University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Racial and gender gaps in executive management: a retrospective examination of the problem cause and strategies to address disparities

(USC Thesis Other)

Racial and gender gaps in executive management: a retrospective examination of the problem cause and strategies to address disparities

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Racial and Gender Gaps in Executive Management: A Retrospective Examination of the
Problem Cause and Strategies to Address Disparities
by
Jennifer Lynne Zuchowski

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

December 2021

© Copyright by Jennifer Lynne Zuchowski 2021
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Jennifer Lynne Zuchowski certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Eric Canny
Helena Seli
Jennifer L. Phillips, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021

iv
Abstract
To date, women of color are largely underrepresented in leadership ranks across all industries in
the United States. Employers are finding they gain a competitive edge when they increase the
diversity of their workforce, particularly in leadership positions. As women of color in executive
leadership positions are underrepresented, this study takes a different approach in understanding
organizational factors that impede advancement by studying leaders from the dominant White
culture. The following two research questions were developed to guide the study: (a) what is the
executive leadership’s understanding of the dominant culture within the Division of Regional Air
and Water (DRAW; pseudonym) and how it shapes the career progression experiences of women
of color; and (b) what are the perceptions and experience of executive leadership regarding
advancing women of color? The key findings of this study are: (a) executive leaders had
admiration for female leadership traits; (b) racial and gender bias are deep-rooted systemic and
institutional issues; (c) decision makers lacked agency and accountability; and (d) executive
leaders benefited from White privilege during their own career progression. Based on these key
findings, three main recommendations with sub-recommendations are presented in this study.
First, it is recommended that the study organization build organizational capacity and executive
leadership skill development through diversity training, education, and awareness programs.
Next, DRAW should engage in a process improvement of their human resources functions. And
finally, DRAW should create workforce programs that benefit women of color in their career
progression experiences.

v
Dedication
To Sage, Harper, and Penelope—thank you for always inspiring me to do my part to create a
better, more equitable world for future generations. May you always lead with passion, love, and
with your head held high.

To those actively fighting for racial and gender equity—we appreciate you, your work is
important, and you matter. Never stop challenging the status quo.

vi
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge and sincerely thank my dissertation committee members Dr.
Canny, Dr. Seli, and my committee chair, Dr. Phillips for your guidance, support, and
mentorship through this process. You inspired me to create a study that will influence change
and add to the work of racial equity. Dr. Phillips you encouraged me to “Fight On!” when I felt
overwhelmed and that I had nothing left to give. Every single time that I doubted myself or my
research you reminded me of my talents and passion for this work. I truly appreciate you.
To my children who made the ultimate sacrifice while I was fully consumed in my degree
program and this dissertation. You are too young to fully understand right now, but hopefully
one day you will elevate the voices of those who are marginalized, oppressed, and who are
silenced. I hope that my research and work will inspire you to fight for racial and gender parity
in all facets of society. To my family who always believe in me and encourage me to follow my
heart, my sincerest thanks go out to you. To my mom and late father, thank you for your
unconditional love and support even when my dreams and visions seemed far-fetched. I am
heartbroken Ed that you did not make it to see me finish my degree program. I hope that I made
you proud by graduating from USC TWICE!!
To my colleagues and friends, thank you for being partners in this work. You consistently
amaze me with your passion and drive to advance equity. To Joy Jenn “Teensie” Anderson, you
have been my rock, showing me unconditional love and respect. Thank you for always pushing
me to use my voice and to speak with boldness and purpose. To Leisa Thompson, words cannot
describe how incredibly grateful I am for your leadership and mentorship. You have believed in
me since day one and have always made me feel valued and included. To Wanda Kirkpatrick,
thank you for being such a powerful mentor and advocate. You continue to inspire me to use my

vii
position and seat at the table to open doors for others. You encourage me to keep fighting, no
matter how much resistance I face, and your words of encouragement are always at the right
time. To Vivian Hsu-Tran, for over 20 years you have been my mentor, advocate, cheerleader,
family, and friend. You consistently provide me with guidance and support during every critical
milestone in my life. You and Han will always be near and dear to me. To Caroline Harris, I
appreciate you more than you know. You saw talent, passion, and resilience in me as a little
fifth-grade girl and became my one of my biggest advocates. You have stayed by my side ever
since.
To my fellow disrupters Pablo Otaola, Jenn Wells, Patricia Gonzalez, and Alia Williams-
Ashley thank you for your unwavering support, for giving me that extra nudge, and for always
being a listening ear. To my brilliant colleagues and classmates of cohort 12, there are too many
of you to name individually, however you each have touched my life in such a meaningful way. I
will always appreciate having had the honor to learn from you. Last but certainly not least, thank
you to the executive leadership team of the study organization, DRAW (pseudonym) for sharing
your experiences. I appreciate your willingness to participate for the purpose of gleaning
valuable insights into how your organization can improve career outcomes for women of color.
In my own profession, I seek to understand and change the dynamics that create barriers
and access to resources and community inclusion for traditionally marginalized and oppressed
groups of people. My own experiences and exposure to systemic racism, bias, and social justice
have shaped my world view which has also provided the inspiration for this study. There were no
potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, or publication of this study.
No financial support was received for any part of this study or authorship. Address
correspondence related to this study to Jenn Zuchowski at e-mail: zuchowsk@usc.edu

viii

Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. x
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ xi
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 1
Organizational Context and Mission .................................................................................. 7
Context of the Industry ....................................................................................................... 7
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions .................................................................... 9
Importance of the Study ...................................................................................................... 9
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology .................................................. 10
Definitions......................................................................................................................... 12
Organization of the Dissertation ....................................................................................... 15
Chapter Two: Literature Review .................................................................................................. 16
Current Trends and Characteristics of Women of Color in Executive Management ....... 16
Impact on Organizations ................................................................................................... 21
Challenges and Barriers to Obtaining Executive Management Positions ........................ 25
Negative Impact on Women of Color ............................................................................... 37
Evidence-Based Strategies and Best Practices for Closing Leadership Gaps .................. 38
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 51
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 55

ix
Bronfenbrenner Ecological Model .................................................................................... 56
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 63
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 64
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 64
Overview of Methodology ................................................................................................ 64
Ethics................................................................................................................................. 81
Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................................. 85
Conflating Issues ............................................................................................................... 86
Participating Stakeholders ................................................................................................ 87
Documents and Artifacts................................................................................................... 88
Research Question 1: What Is the Executive Leadership’s Understanding of the
Dominant Culture Within DRAW and How It Shapes the Career Progression
Experiences of Women of Color? ..................................................................................... 98
Research Question 2: What Are the Perceptions and Experience of Executive
Leadership Regarding Advancing Workforce Diversity?............................................... 112
Summary of Findings ...................................................................................................... 123
Chapter Five: Discussion of Findings and Recommendations ................................................... 125
Discussion of Findings .................................................................................................... 126
Recommendations for Practice ....................................................................................... 134
Limitations and Delimitations ......................................................................................... 154
Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................................... 157
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 160
References ................................................................................................................................... 164
Appendix A: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................. 184
Appendix B: Information Sheet for Exempt Studies .................................................................. 188
Appendix C: Document Analysis Instrument ............................................................................. 190

x

List of Tables
Table 1: Gendered Double Standards in the Workplace .............................................................. 26
Table 2: Six Transformational Leadership Factors According to Bass (1985) ........................... 28
Table 3: Selected Transformational Leadership Traits From the Research ................................ 30
Table 4: Statesd With Salary History Provisions ........................................................................ 44
Table 5: Localities With Salary History Provisions .................................................................... 44
Table 6: Summary of Selected Wide-Ranging Strategies as Recommendations to Minimize
Barriers .......................................................................................................................... 52

Table 7: Data Sources .................................................................................................................. 65
Table 8: Ethical Issues in Research ............................................................................................. 83
Table 9: Study Participants Pseudonyms .................................................................................... 88
Table 10: Documents and Artifacts of This Study ....................................................................... 89
Table 11: Enterprise Actions Under DRAW’s Affirmative Action Plans .................................. 95
Table 12: Effective Leadership Traits As Identified by Study Participants ............................. 102
Table 13: Key Quotes From Study Participants Related to Job Postings and Requirements .... 129
Table 14: Existing Organizational Staffing Efforts to Increase Workplace Diversity .............. 136
Table 15: Existing Efforts to Increase Cultural Competence, Reduce Bias, and Eliminate
Barriers ..................................................................................................................... 137

Table 16: Summary of Recommendations ................................................................................. 152
Table 17: Study Limitations by Data Collection Type .............................................................. 155

xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Model ...................................................................................................... 626

1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
Women of color make up 23% of the female workforce in the United States yet hold only
14% of all managerial positions (Barnes, 2017; Beckwith et al., 2016; Peters, 2016). According
to current data, women of color hold just 3.9% of executive level positions and 0.4% of CEO
positions in Fortune 500 companies (Beckwith et al., 2016; Catalyst, 2020; Northouse, 2016).
The underrepresentation of women of color in management positions that are essential to the
organizational mission, perpetuates inequalities in career opportunities and threatens
organizational success. Even after the passing of the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, pervasive gender and racial
inequalities continue to persist that prevent qualified women of color from advancing to
positions of prominence (Hoobler et al., 2011; Wynen et al., 2015). Although the U.S workforce
has seen a rise in women in management positions, the barriers and challenges that women of
color must overcome are more difficult when compared with their White male, White female
counterparts, and even men of color (Wynen et al., 2015).
Background of the Problem
Despite the advances to diversify the U.S. workforce such as increased education
opportunities, legislation, diversity programs, and Affirmative Action, women of color continue
to face significant racial and gender inequality in the workplace (Beckwith et al., 2016; Hoobler
et al., 2011; Wynen et al., 2015). Of the total number of bachelor’s degrees earned by women in
the United States in 2017 through 2018, almost 34% were earned by women of color (Catalyst,
2020). Data also showed that college graduation rates for women of color were on the incline
(Catalyst, 2020). Women of color make up about 37% of the available workforce but represent
less than 10% of mid-level management positions (Catalyst, 2020). Even with the experience,

2
education, and applicable skills, women of color are not able to acquire executive management
positions as easily as White men and White women (Chisholm-Burns et al., 2017; Snyder et al.,
2016; Women CEOs, 2019).
Countless studies have shown that negative beliefs (whether implicit or explicit)
influence reactions towards, judgments about, and prejudices about groups of people that can
impact hiring processes and decisions, as well as hiring and promotion practices (Barnes, 2017;
Beckwith et al., 2016; Carli & Eagly, 2016; Dunham, 2018; Einarsdottir et al., 2018; Heilman,
2012; Hoobler et al., 2011; Huffman, 2012; Ito & Bartholow, 2009; Sharma & Kaur, 2014).
These biases show up as in-group attitudes about candidates being a good fit within the existing
work culture. There also tend to be instances of homosocial reproduction by which the dominant
culture hires and promotes people that look like them (Banaji & Greenwald, 2013; Barnes,
2017). Women of color encounter a double bind of gender and race; meaning they must
overcome negative perceptions of both their gender and their race (Barnes, 2017; Hoyt &
Murphy, 2016). While White women may experience gender discrimination, women of color
experience both racial and gender discrimination. The complexities of the barriers that women of
color face in leadership are more complicated than the experiences of White women (Sanchez-
Hucles & Davis, 2010). In essence, the combination of race and gender makes career-related
barriers thicker and more difficult to overcome (Barnes, 2017; Beckwith et al., 2016; Sanchez-
Hucles & Davis, 2010; Yamaguchi & Burge, 2019). However, research that explores how gender
shapes and mediates the workplace experience of women often ignores the intersectionality of
race and gender. In fact, research on the career experiences of women of color are practically
non-existent when compared to the body of research that has been conducted on gender and
leadership. Furthermore, the available research has largely been conducted by White men, solely

3
based on the White male dominant culture experience (Sanchez-Hucles & Davis, 2010). This
hyper-focus on experiences of the dominant culture results in research being heavily centered
around White women, while ignoring barriers and challenges experienced by women of color
(Sanchez-Hucles & Davis, 2010).
Systemic factors, such as corporate culture, work practices and norms, have traditionally
been written by White men. These workplace practices and norms are based on their own
experiences and are said to have created and further perpetuate the problem (Beckwith et al.,
2016). Available research on the topic has shown that White men in executive level positions
tend to hire and promote people who look like them-other White men (Barnes, 2017). This
influences organizational definitions and views of leadership competence and capabilities. Top
management and executive positions are often stereotyped as masculine, thereby automatically
creating a perception that women are less capable simply because of their gender (Bolman &
Deal, 2017; Crites et all., 2015; Heilman, 2012; Kuchynka et al., 2018; Puryear, 2018). Gender
influences on leadership create overly generalized social norms where women are perceived to
be kind, warm, gentle; traits that are deemed more appropriate for service and administrative
roles (Eagly & Chin, 2010). Descriptive stereotypes of what women are expected to be like in the
workplace do not match with the male attributes associated with successful leadership (such as
independence, assertiveness, and decisiveness). On the other hand, if women do display these
attributes, they are in opposition of these behavior expectations that were established by the
dominant culture (Barnes, 2017; Bolman & Deal 2017; Hoobler et al., 2011).
At the time that this research study began, there were a number of significant social
justice issues occurring throughout the country surrounding police brutality against unarmed
Black men and women. These acts of deep-rooted racism pushed organizations; public, private,

4
and non-profit to take a bold stance against anti-Blackness and racism in America (McLaughlin,
2020). According to Schneider et al. (1996) oftentimes it takes a crisis to bring organizations and
institutions to make radical change. These injustices and national crises led to an increase in
training, programs, and initiatives to dismantle systemic racism in government agencies,
educational institutions, the U.S. Justice System, and businesses across the country (McLaughin,
2020).
One incident in particular, the murder of Minneapolis, Minnesota resident 46-year-old
George Floyd, shocked the entire world. By-stander cellphone video, that quickly went viral,
captured a scene where a White Minneapolis police officer, Derek Chauvin, kneeled on the neck
of George Floyd, an unarmed Black man, for nine minutes and 29 seconds. In the video footage,
Floyd was shown handcuffed, laying in the prone position on the road outside of a local market
while three Minneapolis police officers knelt on Floyd’s body. Meanwhile Chauvin kneeled on
his neck rendering him unable to move and unable to breathe. His death was ultimately ruled a
homicide-death by asphyxiation (Hill et al., 2020). This cellphone video would later be the
strongest evidence used against Chauvin in court and the teenager, Darnella Frazier, who
recorded the murder, was honored with a Pulitzer Prize (Allen, 2021).
The Minneapolis Police Chief immediately fired Chauvin and the other three officers.
The callousness and disregard that the former police officer showed towards the unarmed Black
man sparked civil unrest in many cities across the world. Peaceful protests and marches, as well
as riots lasted for many months in all areas of the world. In Minnesota, thousands of protestors,
and supporters from around the world filled the intersection where Floyd died (McHarris, 2020;
Silverstein, 2021). The City of Minneapolis police precinct, along with several businesses in the
area, were completely burned down during nightly clashes between rioters and law enforcement.

5
The media would later report that ‘Boogaloo Boi’ Ivan Harrison Hunter, a rightwing extremist
from Texas started fire to the police precinct (Beckett, 2020). According to the Guardian (2020),
Hunter’s motive was to use violence to escalate national protests with the hopes of starting a civil
war. At the time of this research study, community members and protestors occupied and
memorialized the intersection where Floyd was murdered for more than a year, making it a no-
police zone while also blocking all vehicle traffic (Booker et al., 2020).
Floyd’s murder called to question the larger issue racism and anti-Blackness in America
and the need for major police reform nationally. The City of Minneapolis engaged in
conversations to disband their police department in favor of a new model that would be more
sensitive to the needs of the Black community. George Floyd’s family was awarded $27 million
dollars by the City of Minneapolis in the largest settlement of its kind (Karnowski & Forliti,
2021; Navratil & Rao, 2021). Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey said that while the money would
never bring Floyd back or even begin to repair the harm done to his family, the settlement
represented the city’s commitment to advancing racial equity and social justice. The City of
Minneapolis also gave the community where Floyd was murdered $500,000 to dedicate to
programs and initiatives that would help rebuild and restore the community (Karnowski &
Forliti, 2021; Navratil & Rao, 2021). Former Minneapolis officer Derek Chauvin was later
convicted of second-degree
unintentional murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter. At the time of this
research study, the remaining three former officers were awaiting trial. Subsequently, all four
were charged with federal civil rights charges. CNN Minneapolis called the case “one of the
most consequential trials of the Black Lives Matter era” (Levenson & Cooper, 2001).

6
Following the 2014 officer involved shooting of an unarmed teenager, Michael Brown of
Ferguson, Missouri, researchers with The Washington Post began documenting every fatal
shooting by police in the United States (Washington Post, 2021). Using local law enforcement
data, police reports, U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigations records, Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention logs of fatal shootings, and other available public information, they found that
between January 2015 and March 2021 more than 6,000 people were shot and killed by police in
the United States, with a disproportionate number of victims being Black. Between March of
2020 and March of 2021, they reported that 978 people were shot and killed by police
(Washington Post, 2021). As of the date of this study, the Washington Post stated that the
database would continue to be updated daily.
It is unprecedented that a police officer be charged and tried for murder, making Derek
Chauvin’s charge and conviction an anomaly. Research conducted by Bowling Green State
University Police Integrity Research Group (2019) found that between 2005 and 2019 there have
only been 104 nonfederal enforcement officers arrested for murder or manslaughter for on-duty
shootings that resulted in the death of a civilian. They found that of the 104 officers, only 35
were convicted, with just four of those officers actually being convicted of murder. The
remaining officers were convicted of lesser charges (Stinson & Wentzlof, 2019). These murders
highlight the deeper systemic racism at the underpinning of virtually everything in the United
States. This is a system upon which people of color are marginalized, oppressed, and lack access
to resources such as quality schools, jobs that pay a living wage, quality healthcare, and safe
neighborhoods just to name a few. We also witness wide disparities in average household
incomes, home ownership, and even policing rates (Stinson & Wentzlof, 2019). These examples

7
reinforce the importance of understanding lived experiences of marginalized communities for the
purpose of influencing change and closing the gaps.
Organizational Context and Mission
The Division of Regional Air and Water (DRAW; pseudonym), one of many divisions
within a larger government agency in the United States, is in one of the most racially diverse
metropolitan areas in the country. The larger agency provides policy and planning for essential
services such as transportation, urban development, and water management to almost five
million people. DRAW has approximately 600 employees within the division and is responsible
for services related to the region’s air and water.
Based on their reported 2019 organizational workforce data, the average age for
employees within the organization was 50 years old. In terms of race and ethnicity, 90% of the
workforce (both male and female) was White. Total employees of color (both male and female)
were approximately 10%, or 60 employees out of a total of approximately 600 employees. Of the
60 employees of color, 20%, or 12 were women. At the onset of this study, women represented
about 30% of the executive management team, and 100% of executive management team
members were White. It is important to note that at the onset of this study, there had never been a
person of color, male or female, with a position of director level or above or that served on the
executive management team.
Context of the Industry
The underrepresentation of women of color in executive leadership is not exclusive to
DRAW, rather the problem is industry wide. Collectively, organizations that provide services
similar to DRAW recognize that access to air and clean, affordable water are essential for all
people in all communities, as well as the future prosperity of the United States (US Water

8
Alliance Water Equity Taskforce, 2021). They agree that human capital is critical to build,
maintain, and perform operational functions that will drive these outcomes. According to
industry data and the study organization, nearly one-third of today’s water workforce is eligible
for retirement (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2020; US Water Alliance Equity
Taskforce, 2021). As a result, organizations have recognized the need to intentionally expand
access to permanent, mission-critical positions to people from diverse populations. This requires
a water career pipeline, inclusive hiring practices, and better alignment of workforce training
with industry needs (US Water Alliance Water Equity Taskforce, 2017).
Due to concerns about potential industry workforce shortages and gaps in racial and
gender diversity, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced America’s Water Sector
Workforce Initiative on September 24, 2019. The goal of the initiative was to build a diverse
water workforce for the 21st century through collaboration and partnership with national water
agencies, environmental agencies, tribal governments, public utilities, labor organizations,
community-based organizations, and educational institutions across the United States.
Organizations such as the Water Environment Federation, the U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs, the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, the American Water Works
Association, and the Rural Community Assistance Partnership were listed as some of the
partners involved in this initiative (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2020). The
US Water Alliance also placed focus on workforce development to set the standard for inclusive
hiring requirements and developing diverse workforces across the industry (US Water Alliance,
2017). Their learning teams and task force included seven member utilities (Atlanta, Buffalo,
Camden, Cleveland, Milwaukee, Louisville, and Pittsburg), community leaders, environmental
advocates, philanthropic organizations, and other community-based organizations.

9
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to explore the factors that may influence career progression
into executive management positions for women of color in the public agency DRAW. The
research questions that guided this study were as follows:
1. What is the executive leadership’s understanding of the dominant culture within DRAW
(macro and microsystem) and how it shapes the career progression experiences of women
of color?
2. What are the perceptions and experience of executive leadership regarding advancing
workforce diversity?
Importance of the Study
Research indicates that organizational diversity is beneficial because it drives innovation
and creativity, and positively impacts organizational sustainability (DiTomaso et al., 2007; Post
& Parks-Yancy, 2007; Prieto et al., 2009; Sheppard, 2018; Stevens et al., 2008). Chisholm-Burns
et al. (2017) found that organizations with diverse leadership see benefits such as improved
financial performance and economic growth. Research on gender and leadership indicates that
female leaders tend to be more team-focused and supportive of subordinates (Appelbaum et al.,
2003; Tavakoli, 2015;). Moreover, organizations with gender and racial diversity in executive
level positions perform at higher levels (Barnes, 2017; Chisholm-Burns et al., 2017; Heilman,
2012; Tavakoli, 2015). Since women of color make up a sizeable portion of the population and
workforce in the United States, it will be difficult to build and maintain an effective workforce if
organizations continue to write off women of color (Bolman & Deal, 2017; Chisholm-Burns et
al., 2017; Northouse, 2016; Snyder et al., 2016). DRAW will also have to address this issue as
people of color are now the majority of the population in areas of the region that they recruit and

10
hire from. In alignment with national trends, DRAW faces a potential workforce shortage by not
hiring qualified candidates from this diverse population. DRAW’s lack of women of color in
executive leadership was important to explore and address as this leadership gap can potentially
lead to diminished organizational effectiveness and sustainability. This opportunity gap also
negatively impacts economic security for women of color which has implications for the quality
of life that they can provide for themselves and their families. Through this study, DRAW will
potentially benefit from being presented actionable items to improve organizational strategy and
practices related to recruiting, retaining, and advancing women of color into executive leadership
positions.
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) Ecological Model (BEM) informed by Critical Race Theory
(Crenshaw et al., 1995) was used to study this problem of practice. Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological
Model suggests that human behavior results from the interaction between persons and the
environment, and that there are multiple influences or subsystems that shape human experience
concurrently and over time (Beckwith et al., 2016; Bronfenbrenner, 1977; Cook et al., 2011;
Rosenthal, 2014). The four major subsystems are: (a) microsystems-interpersonal interactions
such as home, school, or work; (b) mesosystems-interaction of two or more microsystems such
as interactions with an individual’s school or work environment; (c) exosystems-resources such
as government entities or one’s neighborhood; and (d) macrosystem-the entire culture consisting
of the political, legal, economic, educational, and societal systems (Beckwith et al., 2016;
Bronfenbrenner, 1977; Cook et al., 2005; Rosenthal, 2014).
Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Model (1977) was appropriate as a conceptual framework
for this study because it is centered around not only the individual, but also environmental and

11
social dynamics that may cause or influence the situation being studied. This theory also gave
insight into the many factors that shaped career progression for women of color, and shed light
on how this issue fit within the context of the larger macrocultural system. Bronfenbrenner’s
(1977) Ecological Model (BEM) allowed for a holistic, comprehensive examination of the
problem and informed plausible strategies to address this complex and multifaceted issue.
Crenshaw’s (1995) Critical Race Theory (CRT) was also used to explore how race appeared in
the dominant culture and how it shaped the experiences of women of color (Crenshaw et al.,
1995; Ladson-Billings, 1995). Like the Ecological Model, CRT was used to expose socio-
cultural factors associated with race and racism. It helped explore how racism manifests into
systems of power. Moreover, CRT was used to inform the key components BEM.
A qualitative research design was used to learn more about the absence of women of
color in executive leadership positions in DRAW. The strategy of inquiry was qualitative face-
to-face interviews with semi-structured, open-ended questions. Non-random sampling was used
to identify the participants who were closest to the problem-the executive leadership team
members of DRAW. They provided insight into the problem as they were involved in the hiring
and promotion process of other managers and executive team members. Non-random purposeful
sampling did not produce a sample population that represented the larger population, it was most
appropriate in the study of DRAW because of the small size of the executive team.
While this study sought to explore barriers to career progression for women of color, they
were not studied directly. Instead, this research focused on the existing executive leadership
team. Since they could potentially serve as advocates and champions for this systemic change,
their perceptions and experiences related to the problem of practice were important to
understand. Of note, at the onset of this study there were no women of color in executive

12
positions in DRAW, it was impossible to understand their perspectives and lived experiences
since this group simply did not exist.
Definitions
It is necessary to highlight key concepts surrounding the lack of women of color in
executive leadership positions that were pertinent to this study.
• Concrete ceiling: Barriers that cannot be penetrated by women of color (Barnes, 2017;
Beckwith et al., 2016; Betters-Reed & Moore, 1995; Sanchez-Hucles & Davis; 2010).
• Diversity (in the workplace): The makeup of the workforce includes people from
different backgrounds and experiences such a Black, Indigenous, people of color,
women, veterans, and the disabled (Lerner, 2021).
• Diversity management: Systematic and planned commitment by organizations to recruit,
retain, reward, and promote a heterogeneous mix of people (Ivancevich & Gilbert, 2000).
• Double minority: Instances whereby women of color are judged by both their gender and
their race (Barnes, 2017; Sanchez-Hucles & Davis, 2010).
• Equity: Acknowledging unequal opportunities and access to resources and implementing
programs and strategies to remove barriers and create opportunities for everyone to
contribute and be successful (Lerner, 2021).
• Gendered occupational segregation: The phenomenon by which there are high
concentrations of women or men in certain occupations or sectors (Wynen et al., 2015).
• Glass ceiling: Condition of women of color moving up in managerial positions who are
unable to reach the top because of invisible (similar to glass) but real barriers,
discriminatory attitudes, as well as organizational bias (Carli & Eagly, 2016; Chisholm-

13
Burns et al., 2017; Huffman, 2012; Sanchez-Hucles & Davis, 2010; Sharma & Kaur,
2014; Wynen et al., 2015).
• Glass cliff: When women of color are placed in executive positions in divisions or
overseeing failing areas of the business and where they lack the authority to accomplish
their work. They are unlikely to succeed in these high-risk positions and are said to fall
off the glass cliff (Barnes, 2017; Bolman & Deal, 2017; Powell, 2012; Vial et al., 2016).
• Horizontal segregation: Women largely in occupations, such as nurses and teachers,
where the level of responsibility and productivity is compatible with domestic
responsibilities and family life. On the other hand, their male counterparts typically hold
occupations where the level of productivity and responsibility is high, such as doctors and
lawyers (Wynen et al., 2015).
• Implicit bias: A belief system that reflects stereotypical properties on groups of people
(Barnes, 2017; De Houwer, 2019; Soderberg & Sherman, 2013; Payne et al., 2017).
• Inclusion: When individuals from diverse or underrepresented backgrounds are
integrated into the workforce. They feel valued and welcomed (Lerner, 2021).
• Leadership labyrinth: The uneven path in which women of color face a multitude of
issues and challenges throughout their careers, and not just as they are trying to reach the
top. These obstacles are said to begin as women of color chart a course to leadership until
they finally reach their goal. This labyrinth often requires more time to navigate and
typically ends in failure. Unlike breaking the class ceiling, the leadership labyrinth
remains in place for the next woman of color to navigate as well (Eagly & Carli, 2007;
Northouse, 2016; Sanchez-Hucles & Davis, 2010).

14
• Racism: Is complex a definition as it can occur at different levels (e.g. internal racism),
can manifest in treatment (e.g. unequal treatment and/or failure to give equal
consideration based on race alone), and it is a social hierarchy of prejudice and power
that produces disparities due to an ideology of inferiority (Bonds & Inwood, 2016;
Berman & Paradies, 2008; Christian et al., 2019; Sanchez-Hucles & Davis, 2010;
Schmid, 1996; Yamaguchi & Burge, 2019).
• Representational intersectionality: How beliefs about race and gender merge to construct
narratives and experiences of women of color (Crenshaw, 1993; Tate, 1997; Yamaguchi
& Burge, 2019).
• Stereotype: Cognitive shortcuts that influence the way people process information about
groups and their members which results in assigning generalizations about traits or
qualities to an entire group based on race, sex, nationality, age, religion, or another
characteristic (Crites et al., 2015; Heilman, 2012; Northouse, 2016).
• Vertical segregation: The substantial lack of women in top-level positions (Wynen et al.,
2015).
• White privilege: The power and structural advantages associated with Whiteness. It is
also the normative nature of Whiteness, and the ways White skin affords racial
obliviousness (Bonds & Inwood, 2016; Lipsitz,1998; McIntosh, 2015).
• Women of color: Black/African American, American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, and
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander (White House/Office of Management and
Budget).

15
Organization of the Dissertation
This research paper is arranged into five chapters. Chapter 1 introduced the problem of
practice that this study was based upon and provided background context denoting the history of
the problem. An introduction to the study organization followed, describing the context and
mission of the organization, as well as pertinent organizational details such as workforce
demographics. The purpose of this study, including research questions, and the importance of the
study were covered as well. Also covered was a brief overview of the theoretical framework and
methodology that were used to guide my research. Chapter 1 concluded with key definitions and
terminology specific to the problem of practice. Chapter 2 will include a synthesis of existing
and available literature, a detailed explanation of the conceptual framework for this study. This
chapter will conclude with a brief summary of the main ideas found in my literature review.
Chapter 3 will cover the methodology for this study in detail, to include my guiding research
questions, methodological design, and data collection methods. This chapter will conclude with
my positionality as a researcher, ethical concerns, and limitations of my study. Chapter 4 will
encompass my research findings and results. The final chapter, Chapter 5, will be a discussion of
my findings and results, and their alignment with the literature reviewed in Chapter 2.
Recommendations for practice, supported by my research findings and conceptual framework,
will be presented in this chapter as well. This paper will conclude with limitations, as well as
recommendations for future research that may provide further insight into addressing my
problem of practice.

16
Chapter Two: Literature Review
Chapter 2 explores the historical and recent research that examine the dynamics
associated with the underrepresentation of women of color in executive management positions
across the United Sates. Countless studies show that negative beliefs (whether implicit or
explicit) influence reactions towards, judgments about, and prejudices about groups of people
(Ito & Bartholow, 2009). These same discriminatory judgements and prejudices can impact
hiring decisions and are a major contributing factor to this problem of practice (Beckwith et al.,
2016; Carli & Eagly, 2016; Dunham, 2018; Einarsdottir et al., 2018; Heilman, 2012; Hoobler et
al., 2011; Sharma & Kaur, 2014). Through a synthesis of available literature, this chapter will
provide a foundational understanding of current trends, how organizations are impacted, how
women of color are impacted, and best practices to minimize the gap. Chapter 2 closes with the
conceptual framework and theories used to guide this study.
Current Trends and Characteristics of Women of Color in Executive Management
While this section will serve to be a comprehensive review of the available literature to
date, it is imperative to note that much of the available research was heavily focused on gender
only. When examining the underrepresentation of women in executive management positions,
the literature more specifically was about White women. The experiences of White women were
used to describe all gendered experiences, regardless of race (Crenshaw, 2017). The literature
ignored dynamics and unique career progression experiences associated with being a woman of
color, despite the existence of a wide disparity (Barnes, 2017; Sanchez-Hucles & Davis, 2010).
Progressive studies pointed to this same gap in research, and called for researchers and scholars
to explore the intersection between race and gender, and their impact on career progression. In
the early 1970’s, Schein’s empirical research found that ‘think manager-think male’ was a

17
strongly held belief among both men and women in the United States. Later, Schein et al. (1996)
found sex role stereotypes to be a global phenomenon, where successful middle manager traits
and attitudes were more commonly linked to men. Schein (1975) is also noted as one of the
earliest, and one of the only researchers of her time to conduct studies on gendered leadership. In
her studies, Schein found significant differences in leadership characteristics based on both
gender and race (Barnes, 2017; Einarsdottir et al., 2018; Schein, 1973).
In 2018, women of color made up approximately 38% of the population and by 2060,
women of color will be the majority of all women in the United States (Catalyst, 2020;). This
will result in a significant increase of women of color in the available workforce (Catalyst, 2020;
Pace, 2018). Since women of color already make up a sizeable portion of the U.S. population and
workforce that continues to be on the incline, it will be difficult to build and maintain a high-
performing workforce if organizations continue to write off women of color. Because the United
States is not producing enough leaders to fill upcoming retirements, organizations with
discriminatory practices will lose out on the opportunity to capitalize on the skills and talents of
women of color, and may risk profit losses (Appelbaum et al., 2003; Beckwith et al., 2016;
Bolman & Deal, 2017; Chisholm-Burns et al., 2017; Heilman, 2012; Hoobler et al., 2011;
Northouse, 2016; Sanchez-Hucles & Davis 2010; Snyder et al., 2016).
Glass Ceiling
The Wall Street Journal coined the term glass ceiling in 1986 to describe the condition of
women moving up the career ladder to managerial positions (Chisholm-Burns et al., 2017;
Einarsdottir et al., 2018). After reviewing many case studies and stories from women, they found
that women are unable to reach the top because of invisible (similar to glass) but real barriers,
discriminatory attitudes, and organizational bias (Powell, 2012; Sharma & Kaur, 2014).

