance, 17(2), 491–509.
Madera, J. M. (2013). Best practices in diversity management in customer service organizations:
An investigation of top companies cited by Diversity Inc. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly,
54(2), 124–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/1938965513475526
Malloy, C. (2011). Moving beyond data: Practitioner-led inquiry fosters change. Phi Delta
Kappa International, 6(4), 1–20.
Maxwell, J., & Loomis, D (2003). Mixed method design: An alternative approach. In A.
Tashakkori and C. Teddle (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral
research (pp. 241–272). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Mayer, L. (2016). Fragmented oversight of nonprofits in the United States: Does it work? Can it
work? Chicago-Kent Law Review, 91, 937–963. Retrieved from
https://ssrn.com/abstract=2744820
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson.
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 252
McEwan, E. K., & McEwan, P. J. (2003). Making sense of research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
McGee, H. M., & Johnson, D. A. Performance motivation as the behaviorist views it.
Performance Improvement, 54(4), 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.21472
Meehan, W., & Jonker, K. S. (2017). Stanford survey on leadership and management in the
nonprofit sector. Retrieved from https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-
research/publications/survey-leadership-management-nonprofit-sector
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., Cooper, M. L., & Larsen, R. J. (Eds.). (2015). APA handbook of
personality and social psychology: Vol. 1. Attitudes and social cognition. Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/pubs/
books/4311513
Miller, T., & Triana, M. (2009). Demographic diversity in the boardroom: Mediators of the
board diversity–firm performance relationships. Journal of Management Studies, 46(5),
755–786. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00839.x
Miller-Millesen, J. (2003). Understanding the behavior of nonprofit boards of directors: A
theory-based approach. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32(4), 521–547.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764003257463
Monterio, B. (2018). Diversity & inclusion: It’s all about the D and I, not just the D. California
CPA, 86(9), 20.
Moule, J. (2009). Understanding unconscious bias and unintentional racism. Phi Delta Kappan
90(5), 321–326. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170909000504
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 253
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (2002). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational
advantage. In C. W. Choo & N. Bontis (Eds.), The strategic management of intellectual
capital and organizational knowledge (p. 674). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Neem, J. (2003). Politics and the origins of the nonprofit corporation in Massachusetts and New
Hampshire, 1780-1820. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32(3), 344–365.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764003254593
Nielsen, S., & Huang, H. (2009). Diversity, inclusion, and the nonprofit sector. National Civic
Review, 98(3), 4–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/ncr.256
Nonprofit HR. (2014). 2014 Nonprofit employment practices survey. Retrieved from
https://www.nonprofithr.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2014NEP_SurveyReport-
FINAL.pdf
O’Connor, M. A. (2003). The Enron board: The perils of groupthink. University of Cincinnati
Law Review, 71(4), 1233–1320.
Ooi, C., Hooy, C. W., & Som, A. P. M. (2017). The influence of board diversity in human capital
and social capital in crisis. Managerial Finance, 43(6), 700–719.
https://doi.org/10.1108/MF-08-2016-0226
Ostrower, F. (2007). Nonprofit governance in the United States—Findings on performance and
accountability from the first national representative study. Washington, DC: Urban
Institute Press. Retrieved from
http://webarchive.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411479_Nonprofit_Governance.pdf
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from ttps://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/
Pajares/efftalk.html
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 254
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667
Plaut, V. C., Thomas, K. M., & Goren, M. J. (2009). Is multiculturalism or color blindness better
form minorities? Psychological Science 20(4), 444–446.
Porter, L., & Lawler, E. (1968). Managerial attitudes and performance. Homewood, IL: Richard
D. Irwin.
Price, M. (2019). Diversity alone is not enough. Leadership Excellence, 36(5), 31–32.
Prieto, L. C., Phipps, S. T., & Osiri, J. K. (2011). Linking workplace diversity to organizational
performance: A conceptual framework. Journal of Diversity Management, 4(4), 13–22.
https://doi.org/10.19030/jdm.v4i4.4966
Project Implicit. (n.d.). Project Implicit. Retrieved from https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/
takeatest.html
Pronin, E. (2007). Perception and misperception of bias in human judgment. Trends in Cognitive
Sciences, 11(1), 37–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.001
Ramirez, S. A. (2000). Diversity and the boardroom. Stanford Journal of Law, Business &
Finance, 6(1), 85–134. Retrieved from
https://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1306&context=facpubs
Rhode, D., & Packel, A. K. (2014). Diversity on corporate boards: How much difference does
difference make? Delaware Journal of Corporate Law, 39, 377-426. Retrieved from
https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1685615
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 255
Richard, O. C. (2000). Racial diversity, business strategy and firm performance: A resource-
based view. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 164–177.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1556374
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Russell Reynolds Associates. (2009). Different is better—Why diversity matters in the
boardroom. Retrieved from http://www.russellreynolds.com/insights/thought-
leadership/different-is-better-why-diversity-matters-in-the-boardroom
Schein, E. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Schein, E. H. (2017). Organization development: A Jossey-Bass reader. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Schneider, B., Brief, A. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1996). Creating a climate and culture for sustainable
organizational change. Organizational Dynamics, 24(4), 7–19.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-2616(96)90010-8
Schwartz, R., Weinberg, J., Hagenbuch, D., & Scott, A. (2011). The voice of nonprofit talent:
Perceptions in the workplace. Retrieved from http://commongoodcareers.org/diversity
report.pdf
Scott, S., & Palincsar, A. (2006). Sociocultural theory. Retrieved from http://www.education.
com/reference/article/sociocultural-theory/
Sessler Bernstein, R., & Bilimoria, D. (2013). Diversity perspectives and minority nonprofit
board member inclusion. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, 32(7), 636–653.
https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-02-2012-0010
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 256
Sherbin, L., & Rashid, R. (2017, February 01). Diversity doesn’t stick without inclusion.
Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2017/02/diversity-doesnt-stick-
without-inclusion
Shi, W., Connelly, B. L., & Hoskisson, R. E. (2017). External corporate governance and
financial fraud: Cognitive evaluation theory insights on agency theory prescriptions.
Strategic Management Journal, 38(6), 1268–1286. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2560
Siciliano, J. I. (1996). The relationship of board member diversity to organizational performance.
Journal of Business Ethics, 15(12), 1313–1320. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00411816
Singh, V. (2007). Ethnic diversity on top corporate boards: A resource dependency perspective.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(12), 2128–2146.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190701695275
Smith, E. (2007). Gender influence on firm‐level entrepreneurship through the power structure of
boards. Women in Management Review, 22(3), 168–186.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09649420710743644
Solan, L. M., Fanto, J. A., & Darley, J. M. (2011). Justifying board diversity. North Carolina
Law Review, 89, 901–935. Retrieved from https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/
faculty/273/
Soo Lee, S., Mountain, J., Koenig, B., Altman, R., Brown, M., Camarillo, A., … Underhill, P.
(2008). The ethics of characterizing difference: guiding principles on using racial
categories in human genetics. (Open letter). Genome Biology, 9(404).
Stanley, D., Sokol-Hessner, P., Banaji, M., & Phelps, E. (2011). Implicit race attitudes predict
trustworthiness judgments and economic trust decisions. Proceedings of the National
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 257
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(19), 7710–7715.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1014345108
Stevens, F. G., Plaut, V. C., & Sanchez-Burks, J. (2008). Unlocking the benefits of diversity:
All-inclusive multiculturalism and positive organizational change. The Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 44(1), 116–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886308314460
Taylor, B. E., Chait, R. P., & Holland, T. P. (1991). Trustee motivation and board effectiveness.
Nonprofit and Voluntary Quarterly, 20(2), 207–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/089976409
102000207
Terjesen, S., Sealy, R., & Singh, V. (2009). Women directors on corporate boards: A review and
research agenda. Corporate Governance, 17(3), 320–337. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
8683.2009.00742.x
Thomas, D. A., & Ely, R. J. (1996). Making differences matter: A new paradigm for managing
diversity. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/1996/09/making-differences-matter-a-new-
paradigm-for-managing-diversity
Thomas-Breitfeld, S., & Kunreuther, F. (2017, June 6). Race to lead: Confronting the nonprofit
racial leadership gap. Retrieved from http://www.buildingmovement.org/pdf/Raceto
Lead_NonprofitRacialLeadershipGap.pdf
Tidwell, M. V. (2005). A social identify model of prosocial behaviors within nonprofit
organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 15(4), 449–467.
https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.82
Tomlinson, F., & Schwabenland, C. (2009). Reconciling competing discourses of diversity? The
UK non-profit sector between social justice and the business case. Organization, 17(1),
101–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508409350237
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 258
Turner, M. E., & Pratkanis, A. R. (1998). Twenty-five years of groupthink theory and research:
Lessons from the evaluation of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 73(2-3), 105–115. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1998.2756
Ujunwa, A., Okoyeuzu, C., & Nwakoby, I. (2012). Corporate board diversity and firm
performance: Evidence from Nigeria. Review of International Comparative Management,
13(4), 605–620. https://doi.org/10.22495/cocv9i2c1art6
United States Census Bureau. (2012). Cincinnati, Ohio quickfacts. Retrieved from
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/39/3915000.htm
United States Census Bureau. (2017). Race & ethnicity. Retrieved from
https://www.census.gov/mso/www/training/pdf/race-ethnicity-onepager.pdf
United States National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and
Behavioral Research. (1978). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for
the protection of human subjects of research. Bethesda, MD: Author. Retrieved from
https://istar.usc.edu/istar/sd/Doc/0/PL35N0QM3R04P12AKOHUB75P7C/belmont.pdf
University of Manitoba (2019). Equity, diversity & inclusion definitions. Human Resources.
Retrieved from http://umanitoba.ca/admin/human_resources/equity/5804.html
University of Southern California’s Office for the Protection of Research Subjects. (n.d.). IRB
review: How to. Retrieved from https://oprs.usc.edu/irb-review/
Upadhyay, A., & Zeng, H. (2014). Gender and ethnic diversity on boards and corporate
information environment. Journal of Business Research 67(11), 2456–2463.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.03.005
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 259
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2005). Diversity management: Expert identified
leading practices and agency examples (GAO-05-90). Washington, DC: Author.
Retrieved from https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-90
Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2009). Sources of self-efficacy in mathematics: A validation study.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(1), 89–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cedpsych.2008.09.002
Van der Walt, N., & Ingley, C. (2003). Board dynamics and the influence of professional
background, gender and ethnic diversity of directors. Corporate Governance: An
International Review, 113, 218-234, 220. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8683.00320
Vespa, J., Armstrong, D., & Medina, L. (2018). Demographic turning points for the United
States: Population projections for 2020 to 2060 (Current Population Reports No.
P25_1144). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved from https://census.gov/
content/dam/Census/library/publications/2018/demo/P25_1144.pdf
Virgil, J. A., Wyatt, A., & Brennan, M. (2015). From action to inaction: Building diverse,
inclusive teams in education to deepen impact. Retrieved from http://www.education
pioneers.org/sites/default/files/From_Intention_to_ActionFull_Report.pdf
Von Bergen, C. W., Soper, B., & Foster, T. (2002). Unintended negative effects of diversity
management. Public Personnel Management, 31(2), 239–251.
https://doi.org/10.1177/009102600203100209
Walker, D. (2019, July 26). Museums need to step into the future. The New York Times.
Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/26/opinion/warren-kanders-whitney-
protests.html
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 260
Walker, V. L. (2012). Boards must delve deeper to reap benefits of diversity. Nonprofit Business
Advisor, 279, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/nba.20048
Wang, Y., & Clift, B. (2009). Is there a “business case” for board diversity? Pacific Accounting
Review, 21(2), 88–103. https://doi.org/10.1108/01140580911002044
Weaver, V. (2009). Diversity & inclusion leadership. In Diversity Best Practices (Ed.), Diversity
primer (pp. 75-93). Retrieved from https://www.diversitybestpractices.com/sites/
diversitybestpractices.com/files/import/embedded/anchors/files/diversity_primer_
chapter_05.pdf
Weisinger, J. Y., Borges-Méndez, R., & Milofsky, C. (2016). Diversity in the nonprofit and
voluntary sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(1_suppl, 1S), 3S–27S.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764015613568
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. New York, NY: Free.
Westermann, M., Sweeney, L., & Schonfeld, R. (2019). Art museum staff demographic survey
2018. Retrieved from https://mellon.org/resources/news/articles/art-museum-staff-
demographic-survey-2018/
Zahra, S., & Pearce, J., II. (1989). Boards of directors and corporate financial performance: A
review and integrative model. Journal of Management, 15(2), 291–334.
https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638901500208
Zweigenhaft, R. L., & Domhoff, G. W. (2014). The new CEOs: Women, African American,
Latino, and Asian American leaders of Fortune 500 companies. Lanham, MD: Rowman
& Littlefield.
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 261
APPENDIX A
Interview Protocol
Introduction
Thank you for agreeing to meet with me and provide information relevant to my
dissertation study. I feel fortunate to interview you, as the [MMA] museum is universally
regarded as a preeminent art intuition and robust center of culture in the region. I appreciate the
time you have set aside today to answer some of my questions. The interview should last
approximately one hour. Does that time commitment still work for you?
Before we get started, I wanted to provide you with an overview of what we will be
talking about today and answer any questions you might have about participating. My study is
looking at what factors might limit, or enhance, the museum board in improving its racial and
ethnic diversity. My research will include interviewing certain board members who serve on key
operational committees (executive, nomination, and diversity and inclusion), three racially and
ethnically diverse board members, and two members of the museum’s senior leadership. Today,
we will be exploring knowledge, thoughts, beliefs, perceptions, and experiences regarding board
diversity. I am the Principal Investigator (PI) for this study, and I am working with a faculty
advisor at USC. Do you have any questions about the purpose of the study itself?
Everything we discus today will be treated as strictly confidential. All of the findings for
my study will be reported in the aggregate. When I report an actual quote in the study, it will be
anonymous and identified in the form of “MMA board member,” or “[MMA] Committee
Member” or “member of [MMA] senior leadership.” No names will ever be associated with the
findings. Additionally, no one will ever see the transcripts of this conversation. The audio
recordings will be deleted when the study is completed. Do you have any questions about the
interview?
If you have questions about your rights while taking part in this study, or you have
concerns or suggestions and you want to talk to someone other than me about the study, please
call (323) 442-0114 or email irb@usc.edu. You can reference IRB # UP-19-00173
The last couple of things that I would like to cover include the logistics of the interview
process. I have brought a recorder with me today so that I can accurately capture what you share.
The recorder helps me focus on our conversation and not on taking notes. Do I have your
permission to record the interview? If at any time you wish to turn off the recorder, you can push
this button and you may make your comments “off the record.” Your participation in all aspects
of data collection is completely voluntary. You may skip questions or end the interview at any
time. May I have your permission to get started?
Begin recording…Mention time, date, and interview type [board member, executive/
nominating/diversity committee member, or senior leadership].
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 262
Interview Protocol
I would like to begin the interview by discussing your professional background and experience,
including your history on the museum board [or senior management position].
1. Please describe what you do professionally, and tell me about your involvement on the
museum board?
● When joined; reasons for joining; board committee service.
● Professional title; duties and responsibilities externally [if senior leadership,
internal at MMA].
● Views on board governance functions.
I want to explore your views regarding certain aspects of board activity and board operations.
2. What traits and experiences (background, qualities) do you believe personify an
exemplary board member?
● Proper nominating committee targeting.
● Gaps on the current board.
● Collective attributes/traits of the full board.
● What matters most to the museum’s success?
● New connections/internal assistance (law/marketing/finance).
● Ineffective board members.
3. What are your strengths and weaknesses as a board member?
● Following up on Q2 answer, is racial/ethnic diversity and inclusion part of your
board governance functions?
● [If senior management member, same question from their perspective.]
● Do you periodically reflect on improving in certain areas?
4. What benefits, or limitations, do you believe are associated with increased board
racial/ethnic diversity?
● Why do you think there is so much recent focus on diversity?
● [If participant mentions decision-making, creativity/innovation, stakeholder
support, fundraising, or social policy objectives, probe further].
5. Tell me about your involvement, or observations, of any board diversity and inclusion
activities or initiatives?
● Recruitment and nomination success/failure/processes?
● Executive and/or other committee discussions?
● If no involvement, why not?
● Examples involving diversity/inclusion issues or initiatives?
● Past experiences affecting your comfort level in diverse settings?
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 263
6. Do you think you could be an effective diversity recruiter? Why or why not?
● Identify attributes of an effective diversity recruiter?
● Ever asked to assist in diversity recruiting?
I would now like to explore certain aspects of the board’s racial and ethnic diversity status and
board culture.
7. How would you describe the current state of board racial/ethnic diversity and inclusion?
● Effects of board racial/ethnic diversity on cohesion and collegiality.
● Underrepresentation of board members at diverse exhibitions.
● Importance to grants, foundations, stakeholders; recent AAM pronouncements.
8. How would you describe the culture of the board generally, and specifically, as to
racial/ethnic diversity?
● Values and beliefs (manifested climate).
● Board member comfort and diversity engagement.
● Historical experience/performance of racially diverse board members.
9. What factors and challenges impact the board’s ability to attract racially/ethnically
diverse candidates?
● Internal, external, or uncontrollable factors (e.g., candidate pool; multiple board
service; dues requirements; networks).
● Composition of the nominating committee.
● Board financial/dues requirements.
10. Can you tell me about a time the board (expressly or implicitly) has demonstrated its
commitment to racial/ethnic diversity and inclusion?
● Board member recognition/incentives for promoting racial/ethnic diversity.
● Encouragement to recruit diverse candidates.
● The purpose behind diverse exhibitions—board or curatorial focus.
In the last part of the interview, we will cover any ideas you may have regarding optimizing the
board’s racial and ethnic diversity.
11. If you were in charge of the recruiting and nominating process, what would you do to
improve the board’s racial/ethnic diversity?
● Cross-committee engagement (diversity/nominations).
● Diversity consultants; training.
● Broaden candidate pool.
12. Is there anything else you would like to add to our conversation today that was not
already covered?
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 264
APPENDIX B
Document Review Rubric
Documents analyzed include three years of board and committee meeting minutes,
including materials from the nominating, executive, and diversity and inclusion committees,
yielding almost 800 hundred pages of data. Additionally, documents included a 378-page report
related to MMA’s accreditation status and approximately 100 pages of additional materials from
MMA’s 2016 diversity committee (See Appendix E). Relevant documents refer, relate, or
address matters subsumed in the conceptual framework, including documents implicating
theorized KMO influences, barriers, and facilitators. These include, but are not limited to,
documents implicating (1) conceptual, declarative, and metacognitive influences (knowledge);
(2) attribution, expectancy/utility value, and self-efficacy influences (motivation); and (3)
matters pertaining to misalignment between MMA culture and climate, diversity leadership,
diversity resources, and strategic diversity management activities (organizational); (4) barriers
and facilitators associated with improving board racial/ethnic diversity; (5) processes, practices,
procedures, or discussions associated with improving board racial/ethnic diversity; (6) utility
value or identified benefits and incentives associated with board racial/ethnic diversity; (7)
efforts to improve board member perceptions of racial/ethnic inclusion; (8) stakeholder concerns
regarding board racial/ethnic diversity; (9) fundraising implications associated with board
racial/ethnic diversity and inclusion; (10) potential best practices associated with optimized
board racial/ethnic diversity and inclusion; and (11) social policy considerations associated with
improving board racial/ethnic diversity.
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 265
APPENDIX C
Artifact Review Rubric
A comprehensive array of artifacts were analyzed to facilitate a deeper understating of
KMO influences and emerging themes developed during interviews and document review.
Analysis of artifacts included viewing numerous pieces of art and exhibits at MMA and related
posters, pamphlets, marketing information, and additional promotional materials. In addition to
the criteria identified in Appendix B, artifacts were evaluated from the perspective of how they
might reflect visible manifestations of MMA’s cultural models, settings, and climate. Artifact
review and analysis included consideration of the nature, type, and placement of art pieces and
exhibitions as well as the diversity of visitors during exhibitions and other museum events. The
artifacts were also evaluated from the perspective of whether they reflected Euro-centric and
male-centric work, versus eclectic multicultural exhibitions (e.g., Samurai-era Japanese, African,
African American, ancient Chinese, nineteenth-century Indian photography, Korean, Southeast
Asian, and Islamic art, and pieces that celebrate the importance of women to the museum).
Artifacts in the permanent collection were evaluated from the perspective of whether they
reflected both Western and non-Western art and works of artists of color. The review also
evaluated whether exhibitions suggested MMA leadership and curatorial staff focused on non-
dominant and typically underrepresented artistic and historical cultures that balance the expected
Impressionism and Modernism of Europe and America.
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 266
APPENDIX D
Acronym Key for Alignment and Assessment Matrix
Source and
acronym
Description
Interview data
IQ Interview questions asked during interviews
Org1 documents
D Internal MMA documents and reports
A Internal MMA artifacts
Knowledge
KC-DB Knowledge – Conceptual knowledge of diversity benefits
KC-DRN Knowledge – Conceptual knowledge of diversity recruiting and
nominating processes
KM-UB Knowledge – Metacognitive knowledge of unconscious bias
Motivation
M-AT Motivation –Attribution of diversity leadership as governance function
M-EVT Motivation – Expectancy/utility value of racially/ethnically diverse boards
Organizational
OCS-A Organizational cultural setting – Alignment with culture
OCS-DRP Organizational cultural setting – Diversity resources, policies, procedures
OCS-DL Organizational cultural setting – Diversity leadership
OCS-DM Organizational cultural setting – Diversity management
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 267
APPENDIX E
List of Internal MMA Documents and Artifacts
Document code Document name
D1 MMA Board of Directors Minutes 2015-2018
D2 MMA Diversity Committee Minutes 2016-2018
D3 MMA Nominating Committee Minutes 2016-2018
D4 MMA Finance Committee Minutes 2016-2018
D6 MMA Board Strategic Plan 2016
D7 MMA AAF Accreditation Materials 2008-2019
D8 MMA Brochures from Ethnic and Cultural Exhibits
D9 26 Photographs of Museum Artifacts
D10 Diversity Committee Action Plan
D11 Diversity Committee List of Individuals to Recruit
D12 MMA Marketing and Social Media Documents
D13 MMA Bylaws and Board Documents
D14 MMA Organizational Charts and Committee Documents
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 268
APPENDIX F
Detailed KMO Alignment and Assessment Matrix
Influence Codes Applicable Questions Data Sources
Knowledge influences
KC-DB IQn2-IQn5
Interviews; documents
KP-DRN IQn3-IQn6, IQn11 Interviews; documents
KP-UB IQn2, IQn7-IQn11 Interviews; documents
Motivation influences
M-AT IQn3, IQn4, IQn6 Interviews
M-EVT IQn2-IQn5 Interviews; documents
M-SE IQn3, IQn4-IQn6, IQn8 Interviews
Organizational influences
OCS-CA IQn2 - 11 Interviews; documents
OCS-DL
IQn2, IQn6-IQn7, IQn9-
IQn11
Interviews; documents
OCS-DR-P IQn12, IQn16 - 18 Interviews; documents
OCS-DM IQn6, IQ1n10-IQn11 Interviews; documents
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 269
APPENDIX G
Program Implementation Post-Interview Protocol
Level 1:
Engagement
Q1: Tell me about your involvement in the training and what aspects you found particularly
interesting, challenging, or worthwhile?
Q2: Tell me about which modules or training components you found important and held your
interest?
Relevance
Q1: Please describe which aspects of the program you found particularly relevant and valuable
to board activities, and why?
Q2: Please describe what aspects of the training supported different aspects of your board and
committee service?
Customer Satisfaction
Q1: Please tell me what you like about the training and why?
Q2: Please describe your overall satisfaction with the training you received?
Q3: Please tell me about any aspects of the training you found inadequate or disappointing?
Level 2:
Declarative knowledge
Q1: Please describe in detail what you learned about the value of board diversity?
Q2: Please describe what you learned about the societal or stakeholder implications of board
racial and ethnic diversity?
Procedural skills
Q1: Please describe your understanding of what best practices are associated with improving
board racial and ethnic diversity?
Q2: Please describe policies, procedures, and practices that are effective in improving board
diversity outcomes?
Attitude
Q1: Please describe whether you feel optimistic or uncertain about results MMA will obtain
after you apply what you learned during the training to your board service.
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 270
Confidence
Q1: Please describe your level of confidence to apply what you learned during training to your
board and committee duties and responsibilities?
Q2: Please describe whether, after the training, you feel more capable of improving board
recruiting and nominating outcomes?
Commitment
Q1: Please describe your level of commitment to apply what you learned during training in
connection with your board and committee work?
Q2: What practices or activities have you modified during or after training based on course
learnings?
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 271
APPENDIX H
Instructor Training Checklist and Observation Form
Instructor Checklist Instructor Observations
Participants appeared engaged during training sessions,
modules, group discussions, and mock exercises.
Participants appeared to actively absorb the training
materials.
Participants received feedback during small group
sessions and actively engaged in discussions.
Participants demonstrated knowledge of learned practices,
policies, procedures, and diversity best practices.
Participants expressed confidence in their acquired
knowledge of learning after training.
DIVERSITY ON NONPROFIT BOARDS 272
APPENDIX I
Participant Follow-Up Interview Protocol
Level 1
Q1: Please describe whether you believe the training program will add value to your board
service?
Q2: Please describe whether the training program has positively affected your views about the
importance of improved board racial and ethnic diversity?
Level 2
Q1: Please explain whether the training has impacted your willingness and confidence to
participate in activities to improve the board’s racial and ethnic diversity?
Q2: Please explain the areas where you believe you have most improved your knowledge and
proficiency in diversity and inclusion practices?
Level 3
Q1: Please describe what new activities or practices you intend to engage in based on the
knowledge you acquired during training?
Q2: Please describe what processes, procedures, and behaviors you have engaged in post-
training to improve board racial and ethnic diversity outcomes.
Level 4
Q1: Please describe how, if at all, the training program impacted your views on the importance
of improving board racial and ethnic diversity?
Q2: Please describe whether, and to what extent, your training will impact the way you approach
improving board recruiting and nominating outcomes?
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Adopting best practices to improve racial and ethnic diversity in higher education
PDF
A nonprofit study evaluating board chair onboarding practices for effective governance
PDF
The successful implementation of diversity and inclusion efforts: a study of promising practice
PDF
The board fundraising challenge after nonprofit mergers: an evaluation study
PDF
“A thread throughout”: the KMO influences on implementing DEI strategic plans in state and municipal governments
PDF
Mitigating low employee engagement through improved performance management: an evaluation study
PDF
Implementing comprehensive succession planning: an improvement study
PDF
Creating the conditions for change readiness in higher education: an innovation study
PDF
Increasing collaborative practices in the military: an improvement study
PDF
A strategy to thrive during a crisis for nonprofit organizations
PDF
Institutional diversity policy improvement through the lens of Black alumni stakeholder leadership: a gap analysis
PDF
Organizational agility and agile development methods: an evaluation study
PDF
The facilitators and impediments to nonprofit boards of directors’ understanding their roles and responsibilities
PDF
An assessment of a nonprofit organization’s effort to increase its staff diversity
PDF
Role ambiguity and its impact on nonprofit board member external responsibilities: a gap analysis
PDF
Raising special needs: an evaluation study of respite care for medically fragile children living with autism and other illnesses
PDF
Improving workforce diversity and inclusion in higher education leadership
PDF
Developing aspiring school leaders to address the diverse racial equity needs in school communities: an evaluation study
PDF
Nonprofit donor retention: a case study of Church of the West
PDF
Unconscious name bias in workplace recruitment and hiring toward individuals with an ethnic name
Asset Metadata
Creator
Grad, Richard John
(author)
Core Title
Applying best practices to optimize racial and ethnic diversity on nonprofit boards: an improvement study
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)
Publication Date
02/10/2020
Defense Date
12/12/2019
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
agency theory,board diversity,board governance,Board of Directors,diversity and inclusion,diversity best practices,diversity leadership,diversity management,diversity recruiting,groupthink,heterogeneity,Human Capital Theory,implicit bias,inclusive practices,museum diversity,nonprofit boards,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational change,organizational culture and climate,resource dependence theory,Social Justice,stakeholder theory,unconscious bias
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Krop, Cathy Sloane (
committee chair
), Ferrario, Kimberly A. (
committee member
), Lynch, Douglas Eugene (
committee member
)
Creator Email
grad@usc.edu,rjgrad@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-267928
Unique identifier
UC11674860
Identifier
etd-GradRichar-8159.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-267928 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-GradRichar-8159.pdf
Dmrecord
267928
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Grad, Richard John
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
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
Tags
agency theory
board diversity
board governance
diversity and inclusion
diversity best practices
diversity leadership
diversity management
diversity recruiting
groupthink
heterogeneity
Human Capital Theory
implicit bias
inclusive practices
museum diversity
nonprofit boards
organizational change
organizational culture and climate
resource dependence theory
stakeholder theory
unconscious bias