University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Inclusionary practices of leaders in a biotechnology company: a gap analysis innovation study

(USC Thesis Other)

Inclusionary practices of leaders in a biotechnology company: a gap analysis innovation study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Inclusionary Practices of Leaders in a Biotechnology Company:
A Gap Analysis Innovation Study

Christine L. Barnes

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

May 2023

© Copyright by Christine L. Barnes 2023
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Christine L. Barnes certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Robert Filback
Susanne Foulk
Adrian Donato, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2023

iv
Abstract
This study investigated the use of inclusionary practices of leaders of a technical operations
function at a global biotechnology company as a means of addressing the enduring
underrepresentation of women and minorities in STEM. A needs analysis used a knowledge and
skills, motivational, and organizational influences framework. A mixed-methods convergent
design approach assessed the needs of leaders for conceptual and metacognitive knowledge,
components of expectancy value, self-efficacy theories of motivation, and organizational support
in the form of resources, goals, and rewards for them to incorporate inclusionary practices into
their performance goals. Analysis of a quantitative survey, qualitative interviews, and 14
documents showed influences pertaining to metacognition, attainment value and organization
resources as assets, while conceptual knowledge, utility value, self-efficacy, and cultural settings
were deemed needs. Findings informed an evidence-based implementation and evaluation plan
using the new world Kirkpatrick model. Recommendations for a multifaceted 6-month learning
initiative include a robust pilot program to develop leaders’ conceptual and metacognitive
awareness of inclusionary practices, along with their self-efficacy, to role model and incorporate
inclusionary practices into their performance goals.
Keywords: inclusion, inclusionary, diversity, leadership, role model, self-efficacy,
biotechnology, STEM, performance goals, bias, metacognition, attainment value, utility value,
organizational resources

v
Dedication
To my life partner Christopher (Kit), I could not have completed this program without your
steadfast love and support. You have always believed in me, and from the start of this program,
you made sure I was well-fed, you listened patiently to my endless and excruciatingly detailed
explanations of terms such as triadic reciprocity, scaffolding, and KMO, and you cleared the path
for me to devote the necessary time and attention to achieve one of my lifelong dreams. I love
and appreciate you.

vi
Acknowledgements
First, I want to acknowledge Dr. Donato, my dissertation chair. From the beginning of
this program, when you gently but clearly told me in EDUC-603 that all of my attempts at a
problem of practice were “solutions looking for a problem,” to this completed dissertation, you
have provided guidance, expertise and support that has made me a better leader, practitioner, and
now scholar in the field of organization development. Next, a heartfelt thank you to both Dr.
Susanne Foulk and Dr. Robert Filback of my dissertation committee for your questions, your
suggestions, and your commitment to help strengthen my work and to deepen and broaden my
thinking, my writing, and my research.
Reading, researching, and writing can be tedious and lonely work. To my Cohort 18
writing buddies Julia, Pamela, Alethea, Nicole, Alicia, Melissa and others who joined us, you
gave me energy when I most needed it. For others who shared classes with me, your generous
and often courageous sharing of your insights and life experiences informed, provoked,
stimulated and thoroughly impressed me. May the connections we made during the program
continue to grow and strengthen long after we click on “Leave Meeting” at the last Zoom
session.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ........................................................................................................................................ v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
Chapter One: Introduction to the Problem of Practice .................................................................... 1
Organizational Context and Mission ................................................................................... 2
Organizational Performance Status ..................................................................................... 4
Related Literature ................................................................................................................ 5
Importance of Addressing the Problem ............................................................................... 7
Organizational Performance SMART Goal ...................................................................... 10
Description of Stakeholder Groups ................................................................................... 11
Stakeholder Group of Focus and Performance Goal for the Study ................................... 12
Purpose of the Project and Questions ................................................................................ 14
Overview of the Conceptual and Methodological Framework ......................................... 14
Definitions ......................................................................................................................... 15
Organization of the Project ................................................................................................ 17
Chapter Two: Literature Review ................................................................................................... 18
Influences on the Problem of Practice ............................................................................... 18
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences ................................ 40
Summary ............................................................................................................................ 60
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 65
Purpose of the Project and Questions ................................................................................ 65
Conceptual and Methodological Framework .................................................................... 65
Overview of Design ........................................................................................................... 66
Participating Stakeholders ................................................................................................. 69

viii
Data Collection and Instrumentation ................................................................................. 75
Data Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 78
Credibility and Trustworthiness ........................................................................................ 78
Validity and Reliability ..................................................................................................... 79
Ethics ................................................................................................................................. 80
Role of Investigator ........................................................................................................... 81
Chapter Four: Results and Findings .............................................................................................. 84
Conceptual and Methodological Framework .................................................................... 84
Participating Stakeholders ................................................................................................. 85
Determination of Assets and Needs .................................................................................. 89
Results and Findings for Knowledge Needs ..................................................................... 91
Results and Findings for Motivation Needs .................................................................... 103
Results and Findings for Organization Needs ................................................................. 119
Summary of Validated Influences ................................................................................... 135
Chapter Five: Recommendations ................................................................................................ 139
Organizational Context and Mission ............................................................................... 139
Organizational Performance Goal ................................................................................... 140
Description of Stakeholder Groups ................................................................................. 140
Goal of the Stakeholder Group for the Study .................................................................. 141
Purpose of the Project and Questions .............................................................................. 142
Introduction and Overview .............................................................................................. 142
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences .......................................... 143
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan ............................................................. 159
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach .................................................................... 182
Limitations and Delimitations ......................................................................................... 183

ix
Future Research ............................................................................................................... 186
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 188
References ................................................................................................................................... 191
Appendix A: Pre-Survey Recruiting Communications ............................................................... 215
Appendix B: Pre-Interview Confirmation ................................................................................... 217
Appendix C: Information Sheet for Exempt Research ................................................................ 218
Appendix E: KMO Survey Protocol ............................................................................................ 221
Knowledge Questions ...................................................................................................... 221
Motivation Questions ...................................................................................................... 223
Demographic Data ........................................................................................................... 224
Appendix G: KMO Interview Protocol ....................................................................................... 228
Appendix H: KMO Document Analysis Protocol ....................................................................... 230
Appendix I: Immediate Evaluation Instrument ........................................................................... 233
Appendix J: Delayed Evaluation Instrument ............................................................................... 234
Appendix K: Data Analysis Chart ............................................................................................... 235

x
List of Tables
Table 1: Description of The Organizational Entities Named in This Research Study 3
Table 2: Organizational Mission, Organizational Performance Goal, and Aligned
Stakeholder Performance Goal 13
Table 3: Summary of Best Practices for Inclusion at the Organizational and Leadership
Levels 37
Table 4: Summary of Assumed Knowledge Influences on Tech Global Leaders’ Ability to
Achieve the Performance Goal 45
Table 5: Summary of Assumed Motivation Influences on Tech Global Leaders’ Ability to
Achieve the Performance Goal 53
Table 6: Summary of Assumed Organization Influences on Tech Global Leaders’ Ability to
Achieve the Performance Goal 60
Table 7: Data Sources 68
Table 8: Leadership Level of Survey Respondents 86
Table 9: Years of Leadership Experience of Survey Respondents 86
Table 10: Tenure of Survey Respondents in Current Leadership Position 87
Table 11: Interview Participants’ Pseudonym, Leadership Level, and Regional Work
Location 89
Table 12: Interview Participants’ Key Comments for Relevant Inclusionary Practices 95
Table 13: Interview Participants’ Key Comments on Monitoring Their Biases About
Inclusionary Practices 101
Table 14: Interview Participants’ Key Comments for Importance of Inclusionary Practices in
Goals 106
Table 15: Interview Participants’ Key Comments for Belief in Usefulness of Inclusionary
Practices in Goals 111
Table 16: Interview Participants’ Key Comments on Their Capability to Role Model
Inclusionary Practices 117
Table 17: Interview Participants’ Key Comments for Organizational Support for
Inclusionary Practices 122
Table 18: Interview Participants’ Key Comments for Organizational Goals for Inclusionary
Practices 129

xi
Table 19: Interview Participants’ Key Comments for Organizational Rewards for
Inclusionary Practices Goal Attainment 134
Table 20: Knowledge Assets or Needs As Determined by the Data 135
Table 21: Motivation Assets or Needs As Determined by the Data 136
Table 22: Organization Assets or Needs As Determined by the Data 137
Table 23: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 145
Table 24: Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations 149
Table 25: Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations 155
Table 26: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 162
Table 27: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation 165
Table 28: Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors of Tech Global Leaders 167
Table 29: Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program 177
Table 30: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program 179
Appendix D: KMO Survey Crosswalk 220
Appendix F: KMO Interview Crosswalk 226
Table H1: Document Analysis Protocol 230
Table I1: Immediate Evaluation Instrument 233
Table J1: Survey Items Measured 90 Days After Learning Activities 234
Table K1: Reporting on Program Metrics 235

xii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Clark and Estes Gap Analysis Model 39
Figure 2: Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Processes Connect to Social
Cognitive Theory 62
Figure 3: Implementation of KMO Influences and Intended Outcomes in the Organizational
Setting 64
Figure 4: Top Five Inclusionary Practices Most Relevant for Tech Global Leaders 93
Figure 5: Percentage of Tech Global Leaders Choosing Specific Actions to Monitor Biases 98
Figure 6: Respondent Ratings of The Importance of Inclusionary Practices in Their
Performance Goals 104
Figure 7: Respondent Ratings of The Usefulness of Inclusionary Practices in Their
Performance Goals 109
Figure 8: Respondents’ Belief in Their Capability of Role Modeling Inclusionary Practices 114
Figure 9: The Organization Has Inclusionary Goals for Leaders to Incorporate 126
Figure 10: The Organization Rewards Leaders for Goal Attainment for Inclusionary
Practices 132
Figure K1: Projected Progress of Percentage of Tech Global Leaders Incorporating an
Inclusionary Practice Into Their Performance Goals From August 31, 2023, Through
December 31, 2023 236

xiii
List of Abbreviations
BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics
DE&I Diversity, equity, and inclusion
D&I Diversity and inclusion
ERG Employee Resource Group
SSA The Social Security Administration

1

Chapter One: Introduction to the Problem of Practice
The problem being addressed is the underperformance of organizations in promoting
diversity in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Across the United
States workforce, women, Blacks and Hispanics in most STEM occupations are historically
underrepresented compared to their percentages in other occupations (Martinez & Gayfield,
2019). Women have increased their representation in some STEM occupations, such as life
sciences and math (Funk & Parker, 2018), but have lost ground in computers, from 32% of the
workforce in 1990 to 25% in 2016. The problem of low representation of women and minorities
in STEM is complex and enduring (Aspray, 2016), with no single explanation or solution. Two
contributing factors relate to participation rates in STEM education and employment. The
National Science Board (NSB, 2022) noted that Blacks were underrepresented at all levels of
STEM degrees awarded while Hispanic, American Indian and Alaskan Natives were
underrepresented in degrees awarded other than at the associate level. In a study of computer
program graduates, Scott et al. (2018) found that Blacks and Latinx represented 21% of
computer science graduates but only 10% of the tech industry workforce.
The problem of low rates of representation of women and minorities in STEM continued
after they were hired. In a study of why tech workers voluntarily left their employers (Scott et al.,
2017), the primary reason was unfairness, such as being passed over for promotion, mentioned
by 37% of respondents, which was almost two times higher than the second most common
reason, which was leaving for a better opportunity. Other research reported routine gender bias
against women who were employed in STEM occupations, with Black women experiencing both
racial and gender bias, whereas White women dealt with gender issues (Williams et al., 2016).
2

Organizational Context and Mission
Big Bio (a pseudonym) is a biotech/pharmaceutical organization with a powerful, concise
purpose that focuses on the future needs of patients while helping them today. As an industry
leader in the discovery, development, manufacture, and distribution of medicines targeting unmet
patient needs and incurable diseases, Big Bio spends more on research than its peers, dedicating
more than 20% of 2021 revenue.
1
Focus areas include oncology, neuroscience, ophthalmology,
and immunology. It is also known for its progressive policies and practices and is a perennial
occupant of lists of best places to work. In 2020, Big Bio announced a bold vision. Its 10-year
ambition is to double the advances in multiple research areas, but at significantly less cost to
society. Relatedly, the corporation named seven operating principles that connected to the vision
and asked employees at every level to set priorities that demonstrated their support of those
principles. Of note is the corporate social responsibility (CSR) operating principle statement to
“achieve diversity in our leadership ranks that mirrors our workforce.”
2

Furthering its commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DE&I), a U.S.-based
affiliate known as US Bio (a pseudonym) of over 5,000 employees hired a chief diversity officer
(CDO) about 2 years ago. It was the first time such a role had C-suite status, and other firsts
followed. For example, in employee town hall meetings, the US Bio corporate executive
committee began to openly share current diversity statistics for the company and fielded
questions about its diversity and inclusion practices, goals, and results. The CDO organization
grew to include several diversity partners who were assigned to various functional areas such as

1
The source for this information is publicly available but is withheld to protect the identity of the company.
2
The precise language has been amended to protect the identity of the company.
3

sales, marketing, or research and development to provide consultation and education on DE&I
matters.
Despite this aspirational focus, the US Bio organization has experienced performance
gaps in DE&I outcomes in two ways. First, the percentage of at least one group of minority
employees has decreased year over year. Second, scores for inclusion component the DE&I
category of the recent Global Employee Opinion Survey (GEOS) were lower than expected for
the overall company, falling in the bottom half of the 28 categories measured. The low score in
relation to the company’s key focus area of DE&I as one of the 10-year ambitions shows an
enterprise-wide problem. Table 1 describes the three entities referred to in this study.

Table 1
Description of The Organizational Entities Named in This Research Study
Name of entity Relationship to organization structure and hierarchy
Big Bio A global biotech/pharma company with over 50,000 employees
US Bio A wholly owned affiliate of Big Bio, based in the United States, with over
5,000 employees. Some of the US Bio employees work in the Tech
Global function.
Tech Global A 10,000+ employee global function within Big Bio focused on the
technical and operational tasks and processes required for turning
molecules into medicine. Employees in the Tech Global function who
work in the United States are considered employees of US Bio for legal
and tax purposes.

4

Organizational Performance Status
The organizational performance problem at the heart of this study is that the company is
underperforming in its efforts to improve its diversity and inclusion practices at the global,
regional, and local levels. Specifically, it is not yet operating by its CSR principle to “achieve
diversity in our leadership ranks that mirrors our workforce.” Further impacting potential actions
is that some functions have matrixed reporting relationships, adding a degree of complexity to
communication, planning and accountability within the various structures. For example, one
function known as Tech Global (a pseudonym) has more than 10,000 employees located across
the world. While the mission and operating principles of the parent organization apply to Tech
Global, practices that enable the execution of those principles are impacted by employment laws
and cultural norms that vary by location. Therefore, actions and commitments that would work in
one location or region or country would not necessarily be appropriate or effective in another
(Dorfman et al., 2012).
Several thousand employees of Tech Global are in the United States, spread over multiple
physical locations. One such location is a large site housing US Bio employees, some of whom
report hierarchically to Tech Global and dotted line to US Bio. This matters because Big Bio has
given itself until 2030 to achieve its goal of diversity in leadership that reflects its workforce, but
how each functional area, division or region achieves it may look very different. Big Bio, US Bio
and Tech Global each have unique issues and challenges to address while striving to get the
intended results. No group within the global enterprise has reached a state of diversity in
leadership that reflects its workforce. Indeed, no one person, department or entity has the
accountability to set specific goals or coordinate efforts among the disparate locations.
5

The gap in performance under study has two elements. First, Big Bio has a vision of more
diversity in leadership, and to enable that vision, it has published some suggested commitments
around four strategic diversity and inclusion (D&I) areas related to society, internal culture,
employees, and even patients. Second, the US Bio entity has six aspirational statements about
D&I, which they call goals: consistently apply inclusive recruitment and selection processes,
create opportunities to share and listen to diverse perspectives, commit to the ongoing DE&I
learning journey, encourage team participation and commitment to D&I, have intentional career
conversations with team members, and commit to advocate for or sponsor internal talent. Neither
the corporate commitments nor the division’s aspirational statements have been translated into
documented SMART goals for dissemination.
To further complicate the situation, the Tech Global employees affiliated with US Bio
must contend with the aspirational statements and the corporate commitments in the four areas.
However, many Tech Global employees do not work in the United States, and the six
aspirational statements could be considered irrelevant to them. Tech Global is particularly
interested in addressing the complexity of adopting any D&I practices and building
accountability among its leaders, as will be discussed in the stakeholder groups section. For this
study, the commitments from Big Bio and the aspirational statements from US Bio will be
considered a set of inclusionary practices. There are no stated performance goals for integrating
those practices; therefore, the performance gap is 100%.
Related Literature
The problem of underperformance of diversity in STEM organizations occurs at a time of
increased interest in the inclusion aspect of D&I. While diversity has been studied for decades
(Ferdman, 2014; Shore et al., 2018), and the two terms are often used interchangeably (Shore et
6

al., 2018), an academic approach to inclusion is more recent (Mitchell et al., 2015; Scott et al.,
2017; Sparkman, 2019). Indeed, the term “inclusion” has no agreed-upon definition in the
literature. Ferdman (2014) described inclusion as “how well organizations and their members
fully connect with, engage, and utilize people across all types of differences” (p. 4). Diversity
was likened to a noun describing something tangible, while inclusion was an action, according to
Winters (2014). A decidedly nonacademic differentiation was made by Cho (2016), who
reported that Myers explained the connection as, “Diversity is being invited to the party;
inclusion is being asked to dance” (para. 8). A common theme from the definitions in the
literature is that diversity is measurable, while inclusion is intangible, making it more difficult to
define and measure. However, researchers found that organizations were considered inclusive
when they went beyond hiring a diverse workforce to creating environments where employees
could demonstrate their unique value while feeling like they belonged (Bell et al., 2016;
Ferdman, 2014; Nishii & Rich, 2014). The evolution of literature about D&I, as reported by
Shore et al. (2018), demonstrated the importance of organizations creating inclusive
environments to enable diversity to become a competitive advantage. Nishii and Rich (2014)
discussed the necessary elements of an inclusive climate, including organizational practices that
can be implemented by managers.
Additional examples demonstrating how inclusionary practices contribute to an inclusive
organization environment were reported by Downey et al. (2014), who connected inclusionary
practices to building employee trust and engagement, and research from Cottrill et al. (2014) on
the impact of managers demonstrating behaviors such as authentic expression of role challenges.
Booysen (2014) found that inclusionary practices by leaders reduced organizational barriers to
7

employee participation and empowerment. Guillaume et al. (2013) found that manager behavior
and attitudes influenced employee expectations and behavior norms on teams.
Importance of Addressing the Problem
It is important to address the problem of underperformance of diversity in STEM
organizations from multiple angles and for several reasons. First, not much has changed in the
representation of women and minorities in STEM occupations over several years. For example,
despite companies spending time, effort, and money on recruiting and hiring more diverse
workforces, the percentage of women working in computer technology decreased from 32% in
1990 to 25% in 2016 (Martinez & Christnacht, 2021). Indeed, while the importance of diversity
in society and organizations has for many years been widely accepted (Ferdman, 2014), simply
recruiting and hiring people of diverse backgrounds, or from marginalized groups, is no longer
considered sufficient. For example, Facebook, a global tech company headquartered on the U.S.
West Coast has not made progress in hiring Black employees over the past several years,
according to Price (2020).
A second reason it is important to solve the problem of underperformance of diversity in
STEM relates to turnover. More minorities leave tech companies due to unfairness or
mistreatment (Scott et al., 2017) than for any other reason and almost twice as much as for better
jobs. In direct contrast, the benefits of inclusive environments have become clearer, as evidenced
in a seminal study by Nembhard and Edmondson (2006), which connected leader inclusiveness
in the medical profession with improving psychological safety and a reduction of problematic
status differences. Nishii and Rich (2014) reported that employees in inclusive environments felt
higher levels of belonging and commitment and were less likely to leave. Shore et al. (2018)
posited that individuals from marginalized groups would not be successful without proactive
8

efforts by the companies that hire them to create inclusive environments. The research on
inclusive environments confirmed the Scott et al. (2017) findings that a significantly higher
percentage of people of color reported they would have stayed at their companies had efforts
been made to create a fairer and more inclusive environment, compared to White/Asian
employees. Almost 10 years ago, Singh et al. (2013) did not mention the word “inclusion” but
used the term “diversity climate” to connect a positive environment and psychological safety
with employee performance, especially noting that the impact of a positive diversity climate and
sense of psychological safety mattered more to minorities than to non-minorities.
Research on practices that enable inclusive environments and enhance diversity efforts is
still evolving. Part of the problem of underperformance of diversity in STEM is the issue of
accountability, or who is responsible for ensuring goals are met. According to Sparkman (2019),
the idea of an inclusive environment as a focus area used to be separate from diversity and was
not even part of human resources development (HRD) research. Yet most D&I departments
nowadays are within the HR function and are accountable for managing practices of diversity
and inclusion (Shore et al., 2018). Booysen (2014) studied how to embed inclusion in leadership
development processes and training and how to ensure leadership development training was
itself an example of an inclusionary practice. Some studies of inclusionary practices of leaders
demonstrated the benefits to the organization systems in which they occurred. Mitchell et al.
(2015) showed how leaders influence employees’ sense of feeling both valued and able to
contribute to teams. Hirak et al. (2012) found that leaders can enable teams to improve their
performance by learning from failure. Other positive outcomes of leader inclusiveness included
leaders as role models for being comfortable with diversity (Cottrill et al., 2014) and authentic
leaders influencing goal attainment by followers (Boekhorst, 2015).
9

Another reason to address the underperformance of inclusionary practices relates to
tangible and intangible negative financial impacts. First, Scott et al. (2017) calculated the cost of
turnover in the U.S. tech sector due to unfairness alone to be $16B annually. Intangible costs,
such as harm to the company’s reputation from former employees’ negative comments or
difficulty recruiting women and minorities in the future, only add to the attrition costs.
A second intangible negative financial impact occurs when technology growth collides
with major population demographic shifts. Technology continues to be the engine that drives
global economies. In the United States in 2015, tech industries generated nearly 25% of the
country’s entire economic output (Scott et al., 2018), and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS,
2021) reported that STEM occupations will grow by 10.5 % between 2020 and 2030 while non-
STEM occupations will grow only 7.5%. However, Colby and Ortman (2015) projected that over
the next 30–40 years, only the non-Hispanic/White population would decrease in representation
by about 8%. For all other groups, including Hispanic/Latinx, Asian, and multiracial populations,
the increases will be over 100% per group. Science and tech companies are especially dependent
on constant innovation, and competition will be strong for STEM program graduates with the
skills and expertise to contribute to the growth. For the United States to be competitive on a
global stage, more must be done to not just recruit more women and minorities in computer
technology roles but to retain them as well.
At US Bio, where demographics and diversity of the workforce continue to show gaps in
representation, the cost of not acting to make sustained changes in a D&I strategy could be
measured in lost productivity when replacing workers who voluntarily leave for any reason and
in less tangible but still meaningful ways through potential harm to the company’s image and
ability to attract the kind of talent needed for continuous innovation. Further, there is growing
10

evidence that leaders’ inclusionary practices contribute to inclusive organizational climates and
positive outcomes for organizations (Boekhorst, 2015; Cottrill et al., 2014; Downey et al., 2014;
Nishii & Rich, 2014).
Organizational Performance SMART Goal
By June 2030, Big Bio will “achieve diversity in leadership which mirrors our
workforce” as part of its vision to develop more medicine at less cost to society. Big Bio is a
complex organization made up of matrixed functions and geographies, which makes achieving
its vision challenging. Functions such as Tech Global are located in more than a dozen countries,
complicating any contribution to the vision. Many Tech Global employees are matrixed
geographically by working for US Bio, which has its own distinct culture and ways of supporting
the corporate plans. In recognition of the unique challenges of diversity in the United States
compared to other geographies around the world (Best et al., 2015), more work must be done for
US Bio to achieve its stated goal of doubling the representation of two specific minority groups
in its higher-level leadership ranks by 2025. For example, a study commissioned by the company
found that those two groups, in particular, have attrition issues, with employees who left
reporting that one of the reasons they did was because they did not see anyone like themselves in
the ranks of leadership. It is important to recognize the complexity of the relationship between
Tech Global and US Bio when considering how Big Bio can achieve its vision. The
consequences of not conducting a study of the needs of leaders in the company to improve its
diversity in leadership are that no substantial changes will occur in the demographics of the
workforce and that specific minorities will continue to be underrepresented.
11

Description of Stakeholder Groups
Multiple stakeholder groups directly contribute to and benefit from Big Bio’s goal of a
diverse leadership that mirrors its workforce. One such group is the Tech Global leaders, which
consists of approximately 1,500 individuals located across North America; Central America;
South America; Europe, the Middle East, and Africa (EMEA); and Asia-Pacific (APAC). Tech
Global leaders occupy seven levels of leadership up to and including senior vice president.
Leaders at every level hire, develop, coach, and manage anywhere from a few to a few thousand
people and typically implement and maintain policies and practices that contribute to the
attainment of overall goals. Leaders up to and including senior vice president could be held
accountable for setting and achieving goals regarding D&I.
A second stakeholder group is the team of employees working in the D&I function,
including a senior leader who reports to the chief executive officer of US Bio. The remit of the
D&I function is to support and enable a diverse and inclusive culture and to influence the
company’s leaders in supporting and contributing to that effort. Employees in D&I offer
expertise and data to leaders to help embed diversity and inclusion principles in business
strategy.
Leaders above the senior vice president level are either executive vice presidents or in the
C-suite, and they are a key stakeholder group, as they oversee the strategy for hiring,
development, and performance management of thousands of employees all over the world. They
want to attract, develop, and retain the most talented and capable employees. Senior leaders also
have the most power to create and assign the implementation and measurement of policies,
including adopting D&I initiatives. Dubnick (2014) considered these account-giving
12

relationships and noted that their associated behaviors were foundational to the structures and
processes that support organizations.
Stakeholder Group of Focus and Performance Goal for the Study
While a complete analysis of all three stakeholder groups would result in the most
comprehensive analysis, it is not practical for many reasons, including the time and resources
that would be required. The stakeholder group with the most power to influence SMART goal
performance improvement are Tech Global leaders. First, they make up the largest group of
leaders within one intact function. Second, this is a large group of several thousand employees in
one global function that will be potentially impacted. Until now, inclusionary practices have
been encouraged but not required. Leaders are neither held accountable for goals pertaining to
inclusionary practices nor rewarded. However, Tech Global’s senior-most executives have the
power to make its 1,500 leaders accountable for incorporating one or more of the goals into their
performance goals. Compared to other leaders in other parts of the global company, including the
U.S. affiliate known as US Bio, the Tech Global leaders will contribute most significantly to this
overarching organization goal of Big Bio.
Big Bio is a complex system of interdependent yet decentralized functions, and Clark and
Estes’s (2008) gap analysis model addresses that complexity through the analysis of the three
important elements of knowledge/skills, motivation, and organizational influences. Each element
in the gap analysis model creates instances of accountability relationships (Donato, 2020), from
establishing the goal to diagnosing achievement gaps based on knowledge, skills, or motivation
to root cause analysis, and then implementing and evaluating recommended solutions. This
framework is ideal for assessing the knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs of the
leaders’ D&I practices and recommending future actions in all three areas to increase their
13

practices. At the time of this study, Big Bio had a vision, and some suggested D&I-focused
inclusive practices, but those have not been translated into documented SMART goals for
dissemination. Therefore, the innovation goal is that by December 31, 2023, 100% of the Tech
Global leaders will incorporate at least one of the company’s D&I inclusionary practices into
their own performance goals (Table 2). The performance gap is 100%.

Table 2
Organizational Mission, Organizational Performance Goal, and Aligned Stakeholder
Performance Goal
Organizational mission
Big Bio’s mission statement is to “focus on the future while helping patients today.”
Organizational SMART performance goal
By June 2030, Big Bio will achieve diversity in its leadership which mirrors its workforce, as
part of its vision to develop more medicine at less cost to society.
Leadership stakeholder group SMART goal
By December 31, 2023, 100% of the Tech Global leaders will incorporate at least one of the
company’s D&I inclusionary practices into their performance goals.

14

Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to conduct a needs analysis in the areas of knowledge and
skill, motivation, and organizational resources necessary to reach the performance goal. The
analysis began by generating a list of possible needs and then moved to examining these
systematically to focus on validated needs and assets. While a complete needs analysis would
focus on all stakeholders, for practical purposes, the stakeholders focused on in this analysis
were the 1,500 leaders in the Tech Global group, which is a geographically co-located subgroup
of the Tech Global function. Within the Tech Global leaders group, there are seven levels of
leadership up to and including senior vice president. As such, the following questions guided this
study:
1. What knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational needs exist for 100% of
the Tech Global leaders to incorporate at least one of the company’s D&I
inclusionary practices into their performance goals?
2. What are the recommended knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational
solutions for 100% of the Tech Global leaders to incorporate at least one of the
company’s D&I inclusionary practices into their performance goals?
Overview of the Conceptual and Methodological Framework
The conceptual framework is Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis approach to
performance improvement. It is a scalable, repeatable, and systematic process grounded in
research. By following several steps in a particular order, organizations can effectively create
goals, uncover and analyze gaps, and design and implement best-fit solutions that close gaps and
increase the likelihood of goal attainment. Assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences impacting stakeholder capability were generated based on context-specific research
15

and general learning and motivation theory. This study will use a mixed-methods approach and
will utilize surveys, interviews, and document analysis to explore those influences.
Definitions
Diversity and inclusion are often referred to as if they are interchangeable, for department
and functional titles or in introducing programs and initiatives. However, while they are
connected, they are different. There is no current global standard for the two terms, but there are
certain elements of the definition that show up repeatedly in articles and research.
Diversity describes characteristics such as race, ethnicity, gender identity, sexual
orientation, age, and socioeconomic status. These six descriptors make up what Hubbard (2014)
described as the primary dimensions. Several secondary or second-tier dimensions could include
education, marital status, or military service, to name a few. Recent expansion into tertiary
dimensions allows for elements such as diversity of thoughts and perspectives.
Diversity management, like many terms in the world of D&I, has no agreed-upon
definition or scope. For purposes of this study, diversity management is “a voluntary
organizational program designed to bring about greater inclusion of all individuals in informal
social networks and formal company programs” (Gilbert et al., 1999, p. 61). It came out of the
Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Bell et al., 2016; Logan, 2019), but
while it kept elements of diversity in focus in corporations, it was also perceived as less
proactive than Affirmative Action tenets.
Equity is a concept that emphasizes fairness and justice. Unlike equality, which promotes
the idea that everyone should get the same things, equity addresses the unique needs and
situations of individuals, recognizing that people do not start from the same place or need the
same thing (The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2021).
16

Inclusion is how diversity becomes a lived experience in a community, business, or
workplace. Ferdman (2014) described inclusion as being how members of the community,
including all employees in a workplace, are recognized and appreciated for having unique and
different contributions to make in the form of skills, opinions, and ideas and to do so in a way
that makes them feel connected to others around them.
Inclusive climate is a description of an organizational environment where certain factors
are present and can be described. Nishii (2013) emphasized that the entire enterprise would share
a commitment to integrate diverse ideas, skills, and identities beyond lip service. A critical
element of an inclusive environment is that employees themselves perceive that the environment
is truly inclusive, for example, in employee surveys (Nishii & Rich, 2014).
Inclusive/inclusionary practices are those which demonstrate a commitment to ensuring
that employees feel included and that they belong (Shore et al., 2018). By authentically leading
their own lives and sharing aspects of their own identities, leaders can demonstrate behaviors
enabling employees to feel safe, respected and valued, supported in sharing their authentic
identities, and involved in a work group and decision making. Organizations can engage in
inclusive practices at the enterprise level. This study highlighted inclusive practices of leaders,
while inclusive practices of organizations will be discussed when appropriate.
Psychological safety is the sense of team members that they can speak up in a team
setting without fear of repercussions (Edmondson, 1999) and that they can take some degree of
interpersonal risk. Kahn (1990) connected the term with personal engagement at work, and
studies by Edmondson and others connected team psychological safety with learning, and team
performance, among other things.
17

Talent development or talent management is typically part of an overall people strategy
for a company, but it has a specific purpose of ensuring that an ongoing and broad range of
employee-focused priorities, initiatives and activities are identified, planned, and implemented
across the company (Garavan et al., 2012). Talent development deliverables vary in scope and
approach for every company; therefore, there is no consistency about what specific activities are
included, but diversity training or other inclusionary practices often fall under this category
(Garavan et al., 2012). Talent development includes a variety of activities that include not just
the most talented employees but the entire organization, which Pruis (2011) posited as being
among the key principles for success.
Organization of the Project
Five chapters are used to organize this study. This chapter provided the key concepts and
terminology commonly found in a discussion about D&I in an organizational setting and
particular references to one biotechnology organization. The organization’s mission, goals, and
stakeholders, as well as the initial concepts of gap analysis, were introduced. Chapter Two
provides a review of literature surrounding the scope of the study and details of the assumed
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences. Topics such as the history of D&I, legal,
societal, and organizational influences, the benefits and challenges of inclusion, and best
practices for inclusive practices will be addressed. Chapter Three describes the methodology of
participant selection, data collection, and analysis. In Chapter Four, the data and results are
assessed and analyzed. Chapter Five provides solutions, based on data and literature, for closing
the perceived gaps as well as the formulation of an integrated implementation and evaluation
plan for the solutions.

18

Chapter Two: Literature Review
The macro problem being addressed in this study is the underperformance of the diversity
of women and minorities in STEM organizations. Diversity and diversity management have been
studied as a practice for decades (Ferdman, 2014; Shore et al., 2018), but to date, no solution has
come forth that sustains and increases the representation of women and minorities in STEM
organizations (Mor Barak, 2022; Shore et al., 2018). Within the past 10 to 12 years, academic
and business research has been conducted to determine the impact of inclusion on diversity in
organizations, including what inclusion is and what, if any, are its positive outcomes (Mitchell et
al., 2015; Mor Barak et al., 2016; Scott et al., 2017; Sparkman, 2019).
In this chapter, the history of how diversity came to be and how it was integrated into
organizations will be reviewed using societal, legal, and organizational perspectives. Next, the
emergence of inclusion as a complementary practice that enables diversity will be presented.
Challenges and best practices of D&I initiatives will be discussed, along with the interdependent
relationships between leaders, employees, and the organizational climates they work within.
Following the review of literature, the focus will shift to Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis
framework of performance improvement. The ways in which the knowledge, motivation and
organizational influences used in this study contribute to the ability of the Tech Global leaders’
stakeholder group to incorporate inclusionary practices into their performance goals will be
explained. The chapter will conclude with a brief discussion of the conceptual framework to be
used in the research.
Influences on the Problem of Practice
A review of the literature showed similar characteristics between several influences on
the problem of practice. Those shared elements suggest specific groupings of categories and
19

subcategories, presented next, including an historical context of diversity and inclusion, evolving
perspectives about both concepts, the current and future state of diversity and inclusion in
STEM, challenges of embedding inclusion in diversity practices and best practices of inclusion.
Historical Context of Diversity and Inclusion
Understanding how and why D&I co-exist in most organizations today requires an
understanding of their history. The two terms have had a complicated relationship; while
diversity has been studied for decades (Ferdman, 2014; Mor Barak, 2022; Roberson, 2006;
Thomas, 1992), inclusion is a relative newcomer, emerging within the past 20 years within
organizations, and even more recently studied by researchers. In some cases, the terms
“diversity” and “inclusion” were treated as interchangeable (Mor Barak, 2015). About 10 to 15
years ago, inclusion seemed to be the more popular concept and might have been favored to
replace diversity (Nkomo, 2014; Oswick & Noon, 2014; Roberson, 2006). Currently, inclusion is
considered an enhancement to diversity and the practice of diversity management in
organizations (Korkmaz et al., 2022; Mor Barak et al., 2016; Roberson, 2006), but it took
decades to get to this point, as societal, legal, and organizational influences will show.
Societal Environment
The United States has experienced decades of discrimination and racism (Adejumo,
2021); a social order has existed with White people being privileged and in positions of power
while non-Whites, especially Blacks, occupy lower status. The GI Bill for WWII veterans, for
example, was not written in discriminatory language, but Black soldiers were denied the same
opportunities for education and employment (Herbold, 1994). A gap in wealth accumulation was
noted then and steadily increased over the past 65 years. The U.S. Census Bureau (2020)
20

reported that the median income for White households was $76,057 in 2019 compared to
$46,073 for Black households.
Legal Environment
Until mandates to mitigate discrimination were enacted at the federal level, beginning in
the 1960s, employment practices in organizations were largely unchecked. The Title VII section
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was meant to end employment discrimination based on race,
color, religion, sex, and national origin (Ferdman, 2014; Mor Barak, 2022; Nkomo, 2014).
Within 1 year of the creation of Title VII, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC) was created to not only prohibit discrimination by employers but to eliminate it (EEOC,
n.d.). While the EEOC was set up to enforce the laws, it did not address specific ways to enable
opportunities. Former U.S. President John F. Kennedy was the first to use the term “affirmative
action” to convey an action-oriented approach to the government’s commitment to equal
treatment of people in employment situations when he signed Executive Order 10925 in 1961
(University of California Irvine Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity, n.d.). It was
superseded 4 years later by a more robust Executive Order 112246 signed by then-President
Lyndon Johnson, which forbade discrimination in employment based on race, color, religion, and
national origin, followed by an amendment to include sex in the list of protected groups
(University of California Irvine Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity, n.d.). In addition,
federal contractors were required to work toward full equality of opportunities for women and
minorities by taking affirmative action (University of California Irvine Office of Equal
Opportunity and Diversity, n.d.). Protected groups were expanded to include required employers
to engage in affirmative action to develop plans to achieve equal opportunities (EEOC, n.d.).).
21

In 2011, Executive Order (EO) 13583, signed by President Barack Obama, was intended
as a government-wide initiative to go further than affirmative action policies in ensuring a truly
diverse federal workforce of the future (Borry et al., 2021). However, the responses by three
federal agencies to EO 13583 were varied in scope and specificity and, like many other
initiatives of the time, did not appear to have gone beyond a compliance approach (Williams &
Lagan, 2015). While some progress was reported in moving toward the aspirational intention of
President Obama’s desire to increase inclusion, recruitment took precedence over retaining,
developing, and even promoting a more diverse workforce (Borry et al., 2021).
More women and minorities were hired because of the application of the laws and
practices (Abebe & Dadanlar, 2021; Sabharwal, 2014). However, discrimination and racial
oppression in organizations, including businesses and institutions, continued, even if in covert
rather than overt forms (Avery et al., 2015; Logan, 2019). White males continued to occupy
leadership roles in dominant numbers (Adejumo, 2021; Hill et al., 2015), and minorities
continued to file complaints and lawsuits (EEOC, 2014), particularly African Americans.
Adams-Harmon and Greer-Williams (2019) described the barriers female executives
encountered in the STEM industry, including gendered structures, attitudes of direct managers
and peers, and self-limiting beliefs. In contrast, Abebe and Dadanlar (2021) showed that having
women and minorities in leadership positions can decrease instances of discrimination lawsuits.
For decades, affirmative action practices were meant to proactively move beyond
compliance-driven actions taken by organizations toward equality as mandated by federal laws
(Fugère et al., 2016; Mor Barak, 2022). However, a distinction between the terms “equity” and
“equality” emerged within the past several years. While both terms intend to ensure justice and
fairness, equality treats people the same, including providing the same resources, while equity
22

acknowledges that people have different lived experiences and unique needs. A shorthand
reference is that equality equals sameness while equity equals uniqueness (Toke, 2022) and
understands that not all start from the same set of resources or abilities (Longley, 2022). An
example would be that in striving for equality, a coach provides every player on the team with
the exact same shoes, while an equity approach would be to provide shoes in the correct size for
each player (Toke, 2022).
Affirmative action has had its share of controversy, supporters, and detractors. On the one
hand, researchers posited the benefits of affirmative action as righting previous wrongs and
making reparations. Alternatively, others found potential harm through unfair treatment or
uneven support, even challenging affirmative action policies in court cases. Still others noted a
preference for the diversity policy label and opposition to the affirmative action policy, as the
latter was deemed to be more passive (Mor Barak, 2022; Rosette et al., 2016; Whitaker, 2019).
Organizational Environment
As society and legislation evolved in addressing racism, discrimination, and inequitable
treatment of marginalized populations over the past 6 decades, so, too, have organizations
changed in their approaches to ensuring compliance with policies and practices regarding
diversity. Nkomo (2014) described how human resources departments became responsible for
adhering to laws prohibiting employment discrimination but, in the early years, focused on
compliance with those laws and with the reduction of overt discrimination. Over time, the
emphasis shifted from following equal employment and anti-discrimination laws to making a
business case for valuing diverse workforces (Oswick & Noon, 2014). Interestingly, due to
continued resistance by leaders to hire and promote more women and minorities (Nkomo, 2014),
human resources practitioners began to tout embracing diversity to increase business results.
23

Companies began to expand their stewardship of diversity, moving from compliance to
operationalization, and the term diversity management (DM), defined as “a voluntary
organizational program designed to bring about greater inclusion of all individuals in informal
social networks and formal company programs” (Gilbert et al., 1999, p. 61) emerged. However,
over a period of about 15 years, as DM spread from North America to other parts of the world
(Jonsen & Ozbilgin, 2014; Mor Barak, 2022), it continued to evolve as a concept and a set of
practices to have no universally agreed-upon definition or scope (Ferdman, 2014; Jonsen &
Ozbilgin, 2014). Some researchers likened the shift to an attempt to downplay the rigor and
structure of affirmative action (Logan, 2019; Nkomo, 2014) while still enabling corporations to
focus on issues of race and other types of discrimination. Various studies of DM have
demonstrated the many ways it has been utilized, from a cultural construct of norms and values
(Olsen & Martins, 2012), a corporate responsibility (Logan, 2019), a universal concept (Best et
al., 2015), and as a necessarily localized approach (Jonsen & Ozbilgin, 2014) based on what
matters to a particular country or cultural region. For example, in a study of DM across several
countries, Best et al. (2015) found that gender was the only common dimension of diversity
prioritized in all countries, whereas race was rated higher in the United States than in other
countries, and disability was higher in Japan than elsewhere.
As with cultural factors in general, the successful adoption of a particular DM approach
depended on how well it meshed with other characteristics of the organization and its members
(Mor Barak, 2022; Olsen & Martins, 2012), which is one reason that present-day DM defies a
universal definition. Even without common agreement on the term, most organizations try to
operationalize it through human resources practices that create an environment that welcomes all
employees and that provides equal opportunities for groups that have been traditionally
24

marginalized (Logan, 2019; Mor Barak, 2022). Indeed, while DM has been part of organizational
structures, policies and programs in various forms and degrees for several decades, it has yet to
enable equivalent opportunities in the workplace for women, minorities, and others with a
diverse range of identities, including age, religious practices, disabilities, and immigration status
(Mor Barak, 2005; Shore et al., 2011). Instead, instances of exclusion from in-group status or
from experiencing formal (jobs and promotions) or informal workplace situations (invitations to
important meetings, involvement in decision making and skill development) have become a
covert form of discrimination (Dover et al., 2019; Mor Barak, 2022; Shore et al., 2018).
Diversity on its own is insufficient (Ferdman, 2014; Gallegos, 2014; Mor Barak, 2022;
Williams & Lagan, 2015) in addressing workplace issues of fairness and equity and in
harnessing the power of diverse workforces. Further, not much research has been done to show if
simply having a diverse workforce resulted in financial benefits to a company. In one
examination of the quantitative effectiveness of diversity practices, Filbeck et al. (2017)
examined whether the Diversity, Inc. winners provided rewards to shareholders or not and found
mixed results. The top 50 companies outperformed the S&P 500 companies but not a matched
set of companies (Filbeck et al., 2017). Yet few, if any, studies were conducted about inclusion
until about 20 years ago, and organizations evolved ahead of research (Ferdman, 2014; Mor
Barak, 2022). Inclusion became known as complementary to diversity, with early definitions
characterizing it as a way of enabling people of all identities to contribute their talents to the
organization while being themselves (Ferdman, 2017). Simply describing inclusion did not make
it a reality; Mor Barak (2022) reported that some people and groups reported a perceived
treatment that was the opposite of what some companies were declaring was true about their
environment.
25

Many established social theories contribute to the conceptualization of inclusion today
and exceed the scope of this study. However, one notable theory is social identity theory (Tajfel,
1982) which describes the relationship between an individual’s identity and groups they
associate themselves with, including an in-group or group of which they are a member and a
group of which they are not, or an out-group. Social identity theory thus helps explain the
enduring impact of perceptions of inclusion and exclusion among and between people and the
groups they are part of, including giving someone who is part of the same in-group the benefit of
the doubt while maintaining a negative attitude toward a member of an out-group (Mor Barak,
2022).
Evolving Perspectives on Diversity and Inclusion
Researchers began to conduct focused studies on inclusion as a component of workplace
human resource programs and initiatives beginning in the mid-1990s (Ferdman & Brody, 1996;
Jensen, 1995; Mor Barak & Cherin, 1998). Efforts to study and explain the connection between
D&I resulted in several definitions of each term. The core, common, and critical components
refer to diversity as something that can be measured and mandated, or the tangible what to do
(Ferdman, 2014), while inclusion is harder to measure because it is both an environment and a
voluntary approach, or the how to work with, welcome, and value others and how people feel
about being active participants in processes such as decision making (Cho, 2016; Ferdman, 2014;
Mor Barak, 2005; Randel et al., 2018; Roberson, 2006; Shore et al., 2011).
Organizations have been experimenting with inclusion as an enabler of DM (Roberson,
2006) for several years without necessarily calling it by name. Research studies in the 1990s and
early 2000s were not specifically focused on inclusion but touched on some of its attributes, such
as trust, feeling included in group or team environments, and being appreciated by leaders. For
26

example, Nembhard and Edmondson (2006) conducted seminal research proving a relationship
between psychological safety and team and organization results and were credited with coining
the term “leader inclusiveness,” which they defined as what a leader said or did that both invited
and appreciated the contributions of others.
Only within the past 12 years have studies begun to focus on inclusion at in-depth levels.
Shore et al. (2011) identified two key elements of inclusive environments for the first time. They
measured the degree to which employees felt part of a work group and had their needs met for
both uniqueness and belonging. From that study, others measured attributes of inclusive
organizational climates and work groups (Brimhall & Mor Barak, 2018; Korkmaz et al., 2022;
Shore et al., 2018) and inclusive leadership as its own distinct leadership style (Korkmaz et al.,
2022; Randel et al., 2018). Inclusive behavior demonstrated by leaders has been shown to
improve team dynamics, job satisfaction, employee engagement, creativity, and innovation
(Boekhorst, 2015; Mitchell et al., 2015; Nishii & Rich, 2014). Boekhorst (2015) showed that
authentic leaders transmit the importance of inclusion through role modeling.
Of note are other studies that show not all employees value or perceive the benefits of
organizational and leader behavior in the same ways. For example, Singh et al. (2013) built upon
research (Kaplan et al., 2011, p. 272) that defined “diversity climate” as “employees’ perceptions
regarding the extent to which an organization values and integrates diversity and supports it
through fair employment practices” to prove that such a climate matters more to minorities than
to White employees. In earlier seminal studies, Mor Barak et al. (1998) found that in assessing
perceptions against dimensions including organizational (fairness and inclusion) and personal
(diversity value and personal comfort), White men thought more favorably about the
organization than did White women or minorities of either gender, but White women and
27

minorities were more comfortable with and valued diversity more than White men. Relatedly,
Adejumo (2021) posited that inclusion, diversity and other related initiatives would not be
necessary if White people and others in traditional power positions changed their ideologies and
consideration of non-White employees, especially African Americans. Even organizations on the
lists of best companies to work for received fewer positive ratings from underrepresented
employees than from White males (Carberry & Meyers, 2017).
Current and Future State of Diversity and Inclusion in STEM
Diversity in STEM occupations has been a challenge for decades (Aspray, 2016; BLS,
2021; Funk & Parker, 2018; Martinez & Gayfield, 2019). Notably, minorities continue to be
underrepresented in computer technology roles compared to their percentage in the U.S. labor
force; women have gone backward in representation since the 1990s (Brown et al., 2016; de
Brey et al., 2021; EEOC, 2014; Fletcher et al., 2021; Fouad & Santana, 2017; NSB, 2022; Scott
et al., 2018). The diversity challenge extends to STEM education, where minorities are enrolled
at lower rates than the general population, and those who do attend reported issues of greater
pressure or stress. For example, Blacks made up less than 9% of the population from computer
science undergraduate programs, compared to 49% of White students (NSB, 2022).
Beginning in 2014, technology companies, including Apple, Facebook, Google, and
Microsoft, began to publicly share annual reports on their employee populations’ diversity. Not
much has changed since then, despite hundreds of millions of dollars spent, initiatives launched
and hiring efforts (Harrison, 2019; Price, 2020). Although the percentage of women in some
firms has increased, the numbers are still not representative of the overall population, and Black
and Latinx employee numbers have barely moved (Price, 2020). Only Google has reported
28

attrition numbers, and only since 2018; Black and Latinx employees left at higher rates than any
other group (Price, 2020).
A U.S. EEOC (2014) report on diversity in high-tech noted two themes relevant to this
study. First was the enduring prevalence of White men in the field, especially at executive
leadership levels and despite their declining representation in the U.S. population overall. Second
was the problem of bias in hiring graduates from STEM education programs. For example,
underrepresented minorities made up nine percent of graduates from computer science programs
but only five percent of the employee population of the largest tech firms studied (EEOC, 2014).
The third theme was reasons for attrition. Williams et al. (2016) summarized the top reasons
women leave the tech workforce as bias-related, with women reporting being questioned,
ridiculed, or dismissed, proving themselves repeatedly, and being ignored or criticized for
speaking up. Notably, there is far more research on reasons women leave tech than reasons
minorities do so (Fouad & Santana, 2017).
Other researchers found similar evidence of bias. Black scientists with STEM education
equivalent to Whites reported racial bias and cultural and social isolation from colleagues
(Brown et al., 2016; Williams et al., 2016). Women and minorities reported leaving tech for
unfairness in three main categories such as management practices (being passed over for
promotions, having others take credit for their work, and being given work assignments below
their job level), stereotyping, and bullying, more than any other reason (Funk & Parker, 2018;
Scott et al., 2017). The evidence shows that an inclusive climate matters more to minorities than
non-minorities (Nishii & Rich, 2014; Singh et al., 2013), and minorities who left tech reported
that they would have stayed if the environment were more inclusive (Scott et al., 2017).
29

The underutilization of talent in the STEM pipeline due to a subtle but real bias against
the currently available workforce makes for a future crisis (EEOC, 2014). The United States
depends on tech industries for economic output, which requires a skilled workforce capable of
contributing to continued growth and innovation. Projections are that while STEM occupations
will grow steadily over the next 5 to 7 years, population growth of the non-Hispanic/White
population, which is the dominant group in tech today, will decrease (BLS, 2021; Colby &
Ortman, 2015; Scott et al., 2018). To ensure that the United States can successfully compete in
the global technology and innovation marketplace, companies will have to move beyond current
efforts to attract and hire a diverse workforce and consider inclusion as a key enabler or
enhancement of DM (Korkmaz et al., 2022; Roberson, 2006).
Challenges of Embedding Inclusion in Diversity Initiatives
At the core of definitions of diversity is the attempt to understand, manage, and measure
the differences between groups to ensure equal opportunities for all workers (Ferdman, 2014;
Logan, 2019; Nkomo, 2014). While diversity numbers and percentages in a workforce could be
managed and measured, it was not enough to retain and develop the people in the groups needing
support and protection (Cook & Glass, 2014; Nishii & Rich, 2014; Winters, 2014). Inclusion
may seem like an obvious enhancement to diversity, as it goes beyond the compliance and
legislative roots out of which diversity grew and focuses on employee experiences (Shore et al.,
2011). However, there are challenges inherent in the implications of creating and sustaining
inclusive environments, behaviors, and practices.
The same social, legal, or organizational influences that were presented from a historical
perspective can be applied to better understand and address the implications of embedding
inclusionary practices in organizations. For example, companies began focusing on diversity
30

decades ago as a response to legislation aimed at addressing discrimination in the workplace
(Borry et al., 2021; Ferdman, 2014; Mor Barak, 2005). In the 1990s, when DM was assigned to
human resources departments, compliance was still the focus (Sparkman, 2019). Yet, without the
requirement of legal compliance normally associated with affirmative action and diversity, the
reasons to focus on inclusion were less clear. Inclusion gradually became a strategy to push back
on resistance to improving equal opportunity numbers by being positioned as a business
advantage (Oswick & Noon, 2014). Inclusion has remained an elusive practice, harder to achieve
because it does not rely on measurement of numbers but is a set of actions that demonstrate
welcoming, valuing, honoring, and supporting employees (Sparkman, 2019; Winters, 2014).
Inclusion can upset traditional social and power structures, especially as the
demographics of the U.S. workforce continue to change. In some studies, people in traditional
power positions felt threatened by the idea that others of lower status might be elevated to
become equals, which created incentive to ignore the ongoing inequities in power and privilege
(Avery et al., 2015; Offermann & Basford, 2014; Saba et al., 2021). There can be many reasons
for leaders in companies to perceive such a threat. Beyond the threat to power and status, Saba et
al. (2021) posited that managers who were tasked with carrying out inclusive practices but
lacked knowledge and skills to do so experienced low self-efficacy and apathy at the thought of
dealing with such a complex topic.
Organizations can misunderstand inclusion, its components, and its outcomes. Inclusion
in organizations requires widespread sponsorship and support. It has often been perceived as an
“HR program” with no accountability on the part of senior leadership to go beyond commitments
to hiring a diverse workforce (Offermann & Basford, 2014; Pellecchia, 2019; Roberson, 2006).
While human resources professionals have often taken on the stewardship of inclusion, the same
31

professionals can also struggle to show strategic value and participate at the corporate leadership
level. Organizations have assigned responsibility for D&I differently, including splitting the two
between HR and other groups. What is most important is that each organization can identify
what works best in implementing, managing, and sustaining D&I practices for its own unique
needs and culture (Randel et al., 2018; Shore et al., 2018).
Best Practices for Inclusion
Most of what is known today about inclusive organizational climates and inclusive
leadership practices comes from studies of diversity programs and DM, beginning about 25 years
ago (Ferdman, 2014; Mor Barak, 2005; Shore et al., 2011; Winters, 2014). Research evolved in
new directions in the last 10 to 12 years. Inclusion, inclusive organizational environments, and
inclusive leadership practices became seen as ways to enable diversity efforts (Korkmaz et al.,
2022; Mor Barak, 2022; Randel et al., 2018; Shore et al., 2018), and Hays-Thomas and Bendick
(2013) suggested a focus on principles that would help improve diversity practices, including
continuous improvement, stakeholder relationships, attending to group processes, and
development of some professional standards. A summary of best practices of inclusive
organizations and characteristics of inclusive leaders is presented next. It informs this study,
especially of the impact of leaders as key stakeholders who can act as change agents within their
organizations. However, with so many various types and contexts of practices, any organization
considering implementing or enhancing inclusion would do well to adapt or adopt practices that
are most relevant to their own culture (Ferdman, 2014).
Inclusionary Organizational Climates
Organizations have worked for decades to implement and manage diversity efforts and
initiatives for reasons including compliance with legislation (Borry et al., 2021; Ferdman, 2014;
32

Williams & Lagan, 2015), as a business imperative (Kalinoski et al., 2013; Mor Barak, 2022;
Wheeler, 2014), and as a way of reducing discrimination (Abebe & Dadanlar, 2021; Byron &
Post, 2016; Choi & Rainey, 2014) or increasing performance and profits (Adams-Harmon &
Greer-Williams, 2019; Bakotić, 2016; Butner & Lowe, 2013). Diversity without inclusion,
however, is not enough (Offermann & Basford, 2014). Since 1998, seminal studies by Mor
Barak and several colleagues (Mor Barak, 2000; Mor Barak & Cherin, 1998; Mor Barak & Daya,
2014; Mor Barak et al., 2001; Mor Barak et al., 2016) have examined organizational inclusion as
perceived by employees, and the concept of organizational inclusion practices to address
ongoing exclusion of women, people of color, LGBTQ, individuals with disabilities, older
adults, and others (Shore et al., 2018).
At the organizational level, a few inclusion practices were repeatedly mentioned.
Ensuring fairness in policies, practices, and communications was a key practice (Baek & Kim,
2021; Carberry & Meyers, 2017; Choi & Rainey, 2014; Hayles, 2014; Kanfer et al., 2017; Nishii,
2013; Sabharwal, 2014). A second practice was having a clear approach to inclusion that
translated into strategies (Wheeler, 2014). A third focused on creating a climate of trust and
genuine caring in the organization (Downey et al., 2014; Faldetta, 2016). All three practices
related to increases in perceived fairness (Carberry & Meyers, 2017; Choi & Rainey, 2014;
Cojuharenco & Patient, 2013), employee engagement and job satisfaction (Brimhall & Mor
Barak, 2018; Jerónimo et al., 2021; Qi et al., 2019), and feelings of organizational justice
(Mushonga et al., 2013).
According to Nishii and Rich (2014), inclusive organizational climates were influenced
by specific organizational practices, interactions between employees, and other characteristics
within the organization setting. The literature referenced several specific examples. One
33

frequently mentioned company-sponsored practice of inclusion was employee resource groups
(ERGs). Such groups encouraged inclusion and community building (DiversityInc., 2022;
Groysberg & Connolly, 2013; Gutiérrez & Saint Clair, 2018; Offermann & Basford, 2014;
Winters, 2014) and could also be used as a way to attract potential employees who look for
evidence of the company’s values (Gutiérrez & Saint Clair, 2018). Another was formal and
informal mentoring initiatives that emphasized peers and colleagues rather than only more
experienced employees paired with less experienced ones (Cross et al., 2021; Groysberg &
Connolly, 2013; Madera, 2013; Offermann & Basford, 2014; Winters, 2014). Relatedly, building
broader and deeper networks that intentionally connected women and minorities with successful
peers (Carboni et al., 2022; Cross et al., 2021; Madera, 2013) were ways to increase promotions
of these historically underrepresented groups to leadership roles.
Another organizational practice with the potential to influence inclusion was having a
portfolio of talent development or talent management initiatives. Research connecting inclusive
organizational climates with this practice reported a commitment to talent management that was
inclusive, not exclusive. Many companies focused on initiatives that addressed more than the
identified top talent or highest potential employees (Mor Barak, 2022; Qi et al., 2019; Roberson,
2020; Shore et al., 2011). Intentionally developing a robust pipeline that ensured equal
opportunities for women and minorities (Ferdman, 2014; Gallegos, 2014) and including
attributes of inclusion in leadership training (Offermann & Basford, 2014) were also considered
part of the category of inclusive organizational practices.
Not surprisingly, the research over the past 5 to 6 years has deepened and strengthened
the connection between inclusive organizational climate and inclusive leadership behaviors.
Some inclusionary practices could be embedded and sustained at both the organizational and the
34

leadership level, albeit in distinct ways. For example, developing accountability systems to
reinforce commitment was found to be one way to sustain fairness both at the organizational and
leadership level (Mushonga et al., 2014; O’Connor & Crowley-Henry, 2019; Offermann &
Basford, 2014; Roberson, 2020).
Inclusionary Leadership Practices
As with organizational best practices for inclusion, the research showed some core and
critical actions leaders could take to create or enhance an inclusion climate in ways that connect
employees with them and with the company. Indeed, best practices can be reinforced and
demonstrated at both the organizational and the leadership level. An organization publicly
demonstrating its core values would describe acceptable behaviors expected of employees
(Winters, 2014). From the CEO on down, leaders would set expectations at the team or
functional level, including performance objectives or measures of assessment (Cottrill et al.,
2014; DiversityInc, 2022.; Gallegos, 2014; Groysberg & Connolly, 2013; Offermann & Basford,
2014; Sabharwal, 2014). A related best practice was for senior leaders to role model inclusive
leadership practices of understanding, valuing, and promoting concepts of diversity and inclusion
that were both representative of the company and personally meaningful, communicated in an
authentic way (Boekhorst, 2015; Gallegos, 2014; Groysberg & Connolly, 2013; Korkmaz et al.,
2022). Role modeling was also a way to support organizational efforts, highlighting the
company’s commitment to inclusion and inspiring employees to become involved in activities
(Pellecchia, 2019; Randel et al., 2018).
The most-often mentioned leadership practice for creating or maintaining an inclusive
climate was efforts by leaders to engage others in critical organizational processes such as
decision making, which required seeking input and perspective from everyone present (Korkmaz
35

et al., 2022; Mor Barak, 2022; Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006; Nishii, 2013; Randel et al., 2018;
Tang et al., 2015). Inclusive leaders also recognized and publicly acknowledged the unique
abilities, characteristics, and views of all employees by using listening skills and welcoming
input in an open and authentic manner (Qi et al., 2019; Randel et al., 2018; Shore et al., 2011).
Leaders who showed individuals on their teams that they were valued and that they
belonged tended to effectively influence employees’ positive perceptions of inclusion in the
broader organization (Jerónimo et al., 2021; Mor Barak, 2022). In turn, employees tended to
respond with increased innovation, engagement, and job satisfaction (Brimhall, 2019; Sabharwal,
2014). One way to show value was for leaders to express appreciation for employees’
contributions and achievements (Gallegos, 2014; Jensen, 2012; Kanfer et al., 2017; Korkmaz et
al., 2022; Mor Barak (2022). Notably, not every study used race or gender as a variable in the
relationship between leader-inclusive behavior and employee perceptions of organizational
climate. One study (Randel et al., 2016) revealed that the impact of leader-inclusive behaviors in
a positive organizational climate had a more pronounced effect for minorities and women
relative to members of the majority group for reciprocal helping behaviors toward leaders. Other
research revealed similar findings. An initiative by Google known as Project Aristotle (Duhigg,
2016) focused on team dynamics and showed that psychological safety among group members
was a differentiating factor explaining team performance, beyond skills and abilities of team
members, which validated similar research by Nembhard and Edmondson (2006) and later
studies by Hirak et al. (2012).
Additional studies over the past 10 years have shown evidence of the positive impact of
leadership on employee and job satisfaction, mitigating perceived status differences, innovation,
learning from failure, and improved team performance, especially for minorities (Cottrill et al.,
36

2014; Mitchell et al., 2015; Shore et al., 2018; Singh et al., 2013). Interestingly, inclusive
leadership has been studied and developed as a concept for the past 5 or 6 years and has drawn
comparisons and distinctions between it and other leadership styles such as transformational
leadership, servant leadership, authentic leadership, and leader-member exchange (Korkmaz et
al., 2022; Randel et al., 2018). When comparing leadership styles, there is no one best style, but
it is worthwhile to understand the benefits, attributes, and factors for successfully demonstrating
desired behaviors.
Noteworthy Inclusionary Practices
Not every inclusionary practice studied at the organizational or leadership level was a
best practice. However, some are worthy of consideration by organizations where the climate
might be conducive to more nuanced practices. For example, addressing microaggressions in the
environment as they occur (Shore et al., 2018) might be difficult to do in an organization that is
not already adept at setting expectations and structures of accountability or where there was not
already a climate of fairness, respect, and trust (Booysen, 2014; Offermann & Basford, 2014;
Shore et al., 2018). Initiatives created to develop female executives, such as mentoring,
sponsorship, networks, and leadership development experiences, were not specifically meant to
be inclusive per se but enabled women who participated to cope with barriers to their
advancement (Adams-Harmon & Greer-Williams, 2019).
One practice addressed was reward systems. Boekhorst (2015) proposed that
organizations needed to enable and support reward systems that encouraged inclusive behaviors,
which would more likely ensure vicarious learning of the desired inclusive behaviors. A
reference was made to monetary and nonmonetary rewards, and Boekhorst (2015) suggested
remunerating employees who demonstrated the expected behaviors. However, the link was also
37

made that beyond an authentic leader shaping an inclusive climate, the unique culture of each
organization must be factored into designing reward systems. Additionally, some research went
beyond the four walls of an organization and posited that truly inclusive leadership practices and
inclusive organizations go beyond the institutions in which they operate and positively impact
society (Adejumo, 2021; Mor Barak, 2022; Randel et al., 2016).
Table 3 shows a summary of organizational and leadership best practices.

Table 3
Summary of Best Practices for Inclusion at the Organizational and Leadership Levels
Practice Research literature
Organizational level
Inclusive leadership development programs are
based on assessment, challenge, and support in the
context of a climate of respect, equality, and
fairness.
Booysen, 2013; Kuknor &
Bhattacharya, 2020; O’Connor &
Crowley-Henry, 2019; Offermann &
Basford, 2014; Randel et al., 2018;
Sabharwal, 2014
Talent management is inclusive and diverse, not
exclusive, with consistent and transparent
processes based on objective, performance-related
data and consistently applied across potential and
current employees.
Mor Barak, 2022; Qi et al., 2019;
Roberson, 2020; Shore et al., 2011
Employee resource groups, or ERGs (for recruiting,
too, to attract those who favor social equity) are
active. They are also known as affinity groups.
DiversityInc., 2022.; Groysberg &
Connolly, 2013; Gutiérrez & Saint
Clair, 2018; Offermann & Basford,
2014
Mentoring happens (especially peers or colleagues)
formally and informally across the company.
Cross et al., 2021; Groysberg &
Connolly, 2013; Madera, 2013;
Offermann & Basford, 2014
Networking (informal and formal) occurs regularly. Carboni et al., 2022; Cross et al., 2021;
Madera, 2013
Measuring and sharing metrics such as
gender/racial/ethnic breakdown of representation
in overall workforce representation, overall
management, senior management, new hires,
promotions, and measures of inclusion in surveys,
is transparent.
DiversityInc., 2022.; Gallegos, 2014;
Gotsis & Grimani, 2016; Groysberg
& Connolly, 2013
38

Practice Research literature
Leadership level
Role model leadership behaviors that show an
understanding of promoting and valuing (and
comfort with) diversity and employee uniqueness.
Communicate that inclusion and diversity are an
integral part of everyone’s own work instead of it
being HR’s job.
Boekhorst, 2015; Gallegos, 2014;
Groysberg & Connolly, 2013;
Korkmaz et al., 2022; Pellecchia,
2019; Randel et al., 2018
Engage others in critical organizational processes,
especially decision making, and in seeking
different perspectives and input before making
important decisions.
Brimhall, 2019; Mor Barak, 2022;
Korkmaz et al., 2022; Nembhard &
Edmondson, 2006; Nishii, 2103;
Randel et al., 2018; Sabharwal,
2014; Tang et al. 2015
Express appreciation for others’ efforts,
contributions, and achievements.
Brimhall, 2019; Gallegos, 2014;
Jensen, 2012; Kanfer et al., 2017;
Mitchell et al., 2015; Qi et al., 2019;
Sabharwal, 2014
Leadership accountability and commitment at the
CEO/senior leadership level on down. Set
expectations for boundaries and acceptable
behaviors and include performance objectives and
assessment of managers’ results as an example.
Cottrill et al., 2014; DiversityInc., n.d.;
Gallegos, 2014; Groysberg &
Connolly, 2013; Offermann &
Basford, 2014; Sabharwal, 2014
Recognize employees’ unique abilities,
characteristics, and views by listening attentively
to their views and welcoming different
approaches.
Korkmaz et al., 2022; Mor Barak,
2022; Nembhard & Edmondson,
2006; Qi et al., 2019; Randel et al.,
2018; Shore et al., 2011

It is important to assess the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational needs of
leaders’ development and implementation of inclusionary practices within their own
performance plans before attempting to recommend or implement solutions. The framework for
understanding the assumed influences and the barriers to closing the gap is discussed next.
Conceptual Framework
Clark and Estes’s (2008) framework applies a research-based process to enable
organizations to improve performance. It is well suited to support stakeholders to increase their
effectiveness in achieving goals in two ways. First, it is based on understanding the stakeholder
39

goals in relationship to the organization’s goals. Specifically, the framework describes how to
create or clarify organizational business goals and how to test for alignment with stakeholder
performance goals. An essential step of determining gaps between the desired organizational
goals and the individual performance goals sets the stage for conducting the second part of the
process: analyzing the reasons for the performance gap. An assessment is done through three
lenses: knowledge/skills, motivation, and organization processes, also known as KMO (Clark &
Estes, 2008). Figure 1 depicts Clark and Estes’s model.

Figure 1
Clark and Estes Gap Analysis Model

Adapted from Turning Research Into Results: A Guide to Selecting the Right Performance
Solutions, by R. E. Clark & F. Estes, 2008, Information Age Publishing.

40

In this study, Clark and Estes’s (2008) framework was applied as a performance
improvement model to support the stakeholder group’s goal that 100% of the Tech Global
leaders will incorporate at least one of the company’s D&I inclusionary practices into their
performance goals. As a problem-solving technique, it was used to assess the assumed influences
on the leaders’ needs in KMO processes and identify opportunities and solutions to improve
performance. The stakeholder specific KMO assumed influences are discussed next.
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences
Achieving a measurable improvement in a performance goal requires several steps,
beginning with clarity about and alignment between the organization’s business goals and
individual actions or performance goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). Two levels of goals create a
mutual dependency between the organization and its individual members, especially leaders who
must cascade goals and ensure alignment throughout the functions they lead (Clark & Estes,
2008). The organization needs the leaders to achieve the goals and influences them through
accountability mechanisms (Dubnick, 2014) and organizational feedback such as systems,
policies, and practices (Rueda, 2011). The individuals need clarity and direction from leaders
and, ultimately, the organization about which business goals are important, and their attainment
of performance goals impacts the organization’s failure or success (Clark & Estes, 2008).
To ensure effective organizational performance, leaders must define goals and objectives
for their functional areas. They require the necessary knowledge and skills to set goals. To
understand what to do to achieve a goal is an example of Clark and Estes’s (2008) assertion of
the criticality of conducting a needs analysis. The three elements of the process, KMO
influences, must all be assessed for gaps as they are all connected (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Knowledge and skills gaps will be discussed first.
41

Knowledge and Skills Influences
Knowledge has four components or types (Krathwohl, 2002). In order of complexity,
they are factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge. Factual knowledge
consists of the basics of what must be learned or known. Knowing the terminology of a topic or
subject is foundational to the progression through any of the other types (Krathwohl, 2002).
Conceptual knowledge is the second dimension, according to Krathwohl (2002), and fosters
understanding of how things are classified or how they relate. While more extensive and
complex than factual knowledge, conceptual knowledge still assumes a foundational aspect of
how information is learned, processed, and used to perform tasks and achieve results (Krathwohl,
2002; Rueda, 2011). The third knowledge dimension in Krathwohl’s (2002) revision of Bloom’s
taxonomy of expectations of learning outcomes is procedural knowledge, or how to do
something, including how a task is to be completed, including understanding the skills,
techniques and methods needed for specific topics or subjects, when to use appropriate
procedures, and which steps to take in a specific order. Essentially the learner moves from
declarative knowledge (factual and conceptual levels of knowing, or the what) to the how.
Knowledge of oneself is the fourth type of knowledge. Also known as metacognitive knowledge,
it requires reflection and self-awareness about one’s actions, behaviors, and thoughts
(Krathwohl, 2002). A learner demonstrating metacognitive knowledge would require awareness
of their attributes as a leader and the unconscious beliefs, attitudes, and biases that influence their
behaviors (Bandura, 2000).
Conceptual Knowledge Influence
Conceptual knowledge allows for distinctions and differentiation and for making
connections between two or more concepts. It requires the ability to make distinctions and
42

differentiate between parts of a whole or make new meanings from past actions (Krathwohl,
2002). Conceptual knowledge takes the basic elements of factual knowledge and categorizes,
classifies, generalizes, and further sorts the relationships between items with a larger structure
(Krathwohl, 2002). An example of conceptual knowledge that would be helpful for leaders is to
be able to determine which inclusive practices from a list of choices would be most effective in
their own organizations. Leaders could acquire factual knowledge by learning basic facts about
diversity and inclusion. If they stop at that level, they might not be able to apply new or adapted
ways of dealing with diversity and inclusion issues or opportunities, which Clark and Estes
(2008) identified as a critical step in closing performance gaps.
The influence related to conceptual knowledge examined in this study was that Tech
Global leaders need to determine the inclusionary practices most relevant to incorporate into
their performance goals. An example of demonstrated conceptual knowledge is that leaders need
to know which behaviors demonstrate an inclusive leadership commitment to retaining and
developing employees. Specifically, leaders need to know and understand leadership models that
emphasize desirable characteristics such as authenticity (Boekhorst, 2015; Cottrill et al., 2014)
and other traits that build engagement, trust and psychological safety and improve employee
performance (Brimhall & Mor Barak, 2018; Downey et al., 2014; Hirak et al., 2012; Jin et al.,
2017; Singh et al., 2013). At the same time, they must minimize or diminish power and status
differences between team member levels of a profession (Mitchell et al., 2015), such as scientist,
senior scientist, and so on. Another effective behavior that builds engagement is sponsorship.
Gutierrez and Saint Claire (2018) showed that employees considering joining a company looked
at internal signs of social equity in an organization, such as sponsoring, maintaining, and
highlighting employee network groups (ENGs).
43

Relatedly, leaders need to understand the various types of inclusionary initiatives and
how they complement each other and form an ongoing practice that impacts the organization’s
climate. According to DiversityInc. (2022), a privately held organization that publishes an annual
list of the top 50 companies for diversity, several core and critical elements repeatedly surfaced
across industries and geographies. Companies with a reputation for robust management of
diversity and inclusion recognized and determined that multiple, interrelated practices within the
larger initiative were required (Krathwohl, 2002). A typical portfolio of those practices might
include differentiated solutions such as robust mentoring programs, ERGs, active and visible
support of the CEO, diversity councils, diversity training, and ensuring that women have entry
into informal groups (Derven, 2014; Henao et al., 2021; Kuknor & Bhattacharya, 2020; Madera,
2013).
Metacognitive Knowledge Influence
Being aware of a bias, with an intent to reflect on, learn from, and change behavior, is an
example of how leaders will be able to reflect on and monitor their growth and progress toward
those desired behaviors. Metacognitive is the highest level of knowledge; to show knowledge in
this dimension is to have proficiency in the preceding dimensions. (Krathwohl, 2002).
Metacognitive knowledge is the most complex of Krathwohl’s (2002) four knowledge
dimensions. It includes a person’s self-awareness of their knowledge and how they learn and
knowledge of cognition at a more general level, including learning strategies and strategic
thinking (Krathwohl, 2002).
The metacognitive knowledge influence examined in this study was that Tech Global
leaders need to monitor their own biases when incorporating inclusionary practices into their
performance goals. Everyone has unconscious biases (Noon, 2018). Racial discrimination in
44

organizations today often stems not from attempts to harm anyone but from selective helping
(Banaji & Greenwald, 2013; Greenwald & Pettigrew, 2014). Going out of the way to help a
member of the same group does not seem like a bad or negative action, and the person doing the
helping is being a good person. However, selective privilege reinforces the status quo (Hardin &
Banaji, 2013; Mayer, 2011). When individuals reflect on their needs for development, they can
better utilize or even design practices that enable personal growth (Bell et al., 2016).
Identifying and communicating hidden biases and assumptions can occur at every level of
leadership. In interviews with 24 CEOs of companies considered to be good models of inclusion,
Groysberg and Connolly (2013) reported that five CEOs admitted to their own biases about
women in leadership roles. For example, the then-CEO of EY (formerly known as Ernst &
Young) described being told by a few women leaders that in an executive meeting, he had
ignored their ideas while praising their male colleague who said essentially the same thing they
had (Groysberg & Connolly, 2013). Other male CEOs told of assuming women leaders might not
want to travel if they had children at home or that women were judged more harshly than their
male counterparts for displaying behavior considered harsh (Groysberg & Connolly, 2013).
Enabling self-awareness about biases is not as simple as holding an unconscious bias
training, or UBT. One dissenting voice about the efficacy of unconscious bias training came
from Noon (2018), who questioned the value of UBT if it has been established that everyone has
biases and that no real research yet existed to prove that recognizing unconscious bias leads to
impactful or sustainable change. Table 4 shows the stakeholder’s assumed knowledge influences
and the related literature.

45

Table 4
Summary of Assumed Knowledge Influences on Tech Global Leaders’ Ability to Achieve the
Performance Goal
Assumed knowledge influences Research literature
Tech Global leaders need to determine the
inclusionary practices most relevant to
incorporate into their performance goals.
(Conceptual knowledge)
Boekhorst, 2015; Brimhall & Mor Barak,
2018; Cottrill et al., 2014; Derven, 2014;
Downey et al., 2014; Gutiérrez, 2018;
Henao et al., 2021; Hirak et al., 2012; Jin
et al., 2017; Kuknor & Bhattacharya,
2020; Mitchell et al., 2015; Singh et al.,
2013
Tech Global leaders need to monitor their own
biases when incorporating inclusionary
practices into their performance goals.
(Metacognitive knowledge)
Banaji & Greenwald, 2013; Bell et al., 2016;
Greenwald & Pettigrew, 2014; Grossman &
Salas, 2011; Groysberg & Connolly, 2013;
Hardin & Banaji, 2013; Mayer, 2011; Noon,
2018

Motivation Influences
If knowledge describes what is worth knowing and how to do things, motivation is what
starts, continues, and fuels people to work on something. The second of the three key elements of
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework, motivation consists of three components,
including active choice in committing to a goal, persisting in attaining the goal once the choice is
made, and the amount of mental effort or energy to dedicate to the task itself (Clark & Estes,
2008). Each of the three elements can be used for diagnosing motivation issues.
One core motive that drives human behavior is the degree to which each person believes
they can be effective, given the circumstances in their environment and their sense of their
abilities (Clark & Estes, 2008; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Pintrich, 2003). Motivation can be
sorted into various types based on such differences among individuals. Knowing and
46

understanding how the theories contribute to motivation enhances the needs analysis of the gaps
between the current state and future performance goals.
Value
Expectancy value theory, or EVT, is based on early work by Lewin (1938) on valence
and Tolman (1949) on expectancies. It describes the motivational aspects of a task as being
subjective and a function of four elements (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Grossman & Salas, 2011).
The first is the attainment value of completion, or the importance of doing a task well. Second is
intrinsic value, which is the degree to which an individual enjoys working on and completing the
task. Next is the usefulness or utility value of a task, especially when considering future needs
and wants. The fourth element is cost, but it is more of an influence on people; they consider the
cost of doing something as part of their decision of its value to them (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002).
This study focused on two of the four elements that might relate to the causes of
motivation gaps for the key stakeholder group of senior leaders. Specifically, the study examined
whether leaders perceive that the goals they set are important to them as a form of self-
expression and are useful to achieve, they are more likely to commit to the goals in the first
place, to persist in making progress on the goals and to expend mental effort to be successful
(Clark & Estes, 2008).
Tech Global Leaders Need to Believe It Is Important to Incorporate Inclusionary
Practices Into Their Performance Goals. Walgreens is the largest drugstore chain in the
United States. Using a case study format in various Walgreens distribution centers, researchers
found that creating an inclusive workplace enabled a culture transformation, mainly through a
change in leadership style from autocratic to more employee-centered (Moore et al., 2020).
When frontline leaders increased their focus on employee and team development, they
47

experienced a personal benefit of an authentic desire to make their teams more successful
(Moore et al., 2020).
In several companies across India, Khan et al. (2020) showed the positive impact of
inclusive leaders on project success rates. Over several years, inclusive leadership practices in
companies operating in India showed progress in goals such as increasing the number of women
in leadership positions (Mitra & Mehta, 2021). Interestingly, the same study noted two
differences in focus on diversity and inclusion practices in India compared to many Western
companies. First, the focus is primarily on women and people with disabilities. Second, until
recently, LGBTQ+ issues were ignored or downplayed, but now most companies realize the
importance of the spending power of that community (Mitra & Mehta, 2021). In China, 15
companies across a variety of industries participated in a study that found that when employees
experience inclusive leadership, they felt more positive organizational support, or POS, and were
more engaged in innovative behavior, which was considered a competitive advantage (Qi et al.,
2019). Other companies, such as Office Depot, publicly link diversity and inclusion practices to
values (Roberge et al., 2011). Unilever’s CEO exemplified the passion that comes from
understanding the importance of diversity and inclusion practices, stating publicly that the D&I
initiatives were one of three things the company wanted to be famous for (Mitra & Metra, 2021).
Tech Global Leaders Need to Believe It Is Useful to Incorporate Inclusionary
Practices Into Their Performance Goals. The utility value of a task is another related
motivational influence that impacts leaders. Even without the sense of purpose and focus that
diversity and inclusion practices offer, other related motivational influences must be understood.
Leaders who believe that an inclusionary practice such as diversity training is useful to them will
be more likely to implement what they learn at the training (Grossman & Salas, 2011). The same
48

would be true for adapting or adopting a particular inclusionary practice, such as a mentoring
program for their organization or sponsoring an ERG.
A review of academic and business research did not show a specific or direct impact of
diversity and inclusion practices on organizational performance. Two factors appear to contribute
to the current situation. First, the nature and scope of diversity and inclusion practices are as
varied as the number and the different cultures of the companies in which they are utilized
(Ferdman, 2014; Mor Barak, 2022). What would be impactful as an inclusive practice in one
company may not work in another. Similarly, many global companies do business in dozens of
countries, each with unique cultures and norms (Dorfman et al., 2012; Farndale et al., 2015).
While almost any company would agree that treating employees with respect and valuing
them is desirable, the way in which those practices would be carried out would need to differ
from one country to the next (Kuknor & Bhattacharya, 2020). Specifically, diversity can be
measured by metrics such as percentages of representation of women and minorities in
leadership positions (Winters, 2014). Inclusion, however, is experienced at many levels by
individuals (Nishii & Riche, 2014; Winters, 2014). At a foundational level of understanding,
Shore et al. (2011) defined inclusion as when both the need for belonging and to be considered
unique can be met simultaneously. At a much higher level, Ferdman (2014) described a set of
“structures, values, norms, group and organizational climates, and individual and collective
behaviors, all connected with inclusion experiences in a mutually reinforcing and dynamic
system” (p.16). Thus, while inclusionary practices can and should be designed according to each
company’s needs and unique culture, companies might not yet have figured out how to directly
connect those initiatives to organizational performance.
49

Some exceptions to the lack of measurement were found. Mayer et al. (2018)
substantiated that companies with policies and practices promoting diversity and inclusion had a
positive effect on innovation efficiency. However, it appears that these companies were already
more innovative, had higher cash flow, and had stronger governance than their peers. It was also
unclear to what degree the D&I component contributed, other than it could enhance firm value
(Mayer et al., 2018).
While empirical evidence to date has not yet shown a direct correlation between the
presence of diversity and inclusion initiatives and increases in organizational performance, there
are clear reasons to create, sustain or improve such practices in organizations, even in for-profit
organizations and industries. Shareholders, employees, and customers are asking about CSR
(Baek & Kim, 2021; Logan, 2019; Mitra & Mehta, 2021). A company’s brand or reputation can
be enhanced or tarnished based on action or inaction about diversity and inclusion. For example,
perceptions of people of color and women in companies that won best employer-type awards
were more positive than were their counterparts in companies that did not qualify (Carberry &
Meyers, 2017). The CEO of Sodexo, a multinational company that was rated best in diversity
practices many times (DiversityInc., 2022), spoke transparently about the differentiating effect of
their D&I practice (Derven, 2014). Companies with pro-diversity policies might increase their
performance by having access to a deeper recruitment pool of talent, more diverse skills through
that pool, and a wider range of input to innovation (Mayer et al., 2018). Further, pro-diversity
policies might create a positive impression known as a halo effect for the organization and its
products (Mayer et al., 2018).
Another reason to attend to D&I practices is financial. Imke (2019) reiterated that the
cost of replacing a worker, regardless of their reason for leaving, is at least 1 year’s salary.
50

Attrition rates of even single digits can cost a company millions of dollars over time. When
employees leave because they believe they were treated unfairly (Scott et al., 2017), the
company must reckon with the hidden costs of lost productivity and replacement. In addition to
knowing the importance and usefulness of committing to goals to close performance gaps related
to inclusionary practices, leaders need confidence that they can achieve what they set out to do.
Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy is a construct of connecting the degree to which someone believes they can
complete a task or achieve a goal (Bandura, 2000). The beliefs and assumptions people hold
about themselves influence their motivation to actively choose to begin a goal, to persist in
making progress toward the goal, and in the mental effort they invest in the goal based on
attainment value (Clark & Estes, 2008; Grossman & Salas, 2011; Schunk & Usher, 2019). Self-
efficacy helps explain why some people seem to thrive while learning and building knowledge
while others seem to struggle (Pintrich, 2003). Individuals with high self-efficacy believe in their
ability to apply what they learn (Grossman & Salas, 2011). High self-efficacy is not the same as
high self-confidence, according to Bandura (1997), who acknowledged that confidence was a
strong belief but that it did not adequately contain a description of what the belief is about. An
individual could therefore be extremely confident or certain that they will fail at a task. Likewise,
an individual can be overconfident in their ability to achieve an outcome and give less effort than
required or give up if the task proves too complex (Grossman & Salas, 2011).
High self-efficacy is also distinct from high performance (Bandura, 1997). An individual
can have a high degree of belief that they can accomplish a task and yet perform poorly. Those
individuals with high self-efficacy will tend to think that they can control and improve the
outcome by practicing more or by trying harder, whereas a person with low self-efficacy would
51

experience self-doubt about controlling or changing the outcome or that they are just not good at
performing a particular task (Schunk & Usher, 2019). In an organizational setting where leaders
are asked to perform new tasks or to make changes in their behavior, it is important to determine
their degree of self-efficacy before trying to improve their competence in that task (Maccalla et
al., 2021). Relatedly, Grossman and Salas (2011) identified factors most likely to enable the
transfer of learning new skills and showed that beyond the motivation to learn a new skill or
behavior, motivation to transfer the learning to the environment influenced the necessary
behavior to manifest the new ways. Similarly, Islam (2019) studied several hundred faculty in a
higher education institute and found that those with higher self-efficacy and low resistance to
change were more likely to be motivated to transfer any training they received.
The self-efficacy influence examined here was that Tech Global leaders need to believe
that they are capable of role modeling inclusionary practices within their own organizations.
Recent research on diversity and inclusion that focused on leaders as role models found many
examples at the level of company CEOs. DiversityInc. (2021) used CEO commitment as one of
its criteria for assessing companies for its annual awards for top diversity practices. Companies
such as AT&T, Bank of America, Coca-Cola, Deloitte, Lockheed Martin, Mastercard, and
Sodexo that repeatedly made the top 50 lists were also profiled in various publications (Dobbin
& Kalev, 2016; Groysberg & Connolly, 2013; Madera, 2013; Mitra & Mehta, 2021). The CEOs
of many of those companies shared how they supported diversity and inclusion. For some, it was
personal: “I myself am diverse” (Groysberg & Connolly, 2013, para. 5), while others connected
employees’ perception of feeling valued to customer satisfaction (Groysberg & Connolly, 2013).
In some cases, CEOs acted as role models for diversity and inclusion by participating in their
52

companies’ diversity councils (Madera, 2013). At L’Oréal, the CEO publicly participated in
several diversity initiatives (Derven, 2014).
When leaders up to and including the CEO role model and demonstrate inclusive
leadership behaviors, positive outcomes occur, including measurable increases in employee
engagement, trust, job satisfaction, and psychological safety (Boekhorst, 2015; Booysen, 2014;
Shore et al., 2018). Additionally, increases in employee perception that the organization has an
inclusive environment leads to decisions such as intention to stay or to increases in innovation
and team performance and the likelihood of sustained overall organization performance (Derven,
2014; Groysberg & Connolly, 2013; Korkmaz et al., 2022; Madera, 2013; Randel et al., 2018;
Roberge et al., 2011). Table 5 shows the stakeholder’s assumed motivation influences and the
related literature.

53

Table 5
Summary of Assumed Motivation Influences on Tech Global Leaders’ Ability to Achieve the
Performance Goal
Assumed motivation influences Research literature
Tech Global leaders need to believe it is
important to incorporate inclusionary
practices into their performance goals.
(Attainment value)
Khan et al., 2020; Mitra & Mehta, 2020;
Moore et al., 2020; Qi et al., 2019; Roberge
et al., 2011
Tech Global leaders need to believe it is useful
to incorporate inclusionary practices into their
performance goals. (Utility value)
Boekhorst, 2015; Carberry & Meyers, 2017;
Derven, 2014; Ferdman, 2014; Grossman &
Salas, 2011; Imke, 2019; Kuknor &
Bhattacharya, 2020; Logan, 2019; Mayer et
al., 2017; Scott et al., 2017; Shore et al.,
2011
Tech Global leaders need to believe that they
are capable of role modeling inclusionary
practices within their own organizations.
(Self-efficacy)
Boekhorst, 2015; Booysen, 2014; Derven,
2014; Dobbin & Kalev, 2016; Grossman &
Salas, 2011; Groysberg & Connolly, 2013;
Korkmaz et al., 2022; Madera, 2013; Mitra
& Mehta, 2020; Randel et al., 2018; Roberge
et al., 2011; Shore et al., 2018

Organizational Influences
The third element in the assessment of performance gaps is the organization itself. A key
component of any gap analysis is to understand the unique culture of the organization, the
elements of culture and how they interact, and the degree to which organizational culture enables
or hinders the effective achievement of business goals (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011).
Schein (2017) described the culture of a group as
the accumulated shared learning of that group as it solves its problems of external
adaptation and internal integration, which has worked well enough to be considered valid
and therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, feel and
54

behave in relation to those problems. This accumulated learning is a pattern or system of
beliefs, values and behavioral norms that come to be taken for granted as basic
assumptions and eventually drop out of awareness. (p. 6)
Organizational Resources
Clark and Estes (2008) noted three core elements existing within organizations that
collectively impact how the organization functions. Work processes lay out the requirements of
how people interact and what they do to produce outcomes. Material resources supply the
organization with what it requires to operate and succeed and can include tangible assets needed
in manufacturing environments or information technology for knowledge workers. Value
streams describe the interactions between and among various groups in the organization, while
value chains operationalize those interactions. The potential for organizational breakdown or
barriers increases when any of the three elements is broken or weak (Clark & Estes, 2008;
Offermann & Basford, 2014).
Organizational cultures are dynamic (Rueda, 2011; Schein, 2017), and individuals in the
organization interact or negotiate with each other daily in ways that are shaped by but also shape
the culture Rueda (2011). Bandura (2000) relatedly described the bi-directional relationship
between people and their environments. Leaders must negotiate the formal and informal norms,
values, assumptions, beliefs, and shared meanings of the organization and the teams within
which they operate (Rueda, 2011; Schein, 2017). At the same time, even subtle changes in
thinking and behaviors of leaders can impact the organization (Bandura, 2000).
The organizational resources influence examined in this study was that organizational
support is needed for Tech Global leaders to incorporate inclusionary practices into their
performance goals. For decades, diversity training for employees has been one of the core and
55

most common resources utilized by organizations (Alhejji et al., 2016; Bezrukova et al., 2016;
Chang et al., 2019; Dobbin & Kalev, 2016) to address diversity issues. However, such programs
can have questionable effectiveness due to inconsistent design standards, unclear or outdated
intentions (Bezrukova et al., 2016; Noon, 2018) or can worsen employee attitudes (Dobbin &
Kalev, 2016; Dover et al., 2019). A common theme across organizations studied was that
initiatives other than diversity training can improve engagement and retention and increase
diversity in leadership. Companies willing to adopt a multifaceted approach to enhancing
diversity and inclusion, with diversity training as but one element, appear to have the most
positive outcomes (Mor Barak et al., 2016).
For example, Cross et al. (2021) worked directly with 10 companies that wanted to better
understand how connectivity within informal networks impacted outcomes such as promotions
and retention for women and minorities. Findings showed that the organizations could do three
things within their talent development programs to improve the promotion and retention of
women and minorities. First, they could create opportunities for women and minorities who were
newly hired or promoted to make connections with others earlier. Second, the programs could
include exposure to broader and more diverse networks within the organization. Third,
restructuring mentoring programs to include peers or colleagues closer to the employee’s level
turned out to be more predictive of faster promotions and higher retention rates than only the
traditional senior/junior mentoring relationships (Cross et al., 2021).
Similarly, Carboni et al. (2022) found that understanding the power of informal networks
enabled a large global tech manufacturing company to drive change in its diversity management
practices. Findings emerged, such as the importance of knowing who is sought out for expertise
led to changes at the enterprise level in talent development, leveraging network strategies, and
56

ways of measuring the effectiveness of unconscious bias training. Other initiatives by
organizations such as Coca-Cola and Deloitte used individual and group mentoring, expanding
internal connections by building broader networks, and creating purposeful rotational
assignments, to increase diversity at their leadership levels (Dobbin & Kalev, 2016).
Cultural Models and Cultural Settings
Organizational culture can be further differentiated for purposes of assessing performance
gaps. Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) distinguished between cultural models and cultural
settings. Cultural models consist of mostly invisible but impactful values, beliefs, and attitudes
shared among group members who behave in ways that they should and that were learned over
time. Cultural models can enable or hinder the achievement of business goals (Rueda, 2011).
Organizations’ cultures are dynamic, and the influences of values, beliefs and attitudes that
leaders and employees hold about diversity and inclusion need to be understood before any
changes can be made (Rueda, 2011; Schein, 2017). One of the key components of organizational
culture is the sense of shared experiences, values, and norms (Edmondson, 2012; Rueda, 2011;
Schein, 2017). Another way of describing a shared experience is that people cooperate or
collaborate with each other. Schein (2017) described the importance of shared learning as a
means of sense making and contributing to the organization’s purpose. Leaders across a
company benefit from a culture of cooperation as a way of transferring knowledge and learning
back into the organization. Role modeling is one of the most effective ways to integrate inclusive
leadership in organizations (Boekhorst, 2015; Booysen, 2013; Cottrill et al., 2014; Ferdman,
2014; Gallegos, 2014; Shore, 2018).
Cultural settings are the visible demonstration of the elements of cultural models,
including the “who, what, when, where, why and how people come together to accomplish a
57

task” (Rueda, 2011, p. 57). A major upheaval in cultural settings occurred during COVID-19
when most companies had to send employees home, and people had to learn almost overnight
how to work together. In such instances, cultural settings had to be reimagined, and work had to
be re-contracted, formally and informally (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Rueda, 2011).
The Organization Needs to Have Inclusionary Practices Goals for Tech Global
Leaders to Incorporate Into Their Performance Goals. Organizations can set up
accountability systems by leveraging the existing performance management processes to require
integrating inclusionary practices (Offermann & Basford, 2014). Additionally, sponsorship by
the highest levels of leadership will demonstrate the importance of focusing on inclusionary
practices within talent development initiatives and going beyond the motions of diversity
management, which is an important but insufficient (Gallegos, 2014; Gotsis & Grimani, 2016)
practice. Another artifact of a cultural setting supporting inclusionary practices is a reward
system, as recommended by Offermann and Basford (2014), for improvements such as increased
scores on the employee survey.
In practice, one tech company studied its internal networks and determined that senior
leaders could do more than act as mentors by operating as network brokers, meaning they could
easily connect people and ideas across the company (Carboni et al., 2022). When it was found
that men at lower levels had better informal connections with those senior leaders than women,
even though there was a formal sponsorship program, the company had the data to justify
holding the senior leaders accountable for more equitable talent development. Companies such
as Deloitte and Valitron (a pseudonym) began holding leaders accountable to create conditions
of helping traditionally excluded employees through processes such as peer mentoring, diversity
task forces, and rotational assignments (Carboni et al., 2022; Cross et al., 2021; Dobbin & Kalev,
58

2016). AT&T stated on its corporate citizenship site that managers were expected to successfully
implement diversity practices (Roberge et al., 2011). Such practices reinforced academic
research showing that when employees perceive that they are being helped, especially minorities,
they tend to return favors or speak up for someone’s capabilities (Randel et al., 2016; Singh et
al., 2012).
The Organization Needs to Offer Rewards to Tech Global Leaders for Attaining
Their Performance Goals of Incorporating Inclusionary Practices. A large global technology
manufacturing company known as Valitron (a pseudonym) wanted to assess its efforts at
reducing gender bias (Carboni et al., 2022). One practice the company instituted was to make a
point of recognizing individuals who showed inclusive behaviors. Relatedly, an online platform
was used to give specific women a virtual community to work together within the organization.
Interestingly, there are more instances in the literature of leaders being held accountable
for diversity measurement than there are of rewarding inclusive leadership behaviors than it. One
reason may be that inclusion, which is the degree to which employees feel they belong and are
valued (Mor Barak, 2022), is harder to measure than diversity, which can be tracked in ways that
break out groups’ representation based on race, ethnicity, age and other distinctions (Ferdman,
2014). For example, Filbeck et al. (2017) presented Lockheed Martin as one company tying
diversity in hiring to CEO and other senior executives’ bonuses. Notably, Roberge et al. (2011)
included Lockheed Martin in a study of specific diversity-focused practices of 10 companies.
Some companies publicly share their diversity management practices by vying for a spot on an
annual list of the top 50 companies for diversity practices. DiversityInc. is an organization that
uses a methodology of survey questions and algorithms to assess companies against six
categories: demographics, leadership accountability, talent programs, workplace practices,
59

supplier diversity, and philanthropy. Madera (2013) noted seven practices in a subset of 14
companies within the top 50 from the 2010 awards. Having a corporate diversity council,
diversity training programs, supplier diversity, employee networking and mentoring, cultural
awareness, support for women, and same-sex benefits alongside what was known as LGBT at
that time signaled a strategy of a broad approach to diversity management (Madera, 2013). Such
consistency among even a small group of winners suggests that companies investing time and
effort in creating and maintaining a broad set of initiatives would experience increases in positive
branding and be more attractive to prospective employees (Olsen & Martins, 2016). Table 6
shows the stakeholder’s assumed organization influences and the related literature.

60

Table 6
Summary of Assumed Organization Influences on Tech Global Leaders’ Ability to Achieve the
Performance Goal
Assumed organization influences Research literature
Organizational support is needed for Tech Global
leaders to incorporate inclusionary practices into
their performance goals. (Resources)
Abramovitz & Blitz, 2015; Bezrukova et
al., 2016; Booysen, 2014; Carboni et
al., 2022; Carpenter, 2012; Cross et
al., 2021; Chang et al., 2019; Dobbin
& Kalev, 2016; Dover et al., 2019;
Mor Barak et al., 2016; Noon, 2018
The organization needs to have inclusionary
practices goals for Tech Global leaders to
incorporate into their performance goals.
(Cultural settings)
Boekhorst, 2015; Carboni et al., 2022;
Cross et al., 2021; Dobbin & Kalev,
2016; Gallegos; 2014; Gotsis &
Grimani, 2016; Mor Barak et al.,
2016; Noon, 2018; Offerman &
Basford, 2014
The organization needs to offer rewards to Tech
Global leaders for attaining their performance
goals of incorporating inclusionary practices.
(Cultural settings)
Carboni et al., 2022; Nishii & Rich,
2013; Shore et al., 2018

Summary
This chapter reviewed and presented research and literature related to the history and
evolution of diversity and inclusion initiatives in organizations, beginning with societal
influences, moving into the development of laws and policies to diminish and prevent
discrimination in the workplace, and presenting current challenges and best practices at the
organizational and leader level. Attributes and practices of inclusive leadership behaviors to
enhance the organizational climate and as an enabler of diversity were presented. There was a
focus on the STEM industries, describing common and unique conditions. Clark and Estes’s
61

(2008) KMO gap analysis framework was introduced and used to identify the assumed KMO
influences on Tech Global leaders as they seek to meet their stakeholder goal of embedding
inclusive practices within their performance goals. Those assumed influences will be tested as
part of data collection in Chapter Three.
Social cognitive theory (SCT) is a complementary conceptual framework to Clark and
Estes’ (2008) KMO framework. It builds on connections between the distinct factors of KMO
influences on stakeholders as they strive to achieve their performance goals. Specifically, SCT
shows triadic reciprocity between the person, their behaviors, and their environment.
Organizational cultures are dynamic (Rueda, 2011) and impactful to individuals, including
leaders, who negotiate the daily rhythms as they interact with their teams and employees.
Conversely, changes in individuals’ knowledge, motivation or organizational processes will
change the culture, even slightly (Rueda, 2011).
In attaining specific knowledge and skills regarding inclusionary practices, leaders will
be more likely to change their behavior. Changes in behavior will impact the organization,
specifically the cultural model and cultural settings. Figure 2 is a visual representation of the
complementary frameworks of KMO and SCT, putting the key stakeholder (the leader) in the
center of the frame as the person with beliefs, attitudes, and values striving to achieve a
performance goal. Influenced by knowledge and motivation gaps and learning new behaviors,
the leader continues to impact and be impacted by the environment. It is important to see the
leader as a core element of a dynamic and fluid network of relationships, with inputs and outputs.

Figure 2
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Processes Connect to Social Cognitive Theory

62
63

The connection between Figure 2 and Figure 3 is that the former puts the leader at the
center of the influences but also demonstrates triadic reciprocity between the person (the Tech
Global leader), their beliefs, and the environment. While the KMO influences are impacting the
leader, the leader, through knowledge, motivation, and relationship with the environment, is also
impacting the organization. Figure 3 adds the specific inputs and outcomes and shrinks the center
diagram to enable readability. Figure 3 links the theoretical with the tangible, or the inputs, to
help an organization understand the relationships. Figure 3, in essence, explains how any
inclusionary practices of leaders fit into a larger system of organizational practices and how the
entities influence each other.

Figure 3
Implementation of KMO Influences and Intended Outcomes in the Organizational Setting

64
65

Chapter Three: Methodology
This chapter reviews the purpose of the study and the research questions and provides an
outline and rationale for the methodological design components and the plans for data collection.
An overview of the KMO framework and how it relates to the conceptual framework of social
cognitive theory is briefly discussed.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to understand the needs of 1,500 Tech Global leaders in
embedding one or more promising inclusive practices in their own performance goals. The Tech
Global leaders are in one functional organization embedded within a global biotechnology
company. Biotechnology is one of the STEM professions and, in general, experiences stagnant
underrepresentation of women and minorities (Martinez & Gayfield, 2019). The questions that
guided this gap analysis are the following:
1. What knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational needs exist for 100% of
the Tech Global leaders to incorporate at least one of the company’s D&I
inclusionary practices into their performance goals?
2. What are the recommended knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational
solutions for 100% of the Tech Global leaders to incorporate at least one of the
company’s D&I inclusionary practices into their performance goals?
Conceptual and Methodological Framework
Clark and Estes’s (2008) framework was applied in this study. As a research-based
process to enable organizations to improve performance, it provides support to stakeholders to
increase their effectiveness in achieving goals in two ways. First, it is based on understanding the
stakeholder goals in relation to the organization’s goals. Specifically, the framework describes
66

how to create or clarify organizational business goals and how to test for alignment with
stakeholder performance goals. An essential step of determining gaps between the desired
organizational goals and the individual performance goals sets the stage for conducting the
second part of the process: analyzing what is needed to close the performance gap. An
assessment is done through three lenses: knowledge/skills, motivation, and organizational
processes (Clark & Estes, 2008). Figure 1 depicts Clark and Estes’s (2008) model and
demonstrates how a needs analysis leads to the implementation and evaluation of recommended
solutions.
Overview of Design
To ensure a deep understanding of the problem being studied, data collection and analysis
were conducted using a mixed-methods approach. Qualitative open-ended and quantitative
closed-ended data collection strategies both have strengths and limitations. Features of each
method were amplified, which allowed for the most complete use of the data (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018). A quantitative survey, some semi-structured qualitative interviews, and
documents were the sources of data collected, analyzed, and used to inform the research findings
and recommendations. Mixed-methods data collection also ensured triangulation of the results
(Maxwell, 2013), creating increased confidence that a result is not biased by a particular manner
of collecting data.
A quantitative survey consisting of several Likert-type scale statements collected
information on leaders’ knowledge and motivation about the company’s inclusive practices, as
well as about their reporting of environmental influences in the form of organizational resources
and specific manifestations of cultural settings. The survey was administered online, and
responses were aggregated for analysis. Twelve leaders were interviewed about their
67

perspectives on the influences contributing to the current state of inclusive practices as they
considered how to embed them in their own performance goals and eventually in their own
organizations. Documents that pertain to policies and procedures of inclusion across the
organization were analyzed to determine what, if any, existing practices were in place that could
help or hinder the leaders. Table 7 presents the data sources.

68

Table 7
Data Sources
Research questions Survey Interview Document analysis
What knowledge and
skills, motivation,
and organizational
needs exist for
100% of the Tech
Global leaders to
incorporate at least
one of the
company’s D&I
inclusionary
practices into their
performance goals?
Likert-type questions
about multiple
influences based on
procedural
knowledge,
attainment value,
utility value,
efficacy, and
organizational
resources and
cultural settings.
Optional text box
allows for
comments.
There are some
demographics
questions.
Qualitative, semi-
structured questions
probe for the
perceived
influences on senior
leaders regarding
procedural
knowledge,
attainment value,
utility value, self-
efficacy, and
organization
resources and
cultural settings.
A method of
qualitative
research,
completed by
reviewing various
internal documents
available,
including articles,
videos, podcasts,
and learning plans
pertaining to what
senior leaders need
to know
procedurally, the
motivational
influences and the
organizational
settings and
resources.
What are the
recommended
knowledge and
skills, motivation,
and organizational
solutions for 100%
of the Tech Global
leaders to
incorporate at least
one of the
company’s D&I
inclusionary
practices into their
performance goals?
– – –

Note. The second research question is answered in Chapter Five with an implementation plan
and, as such, does not list data sources in Table 7.
69

Participating Stakeholders
The key stakeholders of interest in this study were the 1,500 Tech Global leaders located
around the world. There are approximately seven levels of leadership in Tech Global, from a
first-line manager of individual contributors to a vice president. Combined, these levels consist
of approximately 1,500 leaders. As a group, they are considered to have the most power to set
goals with and for employees under their direction and to assess the results.
Survey Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Four criteria were applied to the stakeholder population, to determine that those invited to
participate in the study would have the appropriate tenure, role, and experience to answer the
questions. Rationale is explained for each criterion. Applying the four criteria did not reduce the
number of leaders from the population size of 1,500.
Criterion 1
The first criterion for inclusion in the quantitative survey was that an individual must
have the title of supervisor, manager, senior manager, director, senior director, executive
director, or vice president and above. These leaders have the most influence on their employees
and teams and thus have insights into research questions one and two.
Criterion 2
The second criterion was that the individual must have been a people manager for at least
a year. This criterion ensures that a leader can demonstrate or experience a baseline of consistent
behavior for implementing or reinforcing inclusionary practices. Relatedly, some of the
customary inclusionary practices, such as decisions about promotions, employee development, or
pay and performance tend to occur during time-bound events within a prescribed 12-month
70

cycle. Therefore, tenure of at least a year managing direct reports was important for answering
research question one.
Criterion 3
The third criterion for inclusion in the survey was that the leader must be actively
employed on a full-time basis of over 35 hours per week and not on a leave of absence, such as
long-term disability, which is a designation for an employee who is permitted to be absent from
work for more than 2 weeks at a time. It was unlikely that many leaders would have such a
status, but it had to be accounted for. Culture is a dynamic, fluid phenomenon (Rueda, 2011),
and leaders must be consistently present to effectively maintain or change the environment.
Criterion 4
The final criterion was that the leader must work in a country that allows employees to
participate in activities where they may express an opinion. Some countries, such as Germany
and France, have laws about what employees cannot be asked to do. The report that the D&I
partner used to create the email distribution list was scrubbed to remove the names of any leaders
in those countries.
Based on the criteria applied, the final list of leaders invited to participate in the survey
was approximately 1,533 but about 130 automatic “out of office” replies to the first email sent by
the D&I partner indicated that some leaders were on vacation or otherwise absent. About 1,400
leaders received the first email invitation. It is unknown how many of those who were “out of
office” received reminder emails.
Survey Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
This survey was a cross-sectional, one-time probability sample (Creswell & Creswell,
2018). The strategy for this study was to invite every leader who met the criteria to complete the
71

online quantitative survey. Inviting every leader from the seven leadership levels to participate
increased the opportunity to gain insights across all levels of responsibility and expertise in the
Tech Global function. The target response rate was 306 participants, which would satisfy a
confidence level of 95% and provide an acceptable margin of error of 5%. The survey was
available at the beginning of data collection and was open for just over 3 weeks. Due to limited
data collection time and opportunities, a convergent design (Creswell & Creswell, 2018)
approach was used, meaning that quantitative and qualitative data collection occurred
simultaneously.
I wrote the email invitation to participate in the research, which was sent to the 1,500
Tech Global leaders by the D&I partner. Having the D&I partner send the email linked to the
study to a person known to the Tech Global leaders and who is responsible for D&I within the
Tech Global function. To avoid any appearance of coercion about participation, the email
contained only the research information sheet and provided instructions on how to take the
survey and how to volunteer for the interviews. I am a former employee of the company but was
an individual contributor when I worked there and operated hierarchically at a lower level than
the target audience. I am known to some of the invited population but had no influence over
them or direct outreach other than to leaders who volunteered to be interviewed and contacted
me first.
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Three criteria were applied to the stakeholders who volunteered to be interviewed for the
study. Rationale is explained for each criterion. Applying the three criteria did not eliminate any
of the 12 volunteers from the interview process.
72

Criterion 1
Maxwell (2013) asserted that the most important consideration in qualitative research
decisions is to choose people who can give the most information needed to answer the research
questions. I believe that regardless of which leaders participated, their individual perspectives are
equally valuable as long as they are authentic. While a purposeful sample (Maxwell, 2013;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) drawn from the population of 1,500 leaders who met the criteria from
the survey selection process would have been ideal, the higher priority was to protect the
participants’ confidentiality. The email provided instructions on how to volunteer for an
interview. In keeping with the idea of choosing people who can give the most information, I
trusted that anyone volunteering would do so because they could give information to answer the
questions.
Criterion 2
A second criterion for selecting participants for an interview was that they had to agree to
be interviewed in English, which is the only language I use. The invitation to the participants
included this criterion. Participants were told they did not have to be fluent, just conversant. I
wanted to avoid any appearances of unintended exclusion by giving the impression that leaders
from a country where English is not the first language will not be comfortable communicating in
English.
Criterion 3
A third criterion was that the leader had to be willing to spend up to 45 minutes in a one-
on-one interview format. I offered every participant the opportunity to review their transcript
before it was used. Any extra time spent by the participants over the 45 minutes to review the
transcript was considered optional, not mandatory.
73

Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
The strategy for recruitment for the interviews was for me to remain curious and open
about which leaders to talk with. Gaining insights and understanding from the lived experiences
of the Tech US leaders group is an example of purposeful sampling (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I
do not know the entire population of leaders well enough to make value judgements about any
one person’s perspectives, and thus all data gathered could be equally rich. I wanted to avoid any
bias that might have prompted me to reach out to leaders I knew. Also, D&I is considered the
responsibility of every leader, and inclusionary practices offered for consideration by Big Bio
and US Bio are available to every leader. They sought to understand leader beliefs, attitudes and
experiences using a lens of SCT and bi-directional influence between the person and their
environment. Thus, the manner and degree to which a leader might report feeling influenced by
the environment or conversely able to influence the environment around them were important to
note.
For the qualitative interviews, a purposeful sample (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) of leaders
were invited to participate. I followed up with volunteers to arrange a convenient time to
interview them and sent a calendar invitation. Thirteen leaders volunteered to be interviewed, but
one had to withdraw before the meeting due to unexpected workload issues. Therefore, 12
interviews were conducted in October and November 2022. Due to the limited time frame for
data collection, the interviews and the survey were conducted simultaneously.
Document Analysis Criteria and Rationale
Big Bio and US Bio produce many documents pertaining to D&I. Three criterion were
applied to the potential available documents, to select the most relevant for the analysis.
74

Criterion 1
The first criterion is that regardless of the type of document (report, article, policy
manual) the information related to individual and/or corporate knowledge, motivation, and
organization, depending on disaggregated results.
Criterion 2
Documents had to be housed internally, such as on the D&I website, as a second
criterion. An internal document speaks directly to employees and will often contain information
marked “company confidential” or even “restricted,” meaning it is sensitive in part because of
the depth and breadth of what is being shared. The D&I partner made such documents available
for analysis.
Criterion 3
The age of the documentation was the third criterion. Information about diversity and
inclusion workshops, demographics, or articles pertaining to inclusionary practices is most
relevant if it is current within the past 3 years due to the many significant events that have
occurred during that time.
Document Analysis (Access) Strategy and Rationale
Triangulation consists of data collection from multiple sources, which increases the
overall credibility of the research (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). In this study, document analysis
was a key part of the strategy. I sought guidance about any specific documents to review from
one of the study sponsors, including the D&I partner and the head of human resources for the
Tech Global function. However, to avoid any potential bias, I requested that the D&I point of
contact conduct a thorough search of internal documents that met the three criteria and that could
be shared without breaching the confidentiality of any individuals who might be participating in
75

the study. Document analysis is considered a qualitative research method (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016), and I recognized that from reviewing one or more documents, a new direction or an
altered perspective could emerge.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
A mixed-methods convergent design (Creswell & Creswell, 2018) approach was utilized
in the study. A benefit of conducting two types of data collection simultaneously was that the
strengths of quantitative and qualitative methods could be combined to gather different types of
information about the same topics (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). For example, quantitative
survey data from a representative sample can provide statistics that are representative of a larger
population, while qualitative interviews enable in-depth exploration of the same topic areas with
a much smaller population.
The focus of this study was to understand the KMO processes that influence leaders’
embedding of at least one of the company’s D&I inclusionary practices into their own
performance goals. I had to put aside personal beliefs and assumptions about the nature and
importance of the inclusionary practices named in the internal documents and not make
judgements about language used to encourage rather than require the adoption of a practice.
Collecting the richest data can best be accomplished by using a combination of a quantitative
survey of closed-ended questions, which enables the scoring of a large number of responses, and
the open-ended questions from interviews, to enable probing for deeper responses (Fink, 2017).
By analyzing results from each method separately, then comparing results, I expected to
see the same results (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The choice of mixed methods increases the
richness of the data by not being constrained by the limitations of either quantitative or
qualitative research. I was also mindful of the admonition to only collect what is intended to be
76

used (Fink, 2017) and factored that into creating a survey of nine questions specifically related to
the assumed influences. No superfluous questions were asked.
Surveys
An email invitation explaining the purpose of the survey and the role of the researcher
was sent the day before the survey was launched. A quantitative survey in the format of a series
of closed-ended statements with Likert-type answers was offered to leaders with a job level of
supervisor, manager, senior manager, director, senior director, executive director, and vice
president and above within the Tech Global function. The email provided a link to the survey
and explained that it was anonymous and voluntary. All surveys were in English, which is the
official language of business in the company. There were nine survey items, including
demographic questions about tenure and job level and geographical region where the leader
works. The survey was considered a “pulse” survey because it was shorter than other surveys,
such as the Global Employee Opinion Survey, and was a one-time rather than an annual survey.
The survey instrument used was built on the Qualtrics platform.
Interviews
Interviews were scheduled for 45 minutes; I met once with each participant. The format
was semi-structured, which according to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), allows for some flexibility
in the order and the wording of questions while requiring some basic information gathered from
all participants. For the types of questions asked, a semi-structured format enabled rich data by
ensuring unique follow-up questions based on participants’ answers. With an audience of
potentially different cultures and lived experiences, a semi-structured approach was a respectful
approach because it is flexible rather than rigid and formulaic. A planned sample was 12
interviewees, after which I expected to encounter saturation.
77

All interviews were held via Zoom, which is the company’s required conferencing
platform for conducting meetings during business hours. All interviews were in English, as it is
the only language in which I am fluent. In Tech Global, a leader at any level is expected to
demonstrate proficiency in English. Questions were provided in writing to the participants
approximately 24 to 48 hours before the interview so that they could read them ahead of time if
desired. For some Tech Global leaders for whom English is a second language, the written
format was intended to enable comprehension. Some interviewees indicated without prompting
that they wrote out their answers to ensure they were being complete.
To ensure privacy and comfort, each participant was asked permission to record the
interviews and to have our cameras on. Every participant agreed to keep cameras on. I was
prepared to take notes instead of recording the call, but every participant agreed to record the
interview. While the interviews were conducted and recorded with audio and visual components
engaged, only audio recordings and transcripts were kept and used. I stored the recordings and
transcripts on a private, secure, password-protected laptop kept in a secure location in my home
office and described the security measures to the participants.
Documents and Artifacts
Documents were obtained through the internal point of contact for the study, the D&I
partner to Tech Global. Documents contained information about the assumed influences on
knowledge and skills, motivational influences, and the organizational policies, practices and
procedures pertaining to D&I. Illustrative examples included data from the annual employee
survey questions pertaining to D&I, any statements outlining expectations on managers to role
model inclusive behaviors, or goals listed in an organization’s set of annual performance goals.
A detailed and extensive internal diversity and inclusion website had a variety of documents and
78

content intended to inform and educate (knowledge and skills influences), inspire (motivational
influences) and connect activities to the company’s ways of working (organizational processes).
I requested documents that can be stored electronically. In the case of documents deemed
restricted or highly restricted, the details have been anonymized or altered to protect the
company’s confidentiality. I was not given access to any highly restricted documents.
Data Analysis
This research was conducted to understand the influences of KMO processes on leaders
to incorporate at least one of the company’s inclusionary practices within their own performance
goals. The analysis resulted in the discovery of potential solutions to enable 100% of the Tech
Global leaders to embed at least one of the company’s D&I goals for inclusionary practice in
their performance goals. This study was conducted in two phases. Twelve interviews,
documents, and an online survey of about 1,500 participants were the data sources. Using a
convergent mixed method approach (Creswell & Creswell, 2018) required that the survey and
the interviews be done in parallel during a 3-to-4-week period in the month of October 2022. The
second phase of data analysis occurred during the months of November and December 2022.
Following the guidance of Maxwell (2013), I began analyzing the data upon completing the first
interview.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
To ensure the credibility and trustworthiness of the qualitative components of my study, I
committed to engaging in transparent and consistent behavior that gives others confidence about
the work and the results (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Triangulation, which is itself a way of
ensuring credibility and trustworthiness, means using at least three strategies across methods,
such as qualitative and quantitative data collection (Creswell & Creswell, 2018) for cross-
79

referencing. Another action taken was to make the survey and interview questions clear, concise,
and relevant to the research. My dissertation committee chair and dissertation assistant each
provided feedback that resulted in changes to the wording of the questions. Internal experts, such
as the internal D&I partner, were consulted on cultural (avoiding jargon that sounds too
academic) issues. Additionally, I sought one senior leader’s feedback about the clarity and
relevance of the questions. Using the recording feature of Zoom for the interviews avoided
misinterpretation or misunderstanding of what participants said. A follow-on step of member-
checking my findings with some interviewees ensured that they corrected misinterpretations and
signaled to them that the results were credible and trustworthy (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
A key part of conducting this research was for me to be aware of personal issues related
to reflexivity and bias, especially in identifying issues of power within the research setting
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I had no positional power over the participants, especially in the
qualitative interviews. Any participant could decline to be interviewed for any reason, with no
repercussions. A possible intangible power imbalance could be perceived by a participant, who
may or may not be aware of feelings of discomfort or inferiority if they believed I had the most
knowledge of the issues being researched. Insider-outsider status (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016)
might have come into play, meaning, as a former employee of the company and an outsider, I did
have some understanding of the cultural models and settings. However, I was never a leader at
the executive director level or above in any company and, therefore, was an outsider to what it is
like to work at that level.
Validity and Reliability
It is the investigator’s responsibility to ensure that a study is conducted rigorously and
has results that resonate with others (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Several actions and steps were
80

taken to ensure quantitative data collection was both valid, meaning an item accurately measures
what it is supposed to measure, and reliable, defined as getting the same result from repeating the
test or experiment multiple times (Robinson & Firth Leonard, 2019). Before the survey was
launched, an internal expert responsible for employee surveys was asked for advice on possible
misunderstandings or misinterpretations of the survey items for the Tech Global leaders group.
Second, all Tech Global leaders who met the previously described criteria were invited to
participate, thus eliminating the appearance of selective bias that might surface from a
convenience or similar type of purposeful sample (Maxwell, 2013). Third, an internal point of
contact who has D&I responsibilities for the function sent the email invitation to participants. I
did not see the email addresses or names of the survey participants, only the raw data. Fourth, all
requirements by Qualtrics to ensure confidentiality were followed when the survey was created.
Finally, to ensure confidence in the survey sample of 1,500 leaders, a target response rate of at
least 306 was set, which would have yielded an acceptable confidence level of 95% and a 5%
margin of error.
Wave analysis was applied to deal with nonresponse bias, defined as the significant
impact on data results had nonrespondents answered the survey (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Wave analysis consists of analyzing responses received in the later days of the survey; if the
answers are very different from earlier submissions, it is possible that nonresponse bias occurred
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). I found no evidence of nonresponse bias.
Ethics
The ethics of an investigator are foundational to the way the study is conducted and
influence the validity and reliability of the data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Before the study
could be conducted, several steps were taken. First, an internal legal representative or gatekeeper
81

(Creswell & Creswell, 2018) reviewed the plan and agreed that employees’ right to privacy
would be maintained during surveys and interviews. Second, approval was obtained from the
institutional review board (IRB), proving that the study was conducted to the highest standards
of human rights protections (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Relatedly, information forms (see
Appendix B), which were approved as part of the application to the IRB, were provided to 12
Tech Global leaders who volunteered to participate in qualitative interviews (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018). All communication to invitees repeatedly reinforced the voluntary nature of
their participation, including their ability to withdraw at any time without penalty or
consequence. An example of the communication to survey participants can be found in Appendix
A. Surveys and interviews stated that no individual identifying information would be collected,
and interviews would only record audio, with no identifying tags to the interviewees.
Confidentiality was promised to all participants, which is another critical part of ethical research
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). During data analysis, it was important that all data be kept
confidential and secure (Fink, 2017), and for this study, hard copy data was kept in a locked
cabinet in the privacy of my home office while the online or soft copy was kept on a secure
laptop that only I can access.
Role of Investigator
I committed to naming and mitigating personal beliefs and biases for each of the roles
played in this study. Identity characteristics would shape perceptions (Creswell & Creswell,
2018), including being a White female of upper-middle-class social status, with likely a very
different lived experiences than many of the leaders of other racial or ethnic groups or from
different geographies. I was aware of having beliefs and assumptions about what constitutes
inclusive behaviors based on personal work experience, prior job responsibilities, and research
82

conducted for this study. Comments by the interviewees that could be rich with meaning might
have been misinterpreted due to my lack of knowledge about what might be a powerful
experience for them. Perhaps age was a bias; interacting with leaders who were newer in their
careers could have triggered me into giving advice. Training and experience as an organization
development consultant combined with a passion for the topics required me to stay in deep self-
awareness and to notice the desire to discuss the question instead of staying in researcher mode.
Admitting to having biases and assumptions was a first step toward building credibility
with study participants and future readers. Embedding comments that authentically shared self-
reflections and what I noticed and learned during the journey of the study in the reporting of
findings was another way to connect with others. My responsibility was to ensure that the study
was properly carried out, that the benefits of the study outweighed the risks, and that participants
were properly informed about the study so that they could make decisions about whether to
participate, including the ability to withdraw from the study with no penalties should they do so
(Glesne, 2011). All survey responses were aggregated, and no identifiable information was
collected. The purpose of the study, the rights of the participants, and the ways in which data
were collected, stored, and kept private were all communicated in writing and were repeated in
the survey instrument and the interview protocol.
To explain the role of the researcher and doctoral candidate to people inside the
company, two specific actions were taken. First, the research being done (see Appendix A) was
described, along with the intended benefits to the Tech Global leaders in particular. Second, I
differentiated between being a former employee and being an investigator when meeting with
interviewees who might recognize or remember her. In doing the study inside the company, I
acknowledged potential biases and assumptions about participants, which could affect
83

interactions or data collection and analysis (Creswell & Creswell, 2018), and then put those
aside. I focused on asking appropriate questions, gathering data, and analyzing the data before
making recommendations. The evidence from the data must be followed, and my opinions and
beliefs were not relevant other than to name them as a way of reducing their impact on the
research.
None of the study participants were subordinate to me, so there was no potential threat to
the participants. At the same time, I desired to contribute to the effectiveness of the company by
offering data and insights that come from the study. I explained that she was operating as a
scholar/researcher for the duration of the study. Ultimately, I understood the need to put in the
time and effort to conduct rigorous research and to demonstrate that being a former employee
has no impact on the integrity of the data or the results.

84

Chapter Four: Results and Findings
Research for this study was conducted using a mixed-methods approach, which included
a quantitative survey, qualitative interviews, and analysis of several public and internal
documents. The presentation of the findings is organized by eight influences within the KMO
framework (Clark & Estes, 2008). Two influences addressed conceptual and metacognitive
knowledge, three influences pertained to attainment value, utility value and self-efficacy, and
three influences related to cultural settings in the organizational factor. Data were collected and
analyzed to answer the research question: What knowledge and skills, motivation, and
organizational needs exist for 100% of the Tech Global leaders to incorporate at least one of the
company’s D&I inclusionary practices into their performance goals? The second research
question will be answered in Chapter Five: What are the recommended KMO solutions for 100%
of the Tech Global leaders to incorporate at least one of the company’s D&I inclusionary
practices into their performance goals?
Conceptual and Methodological Framework
Clark and Estes’s (2008) framework was applied in this study. Accordingly, the
presentation of results and findings was organized by the three influences of knowledge,
motivation, and organization. In Chapter Two, eight influences were developed for research. To
validate whether they were assets or needs of the stakeholder group, data were collected from
multiple sources. Specifically, a quantitative survey was administered, 12 semi-structured
interviews were conducted, and 14 internal and public documents were collected and reviewed.
Due to limited data collection time and opportunities, a convergent design approach was
used, allowing for simultaneous quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis. The
survey was a cross-sectional, one-time probability sample. Tech Global leaders who met four
85

criteria regarding their active employment, leadership years of experience, hierarchical level, and
tenure in their current role received an email describing two ways to participate in the research.
Both opportunities were optional. One form of participation was to click on the link in the email
and complete the Qualtrics survey. The survey was open for 24 calendar days, and two reminder
emails were sent during that time.
A second option was to volunteer for a 1:1 interview by sending me an email. Concurrent
with the survey being open, I scheduled volunteers for 45-minute interviews on the Zoom
platform. Each participant gave permission for the interviews to be recorded and could request
deletions or edits after reviewing a copy of the transcript. None of the interviewees asked for any
changes. Due to scheduling challenges, two interviews were conducted within 2 weeks of the
survey closure. Document analysis began during the second week of the survey and concluded 2
weeks after the last interview. In total, 14 artifacts from Big Bio and US Bio were reviewed,
including annual reports, announcements, internal websites, training or certification descriptions,
D&I initiatives, and the annual employee survey. Tech Global, as a function, did not provide any
artifacts for review.
Participating Stakeholders
Of the total population (N = 1533) of Tech Global leaders invited to participate in the
study, 3% (n = 49) completed the survey, and .8% (n = 12) participated in a 1:1 interview. It is
unknown how many leaders participated in both the survey and the interview options. The
survey collected demographics from participants. Table 8 shows the leadership level of the Tech
Global leaders, Table 9 presents their years of leadership experience, and Table 10 indicates
tenure in their current roles.

86

Table 8
Leadership Level of Survey Respondents
Leadership level % n
Supervisor, manager, or senior manager 69% 34
Director, senior director, or executive director 22% 11
Vice president and above 8% 4

Table 9
Years of Leadership Experience of Survey Respondents
Years of leadership experience % n
Fewer than 5 years 20 10
5 to 10 years 18 9
11 to 15 years 20 10
16 to 20 years 14 7
21 to 25 years 18 9
Greater than 25 years 8 4

87

Table 10
Tenure of Survey Respondents in Current Leadership Position
Years in current role % n
Less than 1 year 16 8
1 to 5 years 65 32
6 to 10 years 14 7
Greater than 10 years 4 2

Although the interviewees (n = 12) were not asked specific demographic questions, their
job titles and geographic work location were determined by a review of their email addresses. Of
the 12 participants, 58% (n = 7) members of the Tech Global function were also US Bio
employees for purposes of employment law, pay and benefits.
Interestingly, representation by leadership level in both the survey and the interviews was
similar. Of the 49 survey respondents, 69% (n = 34) were in the category of supervisor, manager,
or senior manager, which is hierarchically the lowest of the leadership levels but the highest rate
of participation in the survey. Among the interviewees, the supervisor, manager, or senior
manager group also had the highest representation at 58% (n = 7). The middle leadership level
was the director, senior director, or executive director group, with 22% (n = 11) in the survey and
25% (n = 3) among the interviewees. The highest level of leadership was vice president and
above, which showed the lowest rates of participation, with 8% (n = 4) in the survey and 17% (n
= 2) in the interview group.
Participants agreed to participate in either the survey or the interviews, or possibly both,
by acting on the instructions provided in the invitation email. Any participant who clicked on the
88

survey link was taken to the survey site and could complete the survey. The same email message
offered the opportunity for participants to participate in a 1:1 interview with instructions on how
to contact me. By sending me an email, the individual agreed to participate in an interview.
Table 11 provides the pseudonyms, leadership level, and geographic region of each interviewee.
When using direct quotes to support the assessment of each influence, the abbreviated form of
“Pn,” where n refers to the participant number, will be used.

89

Table 11
Interview Participants’ Pseudonym, Leadership Level, and Regional Work Location
Pseudonym Leadership level Work location
Participant 1/P1 Supervisor/manager/senior manager Americas
Participant 2/P2 Supervisor/manager/senior manager Americas
Participant 3/P3 Supervisor/manager/senior manager Americas
Participant 4/P4 Supervisor/manager/senior manager Americas
Participant 5/P5 Director/senior director/executive director Americas
Participant 6/P6 Director/senior director/executive director Americas
Participant 7/P7 Supervisor/manager/senior manager Americas
Participant 8/P8 Director/senior director/executive director EMEA
Participant 9/P9 Supervisor/manager/senior manager Americas
Participant 10/P10 Supervisor/manager/senior manager EMEA
Participant 11/P11 Vice president and above Americas
Participant 12/P12 Vice president and above EMEA

Note. The work location labeled “Americas” includes North America, Central America, and
South America. The abbreviation “EMEA’’ represents Europe, the Middle East, and Asia.
Organizing work locations into broad categories protects interviewees’ confidentiality.

Determination of Assets and Needs
The data sources were semi-structured interviews, documents, and a quantitative survey.
Using three sources allows for triangulation, creating confidence that the results and findings
were based on the convergence of all sources and were not biased by a particular approach.
Repeated comparisons across the data were made, and the validation of an influence as an asset
90

or a need was determined only after considering whether each met its threshold score and
applying the weighting assigned to each method. Specifically, the response rate of 3% (n = 49)
for the survey did not meet the sample size of 306 responses, making the results non-
generalizable. For data analysis, a threshold of 75% of survey participants needed to choose
“strongly agree” or “agree” as a response choice for a statement in order for it to be considered
as an asset. Any scores above 75% would be even stronger evidence.
Interviews were weighted more heavily than the surveys because of the opportunity for
me to ask probing questions, obtain more detailed information from participants about their
perceptions, and clarify meanings behind some of their comments. The number of interviews
conducted was based on two factors. First, participants had to volunteer to be interviewed, and
exactly 12 Tech Global leaders contacted me. Second, the research plan was for 12 interviews,
after which my belief was that saturation would occur. The goal for participation was met. For
data analysis, a threshold of 75% (n = 9) of similar words or phrases used by participants was set
to determine that the influence is an asset. Greater degrees of alignment would provide stronger
evidence, while anything less would be considered a need.
Document analysis was conducted to look for characteristics that described processes,
procedures, and terminology in ways that aligned with survey or interview language. Where the
use of words and phrases including “diversity,” “inclusion,” “goals,” “role modeling,”
“importance,” and “useful” was consistent across a threshold of 75%, the influence could be
considered an asset. Both Big Bio and US Bio were represented in the portfolio of artifacts
collected.
Interviews were weighted more heavily than document analysis or surveys. However,
only by analyzing and comparing all three sources of data could each assumed influence be
91

considered an asset or a need. It was possible that the survey data could meet the threshold for
the influence to be an asset yet be considered a need when analyzing the interview data.
Document analysis was conducted thoroughly and contributed to the overall determination but
was given the least weighting of the three methods. In qualitative interviews, it is important to
choose people who can give the most information (Maxwell, 2013). This study depended on
volunteers for the interviews, and I was dependent on them to think it was important to be heard
on the topic of inclusionary practice. To honor all voices equally, I used illustrative quotes in the
narrative and provide tables for each interview question, summarizing key points, and organized
by themes.
Results and Findings for Knowledge Needs
The results and findings are reported for each of the two knowledge influences, and a
determination will be made as to whether each one is an asset or a need, with evidence from the
data to support each assertion.
Conceptual Knowledge
The conceptual knowledge influence was that Tech Global leaders need to determine the
inclusionary practices most relevant to incorporate into their performance goals. A brief preview
of findings is presented, followed by a detailed description of results for the survey, the
interviews, and the document analysis. The summary deems the influence to be an asset or a
need.
Preview
Tech Global leaders described several practices that they determined to be most relevant
to inclusionary practices, but three outcomes were noted. First, there was no clear agreement
across the data on a consistent set of practices. While the range of variance suggests there are
92

many possible relevant practices, it could also mean that leaders are uncertain as to which ones
would be most relevant for them to include or not aware of the range of options available to
them. Second, the practices described in the interviews or chosen in the survey were a blending
of diversity-based and inclusionary-focused. Evidence of that understanding gap comes from two
of the top five practices chosen in the survey being diversity training and inclusive hiring
practices, with further support in the interviews of those mentioned as well. The document
analysis showed multiple instances of D&I practices that focused on diversity metrics. Third,
only one interviewee connected an inclusionary practice with performance goals.
Survey Results
Tech Global leaders were asked to choose up to five inclusionary practices that they
deemed most relevant to include in their performance goals. The list consisted of 20 items of best
practices for inclusive environments, compiled by the principal investigator as part of the
literature review. The top five practices, shown in Figure 4, were chosen by between 37% and
61% of the Tech Global leaders. Among the top five practices selected by Tech Global leaders
were two related to measuring diversity: inclusive interview panels and attending D&I training.
Tied for the highest ranking at 61% each were role modeling and inclusive interview and
recruitment practices. Two practices associated with inclusionary environments were having
career conversations and role modeling inclusionary behaviors. Rounding out the top five
choices was sponsorship of diversity and inclusion initiatives. No one practice was chosen by
75% of the leaders.

93

Figure 4
Top Five Inclusionary Practices Most Relevant for Tech Global Leaders

Interview Findings
No practice was named by at least nine interviewees, yet there was some alignment for
one inclusionary practice. Six respondents named “listening” as a relevant practice for them.
Some leaders considered listening as a means to achieve a result. For P7, listening was a way of
“understanding what one engineer needs versus another.” By listening, P3 believed that they
would “create a safe space of a respectful, open environment. … Everyone can express their
opinions.” Interestingly, P5 could more easily describe the effect of not listening: “If you have a
leader who cannot listen, they are not connecting with the person they’re talking to, and they’re
missing an opportunity.”
Three of the 12 interviewees referenced measuring their practices, but only one of the 12
had a goal that was specifically tied to being more inclusive. In setting a personal goal about
94

being more inclusive, P2 adopted an approach to “get out and talk to people, even if it means
getting out of my comfort zone” and tracked how often it happened. Other goals blended
diversity and inclusion. Reverting to a more measurable metric, P5 acknowledged, “It is easier to
measure D&I training … or a hiring process with diverse interviewees and a diverse interview
panel.” By seeking others’ opinions, P11 realized that “different and more alternatives lead to
better decision making … when people speak up and disagree, yes, it is difficult, but the quality
of the outcomes is better.” However, P11 did not have a measurable goal to track this practice.
Table 12 represents the themes for the answers to the interview question about inclusionary
practices they deemed most relevant.

95

Table 12
Interview Participants’ Key Comments for Relevant Inclusionary Practices
Theme Key comments shared by participants
I include diverse and
unique skills and
perspectives.
“For projects and programs, … include people of various skills,
experiences, groups, and organizations to induce … inclusiveness.”
(P1)

“I try to focus on the unique skills of each of the people … in my
organization.” (P4)

“When there are business decisions to be made, … are you looking for
perspectives outside your comfort zone?” (P10)
I listen to understand. “When someone explains their opinions, … We don’t need to say
…what we believe is the best option … respect the person.” (P3)

“It becomes a very basic tenet of a leader … to listen and understand
what’s being told to them and then … take action.” (P5)

“I try to listen as much as possible to how my team members function
and what they need.”
I create opportunities
for conversations
and speaking up.
“Be curious. … Get out of my comfort zone and talk to people.” (P2)

“We have daily meetings … We create space for people to bring a
DE&I topic to discuss.” (P6)

“We talk about goals in the team. … Everybody has the platform to
address questions, suggestions and challenges.” (P8)

“I made a commitment to call on the quiet ones. … The experts.
Bringing them to the table is really important” (P9)

“If I’m able to get people to speak up in … meetings, who disagree,
the outcomes are better.” (P11)

“I’m passionate about real conversations. … It’s about the feedback
and listening and creating a space.” (12)

96

Observation
No observations were made for this influence.
Document Analysis
A review of the documents resulted in insufficient evidence of a core set of inclusionary
practices that would be relevant for Tech Global leaders to incorporate into their performance
goals. One internal document pertaining to US Bio leaders listed six specific practices intended
to help build an inclusive culture. Leaders were encouraged but not required to choose one of
those practices. Interestingly, three of the six suggestions in the document were similar to three
of the five most relevant inclusionary practices chosen by survey participants. Specifically,
“consistent application of inclusive recruiting and hiring processes” was tied for top choice in the
survey, while “encouraging team members to participate in D&I initiatives” was the fourth of the
five, and “having career conversations with employees” was the fifth. It is unknown how many
survey respondents were employees of US Bio; therefore, it is difficult to determine the degree to
which the document and related communication about the six practices influenced the proportion
of results.
Two documents from Big Bio did reference practices that could be relevant to Tech
Global leaders. One was a toolkit of ideas for all leaders to use when thinking about and planning
ways to embed D&I in their daily practice. In that toolkit, three suggested actions for
commitments could be tracked as goals. Intentionally seeking diverse ideas on work teams,
acting as an ally to various ERGs, and facilitating a session of an unconscious bias workshop
were examples of inclusive practices. The other document listed eight operating principles for
the company, and one was written to encourage seeking alternate points of view and to welcome
challenges to traditional ways of thinking. However, while suggested practices, a toolkit and an
97

operating principle could enable incorporating inclusionary practices into performance goals, the
other documents did not provide the same degree of clarity or focus.
Summary
Analysis of the data of responses regarding Tech Global leaders’ determination of
relevant inclusionary practices for their performance goals showed that the 75% threshold of
alignment was not met. Therefore, the assumed influence of conceptual knowledge is a need.
Metacognitive Knowledge
For the metacognitive knowledge influence that Tech global leaders need to monitor their
own biases when incorporating inclusionary practices into their performance goals, a brief
preview of findings is presented, followed by a detailed description of results for the survey, the
interviews, and the document analysis. The summary states that the influence is an asset or a
need.
Preview
Tech Global leaders participating in the study gave many examples demonstrating that
they reflected on, adjusted, and monitored their skills or behavior as part of improving their
inclusionary practices. Their adjustments did not include the action of incorporating inclusionary
practices into their performance goals. An overwhelming majority of survey respondents (92%, n
= 45) and interviewees (83%, n = 10) named the practice of listening to the perspectives of many
people, not just a few, as something they were either already doing or realized they needed to do
more often.
Survey Results
Survey participants were asked to choose from a list of six behaviors considered best
practices for leaders who sought to reflect on and adjust skills or behaviors pertaining to
98

inclusionary practices. The behaviors came from the literature review and were noted and
discussed in Chapter Two. A total of 92% (n = 45) chose “listening to ideas from everyone, not
just certain individuals or groups” as a way they monitored their own biases when they engaged
with their employees. Another aspect of listening includes “listening without interrupting,” and
71% (n = 35) selected that behavior. Two best practices of “asking for feedback from others
about how my behavior was perceived by others” and “acknowledge a good idea from the first
person who presents it” were chosen by 69% (n = 34) of the respondents. The approach of
“applying the same objective criteria when evaluating team members’ individual performance”
was reported by 61% (n = 30), while “ask everyone how they would handle work requirements
such as long hours” was selected by 57%. Figure 5 shows the results of the survey ranked by
choice of behavior. The only item to meet the 75% threshold of agreement was “listening to
ideas from everyone, not just certain people.”

Figure 5
Percentage of Tech Global Leaders Choosing Specific Actions to Monitor Biases

99

Interview Findings
Participants were asked to describe “a time when you thought about or monitored your
own beliefs or assumptions about incorporating inclusionary practices into your performance
goals. What, if anything, did you do as a result of identifying those beliefs?” All but one
interviewee used words such as “aware,” “awareness,” “realized,” or “know” as a precursor to
adjusting their interactions with their teams. From awareness or knowing came revised actions or
new strategies in their interactions with employees. Notably, 83% (n = 10) referenced developing
the skill of listening and asking for perspectives and opinions of others, which aligns with
“listening to ideas from everyone” from the survey. P12 shared that “by the time things come to
me, they’re broken” and that the tendency was to jump in and fix things, but also that they
stopped and asked, “What is it that I can bring when those things happen?” This was followed by
First, I … listen and validate the situation. … Second, it’s taking a moment and slowing
down. … They need to feel that they were listened to and feel included. Often you have
to flex to the level of where people are at.
One leader referred to the skill of listening as a discipline: “I really try to be better every
day; I really try to listen better. It’s like homework. I talk and say, no, I can’t. I need to focus
before thinking about anything.” (P3). No interviewee made a distinction between listening and
listening without interrupting, although P9 said, “Leaders … can take up all the oxygen in the
room. One of the things that is important for me is to be aware of and to tell my team that I’m
going to get quiet now,” which suggests listening to another individual without interrupting.
Half of the interviewees evolved new approaches over many years, and others named a
specific incident or experience that made them reflect and revise their strategies. Three leaders
recounted how they adjusted their approach after listening to an asynchronous type of feedback.
100

P5 “got feedback through the 360 tool at some point in the last few years that some people in my
organization didn’t feel that I appreciated their work” and had to “listen to that feedback and
systematically address it” by making changes in ways of recognizing people. Besides P5, two
other participants named 360-degree feedback assessments as making them think differently. P6
shared,
I can think I’m intentionally inclusive and that my mindset or behavior is appropriate.
But people are really feeling the opposite. And when I did my first 360 assessment, … I
was mad. … How can the perception of what is be so different? I asked for help.
Another example of a moment of awareness came from P4, who realized during an
unconscious bias training that
I gave things to people because of how well they perform, and I realized that … I was
taking the path of least resistance or that has the highest degree of success. It was my
unconscious bias that was driving a behavior that is not helping the team.
Table 13 summarizes core points made by each interviewee.

101

Table 13
Interview Participants’ Key Comments on Monitoring Their Biases About Inclusionary Practices
Theme Key comments shared by participants
I ask others for
their opinions
or feedback.
“My area and team are new. … I needed to focus on waiting what they will
do before saying what I think.” (P3)

“I got feedback … that some people in my organization didn’t feel that I
appreciated their work. I’ve got to listen to that feedback and … address
it.” (P5)

“I want to help somebody and talk through an issue with them … to get
their perspective. … I give them the opportunity to express how they
actually feel.” (P9)

“I’m benefitting from giving the person the benefit of the doubt. … The
practice I have tried to adopt is to ask their opinion rather than state my
own.” (P11)
I engage in self-
reflection.
“I … go through that filter of ‘is this something … I’m doing because of …
a habit? I try to ask more questions … to identify assumptions that … are
not accurate.” (P4)

“I realized that … I’m too action oriented. … I was causing problems with
people … needing more clarity, … so we made some agreements.” (P6)

“It’s that question of, if it is a group activity outside work … is it inclusive
to everyone? That’s the difference of perception that I’ve changed.” (P7)

“I have to monitor my behavior. I tend to expect that everyone has the
same energy and creativity about the goals that I do.” (P8)

“My bias for change meant not effectively engaging people that were more
conservative to my way of thinking. … That’s something I realized
within this project when I surrounded myself with the core team.” (P10)
No clear
examples were
provided.
Did not mention an instance of monitoring and adjusting biases. (P1)

Realized the need to act differently when learning a new role but did not
mention monitoring and adjusting biases about inclusionary practices.
(P2)

Shared the current ways of working, but not an example of monitoring and
adjusting of inclusionary practices. (P12)
102

Observation
No observations were made for this influence.
Document Analysis
Analysis of the 14 available documents resulted in only three that mentioned processes
relating to metacognitive knowledge, and none clearly described how such a process of reflection
and adjustment of necessary skills and knowledge could occur. For example, one US Bio
document that described mandatory training on inclusive hiring practices stated that participants
would be required to “recognize and apply” actions to reduce unconscious bias. The training
consisted of three online learning modules, with no indication of how the participants would
demonstrate the metacognition necessary prior to making any adjustments in skills and
knowledge. A second US Bio document was geared toward senior leaders, asking them to
consider how they could inspire and empower others to have an impact, but did not specifically
mention inclusionary practices. Both documents targeted small numbers of US Bio leaders, as
many Tech Global leaders do not work for US Bio.
One Big Bio D&I-related job aid for leaders included four examples of ways to foster an
inclusive culture; however, those suggestions were transactional, with no supporting content on
how to reflect and adjust behaviors. Overall, the documents did not meet the threshold for
contributing to validating the metacognitive knowledge influence as an asset.
Summary
All but one of the interviewees showed awareness of the need to take different actions as
leaders when interacting with their teams. Listening to the ideas of others and asking questions as
a new or evolved skill that comes from that self-awareness was noted in 92% (n = 11) of the
interviews. The survey reflected that 92% (n = 45) of the respondents chose “listen to the ideas
103

of others, not just certain individuals or groups” as something they did. While the interviews and
the survey results exceeded the threshold of 75%, it should be noted that only P5 mentioned
incorporating new inclusionary practices into their goals. The metacognitive knowledge
influence is an asset and will be encouraged to continue.
Results and Findings for Motivation Needs
Among the many motivational theories that inform research, three were chosen for this
study. Clark and Estes (2008) link the first two when they describe that when leaders perceive
that the goals they set are important to them as a form of self-expression, (attainment value) and
are useful to achieve (utility value), they are more likely to commit to the goal(s) in the first
place, to persist in making progress on the goal(s) and to expend mental effort to be successful.
Attainment Value
The attainment/importance influence was that Tech Global leaders need to believe it is
important to incorporate inclusionary practices into their performance goals. Following a short
preview of findings, in-depth descriptions of results for the survey, the interviews, and the
document analysis are presented. The summary states that the influence is an asset or a need.
Preview
Tech Global leaders overwhelmingly believe that incorporating inclusionary practices
into their goals is important. To be motivated to include inclusionary practices in their
performance goals, Tech Global leaders need to believe in the importance of doing so. Analysis
of survey data and interviews proved the sentiment was strong and aligned across both methods.
Survey Results
According to the survey, 90% of respondents rated the incorporation of inclusionary
practices into their performance goals as either a “very high” (n = 23) or a “high degree (n = 21)
104

of importance. The threshold of 75% agreement was exceeded. A total of 10% (n = 5) rated the
importance as only “moderate” (n = 2), “slight” (n = 1) or “not important” (n = 2). Figure 6
shows the full range of responses.

Figure 6
Respondent Ratings of The Importance of Inclusionary Practices in Their Performance Goals

105

Interview Findings
Among the interviewees, all but one (92%, or n = 11) stated that they believed it was
important to have inclusionary practices in their performance goals. Some gave similar
explanations of what was important about inclusionary practices. Four participants framed their
answers in similar terms. It was important to P7 to “make sure the team is heard,” while P8
believed “we all need to feel part of something” and that “it’s important that everyone is seeing
and feeling that they’re important and belong to the group.” Inclusionary practices were deemed
to be a key role of leaders by P9 and P10, who referred to “our commitment … to ensure people
feel included.” For other participants, reasons for the importance of having inclusionary practices
were about values (P11) and an awareness that “the only way you can catalyze diversity into
something more than just a spread of talent.” (P4). Only P12 was ambiguous, saying, “It is an
interesting thing to do. You don’t have to do it.” Table 14 contains key quotes from participants
demonstrating the importance of incorporating inclusionary practices into their performance
goals.

106

Table 14
Interview Participants’ Key Comments for Importance of Inclusionary Practices in Goals
Theme Key comments from participants
It is important
to have
inclusionary
practices in
goals.
The importance of it is that a very seasoned team learns new ways of doing
things which include other people.” (P1)

“I personally believe that we should. … Inclusion is a big portion of being a
global company. … It should be in your performance goals.” (P2)

“We all need to feel that we are part of something. To have a specific focus on
inclusion and defining goals about it is critical for the whole organization.”
(P8)

“Yes, absolutely. I do think it is important to incorporate inclusionary practices
into performance goals.” (P9)

“I shared the performance goal that we have. And I shared that as leaders it’s
part of our commitment on how we show up as a leader.” (P10)

“It probably doesn’t speak highly of me as a structured leader, but the only
place that I have set goals this year is in the area of diversity and inclusion.”
(P11)
Goals for
inclusion
enable other
factors.
“I believe it’s very important. … Once a year, we do research to understand
how people see the company. … D&I topics are highlighted, and we discuss
how we can be better.” (P3)

“We’re trying to create … diversity of thought … to bolster innovation. …
Inclusionary is the only way you can catalyze diversity into more than just a
spread of talents.” (P4)

“If an organization is at all thoughtful about the importance of making good
decisions, they will do this.” (P5)

“I totally agree with that because honoring those practices in our daily routine.
… That’s really the key. … It is something that is motivating me to do
more.” (P6)
“I very much agree; cannot agree more. I really want to make sure the team is
heard.” (P7)
Goals are
optional.
“It’s interesting to do. You don’t have to do it. Some people in my world don’t
do it. What it gives you is resilience.” (P12)

107

Observation
No observations were made for this influence.
Document Analysis
Several documents showed that at the global organizational level, Big Bio referred to the
importance of an inclusive environment, inclusive culture, or of embedding D&I practices into
ways of working. However, no clear reference to the importance of inclusionary practices being
incorporated into performance goals was found. Instead, terms such as foundational practices,
commitments, pillars, and operating principles, were used in internal documents and public
reports, which could create confusion for a leader. At a localized level, US Bio had conflicting
messages within one document by stating “every manager will commit to one goal”
3
in one
sentence and “we encourage people managers to choose one goal that resonates” from a list of
suggested behaviors. Metrics that were reported were based on diversity goals for hiring certain
candidates for open roles.
Summary
The belief by Tech Global leaders in the importance of incorporating inclusionary
practices into their performance goals was confirmed by the data from the interviews and the
survey. The document analysis did not find a consistent or clear reference to the importance of
having inclusionary practices incorporated into leaders’ performance goals. One exception was a
group of about 150 senior leaders in US Bio, of which an unknown number would include Tech
Global leaders. The interviews and the survey results met the threshold of 75%, making the
motivation influence of attainment value an asset.

3
This information is found on an internal website. To protect confidentiality the URL will not be shared.
108

Utility Value
For the utility/usefulness influence that Tech Global leaders need to believe it is useful to
incorporate inclusionary practices into their performance goals, an overview of the findings is
followed by a detailed description of results for the survey, the interviews, and the document
analysis. The summary states that the influence is an asset or a need. The influence was that Tech
Global leaders need to believe it is useful to incorporate inclusionary practices into their
performance goals.
Preview
More than 75% of Tech Global leaders indicated in the survey that incorporating
inclusionary practices into their performance goals was useful. Interestingly the terms
“important” and “useful” were treated as interchangeable by half (n = 6) of the interviewees, who
used the word “important” when asked how useful they thought it was to have inclusionary
practices. In every case, I repeated the question but did not define the terms. Although most
participants reflected and answered with a new perspective, they struggled to give distinct
examples of how “importance” was distinct from “useful.” The lack of differentiation between
“important” and “useful” in the interviews suggests that among the survey participants, there was
likely a wide range of interpretations of the term “useful.” Further, all but one of the participants
in the interview stopped short of connecting the term “useful” to actual performance goals.
Survey Results
A total of 78% (n = 38) of survey respondents indicated that it was either “extremely
useful” (33%, n = 16) or highly useful (45%, n = 22) for them to incorporate inclusionary
practices into their performance goals, meeting the interview threshold of validation of the
influence as an asset. Only the top two favorable ratings of each statement were included in the
109

threshold test, meaning that the 12% (n = 6) rating of “useful” was not included. Rounding out
the responses were “somewhat useful” at 2% (n = 1) and “not useful at all” at 8% (n = 4). The
survey results met the threshold of favorable ratings for the influence to be considered an asset.
Figure 7 shows the breakdown of responses for this item.

Figure 7
Respondent Ratings of The Usefulness of Inclusionary Practices in Their Performance Goals

110

Interview Findings
An interesting pattern emerged when participants were asked how useful it was to them
to incorporate inclusionary practices into their goals. A total of 50% (n = 6) of the 12 participants
used the term “useful” in their first answers to the question, while the other six used the term
“important” in their responses and had to be prompted to notice and respond to the term “useful.”
At no time did the principal investigator define the terms “important” or “useful.” Instead, the
question was repeated for the participants who did not pick up on the word change. One
participant, a non-native English speaker (P7), asked that the question be repeated to ensure
understanding before answering. Two respondents linked the two terms. P3 said of having
inclusionary practices, “This is important; that’s why I think it is useful,” while P8 replied, “The
topic is important, and it is useful because it opens doors for deep conversation.” Other
interpretations were, “It is neither; it is a must” (P6) or included a qualifying statement, such as
“It is useful IF I get participation” (P9). The interviewees did not meet the overall threshold of at
least nine out of 12 articulating the usefulness of inclusionary practices in their performance
goals. Refer to Table 15 for summative quotes of interviewees.

111

Table 15
Interview Participants’ Key Comments for Belief in Usefulness of Inclusionary Practices in
Goals
Theme Key comments from participants
Inclusionary
practices are
useful to enable
performance or
achievement.
“When you create this opportunity of inclusiveness, we also get the aha
moment. Oh, … we’ve been doing it wrong for so long. That’s the
usefulness.” (P1)
“They [employees] have…better performance. They … participate more
… they feel comfortable to say what they think. This is important …
and why I believe it’s useful.” (P3)
“It is useful as a tool, as … a hammer is useful. … It is 100% useful
because of the outcomes … teams that are better equipped to provide
all perspectives.” (P5)
“In this constantly changing environment. … There are so many
variables for me. It’s not important or useful, it is a must, if the
company wants to reach the vision.” (P6)
Inclusionary
practices are
useful to enable
learning.
“I think it’s very useful, helps me learn to do my job better. If I can do
better at my job, I can bring my whole self to work.” (P2)
“I want to make sure … people are giving us their input and to …
flourish or at least have the ability to think on their own … and
empowerment. It’s very, very useful” (P7)
“The way that it is useful is that I am able to take the feedback and allow
it to shape how I show up as a leader.” (P9)
“It depends on the leaders that you have around the table that’s set and
commit to those goals because they truly believe that will make a
difference.” (P10)
“I find it useful because it gives me personal resilience. My job is quite
a grind and I get enjoyment out of seeing alternatives.” (P12)
Inclusionary
practices are
useful for
providing
structure.
“It is very useful to have inclusionary practices because it helps us to
overcome feelings and biases and to follow a structure.” (P8)
“It doesn’t move it further up my personal goals; it doesn’t make it more
important to me. It does provide structure.” (P11)
No clear
connection to
usefulness was
made.
P4 Used “valuable,” not “useful.” “You can’t … know what’s valuable
until you see … what others came up with … not just to say
‘inclusion’ but to know what it means.”

112

Observation
No observations were made for this influence.
Document Analysis
None of the 14 available documents used the term “useful” in describing practices related
to D&I. A total of six documents gave examples of how embedding certain behaviors or taking
specific actions would lead to the achievement of future goals. For example, the US Bio
published a D&I annual report for 2021. The report stated goals for increasing the representation
of four specific populations in leadership. The head of human resources stressed that “an
inclusive environment is critical to innovation in research and asked leaders to take “specific
actions, to address the three focus areas” of inclusive research, contributing to society and
creating an inclusive environment at work. One US Bio document described the value of training
in inclusive hiring as a means to “ensure an unbiased approach to interviewing … meets the
objectives of our commitments … and aligns with best practices.” A third provided six topic
areas for inclusionary practices, which are not written as SMART goals but more like an outline
for what could become a goal. The fourth laid out how to embed D&I practices “into day-to-day
work, as a way to drive us forward.”
The other two documents that described how practices could lead to achieving future
results came from Big Bio. One was a job aid suggesting commitments could enable “reaching
our higher-level vision” but which described the suggested actions as “important” rather than
“useful.” The other document offered six practices that employees should adopt “in order to meet
our goals and achieve our future ambition.” Notably, the goals themselves were not listed. The
document analysis showed that it was not obvious that certain practices would be useful in
relation to specific goals and thus would be considered a need rather than an asset.
113

Summary
The data analysis showed that the 75% threshold of alignment among Tech Global
leaders across the interviews, survey and document analysis was not met. The assumed influence
of the usefulness of incorporating inclusionary practices into Tech Global leaders’ performance
goals is a need.
Self-Efficacy
The third motivation theory chosen for this study is self-efficacy, defined by Bandura
(1997) as an individual’s belief in their capability to accomplish a task. The influence examined
was that Tech Global leaders need to believe they are capable of role modeling inclusionary
practices in their organizations. Findings for this motivation influence are reported as a preview,
with further detail of the survey, the interviews and the document analysis. The influence is
reported as an asset or a need in the summary.
Preview
While role modeling was chosen by 61% (n = 30) of survey respondents as one of the top
five inclusionary practices that leaders can incorporate into their performance goals, Tech Global
leaders’ belief in their capability to role model inclusionary practices showed a diverse set of
perspectives in the interviews. It is possible that the multiple interpretations of the term “role
model” are at least partially due to the structural hierarchy of the Tech Global function. Some
Tech Global leaders work at US Bio, and not all US Bio employees are Tech Global leaders.
Interviews and a document analysis indicated that decentralized resources supporting D&I
initiatives across the Big Bio ecosystem, such as communications, can have different definitions
of the same topic. As shown by the interview comments, Tech Global leaders were varied in
114

their assumptions about what the term “role model” means. For some, the term was negative,
denoting a leader who had all of the answers or the right answer and told others what to do.
Survey Results
A total of 63% (n = 31) of the survey respondents rated themselves in the top two
favorable ratings, with 12% (n = 6) being extremely capable and 51% (n = 25) very capable. As
with prior questions, the more moderate rating was excluded from the threshold test; therefore,
the 35% (n = 17) who chose capable were not included. Notably, only 2% (n = 1) rated
themselves as somewhat capable, and no participants said they were “not at all capable.” The
combined score of 63% (n = 31) for the two top ratings does not meet the desired threshold of
75% favorable rating and overall agreement by respondents. Figure 8 provides the details.

Figure 8
Respondents’ Belief in Their Capability of Role Modeling Inclusionary Practices

115

Interview Findings
Among the interviewees, 33% (n = 4) stated that they believed they were capable of role
modeling inclusionary practices. P2 stated, “I don’t want to silo myself. I introduce people who
would not normally connect with each other. … I like to invite people with different skills to our
meetings or to lunch” and equated that behavior with “having the courage to talk to someone you
don’t necessarily talk to on an everyday basis.” Using the word “courage” gave an insight into
the perception by P2 of what it takes to be a role model. A connection between authenticity and
role modeling came from P4, who shared,
I think the best role models are those that are real; they have faults. So, I try not to hide
the faults … and be okay that people see you fail. It doesn’t mean they have less respect.
They might see you as more of an attainable role model.
A similar connection between role modeling and authenticity came from P6, who drew
upon years of learning: “My strong belief is that I am senior enough to show I don’t have all the
responses and I don’t know all the expertise.” The fourth leader, P9 wanted to demonstrate role
modeling to peers and stakeholders by making a point “to include members of my team who are
not leaders into the conversation with other leaders, and I … utilize them as [subject matter
experts] for the conversation.” The intention in doing so was twofold. First, “[for other leaders,
to show I am walking the talk when including my team on how the decisions we make involve
them” and, second, “I believe I am incredibly capable, and what has built that belief is having …
personal knowledge of feeling excluded from decisions.”
In contrast, other leaders assigned a somewhat negative connotation to believing that they
were capable of role modeling inclusionary practices. For example, the two most senior leaders
interviewed did not believe they should consider themselves role models. For P12, a senior vice
116

president, it was “a struggle, but I’m not sure why. … There’s an arrogance,” while P11, a vice
president, stated, “I’m getting embarrassed just talking about it.” Another leader (P5) believed
that “to even think about it means that you’re not humble,” and P7 stated briefly but clearly, “I
don’t know if I consider myself much of a role model.”
Some leaders used stories or other qualifying examples to explain how they knew they
were role models. P8 believed “It’s my values” that made being a role model possible. P6
defined what it means to be a role model by their answer, “I believe I am capable by the way I
act. I’m senior enough to show I don’t have all the responses or expertise.” One leader (P1) used
the term “mentoring” and shared that “as a minority myself, I can relate and help with navigation
through advancement” but did not refer to themself as capable or not. Table 16 contains core
points from each interviewee for the self-efficacy motivation influence.

117

Table 16
Interview Participants’ Key Comments on Their Capability to Role Model Inclusionary Practices
Theme Key comments from participants
I bring my
personal
experience
to role
modeling.
“When I bring in candidates from minority demographics, being a minority
myself, I can coach them, if they have fears … be their sounding board.”
(P1)

“I believe I am incredibly capable and what has built that belief is … what it
feels like to be validated and … having personal knowledge of feeling
excluded from decisions.” (P9)

“That’s my commitment, and what I hope to do every day with my team. …
I’ve been discriminated against, for not fitting with the same experience
another person had.” (P10)
I believe in my
own
capability to
role model.
“I do this with people I hire. … I am being a role model … introducing them
to people, having the courage to talk to someone you don’t … talk to on an
everyday basis.” (P2)

“Personally, I think I am highly capable of role modeling inclusionary
practices because it’s just my personality.” (P8)

“I don’t know I’m the ideal case, but I think for people who look like me, I
do a pretty good job of role modeling what this is like or what’s important,
and how to do this.” (P11)
Role modeling
includes
being
vulnerable.
“I think the best role models are those that are real, they have faults. … I try
not to hide the faults. … Be vulnerable and be okay, that people might see
that you fail.” (P4)

“I’m growing in this area all the time. I have to practice … inclusionary
concepts and principles … all the time; it’s part of me growing as a
leader.” (P5)

“My strong belief is that I am senior enough to show that I don’t have all the
responses … all the expertise. … Role modeling is important. … I make
mistakes and talk about them.” (P6)
Participant
expressed
low self-
efficacy or
was unclear
about their
capability.
P3 did not say they thought they were capable or incapable. Gave an
example of the team feeling comfortable giving feedback to P3 and being
honest.

“I don’t know if I’m much of a role model.” (P7)

“I struggle. … There’s an arrogance in saying I’m a role model. Who am I to
say? I’ve got a pathway that works doesn’t mean it’s the only pathway.”
(P12)
118

Observation
No observations were made for this influence.
Document Analysis
Analysis of the 14 documents confirmed that the term “role model” was not only not
defined in any of them, but it was never mentioned. A few documents made oblique references to
ways that leaders could contribute to the culture of inclusion. US Bio published an annual D&I
report. Several pages featured testimonials on various D&I topics from individual leaders,
including the importance of having action plans or supporting school science programs, or
sponsoring internal ERGs. A US Bio internal document with six D&I practices stated, “As
people managers, you are ambassadors of the company values and can lead the way,” and
suggested that leaders create an action plan after choosing one of the practices. In 2021, the most
senior leaders of US Bio were asked to “consider how you inspire action and empower teams to
make meaningful impact” in developing their D&I commitments. At the global level, one
document gave suggestions for leaders to “set your inspiring commitment” to the success of D&I
efforts. The documents did not meet a threshold of agreement for the influence to be considered
an asset.
Summary
Overall, belief in their capacity for “role modeling inclusionary practices” by Tech
Global leaders did not meet the 75% threshold in the interviews, the surveys, or the document
analysis. The term itself was widely interpreted and, based on document analysis, has not been
clearly defined by the company. The assumed motivational influence of self-efficacy in the
capability of being a role model for inclusionary practices is a need.
119

Results and Findings for Organization Needs
Three organizational influences for this study were categorized as being cultural settings,
which are the manifestation of the organization’s cultural models (Gallimore & Goldenberg,
2001), or the demonstration of routines attending to what, who, how, when, where and even why
of that organization. Findings for each of the three cultural settings of organizational support,
goals, and rewards will be presented, including a preview, specific results from the survey, the
interview, and the document analysis, and concluding with a summary that assesses each
influence as an asset or a need.
Influence 1: Organizational Support Is Needed for Tech Global Leaders to Incorporate
Inclusionary Practices Into Their Performance Goals
Every Tech Global leader provided examples of organizational support for inclusionary
practices. Additionally, the document analysis showed many instances and types of
organizational support for Tech Global leaders for inclusionary practices to be incorporated into
performance goals. However, two factors were noted from the analysis. First, the organizational
support that was offered did not differentiate between the terms “diversity” and “inclusion,”
which is not surprising considering that Big Bio has not yet made such distinctions. Second, the
resources offered were, with few exceptions, not connected to performance goals but were
offered to “enable,” “encourage,” and even “inspire leaders” to act.
Survey Results
No survey question was used for this influence. The topic of organizational resources was
so broad that it could not be certain that leaders responding to the survey would have the same
type of support or resources. Providing a definition would have meant inserting my insights,
which might have introduced bias and unduly influenced the ratings.
120

Interview Findings
Only one of the interviewees did not immediately have examples of perceived
organizational support for inclusionary practices. According to P7, when thinking about their
own organization, “I am failing to come up with the right words, but I don’t think they
necessarily care that I’m inclusive or not. … It’s more or less about getting the goal done.”
Instead, per P7, it was other leaders who “give me tips and pointers, but there’s no metrics that
dictate I have to be inclusive.” Comments from P7 demonstrate the range of sources that other
leaders considered as providing support, including the global corporation of Big Bio, the US Bio
affiliate, their own physical site, or their manager. Interestingly none of the participants named
their own function of Tech Global as specifically providing organizational support.
From reviewing all other responses, three types of support were named: time, people, and
development. P1 gave examples of the first two when they described their inclusive hiring
practices: “When we have positions, the human resources partner has to spend an extra effort
with us because we bring them a lot of resumes from the industry, which … adds to their
workload.” Time set aside for discussion of D&I topics was an example of support for P3, who
explained that at their site, “We have a weekly meeting, and … we discuss at least once a month
a diversity topic. Employees can bring a topic, and everybody adds what they are thinking
about.”
Several examples of people resources as support were provided. Two leaders from
different parts of Tech Global referenced the impact of having dedicated D&I resources. “We
have a dedicated D&I person, and that’s a really clear message. You know the importance of it
for our organization” (P6), while from P11, the sentiment was, “I think we are quite fortunate. …
There are lots of resources available. … There is somebody who leads the whole DE&I effort for
121

our function … and they are driving for measurable impact.” The engagement of direct managers
on diversity and inclusion initiatives was impactful for two leaders. For example, P4 said about
their own manager, “We spend time making sure we are talking about things that affect people.”
Development of skills was seen as a welcome investment and means of support by some
leaders who provided a variety of examples. P5, a long-tenured leader, offered that the company
had always made investments in its people and that “I have 100% knowledge and confidence that
not only when I joined the company but still today all these years later, that I have support for
attending recruiting events, and conferences, and in education efforts for students in STEM.” On-
the-job development was another form of support. P2 shared,
Part of my development was to learn a particular new skill, and one strategy was to meet
the people doing the work today. … It was probably a 4-month long process, but I did
appreciate that my organization supported me in that practice.
There were two interesting outliers in the comments from the interviewees. In the first,
only P9 made a comment about organizational support and mandates. When asked about the
organization’s support for inclusionary practices, P9 replied, “our organization not only supports
it but has a mandate,” and clarified that the mandate was from the US Bio organization, which
encouraged leaders to adopt at least one of six D&I practices. One of the documents analyzed for
this research delved into the content of the communication about the six practices. The document
did not refer to inclusionary practices but instead to belonging.
The second outlier was the connection between the global employee survey and
inclusionary practices. P10 saw the span of the survey as being both “an organizational resource”
and “an opportunity to accelerate diversity and advocacy for specific parts of the organization.”
Information about the survey was one of the documents analyzed for this study. It contained
122

several internal links to resources available within the company for further follow-up. The survey
also encouraged but did not require setting action plans based on scores for inclusion-related
items in the survey.
Overall, there were many examples of what Tech Leaders considered organizational
support for inclusionary practices at the corporate (Big Bio), regional (US Bio) and local (site)
levels, demonstrated by descriptions of providing time, investing in development, and engaging
various people. Further evidence of the favorability of support was shown by the enthusiasm and
positivity with which participants spoke of the various types of support. With 92% (n = 11) of
Tech Global articulating at least one form of organizational support, the interviews confirm this
influence as an asset. Table 17 summarizes core insights by interviewees about the
organizational support influence.

Table 17
Interview Participants’ Key Comments for Organizational Support for Inclusionary Practices
Theme Key comments from participants
I receive
support from
my manager
or senior
leaders.
“My manager … understands that it might take me a little longer to hire a
position. … So, their approval, their support is very important, especially
for critical roles.” (P1)

“Having one on ones with some of the leadership teams and asking
questions about how I should approach this … does lean on … inclusive
behaviors.” (P7)

“It … depends on your line manager as well as who is sponsoring the topic.
My line manager supports D&I a lot and some of my peers as well, more
than others.” (P8)

“I’ve worked on getting the leadership cohort to do more of that even at
really basic levels like creating inclusion circles and getting people to
discuss themes.” (P12)
123

Theme Key comments from participants
There is
support for
development
and learning.
“One way is our development. Our organization has development as part of
our … performance goals and the things you put in. Those are always
encouraged.” (P2)

“We had some good global training to understand how we can be a better
coach. … We … have the same … behaviors around the world. It was
really helpful.” (P3)

“One of the reasons I work at the company is … their investment in people.
… If there was some other new aspect to inclusionary behaviors, they
would say, you go be the first one there, you teach us, and there would
be zero question about it.” (P5)
There is
support from
the
organization
through
initiatives or
practices.
“Our organization not only supports it but has a mandate. Additionally, we
have staff meetings … within that agenda we have an inclusive behavior
moment.” (P9)

“The survey across the whole company is an organizational resource.”
(P10)

“I think … as a leader, I’m quite fortunate in how seriously the company
takes this, and there are lots of resources available that can be tapped
into.” (P11)
Other types of
support
include time,
and
headcount.
“I see the emphasis on taking the time to appreciate … that. … We work in
a dynamic environment, it’s not always easy to get what we need to get
done.” (P4)

“The position of [the D&I partner] … I think that’s really a clear message.
… Also, at one of the [Tech Global] leaders meeting, there was D&I on
the agenda.” (P6)

Observation
No observations were made for this influence.
Document Analysis
Of the 14 internal and public documents analyzed, seven (50%) provided evidence of
various types of organizational support, albeit some were focused on only US Bio. One form of
124

support was the use of metrics to inform groups such as leaders, employees, and even customers
about the status of D&I efforts. For example, the US Bio annual D&I report shared that the
company was using “a data-driven approach to uncover insights and ensure representation” about
current and future status of historically underrepresented groups at the leadership level. Other
metrics shared in the same document focused on financial investments in ensuring equity in
clinical research, also for traditionally underserved populations in communities, and in STEM
programs at every level of education. A different type of metric but one that demonstrated
intention by the organization to support D&I efforts was the presentation of results of the global
employee survey. Questions about D&I could be broken out by leadership levels, providing
insights from employees.
Another form of support at the organization level was to provide training in topics such
as inclusive hiring and to allow time for leaders to take the training. In US Bio, online slides
described what would happen in the training, why it was important and the intended outcomes.
The total time invested in training for the particular course referenced was less than a full day. A
signal that the company was willing to support leaders to take the time to complete the training
was that a digital badge for completion of the training would be awarded to those who completed
the training. To clarify, training in and of itself would be considered a solution, not a resource,
but the importance that the company placed on completing the training by allowing time and by
recognition of completion is what is notable. At the Big Bio level, a similar slide deck followed
the same premise of providing information and included interactive eLearning courses, videos,
podcasts, and internal websites as additional materials.
A third form of organization support was toolkits. One at the Big Bio level stated its
purpose was to “provide resources” to help leaders act about D&I. Notably, the document stated
125

that the actions were “suggested” and were about “commitments,” creating ambiguity about what
was expected and how success would be measured. For US Bio, a subset of senior leaders was
both supported and made accountable in a document meant just for them. Support came in the
form of templates with suggestions for actions and updates. Accountability was evidenced by a
requirement that the senior leaders share their D&I action plans with all of their employees.
More broadly, a series of six D&I practices were communicated to all people managers in US
Bio, without directives or templates but with encouragement to “pick one” and get started.
Summary
Resources of time, money, frameworks, metrics, job roles, and knowledge are examples
of various forms of organizational support. The interviews and the document analysis showed
examples of the various ways that the organization supports Tech Global leaders to incorporate
inclusionary practices in their performance goals. The interviews and the documents met the
75% threshold, and the assumed cultural setting of organizational support is an asset.
Influence 2: The Organization Needs to Have Inclusionary Practices Goals for Tech Global
Leaders to Incorporate Into Their Performance Goals
While a majority of the study participants believed that the organization needs to have
inclusionary practices goals, there was broad interpretation and little agreement about what
constitutes an inclusionary practices goal. During the interviews, some leaders emphasized that
they did not want inclusionary practices to be a check-the-box exercise or that a top-down
approach to the topic of inclusionary practices would not be meaningful.
Survey Results
A total of 84% (n = 41) of respondents either “strongly agreed” (37%, n = 18) or
“agreed” (47%, n = 23) that their organization had inclusionary goals that could be incorporated
126

into their performance goals. The threshold of 75% for favorable ratings was met. While no
respondents chose “strongly disagree” with the survey statement, 16% (n = 8) selected
“disagree.” Results are presented in Figure 9.

Figure 9
The Organization Has Inclusionary Goals for Leaders to Incorporate

127

Interview Findings
Across all interviews, no participants mentioned specific goals that came from the Tech
Global organization. However, many participants referred to various groups that had goals, such
as specific leadership levels, regions, or sites. For example, P5 stated, “I’m not quite at the VP
level yet. They are required to have, essentially, D&I plans at that level.” P5 then referenced a
goal that the local site created “make sure that all voices are heard. … That’s probably not the
smartest goal when it comes to metrics” but stated that the genesis of the goal was the site
leadership learning that “a lot of time, people coming from other companies didn’t feel listened
to.”
A total of 58% (n = 7) of leaders shared that they either did not have or did not like
assigned goals about D&I. Instead, they offered examples of what was being done in their own
teams or sites. P6 shared that a “top-down” goal of having more women in leadership “is not
meaningful, because we already have that in my own organization,” but that instead, “We call it
in our organization the proper mindset and behaviors, and how we expect people to grow. … It’s
still not setting targets.” The growth that P6 was referring to was “training like, the leaders
understanding individually … how to move from command and control to visionary and coach.”
Relatedly, P10 described a Big Bio operating principle of embracing diversity and inclusion but
added, “It’s not a performance goal per se, more of a behavioral mindset that we should go by.”
P12 stated that just being asked the question about goals for inclusionary practices was a chance
to reflect: “It’s one of the things I take from your question is should I include it more as a goal. I
always set it as the expectation of behaviors and as a tone and spend time on that.”
A term used to describe six D&I practices that were communicated to all US Bio leaders
was “belonging goals.” P9 equated the belonging goals with inclusionary goals, explaining,
128

“leadership … requires that in our own words, we say how we can commit to being more aware
of inclusivity, and making sure we help the full team feel like we all belong here.” P11 provided
an example of belonging behavior in their team meetings: “We nominate someone to be our
belonging coach. … They give us feedback on how we all showed up as a team in terms of
belonging.” P11 explained the deliberate choice of the word “belonging” as they “didn’t want to
use DE&I words because we didn’t want it to feel like we are doing this because it is part of a
corporate initiative.”
The challenge of measuring inclusion was discussed, with P4 admitting that it is “easier
to measure quantitative goals.” The following examples of measurable goals came from P8:
Every year, at the site level, we have D&I goals. … It might be … around a percentage of
female leaders at a certain level ... or a diverse interview panel, or … diverse succession
plans. It might be training … psychological safety training, or … unconscious bias.
The only leader to separate inclusionary practices from other D&I elements was P11, who
described a process used by their own leadership team:
We identified some behaviors that … are suboptimal and identified the desired future
state … something the whole team thought was important. … Every quarter, we do a
formal assessment of how we are progressing against these goals, and they are quite
measurable.
Overall, despite many examples of expected behaviors, commitments, operating
principles, and other activities, the threshold for goals about inclusionary practices was not met.
First, there were no actual SMART goals mentioned. Second, with the exception of P11, those
goals that were mentioned as measurable were of the type to track diversity numbers. Also, there
was ambivalence among the interviewees about having to have “top-down” goals. The closest
129

initiative to inclusionary goals was the “belonging goal” process from US Bio, yet only a subset
of Tech Global leaders work in the US Bio affiliate. Table 18 contains core points from the
interviewees regarding organizational goals for inclusionary practices.

Table 18
Interview Participants’ Key Comments for Organizational Goals for Inclusionary Practices
Theme Key comments from participants
References were
made to
something
other than a
goal.
“We have this survey. … [It] is essentially a way to hear every single
employee, and … the leaders do respond to us, and they … try to fix a
lot of the things that they see there.” (P7)

“Could be a training on psychological safety or unconscious bias. My unit
hosts the training team, the D&I team, and communications, which …
shape the topic.” (P8)

“They [leadership] … require that … we say how we can commit to being
more aware of inclusivity and making sure we help the full team feel
like we all belong here.” (P9)

“As an organization we have an operating principle that embraces diversity
and inclusion. … Not a performance goal. … A behavioral mindset that
we should go by.” (P10)

“It’s one of the things I take from your question is should I include it more
as a goal. I always set it as a behavior and as a tone and spend time on
that.” (P12)
I do not see a
goal, or it is
difficult to
measure.
“I can’t think of any exact ones.” (P2)

Did not provide goals related to inclusionary practices. (P3)

“The diversity goal is easier to measure … What’s more difficult … is, to
what extent are … different groups included? I don’t see … you can
have diversity without inclusion.” (P4)

“We don’t have many of those. We set what we call the proper mindset
and behaviors, and how we do expect people to grow on that, … but it’s
not setting targets.” (P6)
130

Theme Key comments from participants
Goals are set
locally.
“Diversity and inclusion is a company role for managers, and we are
actually mandated to select one or two rules either around diversity or
inclusion.” (P1)

“Locally our leadership team created a goal. … Our employees will be
heard, valued, and appreciated … That’s probably not the SMARTest
goal, … but it’s … the actual goal.” (P5)

“We’ve got some very specific stuff around inclusive hiring practices. And
very tangible things like training programs.”

Observation
No observations were made for this influence.
Document Analysis
The company’s annual report includes diversity goals related to gender, inclusive
research, and diversity in suppliers. There are references to action plans by senior leaders but no
mention of goals. A second document sourced from an internal US Bio website contained some
contradictory language. One sentence stated that “every manager will commit to one goal” for
one of three focus areas of the Diversity Office of US Bio. Yet, in a sentence within the same
paragraph, managers were “encouraged to choose one goal that resonates and aligns with their
personal D&I journey.” While the intention of the word “encouraged” was likely intended to
help leaders turn their focus toward something appealing from among the choices, the sentence
as written could be construed to mean that managers are encouraged but not required to choose a
goal.
A third document focused on annual D&I-focused plans that vice presidents and above in
US Bio were required to create and share with employees. Interestingly, the guide to the plans
131

did not mention the word “goal” but explained that leaders should take “measurable steps to
evolve” their plans to ensure that they were committed, accountable, transparent, and inspiring
about including desired behaviors into their day-to-day work.
Summary
Tech Global leaders gave a wide range of definitions of goals. It is understandable that
many leaders would consider actions for diversity and inclusion to be interchangeable and not
think in terms of SMART goals, given that the various entities included in this study appeared to
connect the two terms so closely. The assumed cultural setting influence of having inclusionary
goals for incorporation into leaders’ performance goals is a need.
Influence 3: The Organization Needs to Offer Rewards to Tech Global Leaders for
Attaining Their Performance Goals of Incorporating Inclusionary Practices
Based on analysis of the survey responses, interview perspectives and document analysis,
almost half (48%) of the survey respondents and more than half (58%) of the interviewees did
not agree or did not believe that the organization offered rewards for attaining performance goals
of inclusionary practices.
Survey Results
Of all the survey statements, “My organization has rewards for leaders for attaining
performance goals of incorporating inclusionary practices” had the highest rate of disagreement.
Unfavorable ratings almost equaled favorable ratings, with 40% (n = 20) choosing “disagree”
and 8% (n = 4) “strongly disagree” compared to favorable ratings of 48% (n = 24) for “agree”
and 4% (n = 2) for “strongly agree.” The term “reward” was not defined, and it is unknown what
each survey respondent considered as a reward. What might seem like a reward to one leader,
132

such as a monetary reward, might not be true for another. The threshold for agreement was not
met for the survey statement. Figure 10 displays the details.

Figure 10
The Organization Rewards Leaders for Goal Attainment for Inclusionary Practices

133

Interview Findings
The interviews demonstrated the myriad ways a word like “reward” can take on meaning.
Of the interviewees, 58% (n = 7) stated that there were no rewards for attaining inclusionary
practices, but many qualified their comments. For example, P8 said, “We don’t offer any formal
rewards. You would see it in the employee survey scores,” while P9 explained, “To my
knowledge, there are no specific rewards,” but “being intentional is … kind of self-rewarding.”
An example of a reward as being “a validation” came from P12, who continued by saying,
“People who are inclusive get subtly profiled. These are people who do things and are successful
at getting an outcome.” Interestingly P12 did not connect the “validation” to the attainment of
specific inclusionary goals.
Without a definition of “reward” provided to them, leaders interpreted the term in a
variety of ways. It is worth noting that 42% (n = 5) of the interviewees gave examples of
descriptions of rewards related to positive feelings about inclusionary practices. For example,
P11 reported that “for me to be seen as a champion for something that’s important to me is a
reward in itself.” Progress in the inclusion category of the employee survey made P7 realize that
“Sometimes it is nice to see how people are feeling and whether there are any hotspots to fix.” A
regional difference noted by P8 was that “in European countries, rewards are not anchored in the
culture.” Two leaders mentioned an organization-wide initiative where any employee can
recognize another for actions that demonstrate certain desirable behaviors. One of the
recognition categories was a broad reference to “diversity and inclusion.” Yet none of the
participants provided examples of rewarding employees for attaining specific inclusionary goals.
The threshold of 75% agreement among interviewees was not met. The core points provided by
134

the interviewees regarding organizational rewards for achieving inclusionary practices goals are
found in Table 19.

Table 19
Interview Participants’ Key Comments for Organizational Rewards for Inclusionary Practices
Goal Attainment
Theme Key comments of participants
There are
nonmonetary
rewards.
“We don’t offer formal rewards. You would see it from the feedback in the
employee survey.” (P8)

“No explicit rewards. Being intentional about how our organization and we
as leaders help our team feel … is kind of self-rewarding.” (P9)

“There’s recognition … and for me being … seen as a champion for
something that’s important to me. That’s a reward in itself. (P11)

“It’s more of a validation. People who are inclusive get profiled. There’s …
subtle profiling of people who … are successful at getting an outcome.”
(P12)
There are no
rewards.
“I don’t consider that there are specific rewards out there to recognize …
inclusion.” (P4)

“I am not seeing … that we … are rewarding people” (P6)

“I really don’t know if we have any, to be honest.” (P7)

“There are no specific rewards for D&I that I can call out.” (P10)
I am
compensated
by my
manager.
“I have been compensated by my manager, … not from the organization,
for going above and beyond, when it comes to … inclusionary practices.”
(P2)

“Personal performance … results in financial pieces. I’ve got a goal around
inclusionary practices. … if I miss it, … my rating will change. … It’s a
carrot and stick.” (P5)
There was no
mention of
rewards.
Did not describe any rewards related to inclusionary practices. (P1)

Did not mention specific rewards for inclusionary practices. (P5)
135

Observation
No observations were made for this influence.
Document Analysis
No rewards were mentioned in any of the documents other than a badge for completing a
training course related to inclusive hiring practices. Document analysis did not show evidence of
that influence.
Summary
The data from the survey, the interviews and the document analysis showed that the
established threshold of 75% agreement for this assumed influence was not met. Therefore, it is a
need.
Summary of Validated Influences
Tables 20, 21, and 22 show the KMO influences for this study and their determination as
an asset or a need.
Knowledge
Table 20 lists each of the two knowledge influences, and describes each as a need, or an
asset.

Table 20
Knowledge Assets or Needs As Determined by the Data
Assumed knowledge influence Asset or need
Conceptual: Tech Global leaders need to determine the inclusionary
practices most relevant to incorporate into their performance goals.
Need
Metacognitive: Tech Global leaders need to monitor their own biases
when incorporating inclusionary practices into their performance
goals.
Asset
136

Motivation
Table 21 summarizes each of the three motivation influences, including the determination
of each one as an asset or a need.

Table 21
Motivation Assets or Needs As Determined by the Data
Assumed motivation influence Asset or need
Attainment value: Tech Global leaders need to believe it is important to
incorporate inclusionary practices into their performance goals.
Asset
Utility value: Tech Global leaders need to believe it is useful to
incorporate inclusionary practices into their performance goals.
Need
Self-efficacy: Tech Global leaders need to believe that they are capable
of role modeling inclusionary practices within their own organizations.
Need

137

Organization
Of the total of three organization influences, one was an asset and two were deemed as
needs, as shown in Table 22.

Table 22
Organization Assets or Needs As Determined by the Data
Assumed organizational influence Asset or need
Cultural settings (resources): Organizational support is needed for Tech
Global leaders to incorporate inclusionary practices into their
performance goals.

Asset
Cultural settings (goals): The organization needs to have inclusionary
practices goals for Tech Global leaders to incorporate into their
performance goals.

Need
Cultural settings (rewards): The organization needs to offer rewards to
Tech Global leaders for attaining their performance goals of
incorporating inclusionary practices.

Need

138

Data analysis resulted in determining the eight KMO influences as either assets or needs.
In Chapter Five, recommendations for solutions will be based on empirical evidence, informed
by the outcomes presented for each influence.

139

Chapter Five: Recommendations
To ensure alignment of the recommendations for implementation with the problem of
practice and the key data findings, several key elements of Chapter One are briefly presented
first. An introduction and overview to Chapter Five lays out a roadmap for a discussion of
recommendations for addressing knowledge, motivation, and organization influences, followed
by a thorough implementation and evaluation plan.
The implementation plan is centered around a customized initiative named Everyday
Inclusion. It applies social cognitive theory in several ways. First, the program design centers on
the individual as the change agent within the environment of the organization, recognizing the
triadic reciprocity between the person, their behavior, and their environment. Second, a key
component of social cognitive theory is self-regulation, (Bandura, 1988) a state of being in which
the individual is actively involved in their learning through processes such as goal setting and
self-reflection (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). Everyday Inclusion activates the opportunities for both
processes through a series of activities and that will be offered to Tech Global leaders. Third, the
relationship between the individual, their behavior, and the environment is one of bidirectional
influence (Bandura, 1988). The recommendations from the findings presented in Chapter Four
will address the knowledge and motivation needs for Tech Global leaders to incorporate
inclusionary practices in their performance goals, which create the conditions for them to enable
and sustain an inclusive climate, and over time, impact the environment in a positive way.
Organizational Context and Mission
Big Bio (a pseudonym) is a biotech/pharmaceutical organization with a powerful, concise
purpose that focuses on the future needs of patients while helping them today. As an industry
leader in the discovery, development, manufacture, and distribution of medicines targeting unmet
140

patient needs and incurable diseases, Big Bio focuses on the fields of oncology, neuroscience,
ophthalmology, and immunology. In 2020, Big Bio announced a bold vision. Its 10-year
ambition is to double the medical advances in multiple research areas, but at significantly less
cost to society. Relatedly, the corporation named seven operating principles that connected to the
vision and asked employees at every level to set priorities that demonstrated their support of
those principles. Big Bio’s mission statement is to “focus on the future while helping patients
today.” One of those operating principles became the organizational performance goal.
Organizational Performance Goal
By June 2030, Big Bio will “achieve diversity in leadership which mirrors our
workforce” as part of its vision to develop more medicine at less cost to society.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
Multiple stakeholder groups directly contribute to and benefit from Big Bio’s goal of a
diverse leadership that mirrors its workforce. One such group is the Tech Global leaders, which
consists of approximately 1,500 leaders located around the world representing a total of seven
levels of leadership, including vice president and above. Tech Global leaders hire, develop,
coach, and manage anywhere from a few to a few thousand people and typically implement and
maintain policies and practices that contribute to the attainment of overall goals. At every level,
they can be held accountable for setting and achieving goals regarding diversity and inclusion.
A second stakeholder group is the employees of the chief diversity office, including a
senior leader who reports to the chief executive officer of US Bio. The remit of the office is to
support and enable a diverse and inclusive culture and to influence the company’s leaders in
supporting and contributing to that effort. D&I employees offer expertise and data to leaders
with the intention of helping embed diversity and inclusion principles in business strategy.
141

Leaders above senior vice president level include executive vice presidents, or the C-
suite, constitute a key stakeholder group, as they set, approve, and oversee the strategy for hiring,
development, and performance management of thousands of employees all over the world. They
want to attract, develop, and retain the most talented and capable employees. Senior leaders also
have the most power to create and assign the implementation and measurement of policies,
including adopting D&I initiatives. Dubnick (2014) considered these account-giving
relationships, and that their associated behaviors were foundational to the structures and
processes that support organizations.
Big Bio consists of many entities, divisions, regions, and affiliates. Many D&I initiatives
exist across the enterprise, yet there is no single owner or office of diversity and inclusion. Few,
if any, distinctions have been made between diversity and inclusion. Actions for advancement of
D&I have been encouraged but not required. Studying a stakeholder group that contains the
entire leadership population of one function creates the opportunity to apply learnings about
inclusionary practices of leaders to other functions. Therefore, while a complete analysis of all
three stakeholder groups would result in the most comprehensive analysis, the stakeholder group
chosen for this study is an intact group of approximately 1,500 leaders in a function dedicated to
managing global technical operations, known as Tech Global (a pseudonym). Representing about
11% of the total population of the Tech Global function, the stakeholder group collectively has
the most power to influence SMART goal performance improvement with and for thousands of
employees. The performance gap is 100%.
Goal of the Stakeholder Group for the Study
By December 31, 2023, 100% of the Tech Global leaders will incorporate at least one of
the company’s D&I inclusionary practices into their performance goals.
142

Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to conduct a needs analysis in the areas of knowledge and
skill, motivation, and organizational resources necessary to reach the performance goal. The
analysis began by generating a list of possible needs and examining them systematically to
determine whether each influence was need or an asset. While a complete needs analysis would
focus on all stakeholders, for practical purposes, the stakeholder group chosen for this analysis
was the 1,500 leaders in the Tech Global group, which includes leaders who report into the US
Bio affiliate as well as those who work in other regions such as EMEA and APAC. A total of
seven levels of leadership were included, from supervisory to vice president and above. As such,
the questions that guided this study are the following:
1. What knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational needs exist for 100% of
the Tech Global leaders to incorporate at least one of the company’s D&I
inclusionary practices into their performance goals?
2. What are the recommended knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational
solutions for 100% of the Tech Global leaders to incorporate at least one of the
company’s D&I inclusionary practices into their performance goals?
Introduction and Overview
Chapter Four presented data analysis and findings of the mixed-methods research
conducted with participants from the Tech Global leaders within the Big Bio biotechnology
company. The results and insights addressed the first research question guiding this study and
determined that each of the eight knowledge, motivation and organizational influences impacting
the key stakeholder group was either an asset or a need. Chapter Five focuses on the second
research question, with a twofold purpose. First, recommendations for solutions for 100% of the
143

Tech Global leaders to incorporate at least one of the company’s D&I inclusionary practices into
their performance goals will be made. A program to enable learning the critical behaviors will be
described in detail. Next, an implementation and evaluation plan that will enable those solutions
will be presented. The program’s implementation will be organized and evaluated using the
Kirkpatrick new world model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
Each recommendation made to address the knowledge, motivational and organizational
influences is based on a combination of data analysis, a determination of whether the influence is
an asset or a need, and application of one or more principles from the research.
Knowledge Recommendations
Two assumed knowledge influences were studied, applying Krathwohl’s (2002)
framework of four levels of increasingly complex knowledge as a guide. Both knowledge
influences were determined to be a priority to address based on applied criteria, including the
percentage of Tech Global leaders affected by the influence, the feasibility of implementing the
recommended solutions, and the overall impact on the stakeholder group. Information processing
theory informs the recommended solutions for both influences.
Analysis of the data collected for the conceptual knowledge influence, which addresses
how information is learned, processed, and used to perform tasks and achieve results (Krathwohl,
2002; Rueda, 2011) showed that Tech Global leaders did not effectively differentiate between
diversity and inclusion practices. The assumed influence was validated as a need. According to
Schraw and McCrudden (2013), how learners organize knowledge influences how they learn and
apply what they know. Tech Global leaders could benefit from differentiating between types of
practices so as to better apply them. The recommended solution is to provide education, which
144

Clark and Estes (2008) indicated was best when learners need to have a foundation of conceptual
and analytical knowledge.
Metacognitive knowledge, which requires reflection and self-awareness about one’s own
actions, behaviors, and thoughts (Krathwohl, 2002) was the second of the two knowledge
influences. Across the various data collection methods, Tech Global leaders demonstrated self-
awareness and self-regulation when monitoring and adjusting of their own biases regarding
inclusionary practices, although half of the interview participants (n=6) took some time to do so.
A learner demonstrating metacognitive knowledge would benefit from awareness of their
attributes as leaders and their unconscious beliefs, attitudes and biases that influence their
behaviors (Bandura, 2000). The use of metacognitive strategies facilitates learning (Baker,
2006). The recommended solution is to provide opportunities for Tech Global leaders to continue
to engage in guided self-monitoring and self-assessment, to further their skills in incorporating
inclusionary practices into their performance goals. Table 23 summarizes the two assumed
knowledge influences, the principles and their appropriate citations for each influence, and
context-specific recommendations.

145

Table 23
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed knowledge
influence
Asset or
need
Priority
yes/no
Principle and
citation
Context-specific
recommendation
Tech Global leaders
need to determine
the inclusionary
practices most
relevant to
incorporate into
their performance
goals. (Conceptual)
Need Yes How individuals
organize
knowledge
influences how
they learn and
apply what they
know (Schraw &
McCrudden,
2013).
Provide Tech Global
leaders with education
on the differences
between diversity and
inclusion practices to
determine which are
most relevant to apply
(Clark & Estes, 2008).
Tech Global leaders
need to monitor
their own biases
when incorporating
inclusionary
practices into their
performance goals.
(Metacognitive)
Asset Yes The use of
metacognitive
strategies
facilitates
learning (Baker,
2006).
Provide opportunities for
Tech Global leaders to
engage in guided self-
monitoring and self-
assessment (Baker,
2006).

Developing Tech Global Leaders’ Conceptual Knowledge for Determining Which
Inclusionary Practices Are Most Relevant to Incorporate Into Their Performance Goals
The results of this study indicated that Tech Global leaders did not differentiate between
an inclusionary practice, such as role modeling inclusionary practices or having career
conversations, and practices focused on diversity, such as reporting demographics based on
gender, race or ethnicity or having diverse interview panels. There is a need for a basic
understanding of the differences is a priority, as it underpins all other implementation and
evaluation initiatives. Information processing system theory provides a recommended solution to
address the need for this influence. According to Schraw and McCrudden (2013), how
individuals organize knowledge influences how they learn and apply what they know. For the
146

Tech Global leaders, the implication of being able to differentiate between an inclusionary
practice and a diversity practice is that they can determine which practice is most relevant for
specific situations. The recommendation is to provide cognitive knowledge education on the
differences between diversity and inclusion practices. An example would be a one-page job aid
explaining the differences between diversity and inclusion practices.
Korkmaz et al. (2022) noted that research to date has not produced a common agreement
on the definition of inclusive leadership. Through an overview of previous studies, they offer a
conceptual theory showing new elements of inclusive leadership, including how it sits at the
intersection of diversity management and leadership studies (Korkmaz et al., 2022) and therefore
requires going beyond previous perspectives that focused on either leadership behaviors
(Carmeli et al., 2010; Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006; Randel et al., 2018) or the leader’s role in
diversity management (Ely & Thomas, 2001; Nishii, 2013) but not both. The two concepts can
each strengthen the other. Kuknor and Bhattacharya (2021) described inclusive leadership as
“creation of a learning environment for diverse employees and groups” (p. 96).
Developing Tech Global Leaders’ Self-Reflection Skills, to Adjust and Monitor Their
Strategies for Inclusionary Practices
Of the Tech Global leaders interviewed, half (n = 6) made changes over time and half
named specific instances or events that caused them to reflect and adjust. To enable continued
practice at, or more timely self-monitoring and appropriate adjustments in behavior information
processing system theory will be applied. Specifically, the use of metacognitive strategies
facilitates learning (Baker, 2006). By applying this principle, the implication for Tech Global
leaders is that they could become more proactive and timelier in self-regulating and self-
assessing their own biases about inclusionary practices or strengthen their practice. The
147

recommended solution is to provide opportunities for the Tech Global leaders to engage in
guided self-monitoring and self-assessment about their own biases. An example of this solution
is to insert self-reflection and self-assessment time and activities before, during, and after
education sessions on inclusionary practices for Tech Global leaders to log their thoughts and
key learnings, or to include real-time, private feedback about their practices from mentors.
Edmondson (2012) wrote about organizational success through leading effective teaming
rather than creating effective teams. One strategy for leaders is to encourage team members to
reflect on their ways of working. To do so requires leaders themselves to also self-reflect, and to
understand that learning processes must flex to account for different types of work. Anyone is
capable of implicit stereotyping, but organizational solutions should include reflection on the
enabling conditions that call out prejudice and stereotyping across individuals (Banaji &
Greenwald, 2013; Hardin & Banaji, 2013). Research showed the value of empathy as a
requirement of working to foster individual learning, and that individuals need to first develop
considerable self-awareness regarding personal and professional biases, then apply empathic
insights in the systems they inhabit (Gallegos, 2014; Kasl & Yorks, 2016).
Motivation Recommendations
Table 24 presents the summary of the three assumed motivation influences. Two types of
task value theory studied were attainment value, or the importance of the task to things such as
the individual’s sense of self, and utility value, which addresses the usefulness of a task (Eccles
& Wigfield, 2002). Self-efficacy, defined as the belief in one’s own success at producing desired
results (Bandura, 2000) was the third motivation influence. Each one was deemed to be a need,
or an asset based on data analysis. Prioritization was based on the feasibility of the solutions, the
impact to the stakeholders, and the percentage of the group affected by the recommendations.
148

Role modeling as a leadership practice is a high priority to address in the implementation and
evaluation plan. It was a key element of both the survey and the interviews. Although chosen by
61% (n = 30) of survey respondents as one of the top five inclusionary practices that leaders can
incorporate into their performance goals, only 63% (n = 31) of survey respondents rated
themselves favorably at role modeling inclusionary practices. Interviewees varied in their
understandings, beliefs, and definitions of role modeling.

149

Table 24
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed motivation
influence
Asset or
need
Priority
yes/no
Principle and citation Context-specific
recommendation
Tech Global leaders
need to believe it is
important to
incorporate
inclusionary practices
into their performance
goals. (Attainment
value)
Asset Yes Activating personal
interest through
opportunities for
choice and control
can increase
motivation (Eccles
& Wigfield, 2002).
Provide Tech
Global leaders
with
opportunities to
exercise choice
and control over
creating SMART
goals for
inclusionary
practices.
Tech Global leaders
need to believe it is
useful to incorporate
inclusionary practices
into their performance
goals. (Utility value)
Need No Rationales that
include a
discussion of the
importance and
utility value of the
work or learning
can help learners
develop positive
values (Eccles &
Wigfield, 2002;
Pintrich, 2003).
Provide Tech
Global leaders
opportunities to
realize the
usefulness of
inclusionary
practices.
Tech Global leaders
need to believe that
they are capable of
role modeling
inclusionary practices
within their own
organizations. (Self-
efficacy)
Need Yes Modeling to-be-
learned strategies
or behaviors
improves self-
efficacy, learning,
and performance
(Denler et al.,
2009).
Provide Tech
Global leaders
with
opportunities for
guided practice
and immediate
feedback to role
model
inclusionary
practices.

150

Providing Tech Global Leaders With Opportunities to Exercise Choice and Control in
Creating or Adapting SMART Goals for Inclusionary Practices
Data analysis confirmed Tech Global leaders’ strong belief in the importance of
incorporating inclusionary practices into their performance goals, even though they had not
created goals for those practices using the SMART format. The theory that will be used for a
recommendation is expectancy-value theory. According to Eccles and Wigfield (2002),
activating personal interest through opportunities for choice and control can increase motivation.
The implication is that Tech Global leaders are more likely to commit to the action of
incorporating inclusionary practices into their goals because they already value the importance of
those practices. The recommendation is to create opportunities for Tech Global leaders to
exercise choice and control over what they write for SMART goals, rather than assign goals from
a top-down approach. An example of an opportunity for choice and control would be to draft and
share exemplary SMART goals that incorporate several inclusionary practices, along with
messaging from the Tech Global senior leader explaining that the Tech Global leaders have
choice and control over which inclusionary practice they choose and how they write the goal,
providing it follows the SMART framework.
Conceptually, inclusiveness ensures that every voice in an organization is heard and
acknowledged, which would mitigate issues of discrimination and intolerance (Mitra & Mehta,
2021). All Tech Global leaders are also themselves employees. Giving them choice and control
over what to include in a SMART goal that incorporates inclusionary practices into their
performance goals creates an inclusive workplace for them. Key elements of inclusive
environments include being recognized for one’s own unique talents and contributions to higher
level organization goals, having input into goals and influence over decisions, and increasing
151

employee participation and empowerment (Ferdman, 2014; Mor Barak & Cherin, 1998;
Roberson & Perry, 2022; Shore et al., 2011). Relatedly, when leaders and followers mutually set
goals, employee success in projects and psychological safety both improve (Khan et al., 2020;
Mitchell et al., 2015; Khan et al., 2020). Thus, while goal setting can drive accountability and
include measurements of traditional diversity factors, encouraging unique and innovative
approaches to incorporating inclusionary practices (Derven, 2014; Steele & Derven, 2015) into
their performance goals for Tech Global leaders will contribute to their success.
Developing Tech Global Leaders’ Belief in the Usefulness of Incorporating Inclusionary
Practices Into Their Performance Goals
Although 78% (n = 38) of Tech Global leaders indicated in the survey that incorporating
inclusionary practices into their performance goals was useful, the terms “important” and
“useful” were treated as interchangeable by half (n = 6) of the interviewees, making the
motivational influence of utility value a need. Expectancy value theory, or EVT, informs the
recommended solution to close the gap. A guiding principle of the theory is that rationales that
include a discussion of the importance and the utility value of the work or learning can help
learners develop positive values (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Pintrich, 2003). The implication of
the principle is that enabling Tech Global leaders to see the utility value of inclusionary practices
could lead to greater commitment to incorporating those practices into their performance goals.
The recommended solution is to provide information and discussion guides that demonstrate the
extrinsic value of inclusionary practices for Tech Global leaders. One example of the solution is
to show Tech Global leaders what outcomes they could expect, such as an increase in the
inclusion scores on the employee survey.
152

Utility value is how useful one believes a task or activity is for achieving current or future
goals, such as obtaining a promotion at work. The higher the value placed on an activity, the
more likely the person will choose to act, persist, and put effort into it, even if the value does not
include interest in the task for its own sake (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Relatedly,
the perceived usefulness of the task or activity to the individual aligns with extrinsic motivation.
(Pintrich, 2003). A design principle based on empirical research suggests that during learning
sessions, discussions that include both the importance or attainment value and the usefulness or
utility value of a task or goal will generally activate higher levels of interest for learners
(Pintrich, 2003). This recommendation is tailored to the result of the findings in the study. Half
(n = 6) of Tech Global leaders interviewed at first used the terms important and useful
interchangeably. Having focused discussions about the value of both the importance and
usefulness of inclusionary practices could enable them to choose to act, persist in those actions
and make the effort to achieve the goals they set.
Developing Tech Global Leaders’ Belief in Their Capability to Role Model Inclusionary
Practices Within Their Own Organizations
The threshold score of 75% was not met in any of the data collection methods, making
the self-efficacy motivation influence a need. Social cognitive theory is the source of the
recommendation to address the gap. Denler et al. (2009) stated that modeling-to-be-learned
strategies or behaviors improves self-efficacy, learning and performance. In a sense, role
modeling can itself be modeled, and the implication for Tech Global leaders is that Tech Global
leaders known to be good at inclusionary practices can provide real-time examples for
experimentation. The solution for this need is for Tech Global to provide an organization-wide
definition of role modeling of inclusionary practices and to provide Tech Global leaders with
153

examples of where and how role modeling is occurring. One application of the solution could
include testimonials or storytelling by identified leaders in team or organization meetings where
employees at all levels can hear examples of inclusive leadership.
Role modeling plays a key part in organization-wide efforts focused on creating a climate
for inclusion, according to Boekhorst (2015), who posited that authentic leaders transmit the
importance of inclusion in the workplace through role modeling. Making the role modeling of
inclusion a concept within leadership development initiatives (Booysen, 2014) elevates and
formalizes it as an organizational expectation and creates opportunities for learning strategies for
leaders and their followers (Boekhorst, 2015; Booysen, 2014). Individuals who experience a
more inclusive culture through the example of their leaders are more able to bring their whole
selves to work and perform better, which benefits the organization itself (Ferdman, 2014). Thus,
the investment in educating leaders on the meaning, the importance, strategies, and benefits of
role modeling inclusionary practices can effect change at the organization level (Nishii & Rich,
2014).
Organization Recommendations
The theory that behaviors of authentic leaders benefit themselves and their followers
extends to an organization level. Three organizational influences were studied to determine
whether each was an asset or a need. Two pertained to goals and rewards, both of which are
examples of cultural settings (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001) and are necessarily linked,
meaning that rewards are aligned with goals that the organization values (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Data analysis found both influences to be needs. The third influence assessed was organization
support in the form of resources, which includes necessary materials and equipment, time, and
opportunities to develop skills (Waters et al., 2003). Analysis of the data for the organizational
154

support influence deemed it an asset, making it a priority to address because Tech Global leaders
were positive about existing resources. Organizational goals and rewards will be addressed but
are lower priorities at this time, as it would take the focus away from the stakeholder group and
would require the organization itself to incur a major change of approach to goals and rewards.
Table 25 summarizes the organizational influences and recommendations.

155

Table 25
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed organization
influence
Asset
or need
Priority
yes/ no
Principle and
citation
Context-specific
recommendation
Organizational support is
needed for Tech Global
leaders to incorporate
inclusionary practices into
their performance goals.
(Settings: resources)
Asset Yes Organizational
effectiveness
increases when
leaders ensure
that employees
have the
resources needed
to achieve the
organization’s
goals (Waters et
al., 2003).
Provide a job aid to
Tech Global leaders
in the form of a
summary of
existing resources
that enable their
choice of
inclusionary
practices to aid in
their planning.
The organization needs to
have inclusionary
practices goals for Tech
Global leaders to
incorporate into their
performance goals.
(Settings: goals)
Need No Goals motivate and
direct students
(Pintrich, 2003).
Provide Tech Global
leaders with a set of
exemplar adaptable
SMART goals for
inclusionary
practices.
The organization needs to
offer rewards to Tech
Global leaders for
attaining their
performance goals of
inclusionary practices.
(Settings: rewards)
Need No Effective
organizations
ensure that
organizational
messages,
rewards, policies,
and procedures
that govern the
organization’s
work are aligned
with or are
supportive of
organizational
goals and values
(Clark & Estes,
2008)
Provide Tech Global
leaders with
messages and
materials about
potential rewards
for achieving
SMART goals for
inclusionary
practices.

156

Highlighting the Organizational Resources for Tech Global Leaders to Leverage for Their
Own Development and Growth
Interviews and document analysis showed that Tech Global leaders agreed that there are
many and varied resources available to them, resulting in the organizational influence of
resources validated as an asset that can be leveraged for success. The recommended solution to
encourage a continued focus on providing resources is grounded in leadership theory. Research
by Waters et al. (2003) found that organizational effectiveness increases when leaders ensure that
employees have the resources needed to achieve the organization’s goals. One implication of this
principle is that the organization has many resources, as described in the findings but does not
communicate them regularly or in a coordinated manner. A recommendation to increase the
visibility and adoption of the many resources is to provide a job aid to Tech Global leaders in the
form of a summary of existing resources to enable their choices of inclusionary practices to
incorporate into their performance goals. For example, an infographic can be viewed online or
downloaded that summarizes what, why, how, and when to utilize the available resources.
Waters et al. (2003) developed a balanced leadership framework based on
responsibilities, practices, knowledge, strategies, tools, and resources that leaders need to be
effective. Similar to the knowledge and skills element of Clark and Estes’s (2008) KMO
framework, their meta-analysis showed that effective leaders know which policies, practices,
resources, and incentives to align and how to align them with organizational priorities. They
know when, how, and why to create learning environments that support people, connect them
with one another, and provide the knowledge, skills, and resources they need to succeed. This
combination of knowledge and skills is the essence of balanced leadership and depends on the
organization to provide those necessary resources. Relatedly, studies of diversity training found
157

that cognitive learning not only increased from the training, but the effects tended to linger
(Abramovitz & Blitz, 2015; Bezrukova et al., 2012). Organizational support in the form of
resources can include knowledge embedded in focused training for Tech Global leaders.
Providing the conceptual and procedural knowledge about inclusionary practices and writing
SMART goals is foundational to them believing that they have the resources they need to
incorporate those practices into their performance goals.
Developing Tech Global Leaders’ Skills and Motivation to Include SMART Goals for
Inclusionary Practices for Themselves and Their Teams
An insufficient number of Tech Global leaders confirmed that the organization has goals
for inclusionary practices, resulting in the organizational setting of goals being validated as a
need. Goal orientation theory provides a foundation for the recommended solution. Studies by
Pintrich (2003) showed that goals motivate and direct students. The company already provides
training and resources on how to write SMART goals and expects employees to use that format
when they create their annual performance plans. Implications of this recommendation are that
Tech Global leaders could quickly learn how to create SMART goals around inclusionary
practices. Therefore, the recommendation is to adapt existing learning resources to support the
development of Tech Global leaders’ ability to write SMART goals. An example of learning
material could be a library of inclusionary goals uploaded into the company’s performance
review model so that Tech Global leaders could choose one as is or amend it as needed.
The importance and impact of setting clear performance goals at the organizational level
have been well-established in the literature (Bandura, 1997; Clark & Estes, 2008; Locke &
Latham, 1990). That research underpins the conceptual theory that organizations seeking to
create an inclusionary climate need intentional and enterprise-wide practices and strategies
158

(Boekhorst, 2015). One way to effect change is for organizations to set inclusionary goals that
connect to their long-term external and internal outcomes, such as their contribution to society
(Mor Barak & Daya, 2014). Big Bio seeks to increase inclusive research and to have diversity in
leadership that reflects its workforce, which by extension, has to reflect the communities in
which employees live. The connection between organization, leaders, and their employees
regarding goal setting and performance can be strengthened in two ways. First, studies have
shown that training programs in diversity and inclusion can be adapted to increase a focus on
inclusion and to include clearly communicated organizational goals that can be adapted to the
team and individual levels (Boekhorst, 2015; Ferdman & Brody, 1996; Gallegos, 2014; Kasl &
Yorks, 2016). Second, Tech Global leaders can themselves set and communicate their own goals
for inclusionary practices, which, in turn, enhances their employees’ setting their own goals
(Boekhorst, 2015).
Providing Tech Global Leaders With Rewards and Ways to Reward Their Employees for
Achievement of Inclusionary Practices Goals
Almost half (48%) of the survey respondents and more than half (58%) of the
interviewees did not agree or did not believe that the organization offered rewards for attaining
performance goals of inclusionary practices, making this influence a need. Organizational
change theory supports the recommendation to be made. Clark and Estes (2008) used a
framework for organizational change to show that effective organizations make connections
between policies and procedures, messaging, and rewards, which, in turn, align with and support
the organization’s goals and values. The implication of the theory for Tech Global leaders is that
they would better understand what behavior is rewarded. The recommended solution is to
provide Tech Global leaders with messages and materials about potential rewards the
159

organization would support for achieving SMART goals for inclusionary practices. An example
of this solution would be to list the ways that inclusionary practices could be rewarded, such as
awarding digital badges to display on Tech Global leaders’ internal employee profiles signifying
the achievement of an inclusionary goal.
Reward systems are a normal and expected component of reinforcing desired
performance behaviors yet must be managed without creating undue competition between
individuals on a team or loafing behavior when an individual can contribute less because the
team will achieve the outcomes (Church et al., 2014; DeNisi, 2014). Conceptually, Boekhorst
(2105) utilized information processing theory to explain how reward systems that recognize
inclusionary practices can, in turn, inspire employees to themselves incorporate inclusionary
practices. A supporting conceptual theory from Korkmaz et al. (2022) posited that one of the
hallmarks of inclusive leadership was a demonstrated equitable approach to actions such as
distributing rewards for goal achievement (Siyal et al., 2021). One recommendation from the
same systematic literature review was to look for any variations in leaders and employees
sharing feedback about how the leader expressed appreciation to the employee. By attuning to
unique and nuanced approaches, organizations could better design customized rewards systems
that consider the various needs and desires of a diverse workforce (Korkmaz et al., 2022).
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
A detailed plan for implementing and evaluating the initiative known as Everyday
Inclusion will describe how the new world Kirkpatrick model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016)
enables the design and measurement of learning or training.
160

Implementation and Evaluation Framework
The new world Kirkpatrick model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) of training and
evaluation will be used to design an integrated implementation and evaluation plan for Tech
Global leaders. Also known as NWKM, it is an expanded and updated version of the original
Kirkpatrick model used for decades to implement four principles of evaluation criteria. One of
the key features of the NWKM is that it flips the four levels of evaluation from the original order
and begins at Level 4, or L4, naming the program’s expected outcomes or results. Knowing the
expected results and how they contribute to the organization’s purpose creates a workable path
through the levels. The designers and the stakeholders create the Level 3, or L3, behaviors that
participants would demonstrate on the job and that would contribute to the outcomes. To
demonstrate those behaviors requires learning specific knowledge, skills, and attitudes, which
defines Level 2, or L2, evaluation. Keeping participants engaged in learning by providing
relevant course material is deemed to be Level 1, or L1, evaluation. In summary, the learning
must be engaging and relevant, purposeful, and connected to the long-term organizational goals
that fulfill its purpose.
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
Big Bio’s mission is to “focus on the future while helping patients today.” As an industry
leader in the discovery, development, manufacture, and distribution of medicines targeting unmet
patient needs and incurable diseases, Big Bio focuses on the fields of oncology, neuroscience,
ophthalmology, and immunology. The organizational performance problem at the heart of this
study is that the company is underperforming in its efforts to improve its diversity and inclusion
practices at the global, regional, and local levels. In 2020, Big Bio announced a bold vision. Its
10-year ambition is to double the medical advances in multiple research areas, but at
161

significantly less cost to society. The corporation named seven operating principles that
connected to the vision and asked employees at every level to set priorities that demonstrated
their support of those principles. One of the principles was to “achieve diversity in leadership
which mirrors our workforce. The principle supports the aspiration of having a diverse workforce
at all levels of the organization and better reflecting the communities where employees live and
work.
The stakeholder group is the 1,500 leaders in the Tech Global function. The chosen goal
for the group is that by December 31, 2023, 100% of the Tech Global leaders will incorporate at
least one of the company’s D&I inclusionary practices into their performance goals. The
performance gap is 100%. The goal was chosen for three reasons. First, the Tech Global function
has multiple sources of information and inspiration about D&I practices but no clarity about
what differentiates an inclusionary practice from a diversity practice, making it difficult to
ascertain exactly what they can or should incorporate into their performance goals. Second,
references to D&I practices do not provide education on how to create a goal, nor are goals
required for most leaders. Third, some of the 1,500 Tech Global employees are employees of an
organization within Big Bio known as US Bio, which has its own communications, initiatives,
and information about D&I.
Having goals can provide motivation and direction (Pintrich, 2003). A time-bound goal
creates clarity, while giving choice about which practice can be incorporated creates
opportunities for Tech Global leaders to experience some control over what they commit to
(Eccles, 2006). The stakeholder SMART goal provides motivation and direction for the Tech
Global leaders to align with and contribute to Big Bio’s vision of “achieve diversity in leadership
which mirrors our workforce.”
162

Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Table 26 shows the L4 expected results and leading indicators in the form of specific
outcomes, metrics, and methods of assessing success for both internal and external outcomes for
Big Bio. Based on the organizational support and training for 100% of Tech Global leaders to
incorporate at least one inclusionary practice by the end of 2023 in their performance goals, the
internal outcomes should be met as expected. In turn, the external outcomes related to the
company’s 2030 vision of “doubling the medical advances in multiple research areas, but at
significantly less cost to society” will more likely be achieved as well.

Table 26
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metrics Methods
External outcomes
Increase the number of
medical advances
(medicines receiving
Food and Drug
Administration
approval)

The number of medical
advances deemed as
“breakthrough designation” or
“new molecular entities”
(NME).
Reports from FDA show year
over year progress.
Decrease in cost of
medicines around the
world.

Cost of medicines decreases. Data will be collected from
government agencies on an
annual basis.
Improved relationships
with the ecosystem of
community partners
providing healthcare
(hospitals, patient
advocacy groups,
government agencies at
the federal, state, or
provincial levels)

Increased ratings on ecosystem
partner satisfaction surveys
Collect annual satisfaction
data from each group in
the ecosystem
163

Outcome Metrics Methods
Increased number of
partnerships with
minority-centered
doctoral-level schools
from which to recruit
Number and percentage of U.S.-
based minority centered
universities and colleges.
Track annual reports. Check
quarterly progress reports
with Talent Acquisition
partners.
Internal outcomes
Increase in Tech Global
leaders incorporating
one inclusionary
practice into their
performance goals.

100% of Tech Global leaders
have incorporated at least one
inclusionary practice into their
performance goals.
Track results through
quarterly and annual
reports.
Demographics of Tech
Global leaders
demonstrates diversity
that mirrors the
workforce.
Annual reports from the
diversity office, including
percentages of women and
minorities at every level of
leadership, and attrition.

Collect reports from the
diversity office.
Increase in favorable
ratings scores for at
least one of three
inclusion items in the
employee survey
“I feel diverse perspectives are
valued at the company”, “I am
treated with respect and
dignity”, and “I feel
comfortable being myself at
work” items show increases
for Tech Global leaders.

Gather data from the Tech
Global leaders
organization.
Increased participation in
D&I initiatives
Attendance at or facilitation of
D&I training sessions

Sponsorship of ERG initiatives
Monitoring attendance or
facilitation rates for 100%
participation
Reports of Tech Global
sponsorship

Level 3: Behavior
The stakeholder focus group is the 1,500 Tech Global leaders who work in the Tech
Global function at Big Bio, a global biotechnology company. This group, collectively and
individually, has the power to influence and achieve change in the practices that enable inclusion
across the 14,000-member Tech Global function. The result of such changes will increase the
164

likelihood of Big Bio achieving diversity in leadership that mirrors the workforce, which is one
of the aspirational principles that support the ambition of doubling the medical advances at much
less cost to society by the year 2030.
Critical Behaviors
Several critical behaviors are required for the Tech Global leaders to achieve the Level 4
outcomes. First, Tech Global leaders must set goals for incorporating at least one inclusionary
practice in their performance goals. Second, Tech Global leaders must build or sustain self-
efficacy to believe they are capable of role modeling inclusionary practices in their own
organizations. Third, Tech Global leaders must participate in the Everyday Inclusion learning
program. Fourth, they must identify the current diversity metrics for gender. For Tech Global
leaders in the United States, race and ethnicity should be reported in the overall company report
for their organizations. They should set specific goals for their own organizations, to contribute
to the company goal of achieving diversity in leadership roles that reflect the workforce. In cases
where a diversity goal may already be met, such as the percentage of females in leadership roles,
Tech Global leaders must have a goal for maintaining the diversity. Last, Tech Global leaders
should create or enhance a portfolio of inclusionary practices that will enable diversity,
especially at the leadership level. Executing on the critical behaviors outlined will enable
achievement of L4 outcomes.
By setting and implementing inclusionary practices performance goals such as actively
participating in, leading, or facilitating meetings, conversations, workshops, or panels, and
sharing their learning, Tech Global leaders will realize two accomplishments. First, they will role
model the type of behavior that they expect in their employees, which increases the likelihood
that more leaders in other parts of the Big Bio environment will see the value in incorporating
165

inclusionary practices in their goals. Second, Tech Global leaders will contribute to the desired
internal and external outcomes that enable Big Bio to achieve its 10-year ambition. The specific
metrics, methods, and timing for each outcome behavior appear in Table 27.

Table 27
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical behavior Metrics Methods Timing
1. Tech Global
leaders set at least
one performance
goal for
inclusionary
practices.
Number of leaders
who set at least one
performance goal
for inclusionary
practices.

Goals are written in
SMART format.
1a. A quarterly report
of the number of
leaders with at least
one inclusionary
practice
performance goal

1b. Spot check by
D&I or P&C
partner for SMART
goal format
Quarterly, within 7
days of the end of
the prior quarter

Ongoing, on a
quarterly basis
2. Tech Global
leaders build or
sustain self-efficacy
to role model
inclusionary
practices.
Scores on self-
assessments before
and following
learning activities
2a. Compare pre- and
post- activity self-
assessments.
Self-assessment done
before activity, then
within 30 days of
activity.
2b. A pulse survey of
employees about
the Tech Global
leader role
modeling behavior.
Within 90 days of
learning activity
3. Tech Global
leaders participate
in the Everyday
Inclusion program.
Number of Tech
Global leaders who
attend sessions and
complete assigned
activities.
3. A report from
within the employee
learning
management
system.
Ongoing, on a
quarterly basis
4. Tech Global
leaders set or
sustain leadership
diversity goals for
their organizations.
Number and
percentage of
women and
minorities in
leadership
positions.
4a. Report from D&I
partner, including
attrition.

Ongoing, annually

Ongoing, annually
166

Critical behavior Metrics Methods Timing
Succession and/or
development plans
for increasing
numbers of women
and minorities
4b. Plans submitted
to senior leaders in
Tech Global.
5. Tech Global
leaders build a
portfolio of
activities
demonstrating
inclusionary
practices as
enablers of
diversity.
Number of D&I
initiatives
sponsored, such as
ERG panels,
community
outreach, career
conversations
5a. Report on
initiatives such as
ERG or training,
including Tech
Global leader
involvement.
Quarterly reports
collected by the
D&I partner.

Note. The critical behaviors in Table 27 are numbered to enable a simple cross reference to the
appropriate required drivers in Table 28.

Required Drivers
To ensure members of the stakeholder group demonstrate the critical behaviors above,
specific support methods are required. Actions to reinforce knowledge, encourage and reward
motivation, and monitor organizational influences are necessary to drive the achievement of the
stakeholder outcomes. The two knowledge influences are conceptual, which involves learning
and distinguishing between terms and concepts to perform tasks and achieve results (Krathwohl,
2002; Rueda, 2011) and metacognitive, or the ability to monitor and adjust one’s own progress
during learning (Krathwohl, 2002). Motivational influences include attainment value, which is
the degree to which Tech Global leaders believe it is important to incorporate inclusionary
practices in their performance goals, and utility value, or the degree to which the Tech Global
leaders believe it is useful to have inclusionary practices incorporated into their performance
goals (Clark & Estes, 2008; Pintrich, 2003). Self-efficacy, which addresses Tech Global leaders’
167

belief in their capability (Bandura, 1997) to role model inclusionary practices is the third
motivation influence. Organizational resources to support Tech Global leaders to incorporate
inclusionary practices in their performance goals, organizational goals for inclusionary practices,
and organizational rewards for attainment of inclusionary practices goals are the three influences
necessary to drive achievement of the stakeholder outcomes (Clark & Estes, 2008; Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001). Table 28 contains the required drivers to support the critical behaviors,
organized by method and influence.

Table 28
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors of Tech Global Leaders
Methods Timing
Critical behaviors
supported
1, 2, 3 etc.
Reinforcing
Workbook for participation in
initiatives such as education
sessions or training
Pre, during, and post-training 1a, 1b, 2a, 3, 5
Communities of practice: peer-to-
peer meetings to exchange
learning and reflection
Upon completion of education
or training, on a monthly
basis for 6 months
1a, 1b, 2a
Job aid showing distinctions
between diversity and inclusion
Post-education or during
training sessions
1a, 1b, 5
Tech Global leader shares personal
narrative and metrics or
conceptual knowledge about
inclusionary practices.
Ongoing, at least twice yearly,
or within 30 days of a Tech
Global leader facilitating a
D&I session, sponsoring an
ERG activity, or attending
an education module
1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3, 4a,
4b, 5
Encouraging
Feedback and coaching from D&I
or people and culture business
partners
Ongoing, at least quarterly or
within 30 days of education
sessions
1a, 1b, 2a, 3, 4a, 5
Peer support to exchange learning,
development plans, goal
attainment, or challenges. Small
groups or 1:1
Ongoing, on-demand, self-
managed, highly
encouraged via email from
D&I partner
1a, 1b, 2a, 2b
168

Methods Timing
Critical behaviors
supported
1, 2, 3 etc.
Tech Global senior leadership team
members send messages.
Twice during the 6-month
program, then quarterly,
ongoing
1a, 2a, 3, 4a, 5
Rewarding
Recognition for achievements will
be given at employee or town
hall meetings.
Upon achievement of key
milestones such as
measurable incremental
inclusionary practices
2b, 3, 4a, 4b, 5
Conduct interviews with Tech
Global leaders who incorporated
inclusionary practices.
Ongoing, quarterly basis for
one year, then at least twice
yearly
2a, 2b, 3, 5
Digital badges are awarded for
completion of inclusion goals.
Ongoing, on a quarterly basis 3, 4a, 5
Monitoring
Performance goal monitoring by
providing reports of performance
goals with inclusionary practices
Ongoing, annually as part of
the performance review
cycle of reporting
3, 4a, 5
Pulse and annual surveys of
employees regarding impact of
inclusionary practices
Within 30 days of launching
new or refined practices
Annual report from global
survey
2b, 4b, 5
Meetings sharing information about
results of pulse and global
employee surveys
Ongoing, quarterly for pulse
surveys and annually for
global surveys
2b

Organizational Support
Two stakeholder groups in the Big Bio organization able to support this change
implementation include the members of the people and culture function (formerly known as
human resources) and the Tech Global senior leadership team consisting of the global head of
Tech Global and their direct reports. The Tech Global senior leadership has the accountability to
direct the organization toward achieving Big Bio’s 10-year ambition and can provide
organizational support such as resources such as people, time, and money, and can set or approve
goals about inclusionary practices written in SMART language. The senior leadership team can
169

also support elements of motivation, including communication about the importance and
usefulness of inclusionary practices in performance goals and can set or share examples of
inclusionary practices that others could role model.
People and culture (P&C) business partners provide coaching and partnership to Tech
Global leaders on what they learn and how to apply new knowledge gained; they can help the
Tech Global leaders demonstrate commitment to action, persistence in the face of challenges,
and make the effort to overcome organizational barriers, to drive change in their organizations.
Within the P&C team, a D&I partner operates as a dedicated resource to the Tech Global senior
leadership team. The role has a specific focus on all matters related to D&I, including
communication, education, program design and implementation, and monitoring results.
Specialty knowledge about D&I enables the incumbent to advise Tech Global leaders on specific
actions they can take to incorporate new or more inclusionary practices into their performance
goals. The D&I partner can also partner with volunteer diversity ambassadors, a rotating group
of Tech Global individuals who champion D&I initiatives across the function.
Level 2: Learning
To support the required drivers and the desired new behaviors of the Tech Global leaders
previously described, a comprehensive learning program targeting Level 3 has been developed.
Learning Goals
Upon completion of the Tech Global leader learning and development program, the
stakeholders will be able to know and do the following:
1. Determine the similarities and differences in concepts between inclusionary practices
and diversity practices (K-C).
170

2. Determine the most relevant inclusionary practices to incorporate into their
performance goals (K-C).
3. Deconstruct and adjust their biases and assumptions about inclusionary practices (K-
M).
4. Reflect on their learning progress over the 6-month learning program, including how
their actions result in a more inclusive environment (K-M).
5. Create one SMART goal that incorporates an inclusionary practice (K-M).
6. Create one SMART goal that addresses diversity in the leadership of their
organization (K-M).
7. Demonstrate that they are capable of effectively role modeling inclusionary practices
in their own organizations (M, self-efficacy).
8. Determine the importance of incorporating inclusionary practices in their
performance goals (M, attainment value).
9. Determine the usefulness of incorporating inclusionary practices in their performance
goals (M, utility value).
Program
To achieve the stakeholder learning goal, a multifaceted, 6-month learning program will
be implemented. The program will be named Everyday Inclusion to emphasize two key
elements. First, the learning program will focus on inclusionary practices meant to supplement
rather than replace ongoing programs or activities addressing diversity at the global or the US
Bio level. Second, the focus of the program is on the Tech Global leaders and the role they play
in creating an inclusive environment every day for their employees. By putting the leader in the
center of the learning, the inputs that impact them individually will enable them to shift their
171

beliefs and behavior, becoming change agents for incorporating inclusionary practices into their
teams. Tech Global leaders can potentially positively impact the environments in which they
operate, demonstrating the triadic reciprocity of social cognitive theory (Bandura, 2000)
introduced in Chapter Two, which describes the connections between relationships between the
person, their beliefs, and the environment.
The Everyday Inclusion program is intended to apply evidence-based recommendations
around knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences. One key to the program’s success
is to link the learning objectives framework from Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) to the learning
goals. Reports on progress toward the internal and external objectives will be made quarterly or
as required by the specific action. Formal and informal activities will keep the program focused
and engaging. Formal components consist of a variety of activities shared in advance and
tracked. Reinforcing, encouraging, rewarding, and monitoring activities throughout the program
will support the required critical behaviors. Informal activities can include impromptu meetings
between colleagues or an unplanned but purposeful email from a Tech Global leader to their
team with a narrative about an inclusionary practice they have recently adopted.
Another important element of program design is how it is delivered. Some elements will
reach all 1,500 Tech Global leaders, such as email messages from senior Tech Global leaders or
links to self-paced, virtual, and asynchronous learning and information resources. A subset of the
1,500 Tech Global leader population will be invited to participate in a pilot program. A total of
300 participants across three geographic regions of the Americas, EMEA and APAC will be
invited to participate through an enrollment process. Special consideration will be given to Tech
Global leaders at the director, senior director, and executive director. These levels are often left
out of the development processes when resources flow to development for the most senior or the
172

newest leaders. Participants will experience the virtual learning sessions, be set up in peer
support groups, and out of respect for time zone differences, be organized for most events by
their work region. Calls for participation will be sent to encourage enrollment, and senior Tech
Global leaders will be asked to express support for the program. A high-level summary of the
cadence, context, and content of the learning program follows.
The Everyday Inclusion program is designed to leverage current learning resources and to
build on existing knowledge. In the first month, the focus will be on providing conceptual
knowledge about the differences between inclusion and diversity. Tech Global leaders will
receive education rather than information to prepare them for new or unexpected interactions
with employees Clark and Estes (2008). A 90-minute virtual interactive workshop will provide
new terms, such as how inclusion differs from diversity, some processes that explain how an
inclusionary practice could work, and some theories or principles to support the education (Clark
& Estes, 2008). Electronic workbooks will be distributed for use before, during and after
education or training sessions. They include job aids such as a one-page summary of the
definitions and the types of activities that support each element, space for self-reflection, and
samples of SMART goals for inclusionary practices.
Communities of practice will form after the workshop so that participants can provide
peer-to-peer support for practice, continued learning, and sharing key insights. Communities of
practice provide a venue for colleagues to learn from each other, not just an instructor. A
discussion of the importance and utility value of the work or learning can help learners develop
positive values (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Pintrich, 2003). To enable the discussions, the D&I
partner and volunteer facilitators will provide information and discussion guides for
demonstrating the extrinsic value of inclusionary practices for Tech Global leaders. Virtual
173

sessions will be offered across all three regions on multiple occasions to accommodate groups of
25 to 30 participants at a time. Breakout sessions using Zoom conference features will enable
smaller group discussions.
In the second month of the program, two activities will occur. First, a reminder of where
and how to learn about writing SMART goals will be sent to every Tech Global leader. Big Bio
already uses the SMART format and provides ample online resources, such as a LinkedIn
learning course. Second, the Tech Global senior leader will send an email to all 1,500 Tech
Global leaders confirming what those leaders who participated in this study said in the survey
and the interviews: it is very important to have inclusionary practices. In addition, the senior
leader will state that the Tech Global leaders have choice and control over what they write for an
inclusionary practice goal. Relatedly, the Tech Global senior leader will give an example of the
usefulness or utility value of incorporating inclusionary practices in performance goals. For
example, the company already conducts an employee survey and includes statements related to
inclusion; therefore, it would be useful to include inclusionary practices in performance goals as
one way to increase the likelihood of employees feeling more favorable about inclusion in future.
The final point in the email will be to set an expectation that all Tech Global leaders
incorporate one inclusionary practice into their performance goals. A link to an online job aid
will be included in the email. Clicking on the link will connect to a list of resources for
inclusionary practices, including pre-written inclusionary practices goals written in SMART
format.
Month three will build upon the conceptual knowledge and the resources and
expectations of goal setting covered in the first 2 months. A 90-minute virtual workshop will be
offered, teaching self-regulation strategies to create or deepen self-awareness strategies for
174

monitoring and adjusting behavior. The electronic workbook, designed to cover the whole 6-
month learning journey, will have reflection or journaling pages. A pre- and post-self-assessment
by participants will indicate the degree to which their learning changed. Communities of practice
will form after the workshop so that participants can provide peer-to-peer support for practice,
continued learning, and sharing key insights. While participation is voluntary, it will be
encouraged. They are meant to be self-managing; however, the workshop facilitators will be
asked to participate in the first one or two.
For the fourth month, a series of town hall meetings will showcase inclusionary practices
in Tech Global. All 1,500 Tech Global leaders will be invited to their regional meeting. Senior
leaders, people who are including inclusionary practices, will be interviewed and asked to reflect
on their own learning, demonstrating metacognitive knowledge. Virtual sessions will be time
zone and culturally appropriate, meaning leaders from EMEA will address EMEA employees
during business hours in that time zone. Sessions will be 60 minutes in length, with 45 minutes
of panel comments and time for questions afterward. Sessions will be recorded for replay and
future reference. The focus on how specific leaders incorporate inclusionary practices into their
performance goals is a connection to the focus on the next month of the program.
In the fifth month of the learning journey, a 90-minute virtual session will provide
conceptual knowledge in the form of education about role modeling of inclusionary practices.
Following the same format as the first session about inclusion and diversity, the content will treat
role modeling as a new term, differentiate it from mentoring, coaching, or training, and provide
evidence-based principles to support the concepts (Clark & Estes, 2008). Pre-recorded talks by
Tech Global leaders about role modeling and its importance and usefulness will be discussed.
The program’s electronic workbooks will be used to record participants’ thoughts and plans. A
175

pre- and post-workshop self-assessment will gauge progress. Ways to garner timely and private
feedback will be explored, including peer support groups, and office hours, where interested
participants can schedule sessions with known experts in role modeling for 1:1 feedback and
support.
To reinforce the learning, the Tech Global senior leader will send the second email of the
program. Reports on progress toward 100% of the Tech Global leaders setting a performance
goal will be shared, along with encouragement for them to continue on their journey. An outline
of the last month of the program will be shared by the senior leader, asking all Tech Global
leaders to take two actions. The first action will be to set or review their own diversity plans for
their organizations and to adjust as needed. The second action will be to either participate in one
of two diversity-related training sessions or, for Tech Global leaders who have already attended
those sessions, to volunteer to facilitate one or more segments of an upcoming session. These
two actions support Critical Behaviors 4 and 5, respectively, in Table 27.
To close out the program, the Tech Global leaders will be expected to act on the
commitment to continue to build their portfolio of actions that support diversity and inclusion in
Big Bio or US Bio. Everyday Inclusion program components are leading indicators of attainment
of Level 4 internal outcomes numbers five, six, seven and eight found in Table 26. A survey will
be sent to the 300 participants in the pilot program to understand what worked well, what could
be improved, and what to change to increase the success of future programs.
To encourage and support the Tech Global leaders as they develop their skills and
confidence to drive and use inclusionary practices, the D&I partner, and P&C business partners
will provide feedback and coaching via monthly small group meetings of 10 to 12 participants. If
necessary, 1:1 coaching sessions can occur, but part of the purpose of the small group sessions is
176

to build community among the Tech Global leaders. Rewarding activities will include
recognition, interviews, and badges awarded digitally for posting in Tech Global leaders’
personal internal profiles. Monitoring activities such as monthly and quarterly reports, and
analysis of participant surveys will report the progress of the program.
Evaluation of the Components of Learning
Table 29 summarizes the various ways the evaluation of the learning goals will be
conducted. The effectiveness of each component will be measured separately and are collectively
necessary to ensure Tech Global leaders can and will incorporate inclusionary practices into their
performance goals. Declarative and procedural knowledge will evaluate that they have the
information they need and that they know how to do what is necessary. Knowledge alone is
insufficient. Motivation to act will be measured by whether the Tech Global leaders think the
actions are worthwhile, whether they believe they have the capability, and whether they will
commit to taking the action. Combined, positive evaluations using these methods will contribute
to a higher likelihood of 100% of the Tech Global leaders incorporating at least one inclusionary
practice into their performance goals.

177

Table 29
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Methods or activities Timing
Declarative knowledge (I know it)
Knowledge check during online learning
course on SMART goal setting for
inclusionary practices
Completion before and after the online
learning
Knowledge checks by facilitators during the
education sessions on differences between
inclusion and diversity practices
Use polls or question and answer sessions
from time to time during the workshop.
Pre and post self-assessments about self-
regulation and role modeling strategies
Completion before and after each workshop
or module
Procedural skills (I can do it right now)
Demonstrating capability about role modeling
inclusionary behavior in their own
organization
Self-reporting in a pre- and post-survey,
within 2 weeks of attending the virtual
session
Use the template provided to write an
inclusionary practice goal using the SMART
format.

Use a lesson plan to lead one module in a
diversity training session.
After the self-paced learning session on
SMART goals, or after receiving
exemplar SMART inclusionary goals
Within 30 days of attending the training as a
participant
Attitude (I believe this is worthwhile)
Pulse survey of Tech Global leaders after
differentiation workshop, SMART goal
setting review, self-regulation, and role
modeling strategies
Within two weeks of participating in each
of the workshops or training sessions.
Feedback from peers about Tech Global
leaders’ understanding their own biases, in
small groups or 1:1
Written or verbal feedback between peer
group members as part of monthly
meeting agendas
Self-assessment of attitude about value of
inclusionary practices.
Before and after each of the workshops on
differentiation of inclusion, self-
regulation, and role modeling.
Confidence (I think I can do it on the job)
Self-reporting in a post survey assessment After education sessions or training
programs
178

Observation and feedback from peers or
mentors.
During community practice sessions, peers
share goals they have written or practices
they started.
Tech Global leader writes an inclusionary
practice goal.
Within 2 weeks of the online learning
module on SMART goal writing
Commitment (I will do it on the job)
Demonstrate an articulate personal narrative
about the learning journey.
At least once a quarter, in an employee
town hall meeting, as a summary of
reflection in action for the past quarter(s)
Pulse surveys of employees about effectiveness
of Tech Global leaders’ inclusionary
practices
90 days after the pilot program is completed

Level 1: Reaction
Level 1 evaluation ensures that participants’ reactions to the learning program are
measured in terms of engagement, relevance, and customer satisfaction. In Table 30, each
method or tool provides details of what will be evaluated for each category. Timing of the
evaluation includes how and when the measurements will be taken.

179

Table 30
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Methods or tools Timing
Engagement
Use of Zoom interactive tools to assess
participant satisfaction with pace, content,
instructor for formative evaluation.
During the virtual modules, instructor will
continually request instant feedback by
use of emojis such as thumbs up, too
fast, or too slow indicators, clapping
hands, green check marks and red x.
Observation will be by instructor for formative
evaluation.
During each module, participants are
requested to keep their cameras on
except during breaks.
Participation via raised-hand icon for formative
evaluation.
During each module, participants are
requested to participate by raising their
hand in main group sessions.
Attendance, which is a lag indicator of
engagement, and is partially summative.
Attendance taken at each module
Evaluation of training program engagement for
summative evaluation.
Three weeks after each course completion
Relevance
Use of Zoom interactive tool (chat or
Whiteboard) to record what was most
relevant for Tech Global leaders that they
can apply after the session.
At the end of each Zoom session
Evaluation of program relevance for
summative data.
Specific question on applicability of the
course materials will be provided to the
Tech Global leaders 3 weeks after each
of the two programs.
Customer satisfaction
Diversity partners will check with Tech Global
leaders in the communities of practice, to
determine what was most satisfying to them.
Within 30 days of each training program
completion, aggregate will be data
reported back to instructors.
Likelihood of recommendation of the program
via 10-point Likert scale survey question,
“How likely is that you will recommend this
program to a colleague”, for (summative)
Within 30 days of each module
completion. Use specific wording such
as “extremely likely” as the highest
rating to ‘not at all likely’ as the lowest
rating.
180

Evaluation Tools
Immediately Following the Program Implementation
Information shown in Table 29 for learning and Table 30 for reactions will be used in the
evaluation plan immediately following the various education and training elements of the
program. Participants will be asked to complete a Likert-scale survey to self-report on Level 1
elements, including their level of engagement during the sessions, the relevance of the course
material to their diversity and inclusion goals and objectives, and their overall satisfaction with
the training, including the likelihood of them recommending the programs to other colleagues.
For Level 2 insight, participants will be surveyed about their conceptual knowledge, such
as how to differentiate between inclusionary practices and diversity activities. Additionally, data
will be gathered about their belief in their capability and commitment to apply the learning
toward their own intended outcomes. Various question types measure different things
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), and survey items will be worded accordingly to determine
levels of agreement, the likelihood of something happening, or perceived quality. Each question
will have an option to write in comments. See Appendix I for an excerpt from the survey.
Delayed for a Period After the Program Implementation
Given the program’s pacing, modules and learning will be spaced out over 6 months. It is
appropriate to ‘stagger’ the surveys to be sent no sooner than 30 days and no later than 90 days
after completing each session. With this cadence, Tech Global leaders will have had
opportunities to apply their learning and begin to implement actions that will lead to behavior
change and the desired outcomes. They will be asked to respond to a survey that measures the
levels of learning through a variety of questions. At this point, the focus of the evaluation is on
whether and to what degree participants have practiced or applied their new learning, what Level
181

3 behavior changes they or other key stakeholders noticed, and what Level 4 results they
achieved to date. Direct reports and employees will also be surveyed to get their observations.
Probing for continued Level 1 elements such as engagement, perceived relevance of the course,
and customer satisfaction will give indications of the suitability for scaling these programs more
broadly beyond the pilot program. Appendix J provides a sample of the surveys.
Data Analysis and Reporting
The goal of Level 4 for the Tech Global leaders is that 100% of them will incorporate at
least one of the company’s D&I inclusionary practices in their performance goals by the end of
2023. The immediate and delayed evaluation tools will be helpful indicators of the progress of
the Tech Global leaders in changing their behavior, Level 3, as they seek to achieve the Level 4
results. Appendix K provides progress measurement details. Capturing and sharing the progress
toward the goal on a quarterly basis will enable senior leaders of the Tech Global function to
encourage and monitor Tech Global leaders to strive for completion. Figure K1 is a visual
representation of the intended incremental improvement in attaining the goal of 100% of Tech
Global leaders incorporating at least one of the company’s D&I inclusionary practice into their
performance goals. The timeline assumes the program commences on or around July 1, 2023,
and that the end of August is a logical time to begin to measure progress.
Summary
From the beginning of planning this program, the NWKM has been extremely useful. It
requires focus on outcomes as described by the sponsors; in this case two senior leaders in the
Tech Global function. The NWKM leads to the determination of critical behaviors, followed by
the definition of what new skills, knowledge and motivation must be developed to make the
required behavior changes. These precursors enable the development of the plan, including
182

training programs, to increase the likelihood of ensuring engagement, relevance, and satisfaction
for those attending. Built into the planning and the doing is the notion of ‘checking’ or
monitoring/evaluating, which allows for changes and improvements during as opposed to after
the program. The plan, do, check, act concept is both a disciplined and objective way of
reviewing initiatives and a well-known management discipline at Tech Global. Program
designers who think and act in those terms are more credible than if they launch a training
program from a back office with no stakeholder involvement.
By starting with the Level 4 outcomes in mind, the NWKM creates an inspiring future
state toward which Tech Global leaders can work. They know that what they are committing to
as they close the inclusion gap across the Tech Global function will contribute to the
achievement of the company’s 10-year ambitions. It makes them more likely to commit to
behavior changes, learn new skills, and master new knowledge about a critical aspect of D&I in
the company and in society. It answers the question of whether it was worth it in a powerful and
positive way.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
Any approach to research has strengths and weaknesses. For this study, Clark and Estes’s
(2008) framework was applied to better understand the needs of Tech Global leaders regarding
incorporating inclusionary practices in their performance goals. This approach is a strength
because it recognizes the interplay and reciprocal influences of knowledge and skills, motivation,
and organization with individuals and their beliefs and treats the interactions as an entire system.
Taking only one aspect of the approach into consideration, which is what many diagnostic tools
do, is insufficient, utilizing all three gives the complete picture.
183

The case study design is both a strength and a weakness. Focusing on one function within
a larger organization at the depth and detail required enabled me to gather rich data for analysis.
However, the same level of detail required was time-consuming. I worked alone and on a part-
time basis, being employed elsewhere and completing requirements for the doctoral program.
About 5 months will elapse from the launch of the study to reporting results to the sponsors.
Many companies would not have the tolerance for waiting for results.
One disadvantage of using the KMO framework was that the Tech Global organization
was not familiar with it as an assessment tool. Questions arose about how the study was
structured, including the topics covered and the wording of the questions, with me explaining the
need to tie the need analysis to a performance goal where no goal existed. To counter the
concerns, I pointed out a strength of KMO which is that it is evidence-based. The environment of
Tech Global is very data-driven, and the sponsors appreciated learning more about the
foundations and rationale behind KMO.
Limitations and Delimitations
As with any research, it is important to note that there are limitations the researcher
cannot control and delimitations, which occur based on decisions the researcher made or will
make. Recognizing that limitations and delimitations exist, and taking time to name them, is a
first step toward mitigating the impact of either of them on the study.
There are several limitations and delimitations within this study. Using a mixed-methods
approach added validity and reliability; however, the value of triangulation was limited due to
the response rate of the surveys being about 3% of the population and not generalizable. One
limitation of the method of data collection was that the email communication was done on a
“pass-through” basis from the D&I partner to the 1,500 Tech Global leaders instead of coming
184

from a Tech Global senior leader. Due to the volume of emails that some leaders receive on a
daily basis, their email filters might have deleted the communication, or their administrative
assistants might have de-prioritized it, especially as neither the D&I partner nor I occupy
positions of influence in Tech Global. There were no consequences for not participating and no
incentives to get involved. Leaders might have read the email and decided not to participate; they
might not have been aware of or agreed with the potential impact or influence they have on their
employees and therefore did not think it was their responsibility or an area of expertise requiring
their participation.
It is unknown to what degree the response rate would have been different had the
informational email about the study come from a senior Tech Global leader. The process was
designed to follow strict protocols to guarantee confidentiality. One way to increase the
likelihood of participation would be to have a senior Tech Global leader send an email with the
study’s details and express support for the work while strongly reinforcing the message of
voluntary participation.
Two limitations were related to the participants and how they responded to the survey
questions or in the interviews. I did not define terms used in the questions, such as diversity,
inclusion, role model, useful, important, goals and rewards. It is beyond my control how the
participants defined these terms, and a wide range of variability was found during analysis. The
degree to which the participants were self-aware and authentic in reporting their responses is also
unknown. Asking them to define the terms they were responding to in their own words would
have provided a set of data that could be used or at least noted during analysis.
Delimitations of the research began with the problem of practice itself. A peer-reviewed
literature review showed mixed or weak causal relationships between diversity and inclusion
185

initiatives and direct revenue generation in for-profit companies. Several other delimitations
pertained to the way the study was designed and conducted. For example, no observations were
conducted in this study. Observing whether instances of inclusionary behavior were present in a
team or organizational meeting would have added credibility to the self-reporting nature of the
survey and interview responses. A delimitation for the research was choosing to invite every
leader in the 14,000-person function of Tech Global to participate. Inviting 1,500 leaders showed
my intention to be inclusive of the entire Tech Global leader population. However, the full
implementation and evaluation plan cannot be offered to all 1,500 Tech Global leaders
concurrently due to resource constraints. An improvement to this delimitation was described in
the implementation program. Approximately 300 Tech Global leaders will be invited to
participate in resource-intensive learning, such as workshops on increasing self-awareness or
how to effectively role model inclusionary practices. Based on the results of the pilot program
elements, changes and improvements could be made, which would benefit the rest of the Tech
Global leader population.
The timing of the survey and the interviews might have been a delimitation. The study
was conducted during October and the early part of November of 2022, which was during the
fourth quarter of the fiscal year, an extremely busy time for finishing projects, allocating budgets
and setting priorities for the next fiscal year. Invitees to the survey and the interviews could have
not responded to the email due to other distractions or confusion about the nature and purpose of
the study, thinking it was related to other employee surveys they completed.
Another delimitation was the focus of questions in the interviews and the survey.
Diversity and inclusion is a category in the company’s employee opinion survey, which is
conducted every 18 months. Highlighting inclusion as a distinct topic in this study might have
186

caused confusion or even consternation among respondents about the purpose of more questions
on the topic. Participants might have misinterpreted the questions or not have equated inclusion
with behaviors about which they were asked.
One of the demographic questions in the survey asked participants to self-identify their
level of leadership, which was a delimitation. I sought to understand if the level of leadership
was a factor in leaders’ implementation of inclusionary practices; however, participants,
especially at the vice president level, might have been reluctant to self-identify if they believed
their confidentiality would be compromised. Conversely, leaders at lower levels of seniority,
such as managers and senior managers, might not have wanted to appear to be less than capable
of embedding an inclusive practice and might have answered in a way that they believed was
more socially acceptable.
Future Research
This innovation study assessed the knowledge and skills, motivation and organizational
influences on Tech Global leaders’ incorporating inclusionary practices into their performance
goals. The emphasis on leaders and their inclusionary practices was intentional. Going beyond
diversity management to understand and leverage inclusion from the perspective of a leader is
still a relatively new focus area for companies (Roberson & Perry, 2022). Relatedly, there has
been an increase in inclusion-focused research since I began studying this topic 18 months ago.
Based on the growing interest in and continuously evolving research, there are many
opportunities for exploration.
In the future, it is recommended that the insights and self-reporting of leaders be
compared with the employees they manage. This could be done in two ways. Employees could
be asked the same questions as their managers, using a mixed-methods approach. In light of the
187

power and authority imbalance between leaders and employees, any necessary additional privacy
and confidentiality steps to protect employees would need to be taken. A second comparison
point could be the questions about inclusion on the Global Employee Opinion Survey, cross-
referenced to findings from a mixed-methods study. If an implementation and evaluation plan for
learning is put into place, the pre-plan scores on the latest employee opinion survey could be
compared with post-plan scores on the next survey.
A second topic for future research could be regarding types of goals activated. This study
looked at influences on Tech Global leaders incorporating an inclusionary practice into their
performance goals. Findings from interviews with 12 Tech Global leaders indicated that, overall,
they did not believe the organization had inclusionary practices goals they could incorporate into
their performance goals. Interestingly, when it came to having rewards for attainment of
inclusionary practices goals, 42% (n = 5) of Tech Global leaders referred to rewards of positive
feelings as being sufficient. Rewards related to feeling good about oneself suggest future
research on mastery goals that focus on the learner’s understanding and developing new skills for
the sake of self-improvement, compared to performance goals that demonstrate the individual’s
ability to others (Pintrich, 2003). Whether mastery goals for inclusionary practices would be
more motivating to leaders than performance goals would be an interesting comparison.
The literature review and the study focused on leaders. Other research investigated
employee perceptions about the organization and their leaders. Yet, leaders themselves are also
employees, reporting to a hierarchy of leadership that can be several layers deep. A third topic
for future research should examine how leaders experience inclusion from their leaders and what
difference it makes to their own practice, if any. What inclusionary practices are leaders
188

experiencing as employees would be important information to also understand organizational
support for building inclusive climates.
One of the weaknesses of the study was that the 3% response rate to the survey made the
results non-generalizable. The desire to protect Tech Global leaders from feeling pressured to
participate was paramount. A final recommendation for future research is whether messages of
support coming from senior leaders in positions of power influence response rates, compared to
the same messages coming from a functional expert such as the D&I partner, who is not in a
position of power or influence.
Conclusion
This study was undertaken to understand the needs of 1,500 leaders in the Tech Global
function within a global biotechnology company known as Big Bio. The 1,500 leaders invited to
participate in the research represented every level of leadership accountable for daily execution
of the function’s business, and, as such, they individually and collectively have the power to
affect change in their teams and the organization they are part of. The organizational problem
this study addressed is that of the underrepresentation of women and minorities, especially at the
leadership level, in biotechnology. Despite decades of focus on improving the diversity of the
workforce and leadership ranks in STEM companies, not much has changed, with women and
minorities making little to no progress in staying and growing with companies such as Big Bio.
In the past 20 years, research and findings about the importance of inclusion as an enabler
of diversity indicated that the terms diversity and inclusion need to be decoupled instead of being
treated as interchangeable (Ferdman, 2014). In addition, attention on diversity is no longer
sufficient (Ferdman, 2014; Gallegos, 2014; Mor Barak, 2022; Williams & Lagan, 2015). Using
Clark and Estes’s (2008) framework of knowledge and skills, motivation and organizational
189

influences, a mixed-methods study gathered quantitative and qualitative data from volunteer
participants among the 1,500 Tech Global leaders.
Findings suggested that Tech Global leaders think that inclusionary practices are
important and that the organization does have resources to support those practices, but many
ambiguities and opportunities for learning were uncovered. For example, many Tech Global
leaders did not make distinctions between inclusion and diversity-focused practices. The lack of
differentiation creates limited opportunities for them to experiment with relevant inclusionary
practices. A related finding suggested opportunities for Tech Global leaders to become more
aware of not just the need to adjust their behavior but to do so in the moment and then apply their
conceptual knowledge to determine the most relevant inclusionary practice to engage.
One interesting result of the study was how varied the Tech Global leaders were in their
definition of certain terms pertaining to inclusionary practices. Attainment value, expressed as
importance, utility value, known as usefulness, and self-efficacy, were sometimes combined or
widely interpreted. This matters because research shows that addressing the importance and
utility of work, and modeling expected behaviors enables people to improve self-efficacy and
performance (Denler et al., 2009; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Pintrich, 2003). For Tech Global
leaders, clear communication from senior leadership will go a long way toward fostering greater
likelihood of their commitment to incorporating inclusionary practices into their performance
goals.
From the research, it is clear that Tech Global leaders believe there are resources to
enable inclusionary practices. There is ample opportunity for Tech Global senior leaders to do
three things immediately for future payoff. First, communicating functional goals about
inclusionary practices for the Tech Global function, along with expectations that every leader in
190

the function will have at least one inclusionary goal, will help provide focus. Second, ensure that
Tech Global leaders know that while they are expected to have one goal for inclusionary
practices, they have choice and control over what they do, including whether to adopt or adapt a
suggested goal from a list or write their own. Third, Tech Global senior leadership should
appropriately reward the behavior they seek, but it must be customized to the unique needs of
their workforce and not one-size-fits-all. The rest of the opportunities for enabling Tech Global
leaders have been addressed in the implementation and evaluation plan sections of this chapter.
The implications of this study relate to the conceptual theory offered in Chapter Two.
Putting leaders in the middle of a system and providing them with inputs pertaining to
knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational influences can enable them to shift their
beliefs about themselves and their ways of working to become change agents. They can then
adapt their behavior and practices to create a more inclusive climate around them and, over time,
contribute to the organization itself becoming more inclusive. The cycle thus continues as other
employees see and experience what it is like to be part of an inclusive culture. In turn, they adapt
and contribute. At some point, the organization contributes to communities, such as stakeholders,
partners, and others in the same ecosystem, and ultimately to society.

191

References
Abebe, M., & Dadanlar, H. (2021). From tokens to key players: The influence of board gender
and ethnic diversity on corporate discrimination lawsuits. Human Relations, 74(4), 527–
555. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726719888801
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
Adams-Harmon, D., & Greer-Williams, N. (2019). Successful ascent of female leaders in the
pharmaceutical industry: a qualitative, transcendental, and phenomenological study.
Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion: An International Journal, 40(7), 819–837.
https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-01-2019-0031
Adejumo, V. (2021). Beyond diversity, inclusion, and belonging. Leadership, 17(1), 62–73.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715020976202
Alhejji, H., Garavan, T., Carbery, R., O’Brien, F., & McGuire, D. (2016). Diversity training
programme outcomes: A systematic review. Human Resources Development Quarterly,
(27), 95–149. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21221
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and
assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
Aspray, W. (2016). Women and underrepresented minorities in computing: A historical and
social study. Springer.
Avery, D. R., Volpone, S. D., & Holmes, O. (2015). Racial discrimination in organizations. The
Oxford Handbook of workplace discrimination.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199363643.013.8
192

Baek, P; & Kim, T. (2021). Socially responsible HR in action: Learning from corporations listed
on the Dow Jones sustainability index world. Sustainability, 13(6), 32–37.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063237
Baker, L. (2006). Developmental differences in metacognition: Implications for metacognitively
oriented reading instruction. In S. E. Israel, C. Collins Block, K. L. Bauserman, & K.
Kinnucan-Welsch (Eds.), Metacognition in literacy learning (pp. 83–102). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410613301
Bakotić, D. (2016). Relationship between job satisfaction and organisational performance.
Ekonomska Istraživanja, 29(1), 118–130.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2016.1163946
Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2013). Blindspot: Hidden biases of good people. Delacorte.
Bandura, A. (1988). Organisational applications of social cognitive theory. Australian Journal of
Management, 13(2), 275–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/031289628801300210
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. W.H. Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9, 75–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00064
Bell, L., A., Goodman, D. J., & Ouellet, M.L. (2016). Design and facilitation. In M. Adams, L.
Bell, D. J. Goodman, & K.Y. Joshi (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice (3rd
ed., pp. 55–93). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315775852
Best, S., Soyode, A., Muller-Camen, M. and Boff, A. (2015). The complex concept of
sustainable diversity management: and why forming policies in this area is far from
straightforward. Human Resource Management International Digest, 23(5), 45–48.
https://doi.org/10.1108/HRMID-06-2015-0105
193

Bezrukova, K., Spell, C. S., Perry, J. L., Jehn, K. A., Albarracín, D. (2016). A meta-analytical
integration of over 40 years of research on diversity training evaluation. Psychological
Bulletin, 142(11), 1227–1274. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000067
Boekhorst, J.A. (2015). The role of authentic leadership in fostering workplace inclusion: A
social information processing perspective. Human Resource Management, 54, 241–264.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21669
Booysen, L. (2014). The development of inclusive leadership practice and processes. In B.M.
Ferdman & B.R. Deane (Eds.), Diversity at work: The practice of inclusion. (pp. 296–
329). Jossey-Bass. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118764282.ch10
Borry, E. L., Getha-Taylor, H., & Holmes, M. H. (2021). Promoting diversity and inclusion in
the federal workforce: Executive order 13583 and demographic trends. Public
Administration Quarterly, 45(4), 392–417. https://doi.org/10.37808/paq.45.4.3
Brimhall, K. C. (2019). Inclusion is important...but how do I include? Examining the effects of
leader engagement on inclusion, innovation, job satisfaction, and perceived quality of
care in a diverse nonprofit health care organization. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly, 48(4), 716–737. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764019829834
Brimhall, K., C., & Mor Barak, M. E., (2018). The critical role of workplace inclusion in
fostering innovation, job satisfaction, and quality of care in a diverse healthcare
environment. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership, and Governance,
5(42), 474–492. https://doi.org/10.1080/23303131.2018.1526151
Brown, B. A., Henderson, J. B., Gray, S., Donovan, B., Sullivan, S., Patterson, A., & Waggstaff,
W. (2016). From description to explanation: An empirical exploration of the African
194

American pipeline problem in STEM. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53, 146–
177. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21249
Butner, E. H., & Lowe, K. B. (2013). Racial awareness: Effects on justice perceptions and trust
in management in the USA. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal.
https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-05-2013-0036
Byron, K., & Post, C. (2016) Women on boards of directors and corporate social performance: A
meta-analysis. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 24, 428– 442.
https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12165.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2021). Employment in STEM occupations.
https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/stem-employment.htm
Carberry, E. J., & Meyers, J. S. M. (2017). Are the “best” better for everyone? Demographic
variation in employee perceptions of Fortune’s “Best companies to work for”. Equality,
Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 36(7), 647–669. https://doi.org/
10.1108/EDI-01-2017-0017
Carboni, I., Parker, A., & Langowitz, N.S. (2022). Mapping exclusion in the organization. Sloan
Management Review, Winter 2022, 59–63. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/mapping-
exclusion-in-the-organization/
Carmeli, A., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Ziv, E. (2010). Inclusive leadership and employee
involvement in creative tasks in the workplace: The mediating role of psychological
safety. Creativity Research Journal, 22(3), 250–260.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2010.504654
Carpenter, S. (2012). Testing enhances the transfer of learning. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 21, 279–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721412452728
195

Chang, E. H., Milkman, K. L., Gromet, D. M., Rebele, R. W., Massey, C., Duckworth, A. L., &
Grant, A. M. (2019). The mixed effects of online diversity training. PNAS, 116 (16),
7778–7783. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1816076116
Cho, J.H. (2016, May 26). “Diversity is being invited to the party; inclusion is being asked to
dance,” Verna Myers tells Cleveland Bar. The Plain Dealer.
https://www.cleveland.com/business/2016/05/diversity_is_being_invited_to.html
Choi, S. & Rainey, H. G. (2014). Organizational fairness and diversity management in public
organizations: Does fairness matter in managing diversity? Review of Public Personnel
Administration, 34(4), 307–331. https://doi.org./10.1177/0734371X13486489
Church, A. H., Rotolo, C. T., Shull, A. C., & Tuller, M. D. (2014). Inclusive organization
development: An integration of two disciplines. In B. M. Ferdman & B. R. Deane, (Eds.),
Diversity at work: The practice of inclusion. (pp. 260–295). Jossey-Bass
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. CEP Press.
Cojuharenco, I., & Patient, D. (2013). Workplace fairness versus unfairness: Examining the
differential salience of facets of organizational justice. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 86(3), 371–393. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12023
Colby, S.L., & Ortman, J.M. (2015). Projections of the size and composition of the U.S.
population: 2014 to 2060. U.S. Department of Commerce.
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2015/demo/p25-1143.html
Cook, A., & Glass, C. (2014). Above the glass ceiling: When are women and racial/ethnic
minorities promoted to CEO? Strategic Management Journal, 35, 1080–1089.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2161
196

Cottrill, K., Lopez, P. D., & Hoffman, C. C. (2014). How authentic leadership and inclusion
benefit organizations. Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion, 33(3), 275–292.
https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-05-2012-0041
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
Cross, R., Oakes, K., & Cross, C. (2021). Cultivating an inclusive culture through personal
networks. Sloan Management Review, Summer 2021, 33–37.
https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/cultivating-an-inclusive-culture-through-personal-
networks/
de Brey, C., Snyder, T. D., Zhang, A., & Dillow, S. A. (2021). Digest of education statistics
2019 (NCES 2021-009). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education
Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
https://https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2021009
Dembo, M. H., & 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
DeNisi, A. S. (2014). An I/O psychologist’s perspective on diversity and inclusion in the
workplace. In B. M. Ferdman & B. R. Deane (Eds.), Diversity at work: The practice of
inclusion (pp. 565–579). Jossey-Bass. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118764282.ch21
Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2009). Social cognitive theory.
http://www.education.com/reference/article/social-cognitive-theory/
197

Derven, M. (2014). Diversity and inclusion by design: Best practices from six global companies.
Industrial and Commercial Training, 46(2), 84–91. https://doi.org/10.1108/ICT-09-2013-
0063
DiversityInc. (2022). https://www.diversityinc.com/diversityinc-top-50-2022/
Dobbin, F., & Kalev, A. (2016). Why diversity programs fail. Harvard Business Review, July-
August 2016). https://hbr.org/2016/07/why-diversity-programs-fail
Donato, A. (2020). Video lecture on Ontological Accountability. Unit 2–4. USC Rossier School
of Education, Los Angeles, CA.
Dorfman, P., Javidan, M., Hanges, P. Dastmalchian, A., & House, R. (2012). GLOBE: A twenty-
year journey into the intriguing world of culture and leadership (Special Issue). Journal
of World Business, 47(4), 505–518.
Dover, T. L., Kaiser, C. R., & Major, B. (2019). Mixed signals: The unintended effects of
diversity initiatives. Social Issues and Policy Review, 14(1), 152–181.
https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12059
Downey, S. N, van der Werff, L., Thomas, K.M., & Plaut, V. C. (2014). The role of diversity
practices and inclusion in promoting trust and employee engagement. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 45(1), 35–44.
Dubnick, M. J. (2014). The ontological challenge. In M. Bovens, R. E. Goodin, & T.
Schillemans (Eds.), Oxford handbook of public accountability (pp. 649–654). Oxford
University Press.
Duhigg, C., (2016, February 25). What Google learned from the quest to build the perfect team.
The New York Times Magazine. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/what-
google-learned-from-its-quest-to-build-the-perfect-team.html
198

Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53, 109–132.
Ely, R., J., & Thomas, D. A. (2001). Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity
perspectives on work group processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly,
46(2), 229–273. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667087
Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams.
Administrative Sciences Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
Edmondson, A. C. (2012). Teaming: How organizations learn, innovate, and compete in the
knowledge economy. Jossey-Bass.
Faldetta, G. (2016). Organizational caring and organizational justice: Some implications for the
employment relationship. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 24(1), 64–
80. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-07-2013-0697
Farndale, E., Biron, M., Briscoe, D. R., & Raghuram, S. (2015). A global perspective on D&I in
work organisations: An introduction. International Journal of HR Management, 26(6),
677–687. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2014.991511
Ferdman, B. M. (2014). The practice of inclusion in diverse organizations: Toward a systematic
and inclusive framework. In B. M. Ferdman & B. R. Deane, (Eds.), Diversity at work:
The practice of inclusion. (pp. 3–54). Jossey-Bass.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118764282.ch1
Ferdman, B. M. (2017). Paradoxes of inclusion: Understanding and managing the tensions of
diversity and multiculturalism. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 53(2), 235–
263. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886317702608
199

Ferdman, B. M., & Brody, S. E. (1996). Models of diversity training. In D. Landis & R. S.
Bhagat (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (2nd ed., pp. 282–303). Sage.
Filbeck, G., Foster, B., Preece, D., & Zhao, X. (2017). Does diversity improve profits and
shareholder returns? Evidence from top rated companies for diversity by DiversityInc.
Advances in Accounting, 37, 94–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adiac.2017.02.001
Fink, A. (2017). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide (6th ed.). SAGE.
Fletcher, T. L., Jefferson, J. P., Boyd, B. N., Cross, K. J. (2021). Missed opportunity for diversity
in engineering: Black women and undergraduate engineering degree attainment. Journal
of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 1–28.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025120986918
Fouad, N. A., & Santana, M. C. (2017). SCCT and underrepresented populations in STEM
fields: Moving the needle. Journal of Career Assessment, 25(1), 24–39.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072716658324
Fugere, M. A., Cathey, C., Beetham, R., Haynes, M., & Schaedler, R. A. (2016). Preference for
the diversity policy label versus the affirmative action policy label. Social Justice
Research, 29(2), 206–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-016-0265-y
Funk, G., & Parker, K. (2018). Women and men in STEM often at odds over workplace equity.
Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2018/01/09/women-
and-men-in-stem-often-at-odds-over-workplace-equity/
Gallegos, P.V. (2014). The work of inclusive leadership. In B. M. Ferdman & B. R. Deane,
(Eds.), Diversity at work: The practice of inclusion (pp. 177–202). Jossey-Bass.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118764282.ch6
Gallimore, R. & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
200

minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3601_5
Garavan, T. N., Carbery, R. & Rock, A. (2012). Mapping talent development: definition, scope
and architecture. European Journal of Training and Development, 36(1), 5–24.
https://doi.org/10.1108/03090591211192601
Gilbert, J. A., Stead, B. A., & Ivancevich, J. M. (1999). Diversity management: A new
organizational paradigm. Journal of Business Ethics, 21(1), 61–76.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25074155
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (5th ed.). Pearson.
https://www.pearson.com/us/higher-education/program/Glesne-Becoming-Qualitative-
Researchers-An-Introduction-5th-Edition/PGM214061.html
Gotsis, G., & Gremani, K. (2016). The role of servant leadership in fostering inclusive
organizations. Journal of Management Development, 35(8), 985–1010.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-07-2015-0095
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. https://doi.org/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
Groysberg, B., & Connolly, K. (2013). Great leaders who make the mix work. Harvard Business
Review, September 2013. https://hbr.org/2013/09/great-leaders-who-make-the-mix-work
201

Guillaume, Y.R.F., Dawson, J.F., Woods, S.A., Sacramento, C.A., & West, M.A. (2013). Getting
diversity at work to work: What we know and what we still don’t know. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 86, 123–141. DOI:10.1111/joop.12009
Gutierrez, A. A., & Saint Clair, J., K. (2018). Do organizations’ diversity signals threaten
members of the majority group? The case of employee professional networks. Journal of
Business Research, 89, 110–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.04.003
Hardin, C. D., & Banaji, M. R. (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 University Press.
Harrison, S. Five Years of Diversity Reports - and Little Progress (October 1, 2019) Wired.com
https://www.wired.com/story/five-years-tech-diversity-reports-little-progress/
Hayles, V. R. (2014). Communicating about diversity and inclusion. In B. M. Ferdman & B. R.
Deane (Eds.), Diversity at work: The practice of inclusion (pp. 55–90). Jossey-Bass.
Hays-Thomas, R., & Bendick, Jr., M. (2013) Professionalizing diversity and inclusion practice:
Should voluntary standards be the chicken or the egg? Industrial and Organizational
Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 6(3), 193–205.
https://doi.org/10.111/iops.12033
Henao, D., Gregory, C., & Dixon, Y. (2021). Impact of diversity and inclusion education on
team member engagement. Journal of Best Practices in Health Professions Diversity:
Research, Education and Policy, 14(1), 14–24. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27097333
Herbold, H. (1994). Never a level playing field: Blacks and the GI Bill. The Journal of Blacks in
Higher Education, 6, 104–108. https://doi.org/10.2307/2962479
202

Hill, A. D., Upadhyay, A. D., & Beekun, R. I. (2015). Do female and ethnically diverse
executives endure inequity in the CEO position, or do they benefit from their minority
status? An empirical examination. Strategic Management Journal, 36, 1115–1134.
https:/doi.org/10.1002/smj.2274
Hirak, R., Peng, A., Carmeli, A., Schaubroeck, J.M. (2012). Linking leaders inclusiveness to
work unit performance: The importance of psychological safety and learning from
failures. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 107–117. DOI:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.11.009
Hubbard, E.E. (2014). The Manager’s Pocket Guide to Diversity Management. HRD Press, Inc.
Imke, S. (2019, July 4). How to calculate the cost of employee turnover.
Business2Community.com
Islam, T. (2019). Motivation to transfer training in learning organizations. Journal of
Management Development, 38(4), 273–287. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-03-2018-0098
Jensen, M. (1995). Eleven behaviors for inclusion. Unpublished document. The Kaleel Jamison
Consulting Group. Troy, New York.
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
Jeronimo, H. M., Henrique, P. L., & Carvalho, S. I. (2021). Being inclusive boosts impact of
diversity practices on employee engagement. Management Research, 20(2), 129–147.
https://doi.org/10.1108/MRJIAM-05-2021-1175
Jin, M., Lee, J, & Lee, M. (2017). Does leadership matter in diversity management? Assessing
the relative impact of diversity policy and inclusive leadership in the public sector.
203

Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 38(2), 303–319.
https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-07-2015-0151
Jonsen, K. & Ozbilgin, M. (2014). Models of global diversity management. In B. M. Ferdman &
B. R. Deane (Eds.), Diversity at work: The practice of inclusion, (pp. 364–391). Jossey-
Bass. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118764282
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at
work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692–724. doi:10.2307/256287
Kalinoski, A. T., Steele-Johnson, D., Peyton, E. J., Leas, K. A., Steinke, J., & Bowling, N.A.
(2013). A meta-analytic evaluation of diversity training outcomes. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 34, 1076–1104. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1839
Khan, J., Jaafar, M., Javed, B., Mubarak, N., & Saudagar, T. (2020). Does inclusive leadership
affect project success? The mediating role of perceived psychological empowerment and
psychological safety. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 13(5),
1077–1096. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-10-2019-0267
Kanfer, R., Frese, M., & Johnson, & R. E. (2017). Motivation related to work: A century of
progress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 338–355. https://doi.org/10.
.1037/apl0000133
Kaplan, D. M., Wiley, J. W., & Maertz, C. P. (2011). The role of calculative attachment in the
relationship between climate and retention. Human Resource Management, 50, 271–287.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20413
Kasl, E., & Yorks, L. (2016). Do I really know you? Do you really know me? Empathy amid
diversity in differing learning contexts. Adult Education Quarterly, 66, 3–20.
https://doi.org.10.1177/0741713615606965
204

Khan, J., Jaafar, M., Javed, B., Mubarak, N., & Saudagar, T. (2020). Does inclusive leadership
affect project success? The mediating role of perceived psychological empowerment and
psychological safety. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 13(5),
1077–1096. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-10-2019-0267
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training Evaluation.
Association for Talent Development.
Korkmaz, A. V., van Engen, M. L., Knappert, L., Schalk, R. (2022). About and beyond leading
uniqueness and belongingness: A systematic review of inclusive leadership research.
Human Resource Management Review, 32(4), Article 100894.
https:doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2022.100894
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice,
41, 212–218. https://doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Kuknor, S.C., & Bhattacharya, S. (2021). Inclusive leadership: New age leadership to foster
organizational inclusion. European Journal of Training and Development, 46(9).
https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-07-2019-0132
Lewin, K. (1938). The conceptual representation and the measurement of psychological forces.
Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1037/13613-000
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. 1990. A theory of goal setting and task performance. Prentice-
Hall, Inc.
Logan, N. (2019). Corporate personhood and the corporate responsibility to race. Journal of
Business Ethics, 154(4), 977–988. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3893-3
Longley, R. (2022, February 3). Equality vs. equity: What is the difference? ThoughtCo.com.
https://www.thoughtco.com/equity-vs-equality-4767021
205

Maccalla, N., Joseph, C., Purnell, D., & Zhong, S. (2021). Development of self-efficacy as
faculty change agent for diversity. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice,
21(3), 104–110. https://doi.org/10.33423/jhetp.v21i3.4147
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
Martinez, A., & Christnacht, C. (2021). Women are nearly half of the U.S. workforce but only
27% of STEM workers. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/01/women-making-
gains-in-stem-occupations-but-still-underrepresented.html
Martinez, A., & Gayfield, A. (2019). The intersectionality of sex, race, and Hispanic origin in
the STEM workforce. (Social, Economic, and Housing Statistics Division-SEHSD
Working Paper No. 2018-27). U.S. Census Bureau.
https://www.census.gov/library/working-papers/2019/demo/SEHSD-WP2018-27.html
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Sage
Publications.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Chapter three - Applying the science of learning to multimedia instruction.
Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 55, 77–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-
387691-1.00003-X
Mayer, R. C., Warr, R. S., & Zhao, J. (2018). Do pro-diversity policies improve corporate
innovation? Financial Management, Fall 2018, 617–650.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
206

Mitchell, R., Boyle, B., Parker, V., Giles, M., Chiang, V., & Joyce, P. (2015). Managing
inclusiveness and diversity in teams: How leader inclusiveness affects performance
through status and team identity. Human Resource Management, 54(2), 217–239.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21658
Mitra, N., & Mehta, K. (2021). In K. Sen & S. Shahi (Eds.), Creating a culture of diversity and
inclusiveness in India Inc. (pp. 23–32). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-
4237-1_3
Moore, J.R., Maxey, E.C., Waite, A.M., & Wendover, J.D. (2020). Inclusive organizations:
Developmental reciprocity through authentic leader-employee relationships. Journal of
Management Development, 99(9/10), 1029–1039. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-05-2019-
0211
Mor Barak, M. E. (2000). Beyond affirmative action: Toward a model of diversity and
organizational inclusion. Administration in Social Work, 23, 47–68.
Mor Barak, M. E. (2005). Managing diversity: Toward a globally inclusive workplace. SAGE
Publications, Inc.
Mor Barak, M.E. (2015). Inclusion is the key to diversity management, but what is inclusion?
Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 39(2), 83–88.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23303131.2015.1035599
Mor Barak, M.E. (2022). Managing diversity: Toward a globally inclusive workplace. (5th ed.)
SAGE Publications, Inc.
Mor Barak, M. E., & Cherin, D. A. (1998). A tool to expand organizational understanding of
workforce diversity: Exploring a measure of inclusion-exclusion. Administration in
Social Work, 22(1), 47–64. https://doi.org/10.1300/J147v22n01_04
207

Mor Barak, M. E., Cherin, D. A., & Berkman, S. (1998). Organizational and personal
dimensions in diversity climate: Ethnic and gender differences in employee perceptions.
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 34, 82–104.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886398341006
Mor Barak, M.E., & Daya, P. (2014). Fostering inclusion from the inside out to create an
inclusive workplace. In B. M. Ferdman & B. R. Deane (Eds.), Diversity at work: The
practice of inclusion (pp. 391–412). Jossey-Bass.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118764282.ch13
Mor Barak, M. E., Findler, L., & Wind, L. (2001). Diversity, inclusion, and commitment in
organizations: International empirical explorations. Journal of Behavioral and Applied
Management, 2(2), 72–91.
Mor Barak, M. E., Lizano, E. L., Kim, A., Duan, L., Rhee, M., Hsiao, H., & Brimhall, K. (2016).
The promise of diversity management for a climate of inclusion: A state-of-the-art review
and meta-analysis. Human Service Organizations, 40(4), 305–333.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23303131.2016.1138915
Mushonga, S. M., Thiagarajan, P., & Torrance, C. G. (2014). Fairness in the workplace: the
mediating role of trust in the relationship between supervisory justice and work
outcomes. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 79(3), 17–25.
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A389799730/ITBC?u=usocal_main&sid=bookmark-
ITBC&xid=f5017e72
National Science Board (2022). The State of Science and Engineering 2022.
Nembhard, I. M., & Edmondson, A. C. (2006). Making it safe: The effects of leader
inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in
208

health care teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(7), 941–966.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.413
Nishii, L. H. (2013). The benefits of climate for inclusion for gender-diverse groups. Academy of
Management Journal, 56(6), 1754–1774. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.0823.
Nishii, L. H. and Rich, R. E. (2014). Creating inclusive climates in diverse organizations. In B.
M. Ferdman & B. R. Deane (Eds.), Diversity at work: The practice of inclusion. (pp.
330–363). Jossey-Bass. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118764282.ch11
Nkomo, S. (2014). Inclusion: Old wine in new bottles? In B. M. Ferdman & B. R. Deane (Eds.),
Diversity at work: The practice of inclusion (pp. 580600). Jossey-Bass.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118764282.ch22
Noon, M. (2018). Pointless diversity training: Unconscious bias, racism, and new agency. Work,
Employment and Society, 32(1),198 –209. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017017719841
O’Connor, E. P., & Crowley-Henry, M. (2019). Exploring the relationship between exclusive
talent management, perceived organizational justice and employee engagement: Bridging
the literature. Journal of Business Ethics, 156(4), 903–917.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3543-1
Offermann, L.R. & Basford, T.E. 2014. Inclusive human resource management. In B. M.
Ferdman & B. R. Deane (Eds.), Diversity at work: The practice of inclusion (pp.229–
259). Jossey-Bass.
Olsen, J. E., & Martins, L. L. (2012). Understanding organizational diversity management
programs: A theoretical framework and directions for future research. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 33(8), 1168–1187. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1792
209

Oswick, C., & Noon, M. (2014). Discourses of diversity, equality, and inclusion: Trenchant
formulations or transient fashions? British Journal of Management, 25, 23–39.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2012.00830.x
Pellecchia, R. (2019). Diversity and inclusion: corporate communications advances the practice.
Journal of Business Strategy, 40(6), 16–22. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBS-04-2019-0079
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
Price, R. (2020, July 15). Facebook’s annual diversity report shows it’s making little headway on
boosting its numbers of Black employees. Business Insider.
https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-2020-diversity-report-slow-progress-black-
employees-2020-7
Pruis, E. (2011). The five key principles of talent development. Industrial and Commercial
Training, 43(4), 206–216. https://doi.org//10.1108/00197851111137825
Qi, L., Liu, B., Wei, X., & Hu, Y. (2019). Impact of inclusive leadership on employee innovative
behavior: Perceived organizational support as a mediator. PLoS ONE 14(2), 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212091
Randel, A. E., Dean, M. A., Ehrhart, K. H., Chung, B., & Shore, L. (2016). Leader inclusiveness,
psychological diversity, climate, and helping behaviors. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 31(1), 216–234. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-04-2013-0123
Randel, A. E., Galvin, B. M., Shore, L. M., Ehrhart, K. H., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., &
Kedharnath, U. (2018). Inclusive leadership: Realizing positive outcomes through
210

belongingness and being valued for uniqueness. Human Resource Management Review,
28(2), 190–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.07.002
Roberge, M-E., Lewicki, R.J., Hietapelto, A., & Abdyldaeva, A. (2011). From theory to practice:
Recommending supportive diversity practices. Journal of Diversity Management, 6(2),
1–20. https://doi.org/10.19030/jdm.v6i2.5481
Roberson, Q. (2006). Disentangling the meanings of diversity and inclusion in organizations.
Group & Organization Management, 31(2), 212–236.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601104273064
Roberson, Q. (2020). Access to justice as a human right, organizational entitlement and
precursor to diversity and inclusion. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International
Journal, 39(7), 787–791. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-07-2020-0182
Roberson, Q., & Perry, J. L. (2022). Inclusive leadership in thought and action: A thematic
analysis. Group & Organization Management, 47(4), 755–778.
https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011211013161
Robinson, S. B., & Firth Leonard, K. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. SAGE.
Rosette, A. S., Akinola, M., & Ma, A. (2016). Subtle discrimination in the workplace: Individual
level factors and processes. In A. Colella & E. King (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of
workplace discrimination (pp. 7–24). Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199363643.013.2
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. Teachers College Press.
Saba, T., Ozbilgin, M., Ng, E., & Cachat-Rosset, G. (2021). Guest editorial: Ineffectiveness of
diversity management: Lack of knowledge, lack of interest or resistance? Equality,
211

Diversity, and Inclusion: An International Journal, 40(7), 765–769.
https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-092021-374
Sabharwal, M. (2014). Is diversity management enough? Organizational inclusion to further
performance. Public Personnel Management, 43(2), 197–217.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026014522202
Schein, E. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (5th ed.). Jossey-Bass
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2013). Information processing theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/information-processing-theory/
Schunk, U., & Usher, E. L. (2019). Social cognitive theory and motivation. In The Oxford
Handbook of Human Motivation (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190666453.013.2
Scott, A., Kapor Klein, F., McAlear, F., Martin, A., Koshy, S. (2018). The leaky tech pipeline: A
comprehensive framework for understanding and addressing the lack of diversity across
the tech ecosystem. Kapor Center for Social Impact. https://www.kaporcenter.org/the-
leaky-tech-pipeline-a-comprehensive-framework-for-understanding-and-addressing-the-
lack-of-diversity-across-the-tech-ecosystem/
Scott, A., Kapor Klein, F., Onovakpuri, U. (2017). Tech leavers study. Kapor Center for Social
Impact. https://www.kaporcenter.org/tech-leavers/
Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., Holcombe Ehrhart, K., Singh, G.
(2011). Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future research.
Journal of Management, 37, 1262–1289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310385943
212

Shore, L. M., Cleveland, J. N., & Sanchez, D. (2018). Inclusive workplaces: A review and
model. Human Resource Management Review, 28, 176–189.
doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.07.003
Singh, B., Winkel, D. E., & Selvarajan, T. T. (2013). Managing racial differences at work: Does
psychological safety hold the key to racial differences in employee performance? Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 86(2), 242–263.
https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12015
Siyal, S., Xin, C., Umrani, W. A., Fatima, S., & Pal, D. (2021). How do leaders influence
innovation and creativity in employees? The mediating role of intrinsic motivation.
Administration & Society, 53(9), 1337–1361.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2F0095399721997427
Sparkman, T.E. (2019). Exploring the boundaries of diversity and inclusion in Human Resources
Development. Human Resource Development Review 18(2), 173 –195.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484319837030
Steele, R., & Derven, M. (2015). Diversity & inclusion and innovation: A virtuous cycle.
Industrial and Commercial Training, 47(1), 1–7. https://doi.org.10.1108/ICT-09-2014-
0063
Tajfel, H. (1982). Social Identity and Intergroup Relations. Cambridge University Press.
Thomas, R. R., Jr. (1992). Managing diversity: A conceptual framework. In S. E. Jackson (Ed.),
Diversity in the workplace: Human resources initiatives (pp. 306–317). Guilford Press.
Tang, N., Jiang, Y., Chen, C., Zhou, Z., Chen, C., C., & Yu, Z. (2015). Inclusion and inclusion
management in the Chinese context: An exploratory study. The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 26(6), 856–874.
213

https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2014.985326
The Annie E. Casey Foundation. Equity vs. equality, and other racial justice definitions. (2021,
April 14). aecf.org/blog/racial-justice-definitions
Toke, N. (2022, March 1). Equality vs equity: Understand the difference. Diversity for Social
Impact. https://diversity.social/equality-vs-equity
Tolman, E.C. (1949). Purposive behavior in animals and men. University of California Press.
(Original work published 1932)
University of California Irvine Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity. (n.d.) A Brief History
of Affirmative Action. https://oeod.uci.edu/policies/aa_history.php
U.S. Census Bureau, (September 2020). Table A2 Households by Total Money Income Race and
Hispanic Origin of Householder: 1967 to 2019.
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2020/demo/income-poverty/p60-270.html
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (n.d.) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964. https://www.eeoc.gov/ title-vii-civil-rights-act-1964
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2014). Special report: Diversity in high
tech. https://www.eeoc.gov/special-report/diversity-high-tech
Waters, T., Marzano, R., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of
research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement [A working
paper]. Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning.
Wheeler, M. L. (2014). Inclusion as a transformational diversity and business strategy. In B. M.
Ferdman & B. R. Deane (Eds.), Diversity at work: The practice of inclusion (pp. 546–
563).
Whitaker, T. R. (2019). Banging on a locked door: The persistent role of racial discrimination in
214

the workplace. Social Work in Public Health, 34(1), 22–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/
19371918.2019.1572564
Williams, J. C., Phillips, K. W., & Hall, E. V. (2016). Tools for change: Boosting the retention of
women in the STEM pipeline. Journal of Research in Gender Studies, 6(1), 11–75
Williams, M. & Lagan, T. (2015, October 7). Federal diversity goals are about high performance,
not compliance. Government Executive.
https://www.govexec.com/management/2015/10/federal-diversity-goals-are-
about-high-performance-not-compliance/122597/
Winters, M.F. (2014). From diversity to inclusion: An inclusion equation. In B. M. Ferdman &
B. R. Deane (Eds.), Diversity at work: The practice of inclusion (pp. 205–228). Jossey-
Bass. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118764282.ch7

215

Appendix A: Pre-Survey Recruiting Communications
Pre-interview, an initial email will be sent to request study participants. A diversity and
inclusion partner from the Tech Global function will send an email to approximately 1,500
leaders invited to take part in the survey. The invitation will include the text below to give
participants an understanding of the context.
Dear (software program inserts invitee name)
My name is Christine Barnes, and I am a former employee of the company. I am
also a doctoral candidate at the University of Southern California, and it is in that
capacity that I am writing to you today.
I am conducting research to understand the influences that leaders face when
embedding or sustaining inclusive practices in their organizations. My goal as a
practitioner/scholar is that this information will benefit all employees of this company by
supporting leaders in increasing their awareness, their capabilities, and their choices for
inclusive practices. I assure you that the information gained will remain anonymous as
will the organization.
I have received IRB approval and am in the stage of my dissertation where I am
gathering data. You are invited to take part in a nine-question survey administered by
Qualtrics. Your participation in this study is greatly appreciated.
I will share the findings of the study and my recommendations with the study
sponsors (insert names). I hope that some of these findings and recommendations will be
of value to the organization.
216

Please watch for an invitation from your functional D&I partner to complete the
survey, including the link to the Qualtrics survey, beginning on October 12, 2022. The
survey will run until November 4, 2022.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
Best regards,

Christine Barnes
Doctoral Candidate
Rossier School of Education
The University of Southern California
cbarnes7@usc.edu

217

Appendix B: Pre-Interview Confirmation
When a leader confirms participation, they will receive the email confirmation below and
the information form on the next page. My goal is to interview 12 participants. Following the
scheduling of a participant I will send the email below to confirm interview appointments.
Dear (insert name of participant)
Thank you very much for agreeing to take part in my research study concerning
the inclusive practices of leaders in STEM companies.
You should have received a Zoom link when you accepted my calendar invitation
to you for an interview. In case you do not have it, your Zoom link is: [insert link]. Your
identity will be known only to me, and I am conducting this study for my doctoral
dissertation at the University of Southern California. I am attaching a PDF file to this
email regarding the formal notice of participant rights and the protocol surrounding how
the information you provide will be used and protected. Please reach out to me if you
have questions about this.
Thank you very much for taking time out of your schedule to assist me with this
research and I look forward to our conversation on [insert date and time].
Best regards,
Christine Barnes
Doctoral Candidate
Rossier School of Education
The University of Southern California

218

Appendix C: Information Sheet for Exempt Research
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Pkwy Ste 1100, Los Angeles, CA 90089

INFORMATION SHEET FOR EXEMPT RESEARCH

STUDY TITLE: Inclusionary Practices of Leaders in a Biotechnology Company: A Gap
Analysis Innovation Study
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Christine Barnes, Doctoral Candidate
FACULTY ADVISOR: Dr. Adrian J. Donato

You are invited to participate in a research study. Your participation is voluntary. This document
explains information about this study. You should ask questions about anything that is unclear to
you.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to learn about the various influences pertaining to what leaders know
and think about inclusionary practices in this company, including how the environment impacts
and is impacted by leader beliefs and behaviors. From these insights, I hope to make
recommendations that will further enable the depth and breadth of inclusionary practices that
will benefit all employees in this company. You are invited as a participant because of your
specific role within your organization, which fits the defined research population of the study.
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
You are asked to participate in a Zoom meeting to be interviewed about the research topic. The
interview is expected to last no more than 45 minutes. All interaction with you and your
organization is confidential. Neither you nor your organization will be named or alluded to in a
manner that would provide identification.
While it is my desire to record the conversation for subsequent confidential and anonymous
transcription so that your responses can be accurately analyzed, such recording is purely
voluntary on your part and is not a condition for participation. I will take notes as an alternative
during the interview as needed.
There is no ‘pre-work’ necessary for the interview, and it will be held at a time that is to your
convenience and with respect to your schedule and responsibilities.

219

CONFIDENTIALITY
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California Institutional
Review Board (IRB) may access the data. The IRB reviews and monitors research studies to
protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
When the findings of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.
Audio recordings, if made, will not have any direct reference to the full name or organization of
the participant and will be used solely for the purpose of analyzing the transcript for relevant
content. The recordings will remain in the sole possession of the research team and will be
destroyed no later than one year from completion and final approval of the study. The study is
expected to be fully completed by May 31, 2023. For this study, the research team is the
researcher and the chair of the researcher’s dissertation committee.
Audio recordings, if made, will not be started until the preliminary and identifying remarks of
the participant, and their organization, are concluded. The researcher will refer to the participant
by an arbitrary identification (for example, ‘Participant 1’, ‘Participant 2’, and so on) to maintain
confidentiality and anonymity. As a part of the research study, the audio portion of the one-to-
one interviews will be recorded using the Zoom platform. A copy of that transcript will be
provided for review, editing, or declination of participation.
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions about this study, please contact me (Christine Barnes), at
cbarnes7@usc.edu, 415 987-2055, or Dr. Adrian J. Donato: adonato@usc.edu
IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the University of
Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or email irb@usc.edu.

USC IRB Information Sheet Template Version Date: 01/30/2021

220

Appendix D: KMO Survey Crosswalk
Assumed influence Survey item
Knowledge
Tech Global leaders need to determine the
inclusionary practices most relevant to
incorporate into their performance goals.
(Conceptual knowledge)
The list below names some practices considered
to be relevant to creating or sustaining an
inclusionary climate in an organization. Mark
the responses that you determine are relevant to
an inclusionary climate in an organization. It is
not required that you are currently using these
practices. Select up to five from the list
provided. (Optional text box will capture
inclusionary practices not already listed.)
Tech Global leaders need to monitor their
own biases when incorporating
inclusionary practices into their
performance goals. (Metacognitive
knowledge)

When engaging with my employees I monitor my
behavior in the following ways:
Select from the list below. Select all that apply.
Use the text box to describe other ways you
monitor yourself when engaging with
employees.
Motivation
Tech Global leaders need to believe it is
important to incorporate inclusionary
practices into their performance goals.
(Attainment value)
To what degree do you believe it is important for
you to incorporate inclusionary practices into
your performance goals? (5-point Likert scale)
Tech Global leaders need to believe it is
useful to incorporate inclusionary practices
into their performance goals. (Utility
value)
To what degree do you believe it useful for you to
incorporate inclusionary practices into your
performance goals? (5-point Likert scale)
Leaders need to believe that they are capable
of role modeling inclusionary practices
within their own organizations. (Self-
efficacy)
To what degree do you believe you are capable of
role modeling inclusionary practices within
your own organization? (5-point Likert scale)
Organization
Organizational support is needed for Tech
Global leaders to incorporate inclusionary
practices into their performance goals.
(Cultural settings)
My organization supports my plans to incorporate
inclusionary practices into my performance
goals. (4-point Likert scale)
The organization needs to have inclusionary
practices goals for Tech Global leaders to
incorporate into their performance goals.
(Cultural settings)
My organization has inclusionary practices goals
that I can incorporate into my performance
goals. (4-point Likert scale)
The organization needs to offer rewards to
Tech Global leaders for attaining their
performance goals of incorporating
inclusionary practices. (Cultural settings)
My organization has rewards for leaders for
attaining performance goals of incorporating
inclusionary practices. (4-point Likert scale)
221

Appendix E: KMO Survey Protocol
Please read each question carefully and choose the response that resonates best for you.
Sometimes, you will be asked to choose more than one answer. You have the option to use the
text boxes for additional comments.
Knowledge Questions
The list below names some practices considered to be relevant to creating or sustaining
an inclusionary climate in an organization. Mark the responses that you determine are relevant to
an inclusionary climate in an organization. It is not required that you are currently using these
practices.
Pick up to five from the list provided.
• informal mentoring (one time, no ongoing commitment)
• formal mentoring (using the in-house matching tool)
• having career conversations with an employee
• employee resource groups (ERGs)
o being a member of an ERG
o participating in activities in an ERG
o leading an ERG
o sponsoring an ERG
• sharing a personal diversity, equity and inclusion learning journey story
• corporate diversity council
• informal coaching (no ongoing commitment)
• formal coaching (agreed number of sessions, coach is not the employee’s manager)
• diversity and inclusion training sessions
222

Please name specific sessions/topics if relevant
• sponsorship or advocacy of diversity and inclusion initiatives
• sponsorship or advocacy of internal talent
• encouraging team member(s) to participate in D&I activities
• supplier diversity
• apply inclusive recruitment and selection processes when hiring
• networking events
• role modeling inclusive practices
• optional: other (use the text box to add an inclusionary practice that you determine is
relevant that is not already on the list)
When engaging with my employees I monitor my behavior in the following ways. Select
from the list below. Select all that apply.
● listening to ideas from everyone, not just certain individuals or groups
● listening without interrupting
● acknowledging someone who presents a good idea the first time it is presented.
● asking others for feedback about how my behavior was perceived.
● applying the same objective criteria when evaluating my team members’ individual
performance
● asking everyone, not just certain individuals, or groups how they would handle a
work requirement such as long hours.
Use the text box to comment on other ways you monitor yourself when engaging with
employees.

223

Motivation Questions
To what degree do you believe it is important for you to incorporate inclusionary
practices into your performance goals?
● a very high degree of importance
● a high degree of importance
● a moderate degree of importance
● a slight degree of importance
● not important
To what degree do you believe it useful for you to incorporate inclusionary practices into
your performance goals?
● 0 = not useful at all
● 1 = somewhat useful
● 2 = useful
● 3 = highly useful
● 4 = extremely useful
To what degree do you believe you are capable of role modeling inclusionary practices
within your own organization?
Not capable at this time Somewhat capable Capable Very Capable Extremely Capable
0 1 2 3 4

224

Organizational Questions
My organization has inclusionary practices goals that I can incorporate into my
performance goals.
● strongly agree
● agree
● disagree
● strongly disagree
My organization has rewards for leaders for attaining performance goals of incorporating
inclusionary practices.
● strongly agree
● agree
● disagree
● strongly disagree
Demographic Data
Please tell us a little about yourself.
• your level by title:
• supervisor/manager/senior manager
• director/senior director/executive director
• vice president and above
Years of manager/leader experience in total (including other companies):
• fewer than 5 years
• 5–10 years
• 11–15 years
225

• 16–20 years
• 21–25 years
• greater than 25 years
Years in your current role:
• less than 1 year
• 1–5 years
• 6–10 year
• greater than 10 years

226

Appendix F: KMO Interview Crosswalk
Assumed influence Interview item
Knowledge
Tech Global leaders need to determine the
inclusionary practices most relevant to
incorporate into their performance goals.
(Conceptual)
What, if any, inclusionary practices do you
consider to be most relevant for
incorporating into your performance goals?
(If they say “none,” ask, What makes you
say that?)
Tech Global leaders need to monitor their
own biases when incorporating
inclusionary practices into their
performance goals. (Metacognitive)

Talk about a time when you thought about your
own beliefs or assumptions about
incorporating inclusionary practices into
your performance goals. What, if anything,
did you do as a result of identifying those
beliefs?
Motivation
Tech Global leaders need to believe it is
important to incorporate inclusionary
practices into their performance goals.
(Attainment value)
Some might say that as a leader in this
organization, it should be important to you to
incorporate inclusionary practices into your
performance goals. What are your thoughts?
Tech Global leaders need to believe it is
useful to incorporate inclusionary
practices into their performance goals.
(Utility value)
How useful is it to you, if at all, to incorporate
inclusionary practices into your performance
goals? (Follow-on question: What makes you
say that?)
Tech Global leaders need to believe that
they are capable of role modeling
inclusionary practices within their own
organizations. (Self-efficacy)

Please talk about your belief in your capability
at being a role model for inclusionary
practices within the organization you lead.
(If they demonstrate ‘episodic memory’ –
Maxwell, 2013), ask about any observed
impact. If they express low belief in their
capability, ask what might make them feel
more capable).
Organization
Organizational support is needed for Tech
Global leaders to incorporate
inclusionary practices into their
performance goals. (Resources)
In what ways, if any, does your organization
support your plans to incorporate
inclusionary practices into your
performance goals?
The organization needs to have
inclusionary practices goals for Tech
Global leaders to incorporate into their
What goals, if any, does your organization
have about inclusionary practices that you
can incorporate into your performance
goals?
227

Assumed influence Interview item
performance goals plan. (Cultural
settings)
The organization needs to offer rewards to
Tech Global leaders for attaining their
performance goals of incorporating
inclusionary practices. (Cultural
settings)
What, if any, rewards does your organization
offer to leaders for attaining performance
goals of inclusionary practices?

228

Appendix G: KMO Interview Protocol
Thank you for meeting with me today. I want to confirm that we still have 45 minutes for
this interview. As I stated in my email confirmation for this interview, I would like your
permission to record our interview so that I have an accurate transcript of our conversation. If
you need me to repeat any questions, I am happy to do so. Let’s get started.
1. What, if any, inclusionary practices do you consider to be most relevant for
incorporating into your performance goals? (If they say, “None,” ask, “What makes
you say that?” (Knowledge, conceptual)
2. One way to ensure that you are incorporating inclusionary practices into your
performance goals is to think about your own behaviors. Talk about a time when you
thought about or monitored your own beliefs or assumptions about incorporating
inclusionary practices into your performance goals. What, if anything, did you do as a
result of identifying or monitoring those beliefs? (Knowledge, metacognitive)
3. Some might say that as a leader in your organization, it should be important to you to
incorporate inclusionary practices into your performance goals. What are your
thoughts? (Motivation, attainment value)
4. How useful is it to you, if at all, to incorporate inclusionary practices into your
performance goals? What makes you say that? (Motivation, utility value)
5. Please talk about your belief in your capability at being a role model for inclusionary
practices within the organization you lead. (If they demonstrate ‘episodic memory’—
Maxwell, 2013), ask about any observed impact. If they express low belief in their
capability, ask what might make them feel more capable). (Motivation, self-efficacy)
229

6. In what ways, if any, does your organization support your plans to incorporate
inclusionary practices into your performance goals? (Organization, resources)
7. What goals, if any, does your organization have about inclusionary practices that you
can incorporate into your performance goals? (Follow-on question: how formal or
informal is this goal?) (Organization, cultural setting/goals)
8. What, if any, rewards does your organization offer to leaders for attaining
performance goals of inclusionary practices? (Organization, cultural settings/rewards)
9. What else would you like to say on the topic of incorporating inclusionary practices
into your performance goals?
Thank you for taking the time to answer these questions with me today. I want to remind
you that your responses are confidential, your identity is protected, and that I will share the
transcript (or notes) after today to ensure that you are comfortable that what I will be working
with represents your thoughts. I will now stop the recording and conclude this interview.

230

Appendix H: KMO Document Analysis Protocol
Document analysis consisted of a combination of electronic and hardcopy data (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016). A pseudonym for the company and any individuals who would otherwise be
named was used throughout the study.

Table H1
Document Analysis Protocol
Assumed influences Selected documents Purpose of analysis
Knowledge
Tech Global leaders
need to determine the
inclusionary practices
most relevant for
incorporating into their
performance goals.
(Conceptual)
Online documents, as provided by the
company, from the diversity and
inclusion website. Some documents
were available for the company
employees but not available to the
public. Others were obtained from
the company’s public website, but
details would have to be changed to
protect the company’s identity.
Links to publicly available articles,
such as Harvard Business Review,
were examined.
Documents were reviewed
to determine if any of
them described relevant
inclusionary practices
for incorporating into
Tech Global leaders’
performance goals.
Tech Global leaders
need to monitor their
own biases in
incorporating
inclusionary practices
into their performance
goals. (Metacognitive)
Online internal documents pertaining
to unconscious bias were reviewed.
These documents include articles,
videos, books, and self-guided
learning.
Documents were reviewed
to determine if any of
them addressed
monitoring biases in
incorporating
inclusionary practices
into Tech Global
leaders’ performance
goals.
Motivation
Tech Global leaders
need to believe it is
important to
incorporate
inclusionary practices
A search for documents that describe
inclusionary practices or goal
setting will be conducted. Sources
can include the D&I partner for
Documents were reviewed
to determine if any of
them addressed the
importance of
incorporating
231

Assumed influences Selected documents Purpose of analysis
into their performance
goals. (Attainment
value)
internal documents and public
websites.
An additional document included
results of the employee opinion
survey, which asked questions about
inclusion and diversity.
inclusionary practices
into Tech Leaders’
performance goals.
Tech Global leaders
need to believe it is
useful to incorporate
inclusionary practices
into their performance
goals. (Utility value)
A search for documents that describe
inclusionary practices or goal
setting was conducted. Sources
included the D&I partner for
internal documents and public
websites.
An additional document included
results of the employee opinion
survey, which asked questions about
inclusion and diversity.
Documents were reviewed
to determine if any of
them addressed the
usefulness of
incorporating
inclusionary practices
into Tech Global
leaders’ performance
goals.
Tech Global leaders
need to believe they
are capable of role
modeling inclusionary
practices within their
own organizations.
(Self-efficacy)
Internal documents that described
ways to role model behaviors,
including workshop agendas,
articles, and videos, were searched
for by the D&I partner.
Documents were reviewed
to determine if any of
them addressed role
modeling of
inclusionary practices in
Tech Global leaders’
organizations.
Organization
Organizational support is
needed for Tech
Global leaders’ plans
to incorporate
inclusionary practices
into their performance
goals. (Resources)
Online documents from the public
diversity and inclusion website were
searched.
In addition, links to publicly available
articles, such as Harvard Business
Review, were examined.
Analysis was done to
determine what, if any,
documents support the
Tech Global leaders’
plans to incorporate
inclusionary practices
into their performance
goals.
The organization needs
to have inclusionary
practices goals for
Tech Global leaders to
incorporate into their
performance goals.
(Cultural settings)
Internal reports, regarding
performance goals for leaders in the
study were requested but
unavailable.
Analysis was meant to be
done to determine what
goals, if any, are
provided to Tech Global
leaders to incorporate
into their performance
goals.
232

Assumed influences Selected documents Purpose of analysis
The organization needs
to offer rewards to
Tech Global leaders
for attaining their
performance goals of
incorporating
inclusionary practices.
(Cultural settings)
Internal documents such as videos,
testimonials, and records of awards
granted were requests for reviewing.
Analysis of documents
was done to confirm
what, if any, rewards the
company offers for
attainment of
inclusionary practices
goals.

233

Appendix I: Immediate Evaluation Instrument
Levels 2 and 1 will be measured after the learning sessions. Table I1 describes what is to
be measured and the item used for measurement.

Table I1
Immediate Evaluation Instrument
What is being measured Item used to measure
Declarative knowledge (I know it) Describe the similarities and differences
between practices focusing on diversity
and those focusing on inclusion.
Procedural knowledge (I can do it) Use the template provided to write an
inclusionary practice goal using the
SMART format.
Attitude (I believe this is worthwhile) Explain the value of incorporating an
inclusionary practice into your
performance goals.
Confidence (I think I can do it) I am confident I can write a SMART goal
for an inclusionary practice.
Commitment (I will do it on the job) At the next town hall meeting or team
meeting, I will describe how my new
knowledge and learning will enable me to
incorporate at least one inclusionary
practice in my organization.
Engagement The training module held my interest.
I enjoyed learning the material.
Relevance I can apply what I learned in this class to
role model inclusive practices right away.
Customer satisfaction I will recommend this training to other
Tech Global leaders.

234

Appendix J: Delayed Evaluation Instrument
All four levels of evaluation will be assessed 90 days after each of the planned
workshops. Participants will be asked to respond to statements asking about their conceptual
knowledge, their beliefs about incorporating inclusionary practices, and their capability for role
modeling for inclusionary practices. Table J1 contains the survey items for each of the four
levels of evaluation. A 10-point Likert scale will be used. The highest rating will be highly agree
and the lowest rating will be highly disagree.

Table J1
Survey Items Measured 90 Days After Learning Activities
Level measured Survey items
L1: Reaction During the past 90 days, I have had opportunities in my work to
use what I learned in the session.
Illustrative open-ended question: What information from the
session has been most relevant to your job?
L2: Learning I know how to role model inclusionary practices within my
organization.
L3: Behavior I monitor my beliefs about incorporating inclusionary practices
into my performance goals and adjust my behavior
accordingly.
L4: Outcomes/results As a consequence of this program, I now incorporate at least one
of the company’s D&I inclusionary practices into my
performance goals.
Sample open-ended question: What examples of success have
you noticed from your efforts at incorporating inclusionary
practices into your performance goals?

235

Appendix K: Data Analysis Chart
Table K1 summarizes the plan for reporting on the program metrics at each level of
evaluation.

Table K1
Reporting on Program Metrics
Results Frequency Measures Comments
Level 4 results
Incorporation of one
inclusionary practice into
performance goals.
Quarterly % of Tech Global leaders
with one inclusionary
practice performance goal.

Inclusion items on opinion
survey will be reviewed.
Annually Inclusion item score increases
or is maintained year over
year

Level 3 behaviors
Inclusionary practice goals are
written in SMART terms.
Quarterly % of Tech Global leaders
with written goals.

Self-efficacy to role model
inclusionary practices will
be self-assessed.
Quarterly % of Tech Global leaders
completing self-reporting
in survey.

Level 2 learning
Tech Global leaders
differentiate between
inclusion and diversity
practices.
Quarterly % of Tech Global leaders
completing self-reporting
survey.

A summary of learning
progress is conducted.
At program
conclusion
% of Tech Global leaders
completing self-reporting
survey.

Level 1 reaction
236

Results Frequency Measures Comments
Engagement during sessions,
including discussions, is
reported.
At session
conclusion
% of Tech Global leaders
completing session survey.

Satisfaction with a session
such that participants would
recommend it to others.
At session
conclusion
% of Tech Global leaders
completing session survey.

Figure K1
Projected Progress of Percentage of Tech Global Leaders Incorporating an Inclusionary
Practice Into Their Performance Goals From August 31, 2023, Through December 31, 2023

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A framework for customer reputation evaluation: an innovation study

PDF

Nonprofit middle manager perceptions of organizational efficacy: a gap analysis

PDF

Navigating race, gender, and responsibility: a gap analysis of the underrepresentation of Black women in foreign service leadership positions

PDF

Best practices for increasing Black technical managers in the executive space

PDF

Sticks and stones: achieving educational equity for Black students through board advocacy: an innovation study

PDF

From a privilege to an option: hybrid work schedule: a gap analysis

PDF

Gender diversity in optical communications and the role of professional societies: an evaluation study

PDF

Mentoring as a capability development tool to increase gender balance on leadership teams: an innovation study

PDF

U.S. Navy SEALs resilience needs assessment: an innovation study

PDF

Improving pilot training by learning about learning: an innovation study

PDF

Raising women leaders of Christian higher education: an innovation study

PDF

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

PDF

Role understanding as a pillar of employee engagement: an evaluation gap analysis

PDF

Participating in your own survival: a gap analysis study of the implementation of active shooter preparedness programs in mid-to-large size organizations

PDF

Increasing collaborative practices in the military: an improvement study

PDF

Universal Wellness Network: a study of a promising practice

PDF

Knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences within leadership development: a study of a business unit in a prominent technology company

PDF

Lean construction through craftspeople engagement: an evaluation study

PDF

Millennial workforce retention program: an explanatory study

PDF

A path to K-12 educational equity: the practice of adaptive leadership, culture, and mindset

Asset Metadata

Creator Barnes, Christine Louise (author)

Core Title Inclusionary practices of leaders in a biotechnology company: a gap analysis innovation study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2023-05

Publication Date 03/24/2023

Defense Date 02/23/2023

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

Tag attainment value,bias,biotechnology,diversity,inclusion,inclusionary,leadership,metacognition,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational resources,performance goals,role model,self-efficacy,STEM,utility value

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Donato, Adrian (committee chair), Filback, Robert (committee member), Foulk, Susanne (committee member)

Creator Email cbarnes7@usc.edu,christine.barnes@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC112850237

Unique identifier UC112850237

Identifier etd-BarnesChri-11521.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-BarnesChri-11521

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Barnes, Christine Louise

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230329-usctheses-batch-1012 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

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

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu