University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A thriving culture of belonging: organizational cultural intelligence and racial minority retention

(USC Thesis Other)

A thriving culture of belonging: organizational cultural intelligence and racial minority retention

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content 1

A Thriving Culture of Belonging: Organizational Cultural Intelligence
and Racial Minority Retention
by
Pablo Emmanuel Otaola

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 2021

© Copyright by Pablo Emmanuel Otaola 2021
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Pablo Emmanuel Otaola certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Courtney Malloy
Daniel White Hodge
Patricia Tobey, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021

iv
Abstract
Organizational racial minority attrition rates have historically been high in the United States. The
purpose of the study was to use organizational cultural intelligence as a foundational theoretical
framework, compare it to the difference between racial minority employees and White
employees’ organizational belonging, compare how that impacts intent to leave the organization
for racial minorities, and offer solutions. Using quantitative methods, the data were gathered via
one survey from a multi-site and multi-state technology organization in the United States. The
findings highlight areas of low racial minority belonging compared to that of Whites, as well as
the need for inclusive and equitable training and development for all employees to increase
cross-cultural competence. Based on the findings and literature review, the study recommends an
organizational change model towards a culturally intelligent organization with a change focus on
diversity, equity, and inclusion and on training at all levels of leadership, leadership behavior
modification through culturally competent development and coaching, and structural change to
have inclusion, diversity, and equity experts positioned for change. The findings indicate that
employee sense of belonging was considerably more important in influencing employee intent to
leave. Yet, organizational cultural intelligence provides an organization framework for
organizational development while cultural intelligence provides a leadership development
framework for cross-cultural competency. Implications of the study include the need for
organizations to have inclusion, diversity, equity, and accessibility in the workplace be a
business imperative, as it can aid in creating anti-racist organizations.

Keywords: organizational cultural intelligence, inclusion, diversity, equity, change, leadership,
belonging
v
Dedication
To my life partner, Anna. This work did not start in 2018 when I started the USC OCL program.
Instead, it has been a work of the last 12 years of inter-racial, inter-gendered, cross-cultural, and
multi-lingual marriage. Our marriage did not start with a deep understand of social identity,
however, the title of this dissertation begins with our marriage and seeking a marriage culture of
thriving yet not understanding the necessary dynamics that would make us thrive in our
difference. We married young and naive to the reality of the racial tension that would inevitably
bring us twice to the brink of divorce. Throughout the years, Anna has sacrificed beyond what
was equitable and I am forever grateful for the work she has done in gender equity to bring her to
become an equal partner. Yet, balancing the equity complexity of being married to a racial
minority immigrant. Her grind, hustle, and work ethic are undeniable. Not just in how she
pursues life and work, but how she pursues self-development and the development of justice
within the marriage context in which she lives. She should have never had to sacrifice everything
as she did. As I write to validate the experience of racial minorities in the workforce, I am
conscious of the fact that a framework of female sacrifice for a male is equivalent to perpetual
gender slavery. This dissertation is her dissertation as well as it resembles both of our liberations
into freedom. It is not only my lived experience validated but it is our racial and gender equity
work on paper. It's now your time Anna.
To my two young boys, Levi, and Lucas. Many a day you sacrificed my emotional integration
and relational connection because I was too tired from reading academic papers and writing
papers. Your sacrifice of these last few years coupled with your smiles and joy and early
morning crawling on my lap as I write will never be forgotten. I will fondly remember us doing
our homework together. I will hold dear to my heart that you gave me the grace to do something
vi
that many immigrants into this country often do not get to experience and achieve. This degree is
the story of our life and what our family fights for. I have told you we are family of leaders that
create spaces, communities, and a world of equity and inclusion. This degree and academic work
are yours as well. Lastly, you always deserve a rested and engaged father. Because of that, I
promise to be as fully present as I possibly can from now on. This is our legacy. My ceiling will
be your floor. Los amo con todo mi corazon.
To my parents, Hugo and Liliana Otaola. What you left behind in Argentina and the suffering
you endured while living in the United States is a story that needs to be told. Dad, you left a
place of wealth and privilege to come here and start your career by cleaning toilets. Yet, even
though you experienced horrible racism and white supremacy, you ended your career as a
network engineer earning six figures with a slew of people you coached and managed that now
love you. Mom, your sacrifices are equally as big as dad’s. You and dad leaned on each other
when there was no money and when this world created a low sense of belonging as we did not
even fit within the Latinx community. I remember you doing whatever it took to emotionally get
us through the years, taking your college education that was discounted in this country while
beginning by cleaning houses and taking care of other people’s kids. Yet, like dad, you finished
your career in a k12 system that needed you to not only translate language but also to mediate
cultural differences. You also left with the whole school loving you. Mom and dad both of you
rose beyond what they context wanted to allow you. It modeled to me how to beat the
impossible. And you continue to model how to develop community and leadership and emotional
health and legacy. Los quiero un montón. Su legacia sigue conmigo y con tus nietos.

vii
Acknowledgments
Throughout the USC OCL program and the writing of my dissertation I received an
incredible amount of support from many.
I would first like to acknowledge my life partner Anna and two kids, Levi and Lucas.
Without the support of you three there would be no end to this program; there would be no
dissertation or 4.0 GPA.
I would like to acknowledge my parents and the many times that they sacrificed their
plans and took last minute roles of filling the gaps when Anna was at a birth and I needed them
to pick up the kids from school and feed them.
I would like to acknowledge Dr. Gave Veas and Dr. Daniel White Hodge both of whom
encouraged me to think beyond my context and to apply to a program as prestigious as this one.
Their input into my life and career path over the years has been priceless. Additionally, there
have been many in my academic journey that have pushed me into “the next degree” and I am
forever grateful.
I would like to acknowledge ethe Young Life Denver Metro staff of 2018-2020 for the
sacrifices they made in our professional setting while I had much of my energy devoted to the
academic rigor which in turn diminished the energy I could put into our work. Terry Leprino and
Lindsey Patchell deserve a specific acknowledgement. Without them, this program would not be
have been funded and it would not have been easy to begin this academic journey.
I would like to acknowledge the VP of HR of RTE. When my previous employer did not
allow my dissertation research study to continue, his quickness in getting my research project
approved within RTE was crucial, empowering, uplifting. He also introduced me to the VP of
viii
Talent Acquisition that would become a good friend and colleague and would facilitate the
whole process of this work.
I would like to acknowledge my good friend and therapist Jeremy Baker. Without his
guidance, mentorship, and long-term work, I would have had a much harder time staying stable
through all the hardship and change.
I would like to acknowledge my friend and mentor David Livermore. He introduced me
to cultural intelligence in 2014, gave me his written recommendation to enter this program,
introduced me to the primary article in this project, and supported me through a job change and
business launch.
I would like to acknowledge my dissertation committee. Their names on just one page
does not do them justice. They mentored, coached, and walked with me in this whole process. I
literally could not have finished my dissertation without them. Additionally, my dissertation
cohort and now USC colleagues and friends were crucial in encouraging me during the lows and
celebrating me during the highs. FIGHT ON!
Lastly, I would like to acknowledge the mentors, coaches, friends, and family that
supported me through starting Thriving Culture LLC and launching a career in inclusion,
diversity, and equity. This dissertation is not just about racial minorities, it is the beginning of a
new career and a new life.

ix
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ........................................................................................................................................v
Acknowledgments......................................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ xii
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. xiv
List of Abbreviations .................................................................................................................. xvii
Definitions................................................................................................................................... xvii
Introduction to the Problem of Practice ...........................................................................................1
Context and Background of the Problem .........................................................................................4
Importance of the Study ...................................................................................................................5
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions ...............................................................................6
Stakeholder Group of Focus and Global Goal .................................................................................7
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology .................................................................7
Literature Review.............................................................................................................................9
CQ Construct ...................................................................................................................................9
Motivational CQ (Cultural Drive) .....................................................................................10
Cognitive CQ (CQ Knowledge).........................................................................................11
Metacognitive CQ (Cultural Strategy) ...............................................................................12
Behavioral CQ (Cultural Action) .......................................................................................12
CQ at the Individual, Team, and Organizational Levels ...............................................................13
Individual Cultural Intelligence .........................................................................................13
Team Cultural Intelligence ................................................................................................14
x
CQ at the Organizational Level .........................................................................................15
Cultural Intelligence and Turnover Intentions ...............................................................................16
OCQ and Race ...............................................................................................................................18
Summary ........................................................................................................................................24
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................................24
Methodology ..................................................................................................................................28
Research Setting.................................................................................................................29
Data Sources ......................................................................................................................30
Data Collection Procedures ................................................................................................32
Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................32
Findings..........................................................................................................................................33
Research Question 1 ..........................................................................................................35
Research Question 2 ..........................................................................................................42
Research Question 3 ..........................................................................................................47
Summary ............................................................................................................................48
Recommendations ..........................................................................................................................49
Discussion of Findings .......................................................................................................49
Recommendations for Practice ..........................................................................................51
Conclusion .....................................................................................................................................57
References ......................................................................................................................................59
Appendix A: Cronbach Alpha .........................................................................................................1
Appendix B: The Researcher ........................................................................................................92
Appendix C: Survey Questions ......................................................................................................94
xi
Appendix D: Ethics ......................................................................................................................101
Appendix E: Survey Emails .........................................................................................................103
Appendix F: Survey Timeline ......................................................................................................107
Appendix G: Socio-Cultural Context...........................................................................................108
Appendix H: Validity and Reliability ..........................................................................................110
Appendix I: Limitations and Delimitations .................................................................................111
Appendix J: Demographics ..........................................................................................................112
Appendix K: Distribution of Mean Scores ..................................................................................114
Appendix L: Correlation ..............................................................................................................147
Appendix M: Linear Regression ..................................................................................................148
Appendix N: Recommendations ..................................................................................................149
Appendix O: Recommendations for Future Research .............................................................14961
Appendix P: IRB ........................................................................................................................1622

xii
List of Tables
Table 1: Data Sources 28
Table 2: Participants’ Demographics and Characteristics 355
Table 3: Multiple Regressions Results for Intent to Leave 48

Table 4: Cronbach’s Alpha Scores for Measurement Tool 92
Table 5: Means and Variance Analysis in Leadership Behavior according to Racial-Ethnic
Grouping 1144
Table 6: Means and Variance Analysis in Leadership Behavior according to Racial-Ethnic
Grouping
1144

Table 7: Means and Variance Analysis in Organizational Adaptability According to
Racial-Ethnic Grouping 1177
Table 8: Means and Variance Analysis in Organizational Adaptability According to
Racial-Ethnic Grouping 1177
Table 9: Means and Variance Analysis in Training and Development according to
Racial-Ethnic Grouping 120
Table 10: Means and Variance Analysis in Training and Development according to
Racial-Ethnic Grouping 12020
Table 11: Means and Variance Analysis in Organizational Intentionality According to
Racial-Ethnic Grouping 1233
Table 12: Means and Variance Analysis in Organizational Intentionality According to
Racial-Ethnic Grouping 1233
Table 13: Means and Variance Analysis in Organizational Inclusion according to
Racial-Ethnic Grouping 1266
Table 14: Means and Variance Analysis in Organizational Inclusion according to
Racial-Ethnic Grouping 1266
Table 15: Means and Variance Analysis in Belonging Overall According to Racial-Ethnic
Grouping 1299
Table 16: Means and Variance Analysis in Belonging Overall According to Racial-Ethnic
Grouping 1299
xiii
Table 17: Means and Variance Analysis in Belonging Group Membership According to
Racial-Ethnic Grouping 1322
Table 18: Means and Variance Analysis in Belonging Group Membership according to
Racial-Ethnic Grouping 1322
Table 19: Means and Variance Analysis in Belonging Group Affection According to
Racial-Ethnic Grouping 1355
Table 20: Means and Variance Analysis in Belonging Group Affection According to
Racial-Ethnic Grouping 1355
Table 21: Means and Variance Analysis in Belonging Group Room for Authenticity
according to Racial-Ethnic Grouping 1388
Table 22: Means and Variance Analysis in Belonging Room for Authenticity According to
Racial-Ethnic Grouping 1388
Table 23: Means and Variance Analysis in Belonging Value in Authenticity according to
Racial-Ethnic Grouping 141
Table 24: Means and Variance Analysis in Belonging Value in Authenticity according to
Racial-Ethnic Grouping 1411
Table 25: Means and Variance Analysis in Employee Intent to Leave According to
Racial-Ethnic Grouping 1444
Table 26: Means and Variance Analysis in Employee Intent to Leave According to
Racial-Ethnic Grouping 1444
Table 27: Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Study Variables 1477
Table 28: Linear Regression of Sub-Scale Variables for Racial Minorities 1488
Table 29: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing 150
Table 30: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for All Employees 1522
Table 31: Required Drivers to Increase Retention of Racial Minorities 1544
Table 32: Components of Learning Programs 1577
Table 33: Components to Measure Reactions to Learning Programs 1588
Table 34: Immediate Feedback Survey 1599
Table 35: Delayed Feedback Survey 160

xiv
List of Figures
Figure 1: CQ Conceptual framework (Van Dyne et al., 2010) 10
Figure 2: Research Study Conceptual Framework 27
Figure 3: Distribution of Mean Scores on Leadership Behavior Scale All Racial Ethnicities 1155
Figure 4: Distribution of Mean Scores on Leadership Behavior Scale Racial Minorities 1155
Figure 5: Distribution of Mean Scores on Leadership Behavior Scale Whites 1166
Figure 6: Distribution of Mean Scores on Leadership Behavior scale Prefer Not to Say
Racial Ethnicity 1166
Figure 7: Distribution of Mean Scores on Organizational Adaptability Scale All Racial
Ethnicities 1188
Figure 8: Distribution of Mean Scores on Organizational Adaptability Scale All
Racial-Ethnic Minorities 1188
Figure 9: Distribution of Mean Scores on Organizational Adaptability Scale all Whites 1199
Figure 10: Distribution of Mean Scores on Organizational Adaptability Scale All Those
That Answered Prefer Not to Say 1199
Figure 11: Distribution of Mean Scores on Training and Development Scale All Racial
Ethnicities 1211
Figure 12: Distribution of Mean Scores on Training and Development Scale All
Racial-Ethnic Minorities 1211
Figure 13: Distribution of Mean Scores on Training and Development Scale All Whites 1222
Figure 14: Distribution of Mean Scores on Training and Development Scale All Those That
Answered Prefer Not to Say 1222
Figure 15: Distribution of Mean Scores on Organizational Intentionality Scale All Racial
Ethnicities 1244
Figure 16: Distribution of Mean Scores on Organizational Intentionality Scale Racial
Minorities 1244
Figure 17: Distribution of Mean Scores on Organizational Intentionality Scale Whites 1255
Figure 18: Distribution of Mean Scores on Organizational Intentionality Scale Prefer
Not to Say Racial Ethnicity 1255
xv
Figure 19: Distribution of Mean Scores on Organizational Inclusion Scale All Racial
Ethnicities 1277
Figure 20: Distribution of Mean Scores on Organizational Inclusion Scale Racial Minorities 1277
Figure 21: Distribution of Mean Scores on Organizational Inclusion Scale Whites 1288
Figure 22: Distribution of Mean Scores on Organizational Inclusion Scale Prefer Not to Say
Racial Ethnicity 1288
Figure 23: Distribution of Mean Scores on Belonging Overall Scale All Racial Ethnicities 130
Figure 24: Distribution of Mean Scores on Belonging Overall Scale Racial Minorities 130
Figure 25: Distribution of Mean Scores on Belonging Overall Scale Whites 1311
Figure 26: Distribution of Mean Scores on Belonging Overall Scale Prefer Not to Say
Racial Ethnicity 1311
Figure 27: Distribution of Mean Scores on Belonging Group Membership Scale All Racial
Ethnicities 1333
Figure 28: Distribution of Mean Scores on Belonging Group Membership Scale Racial
Minorities 1333
Figure 29: Distribution of Mean Scores on Belonging Group Membership Scale Whites 1344
Figure 30: Distribution of mean scores on Belonging Group Membership scale Prefer Not
to Say Racial Ethnicity 1344
Figure 31: Distribution of Mean Scores on Belonging Group Affection scale all Racial
Ethnicities 1366
Figure 32: Distribution of Mean Scores on Belonging Group Affection Scale Racial
Minorities 1366
Figure 33: Distribution of Mean Scores on Belonging Group Affection scale Whites 1377
Figure 34: Distribution of mean scores on Belonging Group Affection scale Prefer Not
to Say Racial Ethnicity 1377
Figure 35: Distribution of Mean Scores on Belonging Room for Authenticity Scale All
Racial Ethnicities 1399
Figure 36: Distribution of Mean Scores on Belonging Room for Authenticity scale Racial
Minorities 1399
Figure 37: Distribution of Mean Scores on Belonging Room for Authenticity Scale Whites 140
xvi
Figure 38: Distribution of Mean Scores on Belonging Room for Authenticity Scale Prefer
Not to Say Racial Ethnicity 140
Figure 39: Distribution of Mean Scores on Belonging Value in Authenticity Scale All Racial
Ethnicities 1422
Figure 40: Distribution of Mean Scores on Belonging Value in Authenticity Scale Racial
Minorities 1422
Figure 41: Distribution of Mean Scores on Belonging Value in Authenticity Scale Whites 1433
Figure 42: Distribution of Mean Scores on Belonging Value in Authenticity Scale Prefer
Not to Say Racial Ethnicity 1433
Figure 43: Distribution of Mean Scores on Employee Intent to Leave Scale All Racial
Ethnicities 1455
Figure 44: Distribution of Mean Scores on Employee Intent to Leave Scale Racial Minorities
1455
Figure 45: Distribution of Mean Scores on Employee Intent to Leave Scale Whites 1466
Figure 46: Distribution of Mean Scores on Employee Intent to Leave Scale Prefer Not to
Say Racial Ethnicity 1466

xvii
List of Abbreviations
CQ cultural intelligence
EICI equitable, inclusive, culturally intelligent
OCQ organizational cultural intelligence
RTE Routt Technical Enterprise. Pseudonym for organization of study

1

Definitions
Cultural Intelligence
“An individual’s capability to function and manage effectively in culturally diverse settings”
(Ang et al., 2007, p. 336).
Diversity
A reference to a variety of differences and similarities among people. These differences include,
but are not limited to: race, gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnicity, country of origin,
culture, religion or belief system, marital status, parental status, socioeconomic difference,
language, appearance, ability, mental health, education, geography, personality type, and
thinking style (O’Mara & Richter, 2017).
Inclusion
A manner of operating in which differences and similarities are leveraged to create an equitable
culturally intelligent organization that performs at high and innovative levels. An inclusive
environment focuses on assuring a high culturally intelligent and equitable process where access
to resources and opportunities can be reached by all regardless of their difference. An inclusive
environment is one of high sense of belonging and safety where people feel generally safe to
risk, feel respected, engaged, motivated, and valued for who they are and what they bring to the
organization (De Sisto & Dickinson, 2019; Lima, 2014; O’Mara & Richter, 2017; Roberson,
2019)
Intersectionality
The interrelated nature of social categorizations of social identities such as class, gender,
sexuality, socio-economic status, race, country of origin, ethnicity that can apply to an individual
or people group (Taksa et al., 2015).
2

Organizational Cultural Intelligence
The capability is to function effectively in internal and external culturally diverse environments,
and it will aid in creating effective management of cultural diversity within the organization as
well as cross-cultural environments in which the organization engages (Lima, West, Winston, &
Wood, 2016).
Racial Minority
A person or people group that as of this study shows a statistical racial minority in the US
population. Additionally, for this research study, this term defines a person or people group that
personally, interpersonally, structurally, consciously and subconsciously has less social power
(Crosby, 2016; Delgado Bernal, 2002).
Whiteness
A social construct which creates a culture in which white cultural norms and values are regarded
to as the definitive goal of what it means to be right or normal, how to behave, and who to
become (Alabi, 2018; C. K. Lawrence et al., 2019; McKay et al., 2007; Singh & Selvarajan,
2013). Racial bias, racial privilege, and racial identity are all components of whiteness and all
influence culture (Annamma, 2014; Delgado Bernal, 2002; Delgado & Stefancic, 2017).
White Supremacy
The belief at the personal, interpersonal, and systemic levels within society that white people are
superior to non-white-people (Delgado & Stefancic, 2017).
3

Introduction to the Problem of Practice
An inclusive culture is crucial to retain racial minority employees (Alabi, 2018; C. K.
Lawrence et al., 2019; McKay et al., 2007; Singh & Selvarajan, 2013). A culture that centers a
culture of Whiteness (Al Ariss et al., 2014; Hunter et al., 2010; Lee Allen & Liou, 2019; Russell,
2014), rather than a culture of inclusivity, will create a low sense of belonging among racial
minorities (Hofhuis et al., 2016; Hughes, 2016; Nishina et al., 2019; Sax et al., 2018). A culture
of inclusion and belonging can be measured through organizational cultural intelligence (OCQ),
which is crucial because low OCQ has shown to cause low employee satisfaction of racial
minorities in organizations, thus increasing racial minority employee attrition (Clark & Polesello,
2017; Desai et al., 2018; Koo Moon et al., 2013; Lima, 2014; Moon, 2010; Patrick & Kumar,
2012).
Statistical analysis has shown a strong association between OCQ, a culture of belonging
and inclusion, and job satisfaction and that organizations should focus on managing diversity,
inclusion, equity, and accessibility, which, in turn, will make employees feel satisfied with their
jobs (Clark & Polesello, 2017; Duff et al., 2012; Oliver et al., 2011; Srinivas & Patrick, 2018).
This overlap of workplace inclusion and cultural intelligence demonstrates that high OCQ is a
need, and low OCQ is a problem. Patrick and Kumar (2012) suggest some essential strategies
that can be adopted to manage workplace diversity, belonging, and inclusion, such as reducing
prejudices and the use of stereotypes, minimizing miscommunication with diverse others,
building relationships with diverse others, and increasing the cultural intelligence (CQ) of
employees.
4

Context and Background of the Problem
As workforces in the United States and across the globe become increasingly diverse, it
becomes important to understand and develop a culture of belonging and inclusivity as well as
high CQ among employees, teams, and organizations. Additionally, as we saw early in 2020, the
public deaths of many racial minorities coupled with the social pressure of the Coronavirus
pandemic brought race, culture, inclusion, diversity, and belonging to the forefront of
organizational development (Bethea, 2020; Friedman, 2020; Longdon et al., 2020; Morris,
2020a, 2020b).
In 1980, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics found that 81.9% of all people in the
workforce were White; however, by 2015, that number had decreased to 67.1% and projected to
be as low as 53.4% by 2050 (Toosi, 2002). Additionally, approximately 18% of all households in
the United States use a language other than English, and roughly 13% of residents are not U.S.-
born (Rubaii-Barrett & Wise, 2006). OCQ and a culture of belonging and inclusivity are
important in diverse workforces because workplace satisfaction issues will undoubtedly increase.
Even before the racial unrest and protests after the deaths of George Floyd, Breonna
Taylor, and Ahmaud Arbery (Cook, 2020; Do Something, 2020), many organizations had a
problem with high racial minority attrition rates (Jones, 2017; McGirt, 2016; McKay et al., 2007;
Payne-Pikus et al., 2010). From reports of racial bias at Facebook (Guynn, 2020) and Google
(Guynn, 2019b; Motherboard Staff, 2019) to racial discrimination at Starbucks (Stevens, 2018),
every few weeks, racial discrimination within organizations makes headlines. Despite pursuing
equal pay and training on unconscious bias, industries from finance (Mercer, 2020) to fashion
(Villareal, 2019) continue to have racial-organizational culture problems and racial minority
retention issues.
5

While not in the news for racial minority discrimination, Routt Technical Enterprise
(RTE), a pseudonym for the organization being studied, has the same issues. RTE is a sizeable
multi-state tech company that has the same issues of high racial minority attrition. An internal
RTE report shows that, during the last six years (2014–2020), the retention of racial minorities
has been lower than that of Whites.
Importance of the Study
This problem of racial minority attrition is important to evaluate for several reasons. First
is the urgency and social pressure. Our current socio-political and socio-cultural context created
increased urgency and pressure for organizations to develop comprehensive and sustainable
solutions to racism, inequity, and past diversity failures. Organizations need to respond to
employee outcries of White supremacy and racism while dealing with the added organizational
and cultural fragility of several large inclusion, diversity, and equity missteps by major
organizations (Elejalde-Ruiz, 2020; Hauser, 2020; Jagannathan, 2020; Valinsky, 2020). Second
is the human impact of cultures with low belonging and OCQ and how leadership ethics drives
outcomes. Low OCQ scores and low culture of belonging create high-stress environments where
racial minorities often experience racial stress and trauma (Barber et al., 2016; Crosby, 2016).
Third is the opportunity. As diversity in the workforce doubles and gets increasingly more global
(Pew Research Center, 2015, 2017; Toosi, 2002), research on CQ shows that high-CQ diverse
teams out-produce any other team over time (Moon, 2013). Additionally, employee satisfaction
in cultures of high diverse-identity belonging reduces employee turnover cost, and a racially
diverse leadership pipeline can sustain high production and job satisfaction (Gouthro et al., 2018;
Iny, 2018; Lima et al., 2016; Street et al., 2016; Velazquez et al., 2011; Warrick, 2017).
6

Leaders create culture (H. Schein & Schein, 2017; Meyerson, 2001; Warrick, 2017).
Leaders with low CQ often fail to recognize that the culture they create is racialized (Livermore,
2013, 2015; Tapia & Kvasny, 2004), which, instead of creating a culture of belonging, creates a
culture of exclusion and White supremacy (Bonds, 2020; Cabrera et al., 2016; Hughes, 2016; Liu
& Pechenkina, 2016). The U.S. Census Bureau reports that 60.4% of the U.S. population is
White. However, reports consistently show that the percentage of culture-making C-suite leaders
is over 90% White. For example, Leanin.org and McKinsey & Company (2019) report that
White workers gained percentage rates as authority levels increased. Entry-level positions had
65% of workers being White, 81% of Vice Presidents were White, and 86% of C-Suite leaders
were White.
Lastly, a significant contribution of this study is that it will be the first study to connect
OCQ and race. Notably, it will connect racial minority attrition rates to organizational culture
and OCQ levels. This connection will allow this newer field of CQ to expand into the
organizational level and will further efforts toward inclusion, diversity, equity, and accessibility,
especially as other social identities and intersectionality are explored.
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
The purpose of this case study was to understand the effects of OCQ and a culture of
belonging on racial minority employees’ intent to leave RTE. The analysis focused on the
intersection of organizational culture, perception of leadership, organizational structures, and
processes related to achieving the goal of increasing racial minority employee belonging,
therefore increasing racial minority retention. While a complete evaluation project would focus
on the intersection of race and other social identities or hyper-focus on one racial group, for
7

practical purposes, the stakeholders for this research project were current racial minority
employees at RTE. Three research questions guided this study:
1. What are the differences between racial minorities and self-identified Whites on intent to
leave, belonging, and OCQ components?
2. What are the correlations between intent to leave, belonging, and OCQ components?
3. What are the greatest predictors for intent to leave an organization for racial minorities?
Stakeholder Group of Focus and Global Goal
The salient stakeholder group for this study was the employees at RTE. This study
focused on both executive-level leaders through entry-level employees. The global goal was to
increase racial minorities’ retention rates.
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
The theoretical framework explored is OCQ, which is defined as the organization’s
capability to function effectively in internal and external culturally diverse environments (Lima,
2014). OCQ will aid in creating effective cultural diversity management at the organization as
well as in the cross-cultural environments in which the organization engages (Lima et al., 2016)
and is grounded in CQ Theory (Earley & Ang, 2003). The OCQ survey was the foundational
assessment specifically explored because it was the only organizational assessment, as of the
writing of this paper, that includes how CQ affects organizational inclusion and diversity (Lima,
2014; Lima et al., 2016).
Additionally, OCQ is also divided into three categories: competitive CQ, managerial CQ,
and structural CQ. Competitive CQ measures the levels at which the organization’s processes
and routines prove compatible with efficiently facilitating internal and external diversity.
Managerial CQ is the individual CQ embodied by top organizational leaders. Structural CQ is
8

defined as the levels at which organizational development and reporting structure and
mechanisms prove compatible with facilitating internal and external diversity.
CQ Knowledge measures the knowledge needed to have a high CQ score, CQ Drive
addresses the leadership and organizational motivation for change, and OCQ structural,
managerial, and competitive components address organizational structural gaps (Ang & Van
Dyne, 2008; Clark & Estes, 2008; Lima, 2014; Lima et al., 2016; Livermore & Van Dyne, 2015).
Due to OCQ having a pre-validated quantitative survey (Lima, 2014), that survey was
contextualized and used for this study. The original research tool’s Cronbach Alpha scores were
above .76 and as high as .88. New Cronbach Alpha scores were taken during analysis and total
OCQ research tool score was .97 with five sub-scales measuring between .86 and .94 (Appendix
A).
The OCQ quantitative assessment contains questions on inclusion. However, this study
added pre-validated questions on belonging (Jansen et al., 2014; Rubin et al., 2019) that impact
racial minority attrition. All the questions on belonging had an original Cronbach Alpha scores
above .85. New Cronbach Alpha scores were taken during analysis and total Belonging research
tool score was .98 with four sub-scales measuring between .94 and .99 (Appendix A).
The research survey also contained questions on employee intent to leave. Martinez
(2019) found that high-CQ employees most likely leave a low CQ organization due to their
ability to absorb other ethnic cultures as well as other organizational cultures that would give
them other opportunities. Additionally, the author found that if a high-CQ employee has low job
satisfaction, they will certainly depart their job. The intent to leave scale previously had high
internal consistency, as indicated by a Cronbach's alpha of 0.928. New Cronbach Alpha scores
were taken and employee intent to leave scored a similar .93 (Appendix A).
9

Each RTE employee received the research survey. It consisted of three sections. Section
one contained instructions, section two contained 31 questions on OCQ, belonging, and intent to
leave, and section three contained eight questions on the participants’ demographic data.
Literature Review
This section provides the literature on the need for a culture of belonging, the historical
context of CQ, the root causes of gaps in organizations’ racial minority attrition rates, the overlap
of race and OCQ, and a brief introduction to the work of organizational change towards a culture
of belonging, equity, and inclusion that thrives in diversity. The review begins with an
explanation of the CQ construct and continues with the CQ scale. The CQ Scale is followed by
the foundations of how to measure OCQ and the OCQ scale. Next, there is an examination of
how OCQ, inclusion, diversity, belonging, race, and employee turnover interact. The review then
adds how religious organizations play a specific role in racial minority retention rates before
discussing the conceptual framework.
CQ Construct
The research on CQ is based on the theory of multiple intelligences (Sternberg, 1986).
The research field started with the work of Earley and Ang (2003) and was later defined as “an
individual’s capability to function and manage effectively in culturally diverse settings” (Ang et
al., 2007, p. 336). As seen in Figure 1, it was later narrowed to encompass cognitive,
metacognitive, motivational, and behavioral dimensions.

10

Figure 1
CQ Conceptual Framework (Van Dyne et al., 2010)

Motivational CQ (Cultural Drive)
The motivational CQ is defined as the capability to give attention and resources to be
engaged in learning while in diverse cultural settings (Earley & Ang, 2003) and was later defined
as CQ Drive (Livermore, 2015). These motivational abilities allow for control of affect,
cognition, and performance to accomplish tasks (Heggestad & Kanfer, 2000). Therefore,
motivational CQ influences the desire for task performance, which impacts employee turnover
intentions (Martinez, 2019).
Motivational CQ has three factors: self-efficacy, extrinsic interest, and intrinsic interest.
Self-efficacy is the effectiveness derived from self-assurance in culturally diverse environments.
Extrinsic interest is defined as the benefit gained from diverse cultural encounters. Intrinsic
interest is explained as personal enjoyment resulting from experiences in culturally diverse
settings (Livermore, 2015; Livermore & Van Dyne, 2015). Additionally, Earley and Ang (2003)
found that these motivational factors are incredibly personal to the individual, and low
motivational CQ would decrease employee satisfaction (Ang et al., 2015).
11

Expectancy-value theory of motivation (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002) states that the energy
output toward a specific task involves two elements: the anticipated success in accomplishing a
task and how much that task is valued. Thus, motivational CQ is a critical component of CQ
because it drives people towards culturally diverse settings. Additionally, it implies that
individuals will gain confidence when they go into a diverse cultural environment and will,
therefore, have a better situational judgment (Ang et al., 2015; Holtbrügge & Engelhard, 2016).
Thus, this dimension is described as having imperative significance because it activates the other
CQ dimensions, primarily behavioral and cognitive.
Cognitive CQ (CQ Knowledge)
Cognitive CQ focuses on cultural knowledge itself: conventions, cultural values, norms
in different contexts, and practices (Earley & Ang, 2003; Livermore & Van Dyne, 2015).
Therefore, the cognitive factor of CQ refers to an individual’s level of cultural knowledge or
knowledge of a cultural environment that contributes to employee satisfaction and belonging
(Crisp & Alvarado-Young, 2018; Martinez, 2019; Reitman, 2004; Russell, 2014). Cultural
knowledge comprises knowledge of self as surrounded by the cultural context (Ang & Van
Dyne, 2008; Livermore, 2015). Given the wide variety of cultures, cognitive CQ shows
knowledge of cultural norms and of variances in cultural dynamics.
Cognitive CQ is substantially important because knowledge of culture will influence
people’s thought patterns and actions (Earley & Ang, 2003). Understanding a group’s culture
and the aspects of culture allows people to better appreciate the systems that shape and cause
cultural patterns that occur during social interaction. Consequently, those with high cognitive CQ
are better able to interact with people from a culturally different society.
12

Metacognitive CQ (Cultural Strategy)
Earley and Ang (2003) conjectured that the CQ construct’s metacognitive dimension
refers to the most comprehensive consciousness of an individual’s cultural awareness. They saw
that those with high metacognitive CQ are conscious and questioning of their cultural
assumptions and are likely to detect and alter their behaviors to fit the cultural context in which
they are. This cultural detection is because this dimension of CQ involves high-level cognitive
strategies that permit people to develop new rules for novel social-cultural interactions and
environments. Thus, metacognitive CQ stimulates active critical thinking about people and
circumstances in varying cultural contexts, elicits ongoing defiance to rigid dependence on
culturally restricted assumptions, and requires people to adapt their behavioral strategies, so they
are more culturally proper and more likely to be successful in cross-cultural settings.
Mejri (2019) found that people with high metacognitive CQ are aware of societal and
individual cultural norms before, after, and during cultural situations. During these cultural
circumstances, such people reassesses assumptions, fine-tune cognitive processes, and adjust
cultural knowledge (Ang et al., 2015; Livermore, 2015). As metacognitive CQ involves high-
level cognitive approaches, the individual develops a practical method to achieve immediate
goals (Lorenz et al., 2016).
Behavioral CQ (Cultural Action)
The behavioral component of CQ reflects the application of the metacognitive, cognitive,
and motivational dimensions into proper verbal and nonverbal responses and actions in culturally
diverse settings (Brancu et al., 2016; Earley & Ang, 2003). Verbal features include varying
spoken characteristics. Non-verbal features are adjustments of physical traits and movements and
how they change in varying cultural contexts (Brancu et al., 2016). While people cannot master
13

all the cultural-behavioral distinctions, they can alter some learned behaviors for culturally
sensitive behavior. Behavioral CQ is most likely to be exhibited when individuals have high CQ
strategy or high CQ metacognition because people will be able to reflect and learn over time,
thus being more likely to behave appropriately.
CQ at the Individual, Team, and Organizational Levels
After the theory and framework of CQ were developed and validated (Earley & Ang,
2003), CQ began to take shape in various dynamics. First, individuals and their CQs were at the
center of research and development (Ang et al., 2007). Shortly after, team dynamics became the
topic of study (Earley et al., 2006). Later, and currently, while individual CQ and team CQ still
continue in development, organizational CQ came to the forefront (Lima, 2014).
Individual Cultural Intelligence
Once the CQ scale was validated (Ang et al., 2007) and the CQ assessment was created
(Cultural Intelligence Center, 2021), as described by Livermore (2015), CQ began to be used to
measure effectiveness in cross-national contexts. Much of the early work was in measuring the
CQ of expatriates (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008; Elenkov & Manev, 2009; Jassawalla et al., 2004; L.-
Y. Lee & Sukoco, 2010; Nguyen, 2010), international university students (Al-Jarrah, 2016; Chao
et al., 2017; Kurpis & Hunter, 2017; Presbitero, 2016), and international business people (Chen
et al., 2010; Imai & Gelfand, 2010; Koo Moon et al., 2013; Rockstuhl et al., 2011). These studies
found that CQ was consistently effective at measuring cross-cultural and cross-national
effectiveness.
After years of study, CQ has begun to expand into other fields, which further deepened
the importance of CQ. The personality trait of openness is linked to how well people will
function in being curious about other cultures (Li et al., 2016). Individual creativity is tied to CQ
14

as well. A study of 394 full-time employees found that cognitive, metacognitive, and
motivational forms of CQ have a positive relationship with individual creativity (Yunlu et al.,
2017). Young et al. (2017) found that empathetic managers of racially diverse mentee
populations increased their won metacognitive CQ, thus showing a positive relationship between
mentors and mentees. A recent dissertation by Martinez (2019) also found that managers’ low
CQ negatively affects employee turnover intentions.
A primary method of measuring an individual’s CQ is to take the CQ assessment through
the Cultural Intelligence Center (2020), as described by Livermore (2015).
Team Cultural Intelligence
The study of individual CQ later moved to how CQ affects teams. Studies revealed that
when staff has low CQ, trust and workforce satisfaction decrease (Earley et al., 2006; Rockstuhl
& Ng, 2008). Stone-Romero et al. (2003) found that employee teams with high motivational CQ
have higher task performance because they direct their energy toward learning the expectations
of their team roles and practice implementing new behaviors. Recently, Pacheco and Stevens
(2018) conducted a study with 19 student leaders in a semester-long diverse team environment
and found that people on teams with high cognitive CQ more accurately interpreted cultural
interactions, and individuals with high Motivational CQ showed more self-assurance in
culturally diverse team settings.
Multi-cultural and multi-racial teams’ diversity can greatly increase team performance
when the team leader and members have high CQ (Pacheco & Stevens, 2018). Pacheco and
Stevens (2018) state that high CQ helps leaders manage culturally diverse teams better, leading
them to higher task performance. Adair et al. (2013) found that increasing behavioral and
metacognitive CQ had a positive effect on shared values in culturally and racially heterogeneous
15

teams, thus increasing cultural competence. Recent studies also note that having leaders with
high motivational CQ leads to increased job performance due to increased positive work
adjustment in cross-cultural and cross-racial settings (McKinley Jr., 2018; Ott & Michailova,
2018; Pacheco & Stevens, 2018).
Team diversity expands the groups’ creativity and problem-solving capabilities (Cox &
Blake, 1991; C. Tang & Byrge, 2016). Studies on teams that have individuals with high CQ
confirm the positive influence of CQ on cross-cultural collaboration (Mor et al., 2013), inventive
collaborations (Chua et al., 2012), negotiations (Groves et al., 2015), and its function in
decreasing anxiety during communication (Bücker et al., 2014). A study of a culturally diverse
group of 157 employees showed that CQ wholly negotiates the effect of multiculturalism on
innovative work behaviors (Korzilius et al., 2017).
CQ at the Organizational Level
Inherently a multilevel phenomenon, CQ warrants research within organizations (Ang &
Van Dyne, 2008; Triandis, 2006). To date, 10 articles (Chen et al., 2012; David et al., 2019;
Gelfand et al., 2008; Moon, 2010; Ning et al., 2020; Rezai et al., 2020; Rollins, 2019; Srinivas &
Patrick, 2018; N. Y. Tang et al., 2013; Yitmen, 2013; Zhou et al., 2018) and two dissertations
(Lima, 2014; van Driel, 2008) have been written on OCQ despite recent calls for research in this
area (Ng et al., 2012). Van Driel (2008) was the first to explore the concept of OCQ and
developed a model that shifted team CQ from measuring individuals in a team to measuring the
team collective itself. Chen et al. (2012) employed a shift in the measurement model from
individual measurement to measuring the organizational collective. Van Driel and Gabrenya
(2013) later conducted four studies to explore the intersection between individual data
measurements of CQ to assess organizations. Both research endeavors validated organizational-
16

level motivational CQ measures (Ng et al., 2012). In 2014, the first-ever scale to operationalize
CQ at the organizational level was developed and published (Lima, 2014). Two years later, it
was operationalized in the first study (Lima et al., 2016), which served as a launching point for
more studies in the field of OCQ.
Again, OCQ is the organization’s capability to function effectively in internal and
external culturally diverse environments (Lima et al., 2016). Assessing OCQ includes measuring
five factors: leadership behavior, organizational adaptability, training and development,
organizational intentionality, and organizational inclusion (Lima et al., 2016). The OCQ
assessment that Lima (2014) created used the three dimensions that Ang and Inkpen (2008)
measured: managerial CQ, competitive CQ, and structural CQ. Managerial CQ is gaged at the
individual level of CQ and expressed by executive organizational leaders, competitive CQ
measures which organizational processes and procedures align with facilitating both internal and
external diversity successfully, and structural CQ is measured by how well organizational
development, reporting structures, and mechanisms facilitate both internal and external diversity.
Cultural Intelligence and Turnover Intentions
Employee turnover can be narrowed down to the desire to leave the organization (T. W.
Lee & Mowday, 1987). Mobley et al. (1978) found that an employees’ intent to leave a job is a
stage in their decision-making process, and several studies confirm that being a racial minority
has a doubling-down effect on intent to leave (Bruce, 2011; Cunningham et al., 2001; Griffin et
al., 2011; Jayakumar et al., 2009). Vandenberg and Nelson (1999) also defined the employee’s
intent to leave as a longing to leave their employment soon. Consequently, the intent to leave an
organization is someone’s willingness to resign from their employment.
17

Employees’ intent to resign is derived from their personal perception as well as their
flexibility to change jobs (Halfer & Graf, 2006; T. Lee & Mitchell, 1994; Roughton, 2013).
Common causes of employee’s intent to leave are personal values and expectations (T. W. Lee &
Mowday, 1987). Research has found that cultural values, especially those of racial minority
cultures, can be strong indicators of employee satisfaction (Livermore, 2013, 2015).
Studies have noted the impact of racial harassment on employees’ intention to leave.
Employees’ experience of verbal racial aggressions leads to feelings of racial and cultural
isolation and higher intentions to leave (Deery et al., 2011; Gaertner & Dovidio, 2005; McKay et
al., 2007). These thoughts and feelings of leaving are in line with prior research (Tepper, 2000;
Yu et al., 2018) that found that employees that experience racial harassment often decide to leave
their company. Moreover, various researchers (Deery et al., 2011; Djurkovic et al., 2008; Shields
& Price, 2002; Valentine, 2001) noted that workplace racial violence or racial harassment
expedites employee desire to resign due to burnout.
Employees from varying racial-ethnic backgrounds are bound to have cultural
misunderstandings, which will undoubtedly have an organizational impact, emphasizing the need
for CQ (Earley & Ang, 2003; Livermore, 2015; Livermore & Van Dyne, 2015). Earley and Ang
(2003) emphasized that racial-cultural situational misunderstanding reveals a need for a higher
cultural-analytical ability in which the solution to a cultural dispute can be derived through
cultural interpretation, likely decreasing intent to leave. What one person deems a harmless
interaction can be interpreted as racial harassment by another; therefore, leadership and
managerial CQ will impact intent to leave (Crosby, 2016; Elwyn et al., 2017; Isobel, 2016;
Livermore, 2015; Tapia & Kvasny, 2004).
18

Haniefa and Riani (2019) found that an employee’s ability to adapt to varying cultural
environments and the level of managerial CQ strengthens or weakens the ability to prevent racial
harassment or to manage racial conflict, which in turn lowered employee intention to leave. They
found that each CQ dimension moderated different results on intent to leave having CQ
knowledge and CQ strategy being the highest influencers. Additionally, the overall CQ score
provided the best variation in results. When the CQ of a manager was high, the employee
intention to leave was lower; conversely, when the CQ of a manager was low, the employee
intention to leave was high.
OCQ and Race
With the growing racial and racial-intersectional diversity in the workplace
(Amirkhanyan et al., 2018; Khan et al., 2018; Roberson, 2019; Rubaii-Barrett & Wise, 2006;
Smulowitz et al., 2019; De Toro et al., 2019), low OCQ can cause several organizational issues
(Lima, 2014; Lima et al., 2016). This problem is essential to address for several reasons: low-CQ
racially diverse teams under-produce other teams (Moon, 2013), high employee satisfaction
reduces employee turnover cost (Wheeler et al., 2006), and the lack of a racially diverse
leadership pipeline will impede higher production and lower racial minority employees and
White employees job satisfaction (Greenhaus et al., 1990; Lima et al., 2016; Xue, 2015).
Trust within teams is needed for workforce satisfaction (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008;
Rockstuhl & Ng, 2008). However, racial and cultural misunderstandings are bound to happen,
and when staff has low overall CQ and low racial-cultural knowledge, trust and workforce
satisfaction decrease (Earley et al., 2006; Rockstuhl & Ng, 2008). Employees’ retention
increases when their identity is enmeshed with employer brand identity (Shokef & Erez, 2008;
Wheeler et al., 2006). Yet, when employees experience racial stress and trauma in the workplace
19

(Bryant-Davis & Ocampo, 2005; Comas-Dí az & Greene, 1994), this traumatic encounter (Katz,
1985; D. R. Williams et al., 2003) will decrease workplace satisfaction and lower retention
(Jayakumar et al., 2009; McKay et al., 2007; McKinley Jr., 2018). Additionally, the Center for
American Progress completed 22 case studies, finding that employees making below $50,000
(which covers 75% of the USA workforce and of whom more than 90% are Black and Latinx)
cost the company 20% of their salary to be replaced due to employee acquisition and onboarding
costs (Boushey & Glynn, 2012; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2019).
While retention serves as a positive side effect of high CQ and OCQ (Lima et al., 2016;
Stanley et al., 2019), job satisfaction also increases with high-CQ individuals, managers, and
teams performing at their best (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008; Livermore & Van Dyne, 2015).
Statistical analysis revealed a strong association between OCQ and job satisfaction and that
organizations that focus on managing diversity increase low racial minority satisfaction rates
(Choi, 2017; Srinivas & Patrick, 2018; Xue, 2015), demonstrating that high OCQ is a need and
low OCQ is a problem. Patrick and Kumar (2012) speak to issues that increase racial minority
attrition: lack of strategic management of workplace diversity, training on prejudices and use of
stereotypes, minimizing miscommunication with diverse others, building relationships with
diverse others, and increasing CQ of employees.
An employee’s personal and professional development is greatly affected by their context
(Bgaston, 2006; Bronfenbrenner, 2004; Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994; Gardiner & Kosmitzki,
2017; Koert et al., 2011), which OCQ can measure. Dependent on the employee’s context, they
can be moving towards professional thriving or towards professional surviving (Blankenship,
2010; Flores, 2011; Jackson et al., 2007). A person in survival mode has high stress, which can
cause trauma over time, especially in cross-racial managerial dynamics where the supervisor is
20

White and the supervisee is a racial minority (Carter, 2007; Marx & Sloan, 2003; Nealy-Oparah
& Scruggs-Hussein, 2018; Srinivas & Patrick, 2018). If leadership primarily creates a context in
which White cultural norms (Livermore, 2013) define normal, then it creates a cultural context
where racial minorities cannot fully belong because their racial-cultural norm is not
acknowledged (K. Lawrence et al., 2009). The OCQ assessment must be taken to measure how
likely a member of a racial minority is to thrive in their context and to reveal OCQ gaps that
prevent their retention (Lima et al., 2016).
Assessing OCQ can be used to allocate the right resources to increase racial minority
retention, including measuring leadership behavior, adaptability, training and development,
organizational intentionality, and organizational inclusion (Lima et al., 2016). Organizations with
low OCQ lack the structures to allow high-CQ teams and racial minorities to flourish; thus, to
provide high OCQ structures, an assessment of OCQ must be conducted (Lima, 2014). Key
leader CQ measurement is essential because leaders shape organizational culture and create and
maintain organizational systems (Warrick, 2017). Leaders with low CQ create low OCQ
organizations (Lima et al., 2016; Moon, 2010, 2013) due to the hidden biases that perpetuate
institutional racial inequities (Livermore, 2015; Walter et al., 2017). However, organizational
inclusion and training have an inherent systemic component that the other measurements do not.
Organizational structural inclusion (Lima, 2014; Lima et al., 2016), defined as active,
intentional, and ongoing engagement with diversity, is a key component that drives OCQ that
needs to be measured and increased to extend the employment time of racial minorities (Ang &
Inkpen, 2008). Inclusive practices will help racial minorities flourish, increase their retention,
and decrease turnover costs (D. Williams, 2013; Yitmen, 2013). Inclusive practices will also
create trusting environments that are positively related to racial minority employee engagement,
21

which increases retention (Downey et al., 2015). With inclusive practices in place, training and
development are needed to continue to increase racial minority retention.
The fifth component of OCQ is leadership development and training. Little to no access
to programs with contextual leadership development and training will decrease racially diverse
teams’ efficiency, thus reducing racial minorities’ retention (Greenhaus et al., 1990; Lockwood,
2018; Moon, 2010, 2013). Leadership development requires both training and mentoring (Crisp
& Alvarado-Young, 2018). Training can significantly increase cross-racial and cross-cultural
leadership competency on job performance (Agboola Sogunro, 1997), especially through
experiential programs (Kurpis & Hunter, 2017) and reciprocal mentoring (Desai et al., 2018).
Training with an emphasis on social identity, which includes identity development, and
unconscious bias, will increase racial minority retention, job performance, and workforce
efficiency (Alexander Haslam et al., 2017; Madsen & Andrade, 2018) as long as it increases CQ
(Livermore & Van Dyne, 2015). Diversified high-CQ and racially diverse mentoring
relationships promote empathetic high-CQ staff through increased metacognitive CQ and
behavioral CQ (Young et al., 2018), which, in turn, promotes professional development and
networking opportunities (Desai et al., 2018). These mentoring and leadership development
benefits will not occur if organizational leaders do not treat low OCQ as an organizational
strategic focus.
Belonging
Belonging is a fundamental human need (Maslow, 1943). Baumeister and Leary (1995)
created a belonging hypothesis centered on a human being’s need to belong, which showed high
motivation connected to health and wellbeing, emotional patterns, behavioral responses, and
cognitive processes. Humans of all races and ethnicities have high motivation to have deep
22

relational connections to others, be part of a group, and be accepted as an insider (Baumeister &
Leary, 1995).
Belonging has a psychological dynamic, and according to Leary and Cox (2008), humans
attempt to avoid exclusion due it its grave in-group and out-group survival consequences.
Happiness and positive feelings are the goals of belonging, increasing the motivational drive.
Additionally, there is an inherent value in belonging perceived through macro and micro
behaviors from people in their relational circles (L. A. Kirkpatrick & Ellis, 2004). While humans
vary in the number of relationships they seek (Baumeister & Leary, 1995), an ongoing low sense
of belonging can result in depression and anxiety, low health scores, lower self-regulation, and
stress (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Bryant-Davis & Ocampo, 2005; Bücker et al., 2014;
Cockshaw & Shochet, 2010; Hagerty & Patusky, 1995; Livermore, 2016; Wang et al., 2014).
Workplace Belonging
Merriman (2010) used Maslow’s hierarchy of needs to explain sense of belonging as the
first of the upper levels of Maslow’s pyramid that must be met before self-esteem and esteem for
others can be achieved. In the workplace, the need for sense of belonging, being liked, and being
respected by peers and superiors necessitates achievement before employees can consent to the
responsibility of tasks and situations and maximize their skills and capacities. When people
engage relationally and personally, the subconscious and conscious dynamics between self and
work become almost indistinguishable. Hence, engaging in the workplace can be described as
feeling a sense of belonging that enables employees to be their authentic selves (Sambrook et al.,
2014).
Workplace belonging gauges employee perception of supportive and caring relationships
within their organization and shows that perception is as impactful as concrete caring and
23

supportive relationships (Cockshaw & Shochet, 2010; Hagerty & Patusky, 1995; Jena &
Pradhan, 2018; Jena et al., 2018; Tremblay et al., 2010). Cockshaw et al. (2013) detected various
types of belonging as they measured a workplace sense of belonging. They differentiated a
psychological sense of organizational membership and a separate sense of belonging. An
important finding was that there is a difference between human relational belonging in the
context outside of the workplace with family and friends and the workplace. The findings
specifically were that, while a person might feel a sense of belonging with family and friends,
they might not feel it in their workplace.
Cockshaw et al. (2013) also noted that workplace belonging affects mental health
differently from general belonging. Workplace belonging can have positive effects on job
satisfaction (Jena & Pradhan, 2018; Jena et al., 2018), foster helping behavior (Den Hartog et al.,
2007; R. M. Johnson et al., 2020; Stamper & Masterson, 2002), improve mental health outcomes
(Immordino-Yang et al., 2012; Isobel, 2016; Jena et al., 2018; Manderscheid, 2009;
Shakespeare-Finch & Daley, 2017; Somoray et al., 2017) and connect to wellbeing, low burnout
and decreased stress, (Armstrong & Rimes, 2016; Goodenow, 1993; Hillhouse et al., 2000;
Juthberg et al., 2010; Leung et al., 2011; Shakespeare-Finch & Daley, 2017; Somoray et al.,
2017). In contrast, studies show the negative effects of low organizational belonging, especially
as it relates to race.
Belonging, Cultural Intelligence, and Racial-Ethnic Groups
A person also can have a sense of belonging to a racial-ethnic group (De Sisto &
Dickinson, 2019; Reitman, 2004; Russell, 2014). Oftentimes, for racial minorities, the sense of
belonging to their racial-ethnic group can be strong due to society’s racial power dynamics
(Bonds, 2020; Macalpine & Marsh, 2005; Marshall & Haight, 2014; Walton & Cohen, 2007).
24

Additionally, studies have found that seeing one’s racial-ethnic minority group well represented
at all company levels and having racial-ethnic employee resource groups increase employee
sense of belonging to the organization (Gomez, 2020; Poblete, 2017; Reitman, 2004; Rubin et
al., 2019).
Cultural intelligence directly affects sense of belonging (Jyoti et al., 2015; Lechman,
2015; Seriwatana & Charoensukmongkol, 2020). One study found that White instructors’ high
CQ knowledge on cultural norms had a positive impact on racial minority students’ sense of
belonging (Lechman, 2015). Studies also revealed that low CQ at all levels negatively impacts
employee sense of belonging, especially when the supervisee is a racial minority and the
supervisor is White (Desai et al., 2018; Groves & Feyerherm, 2011; Haniefa & Riani, 2019;
Livermore, 2016).
Summary
The need for OCQ is crucial in today’s increasingly racially diverse workforce. Racial
diversity in the workplace creates new challenges for organizational management and
development. Inquiry into individual CQ is insufficient in the management and development of
racially diverse workplace contexts that increase employee sense of belonging. OCQ allows
organizational leaders to dive into the impact on racial minorities’ retention rates and workplace
experience in a way that personal and team CQ do not. OCQ, combined with racial minority
employee intent to leave the organization and strong sense of belonging, provides the
organization with the current reality as well as the opportunity to measure urgency.
Conceptual Framework
A conceptual framework is a road map that illustrates the possible relationship between
concepts, theories, or variables of a study (Maxwell, 2013). Additionally, Grant and Osanloo
25

(2014) state that a conceptual framework is the combination of three variables: the researcher’s
construction of how the problem of practice will best be investigated, the particular research
path, and the relationship between variables. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) show that a conceptual
framework is an emersion of researcher notions derived from the combination of the guiding
research questions and proposed literature review of primary research topics, which eventually
turn into new theories. Additionally, a study's visual representation is warranted to show the
interrelated concepts (Maxwell, 2013).
The conceptual framework for this study is based primarily on the theory of CQ (Earley
& Ang, 2003). Moon (2010) began developing the organizational-level CQ framework basing
the theory on the combination of individual-level CQ theory (Earley & Ang, 2003) and an
organizational dynamic capability framework that measures an organization’s capability to adapt
its resource base (Teece et al., 1997). Moon added capabilities of internal and external
performance in culturally diverse settings by extending and accentuating existing organizational
competencies and resources. The conceptualized OCQ theory includes managerial CQ,
competitive CQ, and structural CQ. That OCQ-triad is measured specifically through five
factors: leadership behavior, organizational adaptability, training and development,
organizational intentionality, and organizational inclusion. OCQ, therefore, is an independent
variable.
The relationship between manager and RM creates a unique racialized component that
affects RM retention rates (Bryant-Davis & Ocampo, 2005; Bücker et al., 2014; Day, 2017;
Emerson & Murphy, 2014; Nealy-Oparah & Scruggs-Hussein, 2018; Xue, 2015). Additionally,
managers create local office culture (H. Schein & Schein, 2017; Meyerson, 2001; Warrick,
26

2017). To precisely identify racial minorities’ racialized experience in an organization, the
conceptual framework categorizes their experience by their immediate manager’s race and CQ.
Urgency is one of the two dependent variables. To measure organizational urgency
towards racial minorities’ intent to leave, the conceptual framework also contains the
interconnected relationship between OCQ and employee intent to leave the organization.
Additionally, the OCQ framework includes the racial and power differences of the racial
minority and non-racial minority managers and their effect on racial minority employees’ OCQ
scores and their intent to leave. The second dependent variable is sense of belonging. To measure
racial minority employees’ sense of belonging, the conceptual framework contains the
interrelated relationship between OCQ and employees’ sense of belonging to the organization.
Figure 2 illustrates the conceptual framework through a process of independent variables,
the relationship between race, supervisors, and supervisees, and the dependent variables of
employee turnover intentions and sense of belonging according to their experience, context, and
OCQ measures.

27

Figure 2
Research Study Conceptual Framework

28

Methodology
This project utilized quantitative methods for data gathering and analysis. Quantitative
analysis methodology serves to analyze objective theories by investigating the relationship
between variables (Creswell, 2014). Additionally, the purpose of this research design is to enable
the researcher to make accurate generalizations about a population (R. B. Johnson &
Christensen, 2014) by emphasizing the objective measurements through numerical analysis of
survey responses (Creswell, 2014). Therefore, a survey was the preferred method for this study
to collect data on racial minority and White RTE staff members’ attitudes and opinions.
Specifically, the opinions on and knowledge of leadership behavior, organizational adaptability,
training and development, organizational intentionality, and organizational inclusion.

Table 1
Data Sources
Research Questions Survey
RQ1: What are the differences between racial minorities and self-
identified Whites on intent to leave, belonging, and OCQ
components?
X
RQ2: What are the correlations between intent to leave,
belonging, and OCQ components?
X
RQ3: What are the greatest predictors for intent to leave an
organization for racial minorities?
X

29

Research Setting
RTE was founded in the mid-1990s and is the sixth-largest business operator in their field
in the United States. Additionally, RTE has a yearly operations revenue of over $2.6 billion as of
the end of 2019. RTE is a multi-site technology organization that spans nine states and 23
locations, one of which is the corporate headquarters. The organization has 2,490 field
employees and 290 corporate headquarters employees, all serving over 776,000 clients. Each of
the field staff locations has eight hierarchical leadership levels, and the corporate headquarters
has five levels of hierarchical employees. Additionally, the organization’s racial demographics
are such that 580 employees are racial minority non-White and 580 are White.
RTE is an appropriate organization to study to address the research questions for several
reasons. First, its varying authority levels with varied racial differences in authority provide
population stratification (Fowler, 2014). Second, the multi-site setting provides varying
geographical cultures that increase survey validity and reliability (Creswell & Creswell, 2017).
Third, the sample size should be determined based on analysis plans (Fowler, 2014), and the
scope of this sample will maintain high confidence levels at 99% while keeping a low margin of
error at .74% or below with at least 536 completed surveys (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). Lastly,
every employee within the organization had access to the research online survey via their work
or personal computers, and executive leadership used line of authority to provide the appropriate
time to fill out the survey during work hours.
Building in protection against assumptions and bias is crucial (Creswell & Creswell,
2017), as standards of validity and reliability are essential in quantitative research (Phillips &
Burbules, 2000). The survey for this study passed bias testing through the institutional review
board and was peer-reviewed via dissertation processes (Lima, 2014; Martinez, 2019).
30

Additionally, the survey was checked for response bias through nonresponses on survey
estimates (Fowler, 2014). A wave analysis was also conducted to determine whether average
responses change (Leslie, 1972), decreasing bias. Lastly, as the survey was returned in the last
weeks of the survey period, responses did not change results, and a response bias was not
considered (Creswell & Creswell, 2017).
Data Sources
Survey
The strategy used was a quantitative survey: the five-factor 21-item OCQ survey (Lima et
al., 2016). A survey is a structured questionnaire that seeks a precise measure and analysis of
target concepts (Aliyu et al., 2015). This strategy aligns with the conceptual framework because
OCQ, sense of belonging, and intent to leave surveys are validated to measure organizational
capability in terms of cross-cultural interactions (Lima, 2014), employee sense of belonging
(Jansen et al., 2014), and intent to leave the organization (Martinez, 2019). Proper research is
required to be internally and externally valid and reliable (Grant & Osanloo, 2014). Using pre-
validated surveys will help with the reliability and validity of the measurements conducted.
Additionally, all RTE employees will receive the survey, and the variable will be the employee’s
race, thus adding to the research’s reliability and credibility.
Participants
The participants in this study were all employees in RTE. There was a need to choose all
employees for appropriate authority and racial stratification (Fowler, 2014). At the time of
survey deployment, there were 2,780 RTE employees, and the specific employee segmenting
criteria were race and authority level. In RTE, the racial demographics at the time of the survey
were 86 Latinx, 415 Black or African American, 56 Asian, 18 mixed-race or multi-racial, 10
31

Pacific Islander, 14 First Nations, and 1, 403 White. None, before the survey, was recorded
internally recorded by RTE as “preferred not to say” or “other white European.”
The sampling design for the participant population is a cluster sample design. The
researcher identified the organization and worked with the human resources department to
distribute the survey link to all participants. Due to all participants being selected to take the
survey, a census sample was the approach taken. Yet, a convenience sample approach was also
used in that it was convenient to choose all the RTE staff.
Instrumentation
To maintain survey validity, the survey items were intricately connected to the
conceptual framework and the research questions (Grant & Osanloo, 2014). The online survey
contained 33 questions: 21 were Likert-type questions based on the OCQ survey (Lima, 2014),
five were Likert-type based on intent to leave the organization, six Likert-type questions on
belonging, one was a Likert-type perception of diversity, and six were demographical.
The demographical questions pertained to gender, racial ethnicity, education level, age
range, number of years in the organization, and role in the organization. The Likert-type OCQ
questions consisted of five leadership behavior questions, four leadership adaptability questions,
six training and development questions, three leadership and organizational intentionality
questions, and three organizational inclusion questions. The five Likert-type intent-to-leave
questions were adapted from Martinez’s (2019) study on employee turnover intentions. There
were 16 belonging questions with four subscales (Jansen et al., 2014): group membership, group
affection, room for authenticity, and value in authenticity. All the Likert-type survey components
contained response options of strongly disagree, disagree, neither agree nor disagree, agree,
strongly agree. Appendix C provides the complete list of survey questions.
32

Data Collection Procedures
A request to participate in the survey was sent to RTE on Wednesday, March 4, 2020. On
March 12, 2020, a meeting was conducted between the researcher and RTE’s vice presidents of
human resources and of talent acquisition and partnerships. On March 17, 2020, a partnership for
the research project was solidified, and a timeline was established (Appendix D).
Several email communications were sent to RTE employees to increase survey
participation (Appendix E). The survey was hosted on Qualtrics.com. To ensure anonymity, the
researcher sent the survey link to a vice president of talent acquisition to be sent to all employees
via their work emails. The survey was active from October 8, 2020. through November 3, 2020.
The average time to take the survey varied greatly. Some who took the survey finished in five to
six minutes, while others finished quickly at an average of 5 minutes and 37 seconds, and others
finished in hours. All participants took the survey on desktop computers.
Data Analysis
Prior to analysis, the survey data were cleaned. Likert items with “declined to answer”
were not deleted and used as a grouping that could indicate low psychological safety (Emerson
& Murphy, 2014; Kislik, 2018; Paolillo et al., 2016; Singh & Winkel, 2012; Singh et al., 2013;
Thorgren & Caiman, 2019; J. D. Williams et al., 2016). To enable quantitative analysis, Likert
items were scored. The scores ranged from 1 for “Strongly Disagree” to 5 for “Strongly Agree.”
Demographic variables such as racial ethnicity, gender, and level of authority were
analyzed as nominal variables. Racial ethnicity was categorized as a categorial variable and was
the variable analyzed primarily. Constructs were developed by computing mean scores over the
corresponding variables. Scale reliability was determined using Cronbach’s alpha with values
above .70 considered acceptable (Salkind & Frey, 2019). Frequencies and percentages associated
33

with each survey item were calculated, and responses were reported. Continuous variables were
compared among multiple groups using the analysis of variable (ANOVA) procedure (Salkind &
Frey, 2019). Pairwise correlations were evaluated by estimating Pearson’s correlation coefficient
(Salkind & Frey, 2019).
Linear regression models were produced to investigate the relationship between the
constructs (factual knowledge, procedural knowledge, self-efficacy, attribution, cultural setting,
and cultural model) and participants’ demographic characteristics (Salkind & Frey, 2019).
Variables were incorporated in the model based on the researcher’s prior literature review. The
constructs were each modeled as the dependent variable individually and aggregated to the
overall scales. The predictors included age (categorical), ethnicity, gender, education level, age
range, number of years in the organization, role in the organization, and U.S. region according to
RTE. Hypothesis testing was considered statistically significant at p < 0.05 (Salkind & Frey,
2019). All statistical analyses were performed in Qualtrics.
Descriptive statistical analysis helped to identify standard deviation, averages, and
demographics. Not all respondents answered all of the questions. Percentages reported, therefore,
correspond to the total number of participants who answered all individual questions on the
survey. Variable statistical significance of relationships was determined using ANOVA’s t-test,
and p-value significance was set to 0.05.
Findings
The purpose of this project was to use OCQ as a foundational theoretical framework to
see how organizational culture of belonging affects racial minority employees’ experience,
examine how that impacts intent to leave the organization, and offer solutions. Using quantitative
methods, the data came from one survey from a multi-site and multi-state technology
34

organization in the United States. This section presents data analysis results regarding the
measurable variables of leadership, training and evaluation, organizational flexibility,
organizational adaptability, inclusion, belonging, and employee intent to leave the organization.
Most respondents were between the ages of 35 and 54, held entry-level positions (70.2%), self-
identified as male (59.9%), and resided in Georgia (26.5%). Of those who completed the survey,
there were 243 racial minorities (23.4%), Whites totaled 622 (59%), and 173 did not wish to
state their racial-ethnic group (16.7%). Appendix J presents a more comprehensive table.

35

Table 2
Participants’ Demographics and Characteristics
Characteristics n % N = 1024
Gender
Male 621 59.9%
Female 304 29.3%
Non-Binary 9 .9%
Prefer not to say 103 9.9%
Racial Ethnicity
American Indian / First Nations 12 1.2%
Asian 20 1.9%
Pacific Islander 7 .7%
Latinx 30 2.9%
White 612 59%
Other European 10 1%
Black or African American 154 14.8%
Bi-racial or Multi-racial 20 1.9%
Prefer not to say 173 16.7%
Role in the organization
Executive/top leadership 52 5.1%
Mid-level leader/supervisor 252 24.7%
Worker/staff member 715 70.2%
State as workplace
Alabama 93 9.3%
Colorado / Remote Workers 184 18.3%
Florida 67 6.7%
Georgia 266 26.5%
Illinois 78 7.8%
Indiana 58 5.8%
Michigan 126 12.5%
Ohio 99 9.9%
South Carolina 18 1.8%
Tennessee 15 1.5%

Research Question 1
The first research question asked, “What are the differences between racial minorities and
self-identified Whites on intent to leave, belonging, and OCQ components?” This study
evaluated several variables: leadership behavior, organizational adaptability, training and
development, organizational intentionality, inclusion, sense of belonging, and employee intent to
36

leave the organization. Each variable was aggregated and compared with racial-ethnic grouping:
racial minority, White, and prefer not to say.
Leadership Behavior (OCQ)
The data suggested a statistically significant relationship between racial-ethnic grouping
and Leadership Behavior. As illustrated in Table 3 in Appendix K, the standard deviation (SD)
for all scores was .8 for those who preferred not to say and Whites. For racial minorities, the SD
was .9. Table 5 shows that the lowest average score was given by those who preferred not to say
their racial-ethnic group (3.33), while Whites had the highest opinion on Leadership Behavior
(3.74). Racial minorities had the median score of the racial-ethnic groups (3.66).
The reliability of the difference between White and racial minorities was below the
accepted threshold (p =.458). However, as seen in Table 4, the difference between those who
preferred not to say their race and those who did was significant (p =.001). Additionally, Figures
3 through 6 in Appendix K illustrate the data on Leadership Behavior.
Organizational Adaptability (OCQ)
The data suggested a statistically significant relationship between racial-ethnic grouping
and Organizational Adaptability. As illustrated in Table 5 in Appendix K, the SD for all scores
was .7 for those who preferred not to say and Whites. For racial minorities, the SD was .8. Table
5 shows that the lowest average score was given by those who preferred not to say their racial-
ethnic group (3.32), while Whites had the highest opinion on Organizational Adaptability (3.65).
Racial minorities had the median score of the racial-ethnic groups (3.54).
Tables 6 in Appendix K shows that the reliability of the difference between White and
racial minorities was below the accepted threshold (p =.1380). However, as seen in Table 6 in
Appendix K, the difference between those who preferred not to say their race and those who did
37

was significant, with .0010 between Whites and .0121 between racial minorities. Additionally,
Figures 7 through 10 in Appendix K illustrate the data on organizational adaptability.
Training and Development (OCQ)
The data suggested a statistically significant relationship between racial-ethnic grouping
and training and development. As illustrated in Table 7 in Appendix K, the SD for all scores was
.8 for those who preferred not to say and Whites. For racial minorities, the SD was .9. Table 7
shows that the lowest average score was given by those who preferred not to say their racial-
ethnic group (3.28), while Whites had the highest opinion on Training and Development (3.47).
Racial minorities had the median score of the racial-ethnic groups (3.35).
Tables 8 in Appendix K shows that the reliability of the difference between White and
racial minorities was below the accepted threshold (p = .173), as was that of those who preferred
not to say their race and racial minorities (p = .606). Those who preferred not to say their racial
ethnicity and Whites did have a significant difference (p = .0103). Additionally, Figures 11
through 14 in Appendix K illustrate the data on Training and Development.
Organizational Intentionality (OCQ)
The data suggested a statistically significant relationship between racial-ethnic grouping
and Organizational Intentionality. As illustrated in Table 9 in Appendix K, the SD for all scores
was .8 for those who preferred not to say. For racial minorities, the SD was .9, and .7 for Whites.
Table 9 shows that the lowest average score was given by those who preferred not to say their
racial-ethnic group (3.31), while Whites had the highest opinion on Organizational Intentionality
(3.53). Racial minorities had the median score of the racial-ethnic groups (3.46).
Tables 10 in Appendix K show that the reliability of the difference between White and
racial minorities (p = .491) as well as between those who preferred not to say and racial
38

minorities (p = .15) was below the accepted threshold. Those who preferred not to say their
racial ethnicity and Whites did have a significant difference (p = .0021). Additionally, Figures
15 through 18 in Appendix K illustrate the data on Organizational Intentionality.
Organizational Inclusion (OCQ)
The data suggested a statistically significant relationship between racial-ethnic grouping
and Organizational Inclusion. As illustrated in Table 11 in Appendix K, the SD for all scores was
.8 for those who preferred not to say. The SD for racial minorities was .9, and .8 for Whites.
Table 11 shows that the lowest average score was given by those who preferred not to say their
racial-ethnic group (3.57), while Whites had the highest opinion on Organizational Inclusion
(3.99). Racial minorities had the median score of the racial-ethnic groups (3.70).
Tables 12 in Appendix K shows that the reliability of the difference between those who
preferred not to say their race and racial minorities (p = .273) was below the accepted threshold.
Those who preferred not to say their racial ethnicity and Whites did have a significant difference
(p = .001), as was the difference between Whites and racial minorities (p = .001). Additionally,
Figures 19 through 22 in Appendix K illustrate the data on Organizational Inclusion.
Belonging
Below are the findings for the overall belonging aggregation as well as the belonging
sub-scales.
Belonging Overall. The data suggested a statistically significant relationship between
racial-ethnic grouping and Belonging Overall. As illustrated in Table 13 in Appendix K, the SD
for all groups was .8 for all racial groups, including those who preferred not to say. Table 13
shows that the lowest average score was given by those who preferred not to say their racial-
39

ethnic group (3.50), while Whites had the highest opinion on Belonging Overall (3.99). Racial
minorities had the median score of the racial-ethnic groups (3.81).
Tables 14 in Appendix K shows that the reliability of the difference was significant for
all comparisons: those who preferred not to say their racial ethnicity and Whites (p = .001), those
who preferred not to say and racial minorities (p = .001), and between Whites and racial
minorities (p = .0127). Additionally, Figures 23 through 26 in Appendix K illustrate the data on
Overall Belonging.
Belonging Group Membership. The data suggested a statistically significant
relationship between racial-ethnic grouping and Belonging Group Membership. As illustrated in
Table 15 in Appendix K, the SD was .9 for all racial groups, including those who preferred not to
say. Table 15 shows that the lowest average score was given by those who preferred not to say
their racial-ethnic group (3.51), while Whites had the highest opinion (3.97). Racial minorities
had the median score of the racial-ethnic groups (3.82).
Tables 16 in Appendix K show that the reliability of the difference was not significant for
all comparisons. The scores were as follows. For racial minorities and Whites (p = .0552),
reliability was below the threshold, yet between those who preferred not to say and racial
minorities (p = .00206) and between Whites and those who preferred not to say (p = .001), it
above the threshold of significance. Additionally, Figures 27 through 30 in Appendix K illustrate
the data on Belonging Group Membership.
Belonging Group Affection. The data suggested a statistically significant relationship
between racial-ethnic grouping and Belonging Group Affection. As illustrated in Table 17 in
Appendix K, the SD was .8 for all racial groups, including those who preferred not to say. Table
17 shows that the lowest average score was given by those who preferred not to say their racial-
40

ethnic group (3.49), while Whites had the highest opinion (3.81). Racial minorities had the
median score of the racial-ethnic groups (3.98).
Tables 18 in Appendix K show that the reliability of the difference was significant for all
comparisons: for racial minorities and Whites (p = .0177), those who preferred not to say and
racial minorities (p = .001) and between Whites and those who preferred not to say was (p =
.001). Additionally, Figures 31 through 34 in Appendix K illustrate the data on Belonging Group
Affection.
Belonging Room for Authenticity. The data suggested a statistically significant
relationship between racial-ethnic grouping and Belonging Room for Authenticity. As illustrated
in Table 19 in Appendix K, the SD was .9 for those who preferred not to reveal their racial
ethnicity as well as for all racial minorities. For Whites, the SD was .8. Table 19 shows that the
lowest average score was given by those who preferred not to say their racial-ethnic group
(3.53), while Whites had the highest opinion (4.03). Racial minorities had the median score of
the racial-ethnic groups (3.83).
Tables 20 in Appendix K shows that the reliability of the difference was not significant
for all comparisons: racial minorities and Whites (p = .001), those who preferred not to say and
racial minorities (p = .00225), and between Whites and those who preferred not to say was (p =
.00571). Additionally, Figures 35 through 38 in Appendix K illustrate the data on Belonging
Room for Authenticity.
Belonging Value for Authenticity. The data suggested a statistically significant
relationship between racial-ethnic grouping and Belonging Value for Authenticity. As illustrated
in Table 21 in Appendix K, the SD was .9 for all racial groups, including those who preferred not
to reveal their racial ethnicity. Table 21 shows that the lowest average score was given by those
41

who preferred not to say their racial-ethnic group (3.43), while Whites had the highest opinion
(3.93). Racial minorities had the median score of the racial-ethnic groups (3.71).
Tables 22 in Appendix K show that the reliability of the difference was significant for all
comparisons: Racial minorities and Whites (p = .00324), those who preferred not to say and
racial minorities (p = .0149), and between Whites and those who preferred not to say (p = .001).
Additionally, Figures 39 through 42 in Appendix K illustrate the data on Belonging Value for
Authenticity.
Employee Intent to Leave
The data suggested a statistically significant relationship between racial-ethnic grouping
and Employee Intent to Leave. As illustrated in Table 23 in Appendix K, the SD was 1.1 for
those who preferred not to express their racial ethnicity and for Whites. For racial minorities, the
SD was 1.0. Table 23 shows that the lowest opinion score was given by those who preferred not
to say their racial-ethnic group (2.54), while Whites had the highest opinion (2.11). Racial
minorities had the median score of the racial-ethnic groups (2.26). The lower the score, the more
likely an employee intends to stay.
Tables 24 in Appendix K show that the reliability of the difference was not significant for
all comparisons. The scores were as follows. Between racial minorities and Whites (p = .120), it
was not significant. It was significant between those who preferred not to say and racial
minorities (p = .0215) and between Whites and those who preferred not to say (p = .001).
Additionally, Figures 43 through 46 in Appendix K illustrate the data on Employee Intent to
Leave.
42

Research Question 2
The second research question asked, “What are the correlations between intent to leave,
belonging, and OCQ components?” As can be seen in Appendix L (Table 25), there was a strong
correlation between belonging variables, intent to leave, and OCQ variables. The strongest
correlation between OCQ and Belonging was when looking at Inclusion OCQ (Pearson’s r,
.727). The strongest negative correlation was between Belonging Overall and Employee Intent to
Leave (Pearson’s r, -.591). Consistently, Leadership Behavior had the lowest correlations with
any other variable.
Leadership Behavior (OCQ)
As illustrated in Appendix L (Table 25), there was a strong positive correlation between
Leadership Behavior and all other OCQ variables, measuring in Pearson’s r between .665
(inclusion) and .820 (Organizational Adaptability). There was also a strong positive correlation
between Leadership Behavior and Belonging Overall (p < .00001, r = .562). The strongest
positive correlation of the Belonging sub-dimensions was between Leadership Behavior and
Belonging Group Affection (p < .00001, r = .536). Additionally, there was a small-to-medium
negative correlation between Employee Intent to Leave and Leadership Behavior (p < .00001, r
= -.280), showing that the lower the cultural intelligence perception on Leadership Behavior, the
more likely the employee’s intent to leave.
Organizational Adaptability (OCQ)
As illustrated in Appendix L (Table 25), there was a strong positive correlation between
Leadership Behavior and all other OCQ variables, measuring in Pearson’s r between .747
(inclusion) and .820 (Organizational Adaptability). There was also a strong positive correlation
between Leadership Behavior and Belonging Overall (p < .00001, r = .628). The strongest
43

positive correlation of the Belonging sub-dimensions was between Organizational Adaptability
and Belonging Value in Authenticity (p < .00001, r = .596). Additionally, there was a medium
negative correlation between Employee Intent to Leave and Organizational Adaptability (p <
.00001, r = -.343), showing that the lower the Organizational Adaptability, the more likely the
employee’s intent to leave.
Training and Development (OCQ)
As illustrated in Appendix L (Table 25), there was a strong positive correlation between
Training and Development and all other OCQ variables, measuring in Pearson’s r between .705
(Leadership Behavior) and .829 (Organizational Intentionality). There was also a strong positive
correlation between Training and Development and Belonging Overall (p < .00001, r = .624).
The strongest positive correlation of the Belonging sub-dimensions was between Training and
Development and Belonging Value in Authenticity (p < .00001, r = .599). Additionally, there
was a medium negative correlation between Employee Intent to Leave and Organizational
Adaptability (p < .00001, r = -.344), showing that the lower the Training and Development
score, the more likely the employee’s intent to leave will be.
Organizational Intentionality (OCQ)
As illustrated in Appendix L (Table 25), there was a strong positive correlation between
Leadership Intentionality and all other OCQ variables, measuring in Pearson’s r between .680
(Leadership Behavior) and .829 (Training and Development). There was also a strong positive
correlation between Organizational Intentionality and Belonging Overall (p < .00001, r = .600).
The strongest positive correlation of the Belonging sub-dimensions was between Organizational
Intentionality and Belonging Value in Authenticity (p < .00001, r = .578). Additionally, there
was a small negative correlation between Employee Intent to Leave and Organizational
44

Adaptability (p < .00001, r = -.280), showing that the lower the Organizational Intentionality, the
more likely the employee’s intent to leave.
Inclusion (OCQ)
As illustrated in Appendix L (Table 25), there was a strong positive correlation between
Inclusion and all other OCQ variables, measuring in Pearson’s r between .665 (Leadership
Behavior) and .747 at both Organizational Adaptability & Training and Development. There was
also a strong positive correlation between Inclusion and Belonging Overall (p < .00001, r =
.727). This Pearson’s r was the strongest correlation between all OCQ and Belonging Overall by
.099 (Organizational Adaptability). The strongest positive correlation of the Belonging sub-
dimensions was between Inclusion and Belonging Room for Authenticity (p < .00001, r = .687).
Additionally, there was a medium negative correlation between Employee Intent to Leave and
Inclusion (p < .00001, r = -.392), showing that the lower the Inclusion score, the more likely the
employee’s intent to leave. This was the largest negative correlation between OCQ components
and Employee Intent to Leave.
Belonging
Belonging Overall. As illustrated in Appendix L (Table 25), there was a strong positive
correlation between Belonging Overall and all its subdimension variables, measuring in
Pearson’s r between .921 (Belonging Group Membership) and .945 (Belonging Room for
Authenticity). There was also a strong positive correlation between Belonging Overall and all
OCQ metrics measuring between .544 (Leadership Behavior) and .727 (Inclusion). Belonging
Overall was the strongest correlation with OCQ. The strongest positive correlation of the OCQ
sub-dimensions was between Belonging and Inclusion (p < .00001, r = .727). Additionally, there
was a high negative correlation between Employee Intent to Leave and Belonging Overall (p <
45

.00001, r = -.591), showing that the lower the Belonging Overall score, the more likely the
employee’s intent to leave. This was the largest negative correlation between Belonging
components and Employee Intent to Leave.
Belonging Group Membership. As illustrated in Appendix L (Table 25), there was a
strong positive correlation between Belonging Group Membership and all Belonging
subdimension variables, measuring in Pearson’s r between .785 (Value in Authenticity) and .873
(Belonging Group Affection). There was also a strong positive correlation between Belonging
Overall and all OCQ metrics measuring between .527 (Leadership Behavior) and .677
(Inclusion). The strongest positive correlation of the OCQ sub-dimensions was between
Belonging Group Membership and Inclusion (p < .00001, r = .677). Additionally, there was a
high negative correlation between Employee Intent to Leave and Belonging Group Membership
(p < .00001, r = -.573), showing that the lower the Belonging Group Membership score, the
more likely the employee’s intent to leave.
Belonging Group Affection. As illustrated in Appendix L (Table 25), there was a strong
positive correlation between Belonging Group Affection and all Belonging subdimension
variables, measuring in Pearson’s r between .825 (Value in Authenticity) and .873 (Belonging
Group Membership). There was also a strong positive correlation between Belonging Group
Affection and all OCQ metrics measuring between .536 (Leadership Behavior) and .679
(Inclusion). The strongest positive correlation of the OCQ sub-dimensions was seen between
Belonging Group Affection and Inclusion (p < .00001, r = .679). Additionally, there was a high
negative correlation between Employee Intent to Leave and Belonging Group Affection (p <
.00001, r = -.576), showing that the lower the Belonging Group Affection score, the more likely
the employee’s intent to leave will be.
46

Belonging Room for Authenticity. As illustrated in Appendix L (Table 25), there was a
strong positive correlation between Belonging Room for Authenticity and all Belonging
subdimension variables, measuring in Pearson’s r between .789 (Belonging Group Membership)
and .917 (Value in Authenticity). There was also a strong positive correlation between Belonging
Room for Authenticity and all OCQ metrics measuring between .531 (Leadership Behavior) and
.687 (Inclusion). The strongest positive correlation of the OCQ sub-dimensions was seen
between Belonging Room for Authenticity and Inclusion (p < .00001, r = .687). Additionally,
there was a high negative correlation between Employee Intent to Leave and Belonging Room
for Authenticity (p < .00001, r = -.518), showing that the lower the Belonging Room for
Authenticity score, the more likely the employee’s intent to leave will be.
Belonging Value in Authenticity. As illustrated in Appendix L (Table 25), there was a
strong positive correlation between Belonging Value in Authenticity and all Belonging
subdimension variables, measuring in Pearson’s r between .785 (Belonging Group Membership)
and .917 (Room for Authenticity). There was also a strong positive correlation between
Belonging Value in Authenticity and all OCQ metrics measuring between .527 (Leadership
Behavior) and .647 (Inclusion). The strongest positive correlation of the OCQ sub-dimensions
was between Belonging Value in Authenticity and Inclusion (p < .00001, r = .647).
Additionally, there was a high negative correlation between Employee Intent to Leave and
Belonging Value in Authenticity (p < .00001, r = -.519), showing that the lower the Belonging
Value in Authenticity score, the more likely the employee’s intent to leave will be.
Employee Intent to Leave
As illustrated in Appendix L (Table 25), there was a strong negative correlation between
Employee Intent to Leave all Belonging subdimension variables, measuring in Pearson’s r
47

between -.518 (Belonging Room for Authenticity) and -.576 (Belonging Group Affection). The
strongest correlation was a strong negative correlation between Belonging Overall and Employee
Intent to Leave. However, all the correlation between OCQ and Employee Intent to Leave was
not strong, measuring from the lowest and small correlation of -.280 (Leadership Behavior as
well as Organizational Intentionality) up to the strongest negative correlation of -.392
(Inclusion).
Research Question 3
The third research question asked, “What are the greatest predictors for intent to leave an
organization for racial minorities?” The linear regression was focused on which one of the sub-
scale factors were most predictive of employee intent to leave. The results of the regression
indicated that sense of belonging (β = -0.709, p < .001), training and development (β = -0.37, p <
.001), organizational intentionality (β = 0.25, p < .05), and leadership behavior (β = 0.26, p =
0.0052). OCQ overall did not prove to be a significant predictor of intent to leave. As a result,
the regression was rerun with only those two overall variables regressed on intent to leave (and
here’s the model). The summary of findings are below, and additional tables and figures are in
Appendix M.

48

Table 3
Multiple regression results for Intent to Leave

Intent to Leave B 95% CI for B SE B β R² ΔR²
LL UL
Model 4.81 4.29 0.8 37.9% 37.4%***
Belonging -0.85 -1.02 -0.69 -0.69***
Training and
Development
-0.42 -0.68 -0.17 -0.37**
Organizational
Intentionality
0.29 0.03 0.55 0.25*
Leadership
Behavior
0.31 0.09 0.52 0.26
OCQ 0.18 -0.01 0.37 0.138

Note. Model = Qualtrics Regression method; B = unstandardized regression coefficient; CI =
confidence interval; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit; SE B = standard error of the coefficient;
β = standardized coefficient; R² = coefficient of determination; ΔR² = adjusted R².
*p = < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Summary
The findings showed that Overall Belonging scale and its subscales were considerably
more significant than OCQ when predicting racial minorities’ intent to leave. However, the two
OCQ variables that showed high correlation and significance were Leadership Behavior and
Training and Development. Additionally, 100% of the time, Whites scored the organization
better than racial minorities and those who preferred not to state their racial-ethnic identity. Also
100% of the time, those who did not disclose their racial-ethnic identity scored the organization
the lowest. Ultimately, the three strongest predictors of racial minorities’ intent to leave were
Belonging Group Affection, Training and Development (OCQ), and Leadership Behavior
(OCQ).
49

Recommendations
Discussion of Findings
The findings connect to the literature in that belonging is a high indicator of employee
intent to leave, and Belonging Overall scored as the highest indicator of racial minority
employee intent to leave (Walton & Cohen, 2007). OCQ measured leadership, procedural, and
structural cross-cultural competence, and the findings suggest several avenues of approach.
OCQ and Belonging
Using both overall variable scales of OCQ and Belonging, the analysis showed a high
correlation between many variables. However, although the correlation approached significance
of .85, Belonging Overall is a most consistent predictor. OCQ Overall is also highly correlated to
Belonging Overall and, therefore, OCQ itself might have significantly high validity and could be
more significant than showed in this study. However, the overlap of Belonging and OCQ shows
that an organization can increase belonging by working on training and development curriculum,
inclusive pedagogy, and leadership behavior at all levels.
The results connect to the literature. Belonging Overall scored highest in employee intent
to leave, especially among racial minority employees. OCQ was highly correlated to Belonging
Overall, yet Leadership Behavior CQ and Training and Development CQ scored highest on how
those factors influence racial minorities’ intent to leave. This finding follows the research on
culture and how individuals focus most on visual aspects of culture in their perceptions
(Livermore & Van Dyne, 2015; Salazar & Beaton, 2000; Sambrook et al., 2014; Stone-Romero
et al., 2003).
Organization Intentionality CQ and Organizational Adaptability CQ did not score
significantly enough to be considered. However, these factors are combined in the
50

recommendations for training and development. Additionally, the discriminate validity of
Inclusion CQ and Organizational Adaptability CQ for OCQ will not be directly included in the
Qualtrics data or in the recommendations. However, given the high correlation of all OCQ
variables, these variables were included in the regression analysis to ensure accurate analysis.
Impact of Findings on Conceptual Framework
As seen in the conceptual framework, the flow of the impact of employee intent to leave
starts with the context explained through race and CQ variables, which, in turn, impact
employees’ racialized experience and sense of belonging. Sense of belonging was a higher
predictor of employee intent to leave. The conceptual framework assumed equal importance of
belonging and OCQ. However, research shows that context influences belonging (Baumeister &
Leary, 1995; De Sisto & Dickinson, 2019; Moore & Barker, 2012; J. D. Williams et al., 2016).
Therefore, although sense of belonging was a higher predictor of employee intent to leave, the
context drives sense of belonging. Sense of belonging and OCQ, therefore, cannot be represented
as equal on the conceptual framework.
Influence on Problem of Practice
The findings address the problem of practice directly. Sense of belonging is the highest
predictor of employee intent to leave. Therefore, the organization is responsible for identifying
the areas of racial minority employees’ experiences that result in low sense of belonging.
According to the research findings, the largest impact that RTE can have immediately on racial
minorities’ retention is by addressing leadership behavior, training, and development through
inclusive and equitable curriculum pedagogy.
51

Race
Critical race theory states that White supremacy has historical, legal, interpersonal, and
personal dynamics (Delgado Bernal, 2002; Delgado & Stefancic, 2017). Bronfenbrenner (1979)
shows a similar parallel through the ecological model of development. Therefore, the
recommendations must be aligned to an understanding that level of personal racial identity,
social psychological dynamics in cross-racial interaction, and legal limitations act as a container
to culture and context when they interact with an employee’s race (Bunch, 2007; K. Lawrence et
al., 2009; Phinney, 2000; Poblete, 2017; Usher, 2018).
Recommendations for Practice
Presented in this section are the recommendations that could aid in increasing
organizational cultural intelligence to narrow the gaps in belonging that hinder the retention of
racial minorities in the workplace. A more inclusive implementation and evaluation plan
concerning the recommendations and their efficiency is presented in Appendix N using the New
World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
To implement OCQ and belonging into an organization, the literature shows that OCQ
splits an organization’s context into three primary areas: Managerial CQ, Structural CQ and
Competitive CQ (Lima et al., 2016). Hence, to influence employee belonging, the
recommendations are meant to increase employee sense of belonging in all three OCQ areas.
Additionally, leadership CQ can be measured through the cultural intelligence scale (Ang & Van
Dyne, 2008) and will be discussed in the suggestions on gauging learning and development of
cross-cultural and cross-racial engagement.
52

Research has found there are many frameworks that can be used to create an inclusive
culture. CQ is a global diversity framework; therefore, a global best practice that can be applied
to any country and people group will be used (O’Mara & Richter, 2017).
Recommendation 1: Managerial CQ & Competitive CQ
Educating a workforce enhances workplace cross-cultural competence and culture (Beer,
Eisenstat, & Spector, 1990; Kotter, 2007a; Rezai et al., 2020; Salazar & Beaton, 2000).
However, what to educate the workforce on and what approach to take depends on the type of
information that is needed for cross-cultural engagement (Livermore & Van Dyne, 2015). To
address racial minorities’ retention, training must address racial stress and racial trauma (Carter,
2007), cultural intelligence (Livermore, 2015), and empathetic leadership models (Jit, Sharma, &
Kawatra, 2010; Shankman & Allen, 2015; Young et al., 2018).
The two aspects of Managerial CQ and Competitive CQ require knowledge of process,
procedure, and leadership. Managerial CQ represents the individual CQ of organizational leaders
while competitive CQ represents the conceptualization of processes and routines (Lima et al.,
2016). To create inclusive cultures, leaders require knowledge of inclusive leadership, processes,
policies, and routines (Alabi, 2018; C. K. Lawrence et al., 2019; McKay et al., 2007; Singh &
Selvarajan, 2013; Van Dyne et al., 2010).
The results of the data analysis indicated that racial minority participants perceived
leadership to have low cross-cultural competence. That perception comes from external factors
of leadership like language and actions (Livermore, 2015; Livermore & Van Dyne, 2015).
Therefore, a solution to close the gap can focus on the four factors of personal CQ.
Since motivation is a crucial first step in accomplishing any task (Earley et al., 2006;
Panagopoulos, 2012; Triandis, 2006), a suggestion is to provide training and development to
53

increase leaders’ motivation to build an inclusive, equitable, and cross-culturally competent
leadership and workforce. Additionally, the information presented to leaders should increase the
other CQ factors. The CQS can be used to measure the right knowledge base and how strategic a
leader is in their planning for cross-cultural interactions (Delgado Bernal, 2002; Ditomaso, Post,
Parks-Yancy, & Jones, 2007; Macalpine & Marsh, 2005; Worrell, Mendoza-Denton, & Wang,
2017).
Regarding the knowledge leaders require, leadership knowledge should focus on global
best practices in inclusion and diversity. The recommended knowledge in this category is how to
become a culturally intelligent organization by embedding inclusion, diversity, equity, and intent
into the organization’s values, culture, and processes (O’Mara & Richter, 2017). There should be
a clear vision and an explicit understanding of the business case for becoming a culturally
intelligent organization, which, in turn, will allow for the type of culture wherein to develop
metrics on a culture of belonging that can be tracked for progress (Iii & Bensimon, 2007a; Lang,
1999; Stanley et al., 2018).
The process of CQ mirrors the process of learning in that the goal is subconscious
competence at the individual and leadership levels. Leadership requires the knowledge that
diversity, inclusion, equity, and a culturally intelligent organization are the same as
organizational success. More so, the organizational leader must know that the organization, to
achieve success, must aim to be a known sector leader in cultural intelligence, inclusion, and
equity that is often used for comparison benchmarking (Dowd, 2005; O’Mara & Richter, 2014,
2017; Stanley et al., 2018; D. Williams, 2013).
54

Recommendation 2: Structural CQ
Structural CQ is defined as the methods by which an organization develops and organizes
reporting structures to harness and combine resources in its various departments (Lima et al.,
2016). There is an overlap in structural requirements in regards to diversity, equity, and inclusion
(DEI) and becoming a culturally intelligent organization (Lima, 2014; Moon, 2010; O’Mara &
Richter, 2017), as can be seen below in the two structural recommendations.
The first structural component that must be implemented is leadership accountability.
Organizational leaders, regardless of their cultural intelligence, need to be held accountable for
implementing the vision of becoming a culturally intelligent organization, setting additional
goals, achieving results, and being culturally intelligent DEI role models (Livermore, 2015;
O’Mara & Richter, 2017; Pacheco & Stevens, 2018; Turner, 2018).
The results of the data analysis indicated that racial minority participants perceived
leadership to have low cross-cultural competence, and some of those perceptions can be
attributed to the lack of visible structural change (Ditomaso et al., 2007; Macalpine & Marsh,
2005; Meyerson, 2001). When policies and procedures hold leaders accountable for structural
change towards becoming an inclusive, equitable, and highly culturally intelligent organization,
employees’ perceptions of leadership and the organization as a whole can change and increase
sense of belonging (De Sisto & Dickinson, 2019; Moore & Barker, 2012; Walton & Cohen,
2007). Therefore, a solution to close the gap of structural leadership accountability can focus on
global best practices for inclusion and diversity.
Inclusive and equitable culturally intelligent (IECI) leadership accountability (Duca,
1996; Iii & Bensimon, 2007a; Khan et al., 2018) includes meeting the goal of becoming an IECI
organization as a crucial element of leaders’ duties (Bensimon & Malcom-Piqueux, 2012; Dowd,
55

2005). Successful leaders publicly support internal and external diversity-related activities, are
change agents who model IECI leadership routinely by discussing how crucial IECI leadership
is, and build towards an IECI organization (Dowd & Bensimon, 2015; Lim, Haddad, &
Daugherty, 2013; Wallis & Gregory, 2009). Additionally, leaders must be held accountable for
implementing the IECI strategy and provide IECI coaching, training, and development to those
they lead (Clark & Polesello, 2017; O’Mara & Richter, 2014, 2017; N. Y. Tang et al., 2013).
The second structural requirement is an IECI & DEI position to serve as resident expert
with power to influence change through executive leadership, power, and authority (Darling-
Hammond, Wilhoit, & Pittenger, 2014; Florian, 2012; Jefferys, 2007; Livermore, 2015; Marsh &
Farrell, 2015; Pappas, 1997; Park, 1988; D. A. Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013). Research has
found that this leader needs leadership and organizational support and infrastructure with a
budget to effectively implement DEI strategies (Dowd & Bensimon, 2015; Ho, 2017; Iii &
Bensimon, 2007b; D. Williams, 2013). This EICI DEI leader interacts with and has full access to
all leadership levels, and, if the size of the organization requires it, has a dedicated DEI team (Iii
& Bensimon, 2007a; D. A. Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013). In addition, this DEI leader is
involved outside the organization to promote industry best practices (Diversity Inc., 2019;
O’Mara & Richter, 2017).
Recommendation 3: Training and Development CQ
Data showed that training and development CQ was one of the primary indicators of
racial minorities’ attrition. Research on cultural intelligence found that an organization seeking
to grow in cultural intelligence needs to review leadership development, training programs, and
processes to ensure these avenues are not barriers to becoming an EICI organization (Lima,
2014; Pacheco & Stevens, 2018; Triandis, 2006). Therefore, a thorough implementation of
56

training and development is recommended across three parts of the organization: training
processes for varying leadership levels, high EICI curriculum, and a leadership development
pipeline.
EICI Training at All Levels. Research has found that all levels of leadership must be
engaged through training for culture to change (Kislik, 2018; O’Mara & Richter, 2017).
Executive level leaders require knowledge of organizational change towards becoming an EICI
organization (Abramovitz & Blitz, 2015; Burke & Noumair, 2015; Kotter, 2007b; Lima et al.,
2016; Olivier, 2017). In turn, managers need training on how to be inclusive and equitable
leaders as well as how to attract, retain, develop, and lead racially diverse teams (Brancu et al.,
2016; Bücker et al., 2014a; Livermore & Van Dyne, 2015; Mor et al., 2013). Entry-level
employees require training on inclusive frameworks and on inclusive and equitable culturally
intelligent teams (Holtbrügge & Engelhard, 2016; Menna, 2017; Rockstuhl & Ng, 2008). Lastly,
the organizational diversity lead must have access to DEI certification (Gilani, Kozak, & Innes,
2018; Hughey & Burke, 2010; Livermore, 2015; Livermore & Van Dyne, 2015; Otaola, 2021)
and continual development of their expertise as research produces new models and frameworks
(Azeez & Adeoye, 2016; Pazzaglia, Stafford, & Rodriguez, 2016; D. Williams, 2013; D. A.
Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013).
High EICI Curriculum. Global best practices show that curriculum can perpetuate low
cross-cultural competence and a culture of White cultural norms that perpetuates high racial
minority attrition (Bonds, 2020; Lee Allen & Liou, 2019; Liu & Pechenkina, 2016; Mahiri, 2015;
Picower, 2009). Data from this study also revealed that training and development was a high
indicator of racial minorities’ intent to leave the organization. Therefore, a high EICI curriculum
focused on pedagogy that centers on liberation of racial identity is required (Allen, Hubain,
57

Hunt, Lucero, & Stewart, 2012; Lima, 2014; Parker & Lynn, 2002; Phinney, 2000; Worrell et al.,
2017; Young et al., 2018).
Training within Leadership Development Pipeline. Lastly, research shows that EICI
training should support the work of retaining racial minorities (Diversity Inc., 2019; O’Mara &
Richter, 2017; Zaidi & Bellak, 2019). Therefore, a recommendation is that the organization
ensure that best practices on DEI and EICI are integrated into a leadership development pipeline
that looks at recruitment, talent development, advancement, and retention, especially as it relates
to racial minorities. Organizational leaders should make a dedicated effort to attract potential
employees from varying racial minority groups to achieve racial diversity in the workforce
(Stanley et al., 2018; Tapia & Kvasny, 2004; D. A. Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013). A global
inclusion best practice is to connect with DEI consulting firms with a cultural intelligence
framework (Thriving Culture LLC, 2021) and search firms with connections to diverse
candidates (O’Mara & Richter, 2017; D. Williams, 2013; D. A. Williams & Wade-Golden,
2013). Training, as described above, should be included in internal leadership development
programs for racial minorities’ advancement and cross-racial mentorship (Ang & Van Dyne,
2008; Bensimon & Malcom-Piqueux, 2012; Iii & Bensimon, 2007a; Pacheco & Stevens, 2018;
D. A. Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013).
Conclusion
In 2020, the murder of George Floyd was the straw that broke the camel’s back on a
history of White supremacy, racism, and low cross-cultural competence at the personal and
organizational levels that cause low racial minority retention rates within organizations. The
impact has not been fixed and now, living in the most diverse country in the world, answers and
successful models are crucial to the success of global business interactions. As such, it is crucial
58

for leaders to be cross-culturally intelligent about race and culture and for the organizations they
lead to be culturally intelligent organizations that attract, develop, and retain racial minorities.
Becoming that type of organization requires high sense of belonging scores among all employees
but especially among racial minority employees. Leadership behavior and training and
development require consistent enhancement. Moreover, while these two areas will have the
most immediate impact, the only manner in which to ensure sustainability of this crucial work is
to implement wholistic organizational change to become a culturally intelligent organization by
developing every part of leadership, policy, procedure, and structural dynamics.

59

References
Adair, W. L., Hideg, I., & Spence, J. R. (2013). The culturally intelligent team: The impact of
team cultural intelligence and cultural heterogeneity on team shared values. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(6), 941–962. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022113492894
Agboola Sogunro, O. (1997). Impact of training on leadership development: lessons from a
leadership training program. Evaluation Review, 21, 713–737.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X9702100605
Alabi, J. (2018). From Hostile to Inclusive: Strategies for Improving the Racial Climate of
Academic Libraries. Library Trends, 67(1), 131–146.
https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2018.0029
Al Ariss, A., Özbilgin, M., Tatli, A., & April, K. (2014). Tackling whiteness in organizations and
management. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29, 362–369.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-10-2013-0331
Alexander Haslam, S., Steffens, N. K., Peters, K., Boyce, R. A., Mallett, C. J., & Fransen, K.
(2017). A social identity approach to leadership development. Journal of Personnel
Psychology, 16(3), 113–124. https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000176
Aliyu, A. A., Singhry, I., Adamu, H., & Mu ‘awuya, A. (2015, December). Ontology,
epistemology and axiology in quantitative and qualitative research: Elucidation of the
research philosophical misconception [Paper presentation] The Academic Conference:
Mediterranean Publications & Research International on New Direction and Uncommon.
Ogun State, Nigeria.
Al-Jarrah, A. (2016). The cultural intelligence level among international students in Jordanian
universities. Educational Research Quarterly, 39(3), 23–39.
60

Amirkhanyan, A. A., Holt, S. B., McCrea, A. M., & Meier, K. J. (2018). Managing racial
diversity: Matching internal strategies with environmental needs. Public Administration
Review, 79(1), 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12977
Ang, S., & Inkpen, A. C. (2008). Cultural intelligence and offshore outsourcing success: A
framework of firm-level intercultural capability. Decision Sciences, 39(3), 337–358.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00195.x
Ang, S., & Van Dyne, L. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of cultural intelligence: Theory,
measurement, and applications. M.E. Sharpe.
Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C., Ng, K. Y., Templer, K. J., Tay, C., & Chandrasekar, N. A.
(2007). Cultural intelligence: Its measurement and effects on cultural judgment and
decision making, cultural adaptation, and task performance. Management and
Organization Review, 3(3), 335–371. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2007.00082.x
Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., & Rockstuhl, T. (2015). Cultural intelligence:origins, conceptualization,
evolution and methodological diversity. In M. J. Gelfand, C-Y Chiu, & Y-Y Hong (Eds.),
Handbook of Advances in Culture and Psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 273–324). Oxford
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190218966.003.0006
Armstrong, L., & Rimes, K. A. (2016). Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for neuroticism
(stress vulnerability): A pilot randomized study. Behavior Therapy, 47(3), 287–298.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2015.12.005
Barber, B. K., McNeely, C. A., El Sarraj, E., Daher, M., Giacaman, R., Arafat, C., Barnes, W., &
Abu Mallouh, M. (2016). Mental suffering in protracted political conflict: Feeling broken
or destroyed. PloS One, 11(5), e0156216–e0156216.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156216
61

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–
529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
Bethea, A. (2020, June 29). What Black employee resource groups need right now. Harvard
Business Review. https://hbr.org/2020/06/what-black-employee-resource-groups-need-
right-now
Bgaston. (2006). Crisis in context theory: An ecological model. Journal of Counseling &
Development, 84(2), 139–147. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2006.tb00389.x
Blankenship, K. M. (2010). A race, class, and gender analysis of thriving. The Journal of Social
Issues, 54(2), 393–404. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1998.tb01226.x
Bonds, A. (2020). Race and ethnicity II: White women and the possessive geographies of White
supremacy. Progress in Human Geography, 44(4), 778–788.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132519863479
Boushey, H., & Glynn, S. J. (2012). There are significant business costs to replacing employees.
https://www.scribd.com/document/112707536/There-Are-Significant-Business-Costs-to-
Replacing-Employees
Brancu, L., Munteanu, V., & Golet, I. (2016). Understanding cultural intelligence factors among
business students in Romania. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 221, 336–341.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.05.123
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1995). Developmental ecology through space and time: A future
perspective. In Examining lives in context: Perspectives on the ecology of human
development (pp. 619–647). https://doi.org/10.1037/10176-018
62

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. J. (1994). Nature-nurture reconceptualized in developmental
perspective: A bioecological model. Psychological Review, 101, 568–586.
Bruce, D. S. (2011). Intent to leave the professoriate: The relationship between race/ethnicity
and job satisfaction for pre-tenured professors in doctorate-granting universities
(Publication No. 3494830) [Doctoral dissertation]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
Global.
Bryant-Davis, T., & Ocampo, C. (2005). Racist incident-based trauma. The Counseling
Psychologist, 33(4), 479–500. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000005276465
Bücker, J. J. L. E., Furrer, O., Poutsma, E., & Buyens, D. (2014). The impact of cultural
intelligence on communication effectiveness, job satisfaction and anxiety for Chinese
host country managers working for foreign multinationals. International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 25(14), 2068–2087.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2013.870293
Cabrera, N. L., Watson, J. S., & Franklin, J. D. (2016). Racial arrested development: A critical
whiteness analysis of the campus ecology. Journal of College Student Development,
57(2), 119–134. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2016.0014
Carter, R. T. (2007). Racism and psychological and emotional injury: Recognizing and assessing
race-based traumatic stress. The Counseling Psychologist, 35(1), 13–105.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006292033
Chao, M. M., Takeuchi, R., & Farh, J. L. (2017). Enhancing Cultural Intelligence: The Roles of
Implicit Culture Beliefs and Adjustment. Personnel Psychology, 70(1), 257–292.
Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12142
63

Chen, A. S-Y., Lin, Y.-C., & Sawangpattanakul, A. (2010). The relationship between cultural
intelligence and performance with the mediating effect of culture shock: A case from
Philippine laborers in Taiwan. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(2),
246–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2010.09.005
Chen, X.-P., Liu, D., & Portnoy, R. (2012). A multilevel investigation of motivational cultural
intelligence, organizational diversity climate, and cultural sales: Evidence from U.S. real
estate firms. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 93–106.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024697
Choi, S. (2017). Workforce diversity and job satisfaction of the majority and the minority:
analyzing the asymmetrical effects of relational demography on Whites and racial/ ethnic
minorities. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 37(1), 84–107.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X15623617
Chua, R. Y. J., Morris, M. W., & Mor, S. (2012). Collaborating across cultures: Cultural
metacognition and affect-based trust in creative collaboration. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 118, 116–131.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.03.009
Clark, J. M., & Polesello, D. (2017). Emotional and cultural intelligence in diverse workplaces:
Getting out of the box. Industrial and Commercial Training, 49, 337–349.
https://doi.org/10.1108/ICT-06-2017-0040
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age.
64

Cockshaw, W. D., & Shochet, I. (2010). The link between belongingness and depressive
symptoms: An exploration in the workplace interpersonal context. Australian
Psychologist, 45(4), 283–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/00050061003752418
Cockshaw, W. D., Shochet, I. M., & Obst, P. L. (2013). General belongingness, workplace
belongingness, and depressive symptoms. Journal of Community & Applied Social
Psychology, 23(3), 240–251. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2121
Comas-Díaz, L., & Greene, B. (1994). An integrative approach. In L. Comas-Diaz & B. Greene
(Eds.), Women of color: integrating ethnic and gender identities in psychotherapy (1st
ed., pp. 287–318). Guilford Press.
Cook, G. (2020, July 24). The protest artists behind icons to George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and
grimly rich roster of others. Cambridge Day.
https://www.cambridgeday.com/2020/07/24/the-protest-artists-behind-icons-to-george-
floyd-breonna-taylor-and-grimly-rich-roster-of-others/
Cox, T. H. J., & Blake, S. (1991). Managing cultural diversity: Implications for organizational
competitiveness. The Executive, 5(3), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.1991.4274465
Creswell, J. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches
(pp. 3–23). Sage Publications.
Creswell, J., & Creswell, D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage Publications.
Crisp, G., & Alvarado-Young, K. (2018). The role of mentoring in leadership development. New
Directions for Student Leadership, 218(158), 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.20286
Crosby, S. (2016). Trauma informed approaches to juvenile justice: A critical race perspective.
Juvenile & Family Court Journal, 67(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfcj.12052
65

Cultural Intelligence Center. (2020). Cultural intelligence. https://culturalq.com/
Cunningham, G. B., Sagas, M., & Ashley, F. B. (2001). Occupational commitment and intent to
leave the coaching profession. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 36(2),
131–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/101269001036002001
David, E. M., Volpone, S. D., & Nandialath, A. M. (2019). Fostering longevity attitudes in
women expatriates: The role of general and targeted types of organizational support.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1–29.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2019.1640766
Day, G. (2017). From thought to action: How global organizations move employees past
cognitive cultural intelligence to win the heart of CQ. Journal of Organizational Culture,
Communication and Conflict, 21(2), 1–15.
Deery, S., Walsh, J., & Guest, D. (2011). Workplace aggression: The effects of harassment on
job burnout and turnover intentions. Work, Employment and Society, 25(4), 742–759.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017011419707
Delgado Bernal, D. (2002). Critical race theory, Latino critical theory, and Critical raced-
gendered epistemologies: Recognizing students of color as holders and creators of
knowledge. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 105–126.
https://doi.org/10.1177/107780040200800107
Den Hartog, D. N., De Hoogh, A. H. B., & Keegan, A. E. (2007). The Interactive Effects of
Belongingness and Charisma on Helping and Compliance. The Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92(4), 1131–1139. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1131
66

Desai, S., Rao, S. A., & Shah Jabeen, S. (2018). Developing cultural intelligence: Learning
together with reciprocal mentoring. Human Resource Management International Digest,
26(3), 38–40. https://doi.org/10.1108/HRMID-03-2018-0050
De Sisto, M., & Dickinson, G. (2019). Investigating strategies for developing cultural
intelligence: a creative learning experience to enhance student transition to a global
workforce. In B. Tynan, T. McLaughlin, A. Chester, C. Hall-van den Elsen, & B.
Kennedy (Eds.), Transformations in Tertiary Education (pp. 145–161). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-9957-2_12
De Toro, I. S., Labrador-Fernández, J., & De Nicolás, V. L. (2019). Generational diversity in the
workplace: Psychological empowerment and flexibility in Spanish companies. Frontiers
in Psychology, 10(AUG), 1953. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01953
Djurkovic, N., McCormack, D., & Casimir, G. (2008). Workplace bullying and intention to
leave: The moderating effect of perceived organisational support. Human Resource
Management Journal, 18(4), 405–422. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-8583.2008.00081.x
Do Something. (2020). Black lives taken: George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Ahmaud Arbery.
https://www.dosomething.org/us/articles/black-lives-taken
Downey, S. N., van der Werff, L., Thomas, K. M., & Plaut, V. C. (2015). The role of diversity
practices and inclusion in promoting trust and employee engagement. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 45(1), 35–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12273
Duff, A. J., Tahbaz, A., & Chan, C. (2012). The interactive effect of cultural intelligence and
openness on task performance. Research and Practice in Human Resource Management
20(1), 1–12.
67

Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: individual interactions across cultures.
Stanford University Press.
Earley, P. C., Ang, S., & Tan, J.-S. (2006). CQ: Developing cultural intelligence at work.
Business Books.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53, 109– 132. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153
Elejalde-Ruiz, A. (2020, August 19). Black Lives Matter backers push to wear BLM gear at
Starbucks, other jobs. Chicago Tribune. https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-
black-lives-matter-masks-workplace-20200706-jn4fi66r25d2zf2mynrrg2mqpq-story.html
Elenkov, D. S., & Manev, I. M. (2009). Senior expatriate leadership’s effects on innovation and
the role of cultural intelligence. Journal of World Business, 44(4), 357–369.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2008.11.001
Elwyn, L. J., Esaki, N., & Smith, C. A. (2017). Importance of leadership and employee
engagement in trauma-informed organizational change at a girls’ juvenile justice facility.
Human Service Organizations, Management, Leadership & Governance, 41(2), 106–118.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23303131.2016.1200506
Emerson, K. T. U., & Murphy, M. C. (2014). Identity threat at work: How social identity threat
and situational cues contribute to racial and ethnic disparities in the workplace. Cultural
Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 20(4), 508–520.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035403
Flores, G. M. (2011). Racialized tokens: Latina teachers negotiating, surviving and thriving in a
White woman’s profession. Qualitative Sociology, 34(2), 313–335.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-011-9189-x
68

Fowler, F. J. (2014). Survey research methods. Sage Publications.
Friedman, G. (2020, August 23). Companies that have pledged to address racism since the
George Floyd Protests. The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/article/companies-racism-george-floyd-protests.html
Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2005). Understanding and addressing contemporary racism:
from aversive racism to the common ingroup identity model. Journal of Social Issues,
61(3), 615–639. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2005.00424.x
Gardiner, H. W., & Kosmitzki, G. (2017). Lives across cultures: Cross-cultural human
development. Pearson.
Gelfand, M., Imai, L., & Fehr, R. (2008). Thinking intelligently about cultural intelligence. In S.
Ang & L. Van Dyne, L. (Eds.), Handbook of cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement,
and applications (pp. 375–387). M. E. Sharpe.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Pearson..
Gomez, M. (2020). A research study on the emergence of employee resource groups at
Community colleges and their value for creating a sense of belonging in the workplace
(Publication No. 28094640) [Doctoral dissertation]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
Global.
Gouthro, P., Taber, N., & Brazil, A. (2018). Gender impact on the learning organization. The
Learning Organization, 25(1), 63–65. https://doi.org/10.1108/TLO-11-2017-0114
Grant, C., & Osanloo, A. (2014). Understanding, selecting, and integrating a theoretical
framework in dissertation research: Creating the blueprint for your “house.”
Administrative Issues Journal Education Practice and Research, Winter 2014, 12–27.
https://doi.org/10.5929/2014.4.2.9
69

Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, S., & Wormley, W. M. (1990). Effects of race on organizational
experiences, job performance evaluations, and career outcomes. Academy of Management
Journal, 33(1), 64–86. https://doi.org/10.5465/256352
Griffin, K. A., Pifer, M. J., Humphrey, J. R., & Hazelwood, A. M. (2011). (Re)defining
departure: Exploring black professors’ experiences with and responses to racism and
racial climate. American Journal of Education, 117(4), 495–526.
https://doi.org/10.1086/660756
Groves, K. S., Feyerherm, A., & Gu, M. (2015). Examining cultural intelligence and cross-
cultural negotiation effectiveness. Journal of Management Education, 39(2), 209–243.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562914543273
Groves, K. S., & Feyerherm, A. E. (2011). Leader cultural intelligence in context. Group &
Organization Management, 36(5), 535–566. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601111415664
Guynn, J. (2019a, November 8). Facebook Black employees complain racism, discrimination
getting worse. USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2019/11/08/facebooks-
current-and-former-black-employees-allege-growing-racism/2534615001/
Guynn, J. (2020). Racial discrimination persists at Facebook and Google, employees say. USA
Today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2020/02/10/racial-discrimination-persists-
facebook-google-employees-say/4307591002/
Hagerty, B. M. K., & Patusky, K. (1995). Developing a measure of sense of belonging. Nursing
Research, 44(1), 9–13. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-199501000-00003
Halfer, D., & Graf, E. (2006). Graduate nurse perceptions of the work experience. Nursing
Economics, 24(3), 150–155.
70

Haniefa, T., & Riani, A. L. (2019). The moderating role of cultural intelligence on the effect of
ethnic harassment experience on employees’ intention to leave in Indonesia.
International Journal of Business, 24(3), 296–307.
Hauser, C. (2020, July 21). Whole Foods punished workers for Black Lives Matter masks, suit
says. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/21/business/whole-foods-
black-lives-matter.html
Heggestad, E. D., & Kanfer, R. (2000). Individual differences in trait motivation: Development
of the Motivational Trait Questionnaire. International Journal of Educational Research,
33(7–8), 751–776. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(00)00049-5
Hillhouse, J. J., Adler, C. M., & Walters, D. N. (2000). A simple model of stress, burnout and
symptomatology in medical residents: A longitudinal study. Psychology Health and
Medicine, 5(1), 63–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/135485000106016
Hofhuis, J., Van Der Rijt, G. A., & Vlug, M. (2016). Diversity climate enhances work outcomes
through trust and openness in workgroup communication. SpringerPlus, 5, 714. Advance
online publication. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-2499-4
Holtbrügge, D., & Engelhard, F. (2016). Study abroad programs: Individual motivations, cultural
intelligence, and the mediating role of cultural boundary spanning. Academy of
Management Learning & Education, 15(3), 435–455.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2015.0128
Hughes, A. (2016). Exploring normative whiteness: Ensuring inclusive pedagogic practice in
undergraduate fieldwork teaching and learning. Journal of Geography in Higher
Education, 40(3), 460–477. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2016.1155206
71

Hunter, S., Swan, E., & Grimes, D. (2010). Introduction: Reproducing and resisting whiteness in
organizations, policies, and places. Social Politics, 17(4), 407–422.
https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxq020
Imai, L., & Gelfand, M. J. (2010). The culturally intelligent negotiator: The impact of cultural
intelligence (CQ) on negotiation sequences and outcomes. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 112(2), 83–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.02.001
Immordino-Yang, M. H., Christodoulou, J. A., & Singh, V. (2012). Rest is not idleness:
Implications of the brain’s default mode for human development and education.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(4), 352–364.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612447308
Iny, D. (2018). Leveraged learning: how the disruption of education helps lifelong learner and
experts with something to teach. Ideapress Publishing.
Isobel, S. (2016). Trauma informed care: A radical shift or basic good practice? Australasian
Psychiatry, 24, 589–591. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1039856216657698
Jackson, D., Firtko, A., & Edenborough, M. (2007). Personal resilience as a strategy for
surviving and thriving in the face of workplace adversity: A literature review. Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 60(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04412.x
Jagannathan, M. (2020). A Taco Bell employee says he was fired for supporting Black Lives
Matter: could your company fire you for the same reason?
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/americans-have-increasingly-embraced-black-lives-
matter-will-employers-let-them-do-so-at-work-2020-06-16
72

Jansen, W. S., Otten, S., van der Zee, K. I., & Jans, L. (2014). Inclusion: Conceptualization and
measurement. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 370–385.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2011
Jassawalla, A., Truglia, C., & Garvey, J. (2004). Cross-cultural conflict and expatriate manager
adjustment: An exploratory study. Management Decision, 42(7), 837–849.
https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740410550916
Jayakumar, U. M., Howard, T. C., Allen, W. R., & Han, J. C. (2009). Racial privilege in the
professoriate: An exploration of campus climate, retention, and satisfaction. The Journal
of Higher Education, 80(5), 538–563. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2009.11779031
Jena, L. K., & Pradhan, S. (2018). Workplace spirituality and employee commitment: The role of
emotional intelligence and organisational citizenship behaviour in Indian organisations.
Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 31(3), 380–404.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-10-2017-0144
Jena, L. K., Pradhan, S., & Panigrahy, N. P. (2018). Pursuit of organisational trust: Role of
employee engagement, psychological well-being and transformational leadership. Asia
Pacific Management Review, 23(3), 227–234.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmrv.2017.11.001
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. (2014). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
Johnson, R. M., Strayhorn, T. L., & Parler, B. (2020). “I just want to be a regular kid:” A
qualitative study of sense of belonging among high school youth in foster care. Children
and Youth Services Review, 111, 104832.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.104832
73

Jones, S. (2017). Fortune 500: 7 in 10 senior executives are White men. Fortune.
https://fortune.com/2017/06/09/white-men-senior-executives-fortune-500-companies-
diversity-data/
Juthberg, C., Eriksson, S., Norberg, A., & Sundin, K. (2010). Perceptions of conscience, stress of
conscience and burnout among nursing staff in residential elder care. Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 66(8), 1708–1718. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05288.x
Jyoti, J., Kour, S., & Bhau, S. (2015). Assessing the impact of cultural intelligence on job
performance: Role of cross-cultural adaptability. Journal of IMS Group, 12(1), 23–33.
Katz, J. H. (1985). The sociopolitical nature of counseling. The Counseling Psychologist, 13(4),
615–624. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000085134005
Khan, N., Korac-Kakabadse, N., Skouloudis, A., & Dimopoulos, A. (2018). Diversity in the
workplace: An overview of disability employment disclosures among UK firms.
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(1), 170–185.
https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1669
Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Ellis, B. J. (2004). An Evolutionary-Psychological Approach to Self-
esteem: Multiple Domains and Multiple Functions. In M. B. Brewer & M. Hewstone
(Eds.), Perspectives on social psychology. Self and social identity (p. 52–77). Blackwell
Publishing.
Kislik, L. (2018, August 9). How to tell your team that organizational change is coming.
Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2018/08/how-to-tell-your-team-that-
organizational-change-is-coming
74

Koert, E., Borgen, W. A., & Amundson, N. E. (2011). Educated immigrant women workers
doing well with change: Helping and hindering factors. The Career Development
Quarterly, 59(3), 194–207. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2011.tb00063.x
Koo Moon, H., Kwon Choi, B., & Shik Jung, J. (2013). Comprehensive examination on
antecedents of cultural intelligence: Case of South Korea. Cross Cultural Management,
42(4), 236–258. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-10-2011-0146
Korzilius, H., Bücker, J. J. L. E., & Beerlage, S. (2017). Multiculturalism and innovative work
behavior: The mediating role of cultural intelligence. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 56, 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2016.11.001
Kurpis, L. H., & Hunter, J. (2017). Developing students’ cultural intelligence through an
experiential learning activity: A cross-cultural consumer behavior interview. Journal of
Marketing Education, 39(1), 30–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475316653337
Lawrence, C. K., Zeitlin, W., Chakravarty, S., Decristofano, A., & Armendariz, S. (2019). Racial
diversity and inclusive representation in urban public child welfare. Journal of Public
Child Welfare, 14(1), 38–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/15548732.2019.1674232
Lawrence, K., Anderson, A. A., Susi, G., Sutton, S., Kubisch, A. C., & Codrington, R. (2009).
Constructing a racial equity theory of change: a practical guide for designing strategies
to close chronic racial outcome gaps.
http://www.racialequitytools.org/resourcefiles/RoundtableonCommunityChangeRETOC.
pdf
Leanin.org, & McKinsey & Company. (2019). Women in the workplace. https://wiw-
report.s3.amazonaws.com/Women_in_the_Workplace_2019.pdf
75

Leary, M. R., & Cox, C. B. (2008). Belongingness motivation: A mainspring of social action. In
J. Y. Shah & W. L. Gardner (Eds.), Handbook of motivation science (p. 27–40). The
Guilford Press.
Lechman, K. M. (2015). An exploration of the role of perceived instructor cultural intelligence,
instructor classroom practices, students’ feelings of validation, and sense of belonging on
students. The Ohio State University.
Lee, L.-Y., & Sukoco, B. M. (2010). The effects of cultural intelligence on expatriate
performance: The moderating effects of international experience. International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 21(7), 963–981.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585191003783397
Lee, T., & Mitchell, T. (1994). An alternate approach: The unfolding model of voluntary
employee turnover. Academy of Management Review, 19(1), 51–89.
https://about.jstor.org/terms https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1994.9410122008
Lee, T. W., & Mowday, R. T. (1987). Voluntarily leaving an organization: An empirical
investigation of steers and Mowday’s model of turnover. The Academy of Management
Journal, 30(4), 721–743. https://doi.org/10.2307/256157
Lee Allen, R., & Liou, D. D. (2019). Managing whiteness: The call for educational leadership to
breach the contractual expectations of White supremacy. Urban Education, 54(5), 677–
705. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085918783819
Leslie, L. L. (1972). Are high response rates essential to valid surveys? Social Science Research,
1(3), 323–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/0049-089X(72)90080-4
Leung, M. Y., Chan, Y. S. I., & Dongyu, C. (2011). Structural linear relationships between job
stress, burnout, physiological stress, and performance of construction project managers.
76

Engineering, Construction, and Architectural Management, 18(3), 312–328.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09699981111126205
Li, M., Mobley, W. H., & Kelly, A. (2016). Linking personality to cultural intelligence: An
interactive effect of openness and agreeableness. Personality and Individual Differences,
89, 105–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.09.050
Lima, J. E. (2014). Measuring organizational cultural intelligence: The development and
validation of a scale (Publication No. 3583459) [Doctoral dissertation]. ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses Global.
Lima, J. E., West, G. B., Winston, B. E., & Wood, J. (2016). Measuring organizational cultural
intelligence. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 16(1), 9–31.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1470595815615625
Liu, H., & Pechenkina, E. (2016). Staying quiet or rocking the boat? an autoethnography of
organisational visual White supremacy. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, 35(3), 205–
220. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-08-2015-0067
Livermore, D. (2013). Expand your borders: Discover 10 cultural clusters [Kindle ed.]. Cultural
Intelligence Center
Livermore, D. (2015). Leading with cultural intelligence: The real secret to success (2nd ed.).
AMACOM.
Livermore, D. (2016). Driven by difference: how great companies fuel innovation through
diversity. AMACOM
Livermore, D., & Van Dyne, L. (2015). Cultural intelligence: The essential intelligence for the
21st century. SHRM Foundation.
Lockwood, D. (2018). Race and Racialism (1st ed.). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351039345-4
77

Longdon, N., Harris, C., & Henry, D. (2020). Environmental, social, and governance: why
corporations’ responses to George Floyd protests matter.
https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/research/articles/200723-environmental-social-and-
governance-why-corporations-responses-to-george-floyd-protests-matter-11568216
Lorenz, M. P., Ramsey, J. R., Tariq, A., & Morrell, D. L. (2016). Service excellence in the light
of cultural diversity: The impact of metacognitive cultural intelligence. Journal of Service
Theory and Practice, 27(2), 475–495. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTP-02-2016-0044
Macalpine, M., & Marsh, S. (2005). ‘On being White: There's nothing I can say’: Exploring
Whiteness and power in organizations management learning. Management Learning,
36(4), 429–450. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507605058138
Madsen, S. R., & Andrade, M. S. (2018). Unconscious gender bias: Implications for women’s
leadership development. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 12(1), 62–67.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jls.21566
Manderscheid, R. (2009). Trauma-informed leadership. International Journal of Mental Health,
38(1), 78–86. https://doi.org/10.2753/IMH0020-7411380107
Marshall, J. M., & Haight, W. L. (2014). Understanding racial disproportionality affecting
African American youth who cross over from the child welfare to the juvenile justice
system: Communication, power, race and social class. Children and Youth Services
Review, 42, 82–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.03.017
Martinez, M. (2019). Cultural intelligence: a quantitative study of its effect on employee
turnover intentions. Northcentral University.
78

Marx, B. P., & Sloan, D. M. (2003). The effects of trauma history, gender, and race on alcohol
use and posttraumatic stress symptoms in a college student sample. Addictive Behaviors,
28(9), 1631–1647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2003.08.039
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346
Maxwell, J. (2013). Qualitative research design and interactive approach. SAGE Publications
McGirt, E. (2016, January 22). An inside look at what’s keeping black men out of the executive
suite. Fortune. https://fortune.com/longform/black-executives-men-c-suite/
McKay, P. F., Avery, D. R., Toniandel, S., Morris, M. A., Hernandez, M., & Hebl, M. R. (2007).
Racial differences in employee retention: Are diversity climate perceptions the key?
Personnel Psychology, 60(1), 35–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00064.x
McKinley, R., Jr. (2018). Examining the relationship between cultural intelligence of
accountants and job satisfaction (Publication No. 10817529) [Doctoral dissertation].
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Mejri, S. (2019). Examining the correlation between American students’ cultural intelligence,
political affiliations, and their social distances from their international peers. Journal of
International Students, 9(3), 873–895. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v0i0.81
Mercer. (2020). Gender diversity financial services industry report
https://www.mercer.ca/en/our-thinking/gender-diversity-financial-services-industry-
report.html
Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation
(4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
79

Merriman, C. (2010). Adjunct faculty organizational sense of belonging and affective
organizational commitment. Old Dominion University.
Meyerson, D. E. (2001). Radical change, the quiet way. Harvard Business Review, 79(October),
92–100. https://hbr.org/2001/10/radical-change-the-quiet-way
Moon, T. (2010). Organizational cultural intelligence: Dynamic capability perspective. Group &
Organization Management, 35(4), 456–493. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601110378295
Moon, T. (2013). The effects of cultural intelligence on performance in multicultural teams.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(12), 2414–2425.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12189
Mor, S., Morris, M., & Joh, J. (2013). Identifying and training adaptive cross-cultural
management skills: The crucial role of cultural metacognition. Academy of Management
Learning & Education, 12(3), 453–475. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2012.0202
Morris, C. (2020a, July 7). Statements on race equality: what will you do next? Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/carmenmorris/2020/07/07/statements-on-race-equality-
what-will-you-do-next/#62b0212dfa0c
Morris, C. (2020b, July 23). Racial inclusion: what your black employees really need you to
know. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/carmenmorris/2020/07/23/racial-inclusion--
what-your-black-employees-really-need-you-to-know/#25015873bd33
Motherboard Staff. (2019). Here’s the memo about the ‘burden of being Black at Google.’ VICE.
https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/zmjvy3/heres-the-memo-about-the-burden-of-being-
black-at-google
Nealy-Oparah, S., & Scruggs-Hussein, T. (2018). Trauma-informed leadership in schools: From
the inside-out. Leadership, 47(3), 12–16.
80

Ng, K.-Y., Van Dyne, L., & Ang, S. (2012). Cultural intelligence: a review, reflections, and
recommendations for future research. In A. M. Ryanm F. T. I. Leong, & F. I. Oswald
(Eds.), Conducting Multinational Research: Applying Multinational Research: Applying
Organizational Psychology in the Work Place (pp. 29–58). American Psychological
Association https://doi.org/10.1037/13743-002
Nguyen, A.-M. D. (2010). Expatriate effectiveness and cultural intelligence among
multiculturals and monoculturals abroad (Publication No. 3412803) [Doctoral
dissertation]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Ning, Y., Wang, W., & Duan, H. (2020, February 29). The impact of acquirer’s organizational
cultural intelligence on innovation performance in cross-border technology [Paper
presentation]. International Academic Conference on Frontiers in Social Sciences and
Management Innovation, East Peoria, Illinois, United States.
https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.200207.042
Nishina, A., Lewis, J. A., Bellmore, A., & Witkow, M. R. (2019). Ethnic diversity and inclusive
school environments. Educational Psychologist, 54(4), 306–321.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2019.1633923
Oliver, E., de Botton, L., Soler, M., & Merrill, B. (2011). Cultural intelligence to overcome
educational exclusion. Qualitative Inquiry, 17(3), 267–276.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410397805
Ott, D. L., & Michailova, S. (2018). Cultural intelligence: A review and new research avenues.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(1), 99–119.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12118
81

Pacheco, D., & Stevens, S. (2018). The role of culturally intelligent team leaders on task
performance. European Society for Socially Embedded Technologies..
https://doi.org/10.18420/ecscw2018_p2
Paolillo, A., Silva, S. A., & Pasini, M. (2016). Promoting safety participation through diversity
and inclusion climates. International Journal of Workplace, 9(3), 308–327.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJWHM-01-2015-0002
Patrick, H. A., & Kumar, V. R. (2012). Managing workplace diversity: Issues and challenges.
SAGE Open, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244012444615
Payne-Pikus, M. R., Hagan, J., & Nelson, R. L. (2010). Experiencing discrimination: Race and
retention in America’s largest law firms. Law & Society Review, 44(3–4), 553–584.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5893.2010.00416.x
Pew Research Center. (2015). Modern immigration wave brings 59 Million to U.S.
https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2015/09/28/chapter-2-immigrations-impact-on-
past-and-future-u-s-population-change/
Pew Research Center. (2017). Facts on Latinos in America.
https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2017/09/18/2015-statistical-information-on-
hispanics-in-united-states/
Phillips, D. C., & Burbules, N. C. (2000). Postpositivism and educational research. Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers.
Poblete, K. (2017). Knowledge, motivation, and organization influences on persisting leadership
demographics in a military organization: Perspectives on diversity and inclusion from
minority female officers (Publication No. 10690132) [Doctoral dissertation]. ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses Global.
82

Presbitero, A. (2016). Culture shock and reverse culture shock: The moderating role of cultural
intelligence in international students’ adaptation. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 53, 28–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2016.05.004
Reitman, M. (2004). Race in the workplace: Meritocracy, whiteness and belonging. University
of Washington.
Rezai, M., Kolne, K., Bui, S., & Lindsay, S. (2020). Measures of Workplace Inclusion: A
Systematic Review Using the COSMIN Methodology. Journal of Occupational
Rehabilitation, 30, 420–454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-020-09872-4
Roberson, Q. M. (2019). Diversity in the workplace: A review, synthesis, and future research
agenda. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 6,
69–88. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012218-015243
Rockstuhl, T., & Ng, K.-Y. (2008). The effects of cultural intelligence on interpersonal trust in
multicultural teams. n S. Ang & L. Van Dyne, L. (Eds.), Handbook of cultural
intelligence: Theory, measurement, and applications (pp. 206–220). M. E. Sharpe
Rockstuhl, T., Seiler, S., Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., & Annen, H. (2011). Beyond general
intelligence (IQ) and emotional intelligence (EQ): The role of cultural intelligence (CQ)
on cross-border leadership effectiveness in a globalized world. Journal of Social Issues,
67(4), 825–840. https://spssi-onlinelibrary-wiley-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01730.x
Rollins, M. (2019, January 8–11). Relational learning and organizational cultural intelligence
[Paper presentation] 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences,
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States. https://hdl.handle.net/10125/59968
83

Roughton, S. E. (2013). Nursing Faculty Characteristics and Perceptions Predicting Intent to
Leave. Nursing Education Perspectives, 34(4), 217–225.
Rubaii-Barrett, N., & Wise, L. R. (2006). Language minorities and the digital divide: a study of
state 3E-government accessibility. Journal of Public Management and Social Policy,
12(2), 5–27.
Rubin, M., Paolini, S., Subašić, E., & Giacomini, A. (2019). A confirmatory study of the
relations between workplace sexism, sense of belonging, mental health, and job
satisfaction among women in male-dominated industries. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 49(5), 267–282. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12577
Russell, L. (2014). Whiteness in Scotland: Shame, belonging and diversity management in a
Glasgow workplace. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 37(8), 1371–1390.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2012.734381
Salkind, N. J., & Frey, B. B. (2019). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics (7th
ed.). SAGE Publications.
Sambrook, S. A., Jones, N., & Doloriert, C. (2014). Employee engagement and autoethnography:
Being and studying self. Journal of Workplace Learning, 26(3/4), 172–187.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JWL-09-2013-0072
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A., & Bristow, A. (2019). Chapter 4: Understanding
research philosophy and approaches to theory development. In M. Saunders, P. Lewis, &
A. Thornhill (Eds)., Research Methods for Business Students (pp. 122161). Pearson.
Sax, L. J., Blaney, J. M., Lehman, K. J., Rodriguez, S. L., George, K. L., & Zavala, C. (2018).
Sense of belonging in computing: The role of introductory courses for women and
84

underrepresented minority students. Social Sciences, 7(8), 122. Advance online
publication. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci7080122
Schein, H. E., & Schein, P. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (5th ed.). Wiley.
Seriwatana, P., & Charoensukmongkol, P. (2020). Cultural intelligence and relationship quality
in the cabin crew team: The perception of members belonging to cultural minority
groups. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 1–27. Advance online
publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332845.2020.1821431
Shakespeare-Finch, J., & Daley, E. (2017). Workplace belongingness, distress, and resilience in
emergency service workers. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and
Policy, 9(1), 32–35. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0000108
Shields, M. A., & Price, S. W. (2002). Racial Harassment, Job Satisfaction and Intentions to
Quit: Evidence from the British Nursing Profession. Economica, 69(274), 295–326.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0335.00284
Shokef, E., & Erez, M. (2008). Cultural intelligence and global identity in multicultural teams. n
S. Ang & L. Van Dyne, L. (Eds.), Handbook of cultural intelligence: Theory,
measurement, and applications (pp. 177–191). M. E. Sharpe.
Singh, B., & Selvarajan, T. T. (2013). Is it spillover or compensation? effects of community and
organizational diversity climates on race differentiated employee intent to stay. Journal
of Business Ethics, 115, 259–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1392-5
Singh, B., & Winkel, D. E. (2012). Racial differences in helping behaviors: The role of respect,
safety, and identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 106(4), 467–477.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1011-x
85

Singh, B., Winkel, D. E., & Selvarajan, T. T. (2013). Managing diversity 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
Smulowitz, S., Becerra, M., & Mayo, M. (2019). Racial diversity and its asymmetry within and
across hierarchical levels: The effects on financial performance. Human Relations,
72(10), 1671–1696. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726718812602
Somoray, K., Shakespeare-Finch, J., & Armstrong, D. (2017). The Impact of Personality and
Workplace Belongingness on Mental Health Workers’ Professional Quality of Life.
Australian Psychologist, 52(1), 52–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/ap.12182
Srinivas, S., & Patrick, H. A. (2018). Role of organizational cultural intelligence and its
influence on employee job satisfaction among process associates in financial TNCs in
Bangalore. International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, 119(15), 1607–1617.
https://acadpubl.eu/hub/2018-119-15/3/574.pdf
Stamper, C. L., & Masterson, S. S. (2002). Insider or outsider? How employee perceptions of
insider status affect their work behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(8), 875–
894. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.175
Stanley, C. A., Watson, K. L., Reyes, J. M., & Varela, K. S. (2019). Organizational change and
the chief diversity officer: A case study of institutionalizing a diversity plan. Journal of
Diversity in Higher Education, 12(3), 255–265. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000099
Sternberg, R. (1986). A framework for understanding conceptions of intelligence. In R. J.
Sternberg & D. K. Detterman (Eds.), What is intelligence? Contemporary viewpoints on
its nature and definition (pp. 3–15). Ablex.
86

Stevens, M. (2018, April 15). Starbucks C.E.O. Apologizes After Arrests of 2 Black Men. The
New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/15/us/starbucks-philadelphia-black-
men-arrest.html
Stone-Romero, E. F., Stone, D. L., & Salas, E. (2003). The influence of culture on role
conceptions and role behavior in organisations. Applied Psychology, 52(3), 328–362.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00139
Street, J., Laing, D., & Schroff, S. (2016). Regulating for creativity and cultural diversity: the
case of collective management organisations and the music industry. International
Journal of Cultural Policy, 24(3), 368–386.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2016.1178733
Taksa, L., Powell, G., & Jayasinghe, L. (2015). Intersectionality, social identity theory, and
explorations of hybridity: A critical review of diverse approaches to diversity. In R.
Bendl, I. Bleijenbergh, E. Henttonen, & A. J. Mills (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of
diversity in organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 518–538). Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199679805.013.19
Tang, C., & Byrge, C. (2016). Ethnic heterogeneous teams outperform homogeneous teams on
well-defined but not ill-defined creative task. Journal of Creativity and Business
Innovation, 2, 20–30. http://www.journalcbi.com/ethnic-heterogeneous-teams-and-
creativity.html
Tang, N. Y., Chen, C. Y., Zhu, X. M., & Huang, M. Q. (2013, July 17–19). Individual CQ, team
CQ and organizational CQ: A multilevel adaptation model [Paper Presentation]. 2013
International Conference on Management Science and Engineering, Harbin, P.R. China.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICMSE.2013.6586289
87

Tapia, A. H., & Kvasny, L. (2004, April 22–24). Recruitment is never enough- retention of
women and minorities in the IT workplace [Paper presentation]. 2004 SIGMIS
Conference on Computer Personnel Research, Tucson, Arizona, United States
https://doi.org/10.1145/982372.982392
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management.
Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-
0266(199708)18:7<509::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. The Academy of Management
Journal, 43(2), 178–190. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1556375
Thorgren, S., & Caiman, E. (2019). The role of psychological safety in implementing agile
methods across cultures. Research Technology Management, 62(2), 31–39.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2019.1563436
Toosi, M. (2002). A century of change: The U.S. labor force, 1950–2050. U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics. https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2002/05/art2full.pdf
Tremblay, M., Cloutier, J., Simard, G., Chênevert, D., & Vandenberghe, C. (2010). The role of
HRM practices, procedural justice, organizational support and trust in organizational
commitment and in-role and extra-role performance. International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 21(3), 405–433. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190903549056
Triandis, H. C. (2006). Cultural intelligence in organizations. Group & Organization
Management, 31(1), 20–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601105275253
Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2014). R-words: Refusing research. In D. Paris & M. T. Winn (Eds.),
Humanizing Research: Decolonizing Qualitative Inquiry with Youth and Communities
(223–248). https://doi.org/10.4135/9781544329611.n12
88

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2019). Usual weekly earnings of wage and salary workers
fourth quarter 2019. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/wkyeng_01172020.htm
Valentine, S. R. (2001). A path analysis of gender, race, and job complexity as determinants of
intention to look for work. Employee Relations, 23(2), 130–146.
https://doi.org/10.1108/01425450110384507
Valinsky, J. (2020). Starbucks reverses its stance and will now let baristas wear “Black Lives
Matter” apparel. https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/12/business/starbucks-black-lives-
matter/index.html
Vandenberg, R., & Nelson, J. (1999). Disaggregating the motives underlying turnover intentions:
When do intent ions predict turnover behavior? Human Relations, 52(10), 1313–1336.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679905201005
van Driel, M. (2008). Cultural intelligence as an emergent organizational level construct
(Publication No. 3337668) [Doctoral dissertation]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
Global.
van Driel, M., & Gabrenya, W. K., Jr. (2013). Organizational cross-cultural competence:
Approaches to measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(6), 874–899.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022112466944
Van Dyne, L., Soonang, D., & Livermore, D. (2010). Cultural intelligence: a pathway for leading
in a rapidly globalizing world. In K. Hannum, B. B. McFeeters, & L. Booysen (Eds.),
Leading across differences (pp. 132–138). The Center for Creative Leadership.
Velazquez, L. E., Esquer, J., Munguía, N. E., & Moure-Eraso, R. (2011). Sustainable learning
organizations. The Learning Organization, 18(1), 36–44.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09696471111095984
89

Villareal, A. (2019). Report: Fashion industry suffers from diversity and inclusion issues.
https://www.theladders.com/career-advice/report-fashion-industry-suffers-from-diversity-
and-inclusion-issues
Walter, A. W., Ruiz, Y., Tourse, R. W. C., Kress, H., Morningstar, B., MacArthur, B., &
Daniels, A. (2017). Leadership matters: How hidden biases perpetuate institutional
racism in organizations. Human Service Organizations, Management, Leadership &
Governance, 41(3), 213–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/23303131.2016.1249584
Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2007). A question of belonging: Race, social fit, and
achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 82–96.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.82
Wang, K. T., Heppner, P., Wang, L., & Zhu, F. (2014). Cultural intelligence trajectories in new
international students: implications for the development of cross-cultural competence.
International Perspectives in Psychology (2015), 4, 51–65.
https://doi.org/10.1037/ipp0000027
Warrick, D. D. (2017). What leaders need to know about organizational culture. Business
Horizons, 60(3), 395–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2017.01.011
Wheeler, A. R., Richey, G. R., Tokkman, M., & Sablynski, C. (2006). Retaining employees for
service competency: The role of corporate brand identity. Journal of Brand Management,
14(1-2), 96–113. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.bm.2550062
Williams, D. (2013). Strategic diversity leadership: Activating change and transformation in
higher education. Stylus Publishing.
90

Williams, D. R., Neighbors, H. W., & Jackson, J. S. (2003). Racial/ethnic discrimination and
health: Findings from community studies. American Journal of Public Health, 93(2),
200–208. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.93.2.200
Williams, J. D., Woodson, A. N., & Wallace, T. L. B. (2016). “Can we say the n-word?”:
Exploring psychological safety during race talk. Research in Human Development, 13(1),
15–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427609.2016.1141279
Xue, Y. (2015). Racial and ethnic minority nurses’ job satisfaction in the U.S. International
Journal of Nursing Studies, 52(1), 280–287.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2014.10.007
Yitmen, I. (2013). Organizational cultural intelligence: A competitive capability for strategic
alliances in the international construction industry. Project Management Journal, 44(4),
5–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21356
Young, C. A., Haffejee, B., & Corsun, D. L. (2017). The relationship between ethnocentrism and
cultural intelligence. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 58, 31–41.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2017.04.001
Young, C. A., Haffejee, B., & Corsun, D. L. (2018). Developing Cultural intelligence and
empathy through diversified mentoring relationships. Journal of Management Education,
42(3), 319–346. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562917710687
Yu, L., Duffy, M. K., & Tepper, B. J. (2018). Consequences of downward envy: A model of self-
esteem threat, abusive supervision, and supervisory leader self-improvement. Academy of
Management Journal, 61(6), 2296–2318. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.0183
91

Yunlu, D. G., Clapp-Smith, R., & Shaffer, M. (2017). Understanding the role of cultural
intelligence in individual creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 29(3), 236–243.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2017.1360070
Zhou, C., Hu, N., Wu, J., & Gu, J. (2018). A new scale to measure cross-organizational cultural
intelligence: Initial development and validation. Chinese Management Studies, 12(3),
658–679. https://doi.org/10.1108/CMS-10-2017-0309
92

Appendix A: Cronbach Alpha
Table 4
Cronbach’s Alpha Scores for Measurement Tool
Measurement Scale Number of items Threshold Cronbach’s alpha
Research tool 42 .70 .95
OCQ Overall 21 .70 .97
Leadership Behavior 5 .70 .86
Organizational Adaptability 4 .70 .90
Organizational Intentionality 3 .70 .88
Training and Development 6 .70 .94
Inclusion 3 .70 .90
Belonging Overall 16 .70 .98
Group Membership 4 .70 .96
Group Affection 4 .70 .94
Room for Authenticity 4 .70 .98
Value for Authenticity 4 .70 .99
Intent to Leave 5 .70 .93

93

Appendix B: The Researcher
I align with a critical transformative paradigm of inquiry. This type of inquiry exposes
issues of power and marginalization and focuses on the perspective of those who are
marginalized (Saunders et al., 2019; Tuck & Yang, 2014). However, that paradigm has an
additional paradigm of inquiry that requires cultural intelligence via cultural values (Ang & Van
Dyne, 2008; Livermore & Van Dyne, 2015).
Axiology refers to the role of values and ethics and how it frames research (Saunders et
al., 2019). The values of my research center on equity and its subsets of thriving, belonging,
inclusion, diversity, and accessibility.
Ontology means to speak about the assumptions about the nature of reality in research
(Saunders et al., 2019). My assumptions are that all people deserve the right to have their full
humanity in all its intersectional social identities thrive in their life and work setting. Due to
power structures that prevent thriving, the voice of the most intersectionally marginalized
community is centered on how we do research and propose solutions.
Epistemology refers to assumptions about knowledge, what comprises adequate, valid
and genuine knowledge, and how we can convey knowledge to others (Saunders et al., 2019).
Knowledge is framed through the qualitative experience of racial minorities and quantitative data
of how many racial minorities have and do experience marginalization. This knowledge is held
experientially by informed and non-informed racial minorities and by the numerical data that is
gathered. What counts as data are non-White staff within the organization and their experience of
being a racial minority as well as the difference of that data when compared to Whites within the
organization.

94

Appendix C: Survey Questions
Part 1: Directions
As you respond to the following statements, please consider your entire organization worldwide
(not just your department or work group), and provide your own perspective of how things
actually are (not as you think they ought to be, or as others might think they are). There are five
choices for response to each item, ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” You are
asked to indicate the degree to which you think the statement is true of your organization
Part 2: Research Questions, Organizational Cultural Intelligence
Each of the questions had the following options in the order shown: Strongly Disagree, Neither
agree nor disagree, Agree, Strongly agree
Number Scale Item
1 Leadership Behavior Key leaders modify their nonverbal behavior (gestures,
time, and space orientation) when a cross-cultural
interact5ion requires it
2 Leadership Behavior Key leaders modify personal verbal behaviors (words,
tone, and style) when a cross-cultural interaction
requires it
3 Leadership Behavior Key leaders check accuracy of cultural knowledge when
interacting with those from different backgrounds
4 Leadership Behavior Key leaders know relevant cultural values and religious
beliefs
5 Leadership Behavior Key leaders know relevant cultural values and religious
beliefs
95

6 Adaptability Key leaders have had extensive international experience
7 Adaptability Key leaders are aware of cultural differences when
interacting with those of different cultural backgrounds
8 Adaptability Key leaders are confident working with those of other
cultures
9 Adaptability The organization adapts its ways of operating when
operating in differing cultural environments
10 Training The organization offers training and fun exercises to
facilitate cultural learning
11 Training The organization has a process in place to facilitate
cultural learning
12 Training The organization is committed to producing leaders and
employees who are bicultural or multi-cultural in their
skill set
13 Training The organization promotes intentional reflection on
cross-cultural interactions
14 Training The organization responds promptly to emerging
cultural issues that affect the organization
15 Training The organization offers ongoing opportunities for
intercultural interaction coupled with intentional
reflection
Key
96

16 Intentionality Key leaders ask for feedback after communicating
cross-culturally
17 Intentionality The organization intentionally monitors its cross-
cultural interactions
18 Intentionality The organization is intentional in using inclusive
language
19 Inclusion The organization is inclusive. It gives equal opportunity
to employees regardless of gender, ethnicity, etc.
20 Inclusion The organization strategically makes use of the diverse
voices within the organization
21 Inclusion The organization understands the dynamics of diversity
and inclusion

Part 3: Research Questions, Intent to Leave Organization
Each of the questions had the following options in the order shown: Strongly Disagree, Neither
agree nor disagree, Agree, Strongly agree
Number Scale Item
22 Intent to leave I am thinking about quitting my job
23 Intent to leave I have searched for an alternative job since I joined this
organization
24 Intent to leave I am actively seeking another job or role
25 Intent to leave I am constantly searching for a better alternative
26 Intent to leave I often think about quitting my present job
97

Part 4: Belonging
Each of the questions had the following options in the order shown: Strongly Disagree, Neither
agree nor disagree, Agree, Strongly agree
Number Scale Item
27 Belonging Group
Membership
This organization gives me the feeling that I belong
28 Belonging Group
Membership
This organization gives me the feeling that I am part of
this group
29 Belonging Group
Membership
This organization gives me the feeling that I fit in
30 Belonging Group
Membership
This organization treats me as an insider
31 Belonging Group
Affection
This organization likes me
32 Belonging Group
Affection
This organization appreciates me
33 Belonging Group
Affection
This organization is pleased with me
34 Belonging Group
Affection
This organization cares about me
35 Belonging Room for
Authenticity
This organization allows me to be authentic
98

36 Belonging Room for
Authenticity
This organization allows me to be who I am
37 Belonging Room for
Authenticity
This organization allows me to express my authentic
self
38 Belonging Room for
Authenticity
This organization allows me to present myself the way I
am
39 Belonging Value in
Authenticity
This organization encourages me to be authentic
40 Belonging Value in
Authenticity
This organization encourages me to be who I am
41 Belonging Value in
Authenticity
This organization encourages me to express my
authentic self
42 Belonging Value in
Authenticity
This organization encourages me to present myself the
way I am

Part 5: Demographics
Each of the questions below had their own options specified within the question
Number Scale Item
27 Demographics Gender
Non-Binary, Female, Male, Prefer not to say
28 Demographics Racial Ethnicity
American Indian / First Nations, Asian, Pacific
Islander, Latinx, Black or African American, Bi-racial
99

or Multi-racial, White, Other European, Prefer not to
say
29 Demographics Education Level
Not yet completed high school. Some college/university
study, Undergraduate degree, Some graduate studies,
Graduate degree – Masters level, Graduate degree –
Doctoral Level
30 Demographics Age Range
18-25, 26-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, 65+
31 Demographics Number of years in the organization
1-2 years, 2-5 years, 6-10 years, 11-15 years, 16-20
years, more than 20 years
32 Demographics Role in the organization
Executive/top leadership, Mid-level leader/supervisor,
Worker/staff member
33 Demographics Perceived degree of diversity in the organization
Not at all diverse, A small amount of cultural diversity,
A significant amount of cultural diversity, Very
culturally diverse, Prefer not to say
34 Demographics In which city is your primary workplace?
Auburn, Dothan, Huntsville, Montgomery, Valley,
Panama City, Pinellas, Augusta, Columbus, Fort
Gordon, Chicago Proper, Chicago Suburbs, Evansville,
100

Detroit, Mid-Michigan, Cleveland, Columbus,
Charleston, Knoxville, Denver

101

Appendix D: Ethics
For research to be reliable and valid it must be accomplished in an ethical manner
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). To do so, the researcher was guided by four primary principles of
ethics (Glesne, 2011). The first principle is to provide full disclosure and I have done so through
the conversations of full personal and organizational anonymity with the CEO of RTE and other
RTE HR leaders in the organization as well as through the communication emails to all RTE
employees. The second principle of ethics is to allow withdrawal from the study with no caveats
which was followed in all conversations and written communication. The third ethical principal
of eliminating unnecessary risks ties closely to the fourth which requires that the benefits of the
research project outweighs potential risks. In a cultural and socio-political climate (Glesne, 2011;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) where the deaths of Black and Brown bodies have created a movement
of justice and freedom, there are potential unintended risks of professional and psychological
safety (Paolillo et al., 2016). To mitigate these risks, the researcher had conversations on ethics
with RTE leadership on the effects of giving employees the hope of movement without an
organizational plan for change (Barber et al., 2016; Crosby, 2016). In turn, RTE Leadership
informed me of the work towards change that they were going to implement now through the
hiring of a Chief Diversity Officer as well as their intent to implement the recommendations of
this research project. Additionally, the researcher will abide by all the University of Southern
California Institutional Review Board requirements.
Given the survey protocol, I will not have a personal or professional relationship with the
participants, therefore making it unlikely that they will feel pressure from me to take the study
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Yet, the researcher explicitly explained the research role to RTE
102

senior leadership which gave the researcher further access for participant survey completion
(Creswell & Creswell, 2017).

103

Appendix E: Survey Emails
Client name removed for anonymity.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion at RTE
Published on October 09, 2020
In People
Human Resources

At RTE, our people have always been our most valuable asset. Guided by our values, we
continue to build a company that appreciates the differences in our employees, customers,
investors, and vendors. By recognizing diverse thoughts and perspectives, we can improve
company performance and help grow our customer base.

We are establishing a diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) program to improve employee
engagement and satisfaction, encourage innovation and creativity, attract and retain top
talent, and add diverse perspectives to all aspects of our business.

Much of this work will be rooted in building competencies around cultural intelligence. To get
started, we want to learn more about your thoughts and points of view on culture. On
Wednesday you will receive a survey from RTE People to help us develop a baseline for the
company. This is a confidential survey, only aggregated data will be provided to RTE.
This survey is your opportunity to share your opinions on culture. Culture, simply put, is the
values, customs, attitudes, and beliefs that distinguish groups from each other. These
nuanced differences include nationality, ethnicity, gender, age-group, sexual orientation,
profession, and organizational culture. Collectively, these things impact thoughts and behavior.

The ability to relate and work effectively with people from different cultural backgrounds, even
if, at times, differences challenge one's existing notions of cultural sensitivity and awareness is
measured by these four dimensions:

• Drive, or the level of interest, persistence, and confidence during multicultural
interactions
• Knowledge and understanding of how cultures are similar or different
• Strategy as it relates to awareness and the ability to plan for multicultural interactions
• Action demonstrated by the ability to adapt when relating or working in multicultural
contexts

By strengthening our cultural intelligence, we will build a comprehensive DEI program to help
make RTE a better place for all of us.

104

From: RTE
Date: Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 12:25 PM
Subject: Complete this Survey for RTE’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Program
To:
Hello!

Below, you will find a link to the confidential cultural intelligence survey to help us better
understand your perceptions of culture at RTE. Please complete this survey at your earliest
convenience as we try to understand your opinions and preferences on diversity, equity, and
inclusion.

Survey Link: https://usc.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_1R1PIKZjaDKUr1b

We look forward to gaining valuable insight to help us create a truly inclusive work
environment.

Thank you for participating in this journey and providing honest responses about your opinions
and preferences on diversity, equity, and inclusion. Please complete this survey by October
30th.

To learn more about this survey, administered by the University of Southern California, visit The
Gig.

Please direct any questions to your HRBP.

Your RTE Human Resources Team

105

From: RTE
Date: Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 7:01 AM
Subject: Reminder: Complete Your Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Survey
To:

If you have not already completed your cultural perception survey for RTE's Diversity, Equity,
and Inclusion program, please do so before October 30.

Survey Link: https://usc.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_1R1PIKZjaDKUr1b

If you have already completed this survey, thank you. Your responses will help us to create a
truly inclusive work environment at RTE.

To learn more about this survey, administered by the University of Southern California, visit The
Gig. Please direct any questions to your HRBP.

106

From: RTE
Date: Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 6:58 AM
Subject: Deadlines Approaching - Diversity, Equity & Inclusion Survey and Spirit of RTE
Nominations
To:

Your participation helps WOW! build a strong and welcoming culture for all of us!

Cultural Perception Survey
Thank you to all who have filled out the cultural perception survey from the University of
Southern California.

If you haven’t yet provided your insights, please complete the survey before Friday, Oct. 30.
Your input will help inform RTE’s Diversity, Equity and Inclusion program.

Survey Link: https://usc.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_1R1PIKZjaDKUr1b

Please contact your HRBP if you have questions on the survey or on RTEs DEI program.

Spirit of RTE Nominations
The deadline to submit Spirit of RTE nominations is Nov. 6.

This has been an extraordinary year and we want to recognize those employees who stepped up,
embraced the challenges and lived RTEs values - Respect, Integrity, Spirit of Service, and
Accountability.

Use this Nomination Form to make your submission today.

Please contact Barbara Solomon at email of RTE with any questions.

Thank you.

107

Appendix F: Survey Timeline
Insert date – Researcher and RTE first introduction
Sep 29
th
– Introduction of survey process to all employees (no link sent)
Oct 6
th
– Survey link sent to employees
Oct 9
th
– Survey participation update sent to RTE CHRO & VP of HR
Oct 13
th
– Survey email reminder sent with link
Oct 16
th
– Survey participation update sent to RTE CHRO & VP of HR
Oct 20
th
– Survey email reminder sent with link
Oct 23
rd
– Survey participation update sent to RTE CHRO & VP of HR
Oct 27
th
– Survey email reminder sent with link – Last week of survey
Oct 28
th
– Survey email reminder with link – Two days left
Oct 30
th
– Survey email sent with link reminder – Last day of participation – Survey closes 4pm
Mountain Time / 6 pm Eastern Time
Nov 6
th
- CHRO & VP of HR receive raw survey data

108

Appendix G: Socio-Cultural Context
Last year was an incredible year. The combination of two major social and global
incidents created a specific socio-cultural dynamic unseen for generations. The Covid-19
pandemic saw millions lose their lives and even more lose their jobs. That context created fear,
panic, anxiety, dread, and desperation that plagued the United States workforce. Everyone was
touched by the pandemic in one way or another. Additionally, the Trump administration’s
leadership had had years of leading a divided country due to racial strife into further divide due
to the president and his administration’s racist rhetoric and actions. Then, on May 25, 2020
George Floyd is murdered, the video recording of his death went viral, and Black Lives Matter
and other movement connected and combined on the issue of racial justice.
The year 2020 did not happen in isolation. Police violence, over-policing of Black and
Brown communities, and the militarization of the police force (Defense Logistics Agency, 2020)
have been around decades on decades before Eric Garner’s death six years prior to George
Floyd’s. The rate of Black and Brown people dying at the hands of fatal police shootings is
disproportionate. Black people are more than twice as likely to die at the hands of police than
Whites, and Latinx people are just under twice as likely to die in fatal police encounters (The
Washington Post, 2021). Thus, understanding historical racial bias in the policing system adds to
the context of racial tension of 2020.
Socio-economic divides of the impact of the coronavirus pandemic have also been
disproportionate. In 2016, the wealth gap between Whites and Black Americans was found to be
enormous with Whites having ten times the net-worth of Black Americans (Brookings, 2020),
leading to healthcare disparities where Black Americans are almost twice as likely to not have
medical insurance (CDC, 2019).
109

Mr. Donald J. Trump has made things worse. His presidency began with nationwide
racial inequity protests. Women’s marches in 2017 after his comments on what he can do with
women (The New York Times, 2016), racial justice marches, and other religious and racial
demonstrations throughout his campaign and presidency have been constant. His response of
taking these personally and his controversial and inflammatory responses have only added to the
racial tension. Additionally, lifting former president Barack Obama’s police militarization
restrictions in 2017 put many Black and Brown communities over the top (BBC News, 2017).
The combination of the factors above could have skewed survey results. Fear of losing a
job by mentioning racial issues yet being grateful to have a job during the pandemic could
influence employee intent to leave as well as racial minority scores of employee satisfaction or
perception of cross-cultural competency. Further study is warranted to verify the long-term
consistency of the scores at RTE.

110

Appendix H: Validity and Reliability
A research instrument measuring what it is intended to measure is called validity
(Creswell, 2014; Salkind & Frey, 2019). Therefore, the instrument maintained validity by
ensuring that all areas of the study maintained closely to the research questions. First, the survey
participants were only from RTE. Second, the participants remained anonymous and were of all
races and from all parts of the organization’s multi-site offices (Creswell & Creswell, 2017).
Lastly, threats of validity that could be present were monitored constantly. The statistical validity
risks that were specifically monitored were internal and external validity and threats of statistical
conclusion validity (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). Additionally, to maintain survey validity, the
survey items were intricately connected to the conceptual framework as well as the research
questions (Grant & Osanloo, 2014).
When consistent results over varying periods of time remain consistent, there is reliability
(Salkind & Frey, 2019). The consistency of the findings of this study is called consistency
reliability and is measured by Cronbach’s alpha (Salkind & Frey, 2019). The Cronbach’s alpha
of the three pre-validated surveys that made up the research study survey all had Cronbach alpha
scores considerably above the necessary threshold of .70 (Salkind & Frey, 2019). Lastly,
building in protection against assumptions and bias is crucial (Creswell & Creswell, 2017), as
standards of validity and reliability are essential in quantitative research (Phillips & Burbules,
2000). The survey for this research study has passed bias testing through the institutional review
board (IRB) as well as through peer-reviewed processes via dissertation processes (Lima, 2014;
Martinez, 2019).

111

Appendix I: Limitations and Delimitations
Several limitations should be considered when interpreting the findings of this study:
• Intersectionality will affect the retention rates of those who are not male racial
minorities.
• The authority level of racial minorities influences the racial micro-cultures within
teams
• Participants were assumed to be literate and to have access regardless of delivery
method
• The Covid-19 pandemic can influence employee intent to leave
• Cross-sector application was assumed due to diverse sector application found in
the literature
• Culture is created through policies and procedure yet no policies or procedures
were analyzed
The delimitations include that this study was strictly quantitative, and no open-ended questions
were asked.

112

Appendix J: Demographics
Table 2
Demographics and Characteristics of Participants
Characteristics n % N = 1024
Gender
Male 621 59.9%
Female 304 29.3%
Non-Binary 9 .9%
Prefer not to say 103 9.9%
Racial Ethnicity
American Indian / First Nations 12 1.2%
Asian 20 1.9%
Pacific Islander 7 .7%
Latinx 30 2.9%
White 612 59%
Other European 10 1%
Black or African American 154 14.8%
Bi-racial or Multi-racial 20 1.9%
Prefer not to say 173 16.7%
Education Level
Not yet completed high school 16 1.6%
Some college/university study 501 51.2%
Undergraduate degree 269 27.5%
Some graduate studies 96 9.8%
Graduate degree – Masters level 91 9.3%
Graduate degree – Doctoral level 6 .6%
Age Range
18-25 18 1.8%
26-34 146 14.3%
35-44 352 34.4%
45-54 308 30.1%
55-64 173 16.9%
65+ 27 2.6%
Number of years in the organization
1-2 years 188 18.3%
2-5 years 254 24.8%
6-10 years 201 19.6%
11-15 years 177 17.3%
16-20 years 138 13.5%
More than 20 years 67 6.5%
Role in the organization
Executive/top leadership 52 5.1%
Mid-level leader/supervisor 252 24.7%
113

Characteristics n % N = 1024
Worker/staff member 715 70.2%
State as workplace
Alabama 93 9.3%
Colorado / Remote Workers 184 18.3%
Florida 67 6.7%
Georgia 266 26.5%
Illinois 78 7.8%
Indiana 58 5.8%
Michigan 126 12.5%
Ohio 99 9.9%
South Carolina 18 1.8%
Tennessee 15 1.5%

114

Appendix K: Distribution of Mean Scores
Leadership Behavior (OCQ)
Table 5
Means and Variance Analysis in Leadership Behavior according to Racial-Ethnic Grouping
Racial Group Average n Confident Interval of
Average
SD
Prefer Not to Say 3.33 169 3.21 to 3.45 .8
Racial Minorities 3.66 240 3.55 to 3.77 .9
Whites 3.74 610 3.68 to 3.80 .8

Note. P-Value < 0.00001
*p < .05

Table 6
Means and Variance Analysis in Leadership Behavior according to Racial-Ethnic Grouping
Group 1 Group 2 Difference in Means P-Value Effect Size
Prefer Not to Say Whites -.41 .001 -.54
Prefer Not to Say Racial Minorities -.33 .001 -.40
Racial Minorities Whites -.08 .458 -.10

Note. P-Value < 0.00001 and Effect Size (Cohen’s f) .211
*p < .05

115

Figure 3
Distribution of Mean Scores on Leadership Behavior Scale All Racial Ethnicities

Figure 4
Distribution of Mean Scores on Leadership Behavior Scale Racial Minorities

116

Figure 5
Distribution of Mean Scores on Leadership Behavior Scale Whites

Figure 6
Distribution of Mean Scores on Leadership Behavior scale Prefer Not to Say Racial Ethnicity

117

Organizational Adaptability (OCQ)
Table 7
Means and Variance Analysis in Organizational Adaptability According to Racial-Ethnic
Grouping
Racial Group Average n Confident Interval of
Average
SD
Prefer Not to Say 3.32 171 3.22 to 3.42 .7
Racial Minorities 3.54 240 3.43 to 3.64 .8
Whites 3.65 613 3.60 to 3.71 .7

Note. P-Value < 0.00001
*p < .05

Table 8
Means and Variance Analysis in Organizational Adaptability According to Racial-Ethnic
Grouping
Group 1 Group 2 Difference in Means P-Value Effect Size
Prefer Not to Say Whites -.33 .0010 -.49
Prefer Not to Say Racial Minorities -.22 .0121 -.28
Racial Minorities Whites -.12 .1380 -.16

Note. P-Value < 0.00001 and Effect Size (Cohen’s f) .168
*p < .05

118

Figure 7
Distribution of Mean Scores on Organizational Adaptability Scale All Racial Ethnicities

Figure 8
Distribution of Mean Scores on Organizational Adaptability Scale All Racial-Ethnic Minorities

119

Figure 9
Distribution of Mean Scores on Organizational Adaptability Scale all Whites

Figure 10
Distribution of Mean Scores on Organizational Adaptability Scale All Those That Answered
Prefer Not to Say

120

Training and Development (OCQ)
Table 9
Means and Variance Analysis in Training and Development according to Racial-Ethnic
Grouping
Racial Group Average n Confident Interval of
Average
SD
Prefer Not to Say 3.28 167 3.16 to 3.39 .8
Racial Minorities 3.35 234 3.24 to 3.47 .9
Whites 3.47 615 3.41 to 3.54 .8

Note. P-Value < 0.00001
*p < .05

Table 10
Means and Variance Analysis in Training and Development according to Racial-Ethnic
Grouping
Group 1 Group 2 Difference in Means P-Value Effect Size
Prefer Not to Say Racial Minorities -.08 .606 -.09
Prefer Not to Say Whites -.20 .0103 -.25
Racial Minorities Whites -.12 .173 -.15

Note. P-Value < 0.00001 and Effect Size (Cohen’s f) .168
*p < .05

121

Figure 11
Distribution of Mean Scores on Training and Development Scale All Racial Ethnicities

Figure 12
Distribution of Mean Scores on Training and Development Scale All Racial-Ethnic Minorities

122

Figure 13
Distribution of Mean Scores on Training and Development Scale All Whites

Figure 14
Distribution of Mean Scores on Training and Development Scale All Those That Answered
Prefer Not to Say

123

Organizational Intentionality (OCQ)
Table 11
Means and Variance Analysis in Organizational Intentionality According to Racial-Ethnic
Grouping
Racial Group Average n Confident Interval of
Average
SD
Prefer Not to Say 3.31 170 3.20 to 3.42 .8
Racial Minorities 3.46 239 3.35 to 3.57 .9
Whites 3.53 618 3.47 to 3.59 .7

Note. P-Value < 0.0000788 and Effect Size (Cohen’s f) .115
*p < .05

Table 12
Means and Variance Analysis in Organizational Intentionality According to Racial-Ethnic
Grouping
Group 1 Group 2 Difference in Means P-Value Effect Size
Prefer Not to Say Racial Minorities -.15 .15000 -.18
Prefer Not to Say Whites -.22 .00210 -.30
Racial Minorities Whites -07 .49100 -.09

Note. P-Value < 0.00296 and Effect Size (Cohen’s f) .104
*p < .05

124

Figure 15
Distribution of Mean Scores on Organizational Intentionality Scale All Racial Ethnicities

Figure 16
Distribution of Mean Scores on Organizational Intentionality Scale Racial Minorities

125

Figure 17
Distribution of Mean Scores on Organizational Intentionality Scale Whites

Figure 18
Distribution of Mean Scores on Organizational Intentionality Scale Prefer Not to Say Racial
Ethnicity

126

Organizational Inclusion (OCQ)
Table 13
Means and Variance Analysis in Organizational Inclusion according to Racial-Ethnic
Grouping
Racial Group Average n Confident Interval of
Average
SD
Prefer Not to Say 3.57 107 3.45 to 3.69 .8
Racial Minorities 3.70 241 3.59 to 3.82 .9
Whites 3.99 616 3.93 to 4.05 .8

Note. P-Value < 0.00001 and Effect Size (Cohen’s f) .217
*p < .05

Table 14
Means and Variance Analysis in Organizational Inclusion according to Racial-Ethnic
Grouping
Group 1 Group 2 Difference in Means P-Value Effect Size
Prefer Not to Say Racial Minorities -.13 .273 -.15
Prefer Not to Say Whites -.42 .001 -.55
Racial Minorities Whites -.29 .001 -.36

Note. P-Value < 0.00001 and Effect Size (Cohen’s f) .226
*p < .05

127

Figure 19
Distribution of Mean Scores on Organizational Inclusion Scale All Racial Ethnicities

Figure 20
Distribution of Mean Scores on Organizational Inclusion Scale Racial Minorities

128

Figure 21
Distribution of Mean Scores on Organizational Inclusion Scale Whites

Figure 22
Distribution of Mean Scores on Organizational Inclusion Scale Prefer Not to Say Racial
Ethnicity

129

Belonging Overall
Table 15
Means and Variance Analysis in Belonging Overall According to Racial-Ethnic Grouping
Racial Group Average n Confident Interval of
Average
SD
Prefer Not to Say 3.5 170 3.38 to 3.63 .8
Racial Minorities 3.81 233 3.71 to 3.92 .8
Whites 3.99 617 3.93 to 4.05 .8

Note. P-Value < 0.00001 and Effect Size (Cohen’s f) .225
*p < .05

Table 16
Means and Variance Analysis in Belonging Overall According to Racial-Ethnic Grouping
Group 1 Group 2 Difference in Means P-Value Effect Size
Prefer Not to Say Racial Minorities -.31 .0010 -.38
Prefer Not to Say Whites -.49 .0010 -.62
Racial Minorities Whites -.18 .0127 -.22

Note. P-Value < 0.00001 and Effect Size (Cohen’s f) .235
*p < .05

130

Figure 23
Distribution of Mean Scores on Belonging Overall Scale All Racial Ethnicities

Figure 24
Distribution of Mean Scores on Belonging Overall Scale Racial Minorities

131

Figure 25
Distribution of Mean Scores on Belonging Overall Scale Whites

Figure 26
Distribution of Mean Scores on Belonging Overall Scale Prefer Not to Say Racial Ethnicity

132

Belonging Group Membership
Table 17
Means and Variance Analysis in Belonging Group Membership According to Racial-Ethnic
Grouping
Racial Group Average n Confident Interval of
Average
SD
Prefer Not to Say 3.51 172 3.72 to 3.65 .9
Racial Minorities 3.82 242 3.71 to 3.93 .9
Whites 3.97 617 3.90 to 4.04 .9

Note. P-Value < 0.00001 and Effect Size (Cohen’s f) .191
*p < .05

Table 18
Means and Variance Analysis in Belonging Group Membership according to Racial-Ethnic
Grouping
Group 1 Group 2 Difference in Means P-Value Effect Size
Prefer Not to Say Racial Minorities -.31 .00206 -.34
Prefer Not to Say Whites -.47 .00100 -.52
Racial Minorities Whites -.15 .0552 -.18

Note. P-Value < 0.00001 and Effect Size (Cohen’s f) .211
*p < .05

133

Figure 27
Distribution of Mean Scores on Belonging Group Membership Scale All Racial Ethnicities

Figure 28
Distribution of Mean Scores on Belonging Group Membership Scale Racial Minorities

134

Figure 29
Distribution of Mean Scores on Belonging Group Membership Scale Whites

Figure 30
Distribution of mean scores on Belonging Group Membership scale Prefer Not to Say Racial
Ethnicity

135

Belonging Group Affection
Table 19
Means and Variance Analysis in Belonging Group Affection According to Racial-Ethnic
Grouping
Racial Group Average n Confident Interval of
Average
SD
Prefer Not to Say 3.49 171 3.36 to 3.61 .8
Racial Minorities 3.81 239 3.71 to 3.91 .8
Whites 3.98 618 3.92 to 4.04 .8

Note. P-Value < 0.00001 and Effect Size (Cohen’s f) .224
*p < .05

Table 20
Means and Variance Analysis in Belonging Group Affection According to Racial-Ethnic
Grouping
Group 1 Group 2 Difference in Means P-Value Effect Size
Prefer Not to Say Racial Minorities -.32 .00100 -0.40
Prefer Not to Say Whites -.49 .00100 -0.62
Racial Minorities Whites -.17 .01770 -0.21

Note. P-Value < 0.00001 and Effect Size (Cohen’s f) .232
*p < .05

136

Figure 31
Distribution of Mean Scores on Belonging Group Affection scale all Racial Ethnicities

Figure 32
Distribution of Mean Scores on Belonging Group Affection Scale Racial Minorities

137

Figure 33
Distribution of Mean Scores on Belonging Group Affection scale Whites

Figure 34
Distribution of mean scores on Belonging Group Affection scale Prefer Not to Say Racial
Ethnicity

138

Belonging Group Room for Authenticity
Table 21
Means and Variance Analysis in Belonging Group Room for Authenticity according to Racial-
Ethnic Grouping
Racial Group Average n Confident Interval of
Average
SD
Prefer Not to Say 3.53 172 3.40 to 3.66 .9
Racial Minorities 3.83 239 3.71 to 3.94 .9
Whites 4.03 618 3.97 to 4.10 .8

Note. P-Value < 0.00001 and Effect Size (Cohen’s f) .224
*p < .05

Table 22
Means and Variance Analysis in Belonging Room for Authenticity According to Racial-Ethnic
Grouping
Group 1 Group 2 Difference in Means P-Value Effect Size
Prefer Not to Say Racial Minorities -0.30 .00225 -0.34
Prefer Not to Say Whites -0.50 .00100 -0.62
Racial Minorities Whites -0.21 .00571 -0.25

Note. P-Value < 0.00001 and Effect Size (Cohen’s f) .240
*p < .05

139

Figure 35
Distribution of Mean Scores on Belonging Room for Authenticity Scale All Racial Ethnicities

Figure 36
Distribution of Mean Scores on Belonging Room for Authenticity Scale Racial Minorities

140

Figure 37
Distribution of Mean Scores on Belonging Room for Authenticity Scale Whites

Figure 38
Distribution of Mean Scores on Belonging Room for Authenticity Scale Prefer Not to Say Racial
Ethnicity

141

Belonging Group Value in Authenticity
Table 23
Means and Variance Analysis in Belonging Value in Authenticity according to Racial-Ethnic
Grouping
Racial Group Average n Confident Interval of
Average
SD
Prefer Not to Say 3.46 171 3.33 to 3.59 .9
Racial Minorities 3.71 238 3.59 to 3.82 .9
Whites 3.93 621 3.85 to 4.00 .9

Note. P-Value < 0.00001 and Effect Size (Cohen’s f) .202
*p < .05

Table 24
Means and Variance Analysis in Belonging Value in Authenticity according to Racial-Ethnic
Grouping
Group 1 Group 2 Difference in Means P-Value Effect Size
Prefer Not to Say Racial Minorities -0.25 0.0149 -0.28
Prefer Not to Say Whites -0.47 -.00100 -0.54
Racial Minorities Whites -0.22 0.00324 -0.25

Note. P-Value < 0.00001 and Effect Size (Cohen’s f) .218
*p < .05

142

Figure 39
Distribution of Mean Scores on Belonging Value in Authenticity Scale All Racial Ethnicities

Figure 40
Distribution of Mean Scores on Belonging Value in Authenticity Scale Racial Minorities

143

Figure 41
Distribution of Mean Scores on Belonging Value in Authenticity Scale Whites

Figure 42
Distribution of Mean Scores on Belonging Value in Authenticity Scale Prefer Not to Say Racial
Ethnicity

144

Employee Intent to Leave
Table 25
Means and Variance Analysis in Employee Intent to Leave According to Racial-Ethnic
Grouping
Racial Group Average n Confident Interval of
Average
SD
Prefer Not to Say 2.54 172 2.38 to 2.70 1.1
Racial Minorities 2.26 243 2.13 to 2.39 1.0
Whites 2.11 618 2.02 to 2.19 1.1

Note. P-Value < 0.0000158 and Effect Size (Cohen’s f) .150
*p < .05

Table 26
Means and Variance Analysis in Employee Intent to Leave According to Racial-Ethnic
Grouping
Group 1 Group 2 Difference in Means P-Value Effect Size
Prefer Not to Say Racial Minorities 0.28 .0215 0.27
Prefer Not to Say Whites 0.43 .001 0.41
Racial Minorities Whites 0.15 .120 0.15

Note. P-Value < 0.00001 and Effect Size (Cohen’s f) .162
*p < .05

145

Figure 43
Distribution of Mean Scores on Employee Intent to Leave Scale All Racial Ethnicities

Figure 44
Distribution of Mean Scores on Employee Intent to Leave Scale Racial Minorities

146

Figure 45
Distribution of Mean Scores on Employee Intent to Leave Scale Whites

Figure 46
Distribution of Mean Scores on Employee Intent to Leave Scale Prefer Not to Say Racial
Ethnicity

147

Appendix L: Correlation
Table 27
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Study Variables
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Leadership Behavior —
Organizational Adaptability .820 —
Organizational
Intentionality
.680 .748 —
Training and Development .705 .799 .829 —
Inclusion .665 .747 .736 .747 —
Belonging Overall .544 .628 .600 .624 .727 —
Group Membership .527 .588 .560 .590 .677 .921 —
Group Affection .536 .587 .553 .584 .679 .940 .873 —
Room for Authenticity .531 .591 .558 .576 .687 .945 .789 .839 —
Value in Authenticity .527 .596 .578 .599 .674 .940 .785 .825 .917 —
Employee Intent to Leave -.280 -.343 -.280 -.344 -.392 -.591 -.573 -.576 -.518 -.519 —
1 Leadership Behavior
2 Organizational Adaptability
3 Organizational Intentionality
4 Training and Development
5 Inclusion
6 Belonging Overall
7 Belonging: Group Membership
8 Belonging: Group Affection
9 Belonging: Room for Authenticity
10 Belonging: Value in Authenticity
11 Employee Intent to Leave

Note. All P-Values < 0.00001, *p < .05, Pearson’s r values (> .2 = small effect, > .3 = medium effect, > .5 = large effect
148

Appendix M: Linear Regression
Table 28
Linear Regression of all Sub-Scale Variables for Racial Minorities

Intent to Leave B 95% CI for B SE B β R² ΔR²
LL UL
Model 4.866 4.32 5.41 .787 42.4% 40%
1 -0.465 -0.75 -0.18 -0.405*
2 -0.378 -0.70 -0.06 -0.300*
3 0.254 0.01 0.50 0.217*
4 0.261 0.00 0.53 0.224
5 -0.250 -0.51 0.01 -0.222
6 -0.232 -0.60 0.14 -0.200
7 0.107 -0.13 0.34 0.095
8 0.065 -0.21 0.34 0.054
9 -0.056 -0.40 0.29 -0.048
1. OCQ Training and Development
2. Belonging Group Affection
3. OCQ Leadership Behavior
4. OCQ Organizational Intentionality
5. Belonging Group Membership
6. Belonging Room for Authenticity
7. OCQ Inclusion
8. OCQ Organizational Adaptability
9. Belonging Value in Authenticity

Note. Model = Qualtrics regression method; B = unstandardized regression coefficient; CI =
confidence interval; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit; SE B = standard error of the coefficient;
β = standardized coefficient; R² = coefficient of determination; ΔR² = adjusted R².
*p = < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

149

Appendix N: Recommendations
The interconnected implementation and evaluation plan used for this research project is
the New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Evaluation of
organizational training and development programs is imperative to ensuring efficacy and
significance (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The model has four levels of evaluation in
numerical order, with the fourth being the deepest transformation learning consequence and the
one that solutions and recommendations should be focused on: (1) Reaction, (2) Learning, (3)
Behavior, and (4) Results (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Within each level of evaluation,
specific guiding observations are questioned:
• The degree to which participants find the training favorable, engaging and relevant to
their jobs (Level 1);
• The degree to which participants acquire the intended knowledge, skills, attitude,
confidence, and commitment based on their participation in the training (Level 2);
• The degree to which participants apply what they learned during training when they are
back on the job (Level 3); and
• The degree to which targeted outcomes occur because of the training and the support and
accountability package (Level 4).
The stakeholder group for this research project were employees of RTE, specifically
racial minorities. This study suggested solutions to organizational, leadership, and training
barriers to cross-cultural efficacy as it related to racial minority retention. Specifically, the
cultural intelligence theory of cross-cultural development will be overlayed with Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick’s (2016) model.

150

Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Table 28 below illustrates the desired outcomes, metrics, and methods for RTE as it
relates to racial minority employee retention and development in the workplace. There are four
desired outcomes.

Table 29
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing
Outcome Metric Methods
1. External Audit Internal DEI Audit is comprehensive
and includes assessments of how
inclusive and equitable organizational
culture is as well as contains global
best practices and key performance
indicators
External audit by DEI
consulting firm that has a
proven theoretical
framework (CQ) and
incorporates latest
research

Accomplished
immediately and every 3
years
2. Leadership CQ:
Leadership CQ is
increased at the
personal leadership
level and within teams
Increased personal, managerial and
team CQ at all 4 levels of CQ

Executive knowledge of global best
practices of DEI and OCQ

Plan for organizational change is
drafted and implemented according to
global inclusion, diversity, equity, and
CQ best practices.

Leadership at every level is held
accountable for the appropriates
metrics of becoming an inclusive and
equitable culturally intelligent
organization. Organizational change
plan towards becoming an inclusive
and equitable culturally intelligent
organization is completed and
implemented by all leaders at all levels.
Training and
development department
work diligently on
creating a plan that
engages all levels of
learning.

Consultant expert in DEI
and OCQ is hired if
internal capacity for
training is not available

Use CQ Scale and OCQ
metrics to measure
training effectives and to
plan curriculum

151

Outcome Metric Methods
3. Structural CQ:
Institute the necessary
structural changes to
sustain DEI as the
organization becomes
a highly culturally
intelligent
organization
Diversity Officer is instituted at the
executive level, has a DEI team, is
financially resourced, has structural
authority and access to all levels of the
organization, and position is scaled to
size of organization which might
require larger or smaller teams and
budgets

DEI metrics are crucial to the
organization’s performance,
intentionally woven to strategy plan,
tied to employee compensation and
advancement, and publicly shared
inside the organization.

Global best practices are constantly
researched, planned for, and
implemented.
Use external DEI OCQ
consultant firm to plan
strategically from
external DEI OCQ audit
to mitigate bias. Use
these firms to stay up to
date with most consistent
research

Use cross-sector best
practices to
benchmarking

Use external DEI OCQ
certification to increase
internal knowledge and
capacity

Connect with
4. Competitive CQ:
Training and
Development
Training and development of all
employees in becoming inclusive and
equitable leaders is integral to business
strategy and is implemented at all
levels.

High EICI curriculum with inclusive
and equitable high CQ pedagogy that
centers on liberation and racial identity
matrix is developed and implemented.

A leadership training and development
pipeline that is cohort-based and
focuses on the retention of racial
minorities and cross-racial mentorship
is implemented.
Create online and
personal training
modules, courses, and
internal micro-
credentialing to track
employee development.

Conduct yearly
evaluation of training
curriculum and adjust as
necessary.

Training series of several
months in cohorts for
development with
minimum hours of
development are
implemented and
financially resourced.

Training curriculum is
developed for varying
positions of authority and
social identities

152

Level 3: Behavior
Critical Behaviors
The stakeholders of focus are racial minorities at RTE. The first critical behavior is for
racial minorities to experience equitable and inclusive leadership. The second critical behavior is
that they enumerate the steps of filing an EEOC complaint. The third critical behavior is to
model the behavior learned in a demonstration provided by employers, universities, and Muslim
community centers. Table 29 below illustrates the desired outcomes, metrics, and methods for
RTE as it relates to employee retention and development in the workplace. There are four desired
outcomes with multi metrics, methods, and timing differences.

Table 30
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for All Employees
Critical
Behavior
Metric Methods Timing
1. Leadership
CQ: Leaders
use external
audit to drive
decision-
making and
strategy
Belonging and OCQ
scores increase over
time
Utilize an
OCQ and
Belonging
mixed methods
approach to
gather data
Within first month of
development
2. Leadership
CQ: Leaders at
all levels
model cultural
intelligence,
inclusivity, and
equity
Leaders at all levels use
the information learned
from training and
development to create
trust within racially
diverse teams by
increasing psychological
safety and implementing
trauma-informed and
racial-identity-informed
practices
Utilize training
and modeling
at work
through
mentoring
relationships
Once the external audit
produces data institute
training for all levels within
first 6 months with focus on
awareness and cross-cultural
capacity-building.

Continue training and
development as ongoing
strategy with yearly goals and
ongoing tracking.

153

Critical
Behavior
Metric Methods Timing
3. Structural CQ:
Systems,
policies, and
procedures are
rewritten to be
inclusive,
equitable, and
have high CQ
framework
throughout
100% of all legal
policies are
implemented

OCQ / DEI manual is
written
Hire external
consultant to
guide the work
through their
experience and
to increase
deliverable
timing or
increase
internal
employee
capacity to do
the work
Within first 3 months of
organizational change and
ongoing

Conduct yearly review
4. Competitive
CQ: The
organization
uses training
department to
assess and
develop
organizational
learning at all
levels
Leadership development
pipeline is completed,
funded, and
implemented for all
levels of leadership

Create
inclusive and
equitable high
CQ curriculum
for all training
programs
Training for executive
leadership within first 3
months post-audit

Training for the DEI lead and
their team happens concurrent
with organizational leadership
training

Training for middle managers
begins 1 month after
executive leadership training
finishes

Training for all entry level
employees occurs
concurrently with middle
manager training

Training for leadership
development pipeline
program begins at the end of
year 1 and is ongoing

154

Required Drivers
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) state that critical behaviors need to be reinforced,
monitored, and encouraged via varying support and accountability methods, tools, and
techniques. Below, in Table 30, illustrates key drivers for the organization to sustain this work.
Those drivers are an amalgam of reinforcement, encouragement, reward, and monitoring.

Table 31
Required Drivers to Increase Retention of Racial Minorities
Methods Timing Critical Behaviors
Supported
Reinforcement
Yearly and quarterly
leadership meetings have
DEI / OCQ on the agenda
Ongoing 2,3,4
On the job training and
assessment
Ongoing 2,3,4
Mixed methods research
from external DEI OCQ firm
Every 3 years 1
Encouragement
Formal coaching assigned Ongoing 2,3,4
DEI OCQ Consultant is hired
for coaching
Ongoing and as needed 1
External certification on
OCQ and DEI
Ongoing 2.4
Reward
Positive feedback for
employees
Ongoing 2
DEI OCQ yearly and
monthly champion
Monthly and yearly 2
Inclusive and equitable
leadership highlights via
online form
Ongoing 2

155

Methods Timing Critical Behaviors
Supported
Monitoring
Testing on knowledge Ongoing 2,4
Individual CQ assessment
with goal for growth and
development
Yearly 2,4
CQ plan check-in for all
employees quarterly
Quarterly and Ongoing 2
Data-gathering through
mixed methodology
Yearly 2,4
Leadership meetings to track
change and management
progress
Quarterly 2,4
Tracking of Belonging
scores through surveys
Monthly 1,3
External DEI OCQ audit Every 3 years 1

Level 2: Learning
Learning Goals
All leaders in the organization will be able to:
1. Understand what cultural intelligence and OCQ are
2. Understand frameworks of being an inclusive and equitable leader
3. Understand how to implement DEI and CQ best practices
4. Understand cultural values and how it affects decision-making and their cultural
preference
Middle managers in the organization will be able to:
1. Model learning from all employee training
2. Manage cross-racial teams to increase trust and performance
Executive Leaders in the organization will be able to:
1. Be effective in modeling inclusive and equitable executive leadership
156

2. Understand organizational change to becoming an inclusive and equitable culturally
intelligent organization through global DEI and OCQ best practices
Programs
For leaders to learn the goals stated above, RTE will need training programs instituted
throughout the organization. Ongoing training should be separated from leadership development
programs. However, all programs need to have cross-racial mentorship, center the curriculum
and pedagogy on liberation of racial identity and have a vision of development of each racial
minority as a potential executive leader. Each level of leadership (entry, middle, executive)
requires its own training and development program and curriculum that each focus on the above
goals.
Components of Learning
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) state that five factors of learning are knowledge,
skills, attitude, confidence, and commitment. Leaders in the organization must have declarative
and procedural knowledge (CQ knowledge and cultural values, leadership, and DEI OCQ global
best practices, inclusive and equitable leadership frameworks) at appropriate leadership levels to
implement the type of workplace culture that will increase racial minority retention rates by
increasing sense of belonging. They also need to find value and be motivated by creating an
inclusive and equitable highly culturally intelligent organization with inclusive and equitable
teams and individuals. Lastly, leaders need to be confident in their ability for cross-racial
engagement and their ability to lead teams and an organization through inclusive and equitable
cross-culturally competent leadership methodology.

157

Table 32
Components of Learning Programs
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it” & Procedural Skills “I can do it right now”
Entry Level Employees
Testing on definition of cultural intelligence

After training, then yearly after
Testing on component of inclusive and
equitable leader

After training, then yearly after
Testing on DEI best practices

After training, then yearly after
Testing on cultural values

After training, then yearly after
Mid-Level Managers
Testing on entry level employee knowledge

After training, then yearly after
Testing on managing cross-racial teams After training, then yearly after
Executive Level Leadership
Testing on inclusive and equitable leadership
frameworks and practical application

After training, then yearly after
Testing on DEI and OCQ best practices
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile
Observations and scoring during work
performance

Yearly and ongoing
Increased CQ Motivation score After training, then yearly after
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job”
Observations and scoring during work
performance

Yearly and ongoing
Increased CQ Motivation score After training, then yearly after
Commitment “I will do it on the job”
Open discussions following practice and
feedback.
Immediately after each testing or training or
on-the-job evaluation

158

Level 1: Reaction
Engagement, relevance, and customer satisfaction are identifiers of reaction, and
assessing reaction is the simplest form of evaluation (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Table 32
identifies the methods used to determine the reaction of all employees in RTE. Due to the
internal employee nature of this study, customer service will not be evaluated.

Table 33
Components to Measure Reactions to Learning Programs
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Participating in testing of knowledge During testing, after training
Participating in on-the-job demonstrations During demonstrations
Participating in organizational assessment During assessment
Participating in organizational audit During assessment and after assessment
Relevance
Application to job duties After training,

159

Evaluation Tools
Immediately After Training
Immediately following all training sessions, coaching sessions and testing activities,
employees will partake in a survey that measures their opinions and attitudes and the training and
the program that they are in. The objective of the survey will be to address the perceived value in
the training and program as well as how committed and confidents the employee is in being able
to apply what they just learned.

Table 34
Immediate Feedback Survey
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Slightly
Disagree
Slightly
Agree
Agree Strongly
Agree
1. The training was relevant to
me.
1 2 3 4 5 6
2. The training was interesting
to me.
1 2 3 4 5 6
3. The training added value to
me.
1 2 3 4 5 6
4. I can immediately apply
what I learned.
1 2 3 4 5 6
5. I am confident in applying
what I have learned.
1 2 3 4 5 6
6. The training allowed for
practice and feedback.
1 2 3 4 5 6

160

Delayed After Program Implementation
Due to the various levels of authority of employees involved and the ongoing
programming, it is recommended that the survey be administered at least twice per year per
program and training series. The survey will measure the employees’ perception of program
relevance and satisfaction (Level 1), their confidence in their workplace application of what they
learned (Level 2), their actual application of the knowledge they have gained through training
(Level 3), and their overall performance as the organization becomes an EICI organization
(Level 4). The survey will contain Likert-level questions illustrated in Table 34.

Table 35
Delayed Feedback Survey
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Slightly
Disagree
Slightly
Agree
Agree Strongly
Agree
1. The proved to be relevant to
me over a period of time.
1 2 3 4 5 6
2. I would recommend the
training.
1 2 3 4 5 6
3. The training proved to be
valuable to me over a period of
time.
1 2 3 4 5 6
4. I was able to consistently
apply what I learned.
1 2 3 4 5 6
5. I am still confident or more
confident in applying what I
have learned.
1 2 3 4 5 6
6. The am less confident or
more confident in applying
what I have learned.
1 2 3 4 5 6
7. I have been able to
demonstrate what I have
learned.
1 2 3 4 5 6

161

Data Analysis and Reporting
For all leadership levels data analysis should be thorough. First, the analysis should be on
the CQ of leadership and its development. Secondly, the analysis should be of training program
efficiency and curriculum. Thirdly, all processes, procedures and policies should be assessed
through the latest research and if it has been implemented. Fourthly, organization data on the
progress towards global inclusion, equity, diversity, and OCQ best practices and key
performance indicators should be analyzed and reported to all levels of leadership. Lastly, both
short-term and longer-term results should be disseminated.

162

Appendix O: Recommendations for Future Research
It is recommended that future studies examine the impact of racial identity development
stages and employee perception of inclusion, diversity, equity, and race. Previous studies have
found that people are often not aware of their own racial oppression. Additionally, further studies
on identity racial identity and its overlap on CQ are needed, as research has found that surveys
that have racial language can create a strong reaction that can more deeply dive into themes of
White supremacy. Lastly, there were quite a few survey participants that replied with “Prefer not
to say” when asked about their race and gender. Further study into the intersection of
organizational psychological safety and how it impacts racial trauma is warranted, as it speaks to
the type of culture that employees experience.

163

Appendix P: IRB
1. Project Identification and Abstract
1.1 Type of Submission
Research Protocol or Study on Human Subjects
1.2 Full Title of Research Protocol
A Culture of Belonging: Organizational Cultural Intelligence and its Effects on Racial Minority
Retention
1.3 Short Title
Belonging, Organizational CQ, & Racial Minority Retention
1.4 Abstract: Provide a simple explanation of the study and briefly address (in 1 to 2 sentences)
each of the following points: rationale; intervention; objectives or purpose; study population
or sample characteristics; study methodology; description of study arms (if appropriate);
study endpoints or outcomes; follow-up; statistics and plans for analysis
Rationale: The purpose for this study is to use a survey to see how a culture of belonging and
organizational cultural intelligence effects racial minority retention and intent to leave the
organization. The research questions are:
RQ1: Is there a relationship between perception of leadership CQ from racial minorities and
intent to leave the organization?
RQ2: What is the relationship between OCQ structural metrics, belonging and inclusion scores,
and racial minority intent to leave the organization?
RQ3: What is the relationship between OCQ competitive metrics, belonging and inclusion
scores, and racial minority intent to leave the organization?
164

RQ4: What are the recommendations for organizational practices in the areas of executive
leadership behavior, organizational adaptability, training and development, organizational
intentionality, and organizational inclusion?

The research online survey is made of 3 separate pre-validated surveys on organizational
cultural intelligence, belonging, and intent to leave an organization.
Intervention: An online survey will be used for this study. The survey consists of 31 questions
and will take the participant 12-15 minutes to complete.
Objectives or Purpose: The purpose of this case study is to understand the effects of OCQ and a
culture of belonging on racial minority employees’ intent to leave RTE.
Study population: The salient stakeholder group for this study is any employee that works for
organization. This study will focus on executive-level leaders through entry-level employees.
Study methodology: An online survey will be used for this study. The survey consists of 31
questions and will take the participant 12-15 minutes to complete. Additionally, document
analysis will be conducted of relevant documents.
Description of study arms (if appropriate);
Study endpoints or outcomes: The outcome of the study is to get enough survey responses so that
data analysis can be completed with a high confidence level and to provide organizational
improvement suggestions.
Follow-up: A thank you email will be provided to each participant. The completed dissertation
and raw data will be provided to the chief diversity officer and a 1-hour presentation will be
given to the organization’s C-Suite.
165

Statistics and plans for analysis: All data will be stratified by race and level of organizational
leadership. Statistical analysis will be compared with documentation analysis. The goal is to
provide organizational suggestions for improvement towards increasing diversity, inclusion, and
equity.
1.5 Select which IRB you are requesting review from:
USC – Social Behavioral IRB
1.6 To the investigator's knowledge, does the Institution have financial and/or intellectual
property interests in the sponsor or the products used in this project? An institutional conflict
may occur when a financial interest of the institution has the potential to bias the outcome of
research conducted by its employees or students or to create an unacceptable risk to human
subjects.
No
2. Study Personnel
2.1 Study Personnel and their roles
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Otaola Pablo Rossier School of
Education
Principal
Investigator
HS Yes Yes Yes Yes
Tobey Patricia Office of the
Provost
Faculty
Advisor
HS,
GCP,
HIPAA
No No Yes Yes
1. Last Name
2. First Name
3. Organization
4. Study Role
5. Certifications
6. Obtain Consent
7. Interact with Participants
8. Access Identifiable Data
9. Manage Audit Access to PHI/ePHI (CHLA Only)
10. COVID Attestation (USC Only)
166

Who may be included as "key personnel" on an IRB submission?

Key Personnel are individuals who contribute to the scientific development or execution of a
project in a substantive, measurable way, whether or not they receive salaries or compensation
under the protocol. Individuals who should be named on an IRB application are those who
engage in the following:
a. conducting research through an interaction or intervention with human subjects for
research purposes
b. participating in the consent process by leading it or contributing to it
c. directly recording or processing identifiable private information, including protected
health information, related to those subjects for the purpose of conducting the research
study
Who should NOT be listed as key personnel on an IRB submission:

Individuals paid by the institution to perform a service not part of or paid by the research project
performing services that are typically performed for non-research purposes or fee for service:
- honest broker
- pharmacy employees dispensing investigations drugs
- hospital employees obtaining blood through a blood draw or collect urine and provide
such specimens to investigators as a service
- radiology clinic employees performing chest x-rays and sending results to investigators
as a service
- routine laboratory analyses of blood samples for investigators as a commercial service
- transcription of research study interviews as a commercial service
167

- not administering any study intervention being tested or evaluated under the protocol
2.2 Is the Principal Investigator a staff member, student, resident, fellow, postdoctoral scholar,
other trainee, or visiting scholar/faculty member at USC/CHLA?
Yes
2.3 Specify the group/organization who has reviewed this study for scientific merit:
Doctoral Dissertation Committee
4. Funding Information
4.1 What existing or pending support will be used for this study? (check all that apply)
No Funding
4.1.1 Will you be submitting an Urgent Review request?
No
4.4 Add the details of each source of funding for this study.
There are no items to display
5. Type of Study Review
5.1 Select the type of review that you are requesting for this study:
Exempt Review
5.2 Attach the protocol here. All studies require a fully developed protocol. If you have
questions contact the IRB office to discuss.
There are no items to display
A grant proposal is not applicable, and should not be uploaded in lieu of a protocol (template is
attached and will also be available on the OPRS website).
5.3 Attach the sponsor's template informed consent here.
There are no items to display
168

5.4 If any study documents are password protected, enter the passwords here.
5.5 If there is a sponsor protocol number associated with this file, specify it here:
6. Study Locations
6.1 Identify the locations where the research activities described in this application will be
performed (check all that apply):
USC UPC – University Park Associated Locations
6b. UPC Locations
6b.1 UPC Locations (check all that apply and provide detail where indicated):
Off-campus location
6b.2 If off-campus location, please specify:
Online survey at RTE
9. Methods and Procedures – Selected Descriptors/Community
9.1 This study will include: (check all that apply)
Data/specimens that will be collected for research purposes
9.1.1 Will anyone in the study team (listed under Section 2.1) have direct in-person interaction
with participants?
No
9.2 Study Procedures: (check all that apply)
Surveys/Questionnaires/Psychometric Testing
If the research involves deceiving the subjects regarding the nature or purposes of the research,
exemption is not applicable unless the subject has been informed prior to their enrollment that
he/she/zie will be unaware of or misled regarding the nature or purposes of the research. Section
16 must be fully completed and a debriefing statement/tool uploaded into iStar section 16.3.
169

Debriefing Statement/Tool requirements:
The debriefing statement/tool must reveal the true purpose of the research and the reason for the
deception and give the participant an opportunity to withhold or withdraw their data, without
punishment, for example, grades or compensation cannot be withheld.
9.3 Is this a clinical trial? [The NIH defines a clinical trial as a prospective research study to
evaluate the effects of one or more interventions on health-related biomedical or behavioral
outcomes.]
No
9.5 Will data from this study be subject to the NIH Genomic Data Sharing (GDS) policy?
No
9.6 Does your study involve community-engaged research (community-engaged research
addresses community needs and involves the community in research plan, conduct of study,
etc)?
No
9.7 Will data from this research be submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration or will
data be held for inspection by the FDA?
11. Study Design and Methodology
11.1 Describe in detail the design and methodology of the study. If applicable, include
information on stratification or randomization plans. Identify and distinguish between those
procedures that are standard of care and those that are experimental. Include the frequency
and duration of each activity and the total length of subject participation.
170

Organizational Cultural Intelligence (OCQ) will be explored as the theoretical framework. OCQ
is defined as what the organization’s capability is to function effectively in internal and external
culturally diverse environments. OCQ will aid in creating effective management of cultural
diversity within the organization as well as cross-cultural environments in which the
organization engages as well as being grounded in CQ Theory. The OCQ survey will be the
foundational assessment and specifically explored because it is the only organizational
assessment as of the writing of this IRB application that includes how cultural intelligence effects
organizational inclusion and diversity.
Additionally, OCQ is also divided into three categories: Competitive CQ, managerial CQ, and
structural CQ. Competitive CQ measures the levels to which processes and routines of the
organization prove compatible with facilitating internal and external diversity efficiently.
Managerial CQ is the individual CQ embodied by top organizational leaders. Structural CQ is
defined as the levels to which organizational development and reporting structure and
mechanisms prove compatible with facilitating internal and external diversity.
CQ Knowledge measures the necessary knowledge needed to have a high CQ score, CQ Drive
will address the leadership and organizational motivation for change, and OCQ structural,
managerial, and competitive components will address organizational structural gaps. Due to
OCQ having a pre-validated quantitative survey, that survey will be contextualized and used for
this study. All the Cronbach Alpha scores of the research tool are above .76 and as high as .88.
The OCQ quantitative assessment contains questions on inclusion. However, this study will add
pre-validated questions on belonging that will impact racial minority attrition. All the questions
on belonging have a Cronbach Alpha scores above .85.
171

The research survey will also contain questions on employee intent to leave. The 2019 study
showed that high CQ employees will most likely leave a low CQ organization due to their ability
to absorb other ethnic cultures as well as other organizational cultures that would give them
other opportunities. Additionally, the study showed that if a high CQ employee has low job
satisfaction, they will certainly depart their jobs. The intent to leave scale had a high level of
internal consistency, as indicated by a Cronbach's alpha of 0.928.
The research survey was given to each Wow employees. It consists of three sections. Section one
contains instructions, section two contains 31 questions on OCQ, belonging, and intent to leave,
and section three contains 8 questions on the participants’ demographic data. The survey will
take participants between 12-15 minutes and be given out to them through HR lead. A minimum
of 500 employees will take the survey with a goal of 90% of the 2600 employees to complete the
survey.
11.2 Provide a description of the study population.
The study will include all employees within the organization. This will include corporate
headquarters executive leaders as well as entry level and middle managers in varying sites. Sites
are across 10 states and 22 cities.
11.3 Attach a copy of the Data Collection forms you intend to use. Data Collection forms
include a summary of the variables to be recorded from the original source.
There are no items to display
21. Methods and Procedures - Surveys/Questionnaires/Psychometric Testing
21.2 Attach copies of all measures/instruments that will be used for this study.
Survey seen in Appendix C attached as a Microsoft Word document Modified 9/21/2020 at 1:41
PM
172

22. Special Subject Populations
22.1 Indicate any special subject populations you intend or expect to enroll in the research:
(check all that apply)
Employees or Students
22b. Special Subject Populations - Employees/Students
22b.1 Describe how you will minimize the potential for employees and/or students to feel
coerced to participate. Discuss how the potential confusion in roles will be addressed.
The researcher has no authority over employees. In all communication to employees and
executive management there will be explicit communication that the survey is 100% volunteer
and free of punitive consequences for not taking the survey.
22b.2 Does anyone on the study team have a supervisory relationship over the potential
research participants (such as a manager or teacher)?
No
25. Financial Obligation and Compensation
25.1 Financial Obligation: Choose the response that best describes the cost to participants.
There are no costs related to participation.
26. Participant Privacy and Data Confidentiality
26.1 Privacy Protections: Privacy is a participant's ability to control how other people see,
touch, or obtain information about his/her self. Violations of privacy can involve
circumstances such as being photographed or videotaped without consent, being asked
personal questions in a public setting, being seen without clothing, being observed while
conducting personal behavior, or disclosing information about abortions, HIV status, or
illegal drug use.
173

The collection of information about participants is limited to the amount necessary to achieve
aims of the research.
Participants will not be approached in a setting or location that may constitute an invasion of
privacy or could potentially stigmatize them.
26.2 Confidentiality Precautions: Confidentiality is an extension of the concept of privacy; it
refers to the participant's understanding of, and agreement to, the ways identifiable
information will be collected, stored, and shared. Identifiable information can be printed
information, electronic information, or visual information such as photographs.
Data and/or specimens will not be labeled with any personal identifying information, nor with a
code that the research team can link to personal identifying information. (Anonymous)
26.3 Study data/specimen will be stored:
Electronically
Local computers/laptops
External Servers (including cloud based services)
Qualtrics
Please confirm that, at a minimum, the following measures will be taken and enforced:
Electronic data will be stored with appropriate electronic safeguards, such as unique
usernames/passwords, and limited to authorized study personnel. Dual factor authentication will
be used, if feasible.
Security software (firewall, antivirus, anti-intrusion) will be installed and regularly updated in
all servers, workstations, laptops, and other devices used in the study
All computers with access to study data will be scanned regularly (for viruses and spyware, etc.)
and problems will be resolved
174

Data transfer will be encrypted
26.4 Will identified data and/or specimens be sent outside the institution to a third party (such
as a study sponsor, federal agency, or another institution)?
No
26.5 What will happen to the research data and/or specimens at the conclusion of the study?
(check ALL that apply)
Direct identifiers and/or the key to the codes will be destroyed upon completion of the research
(all data/specimens will be stripped of identifying information and/or the key to codes destroyed,
paper documents shredded, electronic files purged, electronic media securely erased)
Retained by the investigator for future research use
Restricted use data will be destroyed or returned to the source
No direct or indirect identifiers are being collected. The anonymous data and/or specimens will
be retained at the discretion of the investigator
35. Is the HIPAA Privacy Rule Applicable?
35.1 Do you intend to access, review, collect, use, or disclose Protected Health Information
(PHI/ePHI) which includes either patient and/or participant data, in your research? Answer
yes if you intend to do any of the following:
- Look at medical records (paper or electronic) to identify potential research participants
- Look at clinic logs to identify potential research participants
- Record demographic information obtained from medical records (paper or electronic)
- Record health information obtained from medical records (paper or electronic)
- Obtain information from laboratory reports, pathology reports, radiology reports or
images, or other reports from medical or mental health testing and treatment
175

- Obtain information from medical billing records
- Record or use medical record numbers or other information that could be used to identify
an individual (review the list of HIPAA identifiers below)
o Name/Initials
o Street address, city*, county*, precinct*, zip code*, or equivalent geocodes*
o All elements of dates (except year) directly related to an individual (date of birth,
admission date, discharge date, date of death)*
o Elements of date, including year, for persons 90 or older
o Telephone number
o Fax number
o Electronic mail address
o Social Security Number
o Medical record number
o Health plan identification number
o Account number
o Certificate/license number
o Vehicle identifiers and serial numbers, including license plate number
o Device identifiers and serial number
o Web addresses (URLs); Internet IP addresses
o Biometric identifiers, including finger and voice print
o Full face photographic images and any comparable images
o Any other unique identifying number, characteristic, or code*
No
176

39. Conflict of Interest Information
39.1 Indicate the Study team member(s) that have a potential conflict of interest. For each
person to be designated, click on his/her name and select the disclosure(s) that should be
associated with this study.

40. Additional Supporting Documents
40.1 Attach any other documents that have not been specifically requested in previous
questions, but are needed for IRB review.
There are no items to display
40.2 If there is any additional information that you wish to communicate about the study
include it below. Please note, this section should not be used instead of the standard
application items.
N/A

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Exploration of STEM teachers’ knowledge, motivation, and the organizational influences of culturally inclusive teaching practices

PDF

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

PDF

Cultivating workplace belonging through managerial impact

PDF

The successful implementation of diversity and inclusion efforts: a study of promising practice

PDF

Applying best practices to optimize racial and ethnic diversity on nonprofit boards: an improvement study

PDF

Knowledge, motivation, and organization influences on persisting leadership demographics in a military organization: perspectives on diversity and inclusion from minority female officers

PDF

Lack of diversity in leadership: An organizational problem

PDF

Promoting DEI to increase business performance: an evaluation of hiring practices

PDF

Cultivating culturally competent educators

PDF

Closing the completion gap for African American students at California community colleges: a research study

PDF

Evaluating the effectiveness of global residence in improving resident cultural intelligence

PDF

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

PDF

The racially responsive facilitator: an evaluation study

PDF

Competency in a blended workforce: an evaluation study of contracted labor development challenges

PDF

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

PDF

Improving the representation of women in the independent school headship

PDF

Ethnic identity development, ethnic student organizations, campus racial climate, cultural integrity, and sense of belonging for Filipino American undergraduate students at a selective predominan...

PDF

Institutional diversity's impact on Latinx students' self-efficacy and sense of belonging

PDF

Preparing student affairs administrators to support college students of color with mental health needs

PDF

Raising women leaders of Christian higher education: an innovation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Otaola, Pablo Emmanuel (author)

Core Title A thriving culture of belonging: organizational cultural intelligence and racial minority retention

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 04/28/2021

Defense Date 04/07/2021

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

Tag belonging,Change,diversity,equity,inclusion,leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational cultural intelligence

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Tobey, Patricia (committee chair), Hodge, Daniel White (committee member), Malloy, Courtney (committee member)

Creator Email dr.pablootaola@gmail.com,pablo.otaola@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-455606

Unique identifier UC11668802

Identifier etd-OtaolaPabl-9563.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-455606 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-OtaolaPabl-9563.pdf

Dmrecord 455606

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Otaola, Pablo Emmanuel

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

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