18
Chisholm-Burns et al. (2017) noted that “the glass ceiling prohibits both women and
organizations from reaching their full potential and denies us all the maximal benefits of gender
diversity in leadership” (p. 312). Over the course of time, this metaphor has been expanded to
describe the inability of women to advance to executive positions, as the female workforce
continues to experience limited advancement opportunities at the top level (Carli & Eagly, 2016;
Chisholm-Burns et al., 2017; Wynen et al., 2015). Women are instead held to a penultimate level
where they are in full view of opportunities at the top that they will almost never have access to
simply because of their gender (Carli & Eagly, 2016). In rare cases, a woman may shatter the
glass ceiling; however, this is not the norm, nor does it guarantee that women behind her will
also advance the same way in their careers (Carli & Eagly, 2016; Sanchez-Hucles & Davis,
2010). Instead, the ceiling reappears for the next woman, presenting challenges and again
limiting career opportunities. The research consistently showed that women encounter obstacles
even in female-dominated occupations and this glass ceiling problem persists at a global level,
not just in the United States (Wynen et al., 2015). In contrast, men have the benefit of riding a
glass escalator up the internal career ladder at a rate and speed that equally qualified women
would never be able to experience (Carli & Eagly, 2016; Wynen et al., 2015). Meaning, men
have substantially better opportunities for internal career advancement without any barriers.
Some researchers argued that there are limitations to the glass ceiling metaphor because it
implies that all women have equal access to lower positions, and it is not until women seek
higher-level positions that they face barriers (Northouse, 2016). Instead, there appears to be a
leadership labyrinth in which women face a multitude of issues and challenges throughout their
career, and not just as they are trying to reach the top (Carli & Eagly, 2016). In other words,
women must overcome multiple obstacles, at all levels of their career, that men simply do not

19
face. This labyrinth often requires more time to navigate its many hurdles and typically ends in
failure.
Glass Cliff
Another important metaphor linked to the gender gap problem in leadership is glass cliff.
A glass cliff is where women are promoted to high-risk leadership positions where they lack the
authority and proper resources to accomplish their work (Barnes, 2017; Beckwith et al., 2016;
Einarsdottir et al., 2018; Sanchez-Hucles & Davis, 2010). From the beginning, these women at
the top are set up to fail, and they eventually fall off the glass cliff (Barnes, 2017). For example,
they may be placed in an already failing department where they lack resources and
organizational support to make the meaningful improvements that are expected of them (Bolman
& Deal, 2017; Heilman, 2012). As a direct result, these women are often criticized as being
incapable leaders and unfit for executive roles (Einarsdottir et al., 2018). They often experience
shorter tenure than their male counterparts, whether they are terminated or leave the workplace
prematurely because of this barrier (Bolman & Deal, 2017; Vial et al., 2016).
Education Attainment
According to the U.S. National Center for Education Statistics (2019), women have
become more educated than men. This is important as higher levels of education are often
associated with higher levels of employment. Generally, those with higher levels of education
are more likely to have higher paying positions such as executive leadership roles (Catalyst,
2020). Employers have attempted to blame the absence of women of color in executive
leadership positions on there being too few women of color in education and preparatory
programs, or in the available workforce (Einarsdottir et al., 2018). However, both explanations

20
continue to be proven false by research and statistical data (Baker et al., 2018; Hoobler et al.,
2011; Northouse, 2016; Sanchez-Hucles & Davis, 2010).
Based on data from Catalyst (2019) and the U. S. National Center for Educational
Statistics (2019), in 2017, women collectively outnumbered men earning more than half of
conferred bachelor’s degrees (57.3%), master’s degrees (59.4%), and doctorate degrees (53.3%).
Between 2017 and 2018, women of color earned almost 34% of all bachelor’s degrees earned by
women in the United States (Catalyst, 2020). The percentage of those degrees earned by racial
category are as follows: Hispanic women 14.9%, Black women 11.4%, and Asian/Pacific
Islander women 7.6% (Catalyst, 2020). From the same source, it was reported that in 2019,
Black women attained the largest share of all master’s degrees at 70% and they earned 66% of
all doctorate degrees making them the most educated group in the United States (Catalyst, 2019;
National Center for Educational Statistics, 2019). In 2018, although women of color represented
about 18% of the U.S. population, they represented just 4% of all executive positions. On the
other hand, White men held 68%, White women 19%, and men of color 9% of all executive
positions (Washington & Roberts, 2019). The Association of University Women (2016) also
asserted that qualified women of color are ample in supply. They affirmed that not only do
women of color earn more degrees than men, but they do so while simultaneously participating
in the workforce.
Research shows that even attaining advanced degrees from prestigious universities does
not give women of color an equal opportunity (Beckwith et al., 2016; Sanchez-Hucles & Davis,
2010; Washington & Roberts, 2019). For example, from 1977 through 2015, 532 Black women
earned Master of Business Administration degrees from Harvard Business School, yet only 67
(13%) of those women have achieved executive level positions (Washington & Roberts, 2019).

21
Despite their educational attainment, women of color represent less than 5% of executive-level
positions and make up less than 1% of CEOs of Fortune 500 companies (Beckwith et al., 2016;
Catalyst, 2020; Northouse, 2016; Solomon, 2016). With that being said, qualified women are in
and continue to be in the pipeline, however, they are consistently bypassed for top leadership
positions. Education attainment, combined with workforce participation, have provided women
the knowledge, skills, and ability to take successfully take on leadership roles (American
Association of University Women, 2016). However, in their 2016 publication, the American
Association of University Women asserted that women are still less likely to be in the workforce
than men. Furthermore, women of color continue to gain the necessary experience and education
yet are overlooked in favor of White men and White women who may not always be as qualified.
This indicates the pipeline must be leaking, and something aside from education and experience
could potentially be to blame (Hoobler et al., 2011).
Impact on Organizations
Researchers and scholars have started to draw interest to the positive outcomes associated
with diversity and inclusion in the workplace, in terms of the impact on both the individual
employee and the organization (Cottrill et al., 2014). While research in this area is limited, there
is sound evidence that inclusive workplaces are “good for business” (Prieto et al., 2009;
Sheppard, 2018; Stevens et al., 2008). People from diverse backgrounds bring important,
different, and competitively relevant knowledge and perspectives to their work which gives
organizations a strategic advantage (Prieto et al., 2009; Stevens et al., 2008). This includes
broader perspectives and experiences to approach problems from, implement processes, design
products, create effective teams, communicate ideas, and provide leadership (Prieto et al., 2009;
Stevens et al., 2008). Some researchers contend that although diversity may create challenges

22
with agreement about the organization’s goals, policies, practices, and processes, and may
sometimes increase conflict, the overall benefits to organizational sustainability outweigh these
potential challenges (Prieto et al., 2009, Sheppard, 2018). When specifically looking at gender
diversity in leadership, studies have shown there are stereotypes that label women as less
competitive, emotionally unstable, and less competent; all of which have created problems in the
workplace (Appelbaum et al., 2013; Heilman, 2012) When it comes to race, for example, African
American women are believed to take more risks than organizations can handle (Parker &
Ogilvie, 1996). There are even claims that gender diversity in leadership furthers gender
inequality because female leaders may distance themselves from female subordinates and other
leaders (Molders et al., 2017; Stainback & Kwon, 2012).
Others argue that focusing on diversity exacerbates inequality and issues in the workplace
because people are forced to think about differences (Kalev et al., 2006). Through strategies such
as improving cultural competence and improved processes and work culture, organizations may
be able to mitigate these potential impediments and ensure that the organizational climate
supports and ultimately benefits from a diverse workforce (Prieto et al., 2009; Stevens et al.,
2008). Schein (1975) claimed that cultural intelligence or education for an organization’s
employees that addresses norms and assumptions about various cultures may solve problems
related to multicultural issues in the workplace. Schein (1975) goes further to say:
The basic problem in multicultural situations is that members of each macro culture may
have opinions and biases about “the others” or may even have some level of
understanding of “the others” but operate by the premise that their own culture is one that
is “right” (p. 108)

23
Researchers agree that training alone will not change if managers and leaders are not held
accountable for improving and sustaining organizational culture (Pace, 2018). Exclusionary
workplace cultures are embedded in organizational structures and talent management practices
(Pace, 2018). A recent study revealed that there are racial and gender disparities in the way that
work assignments are disseminated (Pace, 2018). Organizations that are diverse and inclusive
report increased organizational citizenship behavior which is defined as proactive employee
contributions (Cottrill et al., 2014). This is a culture by which employees openly communicate,
build positive relationships with each other, and they motivate each other to collectively achieve
organizational success (Cottrill et al., 2014; Stevens et al., 2008). This makes for a work
environment where people feel valued and respected (Barnes, 2017; Beckwith et al., 2016;
Kuchynka et al., 2018). In addition, diverse and inclusive workplaces are related to higher self-
esteem amongst employees (Cottrill et al., 2014). This sense of belonging results in greater
creativity, innovation, organizational agility, better recruitment and retention, and increased
profit (Acquavita et al, 2009; Cottrill et al., 2014; Holvino & Blake-Beard, 2004; Prieto et al.,
2009).
Including women of color in executive leadership positions is invaluable to organizations
because of the unique experiences and perspectives that women of color bring to the table
(Barnes, 2017; Prieto et al., 2009; Tavakoli, 2015). Research on gendered leadership indicates
that female leadership approaches, such as being team-focused and supportive of subordinates,
are equally effective and oftentimes highly desirable leadership styles (Appelbaum et al., 2003).
Organizations with gender and racial diversity at executive levels of leadership outperform
similar agencies in terms of profitability (Mastracci & Herring, 2010). In fact, these
organizations are 21% more likely to outperform their industry competitors (Pace, 2018).

24
Because women of color typically must work harder to prove themselves as leaders, they
oftentimes exceed performance expectations, communicate more effectively, and are able to
build more positive relationships with other leaders (Beckwith et al., 2016). Women of color can
leverage their cultural backgrounds to offer insight and perspectives that may be missed by
others who are deeply engrained in the existing organizational culture (Beckwith et al., 2016).
Racial and gender gaps in leadership have been shown to have negative implications on
organizations to include personnel issues, financial costs due to discrimination, lower employee
commitment, greater turnover, and reduced organizational effectiveness (Cottrill et al., 2013).
This problem may push women of color to exit the workplace because they feel undervalued and
feel like they do not belong (Kuchynka et al., 2018). According to Kuchynka et al. (2018),
because women of color rarely see other women of color in executive leadership positions, it
makes it clear that there is no opportunity at the top for them either and ultimately, they leave the
organization. Karsan (2007) reported that when employees exit the workplace, the organization
suffers separation costs, vacancy costs, replacement costs, and training costs in order to bring
new people onboard. In addition to the financial burden, there are indirect costs to the
organization such as lost productivity and reduced employee morale (Karsan, 2007). With all
that being said, it costs more to have discriminatory hiring and promotion practices, rather than
embrace diversity (Karsan, 2007).
When women of color are underrepresented in upper management positions,
organizations may be viewed by outsiders as having discriminatory hiring practices. This may
impact future recruitments and promotions, making it difficult to be a competitive employer
(Bolman & Deal, 2017; Hoobler et al., 2011). There have been several high-profile cases where
organizations suffered public relations disasters and paid millions of dollars to settle

25
discrimination lawsuits, due to discriminatory hiring and promotion practices (Bolman & Deal,
2017; Dunham, 2018). When employers have discriminatory practices, whether covertly or
overtly, they run the risk of negatively impacting their image as an employer, as well as isolating
female customers and stakeholders. Because women of color generate $1 trillion in spending as
consumers in the United States, this can have significant financial implications for organizations
(Dunham, 2018; Hoobler et al., 2011; Pace, 2018).
Challenges and Barriers to Obtaining Executive Management Positions
Researchers and scholars highlight a host of possible explanations for the gender gap in
leadership, to include the challenges that women of color face, which limit their career
advancement. This section will explore the prevalent research that puts this problem into context
and provides clarity around the dynamics most central to the problem. This includes gender,
race, intersection of gender and race, and how these genetic factors become barriers to career
success for women of color.
Impact of Gender
According to the literature, top management and executive positions are often stereotyped
as masculine, automatically making women less capable simply because of their gender (Barnes,
2017). Schein (1975), and Hoyt and Murphy (2016) brought attention to the male paradigm
where when we think manager, we far too often think of White men. Crites et al. (2015) also
found evidence that men and women believe good leadership traits are masculine. Schein (1973)
suggested that sex role stereotypes inhibit women from advancing to executive leadership roles
because managerial jobs are often classified as a masculine occupation. In this regard, society
struggles to imagine a model that would include women as powerful leaders (Beard, 2017;
Schein 1996). This bias against women negatively impacts women when it comes to managerial

26
selection and promotion, particularly when male decision-makers may favor male candidates
(Schein, 1996). Successful leadership characteristics such as achievement-oriented
aggressiveness, assertiveness, and having emotional toughness tend to be linked to men.
Therefore, if women are going to be successful, they must possess these traits (Barnes, 2017;
Beckwith et al., 2016; Bolman & Deal, 2017; Crites et al., 2015; Heilman, 2012; Kuchynka et
al., 2018). In contrast, women are typically stereotyped as passive or too nice, which is said to
undermine confidence in their leadership capabilities and cause them to be overlooked for
executive leadership positions (Beckwith et al., 2016; Chisholm-Burns et al., 2017; Crites et al.,
2015; Heilman, 2012; Schein, 1978). Table 1 presents these gendered stereotypes and double
standards in the workplace, as identified by the American Association of University Women
(2016).

Table 1
Gendered Double Standards in the Workplace
A man is A woman is
Assertive Aggressive
Direct Shrill
Commanding Pushy
Strong, Powerful Domineering

Note. Adapted from Barriers and Bias: The Status of Women in Leadership Summary (p. 2), by C.
Hill, K. Miller, B. Kathleen, and G. Handley, 2016, AAUW (DOI). Copyright 2016 by AAUW.

27
Transformational Leadership Style as a Barrier for Women
A large body of research has shown that women are transformative leaders with an
approach that is collaborative, empowering, and supportive of the development of their direct
reports. This same research shows this leadership style is effective in driving organizational
success (Appelbaum et al., 2013; Maher, 1997; Molders et al., 2017; Stainback & Kwon, 2012).
Gendered stereotypes often define women as interpersonal leaders (Appelbaum et al., 2013;
Burns, 1978; Eagly, & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001; Maher, 1997). In 1978, Burns introduced the
idea of “transforming” leadership—an approach by which both leaders and their subordinates
help each other raise themselves to a higher level of motivation and morale in order to achieve a
common goal. Expounding upon the work of Burns, Bass (1985) introduced the term
transformational leadership. Through transformational leadership, leaders enhance the
motivation, morale, and performance of their followers (Appelbaum et al., 2013; Burns 1978,
Maher, 1997). Leaders do this by connecting followers to the organization’s mission, serving as
a mentor and role model, challenging subordinates to do their best work, and providing their
followers with a sense of meaning and purpose (Appelbaum et al., 2013; Lord et al., 2017). In
contrast, transactional leadership is about giving and taking. Through this type of leadership,
economic, political, or psychological exchanges occur between the leader and their follower
(Bass; 1985; Burns, 1978; Maher, 1997). Bass’s (1985) six leadership factors and their
operational definitions as outlined in Avolio et al. (1999) are presented in Table 2.

28
Table 2
Six Transformational Leadership Factors According to Bass (1985)

Factor

Operational definition

Charisma/inspirational Provides followers with a clear sense of
purpose that is energizing, is a role model
for ethical conduct and builds identification
with the leader and his or her articulated
vision
Intellectual stimulation Gets followers to question the tried-and-true
ways of solving problems, and encourages
them to question the methods they use to
improve upon them
Individualized consideration Focuses on understanding the needs of each
follower and works continuously to get
them to develop to their full potential
Contingent reward Clarifies what is expected from followers and
what they will receive if they meet
expected levels of performance
Active management-by-exception Focuses on monitoring task execution for any
problems that might arise and correcting
those problems to maintain current
performance levels
Passive-avoidant leadership Tends to react only after problems have
become serious to take corrective action,
and often avoids making any decisions at
all

Note. The data for factor and operational definition are from Leadership and Performance
Beyond Expectations, by B. M. Bernard, 1985, Free Press. Copyright 1985 by Free Press; and
“Re-examining the Components of Transformational and Transactional Leadership Using the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire,” by B. J. Avolio, B. M. Bass, and D. I. Jung, 1999,
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(4), pp. 441–462
(https://doi.org/10.1348/096317999166789).

29
Research on gendered leadership often associates female leadership styles with more
nurturing and people-oriented qualities that are indicative of transformational leadership
(Appelbaum et al., 2013; Eagly & Johnson, 1990; Gibson & Marcoulides, 1995; Maher, 1997).
In gendered leadership studies conducted by Eagly and Johnson in 1990, women were rated by
study participants as having a leadership style that was democratic and participatory
(transformational). On the other hand, men were rated as directive and autocratic (transactional).
Through a meta-analysis of 45 studies that compared leadership styles of women and men, Eagly
and Johannesen -Schmidt (2001) concluded that leadership styles are gender-stereotypical based
on perspectives associated with social roles. Work by Bass and Avolio (1992), Druskat (1994),
and Eagly et al. (2003) also found that female leaders were most often associated with this
transformational style. Referencing contemporary leadership research findings, Appelbaum et al.
(2013) concluded, “Transformational leadership behaviors to a large extent exemplify feminine
type behaviors built around female innate qualities such as nurturing, caring, participative,
consultative, compassionate, concern, respect, equality, and consideration” (p. 53). Most
research on gender and leadership has established that employers and subordinates recognize
transformational leadership as the most effective leadership style (Appelbaum et al., 2013; Bass
& Avolio, 1990; Eagly et al., 2003; Eagly et al., 2017; Rosenbach & Taylor, 1993). In a 2007
meta-analysis of research on leadership effectiveness, Eagly found that women were perceived
by study participants as being more effective leaders than men due to their transformational
leadership style. However, resistance to changing managerial styles, especially on the part of
men, continues to prevent women from having access to positions of power within organizations
(Brenner et al., 1989; Eagly, & Johannesen -Schmidt, 2001; Schein, 1978; Schein, et al., 1989).

30
Table 3 represents a sample of transformational leadership traits that were frequently mentioned
in early research.

Table 3
Selected Transformational Female Leadership Traits From the Research
Source/s Trait Characteristics
Bass (1985) Collaborative communication Sets clear expectations, maintains
flow of dialogue, as keen ability
to listen
Kabacoff (1998) Empathetic Supportive, concerned about the
needs of others
Kabacoff (1998)
Moore and Buttner
(1997), Syed and
Murray (2008)
Inclusive and collaborative Focuses on team building, believes
employees at every level can be
their best selves
Bass (1985) Inspirational Provides followers with a clear
sense of purpose that is
energizing, is a role model for
ethical conduct and builds
identification with the leader and
his or her articulated vision
Eagly et al. (2003)
Kabacoff (1998)
People-oriented Sensitivity to others, develops
effective relationships,
considerate
Bass (1985), Bass and
Avolio (1992),
Burns (1978)
Transformational Collaborative, supportive, treats
followers equitably, enhances
motivation, morale, and
performance of follower

31
Descriptive and Prescriptive Gendered Stereotypes
Heilman (2012) further expands on gendered leadership by pointing to descriptive
properties of gender stereotypes which denote what women and men are like in terms of general
personalities and traits; and prescriptive properties of gender stereotypes which denote what
women and men should be like when it comes to personality and traits. These shared beliefs are
applied to individuals based on their socially identified sex. For example, communal attributes
are defined by Eagly and Johannesen-Schmidt (2001) as having a concern with the welfare of
other people. Communal characteristics include being affectionate, helpful, interpersonally
sensitive, and gentle. Translating this to a workplace setting, these descriptive traits are said to
describe female leaders as they are more prone to support others and encourage collaboration
(Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001).
On the other hand, prescriptive norms describe beliefs and attributes about how men and
women should behave (Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001; Heilman, 2012; Hoobler et al.,
2011). For example, gendered expectancies for police officers or a fire chief may be physical
strength, dominance, and less emotional reactions; traits that may align more with men than
women (Heilman; 2012; Heilman & Haynes, 2005; Uhlmann & Cohen, 2005). According to
Eagly (2007) in positions where leadership roles are traditionally masculine, women are often
criticized for lacking the toughness and competitiveness needed to be successful. If women
violate these prescriptive beliefs by being directive and assertive, they can be negatively
evaluated (Eagly, 2007; Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001; Hoobler et al., 2011). This
leadership mismatch has the potential to produce career-hindering judgements and can lead to
discriminatory decision-making against women (Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001; Heilman,
2012; Hoobler et al., 2011). Because the descriptive stereotypes of what women are said to be

32
like in the workplace (such as nice and collaborative) do not match with the male attributes
associated with successful leadership (such as independence, assertiveness, and decisiveness),
women are overlooked for executive leadership positions (Heilman; 2012; Heilman & Haynes,
2005; Uhlmann & Cohen, 2005). Eagly and Johannesen-Schmidt (2001) argued:
The prejudice women may encounter in leadership roles, especially if these roles are
male-dominated or if women behave in an especially masculine style. One manifestation
of this prejudice is the operation of a double standard by which women have to meet a
higher standard of effectiveness to attain leadership roles and to retain them over time. (p.
795)
Even with identical backgrounds and qualifications as men, women are generally seen as less
capable (Bolman & Deal, 2017). Ironically, researchers found that when women do exhibit the
desired stereotypical male characteristics, they are penalized by being viewed as un-feminine and
too aggressive (Appelbaum et al., 2003; Heilman, 2012). The available research highlights that
men are believed to fit cultural expectations of leadership, therefore creating less barriers and
challenges, and preserving executive leadership roles for men (Eagly, 2007; Koch et al., 2015;
Koenig et al., 2011).
Cultural Expectations
Research points to gendered stereotypes and cultural expectations about parenting as a
potential barrier for women seeking leadership positions (American Association of University
Women, 2016). Perceptions of the female collective being capable of managing parenting,
domestic work and roles, while maintaining paid employment is often flawed (Association of
University Women 2016; Hoobler et al., 2011). In some cases, simply being a woman signals to
the employer that a woman’s family will interfere with her ability to be dedicated to her work

33
(Bolman & Deal, 2017; Hoobler et al., 2011). This bias appears to hold true even when women
do not have families and are not even married (Hoobler et al., 2011). In addition, when familial
situations are the same for men, women are still perceived as having higher family-work conflict
and thus are less promotable than men which restricts their professional advancement
opportunities (Association of University Women, 2016; Hoobler et al., 2011). Through
structured interviews at a large organization, Hoobler et al. (2011) found that managers
unanimously believed women were unable to meet the demanding schedule of higher-level
positions due to assumed family concerns or outside responsibilities. In this regard, motherhood
is a barrier for women to have both families and successful careers.
For women who do choose to balance a career with having a family it oftentimes
becomes difficult to manage the two, as executive jobs generally require employees to be
available to stay late, come in early, and to put the company before everything and everyone else
(Bolman & Deal, 2017; Hoobler et al, 2011). The American Association of University Women
(2016) reported that many employers require fixed schedules and fail to offer flexible work
locations and teleworking options, making it harder for women to balance caring for young
children and continuing their careers. This forces women to either take unpaid time off work or
leave the workforce.
Occupational Segregation
Gendered stereotypes can be used to explain deep-rooted occupational segregation.
Occupational segregation is the phenomenon by which there are high concentrations of women
or men in certain occupations or sectors (Wynen et al., 2015). Occupational segregation can be
horizontal or vertical. Horizontal segregation is defined as women existing largely in
occupations, such as nurses and teachers, where the level of responsibility and productivity is

34
compatible with domestic responsibilities and family life (Wynen et al., 2015). The pay is often
lower for women in these types of position. Similarly, higher-level career opportunities for
women in these occupations generally do not exist. On the other hand, men typically have
careers where the level of productivity and responsibility is high, such as doctors and lawyers.
They also see higher salaries and opportunities for career advancement. Vertical segregation is
defined by the substantial absence of women in top-level positions, the topic and exploration of
this research (Wynen et al., 2015).
Impact of Race
Racial discrimination of people of color dates to settler colonization and continues to
thrive through social, political, and economic structures of American society (Barnes, 2017;
Bonds & Inwood, 2016; Lynn & Parker, 2006). These systems create a distinct and clear racial
hierarchy linked to calculated, and intentional disadvantages for people of color. This includes
preferential treatment for White people when it comes to housing, healthcare, access to quality
education, and even in employment opportunities (Lynn & Parker, 2006; Yamaguchi & Burge,
2019). Research shows that there are advantages to being White during recruitment and selection
processes, as White men and White women have greater opportunities to be hired because
organizational leaders will hire candidates who most closely reflect themselves physically
(Barnes, 2017; Nkomo & Ariss, 2013).
Countless studies show that negative beliefs (whether implicit or explicit) influence
reactions towards, judgments about, and prejudices about groups of people (Ito & Bartholow,
2009; Nkomo & Ariss, 2013). These same discriminatory judgements and prejudices can impact
hiring decisions and are a major contributing factor to the underrepresentation of women of color

35
in senior-management positions (Beckwith et al., 2016; Carli & Eagly, 2016; Dunham, 2018;
Einarsdottir, et al., 2018; Heilman, 2012; Hoobler, et a., 2011; Sharma & Kaur, 2014).
Intersectionality of Gender and Race
Early scholars and researchers did not consider the interconnected nature of gender and
race on career opportunities. Not only are women of color judged based on their gender, but
judgements are made about them based on their race as well. Women of color have the added
barrier of racism, which serves as a hinderance to high-level career opportunities (Beckwith et
al., 2016; Davis & Maldonado, 2015; Sanchez-Hucles & Davis, 2010). This phenomenon places
women of color at a double disadvantage (Barnes, 2017; Beckwith et al., 2016). Throughout their
careers, this double disadvantage creates a much different experience for women of color than
that which White women face (Barnes, 2017; Beckwith et al., 2016; Davis & Maldonado, 2015).
While White women undoubtably face career barriers, the barriers that women of color face tend
to be more complex (Barnes, 2017; Sanchez-Hucles & Davis, 2010). For example, as the salary
gap for women in general has improved over the years, evidence shows that the inequity still
exists for women of color who are paid less for the same jobs when compared with White
women and White men (Beckwith et al., 2016; Catalyst, 2020; Sanchez-Hucles & Davis, 2010).
Women of color must work harder to build and protect their reputations as executives, which can
easily be damaged or broken by even the smallest workplace decisions (Beckwith et al., 2016).
Implicit Bias
The in-group preferences and workplace norms that exclude women of color are an
outcome of implicit bias (Banaji & Greenwald, 2013; Barnes, 2017; Cook & Glass, 2014). These
work cultures that are built for White men, by White men, result in organizational structures that
disregard the unique value and talent that women of color bring to the workplace (Banaji &

36
Greenwald, 2013; Barnes, 2017; Beckwith et al., 2016; Northouse, 2016). These organizational
systems persist due to homosocial reproduction; White men hire and promote individuals that
look, think, and act like themselves, this makes it practically impossible to break down this
barrier without intentionality to make improvements (Barnes, 2017; Beckwith et al., 2016). In
these types of organizational structures, White men have inside knowledge about how the
organization works, have access to networks, mentors, and sponsors, and have more direct access
to career advancement opportunities (glass escalator). In fact, research suggests that perhaps one
of the biggest advantages White men have are access to career sponsors. These are successful
individuals who can provide access to key contacts, advocate for career opportunities on behalf
of the mentee, and provide professional advice (American Association of University Women,
2016). These social networks and alliances largely unavailable to women of color which places
them at a disadvantage (Pace, 2018). Unlike White men and women, women of color are less
likely to have personal and professional lives that overlap with influential individuals who
potentially can serve in these mentorship and sponsor roles. They are less likely to live in the
same neighborhoods and participate in the same community organizations. They are also less
likely to attend the same social functions, such a hunting and golfing, as the powerful men in
their workplaces (American Association of University Women, 2016).
Double Standards
For women of color who do earn executive leadership positions, they are often faced with
a double standard as they tend to come under more scrutiny and are penalized (e.g., low scores
on performance reviews, formal discipline, demotion, and terminations) more severely for the
same behaviors of their White co-workers (Barnes, 2017; Beckwith et al., 2016; Rosette &
Livingston, 2012). Furthermore, research shows that women of color often must adapt to and

37
display masculine leadership qualities to be successful, yet at the same time these behaviors are
judged negatively (Barnes, 2017; Beckwith et al., 2016). For example, when women of color
communicate in a manner that is straightforward and assertive (consistent with successful leader
traits), they are seen as confrontational and difficult to work with (Barnes, 2017; Beckwith et al.,
2016; Hoyt & Murphy, 2016).
Tokenized or “Onlys”
Research shows that organizations will often promote or hire women of color for
positions that they are not necessarily qualified for simply to meet Affirmative Action and Equal
Opportunity quotas (Barnes, 2017). Being hired into a high-risk position, with an unlikely chance
of success, does not mean women of color are making meaningful career advancements. Instead,
this type of hiring only serves to perpetuate the problem. Being placed in positions where they
have almost no chance of being successful often results in career-ending failure where these
women are seen as inept and incompetent, which will limit their promotion opportunities
(Barnes, 2017). In their 2020 Women in the Workplace Report, McKinsey and Company and
LeanIn.Org discussed how Black women, for example, are often the Onlys for their race and are
often tokenized as the representative for other Black women. They said, “Black women who are
Onlys are especially likely to feel scrutinized, under increased pressure to perform, and that their
actions reflect positively or negatively on people like them” (p. 28).
Negative Impact on Women of Color
According to the available research, underrepresentation of women of color in executive
management positions may have a negative impact on the workforce of women of color.
Research shows low job satisfaction among women of color in organizations where they are
underrepresented in high-level positions (Kuchynka et al., 2018; Wynen et al., 2015). When men

38
hold the majority of executive positions, women of color see a decreased likelihood of career
promotion into these types of positions (Beckwith et al., 2016). Overall satisfaction with career
opportunities declines over time as well when compared with male employees in the same
organization (Kuchynka et al., 2018; Wynen et al., 2015). This gap may lead to less self-
confidence, increased absenteeism, increased rates of depression, and even anxiety disorders
(Einarsdottir et al., 2018; Heilman, 2012). Catalyst (2020) reports that Black women, for
example, experience disruptions in sleep, reduction of psychological safety, and inability to fully
contribute at work. Racial and gender bias that leads to a lack of career opportunities can also
create feelings of low self-worth and disillusionment (Barnes, 2017). This may happen as women
of color see there is no opportunity for advancement and that their skills and talent are
undervalued. When women of color perceive their race and gender as a barrier to advancement,
they may become discouraged from seeking executive leadership positions altogether (Chisholm-
Burns et al., 2017; Einarsdottir et al., 2018; Kuchynka et al., 2018). This results in a shortage of
women of color in top positions, thereby upholding the status quo (Einarsdottir et al., 2018).
Evidence-Based Strategies and Best Practices for Closing Leadership Gaps
Researchers have produced a small body of theoretical and empirical work that has
suggested evidence-based practices to effectively promote the career success of women of color
and place them into key decision-making positions. Because of this limitation, many of the
strategies and best practices discussed in this section will focus on women in general. In
instances where the research delved into the intersection of gender and race, strategies will
explicitly reference women of color. Despite the dearth research, there are valuable insights that
can be gleaned from the available research. When deciding on effective methods to close the
leadership gap, some research warns against traditional diversity programs that focus on

39
controlling the behavior of managers (Dobbin & Kalev, 2019). Citing decades of social science
research, Dobbin and Kalev (2019) assert “you won’t get managers on board by blaming and
shaming them with rules and reeducation” (p. 20). While others argued that focusing on
difference may have negative consequences, Kalev et al. (2006) argued that focusing on diversity
forces people to think about differences and can inadvertently reinforce inequality. DiTomaso et
al. (2007) questioned whether it is possible to retain a sense of difference without difference
being seen as something negative. They acknowledged the importance of learning from the
different experiences and perspectives that each person brings without having to give up one’s
individuality. Through their research, Kuchynka et al. (2018) also found that organizations
benefited from programs that supported all workers, versus those that appeared to be “celebrating
the feminine” (p. 546). They argued for gender fair policies to prevent the mindset of us versus
them, where women and men are seen as being from opposing groups. With that being said, it is
important that organizations consider multiple strategies and multi-layer approaches that do not
undermine diversity and inclusion efforts. To follow is a summary of best practices with relevant
examples and supporting research.
Diversity Training, Education, and Awareness
Research on the success of diversity training tends to be mixed, largely depending on the
delivery method and training content. Through a review of previous research, Ivancevich and
Gilbert (2000) found that the study organizations reported positive outcomes from diversity
training. In one organization, employees reported increased perceptions of managerial concerns
and commitment to diversity and inclusion. In another organization that was studied, the
organizational culture improved. This resulted in more equitable treatment of people of color and
women (Ivancevich & Gilbert, 2000). However, Ivancevich and Gilbert (2000) also argued that

40
through their research and literature review, they did not find any evidence of rigorous
evaluation of diversity training programs. They contended that rigorous evaluation would include
identifying objectives of the training, determining whether the training changed the identified
behavior, and determining whether the changes were a result of the diversity training. They also
discussed the need to examine if future replication of the results is possible.
While some research points to success and promising results, others have shown such
training programs have unintended consequences. Mandatory training, for example, is said to be
ineffective because people are inclined to react negatively when they feel their autonomy is
being threatened (Dobbin & Kalev, 2019). Instead, studies on this topic have shown greater
success when training is voluntary (Dobbin & Kalev, 2019). According to the research, diversity
training programs have been criticized for their relative ineffectiveness. While studying the
impact of diversity training, West and Eaton (2019) found diversity training had no effect on
their study participants. They attributed this to the design of commonly used diversity training
programs. Rather than offering techniques and strategies to reduce bias, diversity training often
focuses solely on delivering information about unconscious bias (West & Eaton, 2019).
Although called ‘training’, these programs are instead awareness programs; a distinction that
West and Eaton (2019) believe is important to make. They argued:
Diversity training will fail to have the desired effect, largely due to the underdeveloped
training aspect of much diversity training … There are certainly teachable strategies that
have been empirically shown to cause significant, long-term reductions in bias, such as
counter-stereotypic imaging and stereotypic replacement. (p. 112)
The formula and delivery of typical diversity training programs consists of: (a) an unconscious
bias test and explanation of the results; (b) education on the theory and underpinnings of biases;

41
and (c) information on the consequences and impact of bias, but again, no training in methods to
reduce bias (West & Eaton, 2019). Nkomo and Ariss (2014) asserted that in order to be effective,
organizations need to change their approach to diversity training. Instead of sanitizing Whiteness
and White privilege, its history and lingering effects should be directly addressed. Educating
White employees about the long history of systemic racism, White privilege, and their impact on
the workplace will better serve organizations in leveraging diversity and creating inclusive
practices (Nkomo & Ariss, 2014). Bonam et al. (2019) also found that educating White
individuals about historical racism has the ability to help them recognize instances of racism. For
gender-related workplace issues, researchers advocate for implicit bias training for men that
includes focusing on sexism and reducing sexist beliefs (Dworkin et al., 2018, West & Eaton,
2019).
Changes to Employment Practices
Many researchers call for improved hiring and promotion processes that promote equal
employment opportunities for women of color. According to Pace (2018), exclusionary
workplace cultures are embedded in organizational structures through employment practices.
This means that organizations have a tremendous responsibility to change their own systems and
practices if they want to create gender parity in executive leadership positions. This includes
revising pay structures, improving hiring and selection, and using available laws and mandates to
enforce equal opportunity.
Salary and Wages
A significant salary gap between men and women devalues contributions that women
bring to the workforce and is discouraging to women (Blau & Kahn, 2007; Chisholm-Burns et
al., 2017; Vasconcelos, 2018; West & Eaton, 2019; Wynen et al., 2015). Citing data from the

42
Joint Economic Committee, Chisholm-Burns et al. (2017) found a gap in compensation of 21%
between women and men. On average, women in the United States make about 80% of what
men earn doing the same job (Institute of Women’s Policy Research, 2021). This means on
average women make about 80 cents for every dollar that White men make (Dworkin et al.,
2018). This 20% wage gap also varies depending on race with people of color being
marginalized in positions that have lower pay (Berry, 2014). The average pay for women by race
is as follows: Asian women earn 90 cents on the dollar, White women 81 cents, Black women 65
cents, and Hispanic women earn 58 cents on the dollar when compared to White men (Coghlan,
2018). Drawing from the gender pay discrimination research by Laura Kray, Coghlan (2018)
asserted that the gender wage gap persists because employers’ pay setting is impacted by gender
bias and discrimination, and women are less likely to negotiate their pay. As suggested by
research from Chisholm-Burns et al. (2017), the gender wage gap may discourage women from
pursuing leadership positions. This could result in even greater deficits in representation of
women of color in executive leadership positions.
Researchers urge employers and human resource departments to institute policies to close
the gender wage gap and improve workforce diversity. To begin, researchers argue that
employers should not base pay on salary history (Coghlan, 2018). As women tend to earn less
than men, using salary history in the negotiation process can compound inequalities in pay. This
means that the pay disparity will follow workers throughout their careers, regardless of the job or
their abilities (American Association of University Women, 2021). Since 2016, a number of
states and cities have enacted bans that prohibit employers from asking job candidates about their
salary history (American Association of University Women, 2021; Coghlan, 2018). Table 4 and

43
Table 5 list states and localities that regulate the use of salary history in the hiring process as
identified by the American Association of University Women (2021).

Table 4
States With Salary History Provisions
State Type of provision
Alabama All employers in the state
California All employers in the state
Colorado All employers in the state
Connecticut All employers in the state
Delaware All employers in the state with more than four employees
Hawaii All employers in the state
Illinois All employers in the state
Maine All employers in the state
Massachusetts All employers in the state
Michigan All state agencies, as established through executive order
New Jersey All employers in the state
New York All employers in the state
North Carolina All state agencies, as established through executive order
Oregon All employers in the state
Puerto Rico All employers in the territory
Pennsylvania All state agencies, as established through executive order
Vermont All employers in the state
Virginia All state agencies, as established through executive order
Washington All employers in the state

Note. From State and Local Salary History Bans, by American Association of University
Women, 2021 (https://www.aauw.org/resources/policy/state-and-local-salary-history-bans/).

44
Table 5
Localities With Salary History Provisions

Localities Type of provision
San Francisco, California All employers in the city
Atlanta, Georgia
All city agencies
Chicago, Illinois
All city agencies
Louisville, Kentucky
All city agencies
New Orleans, Louisiana
All city agencies
Montgomery County,
Maryland
All county agencies
Jackson, Mississippi
All city agencies
Kansas City, Missouri All employers in the city with more than six employees
St. Louis County, Missouri
All employers in the county
Albany county, New York All employers in the county
New York, New York All employers in the city
Westchester County, New
York
All employers in the county
Cincinnati, Ohio All employers in the city with more than 15 employees
Toledo, Ohio All employers in the city with more than 15 employees
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania All employers in the city
Pittsburg, Pennsylvania All city agencies
Salt Lake City, Utah All city agencies

Note. From State and Local Salary History Bans, by American Association of University
Women, 2021 (https://www.aauw.org/resources/policy/state-and-local-salary-history-bans/).

45
Improving salary transparency has been shown to expose disparities and employment
discrimination against women, and forces employers to be accountable (Coghlan, 2018; Dworkin
et al., 2018). When employees talk about their salaries they are often disciplined or retaliated
against by their employer. This tactic serves to create pay secrecy, which enables the persistence
of wage gaps as women may not be aware they are being paid less than their male co-workers for
doing the same job (Coghlan, 2018). Despite pay secrecy being illegal under the National Labor
Relations Act (NLRA, 1935), a study conducted in 2010 showed that 66% of private-sector
workers and 15% of public-sector works were prohibited by their employers from discussing
compensation with their co-workers (Coghlan, 2018; Dworkin et al., 2018). In 2014, President
Barack Obama signed the Executive Order-Non-Retaliation for Disclosure of Compensation
Information to prohibit Federal contractors from retaliating against employees who discuss or
disclose compensation (Exec. Order No. 13665, 2014). According to the order, “When
employees are prohibited from inquiring about, disclosing, or discussing their compensation with
fellow workers, compensation discrimination is much more difficult to discover and remediate,
and more likely to persist.” In recent years, 20 states have also enacted pay transparency
protections that prevent employers from retaliating against employees for discussing
compensation.
Hiring and Selection
Researchers and practitioners advocate for the need for changes to the overall hiring
process. For example, open recruitment methods and community outreach, rather than recruiting
through informal networks that male be White male dominated, has proven successful (Carli &
Eagly, 2016). In addition, systematic recruitment practices should be used (Mastracci & Herring
2010). According to Charles (2003), employers should establish relationships with minority

46
organizations and minority communities. As this demonstrates the organization’s interest in the
success of these underrepresented communities, it will help with recruitment efforts (Charles,
2003). Employers can develop future talent pools through summer employment programs such
as internships. When focusing on underserved populations, internships will help in diversifying
the workforce (Charles, 2003). As part of the hiring and selection process, many employers use
assessments to examine the aptitude of candidates and potential employees (Charles, 2003;
Mastracci & Herring 2010). Charles (2003) found that the use of these types of tests create
obstacles that force women and people of color to self-select out. Instead, employers should use
tests that are relevant to specific job functions whenever tests and assessments are truly
necessary (Charles, 2003). Mastracci and Herring (2010) said that when using assessments
during the hiring process, they should be diverse and inclusive. A number of other strategies for
improving hiring and selection opportunities for women of color include publicly posted job
vacancy notices with transparent hiring practices, the use of diverse hiring panels, and training
for hiring managers to reduce bias during interviews (Charles, 2003; Chisholm-Burns et al.,
2017; Mastracci & Herring, 2010).
Affirmative Action and Equal Employment Opportunity Laws
There is strong support for the effectiveness of Equal Opportunity Laws and Affirmative
Action in managing diversity in hiring and promotion. Research by Kmec and Skaggs (2014) on
the impact of U.S. Equal Opportunity Laws found a strong correlation between fair employment
statutes and the representation of women in top management positions. According to their study,
for states with the highest levels of sex-based Equal Employment Opportunity Laws (EEO),
representation of women was between two and nine percent when compared to states with lowest
levels of sex-based EEO laws. They suggested, however, that researchers expand their focus

47
beyond compliance to EEO laws. In their 2006 study, Kalev, Dobbin, and Kelly found that
Affirmative Action plans were the most effective in increasing the representation of both women
and people of color in management positions. Affirmative Action programs are seen as a strategy
for creating shifts in workforce diversity because they often drive changes in hiring and
promotion practices (Kalev et al., 2006). These types of programs serve to create accountability
by creating hiring and promotion targets and tracking metrics (Chisholm-Burns et al., 2017; Hoyt
& Murphy 2016; Williams, 2014). Williams (2014) (in Hoyt & Murphy 2016) recommends a
three-step approach consisting of organizational audits to examine gendered practices, the
implementation of methods for tracking the efficacy of interventions, and the implementation of
interventions to curb bias. A major drawback, however, is these strategies often centralize
authority and accountability to individuals making hiring decisions and human resources staff
(Kalev et al., 2006).
Some researchers argue against Affirmative Action programs, citing the need for
systemic changes instead. For example, according to Charles (2003) Affirmative Action
programs can be counterproductive and not a viable solution to workplace inequities because
they can create a ‘race card’ or quota stigma. Instead of legislating hiring quotas though these
programs, Charles (2003) said that organizations should focus on accessible and fair employment
practices. Arguing that diversity programs and Affirmative Action are reactive Ivancevich, and
Gilbert (2000) said that the underrepresentation of certain groups in the workforce is not a legal
issue but instead a management issue. This assertion lends support for the notion that
organizational cultures need to change, a topic which will be discussed later in the section. For
organizations that strive to move away from Affirmative Action programs, Charles (2003) said
that “opponents of diversity management should bear in mind that the end of the tunnel is

48
reachable if actions are taken to recognize and incorporate individually” (p. 563). Therefore,
calling attention to the need to replace Affirmative Action laws and regulations with company
culture that values diversity.
Organizational Culture
Significant research has found that improvements in the leadership gap is driven by
changes in organizational culture. Facilitating organizational culture change to one that is more
supportive of women in the workforce has merit (Chisholm-Burns et al., 2017). This elevation of
diversity is only possible when diversity is important to organizations (Ivancevich & Gilbert,
2000). Kuchynka et al. (2018) argued that organizations should move past highlighting gender
diversity specific to women and instead should celebrate and support all workers. Their idea of
gender fair workplace norms came from their study of over 230 men in workplaces with strong
male norms. Overwhelmingly, they found that men were more resistant to making workplaces
more equitable for women when they perceived women to be their competition (Kuchynka et al.,
2018). More specifically, study participants had a mindset that progress in the workplace for
women leads to losses for men or zero-sum thinking. Stevens et al. (2008) argued against
treating all people the same as they found evidence that suggests that people from
underrepresented groups feel excluded. They went as far as saying:
The irony in this practice is that diverse employees are discouraged from acting and
thinking in the unique ways associated with their social categories, which does not allow
them to utilize fully the viewpoints of their distinctive social group memberships. (p.
120)
Chapter 1 highlighted the value of diversity and how differing perspectives from individuals
from diverse groups benefits organizations. On the other hand, Ivancevich and Gilbert (2000)

49
argued that organizations should instead place emphasis on civility, respect, and compassion as a
strategy for diversity management. Schein et al. (1989) concluded that creating equal opportunity
for women to be selected for advancement into managerial positions requires reducing
stereotypical attitudes about female leadership. Likewise, Kuchynka et al. (2018) asserted that
gender fair workplace norms that discourage masculine leadership stereotypes assists in creating
gender parity in leadership. Research by Berrey (2014) also supports the value of uncoupling the
association between executive and managerial positions and White males.
Networking, Mentoring, and Sponsorship
Studies have found that networking and sponsorship relationships can be effective
resources for helping women of color move up in their careers. According to the American
Association of University Women (2016), networking increases social capital and key contacts
may provide valuable access to career opportunities. Drawing from Barnes (2017), mentoring
relationships can help with guiding and planning careers, can mitigate against risk, and mentors
can serve as role models. On a micro-level, networks are social relationships where information
and knowledge are exchanged (Durbin, 2011). These networks can be both formal and informal,
and can provide support for both skill and career development. According to Durbin (2011),
there are three components of networks: (a) products or services and information (content); (b)
duration and closeness of the relationship (form); and (c) communication frequency (intensity).
Research on the topic of gendered leadership has found the existence of a male network
in the workplace that is built on strong solidarity; a construct described by many as the “old boy”
club or network (Kanter, 1977). This restricted network reinforces male power and status in top
leadership roles while at the same time preventing women from advancing to the top of
organizations (Chisholm-Burns, 2017; Durbin, 2011; Kanter, 1977). Einarsdottir et al. (2018)

50
highlighted the benefits that White men traditionally receive through the “old boy” club and
argued that women also need access to these types of influential networks. If men open the club
to include female members as active participants in roles such as coauthors and guest speakers,
men can share information and informal knowledge (Stapleton & Michelson, 2021). Networks
with this type of strength can serve as one of the most important tools for women of color
seeking upward progression into executive positions (Beckwith et al., 2016). Carli and Eagly
(2016) affirmed that the lack of access to these types of powerful male-dominated networks
creates barriers that impede leadership opportunities for women. Kalev et al.’s 2006 longitudinal
study of over 700 organizations found tremendous support for the benefits of networking and
mentoring programs. Through this study, they discovered that these types of programs
unanimously resulted in an increase in female managers.
Making It Someone’s Job
Organizations that value diversity in leadership and intend to create systemic change
must invest in resources to create teams and specific positions whose responsibility is
highlighting diversity issues. Workforce diversity teams are important for designing and
facilitating the implementation of action plans to address diversity related issues (Charles, 2003).
As described earlier in this section, Affirmative Action plans generally centralize authority and
accountability to hiring managers and equal opportunity officers. However, diversity teams and
task forces distribute the responsibility of meeting diversity and inclusion goals to other parts of
the organization (Kalev et al., 2006). Through a longitudinal study of over 700 organizations,
Kev et al. (2006) found that diversity task forces and diversity staff positions increased the
number of women in leadership positions for the study organizations. Citing IBM’s Global
Workforce Council, Ivancevich and Gilbert (2000) found these types of teams and councils to be

51
a successful approach in identifying organizational issues around cultural awareness and the
advancement of women. While teams and committees have been effective in identifying change
opportunities, researchers and practitioners argue that diversity and inclusion work has to be a
full-time job. It is critical to make sure it is someone’s job to focus solely on the work of building
racial equity an inclusion (Aspen Institute, 2013). An internet search identified that some
organizations accomplish this through positions like Equity Manager, Director of Diversity and
Inclusion, and Chief Equity Officer, for example.
Leadership Development
Available research contends that organizations need to provide opportunities for women
to develop their leadership skills so that they can be promoted (Chisholm-Burns et al., 2017).
Because this particular study is centered on qualified women of color within DRAW and their
available workforce, recommendations which include leadership development or training as a
means for reducing barriers are not presented in detail. The focus of this research instead is on
the macro and micro-level influences that prevent gender parity when women of color are
qualified for executive leadership roles. Furthermore, available research that was covered earlier
in the literature review indicates that women of color are consistently expected to start in entry-
level positions, do stretch assignments, and take lateral positions under the guise of making them
more promotable. However, many of these women are overqualified to begin with and systemic
bias, racism, sexism, and discrimination prevent their talents from being recognized.
Summary
Best practices and strategies for improving career opportunities for women of color are
abound. Just about every researcher, scholar, and practitioner offers at least one approach that
they believe to be effective. There are a plethora of insights and opinions, but for practical

52
purposes all best practices related to this topic could not be captured for this research. Instead,
trending solutions that are fairly easy to implement or customize to one’s organization were
discussed briefly in this section. Chisholm-Burns et al. (2017) have provided a comprehensive
list of wide-range strategies associated with common barriers that may prove useful and
effective. There are other dynamics and factors that were explored in their work; therefore, their
recommendations are more wide-ranging and include topics such as work–life balance.
However, consistent with the literature and research that were reviewed for this study, other
strategies such as mentors and networks, education, and eliminating salary gaps were highlighted
in this chapter. Table 6 is an adapted list of the recommended strategies presented by Chisholm-
Burns et al. (2017).

Table 6
Summary of Selected Wide-Ranging Strategies as Recommendations to Minimize Barriers

Barrier Strategy
Conscious and unconscious biases Provide seminars and workshops to help
people identify and reduce unconscious
biases
Identify challenges that prevent aspiring
women leaders from pursuing advanced
career goals; individually design strategies
to overcome challenges
Have diverse and inclusive search committees
Conduct periodic work force assessment and
surveys of work environment climate; use
collected information for CQI initiatives to
improve environment

Lack of mentality to pursue leadership Nurture the development of relationships
among early female careerists and
successful women leaders
Be assertive in identifying role models and
creating connections to potential mentors,
coaches, and sponsors

53
Barrier Strategy
Proactively collect and share stories, case
studies, and scenarios of how women have
addressed gender, workplace, work–life
integration, and leadership challenges
Implement programs that share the successes
of seasoned women leaders
Cultivate leadership aspirations of early
careerists; encourage them to proactively
manage career plans
Actively recruit women into elected and
appointed leadership roles and support
their advancement by recognizing their
volunteer contributions and achievements
Identify challenges that prevent aspiring
women leaders from pursuing advanced
career goals; individually design strategies
to overcome challenges

Lack of mentors, role models, and sponsors
Nurture the development of relationships
among early female careerists and
successful women leaders
Develop and implement mentoring, coaching,
and sponsorship programs; provide
appraisals and feedback
Report the number of women in leadership
positions and assess inequities
Make introductions between aspiring leaders
and current influential leaders
Expand professional networks of emerging
leaders; promote interactions with seasoned
and successful leaders
Share profiles, stories, and recommendations
of successful female pharmacy leaders with
others
Identify challenges that prevent aspiring
women leaders from pursuing advanced
career goals; individually design strategies
to overcome challenges

Lack of policies that support work–life
balance
Promote programing for work–life
integration; identify and share strategies for
success within organization

54
Barrier Strategy
Share successful pharmacy employer policies
and practices for building supportive work
environments
Develop, assess, and share inclusivity policies
and practices to support successful
engagement and participation
Identify challenges that prevent aspiring
women leaders from pursuing advanced
career goals; individually design strategies
to overcome challenges
Examine and consider implementation of
organizational policies to provide work–
life balance (e.g., flexible hours, job
sharing)

Work–life integration challenges Proactively collect and share stories, case
studies, and scenarios of how women have
addressed workplace, work–life
integration, and leadership challenges
Identify challenges that prevent aspiring
women leaders from pursuing advanced
career goals; individually design strategies
to overcome challenges
Promote programming for work–life
integration

The “lean-out” phenomenon Implement programs that share the successes
of seasoned women leaders.
Identify challenges that prevent aspiring
women leaders from pursuing advanced
career goals; individually design strategies
to overcome challenges

Lack of internal and external networks,
recognitions, opportunities, or resources
Periodically assess salaries and bonuses for
gender disparities and make appropriate
adjustments
Collect data concerning the number of women
in leadership positions and assess
inequities
Proactively collect and share stories, case
studies, and scenarios of how women have
addressed gender, workplace, work–life
integration, and leadership challenges

55
Barrier Strategy
Develop, assess, and share inclusivity policies
and practices to support successful
engagement and participation
Actively recruit women into leadership
positions and support their advancement by
recognizing achievements
Promote positive career changes, education,
and training to facilitate goal achievement
Identify challenges that prevent aspiring
women leaders from pursuing advanced
career goals; individually design strategies
to overcome challenges
Create and provide opportunities for
participation in formal education and
training programs that have been effective
in fostering career advancement
Offer and/or support educational and training
programs and personal development
opportunities to build skills
Encourage aspiring leaders to seek and take
on visible, important, and complex roles
and projects and to work diligently to be
successful in producing results

Note. Adapted from “Women in Leadership and the Bewildering Glass Ceiling,” by M. A.
Chisholm-Burns, C. A. Spivey, T. Hagemann, and M. A. Josephson, 2017, American Journal of
Health-System Pharmacy, 74(5), pp. 317–320 (https://doi.org/10.2146/ajhp160930).

Conceptual Framework
This research was centered around both microsystem and macrosystem factors in
examining the individual’s environment (microsystem) and the larger cultural and historical
context (macrosystem) of racial phenomena. It examined these systems through the lens of
Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) Ecological Model (BEM) intertwined with underpinnings of Critical
Race Theory (1995) to understand how racial dynamics and societal norms, along with the

56
organizational culture and values (microsystem) of DRAW may influence hiring and promotion
decisions. Critical Race Theory (CRT) offered the necessary framework for understanding
racism and oppression within a social context such as the workplace. Critical Race Theory
provided insights as to how race appears in the dominant culture and how individual experiences
and opportunities may be influenced by societal perceptions and evaluation of race. Paired
together, these frameworks help explain sociocultural and political processes that reinforce
power systems that shape the lived experiences and social exclusion of women of color.
Together, these theoretical frameworks created a conceptual framework that recognizes
ecological and race factors that are the source of many inequities within diverse populations.
Bronfenbrenner Ecological Model
Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) Ecological Model (BEM) suggests that human behavior results
from the interaction between the person and the environment; there are multiple influences that
shape human experience concurrently and over time (Beckwith et al., 2016; Bronfenbrenner,
1977; Cook et al., 2005; Rosenthal, 2014). From this paradigm, changing the components of the
ecological structure can produce marketed changes in behavior and development
(Bronfenbrenner, 1977). An extremely relevant element of this model is that environmental
factors, as well as positions in society, impact how people are treated and how they navigate
through society (Bronfenbrenner, 1977).
Furthermore, the structure of the microsystem, mesosystem, and exosystem tend to be
similar within certain social groups (e.g., women of color) but may vary significantly between
different social groups (e.g., women of color versus White women). For example, with the
problem that was studied in this research, career progression experiences for women of color
may have had some similarities. However, when compared with White women, the experiences

57
may be significantly different. Importantly, Bronfenbrenner (1977) suggested that changes in
public policies and practices can be conducive to improved career progression and argues for
improving environmental values and structures so that they are more compatible with the needs,
abilities, and desires of society. He pointed to macrosystem-level institutional racism as
negatively impacting human development and argued for radical restructuring of these systems
to improve outcomes for those previously unrealized or ignored (Bronfenbrenner, 1977).
Culture, found within the macrosystem level of the model, is the shared identity of a
group of people based on common traits, customs, values, and norms. This shared identity is
highly influential in shaping individual experiences across settings (Azzopardi & McNeil, 2016).
Schein (1975) argued that larger cultures (macro) are comprised of many smaller cultures
(micro) and these micro cultures are driven heavily by what the larger culture affords, tolerates,
and supports. Societal values and norms can come together to create deprivation,
marginalization, and inequities for those from minority groups or with diverse backgrounds
(Clonan-Roy, 2016). For women of color within an organizational context, this may impact how
they are perceived by the dominant culture and may lead to restricted access to career-building
opportunities.
From a microsystem level, workplaces may create barriers and obstacles that
disproportionately impact individuals from diverse populations as organizational structures are
also influenced by broader-level (macrosystem) values and expectations that yield information
about who is intelligent, capable, qualified, etc. This ecological system focuses on the emotions,
behaviors, cognitions, attributes, and relationships that shape and reflect individual experience
(Bronfenbrenner, 1977), and may be suitable targets for organizational interventions to close the
gap. By contrast, macro-level analysis provides a means of identifying powerful structural forces

58
that impact individuals such as social exclusion, stereotypes, and restricted access to economic
opportunity. Through this paradigm, this research seeks to explore how differing factors of BEM
may become barriers that hinder career progression opportunities for women of color.
It is important to note that women of color were not selected as the participant group for
this study because the potential benefits of the study did not outweigh the potential harmful risks
associated with their participation. Selecting these women as participants would have potentially
jeopardized anonymity as it could have been easy to determine who the participants were due to
the low number of women of color in DRAW’s workforce. If these women were to be
interviewed and expressed negative experiences or perceptions of the organization, it could have
potentially been harmful to their relationships with others within the organization. It also could
have negatively impacted their continued employment and any future career opportunities.
Because of these factors, women of color may not have felt comfortable to express their true
concerns and discuss their experiences, which would have threatened the validity of the study.
Critical Race Theory
Critical Race Theory (1995) is a framework by which persistent racial inequities in the
United States may begin to be explained by exploring historical racism (Lynne & Parker, 2006).
This lens shed light on the dynamics that influence the underrepresentation of women of color in
executive leadership positions. According to this theory, racism is engrained in American society
and impacts rules, laws, and overall political and social culture on how people of color are
treated (Christian et al., 2019; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995; Lynn & Parker, 2006). There are
three distinct claims to Crenshaw’s (1995) Critical Race Theory as outlined by Lynn and Parker
(2006):

59
1. Racism is a normal daily fact of life and ingrained in the political and legal structures to
the point that it is almost unrecognizable. It serves the purpose to insure inferiority of
marginalized groups.
2. Challenges the experience of White Americas as the normative or supreme standard.
3. Legal reforms have aimed to eliminated overt and blatant racism yet continue to
perpetuate the division of power between Whites and people of color.
Historical colonization laid the groundwork for the White supremacy and racism seen
today as White Europeans were able to classify themselves as civilized while non-Whites where
wild savages (Nkomo & Ariss, 2013). Whiteness became a symbol of superiority and greatness
affording those with White skin special advantages (Case, 2012; Nkomo & Ariss, 2013). These
special advantages are unearned privileges, also referred to as White privilege (Bonds & Inwood,
2016; Lynne & Parker, 2006; Yamaguchi & Burge, 2019). White people in America not only
have the benefit of never having to apply race to themselves, but they also have the luxury of
being color-blind to race whenever it suits them (Case, 2012; Nkomo & Ariss, 2013). This denial
of race-consciousness only serves to deny the inequitable experiences of people of color (Nkomo
& Ariss, 2013).
In terms of career progression experiences for women of color, barriers and
underrepresentation are often attributed to the women of color personally (unqualified, not a
match to the position, etc.) instead of the oppressive system built in historical racism (Christian
et al., 2019). Research shows that women of color do in fact experience challenges that many
other employees do not face. The credibility and credentials of women of color are often
questioned; additionally, based on their positions and work assignments, women of color often
lack access to influential networks and leadership experiences (Barnes, 2017; Beckwith et al.,

60
2016; Pace, 2018). The positioning of White as raceless allows White people to be viewed as
individuals instead of a social collective as is often the case with people of color (Bonds &
Inwood, 2016; Nkomo & Ariss, 2013). Whiteness has been said to be the “ownership of the earth
forever and ever,” which includes control over how minorities navigate through society and the
benefits that are afforded to them (Du Bois, 2004, p. 22).
While segregation and grossly offensive and violent behavior towards others because of
their race is socially sanctioned in the United States; institutional policies and systemic practices
continue to persist that have disproportionate negative impacts on people of color (Christian et
al., 2019; Lawrence, 1987; Lynn & Parker, 2006). Critical Race Theory or CRT calls out the
broader structures that were created and continue to be maintained by racist practices that serve
no purpose other than creating advantages for White Americans and disadvantages for people of
color (Crenshaw et al., 1995; Lynn & Parker, 2006). By calling attention to workplace practices
that disadvantage women of color, CRT researchers and scholars have been able to highlight
specific barriers and suggest models that may help break down these barriers.
Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Model Through the Critical Race Theory Lens
This research uses Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) Ecological Model (BEM), a theory that has
existed mostly within the educational setting, to glean insights into how micro and macro system
interactions influence career progression for women of color within DRAW. Through Critical
Race Theory (CRT) the power dynamics in society (macrosystem) can also be examined, as well
as how perceptions of race oppress women of color and complicate career-related experiences.
This integrated conceptual framework is grounded in the notion that racism is a fundamental and
permanent part of U.S. society, for the purpose of understanding how historical racism can
permeate the various ecological systems of BEM to influence who has access and who does not.

61
Modern CRT researchers and scholars alike argue that CRT has evolved from focusing
solely on race and can be used to highlight other key markers of difference and inequality such
as gender, social class, and culture (Lynn & Parker, 2006). This extended interdisciplinary lens
has been used to examine “how Whiteness as a social and political construct has helped maintain
and sustain the White supremacist” (Lynn & Parker, 2006, p. 262). Critical Race Theory paired
with the ecological lens of BEM will be used in this study to explore how gender and race show
up in the attitudes and ideologies of the broader social values (macrosystem) and organizational
culture (microsystem). Researchers call for movement from focusing primarily on gender and
racial disparities as contributing factors to instead examining the impact of ideals, values, and
cultural assumptions on workplace diversity (Berrey, 2013). Berrey (2013) contended that
inequality is a cultural construct that impacts organizational structure and power dynamics. This
was important to understand in context of DRAW’s organizational structure and the values that
introduce barriers for women of color. By exploring how race and gender appear in the dominant
culture and how these dynamics shape experiences for women of color, this study may help to
transform thoughts about the way in which race, societal values, and organizational norms may
create challenges for women of color during their career progression experiences. Figure 1 is an
adaptation of Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Model (1977) as applicable to this study. The model
is usually concentric with all systems of the model defined; however, for the purposes of this
study and ease of representation it was modified as presented in the figure.

62
Figure 1
Conceptual Model

Note. Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Model is usually concentric with all systems of the model
defined. “Toward an Experimental Ecology of Human Development,” by U. Bronfenbrenner,
1977, American Psychologist, 32(7), 513-531. Copyright 1977 by American Psychological
Association.

63
Conclusion
The U.S. workforce continues to become more diverse, and people of color are projected
to soon become the majority. However, the underrepresentation of women of color in executive
positions remains largely unchanged (Beckwith et al., 2016; Einarsdottir et al., 2018; Hoobler et
al., 2011). This research played a pivotal role in gleaning insights into how the organizational
structure and values of DRAW introduces barriers to career opportunities for women of color.
From this, executive leaders and those involved in hiring decisions may be able to think about
effective approaches to remove these obstacles and improve organizational culture. They may be
able to learn from past and present research to transform the organization into one that provides
more opportunities for women of color.

64
Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of this study was to explore the factors that influence career progression into
executive management position for women of color in the organization DRAW. This chapter
presents the research design and methods that were used for data collection and analysis. This
chapter begins with the research questions and methodology. The subsequent section describes
the data collection and instrumentation approaches that were used in this study. The chapter
concludes with a discussion about how study data was analyzed.
Research Questions
The research questions for this study that were pertinent to the discussion on the
conceptional framework were as follows:
1. What is the executive leadership’s understanding of the dominant culture within DRAW
(macro and microsystem) and how it shapes the career progression experiences of women
of color?
2. What are the perceptions and experience of executive leadership regarding advancing
workforce diversity?
Overview of Methodology
The design of this study was a qualitative research method. Qualitative research is
defined as a systematic investigation for the purpose of knowing more about a situation,
phenomenon, behaviors, and attitudes (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Specifically, interviews were used to explore participants’ views and to provide rich data and
thick descriptions about their perceptions and experience related to workplace diversity. This
method aided in exploring why DRAW lacked women of color in executive leadership positions.
Table 7 aligns the research questions with the research method used to address each question.

65
Table 7
Data Sources
Research questions

Qualitative interview
Document
analysis
What is the executive leadership’s understanding of the
dominant culture within DRAW (macro and
microsystem) and how it shapes the career progression
experiences of women of color?
X X
What are the perceptions and experience of executive
leadership regarding advancing workforce diversity?
X X

Note. This data is a representation of the foundation of this research. It depicts each research
question and the appropriate data sources that were used to answer the research questions.

The Researcher
The research was informed through my lens and experience as a woman of color trying to
navigate my own career opportunities. As pointed out by McEwin and McEwin (2003), research
can be distorted by the researchers' own world view; therefore, it is important to mitigate against
this potential threat. In my own profession, I seek to understand and change the dynamics that
create barriers to access to resources (e.g., jobs, quality education, quality housing, and
government services) for traditionally marginalized groups (e.g., Black, Indigenous, people of
color, women, people with disabilities, veterans, and differing religions). My own experiences
and exposure to systemic racism, bias, and social justice have shaped my world view which also
provided the lens in which I viewed this study.

66
My world view of a radical humanist makes me passionate about creating change,
reducing barriers, and ensuring equitable outcomes for all. It is also essential to consider that my
research may have caused the study participants to perceive me as biased because of my
membership in the group that is at the center of this study. Because of my positionality, an
independent data collector was used to mitigate against researcher bias. Through peer review, I
was able to mitigate against my own biases to minimize any potential negative impact on my
research. As an additional precaution, I conducted pretesting with non-study participants who
were familiar with this issue within the study organization and with individuals who were
unaware of racial and gender disparities in the workplace. The participants of the pretesting
provided feedback that helped in the revision of the interview protocol to help prevent me from
unintentionally leading participants based on my own bias and experience. Triangulation via
multiple sources is an additional safeguard that helps mitigate against potential researcher bias
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). For the purpose of this study, I used both qualitative interviews
and document and artifact analysis triangulate the data and interrogate my findings.
Method 1: Interviews
The chosen research design was a qualitative study, explained by Merriam and Tisdale
(2016) as research used to address a specific problem in a practice-based setting. Qualitative
research is usually an inductive and discovery-oriented approach whereby researchers do not test
a theory, instead they build theory from studying participant’s experiences (Creswell & Creswell,
2018; Merriam & Tisdale, 2016). However, this research was deductive as Bronfenbrenner’s
Ecological Theory (1977) and Critical Race Theory (1995) were at the forefront of this study and
were used as a framework for which the research protocol was developed. This was the
appropriate design as Creswell and Creswell (2018) concluded that qualitative research design is

67
ideal for those who are interested in facilitating change in their field in order to improve the
quality of the discipline. Furthermore, this method is used when a researcher wants to know
more about a phenomenon and “how people interpret their experiences, how they construct their
worlds, and what meaning they attribute to their experiences” (Merriam & Tisdale, 2016, p. 6).
The strategy of inquiry for this study was qualitative interviews which Creswell and Creswell
(2018) define as face-to-face interviews with semi-structured, open-ended questions. Because of
social distancing requirements enacted due to the global COVID-19 pandemic that occurred
during this study, the interviews were conducted through a virtual platform Zoom. At the time of
this study, it was determined by the U.S. Center for Disease Control that the virus was airborne,
so social distancing and mask-wearing were strategies for reducing the risk of contracting the
virus. DRAW had COVID-19 restrictions that prevented the public and a significant portion of
their employee base from being onsite at their facilities as well.
The qualitative interviews of this study were derived to enhance understanding about how
the executive leadership team of DRAW interpreted their experiences and environment,
particularly when it came to hiring and promoting women of color into executive leadership
positions. Participants were asked questions about their idea of leadership, their understanding of
career progression experiences for women of color, and their views about women of color as
leaders within their organization. They were also asked about their own career progression
experiences. Because this study aimed to understand the absence of women of color in executive
management level positions in DRAW, interview questions were designed to create a better
understanding of the workplace values and culture of the organization being studied.
Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) Ecological Model informed by Critical Race Theory (1995) served as
the foundation for the research questions that were used to guide the study’s interviews.

68
Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Model suggests that human behavior results from the interaction
between persons and the environment and that there are multiple influences that shape human
experience concurrently and over time (Beckwith et al., 2016; Bronfenbrenner, 1977; Cook et al.,
2005; Rosenthal, 2014). The interview questions, like BEM, were centered around not only
individual experiences and lenses but also environmental and social dynamics that may have
influenced the problem of practice under exploration. This theory provided a lens through which
I was able to explore the many factors that shape career progression for women of color. It also
helped shed light on how this issue fits within the context of the more extensive macro and micro
cultural systems. Questions about implicit bias and systemic racism helped uncover how race
appears in the dominant culture of DRAW and how race has impacted the experiences of women
of color within the agency being studied.
Participants
At the start of the study, the participants of interest were the general manager, assistant
general managers, and directors who made up the executive management team of DRAW.
However, part-way through the research, there were some significant changes with the study
organization and population that are important to identify. Prior to beginning the study, there
were two retirements from the executive management team which reduced the original sample
population from eight to six. These individuals had working titles of director or above. Following
data collection, there was an extensive restructuring of the organization which impacted the size
and makeup of the executive team. According to the general manager, the purpose of the
restructure was to break down organizational silos and increase opportunities for collaborative
work. Recognizing an urgency to improve diversity and inclusion, the executive management
team was expanded to include several mid-level managers that would bring a unique perspective

69
to problem-solving and strategic visioning. The general manager said that the organizational
restructure also will serve as a means for improving career opportunities for individuals from
underrepresented groups by giving them exposure to higher-level work and responsibilities and
providing mentorship and coaching (conversation not cited to protect anonymity). During the
data collection of this study, the general manager added the first woman of color (and person of
color) to DRAW’s executive management team. Because the initial purpose of the study was to
understand the perspectives of the dominant culture, she was not interviewed. Furthermore, due
to the nature of the research design and interview questions, it would have been impossible to
protect her identity. While her addition to the team was an example of an improved workforce
diversity outcome, I do not believe that it had a significant bearing on this research and study. I
drew this conclusion because despite this improvement, women of color continued to be
underrepresented in the study organization’s executive leadership team. In addition, she was not
promoted to an executive level position of director or higher but remained at the same mid-level
manager title. Therefore, for the purpose of this study, this does not count as a promotion. It,
however, will potentially serve to help her get to that next step in her career where she will be
promoted.
All 10 members of the executive team (post reorganization) were invited to participate in
the study, seven agreed. The executive team was selected because this group, along with the
general manager, made and influenced policy-related decisions about the hire, selection,
development, and promotion of employees within DRAW. This group was responsible to set the
strategic vision of the organization and made decisions as to whether diversity and workplace
inclusion were priorities. They also had influence in shaping the organizational culture, values,
and goals as they created and implemented the organization’s strategic plan. Because of their

70
level of authority and responsibility of driving the vision; the executive leadership team poised to
benefit most from the insights gleaned through this research. They were in a direct position to
implement the methods and actions to address cultural and operational functions necessary to
improve career outcomes for women of color. In their most recent strategic plans, DRAW’s
leadership made a commitment to diversifying their workforce, particularly in management and
executive management level positions. When the data was collected, the organization’s executive
team consisted of six people, because of retirements. Having seven research subjects made for a
small sample of participants. When the population of interest is small, non-random purposeful
sampling is most appropriate (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Thus, this was the sampling method
chosen for this study.
DRAW’s total employee population of women of color was considerably small. Women
of color were not selected as the participant group because the potential benefits of the study did
not outweigh the potential harmful risks associated with their participation in the study. Selecting
these women as participants would have potentially jeopardized anonymity as it could have been
easy to determine who the participants were. If women of color were to be interviewed and
expressed negative experiences or perceptions of the organization, it could have potentially been
harmful to their relationships with others within the organization. It also could have negatively
impacted their continued employment and any future career opportunities. The outcomes
associated with interviewing the executive leaders who were part of the dominant culture did not
pose the same risk.
Study participants were recruited at an executive team meeting through the approval of
the organization’s general manager. Potential participants were informed of the purpose of the
study and the value that it would bring to DRAW in helping them achieve their diversity and

71
inclusion strategic goals. Participants were able to confidentially self-select for the study and
were placed in direct contact with a research proxy who collected interview research data.
Concerns and reservations that the sample population might have had about being part of the
study were addressed before conducting the interviews and collecting data.
Instrumentation
This research was conducted by systematic investigation of the problem of practice
through intentional strategies used to gain insight into factors that may have influenced career
progression experiences for women of color in DRAW. Through a process of systematic
investigation, descriptive research focuses on how and why things work (McEwin & McEwin,
2003). This type of study is ideal for researcher-practitioners who are interested in learning more
about a phenomenon for the purpose of facilitating change (Merriam & Tisdale, 2016). This
approach also allows for a variety of interpretations and serves as a means for building meaning
based on the realities of the study participants (McEwin & McEwin, 2003; Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). This method aligned with the research’s framing because I wanted to know more about
how people interpret their experiences and I wanted to understand these social phenomena
(context and process) behind DRAW’s lack women of color in executive leadership positions.
The strategy of inquiry was qualitative interview, which is defined by Creswell and
Creswell (2018) as face-to-face interviews with semi-structured, open-ended questions. Due to
the global pandemic of COVID-19, however, this study used e-interviews via the
videoconferencing software Zoom. Participants were asked if the interviews could be recorded.
If participants agreed to the interviews being recorded, measures were taken to ensure that their
identities were protected. The process for how this was done will be discussed in more detail
under the data collection procedures section of Chapter 3. Qualitative interviews are most

72
effective as they allow interviewees to speak directly from their own perspectives and view of
the world (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; McEwin & McEwin, 2003; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
The research questions of this study were used as guides for the interview questions. The
interview protocol, presented in Appendix A, was grounded in the literature about leadership
theories, understanding of diversity, inclusion, and equity. Because of the sparse data and
published studies about career progression experiences of women of color, I was unable to find a
platform to directly link the interview protocol to. Instead, this study relied on general research
on the aforementioned theories and topics. Much of the available literature at the time of this
study was focused on women more broadly and did not consider the intersection of gender and
race. Some items in the interview protocol were related to racism, bias, and White privilege
(components of Critical Race Theory-Ladson-Billings, 1995) and invited participants to talk
about their views of workforce diversity (gender and racial) and how they felt the organization
was doing at hiring and promoting women of color.
Another example of content were questions related to values of the participants and their
understanding of values of the organization related to racial and gender equity during hiring and
promotion. These types of questions were tied directly to both Bronfenbrenner (1977) and
Critical Race Theory (1995) and Research Question 2– “What macrosystem values introduce
barriers to career progression experiences within DRAW for women of color?”. Lastly, a review
of available literature on possible solutions and recommendations linked to career progression
for women of color was used to guide the creation of the study’s interview protocol which
included research by Baker et al. (2018), Crites et al. (2015), Mastracci and Herring (2010),
Martin et al. (2014), Molders et al. (2017), and Pace (2018).

73
Data Collection Procedures
Data for this research was collected through semi-structured interviews. Semi-structured
research questions are predetermined questions and are similar to an oral survey (McEwan &
McEwan, 2003; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In creating the research protocol, this research design
drew from the recommendations of Patton (2015) as referenced in Merriam and Tisdell (2016),
and included experience and behavior questions, opinion, and values questions, feeling
questions, knowledge questions, sensory questions, and background questions. Because the
research purpose was to understand the thoughts and perspectives of the sample population
regarding the identified research topic and questions, this approach of making the interview
person-centered was aimed at lending itself to genuine and rich responses from the participants.
Because the topic of race can be viewed as controversial, questions were added that minimized
according to threat. To do so, Merriam and Tisdell (2016) recommend adding “devil’s advocate”
questions to reduce participants’ feelings of being singled out or becoming defensive. These
types of questions included unassuming and hypothetical phrases such as “if someone were to
say”
Interviews were conducted at a time that was most convenient for the study participants
and the independent data collector. For the purpose of being able to transcribe the responses of
interviewees carefully and accurately, permission was obtained to record the interviews via the
electronic video conferencing platform. If participants were not in agreement with both audio
and video being captured, participants were permitted to participate in interviews where only the
interview audio was captured. Once the interviews were completed, the recordings were
automatically transcribed through Zoom’s Otter.ai functionality by the data collector. All
recordings were encrypted and stored in the Zoom cloud platform until they were able to be

74
transcribed by the data collector. In the naming of their encrypted files and during the
transcription, participants were given pseudonyms to protect anonymity. Following successful
transcription, the full recordings were destroyed by the data collector. As the principal
investigator, at no point did I have access to the audio or video recordings of the interviews. The
independent data collector did not communicate or talk to me about specific information
discussed during the interviews. Any comments or specific data captured during the interview
were treated with anonymity to mask not only the identity of the organization but also of the
participants. The pseudonyms were used if anything participants said was quoted directly in the
research findings. It is important to note that the data collector and the researcher were able to
protect anonymity only to the extent that the videoconferencing platform was secure against
potential data breaches. The most stringent methods available were used to secure the data before
it was destroyed. The full interview protocol can be found in Appendix A.
Based on beta testing, it was determined that the research interviews would take
approximately 45 minutes to an hour each, which seemed reasonable for this study. Interviews
were kept to an hour or less out of respect for the participants’ time. At the start of the interview,
a disclaimer was read to all interviewees that described the purpose of the study, what they could
anticipate, and their rights as a participant. Participants were also provided with an electronic
copy of the Information Sheet for Exempt Studies found in Appendix B. Submitting general
questions to interviewees prior to the actual interviews was taken into consideration so that
participants were able to have a sense of what types of questions were going to be asked.
However, this was not part of the original research methodology, as the purpose was to collect
real-time responses from the participants. One participant did ask for the questions ahead of time

75
and some of the questions, not all, were shared by electronic format to give them a general sense
of the questions.
Data Analysis
Thematic coding and interpretation of responses, as described in Creswell and Creswell
(2018), was utilized to ascertain the data collected through the research interviews. This is a
process used to map text data into categories in relationship with research questions (Elliott,
2018). ATLAS.ti, a computer assisted qualitative data analysis system, was used to code all the
interviews. To begin this coding process, all interview notes and transcripts were organized and
prepared for review by the data collector. I took time to review the notes and entire interview
transcripts to familiarize myself with the content and to be able to ask for any clarifications that I
may have needed from the data collector. I kept a journal and electronic memos where I
documented reflections and emerging insights as I reviewed and analyzed the interview
responses. Following preliminary review, I uploaded the interview transcripts to ATLAS.ti to use
the software to code the transcripts. Next, I again examined the data for general themes and
ideas, summarizing these segments of data into first level priori codes. While first level codes are
the foundation of higher order coding, I remained open to new discovery and emergent codes
throughout the data analysis. These groupings were reduced to a secondary level of codes by
clustering overlapping themes and ideas and reducing them to a smaller number of codes as
suggested in literature by Elliott (2018) and Merriam and Tisdell (2016). This secondary level of
coding focused on patterns of codes or turning abstract concepts gleaned from the interviews into
less abstract concepts as outlined by Elliott (2018). The categories selected were grounded in
Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) Ecological Model and Critical Race Theory (Ladson-Billing, 1995).
When research data is analyzed through multiple theories Elliott (2018) suggests doing multiple

76
coding. Thus, this type of analysis was used for this study. Lastly, as I looked for an emerging
pattern with the interview responses, the coded themes were then shaped into a narrative that was
used to convey my research findings.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Credibility is the level of trustworthiness in the researcher in carrying out the study in the
most ethical manner as possible (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). To maximize credibility and
trustworthiness of my study, I took calculated measures to ensure consistency, accuracy, and to
demonstrate ethical conduct. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) explained that all research procedures
and methods need to be transparent and followed faithfully to maximize credibility and
trustworthiness. This entails thinking of every part of the study, including methods for data
collection and analysis (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). For the purpose of triangulating the data,
document analysis of relevant agency hiring data, DRAW’s Affirmative Action Plan,
performance reports, job positions, and hiring and selection policies procedures was conducted.
To triangulate data is to evaluate different data sources for consistency and to obtain data that is
congruent with the perspectives of the participants (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Document analysis also helped fill in some of the missing pieces that the
interview subjects were unable to clarify in their responses. This was beneficial because in some
cases, the documents may raise a host of new questions regarding the accuracy of the
interpretations and interview participant responses (McEwin & McEwin, 2003).
Credible and trustworthy researchers are consistently looking for alternative explanations
for research their findings (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). They also present any data that might
challenge their findings to maximize confidence in the research findings (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). During the interviews, the data collector used fieldnotes to document non-verbal

77
responses, and to take note of initial reflections and thoughts that came to mind. This helped
produce an audit trail of the research process and was included in the fully transcribed interview
notes. According to Creswell and Creswell (2018) and Merriam and Tisdell (2106), researcher
bias may influence data collection and interpretation there for the researcher must make their
own perspective and biases clear. This will help the reader understand how the researcher’s
values and expectations will shape the interpretation of research data (Creswell & Creswell,
2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Peer review can also mitigate against a researcher’s own
theoretical position and biases (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). As the
researcher, I addressed my perspective and potential biases earlier in this section under The
Researcher. Peer review was conducted by a panel consisting of faculty from the University of
Southern California.
Method 2: Document and Artifact Analysis
Guided by the research questions, organizational documents were used to provide insight
into processes, organizational context, and microsystems present within the DRAW. Document
analysis also provided information upon which I was able to analyze participants’ perceptions
and to guard against potential participant bias as suggested by Patton (1990). This study used
publicly available documents to provide insights and further information about the research
questions that may not have easily been addressed through the interviews. Documents that were
used included written, visual, digital, and physical materials that were relevant to the study.
Artifacts were also reviewed and as asserted by Merriam and Tisdell (2016) artifacts may include
objects in the environment such as art pieces, trophies, and awards.

78
Instrumentation
With studies that use interviews as their methodology, the researcher is the primary
instrument used to identify, gather, and interpret data from documents and artifacts (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). This means that the results and analysis will be through the lens of the researcher.
As discussed earlier under the Credibility and Trustworthiness section, measures were taken in
this study to mitigate against any potential researcher bias. This included document and artifact
review to triangulate data. For this research, the documents and artifacts that were studied were
DRAW’s Affirmative Action Plan, strategic plan, comprehensive plan, organizational hiring and
promotion reports, retention programs, job postings and advertisements, historical accounts of
hiring strategies, annual reports, organizational policies and procedures, web-based
organizational sites, public meeting notes and minutes, pre-recorded presentation videos,
PowerPoints, and transcripts. For this study, all documents and artifacts examined were publicly
available and not classified as confidential or private. This study was not limited to the above
documents and artifacts, because as Merriam and Tisdell (2016) affirmed, keeping an open mind
to the possibility of useful documents could potentially lead to serendipitous discoveries. Of
note, because DRAW is a government agency, there was a limited category of documents and
artifacts that were classified as nonpublic or protected nonpublic.
Data Collection Procedures
Document and artifact data collection procedures are guided by research questions and
emerging findings of the research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In relation to this study, a
document analysis instrument was created and is available in Appendix C. Because DRAW is a
government agency, relevant documents, and artifacts, were found through an internet search of
local and national newspaper articles, journals, blogs, reports, and any other documents that

79
available via the web or internet that referenced DRAW. DRAW’s public website was useful in
gathering documents as well. The organization’s public website was useful for obtaining data,
such as reports and strategic plans.
Data Analysis
For documents and artifacts, the researcher is the instrument for analyzing and
interpreting data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). A document analysis instrument was created and
used for this study. The tool can be found in Appendix C. Data analysis began with a preparation
of the documents and artifacts to ensure that I was familiarized with their contents since I was
not the original data collector. I assigned codes to each of the documents based on its content or
information that it provided. For artifacts, I marked areas of the image with a code as well. I
followed the same notation process for documents and artifacts by mapping my findings back to
the research questions. Following the application of the documents and artifacts to the research
questions, I summarized all thoughts and reflections of the document and insights it offered
relative to the research problem. The documents and artifacts were also be compared against the
interviews for collaboration of information provided by the participants or to refute a claim.
Next, I compiled all the codes looking for redundancy and any codes that may have been
missing. The coded documents and artifacts were then grouped into emerging themes and
common ideas. Lastly, these themes were used to convey the research findings.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Credibility as defined by Merriam and Tisdell (2016) is the level of trustworthiness in the
researcher in carrying out the study in the most ethical manner as possible. They contended that
research procedures and methods need to be transparent and followed faithfully. Authentication
of the documents and artifacts used for this study assisted in improving credibility and

80
trustworthiness of the study. For authentication purposes of the documents the author, place and
date of the materials were established and verified. For credibility and trustworthiness, it is also
important to understand the conditions in which the documents produced, their purpose, and use
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Citing Clark (1967) and Merriam and Tisdell (2016) provided a list
of questions for researchers to ask about the authenticity of documents. Some of the questions
considered for this study were as follows:
1. What is the history of the document?
2. How did it come into my hands?
3. What guarantee is there that it is what it pretends to be?
4. Is the document complete, as originally constructed?
5. Has it been tampered with or edited?
6. If the document is genuine, under what circumstances and for what purpose was it
produced?
7. Who was/is the author?
8. What was he trying to accomplish? For whom was the document intended?
9. What were the maker’s sources of information? Does the document represent an
eyewitness account, a secondhand account, a reconstruction of an event long prior to the
writing, an interpretation?
10. What was or is the maker’s bias?
11. To what extent was the writer likely to want to tell the truth?
12. Do other documents exist that might shed additional light on the same story, event,
project, program, context? If so, are they available, accessible? Who holds them?

81
Any documents or artifacts that are located online become more difficult to authenticate
as there are several sources online that intentionally misrepresent data and information for the
purpose of exploitation (Merriam & Tisdell). For the purpose of trying to avoid this pitiful, I
gathered documents and any available artifacts from government websites such as DRAW’s
public-facing site. For websites outside of these, the documents and artifacts were compared to
validated texts and documents provided by DRAW and interviews with research subjects.
Documents and artifacts were collected to the point of saturation and were compared against the
interviews.
Ethics
Rubin and Rubin (2012) cited three broad principles that should be at the center of all
research-respect of the participants, do not pressure the participants, and do not harm the
participants. These principles were used to guide in ensuring an ethical research study. Issues
related to consent were addressed by informing participants of the study’s purpose and design
prior to beginning the study in an information sheet found in Appendix B. Participants were
informed that they could quit the study at any time and confirmation of this understanding were
obtained verbally prior to conducting the interviews. The independent data collector also
answered any questions and addressed any concerns that the research subjects had before they
began interviews. This helped ensure participants knew the exact purpose of the study and the
measures that were taken to protect them from potential harm. Confidentiality of names were
maintained by using pseudonyms for the agency and participants.
Video and audio recordings were used for this study. All recordings were stored via file
encryption. Anonymity of the research participants was protected only to the extent that the
video conferencing platform was secure. To mitigate against potential harm caused from a data

82
breach if one were to have occurred, participants were permitted to create and use an alternative
name instead of their own. They were permitted to interview via audio recording only instead of
video. Finally, transcript data did not mention study participant’s names. In addition,
videoconferencing software that allowed for discrete meeting identification numbers with
distinct passwords was used to help to prevent others from entering the virtual room. There was
no compensation or incentives promised in exchange for participation. Written results of the
research will be disseminated to participants in person. The use of an “Ethical Issues Checklist”
as described by Merriam and Tisdell (2016) was helpful in highlighting further ethical
considerations. Patton (2015) as referenced in Merriam and Tisdell (2016) offered the following
twelve items for ethical consideration in qualitative research:
1. Explain the purpose of the inquiry and methods to be used
2. Reciprocity: what is in it for the interview and issues of compensation
3. Promises
4. Risk assessment
5. Confidentiality
6. Informed consent
7. Data access and ownership
8. Interviewer mental health
9. Ethical advice
10. Data collection boundaries
11. Ethical and methodological choices
12. Ethical versus legal

83
Creswell and Creswell (2018) also identified ethical issues in research and offered solutions for
addressing them. Table 8 represents those ethical issues that are specific to this research and its
design.

Table 8
Ethical Issues in Research
Where in the research process
the ethical issue occurs
Type of ethical issue How this issue was addressed
Prior to conducting the study Examine professional
association standards
Seek college/university
approval on campus
through an institutional
review board
Gain local permission from
site and participants
Submitted proposal for IRB
approval
Went through organization’s
General Manager for
access to study participants
Beginning the study Identify a research problem
that will benefit
participants
Disclose purpose of the study
Do not pressure participants
into signing consent forms
Contacted participants and
informed them of the
general purpose of the
study
Told participants that they do
not have to sign consent
forms
Collecting data Respect the site and disrupt
as little as possible
Make certain that all
participants receive the
same treatment
Avoid deceiving participants
Respect potential power
imbalances and
exploitation of participants
Avoid collecting harmful
information
Built trust and conveyed
extent of anticipated
disruption in gaining
access
Discussed purpose of the
study at the organization’s
executive team meeting
and informed them how
data would be used
Avoided leading questions.
Withheld sharing personal
impressions. Avoided
disclosing sensitive
information

84
Where in the research process
the ethical issue occurs
Type of ethical issue How this issue was addressed
Used questions stated in the
interview protocol
Analyzing data Avoid siding with
participants
Avoid disclosing only
positive results
Respect the privacy and
anonymity of participants
Reported multiple
perspectives
Reported contrary findings
Assigned pseudonyms
Reporting, sharing, and
storing data
Avoid falsifying authorship,
evidence, data, findings,
and conclusions
Do not plagiarize
Avoid disclosing information
that would harm
participants
Communicate in clear,
straightforward,
appropriate language
Share data with others
Keep raw data and other
materials
Do not duplicate or
piecemeal publications
Provide complete proof of
compliance with ethical
issues and lack of conflict
of interest if request

Reported honestly
Used APA guidelines for
permissions needed to
reprint or adapt work of
others
Used unbiased language
appropriate for audiences
of the research
Stored data and materials as
outlined in APA
Refrained from using the
same material for more
than one publication
Ensured and reported that
there were no conflicts of
interest

Note. Adapted from Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods (5
th
ed., p.
145), by J. W. Creswell, and J. D. Creswell, 2018, SAGE. Copyright 2018 by SAGE.

85
Chapter Four: Findings
Chapter 4 presents this study’s findings. The purpose of this study was to explore the
factors that influence career advancement into executive management positions for women of
color in the organization DRAW. The study findings are organized by research question,
followed by discussion of the findings that answer each research question. The following two
research questions were developed to guide the study:
1. What is the executive leadership’s understanding of the dominant culture within DRAW
(macro and microsystem) and how it shapes the career progression experiences of women
of color?
2. What are the perceptions and experience of executive leadership regarding advancing
workforce diversity?
Qualitative data were collected for this study. Interview, document analysis, and artifact
data were used to understand the dynamics associated with the problem of practice. First, semi-
structured interviews were conducted with each participant. To comply with self-quarantine and
social-distancing guidelines associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, the interviews were
conducted by Zoom video conferencing platform. Data analysis began during the data collection
process and continued through thematic coding. ATLAS.ti Scientific Software was used to
perform the qualitative data analysis of the interview transcripts. Once interviews with the
research participants were coded in ATLAS.ti, they were reviewed for secondary level codes.
For the codes with the highest frequencies, individual transcripts were reviewed for general
themes and similarities between the participants’ responses. All participant transcripts were
reviewed against each other paying particular attention to common trends and key themes that
may have emerged. If more than 50% of the study participants mentioned an idea or concept,

86
these ideas and concepts were identified as a theme in the data and are included in this chapter.
Because the interviews were completed by a proxy, documents and artifacts from the study
organization were collected and analyzed simultaneously. An overall summary of the study
findings is provided at the end of this chapter and will guide the discussion and
recommendations in Chapter 5.
Conflating Issues
For clarity of the data findings in Chapter 4, as well as the discussion in Chapter 5, it is
important to note areas in which the study participants conflated definitions and ideas. The
Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2021) defines conflate as combining two or more separate things,
especially pieces of text, to form a whole. In relation to this research, the study participants
treated the distinct concepts equity and equality as interchangeable concepts. Furthermore,
although this study is explicitly focused on career progression experiences for women of color,
the participants often spoke about women without considerations for the intersection of race and
gender. A lot of the participants’ responses referred solely to women, and it is unclear if they
were referring to women collectively, women of color, or just White women. Where the
distinctions were made by study participants, it is also captured in the findings of this chapter.
Lastly, study participants consistently referenced people of color and entry-level individual
contributor roles more than women of color in executive leadership positions. The data will be
presented exactly as stated by each participant in the interview transcripts of the research. The
reader should be mindful of these factors in treading interview data, and the discussion of
findings in Chapter 5 will return to these considerations.

87
Participating Stakeholders
The participants of interest were members of the executive management team of DRAW.
They were selected based on their positionality as executive leaders in the organization who had
the authority to set strategic direction and allocate resources within the organization. This
included policy-related decisions about the hire, selection, development, and promotion of
employees within DRAW. Additionally, they had authority to prioritize workforce diversity and
inclusion. At the start of this study, the team consisted of nine members including directors,
assistant general managers, and the general manager. Following the retirement of two members
of the team, the executive management team was expanded by the general manager to include
several mid-level managers that served in key areas of the organization.
As discussed in Chapter 3, the general manager added a woman of color to the executive
leadership team following the start of this study. Because the initial purpose of the study was to
understand the perspectives of the dominant culture, the woman of color was not invited to
participate in this study. Furthermore, some of the interview questions asked specifically how
race and gender impacted the career progression experience of the participants. If she was
included in the study, it would have been nearly impossible to protect for anonymity. Readers
would have been able to disaggregate the data of this study through responses about how her race
and gender impacted her career progression experience.
Seven members of the team agreed to participate in this study. Due to the small sample
size, background information and demographics were eliminated to protect anonymity. Gender-
neutral pseudonyms were also assigned and are identified in Table 9. These pseudonyms will be
used in the discussion of the findings throughout this chapter.

88
Table 9
Study Participants Pseudonyms

Participant number Assigned pseudonym
1 Alex
2 Taylor
3 Cameron
4 Kennedy
5 Carson
6 Drew
7 Blake

Documents and Artifacts
Documents and artifacts from the study organization were reviewed and analyzed.
However, because Research Question 2 explored the perceptions and experiences of the
executive leadership team members, analysis of documents and artifacts were not appropriate for
this area of the study. This study only used publicly available documents and artifacts to provide
insights and further information about the research questions that may not have easily been
addressed through the interviews. Documents that were reviewed included meeting notes and
agendas, annual reports, Affirmative Action Plans, strategic plans, and performance reports.
Artifacts, such as websites, presentations, job postings and advertisements, were also analyzed.
Table 10 outlines the documents and artifacts that were analyzed for this study.

89
Table 10
Documents and Artifacts of This Study
Item type Document Artifact Number analyzed
Job postings X 20

Strategic plan and
performance report
(strategic
documents)
X 1

Presentations

X 5
Affirmative Action
Plan
X 2
Meeting agendas and
notes
X 10
Websites (includes
subpages)
X 1
Misc. documents X 10

Although document and artifact analysis were used, these data did not necessarily answer
the research questions; they did provide necessary context and gave insights into the culture of
the organization. This data was resourceful in triangulating data from the interviews of the
research participants. This research did uncover the existence of a combination of two
microsystems, which according to Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) Ecological Model, is a mesosystem.
Under the model, the mesosystem includes the links between the microsystem of work and the
microsystem of peers. An employee’s work and peers are interconnected and bi-directional,
meaning the relationship goes both ways. In comparison, independently the workplace and peers
are part of the employee’s (or in this case, women of color) microsystem. The mesosystem was
not investigated as part of this study, it did help provide contextual insights as to the basis of the
research participants interview responses.

90
Job Postings
Twenty recent online job postings and job descriptions found on the study agency’s
website overwhelmingly indicated job qualifications that reflect female leaders. As discussed in
Chapter 2, gendered stereotypes often associate women with traits indicative of transformational
leadership (Appelbaum et al., 2013; Burns, 1978; Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001; Maher,
1997). Furthermore, much of the research on gender and leadership has found that employers and
employees recognize transformational leadership as the most effective leadership style
(Appelbaum et al., 2013; Bass & Avolio, 1990; Eagly et al., 2003; Eagly et al., 2017; Rosenbach
& Taylor, 1993). For example, one of DRAW’s job postings said they were looking for an
executive leader who was collaborative, honest, fair, and could work with a diverse employee
base. Another job posting listed that the ideal candidate would be someone who was driven to
innovate, had strong communication and collaboration skills, and could convey a sense of
community and trust within their department. These artifacts specifically called attention to
DRAW wanting to hire a candidate that had “a desire to serve through leadership that is focused
on the needs of team members and customers.”
The postings and job descriptions that were reviewed as part of this study were not
completely void of the gendered traits that study participants discussed. Male dominant traits as
described by Bass (1985) and Burns (1978) were also found in job postings; however, they did
not appear as frequently as female traits. This was especially true for positions that would
oversee employees in technical jobs, such as engineers and scientists. Placing emphasis on male
gendered leadership traits may lead to qualified women being overlooked.
In addition to prior management experience, a college degree was a requirement in all
management job postings. For most positions a bachelor’s degree was listed as a minimum

91
requirement while a postgraduate degree was listed as a desired qualification. For positions
classified as director level and above, a postgraduate degree was required. When discussing their
own career progression experience, three of the seven participants said they had previous
industry-specific education or knowledge. The other four participants spoke in detail about how
they came to the organization without any prior industry experience and instead learned while
they were on the job. These same four study participants conveyed that industry knowledge was
not necessarily important to be an executive leader. As discussed in Chapter 1 as part of the
context of the industry, those with significant previous experience are overwhelmingly White
men. Therefore, rating years of industry experience as highly favorable places women at a
disadvantage. This theme will be discussed in detail under the finding’s sections: Executive
leaders had admiration for female leadership traits and racial and gender biases are deep-rooted
systemic and institutional issues.
It is important to note that the 20 job postings and job descriptions are not all the jobs that
DRAW has ever hired for, nor will they account for future positions. It also was impractical to
review all job postings and descriptions, as well as anticipate future vacancies. Additionally, it
would have taken the agency a significant amount of time to provide the documents, which
would have been costly and not a good use of the study site’s time. Therefore, taking a sample of
available artifacts of current open positions from their public website was deemed acceptable
when considered in conjunction with other data collected.
Strategic Documents
The study organization’s strategic plan and performance report both listed diversity and
inclusion as their core values. DRAW cited inclusion as being necessary to sustain its innovative,
highly engaged, and diverse workforce. References were often made to recruitment and selection

92
practices that targeted underrepresented populations, such as women, people of color, and
individuals identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer or questioning. These
efforts included entry-level trainee and apprenticeship programs. Of the strategic documents that
were analyzed as part of this study, there did not appear to be any leadership programs,
management readiness programs, or programs that specifically targeted women of color for
management and executive level positions. Where strategic documents and performance reports
included employee photographs, there were photographs of women and people of color.
However, these photos depicted these individuals only in trades and operations- type positions,
drawing attention to the racial and gender disparity within DRAW’s workforce.
Presentations and Webinars
Workforce-related presentations were reviewed as part of this study. These artifacts gave
insight into DRAW’s vision and practices associated with the recruitment, staffing, and retention
of employees from underrepresented populations. One presentation outlined their current-year
Affirmative Action Plan, provided an executive summary of the plan, and provided progress on
plan activities. The presentation stated that the purpose of their Affirmative Action Plan was to
ensure that careers were equally accessible and that barriers to career opportunities were
eliminated. According to the presentation, executive leaders of the organization were responsible
for providing leadership and managing the program. Their human resources department was
responsible to administer their business functions and work plans in alignment with the
Affirmative Action Plan. It also delegated responsibility to all employees to adhere to the
Affirmative Action Plan and equal employment opportunity. The actual Affirmative Action
Plans were evaluated and are discussed in the subsequent section entitled Affirmative Action
Plans.

93
A workforce related webinar was reviewed as part of this study. This artifact covered the
industry workforce shortage and DRAW’s need to have strategies and approaches in place to
effectively recruit, retain, and develop their workforce. This presentation was part of a larger
national and federal level program where DRAW’s industry counterparts shared their workforce
strategies as well. In the webinar, DRAW’s strategic outcomes and racial equity goals were
presented. Some of the goals included increasing the percentage of applications from people of
diverse backgrounds. They showed a significant 4-year increase in this area. Another goal was to
increase their hires of women and people of color. It appeared that this goal may have been
specific to certain careers within their organization as it referenced several operations training
and apprenticeship programs. There was no mention of programs that targeted and supported
women and people of color for leadership and management positions. The webinar speakers
included both men and women, three of which were women of color.
Affirmative Action Plans
DRAW’s Affirmative Action Plans were reviewed as part of this study. This document is
required due to the federal funding that is received by DRAW. Based on available data, only two
plans were reviewed as part of this study. Those plans covered a 4-year period and provided a
blueprint for DRAW’s commitment to provide equal opportunity in areas of business and all
employment practices. Focusing specifically on the workforce portion of the Affirmative Action
Plans, the plans provided data regarding underrepresented protected groups by job categories,
workforce data analysis, hiring goals, and remedies to increase representation of impacted
groups. According to the Affirmative Action Plans, underutilization is defined as areas where
there are fewer individuals from protected classes in a particular job category in comparison to
the available workforce. As discussed in Chapter 1 under organizational context and mission,

94
DRAW is part of a larger governing body with several unique divisions. This is important as the
data reported in the Affirmative Action Plans was not always aggregated by division making it
unclear which data was applicable to DRAW. However, across the agency there was ample
support to show that while protected classes, such as women of color, were significantly
underrepresented in the organization’s workforce, there were plenty in their qualified available
workforce. This means that the workforce gaps could be smaller and, in some cases, eliminated
completely. The plans stated that all divisions and their leaders were responsible to ensure that
their division staff comply with the agency’s Affirmative Action Plans and Affirmative Action
Policy.
According to the Affirmative Action Plans, women and people of color are protected
classes that fell into the underutilized category. Women were underutilized in all job categories,
therefore prompting corrective actions that were outlined in the plans. For the years 2020–2021,
the agency cited COVID-19 as having a negative impact on recruitment, hiring, and internal
promotions. Table 11 depicts strategies that DRAW’s Human Resources Department and Equal
Opportunity Department identified as enterprise-wide actions to improve equitable access to
employment opportunities. Because these initiatives were designated as enterprise-wide, they are
included in this study. DRAW’s innovative retention efforts were highlighted under the
enterprise actions as their program was going to be duplicated across the agency.

95
Table 11
Enterprise Actions Under DRAW’s Affirmative Action Plans
Category Action Description
Recruitment strategies Outreach Job fairs, tabling events, career fairs,
engagement with community-based
organizations
Advertising Web pages, external referral sources,
media, career force centers, diversity
job boards, local and national
advertisement
Internships Employ students through paid internships
that provide personal and professional
development opportunities
Workforce development Programs to support employees through
on the job learning, preparatory
training, and credentialing
Recruitment sourcing Develop proactive recruitment strategy

Retention Internal Employee career center to learn about
jobs, set career and development goals,
understand promotion process, and
prepare for interviews. Internal
informational interviews for specific
careers (strategy adopted from DRAW
and brought forward enterprise-wide)
Evaluate promotion and transfer
opportunities
Employee feedback and exit interviews
Frequent diversity, equity, and inclusion
training for staff at all levels
Promotion of career development training
Support employee resource groups

Training Leadership development Courses to build managerial and
leadership effectiveness
Professional skill
development
Courses to improve professional skills and
computer skills
Diversity management
training
Mandatory diversity and inclusion
training for managers and supervisors
to help them work with diverse
employees and communities. Examples
of training include racial equity and
unconscious bias training

96
Meeting Agendas and Notes
Publicly available meeting agendas and meeting notes were reviewed as part of this
study. Like the presentations, the meeting agendas and notes highlighted efforts to diversify the
organization’s workforce. They cited trainee programs, apprenticeships, and large recruitment
strategies that targeted communities of color and women. One agenda item was a building
diversity initiative that supported the agency’s diversity career recruitment process. It was
included as part of the agency’s larger annual workplan to be executed by their Equal
Opportunity Department in partnership with their human resources department. DRAW’s
department was not mentioned as a key stakeholder or participant in this initiative; therefore, its
details were not included as part of this study. Furthermore, subsequent meeting agendas and
meeting notes that were studied did not provide an update on the initiative. Instead, the data
(albeit limited) provided in the Affirmative Action Plan and associated presentations were
referenced.
Websites
DRAW’s public website and subpages were reviewed as part of this study. They had a
website that explained their Equal Opportunity Policy and how it related to areas of their
business, including workforce diversity. They asserted that their goal was to create a talented and
diverse pool of potential employees to hire from. Their strategy tied to this goal was not listed or
discussed on their website, however, their Affirmative Action Plans and presentations that were
previously discussed offered insights into their recruitment practices. According to the
information available on this website, DRAW’s focus on diversity was essential because it
creates a more productive workplace. While their website lacked mention of workplace
inclusion, it appears that inclusion may be part of their vision of diversity. As discussed earlier,

97
study participants conflated diversity, equity, and inclusion often using them interchangeably
during the interview process. The same was true for their website content. They stated that they
do not discriminate based on protective classes and statuses. The protected classes associated
with this study include race, color, national origin, and sex. Their equal opportunity website
provided instructions for reporting cases of employment discrimination. Their website stated that
they have a department of staff that investigate complaints of discrimination.
According to DRAW’s website, they provide equal opportunity for employment.
DRAW’s employment website places emphasis on the agency as being an employer of choice
because of their diverse and inclusive work environment. Their main employment page featured
pictures and videos of employees from an array of job types and representing a diverse spectrum
of backgrounds. There were pictures of several women of color on this website, indicating that
DRAW welcomes and encourages women of color to apply for jobs with their organization. A
subpage of their employment website stated the organization’s commitment to diversity and
equity and reiterated that they are an equal opportunity employer. They highlight several of their
recruitment strategies including outreach and partnerships with targeted community groups and
organizations, career panels, and participating in job fairs. According to DRAW, through these
efforts, they were able to increase their engagement with underserved communities to provide
career pathways.
Miscellaneous Documents and Artifacts
Ten documents were reviewed that did not clearly fall into one of the groupings of job
postings, strategic documents, presentations, Affirmative Action Plans, meeting agendas and
notes, or websites. These publicly available documents were found as attachments and portable
document formats linked on the DRAW website. Five documents were career-related

98
information sheets. They contained references to various training and apprenticeship programs.
These career-related information sheets discussed DRAW’s employment outreach approaches as
well. These strategies included presentations at local schools, resume review, facility tours, and
career panels to name a few. Two referred to employment-specific awards DRAW received for
their workplace diversity and inclusion efforts. They were seen as leaders in their industry for
developing programs and initiatives for the purpose of increasing their employee base of women
and people of color. Three artifacts that were reviewed also fell into this miscellaneous category.
These items included newsletters and newspaper articles. Only three were reviewed as they did
not offer significant insight into the research questions of this study. These artifacts did,
however, reiterate the organization’s commitment to workforce diversity and gave details about
interventions and programs created by DRAW that were created to address their workforce gaps.
While documents and artifacts gave insight into the research questions, one on one interviews
with the research subjects yielded valuable information as well. To follow is an analysis of the
interview data organized by research question.
Research Question 1: What Is the Executive Leadership’s Understanding of the Dominant
Culture Within DRAW and How It Shapes the Career Progression Experiences of Women
of Color?
The executive leadership team of the Division of Regional Air and Water (DRAW;
pseudonym) sets organizational vision and strategies and creates policies and procedures.
According to Northouse (2016), organizational leadership drives organizational culture and
values. In the context of this research, it was important to understand their views and values on
career progression experiences within their own organization. Through the lens of the dominant
culture within the organization, the research was able to glean insight into how this micro-level

99
influence shaped and impacted the problem of practice through macro-level influences. The three
themes identified to answer the first research question were: (a) executive leaders had an
admiration for female leadership traits; (b) racial and gender bias are deep-rooted systemic and
institutional issues; and (c) decision-makers perceived they lacked agency and control for
improving workforce diversity. These three themes are discussed in detail, with evidence, in the
following subsections.
Executive Leaders Had Admiration for Female Leadership Traits
Interview questions one and two asked the study participants to identify and reflect on the
character traits that make a good executive leader. These questions helped to identify some of the
traits that they may look for when recruiting, hiring, and promoting staff within the organization.
As discussed in Chapter 2 of the Literature Review, female leaders tend to be more
interpersonally oriented than male leaders. Women tend to be collaborative, supportive, and treat
their followers equitably (Appelbaum et al., 2013; Bass & Avolio, 1993; Hoyt & Murphy, 2016;
Maher, 1997). The research and literature suggest that top management and executive positions
are often stereotyped as masculine, automatically making women less capable simply because of
their gender (Barnes, 2017; Eagly, 2007; Schein, 1978). This is said to be true across industries,
especially in the industry to which DRAW belongs.
Based on details gleaned from study participants, historically, the industry at all levels
was comprised primarily of White men. According to the participants, women were not seen as
being ideal candidates for DRAW’s specific type of work. Furthermore, the executive leaders
expressed that industry culture and attitudes were not supportive of women in the workforce, let
alone in top leadership positions. As a result, those with career longevity and significant
experience were overwhelmingly men, even to this day. Alex called out gendered leadership

100
explicitly by saying, “women for the most part have different management skills and different
management approaches than men. They have higher emotional intelligence.” Despite patriarchal
industry trends and culture, the interview responses indicated that the study participants actually
admired female leadership traits. The job posting and job descriptions that were examined as part
of this study reinforced this finding.
When asked to describe the traits that make an effective executive team member, the
study participants unanimously described traits specific to female leaders. Speaking to emotional
intelligence, all seven participants indicated that a leader should be open and able to listen to the
perspectives and feedback of others. The participants described a collaborative and inclusive
leader who appreciates diversity of thought. They specifically pointed to a leader who can
consider all the voices and perspectives in the room. Without hesitation, Alex described listening
as a key trait, “the first one that comes to mind is listening … the ability to hear what other
people are thinking and are telling you;” Carson also said, “you have to be a good listener.”
Drew talked about a good executive leader being open to novel ways of doing the work and
being “willing to accept constructive criticism or constructive perspectives about how their
actions may be perceived by the organization.”
Collaborative leadership, where others have an opportunity to participate in decision-
making and problem-solving as defined by Bass (1985), was seen as an ideal trait of an executive
leader by all the participants. This type of leader is a visionary, but then can trust in their team
and direct reports to make important organizational decisions. The participants felt it was
important for people within the organization to be empowered and equipped to make decisions
without everything having to go through a leadership hierarchy. Cameron discussed the
importance of leaders who value the skills and expertise of others instead of making decisions on

101
their own and from their own perspective. Drew felt the same way in stating that a leader is
someone who “looks for the potential of each member of their team and looks for a wide
diversity of skills.” Reflecting on what they referred to as historical, less successful models of
leadership, Kennedy asserted “command and control, top-down stuff isn’t enduring, and I think
to build an enduring organization that does good by and with and for the people we need to
include them in it.” Thus, suggesting that this type of inclusive leadership drives organizational
success.
All seven participants said that interpersonal skills, such as being nurturing,
understanding, and compassionate, were ideal traits in a leader. Carson said, “you need to have a
genuine concern for the people who work for you,” and Alex talked about how their experience
in leadership taught them to be compassionate and “understand where people are coming from
and who they are.” Kennedy described a leader who can play a convening role to “rally people
together” and build alignment with organizational goals and priorities.
Although female-leadership traits were overwhelmingly reported as being traits that make
a successful executive leader, male-dominant leadership traits were also identified by two
participants. Drew placed emphasis on leaders being able to move from vision and drive their
team to execution stating, “they need to be able to encourage their team to develop actionable
results.” Similarly, Taylor felt it was important for leaders to be able to make critical decisions
for the organization. The traits and characteristics that make a good executive leader, according
to the study participants, are listed in Table 12. Frequency column of this table represents the
number of study participants that identified that particular trait. For example, a frequency of 1
means only one participant named that trait or that particular trait was mentioned one time. In
cases where the available research (as outlined in Chapter 2) identifies a leadership characteristic

102
as gender-specific, those traits and genders are noted as either male or female. Table cells related
to traits and characteristics that generally are not linked to a specific gender are left blank. Key
quotes from participants are also included in this table, along with the associated trait.

Table 12
Effective Leadership Traits As Identified by Study Participants
Traits and
characteristics
Gender character
of trait according
to research
Frequency Key quotes from participants
Collaborative Female 7 The first one that comes to mind
is listening, curious,
collaborative, and
approachable. (Alex)

Compassionate Female 7 You need to have a genuine
concern for people. (Carson)

Compassion … you’ve got to
understand where people are
coming from. (Alex)

Making sure their work
conditions are safe (Carson)

Inclusive Female 7 You have to be able to have
breadth of participation in
order to get that perspective.
(Cameron)

Open Female 7 One that is open to new ways of
doing work (Drew)
Willing to accept constructive
criticism or constructive
perspectives about how their
actions may be perceived by
the organization (Drew)

103
Traits and
characteristics
Gender character
of trait according
to research
Frequency Key quotes from participants
Empowering,
inspirational,
motivating
Female 5 Your ability, your authority to
lead is determined by your
ability to motivate people to
follow your vision. (Alex)
Empower people and bring, you
know, people together around
issues without … doing it
through power. (Cameron)

Individualized
consideration
Female 5 Looks for the potential of each
member of their team and
looks for a wide diversity of
skills (Drew)

Ability to lead people and
understand people, their
backgrounds and what they
need from the leader to be
successful themselves (Carson)

Strong communication Female 5 To be a good leader, you have to
be a good listener. (Carson)

Someone who listens, someone
who can speak well (Blake)

The ability to hear what other
people are thinking and are uh
and are telling you. (Alex)

Visionary Female 4 Some kind of vision of their own
that people buy into (Kennedy)

Someone who has a vision, who
is able to make connections
among people, connections
among work (Blake)

Humble Female 3 Humble humility, able to admit
when they were wrong (Blake)

Celebrates success of
others
female 2 The ability to celebrate other
people’s successes (Blake)

104
Traits and
characteristics
Gender character
of trait according
to research
Frequency Key quotes from participants

Convener Female 2 Have more of a convening role …
sense of that responsibility to
be a convener (Kennedy)

Results driven Male 2 They need to be able to encourage
their team to develop
actionable results. (Drew)

Deliver results (Kennedy)

Transparent Female 2 Transparency (Taylor)

Understanding Female 2 Understand people (Carson)

Able to lead 1 A good executive leader has to
have the ability to actually lead
people. (Carson)

Curious 1 The first one that comes to mind
is listening, curious,
collaborative, and
approachable (Alex)

Decision-maker Male 1 The ability to make decisions
(Taylor)

Educated 1 Somewhat of an educational
background (Taylor)

Experienced 1 Experience … somewhat of an
educational background
(Taylor)

Flexible Female 1 Someone who is agile or flexible
based on the needs and
direction of the external
environment (Blake)

Responsible 1 Moral sense of responsibility
(Kennedy)

Servant leader Female 1 To serve the organization (Alex)

105
Traits and
characteristics
Gender character
of trait according
to research
Frequency Key quotes from participants

Systems thinker 1 I think a good executive leader
uses systems thinking and tries
to change perspectives and
look at the entirety. (Cameron)

Racial and Gender Bias Are Deep-Rooted Systemic and Institutional Issues
The first research question focused on the study participants’ understanding of the
dominant culture within the organization and how this culture shapes the career progression
experience for women of color within their own organization. Through interview data, themes of
racial and gender bias emerged. The study participants unanimously pointed to a deep-rooted
system that negatively impacts career progression opportunities for women of color. They
described a system built-in systemic racism and bias. Interviews and document and artifact
analysis contributed to these findings.
Interview Findings
Four study participants spoke directly to racial biases that benefited White men. Alex
referred to a macro-level culture where “there are inherent barriers that exist across our society,
across the corporate world, and in government and management. There are biases against anyone
that isn’t a White male.” Taylor reinforced this idea when talking specifically about the
organization’s deep-rooted culture that they had been trying to shift away from. Taylor
referenced the “old boy” network and said that in the 1970’s and 1980’s, “anyone that is not a
White male, particularly women of color, would have difficulty accessing a position or even
being considered for a position due to bias.” According to both Taylor and Cameron, not only

106
did White men hire people who physically looked like themselves, seemingly other White men,
but they were known to hire family members and close friends without going through an
impartial hiring process. Taylor delved deeper into how this bias and the “old boy” network laid
the foundation for the existing workforce inequities and biased culture, as the family members
and relatives of those hired in the 1970’s and 1980’s were still employed with the organization.
All seven participants talked about how women and people of color were
underrepresented in their industry. According to Kennedy, “traditionally, there’s been that
stereotype of it’s a White male career choice and you go to the schools and it’s all White men.”
There were discussions about how some organizations Kennedy worked for previously were
overtly racist, sexist, or both. Likewise, Alex talked about having worked with men who could
not respect a woman leader and that “many men can’t get their head around the fact that a
woman can be a leader … because a man cannot report to a woman for work.” Alex also cited
some religions where women cannot hold the priesthood because followers of that church
believe that it is against God’s will; therefore, Alex stated that they could see how it would be
unacceptable to some people for a man to report to a woman. However, Alex strongly opposed
this belief and stated, “So society doesn’t really like a woman who has strong leadership
characteristics and then there are certain men who simply cannot follow or respect a female
leader.”
Speaking to the intersection of gender and race, six participants felt that there were more
barriers to career progression for women of color. They believed that women of color faced
greater scrutiny than White women, which they saw as heavily due to racial bias. On the other
hand, one participant said that they believed “women of color or non-color are up against the
same battle. … I don’t see it, maybe I’m blind.” They stressed that women face an uphill battle

107
because of societal stereotypes that favor men over women as leaders. In speaking about the bias
that women of color face, Alex responded (capitalized phrases indicate a raised voice):
Oh my God! It’s amplified. And some of it, again, is because of the perception. Right. So,
there’s the angry Black woman. And YOU KNOW society can’t handle that. THE
WOMAN ISN’T ANGRY!! She’s being strong and society sees that as an angry Black
woman and then go ‘she’s crazy. I can’t follow that. … It’s so hard to be a leader in a
way that doesn’t trigger White people.
All study participants presented the same narrative by which collectively women were
seen by men in the industry as less capable, less qualified, or undesirable job candidates. As a
result, women are often excluded from the workforce. Describing an industry conference in the
late 1990’s, Drew recounted a room of 400 men and just two women. When thinking about the
racial diversity of that same conference, Drew said “to take that one step further, there was
maybe a handful of people who were not White.” Drew asserted that the makeup of the room has
since changed to include more women; however, “it has lacked in progressive and progression
with diversity with people of color.” When discussing previous employers, Carson said their
organization lacked balance in workforce diversity. While Kennedy stated, “I worked in some
organizations where there was absolute racism … a culture that was racist and toxic.”
Three of the participants felt that the lack of diversity within DRAW was attributed to the
idea that industry is a niche field, deflecting the responsibility away from DRAW and shifting it
onto women of color. These three participants indicated that the underrepresentation of women
of color in DRAW’s executive leadership positions existed because there were not enough
qualified people of color and women in the available workforce. Blake asserted, “there just

108
weren’t that many people who are qualified and all the ones I know have been White men in the
industry.”
Several participants alluded to the idea that because of the niche field, changing job
requirements in hiring would mean hiring less qualified candidates. There were two study
participants who said they partially agreed to the idea of a niche field held being responsible for
holding women of color back. One of the two participants acknowledged that despite being a
niche field, that there were “some comparable types of positions.'' This suggested that people
without industry experience could potentially have skills from other industries that would be
transferable to positions in DRAW.
Two participants, Cameron, and Drew believed that one of the biggest barriers for
women of color was that DRAW generally promoted from within. Cameron said, “it’s certain a
number of people get promoted from within. So, if you’re not within and there to be promoted …
that’s a problem.” Echoing the same sentiments, Drew added that the underrepresentation of
women of color in the local industry job market made it difficult to hire women of color, which
ultimately created challenges to promoting women of color. Drew gave an example of a talented
woman of color who worked in a construction role within the organization. When talking about
this employee’s ability, Dew said she’s “knocking it out of the park … she’s just doing
wonderful.” Despite many attempts to connect with this employee to understand her needs for
support in her career, Drew asserted, “I don’t get a lot of feedback and it might be that she’s just
not comfortable with me yet.” Drew acknowledged that there were perhaps thousands of
challenges that women of color face, but Drew felt that they just did not have specific knowledge
about them.

109
Three participants said that women of color are hired or promoted into executive-level
positions they are often tokenized. Speaking about their own organization, they said that their
Equal Opportunity Director has always been a woman of color. Kennedy said women of color
were not equally represented across the organization and then added “oh, except for our Equal
Opportunity Office, guess who that usually goes to?” Blake pointed out that the only place they
had seen women of color in executive-level positions within the organization was in the Equal
Opportunity Office. Taylor said that they were bothered by the fact that qualified candidates are
underrepresented except for the Equal Opportunity Office. Taylor asked, “there’s a lot of women
of color that are in those jobs, but why just those jobs?”
One study participant spoke about gender mismatch and the negative impact that it has on
female leaders. As discussed in Chapter 2, there are prescriptive beliefs and gendered stereotypes
when it comes to leadership. According to Heilman (2012), these shared beliefs are applied to
individuals based on their socially identified gender. If women violate these prescriptive beliefs
by being directive and assertive like men, they can be negatively evaluated (Eagly, 2007; Eagly
& Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001; Hoobler et al., 2011). During their interview, Alex said that male
leaders who “are forward and direct” are seen favorably by others in the organization. Alex also
acknowledged that if women exhibit those types of traits “there is a risk of being perceived as
pushy or bossy, impatient or intolerant.”
Decision Makers Lacked Agency and Accountability
Six of research participants did not specifically mention that they believed themselves, or
the executive team as a whole, to be responsible for the underrepresentation of women of color
in executive positions within their own organization. Throughout the study, participants gave
numerous external examples of challenges that DRAW faced when trying to improve the

110
diversity of their workforce. These challenges were portrayed as being out of the organization’s
control and something that these key decision makers could not influence. In discussing
DRAW’s executive team's inability to accept responsibility, Blake said, “I think there’s a culture
within our organization that says ‘I tried it, but it’s not my fault. I did this and nobody applied
other than three White males … that’s not owning the outcomes.”
Study participants stated that they felt DRAW had not been explicit and intentional
enough in its commitment and efforts towards workforce diversity. When asked what the
executive team had done to improve workforce diversity, one study participant was visibly
frustrated when they said, “I have never seen the group engage in any intentional work.” When
reflecting on the executive team’s lack of progress in creating workforce diversity, Kennedy
said, “We have to show that we’re serious about having people represented in our organization.”
Another participant discussed how the executive team approved the creation of an enterprise-
wide workforce plan more than five years earlier but never did anything to execute the plan.
They said the plan was drafted from the input of staff across the organization and that everyone
was given the opportunity to share their ideas and perspectives about their ideal workforce
culture. As part of this collaborative process, DRAW’s staff came up with initiatives that would
help the agency get closer to that desired state. This same study participant expressed great
frustration that despite having the workforce plan, the executive team does not enforce the plan.
They said that the executive leadership team’s commitment to workforce diversity tends to be an
afterthought when it should be interwoven into everything the organization does. Likewise, Alex
questioned how to change perceptions of leaders within the organization and how to build their
commitment to making change.

111
Study participants were presented with educational and workforce data about women and
women of color. They were asked to respond to the data with whatever thoughts came to their
mind. Six study participants were impressed to hear that women collectively outnumbered men
in earning more than half of college degrees (bachelor through doctorate) in 2017. The same six
participants were surprised to hear that qualified women of color made up 23% of the nation’s
female workforce in 2017, but these women held less than 4% of executive level positions in the
general workforce. As discussed under the theme-Racial and Gender Bias are Deep-Rooted
Systemic and Institutional Issues, three of study participants felt that the lack of diversity within
DRAW was attributed to the idea that industry is a niche field. After these same three
participants were presented with educational and workforce data, two changed their perspectives.
In fact, one of the participants stated, “our organization tends to be one that is highly skilled and
highly educated, so it's unfortunate if we’re not attracting those highly educated women of color
to be part of our team.”
From the outset of the interview, only one participant, Alex, challenged this theory of a
lack of qualified women of color in the management pipeline. Drew said, “our organization tends
to be one that is highly skilled and highly educated, so it’s unfortunate if we are not attracting
those highly educated women of color to be part of our team.” When asked to respond to the
same data, Blake said, “look at the statistics of the degrees, there’s ample, there’s many people in
that pool that I’m sure would be qualified for those positions in our organization with those
statistics.” Three participants explicitly stated that the data debunked the generally held belief
within the agency that being a niche field was responsible for the underrepresentation of women
of color in executive leadership positions. Speaking on the topic, Blake said, “going back to the
other statement about it’s a niche environment and so that’s why they’re not here, I would say

112
that’s ridiculous”. Alex said, “it debunks the well, ‘we’d have more senior leaders, but there’s no
pool out there’. Yeah, there is! ... There’s a pool there and something is stopping them from
moving ahead.” Taylor suggested a lack of open positions as being a driver, “we can’t hire
people if we don’t have positions open because we do have a fiscal responsibility, we have so
many finite numbers of positions.” This external attribution further exemplifies how the study
participants reluctance to take personal ownership over the workforce-related gaps and
disparities in the organization.
Research Question 2: What Are the Perceptions and Experience of Executive Leadership
Regarding Advancing Workforce Diversity?
Because the executive leadership team sets organizational vision and strategies, it was
important to understand their views and values on career progression experiences within their
own organization. Essentially, because these institutional leaders are the drivers of change and
have the most influence in remedying the problem, it was important to get to a baseline of their
knowledge of macro-level influences. The themes identified to answer the second research
question were: (a) executive leaders shared an appreciation for diversity and inclusion; (b)
executive leaders think DRAW gets in its own way; (c) executive leaders benefited from White
privilege during their own career progression, however not everyone recognized their unearned
benefits; (d) access to exclusive advocates, networks, and sponsors gave executive leaders an
advantage; and (e) executive leaders were able to identify strategies and approaches to support
gender and racial diversity. The final theme is discussed in terms of DRAW’s existing efforts
and opportunity areas. These five themes are discussed in detail in the following subsections.
Document analysis was not used since the focus of the research question is on the perception and
experience of members of the executive leadership team. However, there were instances where

113
documents and artifacts paralleled the ideals of the executive leaders since they created or
influenced the creation of these materials. These documents and artifacts were not used to draw
conclusions about the perceptions of the study participants, rather they were used as secondary
support to triangulate the interview data.
Executive Leaders Share an Appreciation for Diversity and Inclusion
Participants unanimously talked about strong intrinsic value for their work and roles as
executive leaders and champions of workforce diversity. Despite the executive team’s perceived
lack of agency to make decisions as individuals as discussed earlier, they all said that they were
committed to diversifying the workforce and improving career outcomes for women of color. In
discussing diversity of the workforce and executive leadership positions, study participants cited
several benefits that the presence of women of color in top decision-making positions would
bring to the organization and its customers. A number of documents and artifacts that were
analyzed through this study parallel DRAW’s appreciation for diversity and inclusion. For
example, job postings stated their commitment to diversifying their workplace and presentations
included statements about the value of workplace diversity.
All study participants defined diversity and inclusion in the context of their work
environment and organizational culture. The consensus was that diversity is good for DRAW
because different perspectives bring valuable outcomes. All seven participants said that they
believed the executive leadership team was committed to diversifying the workforce. Two
participants also praised DRAW’s general manager for being a visible leader and champion of
workplace diversity and inclusion. Carson emphasized the importance of having different
opinions and stated that equity is a high priority for the executive leadership team because they
want people to enjoy coming to work. Carson said creating an inclusive workplace simply boiled

114
down to doing the right thing, “we need to be fair at all of our hiring practices … I get good
people that work well together and make us all look good.” Thinking about the benefits to the
organization and its customers, Drew articulated:
I think that’s what diversity brings to the table, is our ability to look at the way we deliver
services, the way we treat our employees, the way our employees might perceive us from
a perspective that’s rich and in different viewpoints and to me, I always think that makes
us better at what we do. I don’t’ fear that. I think it makes us better.
In defining diversity and inclusion, Alex said, “diversity is you’re at the dance, inclusion is
you’re dancing with someone.” Alex meant by this that it is more than bringing people from
different backgrounds and experiences to the organization, they need to feel like they are part of
the team and can contribute fully. Alex expanded on the topic and said, “a strong Black woman
can be at work a strong Black woman and be respected for that and have those strengths
welcomed.”
While the other study participants focused on diversity in general, Taylor was the only
participant who spoke directly about diversity in the executive leadership team—the essence of
the problem of practice. Speaking about transformational organizational change, Taylor denoted
“If you have a diverse workforce throughout leadership positions, then it’s part of the culture; it’s
the right thing to do.” Taylor also felt strongly that more women should work in the industry and
shared a visionary goal of DRAW’s workforce being split 50/50 between men and women.
Throughout the interview, it was evident that Taylor was dedicated and focused on the topic of
workforce diversity and saw themselves as a champion of the work.

115
Executive Leaders Think DRAW Gets in Its Own Way
When they described DRAW’s attempts to close workforce gaps, all seven study
participants described unintentional barriers that were created by and perpetuated by the
organization itself. This points to an internal problem, where despite the executive leaders’
positive intent to improve career progression experiences for women of color, DRAW may have
gotten in its own way. Citing ineffective hiring and promotion practices, inflated job
requirements, and pay inequities, the study participants pinpointed areas where DRAW could
improve their business practices and reduce obstacles for women of color.
Executive Leaders Benefited From White Privilege During Their Own Career Progression,
However Not Everyone Recognized Their Unearned Benefits
In describing their own career progression experiences, six study participants talked
about instances where they received benefits and privileges because of their race. These
privileges opened the door to career opportunities, such as executive level management
positions. Some study participants acknowledged that they had benefits because of access to
networks, mentors, and sponsors that were not available to others, particularly people of color.
On the other hand, some participants were not aware that they benefited from White privilege.
These two sub-themes are discussed in the sub-sections below.
White Privilege
A prominent factor that influenced career progression experiences for members of the
executive team was the benefits associated with White privilege. Alex was detailed in pointing
out instances whereby White privilege propelled their own career. Alex said, “My career is built
on privilege. I mean everything, EVERYTHING that I have been able to accomplish has had a
privilege component.” Alex talked about having attended a top graduate school where they were

116
able to build connections and create professional networks that gave them direct access to great
paying careers and what Alex referred to as a seat at the table. Alex talked about getting a job
right out of college and said, “I got in the door at the company because I went to high school
with the CEO’s daughter.” Alex said that they also went to the same church. Alex was told by
the company’s CEO “I can pass your resume down to HR. … HR is going to take a look at it.
They’re not just going to immediately throw it in the trash.” Having what Alex called “an Anglo
sounding name” was perceived by Alex as helping them get callbacks and ultimately interviews
and job offers. Alex proclaimed:
The whole idea that I just pulled myself up by bootstraps and I did it by myself, it’s just
ridiculous. I’m fully aware that I am where I am, because I am a White Anglo Saxon
Protestant and that enabled me a lot of the breaks that people of color don’t always get
Once in these top-level positions, Alex talked about how, unlike women, they never had to prove
that they belonged because no one ever questioned their qualifications. Alex also mentioned that
the reason they were able to attend top public high schools and college was because “my folks
were White and could live in a suburb and could afford that.” One study participant talked about
the various development opportunities and training they had access to and said that they were not
afforded to everyone. When reflecting to the role their White race may have played in gaining
access to training and development opportunities, they admitted, “it hasn’t worked against me is
the best I can say, and it probably has supported me to do more.”
Exclusive Advocates, Networks, and Sponsors
Two study participants said they had advocates who gave them access to opportunities
that were not afforded to others. The first participant talked about being able to easily move
through organizations and have exposure to different positions because of their advocates. They

117
said their advocates were very well-connected with potential employers and career opportunities.
They proclaimed, “I got a lot of opportunity to do things that came my way that other people
may not have had.” The second participant spoke about having advocates within the organization
who created career development opportunities for them. Particularly, they had supervisors who
noticed their talent and challenged them through stretch assignments. Reflecting on these
opportunities, this study participant said that their gender and race probably served to benefit
them.
Two study participants said they had direct support within DRAW that helped advance
their careers. One participant said that they “had a built-in mentor within the executive team for
many years” and that this mentor sought them out because of their previous work experience in
the industry. However, this participant added that they always felt that they had to overperform
and prove they belonged because they felt like people were always wondering if they measured
up. The other participant talked about how White men-specifically were responsible for the
career opportunities that they received. They were encouraged to apply for higher-level positions
throughout their career and White men advocated on their behalf. For one promotion opportunity
this participant said, “I don’t think I even met the minimum requirements” and the Human
Resources Director encouraged them to apply anyway. They were ultimately offered the
position. Reflecting on their career progression experience, they claimed, “I know there’s lot of
people that have tried for positions and speaking generally in the world that never got the real
chance they deserved. And that’s not been my situation. So, I feel really fortunate.”
To the contrary, two participants said they did not have the benefit of a network or
mentors, rather they advanced in their career on their own. One participant said they had about
10 years of experience in management and served on other executive teams for about 16 years.

118
They said, “I had no ins with anybody. I applied and competed. There were over 70 applicants
when I applied.” When asked if they thought their race or ethnicity may have shaped their
experience, they responded, “I don’t think it shaped it at all. But I don’t know. I wasn’t the
decision maker.” The second participant said that they did not believe that people intentionally
chose them over somebody else simply because of their White race or their connections. They
also said that it was hard for them to separate the benefits they had during their career because of
their race and ethnicity, from their own hard work and merit.
Executive Leaders Identified Strategies and Approaches That Support Gender and Racial
Diversity
All study participants were able to identify practices that would significantly improve the
career progression experiences for women of color within the organization. This further
highlights the executive leadership team’s desire to achieve equitable access while also
suggesting that there may be additional or more effective ways, they can influence change. They
described strategies that DRAW had already implemented and found to be successful. Study
participants also identified potential improvement opportunities that would help women of color
advance to executive positions. Many of these strategies and improvement opportunities were
also found in the presentations, webinars, strategic documents, and the agency’s Affirmative
Action Plan. The ideas study participants brought forward during the interview process were
compared against strategies identified in Chapter 2 under the heading titled Evidence-Based
Strategies and Best Practices.
Existing Strategies Implemented by DRAW
All seven of the study participants identified positive things they felt their organization
had done to help create equitable career opportunities and remove barriers to advancement.

119
Three participants referred to on the job training programs that were targeted towards people
who did not have industry experience was well as those who were traditionally underrepresented
in the workforce. This approach is indicative of evidence-based practices specific to employment
practices, as outlined in Chapter 2. Taylor described the program as an initiative where minimum
qualifications were reduced to be inclusive of others and “give the opportunity that used to be
given just to relatives or somebody’s kid.” While acknowledging that these were entry-level
positions, Taylor indicated that this type of position could potentially lead to higher-level career
opportunities once the candidate has gained the necessary experience and training.
All seven participants spoke about how the study organization had been able to advance
its recruitment and outreach strategies to reach a wider audience. Cameron said, “we really had
to switch up things in order to reach out and get understanding and promote the jobs to different
populations in order to get more diversity into our pool.” Taylor mentioned how this targeted
outreach helped DRAW get candidates to apply that normally would not have known about the
available jobs.
Five of the participants spoke directly about changes to DRAW’s hiring and selection
process that they believed helped reduce bias and minimize barriers. This included a thorough
review of job requirements and language. They also incorporated a process to review interview
questions against bias for hiring what Taylor described as “a certain type of candidate.” Carson
said this approach required not just looking for industry experience but instead looking for
people with ability and desire to work. In speaking about these changes, Carson said they “give
everyone the chance and the ability to succeed right from the time that we get the application …
giving everybody a fair shot at this job.” In Chapter 2, changes to employment practices were
described as necessary mechanisms for improving career opportunities for women of color.

120
Five study participants said DRAW had employee-based teams who were dedicated to
equity work that significantly helped DRAW advance their workforce diversity efforts. Alex
shared that DRAW had an Equity Team that helped cascade down the agency’s equity goals and
implement programs. Alex described the team as “a cross functional team across the organization
and they are meant to identify opportunities to improve equity in our organization.” Study
participants said that the team served a key role and helped members of the organization
recognize how to apply equity to their own areas of the business. Alex believed the team also
helped the executive team solicit feedback and information from employees about resources they
needed to feel included and be successful in their jobs. Evidence-based practices identified in
Chapter 2 highlighted the importance of equity teams and committees, as well as the benefits of
dedicating a full-time employee to this type of work.
Opportunities for Improvement As Identified by the Study Participants
Throughout the interview process, research participants stated that although DRAW had
experienced success in diversifying their workforce, they had room to improve. They identified
ways that DRAW could significantly amplify their efforts. Acknowledging the hard work still
ahead, Alex said, “we are at the beginning of this journey, and we have so much more work to
do.” Some felt the change was not happening fast enough. Three study participants expressed
great frustration that the organization had not made what they felt was intentional and
meaningful change.
Mentorship and networks were seen by all seven participants as important resources for
women of color to advance in their careers. Alex said, “just like anyone else, they need someone
to take them under their wing and help them to advance … ideally it needs to be someone in a
senior position.” Carson supported this idea with the comment “we all need a very good mentor

121
to succeed … mentoring is how many of us get moved forward.” Carson even said that if it were
not for their own mentors, they would not be where they were in their own career. Chapter 2
highlighted studies that found networking, mentoring, and sponsorship programs to be important
for creating gender parity among executive leadership positions.
A prominent area of opportunity identified by all the study participants was employee
development and skill-building. Study participants said that it went beyond just hiring women of
color, they needed internal opportunities to support their advancement. Taylor advocated for
giving people more opportunities and said the organization should not be “just picking and
choosing but opening it up and saying who’s interested in why.” Drew talked about ways they
were able to find success in employee development. They cited a scenario where they invested
money in tutoring for an employee of color who was struggling to pass a certification test. This
certification was necessary for the employee to progress in their career. Drew discussed how
assessments for these certifications have been known to create challenges for people who may
have language barriers, which was the case for this employee. Drawing from the success of this
example, Drew advocated that the organization should identify creative ways to help employees
when there are obstacles that block access to career opportunities. Taylor talked about how
critical professional development was and that not all managers allowed their staff time for
development. Kennedy felt that to improve career opportunities for women of color DRAW
“could bring in interns and groom people and allow them to come into different roles.” Speaking
specifically about women of color, Cameron said:
They need opportunity … I think to get to an executive level the best way to provide the
opportunity is to hire talent in at a position where they can advance from within. And you
know if they’re educated and qualified that doesn’t mean they should come in super low

122
either. It means they should come in at a good position and then have the ability to
advance to the upper levels
Five subjects said that getting people in the door while also teaching them the business
was important. Kennedy offered that the organization could “find more innovative ways to staff
than just hiring the same all technical skills set, or we could try to develop those skill sets in our
different communities.” When thinking about how to help people gain the skills and knowledge
necessary for hire, Drew said that DRAW should “build diversity by building stronger skill sets
in the high schools and in the elementary schools through the STEM programs.”
Two study participants said that women of color needed to work hard to be promoted.
One participant said that women of color need to be willing to learn new things and be “willing
to do some stuff that’s probably not in their wheelhouse.” They suggested that through
experience and patience women of color have opportunities for advancement to executive-level
positions. Similarly, another study participant said, “the key to getting promoted and or hired is
really prove yourself by your work … what matters is can you do the job.”
As study participants were asked their thoughts about what resources women of color
might need to help them advance, four participants talked about their own career progression
experiences and how women of color needed the same opportunities that they themselves had.
They suggested that regardless of race or gender, everyone has access to the same opportunities
and benefits. They went as far as describing their own experiences as a path that women of color
should follow or mirror. Mirroring occurs when one person imitates behaviors of another
(Connick, 2020). Through this idea of mirroring, the three participants failed to recognize that
women of color needed significant barriers to be removed to have the same level of access to
these resources. For example, one study participant said they worked their way up through the

123
ranks. They talked about everyone having equal opportunities to careers and advancement within
the organization. This participant said, “I want to believe that everybody has the same chance.”
They suggested that if women of color have the qualifications and the desire, they have every
opportunity to move forward. In alignment with their own experience, they also recommended
that women of color should find mentors; “I don’t care who you are, if you’re a woman of color,
different race, mentoring is how many of us get moved forward.” Chapter 2 did not focus on
developing women of color as this study is focused on advancing women of color who already
meet the job qualifications but face barriers to advancement.
Lastly, all seven study participants called attention to the need for a shift in
organizational culture to create a system and structure that would support workforce diversity.
Taylor felt, “women of color should have access to the same tools and resources that everybody
needs, they shouldn’t have to have more degrees or more work experience than others, instead
the agency needs to change the way it thinks.” Similarly, Drew said the organization needed to
be more inclusive by treating all people with respect. Others spoke about eliminating racial and
gender bias through education and awareness, while some talked about the need to improve their
own way of thinking. One participant stated, “personally, I see my ignorance … I need to ask
and learn to be able to actively make the change.” The research presented in Chapter 2 also
pointed to the need to change organizational culture.
Summary of Findings
The purpose of this study was to explore the factors that influence career advancement
into executive management positions for women of color in the organization DRAW. The
following two research questions were developed to guide the study:

124
1. What is the executive leadership’s understanding of the dominant culture within DRAW
(macro and microsystem) and how it shapes the career progression experiences of women
of color?
2. What are the perceptions and experience of executive leadership regarding advancing
workforce diversity?
Study participants expressed their deep concern for the problem as well as their limited
awareness of the root cause. The participants were confident in their knowledge on gender-
specific issues, but they acknowledged their own lack of understanding about the experiences of
women of color. This lack of awareness served as a plausible contributing factor for their
inability to make meaningful change in workforce diversity. The interviews and data analysis
that were conducted as part of the study highlight the greater need for institutional leaders and
decision makers to understand and be responsive to the barriers and challenges that impact
pathways to executive leadership positions for women of color. The executive leadership team
have a need and desire to better understand their individual roles and responsibilities in helping
their organization operationalize and support equity. In fact, this is one of the reasons they
agreed to participate in this study. Through knowledge and understanding, executive leaders can
bolster access and opportunities to professional pathways for women of color. Chapter 5 will
draw upon insights gleaned through the data analysis of Chapter 4 for the purpose of identifying
and recommending evidence-based solutions.

125
Chapter Five: Discussion of Findings and Recommendations
Researchers and practitioners have found that most diversity programs and interventions
do not actually increase workplace diversity (DiTomaso et al., 2007; Dobbin & Kalev, 2019;
Kalev et al., 2006). Citing the potential negative consequences, these same researchers and
practitioners instead call for strategies grounded in theory and research. If implemented and
managed well, interventions have the potential to make systemic change that remove obstacles
and allow women of color to advance their careers (Chisholm-Burns et al., 2017; Kalev, Dobbin
& Kelly, 2006; Kuchynka et al., 2018). Evidence-based workforce diversity strategies will be
further discussed in this Chapter. Chapter 5 begins with a discussion of the research findings that
were presented in Chapter 4. Recommendations associated with these key findings are presented
next. Finally, this chapter concludes with limitations, delimitations, and recommendations for
future research.
The purpose of this study was to explore the factors that influence career progression into
executive management positions for women of color in the public agency DRAW. The research
was centered around Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Model (1977) intertwined with the
underpinnings of Critical Race Theory (1995). This study was particularly interested in
understanding how both gender and race show up in the attitudes and ideologies of society and
DRAW’s organizational culture and their impact on career experiences for women of color.
DRAW’s underrepresentation of women of color in executive leadership positions was
important to explore as this leadership gap has the potential to negatively influence
organizational effectiveness and sustainability (Bolman & Deal, 2017; Chisholm-Burns et al.,
2017; Northouse, 2016; Snyder et al., 2016). This opportunity gap also has negative implications
for women of color. If allowed to persist, they may experience depression, lower job satisfaction

126
and increased absenteeism in the workplace if women continue to experience gender-based
discrimination and exclusion (Kuchynka et al., 1018). Through this study, DRAW will
potentially benefit from being presented actionable items to improve organizational strategy and
practices related to advancing women of color into executive leadership positions.
Discussion of Findings
This section will draw upon insights gleaned through the data analysis of this study.
Select findings that provide the most comprehensive answers to the study’s research questions
will be discussed as part of this chapter. Each key finding is presented in its own section along
with a discussion of research findings and commonalities with available literature and similar
studies.
Conflating Issues: A Brief Recap of the Issue
Chapter 4 called attention to study participants frequently using equity and equality as
interchangeable concepts. In addition, while this study explored career progression experiences
for women of color, in their interview responses participants primarily referred to White women
or just women in general. They often failed to address the intersection of race and gender, which
were the focus of this study. This omission is consistent with the lack of research and data on
race and gender. This finding offers support for Critical Race Theory (1995) as the experiences
of White women are often used to describe all gendered experiences. Because the data is
presented exactly as stated by each participant, it is critical to acknowledge that it may be
difficult for the reader to delineate if the study participants meant women collectively, women of
color, or just White women.

127
Document Analysis
While document and artifact analysis were used as part of this study, this data did not
provide strong answers to the research questions. However, the data was helpful in providing
insight into the culture of the study organization. It was also used to triangulate data from the
interviews of the research participants. These findings will not be discussed extensively as the
interviews provided rich, valuable data.
Executive Leaders Had Admiration for Female Leadership Traits
Analysis of interview data established that executive leaders collectively admired
leadership traits typically associated with female leaders. When asked to describe the traits that
make an effective executive team member, the study participants unanimously described traits
that researchers and practitioners such as Bass (1985), Burns (1978), Eagly and Johannesen-
Schmidt (2001), and Vasconcelos (2018) have linked to female leaders. For a full breakdown of
the effective leadership traits identified by executive leaders of this study, please see Table 12 in
the results section of Chapter 4.
The traits that study participants identified as necessary for a leader to be most effective
have parallels with research on transformation leadership. Early research by Burns (1978)
introduced the concept of “transforming” leadership whereby both leaders and their subordinates
help each other raise to a higher level of motivation and morale to achieve a common goal.
Building upon Burns’ work, Bass (1985) introduced six transformational leadership factors and
their operational definitions. These factors and definitions can be found in Chapter 2 Literature
Review. Through this leadership style, leaders enhance the motivation, morale, and performance
of their followers (Appelbaum et al., 2013; Burns 1978, Maher, 1997). Some of the key traits of
transformational leaders include collaborative, empowering, and supportive (Appelbaum et al.,

128
2013; Maher, 1997; Molders et al., 2017; Stainback & Kwon, 2012). These same traits were also
identified by the study participants when asked for their opinion on what make a successful
executive leader. Just as research on the intersectionality of gender and race in leadership is
limited, study participants did not explicitly identify traits that they believed might be common
among female leaders of color. A full list of traits that were identified by the executive team as
part of this research can be found in Table 12 of Chapter 4 Findings.
Job postings were analyzed as part of this study. Of the job postings that were reviewed,
they overwhelmingly indicated job qualifications that reflect female leaders and traits identified
by researchers like Applebaum et al. (2013), Burns (1978), and Eagly and Johannesen-Schmidt
(2001) as transformational leadership. For example, one of DRAW’s job postings said they were
looking for an executive leader who was collaborative, honest, fair, and could work with a
diverse employee base. Another job posting listed that the ideal candidate would be someone
who was driven to innovate, had strong communication and collaboration skills, and could
convey a sense of community and trust within their department. DRAW’s job posting with traits
linked to female leaders is indicative of research by Applebaum et al. (2013), Bass and Avolio
(1993), Eagly et al. (2003), and Rosenbach and Taylor (1993). All these researchers found that
employers recognize transformational leadership as the most effective leadership style. In a
meta-analysis of gendered leadership studies, Vasconcelos (2018) also found that female
managers were seen as more effective due to their perceived qualities such as easy to get along
with, having integrity, and their nurturing nature. Crites et al. (2015) also found in their own
studies that women were seen as sympathetic, gentle, interpersonal, and sometimes emotional.
Consistent with these findings, DRAW also seeks leaders with these female traits. On the

129
contrary, male dominant traits were also found in job postings; however male dominant traits
were found at lower frequencies than female traits.
Although executive leaders of DRAW admired female leadership traits, there continued
to be gender disparities in leadership positions. Fifty-seven percent of study participants were
concerned that job posting language and requirements were potentially limiting career
opportunities for candidates who were qualified. They asserted that their organization created
barriers for women of color by setting job requirements unreasonably high or by placing too
great of an emphasis on education requirements. Selected key quotes related to this concern are
presented in Table 13.

Table 13
Key Quotes From Study Participants Related to Job Postings and Requirements
Study participant Key quote
Alex Ask yourself, is that really important? Generally, it’s not because
what is important is that you might be excluding some folks that
are still incredibly talented and could still make a significant
contribution.
Kennedy Just a tragedy that we have to filter that way

I hope people aren’t getting education or degrees or things that
don’t actually end up benefiting them, especially if they thought
they needed that pedigree to get in the door.
Taylor Maybe job minimum requirements that really aren’t critical, but we
put them in place anyway

130
DRAW’s workforce and hiring data do not match the values discussed by the executive
leaders who participated in this study. According to Crites et al. (2015) stereotypes are not based
on reality but are perpetuated by other factors such as the portrayal of male and female leaders in
the media. This calls to question what macrosocial factors may be creating barriers for women of
color. The next sub-section builds upon these ideas by exploring systemic racial and gender bias.
Racial and Gender Bias Are Deep-Rooted Systemic and Institutional Issues
Through analysis of the interview data, themes of systemic racism and gender bias
emerged. One hundred percent of study participants asserted that racial and gender bias are
systemic issues not only within DRAW, but society as a whole. The study participants called
attention to a deep-rooted system that negatively impacts career progression opportunities for
women of color. Study participants talked about a macrolevel culture in society where there are
biases against anyone who is not a White male. Studies in this area have shown that negative
beliefs about certain groups of people creates judgements and prejudices that can have a negative
impact on hiring processes and promotion practices (Barnes, 2017; Dunham, 2018; Hoobler et
al., 2011).
Fifty-seven percent of study participants said that White men have had access to benefits
and opportunities simply because of their gender and race. According to research, society has not
quite been able to support a business model where women can successfully take on powerful
leadership roles (Beard, 2017; Schein, 1996). Instead, research shows that traits associated with
top management and executive level positions are often stereotyped as masculine (Barnes, 2017).
The study participants perceptions about the existence of societal racism and gender bias are
indicative of findings in earlier research by Schein (1975) as well as Hoyt and Murphy (2016).
These researchers brought forward a paradigm by which they asserted that whenever society

131
thinks about managers, far too often White men come to mind. Sex role stereotypes that classify
managerial jobs as a masculine occupation, prevent women from advancing to executive
leadership positions (Schein, 1973). Gendered stereotypes were covered extensively in Chapter
2.
According to study participants, industry culture and attitudes are not supportive of
women in the workforce and that there continues to be a bias against women holding top-level
positions. One hundred percent of the participants said that women and people of color have
historically been underrepresented in their industry and organization due to bias. One study
participant argued that an “old boy” club infiltrated DRAW in the 1970’s and 1980’s. This same
“old boy” club was defined in early research by Kanter (1977) has being a gender restricted
network that gives men power and allows them to maintain their status (Chisholm-Burns, 2017;
Durbin, 2011; Kanter, 1977). In terms of this study’s theoretical framework, Bronfenbrenner’s
(1977) Ecological Model was paired with Critical Race Theory (Crenshaw, 1995; Crenshaw et
al., 1995) to better understand the sociocultural and political processes at play that serve to
reinforce power systems built on race and gender. This lends support for the notion that
macrosystem values such as societal norms paired with microsystem values shape the career
experiences and social exclusion of women of color within DRAW. Speaking to the strength of
this network, one study participant said, “anyone that is not a White male, particularly women of
color, would have difficulty accessing a position or even being considered for a position due to
bias.”
According to participants, White men in positions of authority within DRAW were
known to hire friends and family members who were also White men. They were able to do this
without going through a traditional or impartial hiring process and were effectively able to keep

132
women and people of color out of the organization. This laid the foundation for the existing
workforce gaps and created a deep-rooted system that White men still benefit from today. This
study finding is supported by work by Schein (1996) where bias against women was found to
negatively impact the selection and promotion of women. According to Schein (1996), male
decision-makers may favor male candidates and overlook qualified women. While Schein’s
study accounts for historical systemic issues, present-day researchers continue to find that White
men overwhelmingly hire and promote individuals that look, think, and act like themselves,
which creates barriers for others who do not fall into the dominant group (Barnes, 2017;
Beckwith et al., 2016).
This research provided insight into elements and factors identified by Bronfenbrenner’s
(1977) Ecological Model as macrosystem and microsystem (presented in Chapter 2 under the
Theoretical Framework section). Study participants gave personal accounts of their own
understanding of DRAW’s microlevel culture, society’s deep-rooted macrolevel culture, and
their potential influence on career experiences of women of color. Commenting on the strong
influence that the past continues to have on present day society, Cavanaugh (1997) asserted that
American society is far from undoing the past and systemic changes will not happen without
support from White males.
Decision Makers Lacked Agency and Accountability
All seven study participants expressed frustration with the lack of diversity in DRAW’s
workforce and slow progress in making any meaningful changes. However, 87% of participants
did not recognize that they themselves and the rest of the executive team are responsible for and
can influence change to reduce gender and racial gaps and lack of progress. In their responses,
they did not take personal ownership for the disparities. Instead, they cited external challenges

133
that they believed created barriers and prevented DRAW from diversifying their workforce. For
example, some responses indicated that women of color either did not exist or were in low
numbers in the available talent pool. One participant spoke about the executive team’s inability
to accept responsibility for the disparities within their workforce. They stated, “I think there’s a
culture within our organization that says, ‘I tried it, but it’s not my fault. I did this and nobody
applied other than three White males’… that’s not owning the outcomes.” This idea of
attributing poor organizational performance to external factors can be explained through
attribution theory (Masood et al., 2012).
According to attribution theory, individuals explain their successes and failures either as
internal or external. Internal causes may include an individual’s capabilities, skills, motivation,
or effort, for example. These internal influences are said to be within one’s control. On the other
hand, some external causes may be the environment, luck, or other people. These external
influences are believed to be out of one’s lotus of control (Black et al., 2019; Masood et al.,
2012; Weiner, 2019). Both Hewett and Mundy (2019) and Weiner (2019) argued that how one
attributes the cause of outcomes can influence motivation and group behavior. It is interesting to
note that transformational leaders tend to attribute poor performance to external factors which
influences expectations for future performance (Masood et al., 2012). When they believe poor
performance is external, they are more sympathetic towards their followers and view the failure
as a learning opportunity (Masood et al., 2012). Related literature and research suggest that
diversity programs and interventions are only effective when those in top leadership positions
establish agency, responsibility, and take ownership in the problem (Dobbin & Kalev, 2019;
Kalev et al., 2006). Leadership needs to be bought-in, committed, and responsible for supporting
and engaging in equity initiatives (Bernhard et al., 2021). Accordingly, if leaders within DRAW

134
attribute organizational outcomes to internal influences, they should be more apt to accept
responsibility and change their behavior.
Executive Leaders Benefited From White Privilege During Their Own Career Progression,
However Not Everyone Recognized Their Unearned Benefits
Eighty-six percent of study participants talked about how they had benefited from certain
privileges that may have opened the door to career opportunities, such as their own executive
level management positions. Through analysis and review of interview data relative to this
theme, some study participants did not explicitly recognize that they had access to privileges that
put them at an advantage. In describing their own experiences there were consistent mentions by
100% of study participants regarding their networks, mentors, advocates, development
opportunities, and access to quality education, for example. To the contrary, 14% of study
participants affirmed that they did not receive any special benefits because of their race and
ethnicity. Instead, they said that their gender worked against them on occasion.
Recommendations for Practice
This section presents recommendations based on insights discovered through this study.
First, DRAW’s existing workforce and diversity programs that they implemented prior to, or
during this study, are discussed to provide context for the subsequent recommendations. Next,
three recommendations to address select key findings are presented. Intertwined in this section
are the findings that are drivers of each recommendation, as well as supporting evidence for each
recommendation. Recommendations presented in this study focus on settings, however
implementation of these recommendations will influence organizational culture change.

135
Existing Organizational Staffing Efforts to Increase Workplace Diversity
Study participants said part of its efforts to diversify its workforce, DRAW has
implemented a number of diversity programs and initiatives. According to the participants and
document and artifact analysis, the goal of these programs was to attract underrepresented
populations and people from protected classes as potential job candidates. Two of the programs
mentioned by study participants provided paid, on-the-job skills training and were available to
people without previous industry experience. Table 14 outlines a selection of the programs.

136
Table 14
Existing Organizational Staffing Efforts to Increase Workplace Diversity
Type of program Program focus Target group Features/structure
Apprenticeships Entry-level trades Women, Black
people, Indigenous
people, people of
color, veterans, and
people with
disabilities
Up to 2 years; not all
result to full
employment
Career outreach Expanding interest
and creating
awareness of careers
with DRAW
Under-served
communities, Black
people, Indigenous
people, people of
color, veterans, and
people with
disabilities
Full-time staff
dedicated to this
work, community
tours, info-sessions,
open houses, career
panels
Operations trainee Entry-level job skills Women, Black
people, Indigenous
people, people of
color, veterans, and
people with
disabilities
6-month training
program
Urban Scholar
internships
High school and
college students of
color, and students
from low-income
families
Summer
programming with
specific project
focus

Note. Information included in this table were selected from a variety of sources, including
document and artifact analysis, and interview data.

Existing Efforts to Increase Cultural Competence, Reduce Bias, and Eliminate Barriers
Leadership within DRAW said they recognized that if women of color are recruited into
the organization, it may be difficult to keep them unless DRAW’s organizational culture is

137
inclusive. They stated that recently DRAW implemented several training and learning
opportunities to educate their staff on topics such as implicit bias, systemic racism, cultural
competence, intercultural conflict, and inclusion. They also created an equity change team and
launched initiatives to support the advancement of their equity work. Their efforts to build
organization capacity and increased learning is displayed in Table 15. Information included in
this table were selected from a variety of sources including document and artifact analysis, as
well as interview data.

Table 15
Existing Efforts to Increase Cultural Competence, Reduce Bias, and Eliminate Barriers
Type of program Program focus Target group Features/structure
Diversity, equity,
and inclusion
training
Create awareness
about diversity
issues and implicit
bias
Staff at all levels Open and available to all
employees and counts
as a work assignment
Voluntary
Equity change team Organization-wide
support for
implementation of
equity workplans
All employees Help departments create
and implement equity
workplans, champions
throughout the
organization, raise
accountability
Intercultural
Development
Inventory
Cross-cultural
assessment of
intercultural
competence
Managers All managers and
executive
management team
have taken the
Intercultural
Development
Inventory to establish
a baseline and better
understanding of their
cultural competence
as an organization

138
Type of program Program focus Target group Features/structure
Racial equity
strategic
plan/initiative
Set strategic
direction and guide
organizational work
Staff at all levels Inaugural plan will
impact internal
workforce related
functions, business
operations, and
customer service
Reduce bias in hiring Improve diversity of
hiring and staffing
by making managers
aware of biases and
barriers during the
hiring process
Hiring managers Hiring manager works
with human resources
specialists and equity
coordinators during
each job posting so
that they can receive
support as they are
going through the
staffing process
Increases accountability
of managers to make
decisions free of bias
and prejudice

Recommendation 1: Build Organizational Capacity and Executive Leader Skill
Development Through Diversity Training, Education, and Awareness Programs
The first recommendation for practice is for DRAW to build a robust capacity building
program that includes diversity training, education, and awareness throughout the organization.
While DRAW has identified their recent training efforts (summarized in Table 15) to build
capacity, their programs were not at the level as recommended through evidence-based practices,
researchers, and industry practitioners. This section includes strategies that DRAW can
implement to further advance their capacity building efforts. These recommendations are built on
a strong foundation that will create sustained learning and changed behavior.

139
From a microlevel perspective, DRAW has an opportunity to reduce biased thinking and
decision-making through training and education. Researchers warn, however, that diversity
training alone can have negative unintended consequences, including increased bias and
defensiveness (Dobbin & Kalev, 2017; Dover et al., 2020; Kalev et al., 2006). Instead,
organizations should empower participants by allowing them to feel a sense of autonomy and
responsibility in being active participants in creating change (Dover et al., 2020). There were
several elements of the research findings that indicated the executive leadership team did not
have a clear understanding of the power dynamics at play within DRAW. They did not fully
understand how these dynamics shape career progression experiences for women of color and
were unsure about the changes that need to take place within the organization in order to make
meaningful improvements. Furthermore, they lacked the accountability and a sense of personal
responsibility necessary to lead to change. The research findings that support the need for this
recommendation are: (a) racial and gender bias are deep-rooted systemic and institutional issues;
(b) decision makers lacked agency and accountability; and (c) executive leaders benefited from
White privilege during their own career progression, however not everyone recognized their
unearned benefits.
One hundred percent of study participants said that racial and gender bias are systemic
issues both at a macro and microlevel. While study participants pointed to societal biases and
discrimination, their span of influence at a societal level may be limited therefore training for
skills expected to make large-scale macrolevel changes may prove difficult. However, through
education and skill-building, executive leaders may gain a better understanding of how both
internal and external factors contribute to key decision-making in DRAW. Research strongly
supports the notion that diversity training needs to go beyond awareness by including skill

140
building as well (West & Eaton, 2019). Successful programs teach participants about bias while
providing them tools and resources to change their thinking. Kalev et al. (2006) concluded that
diversity training that makes managers aware of the impact on bias in their decision making are
effective in countering stereotyping. This changed thinking is expected to lead decision makers
of DRAW to identify strategies for dismantling the racist and sexist system operating within their
organization.
In alignment with the work by Hoobler et al. (2011) and Kuchynka et al. (2018), to
advance gender equity in upper-management positions, DRAW should strive to create a culture
that is understanding and welcoming of diversity. Educating employees about the long history of
systemic racism, White privilege, and their implications on the microsystem values in the
workplace will better serve organizations in leveraging diversity and creating inclusive practices
(Nkomo & Ariss, 2014). Bonam et al. (2019) found that educating White individuals about
historical racism is effective in helping them recognize instances of racism as they occur in real
time. To reduce employees’ feelings of threat to their autonomy, training should not be
mandatory, nor should it place blame (Dobbin & Kalev, 2017; Dobbin & Kalev, 2019; Dover et
al., 2020).
One hundred percent of the study participants said that DRAW failed to make any
progress in closing workforce gaps because they had not implemented any equity strategies or
programs. As described above, this inability to act may be due to their lack of understanding of
the dominant culture within DRAW and how it shapes the career experiences of women of color.
If executive leaders had a better grasp of the barriers and challenges, they may be empowered to
create and implement programs and initiatives focused on removing barriers so that more women
of color are hired or promoted into top-level positions.

141
Eighty-six percent of study participants talked about how they had privileges that opened
the door to career opportunities, however, many were not aware that these privileges were
largely impacted by their White skin color. These particular respondents were completely
unaware of their White privilege and did not recognize that their access to networks, referrals,
and even direct hires were not resources that women of color generally have access to. To fully
integrate equity into the culture and business functions of DRAW, having the knowledge and
understanding of barriers to inclusion is critical (McKinsey & Company, 2020; Pace, 2018).
Through diversity and inclusion training, leaders within DRAW will gain the applicable tools
and knowledge to weave equity into all decision-making processes.
Research indicates that making leaders and managers active participants and problem
solvers is an effective means for building organizational capacity to drive change (Dobbin &
Kalev, 2017). Citing cognitive dissonance, self-determination, and accountability theories,
Dobbin and Kalev (2017) found that diversity initiatives where managers were accountable to
promote diversity greatly increased commitment, created personal accountability, and reduced
attribution errors. This means that as individuals internalize attribution, they are likely to change
their own behavior to improve outcomes (Hewett et. al., 2018; Masood et al., 2012). A leading
driver of this motivation is performance measures as managers will be apprehensive to
evaluation in which they will have to be accountable to their decisions and actions, therefore they
will act in ways that are less biased (Dobbin & Kalev, 2017). According to Kalev et al. (2006)
strategies that increase accountability are the most effective in improving diversity. In
conclusion, DRAW must be cautious of diversity training that labels employee from the
dominant group as a cause of the problem. Instead, voluntary skills training and initiatives that
drive personal accountability may prove successful and should be considered.

142
Recommendation 2: Process Improvement of Human Resources Functions
The second recommendation for practice calls for making changes within the human
resources functions of DRAW. Dover et al. (2020) asserted that an effective means for
improving diversity is to focus on strategies that directly impact hiring and critical personnel
decisions. At the microlevel, DRAW has an opportunity to reduce biases, remove barriers to hire,
and create better opportunities for career advancement based on the findings of this study. The
finding behind this recommendation is the theme by which executive leaders expressed an
admiration for female leadership traits. Study participants expressed that DRAW struggled with
creating and implementing inclusive hiring and promotion practices, but they did not identify
exactly what inclusive practices would be beneficial. Within the larger key themes, there were
several elements of the research findings that indicated the executive leadership team did not
have a clear understanding of DRAW’s hiring practices. They were not naïve to the fact that
women of color were underrepresented in their executive level positions, but they were not fully
aware of how their own policies and practices eliminated qualified candidates of color from the
hiring process. One participant asserted that they were excluding people that were fully capable
of leading the organization. Likewise, another study participant said they questioned whether
DRAW’s system of hiring, and recruiting is getting the results that it should. Again, they pointed
to an issue, but were not able to pinpoint practices and behaviors that contributed to the problem.
Because DRAW’s executive leadership team is responsible for creating the policies and
procedures for the organization, they must be aware of the dynamics associated with bringing
people into the organization and ensuring a positive career experience. This section will focus on
recommendations where DRAW’s executive leadership can create clear expectations on how the
organization will comply with their Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity, and how the

143
executive leadership team can make improvements to their policies, procedures, and workplace
practices related to hiring and selection.
When responding to the interview questions, some participants believed that the reason
women of color are underrepresented in executive leadership positions in DRAW is because the
work of DRAW is a niche field, and that there simply are not enough qualified women of color
in their hiring pools. To the contrary, several sources and data have provided evidence that
invalidates the claim of a niche field being responsible for the gender and racial gap in
leadership. As highlighted in the available workforce data covered in Chapter 2, women of color
make up about 37% of the available workforce nationally (Catalyst, 2020). Furthermore, through
analysis of DRAW’s Affirmative Action Plan data there was ample support to show that
protected classes, such as women of color, were significantly underrepresented in the
organization’s workforce. The data also showed that there were plenty of qualified women of
color in DRAW’s available workforce. As part of human resources improvements, the following
sections offer recommendations related to affirmative action, hiring and selection, and salary and
wages.
Compliance With Agency Affirmative Action Plan as a Strategy for Change
According to research, there is strong support for the effectiveness of Equal Opportunity
Laws and Affirmative Action in managing diversity in hiring and promotion of women in top
management positions (Kalev et al., 2006; Kmec & Skaggs, 2014). In their 2006 study, Kalev et
al. found that Affirmative Action Plans were the most effective in increasing the representation
of both women and people of color in management positions in the private sector. Affirmative
Action programs are seen as a strategy for creating shifts in workforce diversity because they
often drive changes in hiring and promotion practices (Dobbin & Kalev, 2017; Kalev et al.,

144
2006). These types of programs serve to create accountability by creating hiring and promotion
targets and tracking metrics associated with the program (Chisholm-Burns et al., 2017; Hoyt &
Murphy 2016; Williams, 2014). Furthermore, they also mediate against potential negative
impacts of diversity training (Kalev et al., 2006).
According to DRAW’s Affirmative Action Plan, all executive leaders are responsible to
ensure that their division staff comply with the agency’s Affirmative Action Plan and
Affirmative Action Policy. The leadership team is responsible for knowing what the plan entails,
how to implement strategies under the plan, and how to ensure compliance. DRAW’s
Affirmative Action Plan is thorough as it provides data regarding underrepresented protected
groups by job categories, workforce data analysis, hiring goals, and remedies to increase
representation of impacted groups. A detailed breakdown of corrective actions and remedies to
help close the racial and gender gap is presented in Chapter 4. Because the existing plan within
DRAW is comprehensive and includes a blueprint for executing the plan, it is recommended that
DRAW’s executive team study and learn the plan, align the agency around the plan, and lastly
execute the plan. Affirmative Action programs are said to create accountability through hiring
and promotion targets and metrics (Chisholm-Burns et al., 2017; Hoyt & Murphy 2016; Kalev et
al., 2006; Williams, 2014).
Improving Career Outcomes by Removing Barriers During Hiring and Selection of Employees
Since DRAW uses employment applications to screen candidates for qualifications and
experience, it is imperative to ensure this process is free from bias and barriers. Ensuring hiring
policies and procedures are gender-fair procedures will expand leadership opportunities for
women by improving the hiring and promotional process (Hoobler et al., 2011; Kmec, & Skaggs,
20114; Kuchynka et al., 2018). Job requisition and posting language needs to clearly align with

145
the knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary to perform the critical functions of the job
(Goldstein, 2019; Riskin, 2021). Practitioners encourage employers to consider transferable
skills for candidates that may not meet the industry-specific minimum job qualifications but have
the skills necessary to be successful in the job (Riskin, 2021). Wording of job descriptions is
important as employers may unintentionally discourage members from protected classes from
applying due to exclusive language (Avery & McKay, 2006; Kmec & Skaggs, 2014; Riskin,
2021). As a solution, employers should try to use language to attract candidates such as women
of color (Avery & McKay, 2006). It is also critical that organizations convey why they are
seeking applicants from protected classes, such as they value the different perspectives and
experiences they bring (Avery & McKay, 2006). According to Avery and McKay (2006):
Creating the impression that the company values (or seeks) diversity should enhance
minority and female job seekers’ perceptions of the company’s corporate employment
image … firms with successfully diversity records would enjoy a competitive advantage
with respect to attracting diverse applicants because their records signal to minorities that
the company is a good place for them to work. (p. 176)
Reviewing and validating appropriate preemployment screening plays a role in how
candidates are selected or move through the hiring process (Charles, 2003; Dees & Pines, 2021;
Mastracci & Herring, 2010). DRAW should review their current policies and practices to ensure
there are no unintentional barriers and inequities in their screening process. Only when
appropriate and necessary, should employers use tests that are relevant to specific job functions
(Charles, 2003; Mastracci & Herring, 2010). Without a validated, systematic approach, the use of
these types of tests have been known to create obstacles that force women and people of color to
self-select out of the hiring process, thus removing them from the candidate pool (Charles,

146
2003). Mastracci and Herring (2010) asserted that assessments used during the hiring process
should be diverse and inclusive. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has
established the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures to minimize disparate
impact employment assessments may cause (Biddle, 2015). Covered in this procedure are several
considerations including drug and alcohol screening and criminal background checks. These
recommendations should serve as a starting point for DRAW as they further assess their hiring
and selection strategies.
The Division of Regional Air and Water’s (DRAW) hiring, and selection practices are
only as effective as the hiring managers instituting these processes. Therefore, it is important that
DRAW’s hiring managers and hiring staff be fully trained and knowledgeable in reducing
barriers and bias during the hiring and selection process. Fourteen percent of study participants
were concerned that DRAW’s hiring managers did not always go through a fair and transparent
hiring process. Instead, a significant number of managers ultimately hired people who they
already knew or were referred to by a personal reference. Study participants affirmed that hiring
managers typically already know who they plan to hire even before a position is posted. One
participant went as far as saying that higher level positions are not always opened for others to
apply and compete, instead individuals are appointed or given the promotion. To redress this
issue, DRAW should move to an open recruiting process and ensure that hiring managers are
following expectations of this process. According to Mastracci and Herring (2010), “Open,
transparent, and formal personnel practices level the playing field for all employees … and they
prevent biases” (p. 172). Through their research, Carli and Eagly (2016) also found open
recruitment to be successful in minimizing barriers and expanding recruitment pools. Research
shows that employee referral systems often lead to recommendations of candidates from

147
networks consisting of the organization’s current demographics. These types of programs are
strongly discouraged if an organization wants to increase diversity of their workforce (Dover et
al., 2020).
As several gendered stereotypes and concerns with negative perception of female leaders
were brought up by study participants, part of the hiring manager training needs to include
elements on racial and gender bias. Research consistently shows that bias during the hiring
process can create barriers that prevents women of color from progressing into executive
positions (Beckwith et al., 23016; Chisholm-Burns et al., 2017; Crites et al., 2015; Heilman,
2012; Schein, 1978). Considering the underrepresentation of women of color on DRAW’s
leadership team, it can be inferred that bias may play a role, whether implicit or otherwise.
Hoobler et al. (2011) concluded that hiring managers should be educated on gender bias and how
biases impact perceptions of suitability of women to be hired and/or promoted into key
leadership positions. Once a candidate is selected for employment, DRAW needs to ensure there
is pay equity, especially when it comes to women of color.
Ensuring Equitable Salary and Wages
Twenty-nine percent of study participants argued that inequity in compensation was an
issue within DRAW. A significant salary gap between men and women devalues contributions
that women bring to the workforce and is discouraging to women (Blau & Kahn, 2007;
Chisholm-Burns et al., 2017; Vasconcelos, 2018; West & Eaton, 2019; Wynen et al., 2015).
Current wage data shows that women of color experience the largest wage disparities when
compared to all other groups (Berry, 2014; Coghlan, 2018; Oort & Clayton, 2021). There was a
discussion in the participant interviews regarding a scenario where DRAW was unable to extend
an offer to a qualified woman of color because DRAW was unable to offer a competitive wage.

148
Inequities in compensation between DRAW’s male and female employees was also a topic that
came up during the interview process. Participants asserted that there were cases in which
women in the organization were paid significantly less than men doing comparable work. To
address issues of pay equity, DRAW needs to commit to fair compensation. Oort and Clayton
(2021) have outlined proactive steps that employers should take to address pay equity. The
strategies most applicable to DRAW’s scenario, according to Oort and Clayton, include: (a)
identify objective, results-based criteria in compensation plans; (b) utilize a third-person
accountability component in hiring and compensation decision-making processes; and (c)
conduct regular confidential pay equity audits.
Recommendation 3: Create Workforce Programs That Benefit Women of Color in Their
Career Progression Experiences
The final recommendation for DRAW is to create programs that will give women of
color better opportunities to advance in their careers. Because organizational structure can limit
women’s access to leadership, creating programs and initiatives that increase women’s presence
and visibility in the workplace is important (Carli & Eagly, 2016 Northouse, 2007). The findings
driving this recommendation are: (a) executive leaders had an admiration for female leadership
traits; (b) racial and gender bias are deep-rooted systemic and institutional issues; and (c) access
to exclusive advocates, networks, and sponsors help advance career opportunities. This section
focuses on actions that DRAW can take to create access to solid networks, advocates, and
networks for women of color. The purpose of these strategies is to produce opportunities for
women of color to gain exposure to well-connected individuals, develop advanced-level skills,
and highlight their skills.

149
Ensure Access to Exclusive Advocates, Networks, and Sponsors
Twenty-nine percent of study participants said they had advocates who gave them
exclusive access to career opportunities and asserted they were able to easily move through
organizations. They also discussed having the privilege of being exposed to different positions
and careers merely because of their advocates. In context of the research data, advocates were
defined by study participants as people who were well-connected with potential employers and
career opportunities. They were also individuals within their organizations, such as managers and
supervisors, who created career development opportunities for them. Researchers have found
that these types of social networks and advocates are largely unavailable to women of color
which places them at a disadvantage when it comes to career advancement (Chisholm-Burns,
2017; Kalev et al., 2006; Pace, 2018). According to Kalev et al. (2006) networking opportunities
can include access to lunch meetings and national conferences. Mentorship programs improve
social networks and provide tactical knowledge both of which have positive implications for
career progression. (Barnes, 2017; Chisholm-Burns, 2017). According to Brockmann (2021)
organizational leaders need to be allies in the workplace and provide mentorship and sponsorship
opportunities to people who are different than they are. In being a supportive mentor, Brockmann
(2021) advised that organizations should look for stretch assignments to help in the mentees
growth and celebrate their successes. Accordingly, being fully invested in the success of the
mentee exponentially improves career success (Brockmann, 2021). Organizational leaders
should network with professionals from diverse backgrounds to understand workplace
challenges, become aware of barriers, and create career pipeline opportunities (Brockmann,
2021). One avenue for networking with employees is affinity groups (Berrey, 2014). These
formal employee resource groups can be a source of mentorship, career coaching, create a sense

150
of belonging, and be a means for employees to develop their leadership skills (Berrey, 2014).
Inviting women of color to shadow executives can also prove beneficial for their long-term
learning and career advancement (Pace, 2018).
Accountability as an Underlying Factor for Successful Implementation
The Division of Regional Air and Water’s ability to successfully implement the
recommendations discussed in this study will rely on the executive leadership team’s
commitment to take action, and their level of personal accountability. One hundred percent of
study participants expressed frustration with the lack of diversity in DRAW’s workforce and the
organization’s slow progress in making any meaningful changes. At the same time, their
interview responses were devoid of statements of individual accountability and ownership for the
lack of progress. To improve agency and accountability, organizations need to engage leaders
with the highest level of influence (the Aspen Institute, 2013). These leaders must create a sense
of urgency around the change, legitimize equity work, and they need to take action to influence
others within the organization (the Aspen Institute, 2013).
Another strategy where DRAW’s executive leaders can establish accountability is by
making sure that workforce diversity is someone’s job to focus on. Diversity strategies that
assign responsibility and accountability have proven effective (Dobbin et al., 2017; Kalev et al.,
2006). Organizational leaders often find it challenging to manage their existing work while
simultaneously incorporating equity into their business functions (the Aspen Institute, 2013). To
combat this problem, DRAW should identify a supporting role or team to influence the
development and implementation of equity initiatives. These supporting roles can include
diversity task forces and diversity managers (Dobbin & Kalev, 2017). Their purpose is to
identify diversity issues, make recommendations for solutions, and evaluate progress (Kalev et

151
al., 2006). Through this type of oversight and advocacy, organizations have seen success in
establishing social responsibility and have seen improved results (Kalev et al., 2006). Adding a
supporting role should not serve to absolve DRAW’s executive leadership team of their
responsibilities when it comes to creating racial and gender parity. This is especially important as
the executive leadership team already struggles with taking action and being accountable to their
roles and responsibilities in this area. Once DRAW can gain true commitment to take action and
is able to achieve high levels of personal accountability from the executive leadership team, they
will be able to focus on implementing the recommendations of this study. However, ownership
of the problem and commitment to act are crucial to seeing true systemic and organizational
change. Table 16 provides a brief summary of the evidence-based recommendations of this study
that were discussed in this chapter and Chapter 5.

152
Table 16
Summary of Recommendations
Recommendation 1: Build Organizational Capacity and Executive Leader Skill Development
Through Diversity Training, Education, and Awareness Programs
Description Actions
Build awareness of diversity and
inclusion issues impacting women of
color and build skills to take actions
to dismantle racist and sexist
systems operating within the
organization
Deliver diversity, equity, and inclusion training on a
voluntary basis
Education in historical and systemic racism and
White privilege and their impact on microsystem
values in the organization
Education on how biases can impact organization
decisions, policies, and procedures
Training to teach the necessary skills for taking
action to change thinking and behaviors,
legitimize equity work, and influence others in the
organization
Establish accountability among
organizational leaders
Set both short-term and long-term goals, establish
performance metrics, and create an internal task
force or position to provide oversight and monitor
and report on progress
Engage the highest level of leaders in equity
initiatives
Recommendation 2: Process Improvement of Human Resources Functions
Description Actions
Improve compliance with Affirmative
Action Plan
Conduct training with hiring managers on the
elements of the plan and expectations under the
plan
Build alignment on how to implement the plan and
ensure the availability of proper resources and
support for hiring managers
Execute the plan and ensure compliance through
oversight and reporting on adherence to plan
requirements and goals
Create a fair hiring and selection
process
Ensure job posting language is inclusive
Review job requirements and ensure they
appropriately match the knowledge, skills, and
abilities needed for the job
Consider transferable skills for candidates that may
not meet the industry-specific requirements but
have the skills to do the job
Ensure application screening process is free of
personal bias and follows the recommendations of
the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection
Procedures

153
Description Actions
Make it clear to women of color that they are valued
and encouraged to apply
Conduct a thorough review of existing hiring
policies and practices including the use of tests
and assessments during the applicant review
stages of the selection process, drug and alcohol
screening, and criminal background checks
Training for hiring managers and staff on inclusive
hiring practices, eliminating biases, and removing
barriers from the hiring process
Ensure an open and transparent recruiting process
that does not rely on employee referrals
Ensure equitable salary and wages Commit to fair compensation practices
Identify objective, results-based criteria in
compensation plans
Include a third party in hiring and compensation
decision-making
Conduct regular pay equity audits
Recommendation 3: Create Workforce Programs that Benefit Women of Color in Their Career
Progression Experiences
Description Actions
Create access to exclusive advocates,
networks, and sponsors
Executive leaders serve as mentors and sponsors of
women of color
Identify networking opportunities such as luncheons
and conferences that women of color can attend
and be introduced to key leaders
Identify stretch assignments that will place women
of color in positions to engage with and learn
from executive leaders
Executive leaders should network with groups and
organizations that serve women of color to
understand workplace challenges, barriers, and
create pipeline opportunities
Executive leaders need to be allies to women of
color by advocating for them in the workplace
and recommending them for opportunities that
may serve to advance their careers
Support employee resource groups or affinity groups
Allow women of color to shadow executive leaders
during their daily work
Identify and celebrate successes of mentees

154
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations in research are the potential weaknesses that are out of the researcher’s
control (Theofanidis & Fountouki, 2019). Potential limitations of this type of study were the
dynamics associated with the relationship and the quality of the interviewer-respondent
interaction (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; McEwin & McEwin, 2003). This occurs as interview
data is subject to recall error and delay as respondents may not be able to accurately recall
experience due to lapse in time. Truthfulness and self-serving responses may skew the data as
interviewees may give responses that try to portray them in a favorable manner or ones that they
thin will impress the researcher (McEwin & McEwin, 2003). Based on research limitations
identified by Creswell and Creswell (2018), Table 17 outlines issues that were specific to this
research and its design.

155
Table 17
Study Limitations by Data Collection Type
Data collection type Options Limitations
Interviews Face-to-face-one-on-one, in
person interview (due to
COVID-19 one-on-one
interviews occurred via
videoconference platform)

Telephone-researcher
interviews by phone (in this
case virtual setting with
video and audio or just audio)
Provided indirect information
filtered through the views
of the interviewer

Provided information in a
designated place rather
than the natural field
setting
Not all people were equally
articulate and perceptive
Documents Public documents-minutes of
meetings or newspapers
Required the researcher to
search out the information
from multiple sources and
locations
Required transcribing for
computer entry
Documents were not
conclusive

Note. Adapted from Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods (5
th
ed., p.
264), by J. W. Creswell, and J. D. Creswell, 2018, SAGE. Copyright 2018 by SAGE.

Delimitations are limitations that are introduced by the researcher’s decisions, such as
their chosen framework or methodology. Because this is a nonexperimental design, findings
were not able to answer causal questions because, as outlined in the work by McEwin and
McEwin (2003), there were no comparison of variables and their impact on a specific outcome.
Interviews are limited by the fact that the data is filtered through the views and perspectives of

156
those being interviewed (Creswell & Creswell, 2016; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). According to
Merriam and Tisdell (2016), the quality of qualitative data depends upon the researcher’s ability
to craft effective questions, how the questions are asked, and whether the study participants were
probed for details and elaboration of their responses. In terms of this study design, there is the
potential that interview subjects were not fully clear on what was being asked through some or
all of the interview questions. There were a few instances where a participant did ask for
clarification, when they did not the data collector rightfully assumed the participant understood
the questions. There may still have been times where the interviewee was limited in their ability
to respond fully, concisely, or clearly. This may have been why participants used concepts
interchangeably, such as equity and equality, or perhaps why they did not fully address the
intersection of race and gender.
Another limitation of this research was the fact that participants were not able to equally
articulate their perspectives and experiences, so the responses were not easy to cross-compare
between subjects, a problem with qualitative studies as explained by Creswell and Creswell
(2016). Standardized open-ended interviews offered minimal flexibility and were not easily able
to be tailored to each interviewee. According to Patton (2002), this type of methodology may
make the interview process seem rehearsed and less authentic. Where reasonably possible, the
data collector tried to conduct the interviews in a conversational manner. During the transcription
process and coding of transcripts, responses may have inadvertently been misjudged,
misinterpreted, or misunderstood. Where they were able to do so, the data collector asked for
clarification. Recording the interviews allowed the data collector to review responses multiple
times to make a good faith effort to capture the participants responses accurately.

157
The original study design was in-person one-on-one interviews. However, due to the
global pandemic COVID-19 the design was changed to a virtual platform. James and Busher
(2012) presented a multitude of issues associated with internet interviewing that may have
introduced limitations to this study. Probably one of the most import concerns was that some
interview subjects were cautious about online communication due to common fears that James
and Busher (2012) identified, such as online scams, hacking, suspicion of government
intercepting internet activity, and threats of privacy invasion. Study participants were given the
options to be audio and video recorded, audio recorded only, or not be video nor audio recorded.
Some study participants opted for audio recording only. To mitigate against the above potential
threats, calculated measures were taken. These measures and methodology are discussed in detail
in Chapter 3: Methodology.
Because this study only evaluated DRAW, it is neither possible nor appropriate to
conclude that the findings of this study are applicable to other agencies. Furthermore, in studying
only women of color it is not appropriate to assume the same career experiences are true for
other groups such as men of color or people from other marginalized groups. Lastly, document
and artifact analysis can pose issues due to incomplete data or inaccuracies (Creswell &
Creswell, 2016). Therefore, interview data was relied upon heavily and documents and artifacts
were used to supplement interview responses and themes that emerged.
Recommendations for Future Research
The underrepresentation of women of color in executive leadership positions is not
unique to DRAW or even their industry. Therefore, it is imperative to further understand the
context of the problem and educate others, particularly organizational leaders, about how to
make improvements within their own organization. In addition, hopefully the insights and

158
perspectives of this research will stimulate future research of the underlying barriers to career
progression for women of color. Based on observations, findings, and limitations of this study,
three recommendations for future research have been identified and are presented in the
following section.
First, future research should thoroughly interrogate the intersectionality of race and
gender and their collective impact on executive leadership opportunities for women of color
from the perspective of these women. Much of the available research to date that has focused on
the topic of gendered leadership often ignores the intersection of race and gender. In conducting
a literature review prior to beginning this study, research that addressed the career experiences of
women of color were extremely limited. Instead, studies grouped women into one category and
often missed the nuances and differing experiences faced by women of color. Because this
research design focused on the understanding, perception, and experiences of the executive
leadership team of DRAW, women of color were not studied directly, and it would be valuable
to hear from them about their own challenges and barriers. Gaining a better understanding of
these complex and unique barriers may help create greater awareness and support for improving
career outcomes for women of color.
Next, delineation of the difference between diversity, equity, and inclusion and respective
implications on racial and gender parity in executive leadership positions is a potential area of
research that can be expanded. Study participants were found to have used diversity, equity,
inclusion, and even equality interchangeably. This created a limitation because it was unclear if
they intended to use such language when describing their perspectives and experiences. For
example, they may have used the word equality when describing fair and equitable access to
opportunities. They oftentimes referred to people as diversity, rather than the makeup of the

159
organization as being diverse or full of diversity. Having contextual knowledge will give future
research a better grasp of the study participants understanding of these concepts and their
applicability to the study.
Additionally, exploring attribution theory and its relationship to organizational behavior
and the perceptions of desirability of female leaders of color may shed light on this issue from a
perspective of accountability. Attribution theory is defined by the early work of Heider (1958)
and Kelley (1973) as how individuals assign causal explanations for behaviors and outcomes. In
the case of DRAW, executive leaders attributed the underrepresentation of women of color in
their executive leadership position to external factors such as the industry’s available workforce.
Through this tactic, they are able to deny responsibility for poor organizational performance in
workplace diversity as explained by Masood et al. (2012). Understanding these perceptions may
provide important explanations for how employees respond to human resources practices
(Hewett et al., 2018). Through this knowledge, organizations such as DRAW may be able to help
both organizational leaders and employees internalize responsibility for being active champions
of workplace diversity.
Finally, future research should explore other data collection methods that would mitigate
against the limitations and delimitations identified in this study. Ivancevich and Gilbert (2000)
offered that rigorous evaluation on the topic of diversity management requires entry into public
and private organizations for true field experimentation. Through this type of evaluation,
researchers will be able to gain first-hand insight into management strategies and organizational
practices. In terms of this study, its limitations included having access to and reporting only on
publicly available data and conducting interviews as opposed to field study. A combination of
field study, document/data/artifact analysis for historical context, interviews, and perhaps even

160
surveys may provide a robust data and expand upon the foundation that has been laid through
this work.
Conclusion
As women of color are underrepresented in executive leadership positions across all
industries, this study sought to understand the barriers and underlying factors that stifle career
advancement opportunities for this group. Researchers and practitioners continue to find that
organizational diversity is beneficial because it drives innovation, creativity, and has a direct
impact on organizational sustainability (DiTomaso et al., 2007; Post & Parks-Yancy, 2007;
Prieto et al., 2009; Sheppard, 2018; Stevens et al., 2008). While gendered leadership studies are
abundant, much of the available research is centered around the experiences of White women
and ignore the challenges faced by women of color (Sanchez-Hucles & Davis, 2010). The
limited research that is available, however, has shown that women of color face barriers and
challenges that are far more difficult to overcome when compared to the career-related
experiences of White men and women, and men of color (Wynen et al., 2015). Even when
women of color meet the job qualifications through experience, education, and applicable skills,
they are consistently overlooked for executive level positions (Chisholm-Burns et al., 2017;
Snyder et al., 2016; Women CEOs, 2019). The lack of research and shared understanding of this
problem perpetuates inequities in career opportunities and serves to minimize the importance of
racial and gender parity in the workforce.
The purpose of this study was to bring attention to the factors that may influence career
progression experiences for women of color. The qualitative data taken from this study allowed
me to examine how White leaders understand the persistence of racial and gender inequality and
how it operates in the workplace. The hope is that individuals in position of power will be

161
motivated and empowered to make systemic, procedural, and operational changes. Through
deliberate actions, executive leaders across all industries have an opportunity to create
professional pathways for women of color and create inclusive organizations.
The Division of Regional Air and Water (DRAW; pseudonym) was the organization
studied through this research. Women of color are not represented at all in DRAW’s executive
leadership positions, and their leadership team wanted to understand why. This study found that
DRAW’s executive leaders were confident in their knowledge on gender-specific issues. They
admitted, however, that they did not fully understand the experiences of women of color and
therefore felt powerless in trying to influence systemic change. Although members of DRAW’s
leadership team cited external causes such as limited talent pools, a competitive field, and a
niche industry their own organization’s workforce-related data proved otherwise. Their inability
to call attention to the notion that women of color are qualified (and in many cases they are
overqualified) to serve in executive leadership positions is indicative of their limited
understanding and experience with workforce diversity management. Even for the study
participants who were able to speak directly to sexism, racial bias, or their own White privilege,
they ultimately failed to take ownership and accountability for the lack of diversity in DRAW’s
workforce.
As I started thinking about my own career opportunities, I began to come to the stark
realization that there generally are no women of color in the top positions of organizations. As a
woman of color, I reflected on my own experiences thus far and recalled instances where
although I was qualified for a management level position I was consistently overlooked. I was
often encouraged to “get my foot in the door” and prove myself in order to work my way to the
top. Historically I took entry-level positions hoping to gain the attention of leaders within the

162
organization. Early in my career I was given awards, bonuses, and raises, but I was never able to
move past those positions. I also found that in multiple cases I was paid far less than my
colleagues who were often White men and women. When I was finally able to make it to the
mid-level manager rank it was only because I applied for jobs all over the United States.
Ultimately, I had to uproot my family and move. Even then, my employer told me that based on
my resume and name they did not expect that I was a Black woman. Needless to say, I was the
first person of color they had ever hired. I have always had that be my career experience where I
was an “only” and often tokenized. I have had people question my skills and ability and make
assumptions that I only got my job because of Affirmative Action. Where others were able to
come into an organization and right away feel included, heard, and respected, I often feel like an
outsider. In studying more about the career progression experiences of women of color, I found
that the research and literature fully described my own experience.
I was disturbed to find that collectively women of color across the globe shared the same
limited career progression opportunities. I found that not only were there significant challenges
for women, but women of color faced a double burden because of their gender and race. I also
discovered that research and attention on the impact of gender and race on career experiences for
women of color was extremely limited until more recently. Racism and sexism in American
society is far from being a new issue. Furthermore, improvement strategies are rarely
implemented until organizations are backed into a corner by being publicly exposed or because
of discrimination lawsuits. Employers only seem to care when a business case is made for
diversity in the workplace, not because it is the right thing to do. For me personally this issue is
an emotional one because it is my own lived experience; it is my reality. I know that unless I
have advocates and people who truly believe in my ability to successfully lead an organization

163
my career opportunities will be limited simply because of racial and gender bias. Until
dismantled, systemic racism will create and enforce barriers that put me and other women of
color at a disadvantage. It also robs organizations of benefiting from our talents and diverse
perspectives.
This study highlights the greater need for institutional leaders and decision makers to be
responsive to the barriers and challenges that impact career experiences for women of color. In
terms of DRAW, projected labor shortages in their industry, coupled with retirements and
employee turnover make this a problem that they can no longer afford to overlook. The insights
gleaned in this study provide a starting point for employers that are committed to dismantling
systems that create inequality in their own organizations. Recognizing the potential threat to their
organizational effectiveness and sustainability, DRAW felt it was important to be part of this
study not only for their own growth but to influence and inspire others in their industry.
Organizations that embrace the value that women of color bring to the table are more effectively
able to move past the traditional leadership models that continue to be strongly dominated by
White men. When implemented correctly, the evidence-based recommendations from this study
are expected to help leaders at the top understand their role in sustaining White privilege and
take accountability for deracializing their organization’s workforce.

164
References
Acquavita, S. P., Pittman, J., Gibbons, M., Castellanos-Brown, K. (2009). Personal
organizational diversity factors’ impact on social workers’ job satisfaction: Results from
a national internet-based survey. Administration in Social Work, 33(2), 151–166.
https://doi.org/ 10.1080/03643100902768824
Allen, J. (2021, June 11). Pulitzers honor Darnella Frazier for cellphone video of George Floyd
murder. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/pulitzers-honor-darnella-frazier-
cellphone-video-george-floyd-murder-2021-06-11/
American Association of University Women. (2016). Barriers and bias: The status of women in
leadership. https://www.aauw.org/app/uploads/2020/03/Barriers-and-Bias-nsa.pdf
American Association of University Women. (2021). State and local salary history bans.
https://www.aauw.org/resources/policy/state-and-local-salary-history-bans/
Appelbaum, S. H., Audit, L. & Miller, J. C. (2003). Gender and leadership? leadership and
gender? A journey through the landscape of theories. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 24(1), 43–51. https://doi.org/gale_ofa1000440227
Appelbaum, S. H., Shapiro, B. T., Didus, K., Luongo, T., & Paz, B. (2013). Upward mobility for
women managers: Styles and perceptions: Part 1. Industrial and Commercial Training,
45(1), 51–59.
Aspen Institute (2013). Ten lessons for taking leadership on racial equity.
https://www.aspeninstitute.org/wp-
content/uploads/files/content/docs/pubs/Lessons_final.pdf

165
Avery, D. R., & McKay, P. F. (2006). Target practice: An organizational impression
management approach to attracting minority and female job applicants. Personnel
Psychology, 59, 157–187.
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of
transformational and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership
questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 441–462.
Azzopardi, C. & McNeill, T. (2016). From cultural competence to cultural consciousness:
Transitioning to a critical approach to working across differences in social work. Journal
of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 25(4), 282–299.
Baker, V., Lunsford, L., & Pifer, M. (2018). Patching up the leaking leadership pipeline:
Fostering mid-career faculty succession management. Research in Higher Education, 60,
823–843. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-018-9528-9
Banaji, M. R. & Greenwald, A. G. (2013). Blindspot: Hidden biases in good people. Delacorte.
Barnes, B. (2017). Climbing the stairs to leadership: Reflections on moving beyond the stained-
glass ceiling. Journal of Leadership Studies, 10(4), 47–53.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jls.21053
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. Free Press.
Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (1992). The transformational and transactional leadership behavior of
management women and men as described by the men and women who directly report to
them. [Paper presentation]. Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology
Conference, Montreal, Canada.

166
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership: A response to critiques. In
Chemers, M. M., & Ayman, R. (Eds), Leadership Theory and Research: Perspectives
and Directions, 49–88. Academic Press.
Beckett, L. (2020, October 23). “Boogaloo Boi’ charged in fire of Minneapolis police precinct
during George Floyd protest. The Guardian.
https://theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/23/texas-boogaloo-boi-minneapolis-police-
building-george-floyd
Beckwith, A. L., Carter, D. R., & Peters, T. (2016). The underrepresentation of African
American women in executive leadership: What’s getting in the way? Journal of
Business Studies Quarterly, 7(4), 115–134.
Berman, G. & Paradies, Y. (2008). Racism, disadvantage, and multiculturalism: Towards
effective anti-racist praxis. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 33(2), 214–232.
Bernhard, R. J., Taqatqa, B. A., & Henderson, R. (2021). Diversity, equity, and inclusion
programs and policies. In K. M. Engdahl, D. M. Lewis & Liane M. Wong (Eds.),
Workplace diversity, equity, and inclusion handbook (pp. 29–49). Minnesota Continuing
Legal Education.
Berrey, E. (2014). Breaking glass ceilings, ignoring dirty floors: The culture and class bias of
diversity management. American Behavioral Scientist, 58(2), 347–370.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213503333
Betters-Reed, B. L. (1995). Shifting the management development paradigm for women. Journal
of Management Development, 14, 2–14.
Biddle Consulting Group. (2015). Uniform guidelines on employee section procedures.
https://uniformguidelines.com/uniformguidelines.html

167
Black, J. S., Bright, D. S., Gardner, D. G., Hartmann, E., Lambert, J., Leduc, L. M., Leopold, J.,
O’Rourke, J. S., Pierce, J. L., Steers, R. M., Terjesen, S., & Weiss, J. (2019). Perception
and job attitudes. In OpenStax (Eds.), Organizational Behavior (pp. 77–81). XanEdu.
https://assets.openstax.org/oscms-prodcms/media/documents/OrganizationalBehavior-
OP-TtwWleQ.pdf
Blau, F. D., & Kahn, L. M. (2007). The gender pay gap: Have women gone as far as they can?
Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(1), 7–23.
Bolman, L. & Deal, T. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (6
th

ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Bonam, C. M., Dias, V. N., Coleman, B. R., & Salter, P. (2019). Ignoring history, denying
racism: Mounting evidence for the Marley hypothesis and epistemologies of ignorance.
Social Psychology and Personality Science, 10(2), 257–265.
Bonds, A. & Inwood, J. (2016). Beyond white privilege: Geographies of White supremacy and
settler colonialism. Progress in Human Geography, 40(6), 715–733.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132515613166
Booker, B., Chappell, B., Schaper, D., Kurtzleben, & Shapiro, J. (2020). Violence erupts as
outrage over George Floyd’s death spills into a new week. NPR.
https://www.onpr.org/2020/06/01/866472832/violence-escalates-as-protests-over-george-
floyd-death-continue
Brenner, O. C., Tomkiewicz, J., & Schein, V. E. (1989). The relationship between sex role
stereotypes and requisite management characteristics revisited. Academy of Management
Journal 32(3), 662–669.

168
Brockmann, J. S. (2021). Keys to successful allyship in the workplace. In K. M. Engdahl, D. M.
Lewis & Liane M. Wong (Eds.), Workplace diversity, equity, and inclusion handbook
(pp. 129–139). Minnesota Continuing Legal Education.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American
Psychologist, 32(7), 513–531.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Harper & Row.
Burns, M. D., Monteith, M. J., & Parker, L. R. (2017). Training away bias: The differential
effects of counterstereotype training and self-regulation on stereotype activation and
application. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 73, 97–110.
https://doi.org//10.1016/j.jesp.2017.06.003
Carli, L. L. & Eagly, A. H. (2016). Women face a labyrinth: An examination of metaphors for
women leaders. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 31(8), 514–527.
https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-02-2015-0007
Case, K. A. (2012). Discovering the privilege of whiteness: White women’s reflections on anti-
racist identity and ally behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 68(1), 78–96.
Catalyst. (2020, March 19). Women of color in the United States.
https://www.catalyst.org/research/women-of-color-in-the-united-states/
Catalyst. (2019, June 5). Quick take: Women in the workforce-United States.
https://www.catalyst.org/research/women-in-the-workforce-united-states/
Cavanaugh, J. M. (1997). (In) corporating the other? Managing the politics of workplace
difference. In P. Prasad, A. J. Mills, M. Elmes, & A. Prasad (Eds.), Managing the
organizational melting pot (pp.32–53). SAGE.

169
Chisholm-Burns, A., Spivey, A., C., Hagemann, A., T., & Josephson, A., M. (2017). Women in
leadership and the bewildering glass ceiling. American Journal of Health-System
Pharmacy, 74(5), 312–324. https://doi.org/10.2146/ajhp160930
Christian, M., Seamster, L., & Ray, V. (2019). Critical race theory and empirical sociology.
American Behavioral Scientist, 63(13), 1731–1740.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764219842623
Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (1964).
Clark, G. K. (1967). The critical historian. Heinemann Educational Books.
Clonan-Roy, K., Jacobs, C. E., Nakkula, M. J., & O’Quinn, E. J. (2016). Towards a model of
positive youth development specific to girls of color: Perspectives on development,
resilience, and empowerment. Gender Issues, 33(2), 96–121.
Coghlan, E. (2018). State policy strategies for narrowing the gender wage gap [Policy brief].
Institute for Research on Labor and Employment.
https://irle.berkeley.edu/files/2018/04/IRLE-State-Policy-Strategies-for-Narrowing-the-
Gender-Wage-Gap.pdf
Connick, W. (2020, September 17). What is mirroring? Definition & examples of mirroring. The
Balance Careers. https://thebalancecarrers.com/what-is-mirroring-2917376
Cook, A. & Glass, C. (2014). Above the glass ceiling: When are women and racial/ethnic
minorities promoted to CEO? Journal of Strategic Management, 35(7), 1080–1089.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2161
Cook, E. P., Heppner, M. J., O’Brien, K. M. (2005). Multicultural and gender influences in
women’s career development: An ecological perspective. Journal of Multicultural
Counseling and Development, 33(3), 165–179.

170
Cottrill, K., Lopez, P. D., & Hoffman, C. C. (2014). How authentic leadership and inclusion
benefit organizations. Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion: An International Journal, 33(3),
275–292. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-05-2012-0041
Crenshaw, K. W. (1993). Beyond racism and misogyny: Black feminism and 2 Live Crew. In M.
J. Matsuda, C. R. Lawrence III, R. Delgado, & K. Williams Crenshaw (Eds.). Words that
wound: Critical race theory, assaultive speech, and the First Amendment. (pp. 111–132).
Routledge.
Crenshaw, K. W. (1995). Critical race theory: The key writings that formed the movement. New
York Press.
Crenshaw, K. W. (2006). Framing Affirmative Action. Michigan Law Review First Impressions,
105, 123–133.
Crenshaw, K. W. (2017). Race liberalism and the deradicalization of racial reform. Harvard Law
Review, 130(9), 2298–2319.
Crenshaw, K., W., Gotanda, N., Peller, P., & Thomas, T. (1995). Introduction, critical race
theory: The key writings that formed the movement. In D. Kennedy & W. W. Fisher
(Eds.), The canon of American legal thought (pp. 887–925). Princeton University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691186429
Creswell, J. D., & Creswell, J. W. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. SAGE Publications.
Crites, S., Dickson, K., & Lorenz, A. (2015). Nurturing gender stereotypes in the face of
experience: A study of leader gender, leadership style, and satisfaction. Journal of
Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 19(1), 1–23.

171
Davis, D. R., & Maldonado, C. (2015). Shattering the glass ceiling: The leadership development
of African American women in higher education. Advancing Women in Leadership, 35,
48–64.
De Houwer, J. (2019). Implicit bias is behavior: A functional-cognitive perspective on implicit
bias. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(5), 835–840.
DiTomaso, N., Post, C., & Parks-Yancy, R. (2007). Workforce diversity and inequality: Power,
status, and numbers. Annual Review of Sociology, 33, 473–501.
Dobbin, F., & Kalev, A. (2017). Are diversity programs merely ceremonial? Evidence-free
institutionalization. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, T. B. Lawrence, & R. E. Meyer (Eds.),
The sage handbook of institutionalization (pp. 808–828). SAGE.
http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:41288171
Dobbin, F., & Kalev, A. (2019). Why diversity programs fail. Harvard Business Review, 20–26.
Dover, T. L., Kaiser, C. R., & Major, B. (2020). Mixed signals: The unintended effects of
diversity initiatives. Social Issues and Policy Review, 14(1), 152–181.
https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12059
Druskat, V. (1994). Gender and leadership style: Transformational and transactional leadership
in the Roman Catholic Church. Leadership Quarterly, 5, 99–119.
Du Bois, W. E. B. (1920). Souls of White folk. W. E. B. Du Bois, Darkwater (pp. 17–30).
Harcourt, Brace and Company.
Dunham, C. R. (2018). Third generation discrimination: The ripple effects of gender bias in the
workplace. Akron Law Review, 51(1), 55–98.
Durbin, S. (2011). Creating knowledge through networks: A gender perspective. Gender, Work,
and Organization, 18(1), 90–112.

172
Dworkin, T. M., Schipani, C. A., Milliken, F. J., & Kneeland, M. K. (2018). Assessing the
progress of women in corporate America: The more things change, the more they stay the
same. American Business Law Journal, 55(4), 721–762.
Eagly, A. H. (2007). Female leadership advantage and disadvantage: Resolving the
contradictions. Journal of Women Quarterly, 31, 1–12.
Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become
leaders. Harvard Business School Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.04.002
Eagly, A. H., & Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C. (2001). The leadership styles of women and men.
Journal of Social Issues 57(4), 781–797.
Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & Van Engen, M. L. (2003). Transformational,
transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and
men. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 569–591.
Eagly, A., & Johnson, B. (1990). Gender and leadership: A meta-analysis. Psychological
Bulletin, 108, 233–256.
Eagly, A. H., Lord, R. G., Zaccaro, S. J., Day, D. V., & Avolio, B. J. (2017). Leadership in
applied psychology: Three waves of theory and research. Journal of Applied Psychology,
102(3), 434–451.
Elliott, V. (2018). Thinking about the coding process in qualitative data analysis. The Qualitative
Report, 23(11), 2850–2861.
Einarsdottir, U. D., Christiansen, T. H., & Kristjansdottir, E. S. (2018). “It’s a man who runs the
show”: How women middle managers experience their professional position,
opportunities, and barriers. SAGE Open, 8(1), 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244017753989

173
Equal Employment Opportunity Act, 78 U.S.C. § 701 (1972).
Exec. Order No. 13665. 3 C.F.R. 54934 (2014). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-
09/pdf/2015-22547.pdf
FitzGerald, C., Martin, A., Berner, D., & Hurst, S. (2019). Interventions designed to reduce
implicit prejudices and implicit stereotypes in real world contexts: A systematic review.
BMC Psychology 7(29), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-019-0299-7
Gibson, C. B., & Marcoulides, G. A. (1995). The invariance of leadership styles across four
countries. Journal of Managerial Issues, 7(2), 176–1992.
Goldstein, D. J. (2019). The applicant pool. In S. K. Fitzke & M. Luger-Nikolai (Eds.), Hiring
handbook (2
nd
ed., pp. 25–50). Minnesota Continuing Legal Education.
Hegewisch, A., & Mefferd, E. (2021). The Gender Wage Gap by Occupation, Race, and
Ethnicity 2020. Institute for Women’s Policy and Research. https://iwpr.org/iwpr-
issues/employment-and-earnings/the-gender-wage-gap-by-occupation-race-and-ethnicity-
2020/
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. Taylor and Francis.
Heilman, M. E. (2012). Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 32, 113–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2012.11.003
Heilman, M. E. & Hayes, M. C. (2005). No credit where credit is due: Attributional
rationalization of women’s success in male-female teams. Journal of Applied Psychology,
90(5), 905–916.
Hewett, R., Shantz, A., & Mundy, J. (2018). Information, beliefs, and motivation: The
antecedents to human resource attributions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(5),
570–586. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2353

174
Hill, E., Tiefenthaler, A., Triebert, C., Jordan, D., Willis, H., & Stein, R. (2020, May 31). How
George Floyd was killed in police custody. The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/31/us/george-floyd-investigation.html
Holvino, E. & Blake-Beard, S. (2004). Women discussing their differences: A promising trend.
Diversity Factor, 12(3), 22–29.
Hoobler, J. M., Lemmon, G., & Wayne, S. J. (2011). Women's underrepresentation in upper
management: New insights on a persistent problem. Organizational Dynamics, 40(3),
151–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2011.04.001
Hoyt, C. L. & Murphy, S. E. (2016). Managing to clear the air: Stereotype threat, women, and
leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 27, 387–399.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.11.002
Huffman, M. L. (2012). Gender, race, and management. Annals of the American Academy, 639,
6–12.
Ito, T. A. & Bartholow, B. D. (2009). The neural correlates of race. Trends in Cognitive
Sciences, 13(12), 524–531.
Ivancevich, J. M., & Gilbert, J. A. (2000). Diversity management time for a new approach.
Public Personnel Management, 29(1), 75–92.
Kabacoff, R. I. (1998). Gender differences in organizational leadership: A large sample study
[Conference presentation] American Psychological Association 1998 Convention, San
Francisco, CA, United States.
Kalev, A. (2009). Cracking the glass cages? Restructuring and ascriptive inequality at work.
American Journal of Sociology, 114, 1591–1643.

175
Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. (2006). Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy
of corporate Affirmative Action and diversity policies. American Sociological Review,
71, 589–617.
Kanter, R. M. (1994). Men and women of the corporation. Basic Books.
Karnowski, S. & Forliti, A. (2021, March 12). AP News.
https://apnews.com/article/minneapolis-pay-27-million-settle-floyd-family-lawsuit-
52a395f7716f52cf8d1fbeb411c831c7
Karsan, R. (2007). Calculating the cost of turnover. Employment Relations, 34(1), 33–36.
Kelly, H. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28(2), 107–128.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034225
Kmec, J. A., & Skaggs, S. L. (2014). The “state” of equal employment opportunity law and
managerial gender diversity. Social Problems, 61(1), 530–558.
Koch, A. J., D’Mello, S. D., & Sackett, P. R. (2015). A meta-analysis of gender stereotypes and
bias in experimental simulations of employment decision making. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 100(1), 128–161. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036734
Koenig, A. M., Eagly, A. H., Mitchell, A., & Ristikari, T. (2011). Are leader stereotypes
masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms, Psychological Bulleting,
137(4), 616–642. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023557
Kuchynka, S. L., Bosson, J. K., Vandello, J. A., & Puryear, C. (2018). Zero‐Sum thinking and
the masculinity contest: Perceived intergroup competition and workplace gender bias.
Journal of Social Issues, 74(3), 529–550. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12281

176
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American
Education Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032003465
Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. F. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education. Teachers
College Record, 97(1), 47–68.
Lawrence, C. R. (1987). The id, the ego, and equal protection: Reckoning with unconscious
racism. Stanford Law Review, 39, 317–388.
Lerner, S. O. (2021). Workplace diversity, equity and inclusion: Foundational principles. In K.
M. Engdahl, D. M. Lewis & Liane M. Wong (Eds.), Workplace diversity, equity, and
inclusion handbook (pp. 7–18). Minnesota Continuing Legal Education.
Levenson, E., & Cooper, A. (2021, April 21). Derek Chauvin found guilty of all three charges
for killing George Floyd. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/us/derek-chauvin-trial-
george-floyd-deliberations/index.html
Lipsitz, G. (1998). The possessive investment in whiteness: How white people profit from identity
politics. Temple University.
Lynn, M. & Parker, L. (2006). Critical race studies in education: Examining a decade of research
on U.S. schools. The Urban Review, 38(4), 257–290.
Maher, K. J. (1997). Gender-related stereotypes of transformational and transactional leadership.
Sex Roles, 37(3–4), 209–225.
Martin, D., Hutchinson, J., Slessor, G., Urquhart, J., Cunningham, S., & Smith, K. (2014). The
spontaneous formation of stereotypes via cumulative cultural evolution. Psychological
Science, 25(9), 1777–1786.

177
Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., & Dasborough, M. T. (2010). Attribution theory in the
organizational sciences: A case of unrealized potential. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 32(1), 144–149. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.690
Masood, S. A., Shahbaz, M., & Shaheen, M. (2012). Transformational leadership and attribution
theory: The situational strength perspective. Life Science Journal, 9(1), 317–329.
Mastracci, S. H., Herring, C. (2010). Nonprofit management practices and work processes to
promote gender diversity. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 21(2), 155–175.
McEwan, E. K. & McEwan, P. J. (2003). Making sense of research. What’s good, what’s not,
and how to tell the difference. Corwin.
McIntosh, P. (2015). Extending the knapsack: Using the white privilege analysis to examine
conferred advantage and disadvantage. Women & Therapy, 38(3–4), 232–245.
McKinsey & Company, & LeanIn.org (2020). Women in the Workplace 2020: Corporate
America is at a Critical Crossroads. https://wiw-
report.s3.amazonaws.com/Women_in_the_Workplace_2020.pdf
McLaughlin, E. C. (2020, August 9). How George Floyd’s death ignited a racial reckoning that
shows no signs of slowing down. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/09/us/george-
floyd-protests-different-why/in
Merriam, S. B. & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. (4
th
ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Merriam-Webster (2021). Conflate verb. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conflate
Molders, S., Brosi, P., Beck, M., & Sporrle, M. (2018). Support for quotas for women in
leadership: The influence of gender stereotypes. Human Resources Management, 57,
869–882.

178
Moore, D. P., & Buttner, E. H. (1997). Review of “Women entrepreneurs: Moving beyond the
glass ceiling”, Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 585–590.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). Degrees conferred by race and sex.
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=72
National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 151 (1935).
Navratil, L. & Rao, M. (2021, March 12). Minneapolis to pay record $27 million to settle lawsuit
with George Floyd’s family. StarTribune. https://www.startribune.com/minneapolis-to-
pay-record-27-million-to-settle-lawsuit-with-george-floyd-s-family/600033541
Nkomo, S. M. & Ariss, A. A. (2013). The historical origins of ethnic (white) privilege in US
organizations. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29(4), 389–404.
Northouse, P. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice. (7
th
ed.). SAGE Publications.
Pace, C. (2018). How women of color get to senior management. Harvard Business School Press.
Payne, K. B., Vuletich, H. A., & Lundberg, K. B. (2017). The bias of crowds: How implicit bias
bridges personal and systemic prejudice. Psychological Inquiry, 28(4), 233–248.
Parker, P. S., & Ogilvie, D. (1996). Gender, culture, and leadership: Toward a culturally distinct
model of African American women executives’ leadership strategies. The Quarterly,
72(2), 189–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1048-9843(96)90040-5
Penuel, W. R., & Wertsch, J. V. (1995). Dynamics of negation in the identity politics of cultural
other and cultural self. Culture & Psychology, 1(3), 343–359.
Powell, G. N. (2012). Six ways of seeing the elephant: The intersection of sex, gender, and
leadership. Gender in Management, 27(2), 119–141.
Prieto, L. C., Phipps, T. A., & Osiri, J. K. (2009). Linking workplace diversity to organizational
performance: A conceptual framework. Journal of Diversity Management, 4(4), 13–21.

179
Riskin, S. B. (2021). Improving diversity in hiring, retention, and promotion while minimizing
legal risk. In K. M. Engdahl, D. M. Lewis & Liane M. Wong (Eds.), Workplace diversity,
equity, and inclusion handbook (pp. 61–86). Minnesota Continuing Legal Education.
Rosenbach, W. E., & Taylor, R. L. (1993). Gender and leadership style: A field study in different
organizational contexts in Germany. Equal Opportunities International, 28(7), 545–560.
Rosenthal, J. L. (2014). Barriers to diversity: Why do so few African American men go into
medicine? Annals of Behavioral Science and Medical Education, 20(1), 19–22.
Rosette, A. S. & Livingston, R. (2012). Failure is not an option for Black women: Effects of
organizational performance on leaders with single versus dual-subordinate identities.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(5), 1162–1167.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3
rd
ed.).
SAGE.
Sanchez-Hucles, J. V., & Davis, D. D. (2010). Women and women of color in leadership.
American Psychologist, 65(3), 171–181. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017459
Santa Clara University Office for Multicultural Learning. (2021). Theoretical framework.
https://scu.edu/oml/about-us/theoretical-framework/
Schneider, B., Brief, A., & Guzzo, R. (1996). Creating a culture and climate for sustainable
organizational change. Organizational Dynamics, 24(4), 7–19.
Schein, V. M. (1973). The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management
characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(2), 95–100.
Schein, V.M. (1975). Relationships between sex role stereotypes and requisite management
characteristics among female managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(3), 340–344.

180
Schein, V. M., Mueller, R., Lituchy, T., & Liu, J. (1996). Think manager-thank male: A global
phenomenon? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 33–41.
Schein, V. E., Mueller, R., & Jacobson, C. (1989). The relationship between sex role stereotypes
and requisite management characteristics among college students. Sex Roles 20(1), 103–
110.
Schmid, W. T. (1996). The definition of racism. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 13(1), 31–40.
Sharma, S. & Kaur, R. (2014). Glass ceiling for women: A barrier in effective leadership.
International Journal on Leadership, 2(2), 35–44.
Sheppard, D. L. (2018). The dividends of diversity: The win-win-win model is taking over
business and it necessitates diversity. Strategic HR Review, 17(3), 126–130.
https://doi.org/10.1108/SHR-03-2018-0017
Silverstein, J. (2021). The global impact of George Floyd: How Black Lives Matter protests
shaped movements around the world. CBS News.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/george-floyd-black-lives-matter-impact/
Snyder, T. D., de Brey, C., & Dillow, S. A. (2016). Digest of Education Statistics 2014 (NCES
2016–006). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education. Washington, DC.
Soderberg, C. K. & Sherman, J. W. (2013). NO face is an island: How implicit bias operates in
social scenes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(2), 307–313.
Solomon, D. (2016). Maximizing the power of women of color. Library of Congress Center for
American Progress. www.americanprogress.org/

181
Stainback K. & Kwon, S. (2012). Female leaders, organizational power, and sex segregation. The
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 639(1), 217–235.
https://doi.org//10.1177/00002716211421868
Stapleton, P. A. & Michelson, M. R. (2021). Disbanding the old boys’ club: Strategies for
departmental gender equity. Political Science & Politics, 54(3), 520–523.
Stevens, F. G., Plaut, V. C., Sanchez-Burks, J. (2008). Unlocking the benefits of diversity: All-
inclusive multiculturalism and positive organizational change. Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 44(1), 116–133.
Stinson, P. M. & Wentzlof, C. A. (2019). On-duty shootings: Police officers charged with
murder or manslaughters, 2015–2019 (Issue Brief No. 9). Bowling Green State
University, Police Integrity Research Group. https://bgsu.edu/health-and-human-
services/programs/deprtment-of-human-services/criminal-justice/police-integrity-
lost.html
Syed, J. & Murray, P. A. (2008). A cultural feminist approach towards managing diversity in top
management teams. Equal Opportunities International, 27(5), 413–432.
Tate, W. F. (1997). Critical race theory and education: History, theory, and implications. Review
of Research in Education, 22(1), 195–247.
Tavakoli, M. (2015). Creating a culture of inclusion to attain organizational success. Employment
Relations Today, 42(2), 37–42.
Theofanidis, D., & Fountouki, A. (2019). Limitations and delimitations in the research process.
Perioperative Nursing, 7(3), 155–162. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2552022
Uhlmann, E. L. & Cohen, G. (2005). Constructed criteria: Redefining merit to justify
discrimination. Psychological Science, 16(6), 474–480.

182
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2020). America’s water sector workforce
initiative: A call to action. https://epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-
11/documents/americas_water_sector_workforce_initiative_final_pdf
US Water Alliance. (2017). An equitable water future a national briefing paper [Issue brief]. US
Water Alliance.
uswateralliance.org/sites/uswateralliance.org/files/publications/uswa_waterequity_FINA
L.pdf
US Water Alliance Water Equity Taskforce. (2021). Insights for the water sector.
https://uswateralliance.org/sites/uswateralliance.org/files/publications/1FINALuswa_equi
tyinsights_070721_a.pdf
Vial, A. C., Napier, J. L., & Brescoll, V. L. (2016). A bed of thorns: Female leaders and the self-
reinforcing cycle of illegitimacy. Leadership Quarterly 27(3), 400–414.
Washington Post. (2021). Police Shooting Database, 2015–2021. [Fata force].
https://washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/
Washington, Z. & Roberts, L. M. (2019). Women of color get less support at work. Here’s how
manages can change that. Harvard Business School Publishing.
Weiner, B. (2019). Wither attribution theory? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(5), 603–
604.
West, K., & Eaton, A. A. (2019). Prejudiced and unaware of it: Evidence for the Dunning-
Kruger model in the domains of racism and sexism. Personality and Individual
Differences, 146, 111–119.

183
White House/Office of Management and Budget, “Revisions to the Standards for the
Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity” Federal Register Notice, October
30, 1997; U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Briefs: Overview of Race and Hispanic
Origin: 2010
Williams, J. C. (2014). Hacking tech’s diversity problem. Harvard Business School Publishing.
https://hbr.org/2014hacking-techs-diversity-problem
Women CEOs of the S&P 500. (2019). https: www.catalyst.org/research/women-ceos-of-the-sp-
500
World Health Organization. (2019). https://www.who.int/gender-equity-rights/en/
Wynen, J., Op, d. B., & Rubens, S. (2015). The nexus between gender and perceived career
opportunities: Evidence from the U.S. federal government. Public Personnel
Management, 44(3), 375–400. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026015588194
Yamaguchi, R. & Burge, J. D. (2019). Intersectionality in the narratives of black women in
computing through the education and workforce pipeline. Journal for Multicultural
Education, 13(3), 215–235. https://doi.org/10.1108/JME-07-2018-0042

184
Appendix A: Interview Protocol

Preamble:
1. Could you please describe to me what you believe are traits that make a good executive
leader? (RQ 1; bias/macrosystem)
2. Can you describe to me the process that you went through or your rationale in deciding
on these traits? (RQ 1; bias/macrosystem)
3. Please tell me about your career progression experience in becoming a member of the
executive team. What did the process look like? (RQ 2; White privilege/microsystem)
a. How did you find out about the position (microsystem)?
b. What were the resources that you had available such as connections to the
organization, industry knowledge, etc. (microsystem)?
c. What did your social support/network look like (mentor, advocate, family, etc.)
(microsystem)?
4. How do you think your race might have shaped your experience, if at all, in becoming a
member of the executive leadership team? (RQ 1; White
privilege/microsystem/macrosystem; RQ2)
5. How do you think your gender might have shaped your experience, if at all, in becoming
a member of the executive leadership team? (RQ 1; gender
bias/microsystem/macrosystem; RQ2)
6. Can you please describe your view of workforce diversity? (RQ1; stereotypes, bias,
classism, privilege, career myths, stereotypes, macrosystem)
a. What does it mean?
b. How do you feel about it?

185
7. What is your opinion of the role, if any, that racial diversity should play when making
hiring and promotion decisions? (RQ 2)
8. What is your opinion of the role that gender diversity, if any, should play when making
hiring and promotion decisions? (RQ 2; gender bias, stereotyping)
9. Tell me about your experience, if any, in working with the executive team to improve
workforce gender and racial diversity? (RQ 2; White Privilege, gender bias, stereotyping,
microsystem)
a. What were the career types or positions that were the focus?
b. In what ways do you believe the organization has been challenged while trying to
improve workforce diversity?
c. What organizational practices or activities, if any, do you believe have had the
greatest impacts on improving workforce diversity?
d. What divisional practices or activities, if any, do you believe may have
undermined the organization’s efforts to improve workforce diversity?
10. What do you believe you personally do well, if anything, in leading or championing
workforce gender and racial diversity? (RQ 2; Leadership, bias) Can you provide specific
examples?
11. Can you please tell me what you believe the phrase ‘barriers to career access’ means?
(RQ2; White Privilege, bias, glass ceiling, macrosystem)
12. What barriers did you face, if any, during your career progression to the position you are
in now? (RQ2; White Privilege, bias, classism, sexism, macrosystem/microsystem)

186
13. What barriers do you think women on a broad level may face, if any, during their career
progression to executive positions within the organization? (RQ1; sexism, bias,
discrimination, career myths, classism, macrosystem)
14. What barriers do you think women of color may face, if any, during their career
progression to executive positions within the organization? (RQ1; sexism, bias,
discrimination, white privilege, macrosystem/microsystem)
15. Some people would say that the reason women of color do not progress into executive
leadership positions within the division is because the work is such a niche field. What
would you say to them? (RQ1; bias, microsystem, leadership)
16. I am going to read to you a few statistics and would like you to react to them with
whatever thoughts or feelings come to mind. (Q1; bias, systemic racism/sexism, white
privilege, societal racism, and sexism, macrosystem)
a. First—Based on data from Catalyst and the National Center for Educational
Statistics, in 2017, women collectively outnumbered men earning more than half
of conferred bachelor’s degrees (57.3%), master’s degrees (59.4%), and doctorate
degrees (53.3%).
b. Next—From the same sources, it was reported that in 2019 Black women attained
the largest share of all master’s degrees at 70% and all doctorate degrees at 66%,
making them the most educated group in the U.S. (Catalyst, 2019, Chisholm-
Burns, Spivey, Hagemann, & Josephson, 2017; National Center for Educational
Statistics, 2019).

187
c. Lastly—Qualified women of color make up 23% of the Nation’s female
workforce. They hold 3.9% of senior-level positions in the general workforce and
4% of CEO positions of Fortune 500 companies.
17. What do you think are the tools or resources that women of color may need, if any, to
help them advance into executive level positions within the organization? (Q2; bias,
systemic racism/sexism, white privilege, societal racism and sexism, institutional bias,
macrosystem/microsystem)
Is there anything that I may have missed or that you would like to add to this interview? Is
there anything that you wish to clarify or elaborate on?
Thank you for your time today and for your participation in my research.

188
Appendix B: Information Sheet for Exempt Studies
INFORMATION SHEET FOR EXEMPT RESEARCH

STUDY TITLE: RACIAL AND GENDER GAPS IN EXECUTIV MANAGEMENT: A
RETROSPECTIVE EXAMINATION OF THE PROBLEM CAUSE AND STRATEGIES TO
ADDRESS DISPARITIES

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Jennifer Zuchowski

FACULTY ADVISOR: Jennifer Phillips, DLS

You are invited to participate in a research study. Your participation is voluntary. This document
explains information about this study. You should ask questions about anything that is unclear to
you.

PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to understand the macrosystem and microsystem values that impact
career progression experiences for women of color. This research will give insight into the
potential factors that shape career progression to executive leadership positions and will shed light
on how these issues fit within the context of the larger macrocultural system. We hope to learn
about the dynamics associated with this topic relative to your organization and the role that gender,
and race may play. You are invited as a possible participant because you are closest to the issue in
terms of understanding organizational culture, hiring and promotion trends, and inclusion
initiatives. In addition, you are well-versed in the norms and values of the organization. With your
role in strategic planning and execution, you may set goals that drive outcomes associated with
career opportunities, diversity, and inclusion therefore your perceptions and experiences are
important to know and understand.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you decide to take part, you will be asked to participate in a qualitative interview with an
independent data collector that will last approximately one hour. What you say during the
interview will remain anonymous. Only pseudonyms will be used and individual identifiers that
may reveal your identity will be excluded for the purposes of confidentiality. For example, you
will not be asked demographics related to your time spent with the organization, your gender, your
position, your title, work location, number of employees supervised, etc. During the interview you
will be asked a series of open-ended questions related to the underlying themes of diversity,
inclusion, and equity. Interview questions will ask about your experiences and environment when
it comes to recruiting, hiring, and selection of employees, your ideas around leadership,
understanding of career progression experiences of women of color, and your views about women
of color as leaders within the organization. The interview questions will be centered around not

189
only your individual experience and perspectives, but also the environmental and social dynamics
of the organization that may influence this phenomenon.

Due to COVID-19 social distancing requirements, this study will use e-interviews that will take
place via videoconferencing software such as WebEx, Microsoft Teams, or Zoom. If you agree,
the interview will be recorded for transcription purposes. Following the interview, recordings will
be transcribed electronically.

CONFIDENTIALITY
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California Institutional Review
Board (IRB) may access the data. The IRB reviews and monitors research studies to protect the
rights and welfare of research subjects.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.

Videoconferencing software will be use that allows for discrete meeting identification numbers
and with distinct passwords. If you do agree to video and audio recording or solely audio recording,
all recordings of the interview will be stored via file encryption until they are forwarded to Otter.ai.
Following successful transcription, the full recording will be destroyed. Any individual identifiers
that may potentially reveal your identity will be excluded from the final interview transcript for
the purposes of confidentiality. Any comments or specific data will be treated with anonymity to
mask not only the identity of the organization but of you as a participant in this research study.

An independent data collector will be used to schedule interviews and conduct interviews with
study participants. Pseudonyms will be used if anything you say is quoted directly in the research
findings. The principal investigator, Jennifer Zuchowski, will never have access to the audio
recording of this interview. The data collector will not communicate or discuss specific
information discussed during this interview with anyone outside of the dissertation committee,
research chair Jennifer Phillips, PhD, and the University of Southern California Institutional
Review Board (IRB).

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about this study, please contact Jenn Zuchowski, zuchowsk@usc.edu,
and/or 763-744-7533 and faculty advisor Jennifer Phillips, PhD, jlp62386@usc.edu, and/or 662-
312-7367.

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the University
of Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or email irb@usc.edu.

190
Appendix C: Document Analysis Instrument

Document and Artifact Analysis
Document Name:
Date: Document Artifact
Research Questions
1. What is the executive leadership’s understanding of the dominant culture within
DRAW and how it shapes the career progression experiences of women of color?
2. What are the perceptions and experience of executive leadership regarding advancing
workforce diversity?
Guiding Questions
a. How does this document or artifact provide insight into the career progression
obstacles for women of color (including job requirements or limitations)?
b. Does this document or artifact include inclusive language?
c. Is implicit bias evident in the language of the document or artifact?
d. Does a policy or procedure articulated in a document or artifact reflect best practices
in advancing workforce diversity?
Notes

191
Summary of Analysis

Research Question Applicability

Abstract (if available)

Abstract To date, women of color are largely underrepresented in leadership ranks across all industries in the United States. Employers are finding they gain a competitive edge when they increase the diversity of their workforce, particularly in leadership positions. As women of color in executive leadership positions are underrepresented, this study takes a different approach in understanding organizational factors that impede advancement by studying leaders from the dominant White culture. The following two research questions were developed to guide the study: (a) what is the executive leadership’s understanding of the dominant culture within the Division of Regional Air and Water (DRAW; pseudonym) and how it shapes the career progression experiences of women of color; and (b) what are the perceptions and experience of executive leadership regarding advancing women of color? The key findings of this study are: (a) executive leaders had admiration for female leadership traits; (b) racial and gender bias are deep-rooted systemic and institutional issues; (c) decision makers lacked agency and accountability; and (d) executive leaders benefited from White privilege during their own career progression. Based on these key findings, three main recommendations with sub-recommendations are presented in this study. First, it is recommended that the study organization build organizational capacity and executive leadership skill development through diversity training, education, and awareness programs. Next, DRAW should engage in a process improvement of their human resources functions. And finally, DRAW should create workforce programs that benefit women of color in their career progression experiences.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

Beyond commitments: a qualitative examination of the persistent disparities faced by Black women in executive leadership roles post the 2020 crisis and beyond

PDF

The leadership labyrinth: women's journey to chief future officer

PDF

Where are the female executive leaders?

PDF

Secrets from the C-suite: women leaders on the bridging gap

PDF

Double jeopardy: the influence of prevalent race and gender bias on women of color executive leadership promotions

PDF

Sacred sexism: uncovering patriarchy in Black church leadership

PDF

Improving the representation of female executives in a large utility provider: a modified KMO framework

PDF

Gender disparity in law enforcement

PDF

Hail to the chief: an exploration of female chief executives’ successes

PDF

Underrepresentation of women in the U.S. banking industry’s top executive roles: why doesn’t the CEO look like me?

PDF

The lack of Black women in higher education executive leadership in four-year colleges and universities

PDF

The lack of gender diversity in executive leadership ranks within higher education

PDF

Causes for a lack of gender diversity in leadership

PDF

Gender role beliefs of male senior leaders in retail and the impact on women’s advancement

PDF

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

PDF

Negotiation strategies for women impacting the expanding gender earnings gap at midlife

PDF

Understanding barriers and resiliency: experiences from Latina leaders in local government

PDF

Raising women leaders of Christian higher education: an innovation study

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Zuchowski, Jennifer Lynne (author)

Core Title Racial and gender gaps in executive management: a retrospective examination of the problem cause and strategies to address disparities

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2021-12

Publication Date 12/02/2021

Defense Date 10/04/2021

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

Tag Affirmative Action,attribution theory,bias,Bronfenbrenner Ecological Model,career barriers,career progression,critical race theory,diversity,diversity management,diversity programs,equal opportunity,equity,gender,gender bias,gender parity,gender stereotypes,gendered leadership,glass ceiling,glass escalator,inclusion,job segregation,leadership,leadership labyrinth,leadership styles,leadership traits,leaking pipeline,Management,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational change,Race,racial bias,salary disparity,sex role stereotypes,sexism,social role theory,Social structure,stereotypes,sticky floor,systemic racism,transactional leadership,transformational leadership,underrepresentation,white privilege,Women,women of color,workforce diversity,workplace discrimination

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Phillips, Jennifer (committee chair), Canny, Eric (committee member), Seli, Helena (committee member)

Creator Email jennzuch@gmail.com,zuchowsk@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC17789609

Unique identifier UC17789609

Legacy Identifier etd-ZuchowskiJ-10269

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Zuchowski, Jennifer Lynne

Type texts

Source 20211206-wayne-usctheses-batch-901-nissen (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

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

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

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

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu