Running head: ENGAGING DIVERSITY

Pepperdine University

Graduate School of Education and Psychology

ENGAGING DIVERSITY: BEST PRACTICES TO CREATE AN INCLUSIVE WORK

ENVIRONMENT

A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction

of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Education in Organizational Leadership

by

Britta M. Wilson

July, 2016

Farzin Madjidi, Ed.D. – Dissertation Chairperson

 ProQuest Number: 10141726

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

ProQuest 10141726

Published by ProQuest LLC (2016). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.

All rights reserved.

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
This dissertation, written by

Britta M. Wilson

under the guidance of a Faculty Committee and approved by its members, has been
submitted to and accepted by the Graduate Faculty in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

Doctoral Committee:

Farzin Madjidi, Ed.D., Chairperson

Gabriella Miramontes, Ed.D.

Lani Simpao Fraizer, Ed.D.

© Copyright by Britta M. Wilson (2016)

All Rights Reserved

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ vi

LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... vii

DEDICATION ................................................................................................................ viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................ ix

VITA ................................................................................................................................ xii

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... xiv

Chapter 1: The Journey to Inclusion Begins .....................................................................1

Background ............................................................................................................2

Statement of the Problem ......................................................................................5

Purpose of the Study .............................................................................................5

Research Questions ..............................................................................................6

Significance of the Study .......................................................................................6

Key Definitions .....................................................................................................12

Key Assumptions .................................................................................................13

Limitations of the Study .......................................................................................13

Summary .............................................................................................................14

Chapter 2: Literature Review ..........................................................................................15

Definition of Diversity ...........................................................................................15

Definition of Inclusion ...........................................................................................20

Anthropological Perspectives ..............................................................................22

Social Perspectives .............................................................................................25

Psychological Impacts .........................................................................................26

Organizational Considerations .............................................................................30

Best Practices to Create Inclusion .......................................................................50

Global Considerations .........................................................................................56

Summary .............................................................................................................56

Chapter 3: Research Design and Methodology..............................................................58

Nature of Study ....................................................................................................59

Restatement of Research Questions ...................................................................61

Methodology ........................................................................................................62

Research Design .................................................................................................64

Statement of Personal Bias .................................................................................77

Data Analysis .......................................................................................................79

 Page

Inter-rater Reliability and Validity .........................................................................81

Summary .............................................................................................................81

Chapter 4: Findings ........................................................................................................83

Profile of the Participants .....................................................................................85

Data Collection ....................................................................................................86

Data Analysis .......................................................................................................89

Research Question One ......................................................................................91

Research Question Two ....................................................................................105

Research Question Three ..................................................................................111

Research Question Four ....................................................................................121

Chapter Five: Conclusions and Recommendations .....................................................128

Research Questions ..........................................................................................129

Summary of Findings .........................................................................................129

Key Findings ......................................................................................................137

Researcher’s Observations ...............................................................................141

Implications of the Study ....................................................................................142

Recommendations for Future Research ............................................................146

Final Thoughts ...................................................................................................149

REFERENCES .............................................................................................................150

APPENDIX A: Recruitment Script ................................................................................174

APPENDIX B: Informed Consent .................................................................................175

APPENDIX C: IRB Approval .........................................................................................181

v
 LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1. Active Listening Strategies ...............................................................................72

Table 2. Research Questions and Corresponding Interview Questions .........................76

Table 3. Participant Demographics by Industry and Title ...............................................86

Table 4. Annual Measures for Global Inclusion ............................................................119

Table 5. Elements of Inclusion with Corresponding Measures.....................................121

vi
 LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1. Evolution of diversity to inclusion .....................................................................9

Figure 2. Gender distribution of research participants. ...................................................85

Figure 3. Distribution of CDO titles. ................................................................................86

Figure 4. Qualitative data analysis process. ...................................................................89

Figure 5. The definition of inclusion: Coding results. ......................................................92

Figure 6. The best practices to promote inclusion. .........................................................96

Figure 7. Practices that hinder inclusion. ......................................................................100

Figure 8. Resources required to recruit and retain. ......................................................103

Figure 9. Challenges CDOs face. .................................................................................107

Figure 10. How CDOs deal with challenge. ..................................................................108

Figure 11. Elements of a successfully inclusive work environment. .............................113

Figure 12. Measures that leadership values. ................................................................116

Figure 13. Methods CDOs employ to benchmark inclusion practices. .........................120

Figure 14. Highlights of cautionary tales. .....................................................................123

Figure 15. Will characteristics change in the future? ....................................................125

Figure 16. Inclusion-rich practices per lifecycle stage. .................................................133

Figure 17. Challenges CDOs face. ...............................................................................134

Figure 18. Inclusion framework ....................................................................................140

Figure 19. Individual and common elements from literature review and CDOs. .........143

vii
 DEDICATION

I dedicate this work to my grandmother, Velma D. Locke, who had a love of

learning like no one else I know or have known. Growing up in the Jim Crow south

prevented her from pursuing the education that she dreamt of, so I am honored to honor

her with this achievement. I know that if she were still with us, she would be shouting

“sho nuff” with her church hat and heels on.

viii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Several years ago, I had the incredible honor of being named a Distinguished

Alumni, Pepperdine Graziadio School of Business and Management. As I stood silently

on the stage and looked out upon the sea of graduates, my head and heart were

immediately reminded of a promise that I had made to myself a dozen years ago to get

a doctorate. In my head, I could see myself being hooded and in my heart, I could

audibly hear, “It’s time. Plan and Prepare.” As I took my seat after my speech, I

considered if “I could pull it off.” In the months that followed, I prayed and discussed it

with Jeffrey. As we should expect from GOD, the vision was not without provision. Just

as I started that Distinguished Alum speech with acknowledgement and honor to my

GOD, I also do so here. Thank you GOD who has rained love, grace, mercy, wisdom

and favor upon me and in doing so, has blessed me beyond my wildest dreams with:

My husband, Jeffrey, who is always there to offer support, encouragement and

love. There is no way that this exercise could have been completed without you.

“From the beginning, you’ve always been my old friend” – Al Jarreau.

Three children who have enriched my life in ways that I could not even number.

Brittany, Jarielle and Jordan, - you are individually and collectively the greatest blessing

in my life. I am beyond proud to be your mother and cannot put words to the depths of

my love. You make me smile inside and out.

My mom, Dorothy, who as a young divorcee and single mom, worked multiple

jobs to keep me in great schools and to insure that I had my heart’s desires. Even back

at 3711, I understood and appreciated your sacrifice, hard work and example.

ix
 My sissy’s, Sharlyn and Lori, who prayed for and with me; who propped me up

when “just takin a seat” seemed to be a most attractive option. Sharlyn – my Sista

Friend/Road Dog Extraordinaire, I know that “He’s Preparing You” for something

superduperfantastic and no one is more deserving!

A loving family of uncles, brothers, aunts and cousins. Since I know that you

may not bother to read the pages that follow, but will look for your name in these

acknowledgements, here you go. William – who bought into the vision that I sold and

opened up his pulpit to allow me to honor him on his pastoral anniversary. Buz – where

do I begin, let’s just say this: Sightseeing on Carnegie, Filet O Fish, Easter ensembles,

etc. PL – who contributed to this educational journey and allowed me to take classes

with him (and the Claysburg crew) at Indiana University 35 years ago. My brothers,

Ron, Ken Jr., and Chris. Thank you for ongoing love and support. Ron, I love that you’ll

drive a 1000 miles in a weekend to see your sister. My cousin Shirley, who is now

representing for my most favorite Aunt Lilly. Thank you for your prayers and check in

calls. My Aunt Phyllis, thank you for the “treats” when I was a kid.

A cadre of sister-friends who didn’t press me when I couldn’t come out and play

with the Saturday Sistas because I had homework to do. I can’t wait to get back on

schedule!

The I-Tribe. A diverse collection of compassionate, committed folks that started

this journey together.

My pals at Expedia, Ya’ll are the best! Working and traveling with you has been

the source of deep in the belly laughs with tears in the eyes. Do I really have to put

hand sanitizer in my hair to get through Immigration?

x
 My pals from Paramount, Fremont and Pepsi/TacoBell. I have learned from you,

lunched and laughed with you and hosted great parties that you’ve attended. I am

grateful for your friendships.

To the plethora of captains and flight crews on American and Alaska who did

your jobs with such excellence that I could comfortably grab some much needed zzzz’s

or work on this research.

My freshman undergraduate college professor who by his closed mind and

limited thinking inspired me to prove to him that this black girl from Shaker Heights

could and would graduate from college in 3 years, Your attempt to tell me what I

couldn't accomplish has provided a lifetime of inspiration, resolve and confidence to

chart my own path. Ha!

Last, but certainly not least, my committee, who were open minded and

embodied limitless thinking. I am deeply and sincerely grateful to Farzin Madjidi, Lani

Fraizer and Gabby Miramontes, who were fearless enough to innovate. Your

willingness to try something different to support a cadre of driven (and possibly, insane)

students has touched us all. Thank you for pressing your way, which allowed us to

press ours. The tips, tools and touchbases were deeply appreciated and immensely

valuable. Thank you seems insufficient.

And to the many of you, who are not mentioned by name, please know that it is

not a reflection on the deposits that you made. I remain grateful.

With heartfelt appreciation to all…

xi
 VITA

EDUCATION

Pepperdine University, Graduate School of Education and Psychology

Doctor of Education in Organizational Leadership (expected) 2016
Dissertation Title: Engaging Diversity: Best Practices to Create An Inclusive Work
Environment

Pepperdine University, Graziadio School of Business and Management 1994

Executive Master of Business Administration

UCLA 1983
Bachelor of Arts in Sociology

TEACHING EXPERIENCE

Pepperdine University, Graziadio School of Business and Management

Faculty Practitioner
Courses Taught: Managing Diversity in Organizations

University of Phoenix
Faculty Practitioner
Courses Taught: Human Resources

HONORS

Los Angeles Lakers & Comerica Bank, Women in Business Leadership Award 2016

Distinguished Alumni Award, Pepperdine Graziadio School of Business & Management

2012

Governor’s Award for Female Business Owners 2000

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

Chief Inclusion Officer, Vice President, Inclusion Strategies 2015-Present

EXPEDIA, INC.

Senior Vice President, People & Organization 2009-2013

PARAMOUNT PICTURES

Management Consultant 2006-2009

PREMIER MANAGEMENT ALLIANCE, LLC

xii
Vice President, Human Resources 2005-2006
FREMONT INVESTMENT & LOAN

Managing Consultant 2000-2004

HEWITT ASSOCIATES

VOLUNTEER EXPERIENCE

Pepperdine University, Graziadio School of Business & Management

Board of Visitors

Pepperdine University, Graduate School of Education & Psychology

PhD. Advisory Committee

National Black MBA Association, LA Chapter

Advisory Board

National Black MBA Association, LA Chapter

Chair, Leaders of Tomorrow

USO
Board of Directors

Goodwill of Orange County

Board of Directors

Cornelia Connelly High School

Board of Directors

xiii
 ABSTRACT

It is believed that the commitment to diversity in the workplace is rooted in the civil rights

movement. Six decades later, many companies have achieved a demographically

diverse workforce, while others have not. Some organizations assumed that diversity

would automatically result in inclusion. Seemingly, it has been more elusive to create

and sustain an inclusive workplace. Within large global organizations, the task of

creating such a workplace rests with the Chief Diversity Officer (CDO).

Inclusion, as related to engaging diverse employees in the workplace, is an

emerging concept. This study explored the perceptions and experiences of Chief

Diversity Officers in establishing and maintaining an inclusive work environment.

Specifically, this study focused on identifying the challenges they faced and determining

the strategies and measures these practitioners implemented to cultivate cultures of

inclusion. Further, given their experiences, this study sought to capture their

recommendations for others who may consider such a task. Therefore, qualitative

research methodology was aligned to the purpose of exploring the meaning assigned to

this experience to identify best practices. The qualitative approach relied upon semi-

structured interviews conducted on a one-on-one basis with the survey participants. In

using a one-on-one format, the researcher was able to glean deep understanding and

insight regarding the practices of CDOs.

The salient findings of the study indicate that there is commonality in regards to

the foundational elements of building a culture of inclusion and the challenges that the

CDOs have faced. The most noted foundational elements were building organizational

capability, blending inclusive practices throughout the talent management cycle and

xiv
branding the organization as inclusive. With regard to the challenges, most often cited

were organizational priority, executive embrace and sufficient resources. In

consideration of the existence of measures and which metrics were captured, there was

significant disparity. While there was no evidence of consistent best practice associated

with measurement, there was universal belief that the creating and sustaining inclusive

workplaces would be requisite in the future. The respondents noted that the shifting

demographics would make inclusive workplaces requisite for global businesses.

xv
 Chapter 1: The Journey to Inclusion Begins

Diversity’s emergence in the workplace was the result of legislation to render

discrimination unlawful: specifically, if that discrimination was based on gender,

ethnicity, nationality, race, or religion. Although organizations have sought to comply

with the legislation, they have struggled to achieve the benefits associated with having a

diverse workforce and creating an inclusive work environment. In an inclusive work

environment, everyone is treated with dignity and respect, the talents and skills of

dissimilar groups are valued, and productivity, creativity, and innovation improve as a

result of a workforce that is happier, more motivated, and more aware of the benefits

that inclusion can bring. Within large global organizations, the task of creating such an

environment routinely is the responsibility of the Chief Diversity Officer (CDO).

The CDO is the company’s executive-level diversity and/or inclusion strategist.

According to a 2011 survey of CDOs, the impetus to create an inclusive work

environment is predicated on various factors, ranging from enhanced business

innovation and creativity to the realities of shifting demographics (Worthington et al.,

2011). By 2042, there will be no ethnic or demographic majority; people of color will

compose almost 60% of the U.S. population. It is expected that those organizations that

leverage and empower differences by achieving full participation will experience

optimum performance to sustain their success (Kochan et al., 2003). Inclusive

organizations have employee engagement that is higher than their industry peers. High

engagement facilitates higher performance and productivity (Miller, 1998).

1
Background

The U.S. workforce has been experiencing a steady demographic transformation.

According to a Pew Research Center study (Taylor, 2014), the racial tapestry of the

U.S. has changed substantially from the 1960s to 2014 and will see another significant

shift prior to 2030. In 1960, the population of the United States was 85% White. By

2060, the population will be 43% White. William Frey (2014), expert demographer and

Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institute, asserted that the rapid growth in the “new

minorities” (p. 3) of Hispanics, Asians, and multiracial Americans, along with African

Americans and other groups, is transforming the American landscape.

American history can attest that changes in the landscape have also served as a

catalyst of broader transformations. Changes coming from the civil rights movement of

the 1960s led to the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, which made discrimination

based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin illegal. Specifically, Title VII of the

Act addressed employment discrimination. Those who opposed Title VII were

concerned that employers would be required to grant preferential treatment to racial

minorities (McCormick, 2008). Those concerns were addressed explicitly in Section 703

(j) of the Act:

Preferential treatment not to be granted on account of existing number or

percentage imbalance.

Nothing contained in this subchapter shall be interpreted to require any

employer, employment agency, labor organization, or joint labor—management

committee subject to this subchapter to grant preferential treatment to any

individual or to any group because of the race, color, religion, sex, or national

2
 origin of such individual or group on account of an imbalance which may exist

with respect to the total number or percentage of persons of any race, color,

religion, sex, or national origin employed by any employer, referred or classified

for employment by any employment agency or labor organization, admitted to

membership or classified by any labor organization, or admitted to, or employed

in, any apprenticeship or other training program, in comparison with the total

number or percentage of persons of such race, color, religion, sex, or national

origin in any community, State, section, or other area, or in the available work

force in any community, State, section, or other area. (McCormick, 2008, p. 133)

Although Title VII does not require preferential treatment of underrepresented groups,

Affirmative Action and Equal Employment Opportunity did add standards and

requirements that would compel employers to eliminate disparate treatment. The

requirement to create equity in the workplace was supported with the release of the

1987 Hudson report, which predicted increased workforce diversity. The study

commissioned by then Secretary of Labor, William Brock, sought to identify economic

and demographic trends. The study was published in a seminal book (Johnston &

Packer, 1987), Workforce 2000, which identified five key findings:

1. The population will grow slower than at any time since the 1930s.

2. The average age of the workforce will intersect with the shrinking of younger

workers entering the labor market.

3. Increased volume of women will enter the workforce.

4. The largest share of those entering the workforce for the first time will be

racial and ethnic minorities.

3
 5. Immigrants will constitute the greatest increase in the population. (p. xx)

The legislative guidelines set forth via the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission and Affirmative Action, coupled with the Workforce 2000 report, gave birth

to the concept of diversity management as a way to address demographic variety

(Subeliani & Tsogas, 2005). The need to understand heterogeneity in the workplace

was preeminent. The notion that human diversity could be addressed via a managerial

approach was established out of EEO. This new approach was necessitated by

increased workforce diversity, which was not limited to the United States; rather, global

shifts were occurring simultaneously (Frey, 2014). Many multinational organizations

were witnessing an increasingly complex blend of cultures and nationalities in their

workforces (Rosenzweig, 1998).

As a result of the shifts in the characteristics of the population, thoughtful

business leaders recognized the realities of the impending increase in diversity in the

workplace and began considering the business case for it. As Gardenswartz and Rowe

(2009) noted, “Because of vision and necessity, companies began to understand that

diversity was a business issue and managing it effectively was a strategic imperative for

growth and survival” (p. 35). In an address to the Economic Club of Detroit, John Bryan

(1998), Chairman and CEO of the Sara Lee Corporation, shared his belief that diversity

is a strategic imperative and that success in the years ahead will require an aggressive

and skillful leadership in promoting diversity. Bryan noted that, for his organization,

diversity could provide a competitive advantage founded upon the “extraordinary

demographic shifts and unstoppable shift in global competition” (p. 44). It would follow,

4
then, that those organizations that learn to embrace the changing winds of demography

effectively would gain the competitive advantage.

Statement of the Problem

From the 1960s to the present, many organizations have committed resources

and attention to increasing the diversity of the workforce. Despite making these

investments, most organizations have yet to achieve the panacea that some believed

workplace heterogeneity would provide. In fact, some organizations have incorrectly

assumed that achieving diversity would automatically facilitate and/or result in inclusion.

The result has been the incorrect perpetuation that diverse employees are fully engaged

and included. Although diversity has been achieved in many organizations, the reality of

inclusion is still elusive. Indeed, as Bargal and Mor Barak (2000) wrote:

An individual’s sense of inclusion or exclusion in the organizational system is the

result of the interplay between the individual’s personal characteristics that affect

their values and norms (the personal dimension) and the organization’s

environment in the form of policies and procedures (the organizational

dimension). The congruence, or fit, between what the individual brings to the

work environment and the organizational culture in the workplace dictates how

welcomed and valued they feel in the system. (p. 58)

Purpose of the Study

As one looks more deeply into most organizations, one finds that diversity has

become more commonplace and touted as a major initiative. However, facts reveal that

creating an inclusive work environment is falling short of desired targets (K. Thomas,

Tran, & Dawson, 2010). Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to:

5
 • Determine the strategies employed and challenges faced by CDOs in creating

an inclusive work environment for diverse employees.

• Determine what measures and recommendations CDOs would suggest to

implement an inclusive workplace.

• Determine what recommendations CDOs would provide to help others

seeking to cultivate an inclusive work environment.

Research Questions

In order to discover how to create an inclusive work environment and overcome

problems associated with the lack of workplace inclusion by diverse employees, this

study posed the following questions:

1. What strategies and practices do CDOs in global organizations employ to

promote and facilitate inclusion of diverse employees?

2. What challenges do CDOs face in implementing strategies and practices

employed to achieve inclusion of diverse employees?

3. How do CDOs measure the success of their inclusive workplace practices?

4. What recommendations would CDOs make for future implementation of

inclusive workplace practices?

Significance of the Study

Bishop Desmond Tutu (2010) once stated, “Exclusion is never the way forward

on our shared paths” (para. 8). Fittingly, the concept of inclusion is nascent in

organizational literature (Roberson, 2004). As a concept that lacks depth in its historical

context, there are many different perspectives of inclusion’s theoretical basis (Shore et

al., 2011). Workforce inclusion, the elusive panacea that organizations seek, is realized

6
when all employees feel valued, engaged, considered, and recognized. Inclusion occurs

when employees feel they have a voice in decision-making, especially in matters related

to their work and careers. Inclusion brings to bear those “organizational objectives

designed to increase the participation of all employees” (Roberson, 2004, p. 220). When

employees are invited to participate, they become more engaged. Research indicates

that a correlation exists between employee perceptions of inclusion and predictors of

commitment and performance (Downey, Van Der Werff, Thomas, & Plaut, 2015).

Organizational scholars have found that employees who provide accounts of

experiencing compassion also report having greater commitment to their organization

and relate to their coworkers and organization in positive terms (Lilius et al., 2012).

The significance of this study is that it provided insight into the benefits of

inclusion and costs of exclusion. Business, human resources, and diversity leaders

recognize the study of inclusion as important, as evidenced by the recent shift of

emphasis from diversity to inclusion. Significant research has been conducted

addressing workforce diversity, but scholars have only recently begun to focus on

inclusion (Shore et al., 2011). Therefore, this study provided a solid basis upon which

organizations can better understand the conceptual definition and framework of the best

practices associated with creating an inclusive workplace, enabling them to develop

customized solutions and programs that will align with their culture and resonate with

their diverse workforce.

Significance for business leaders. Business leaders will find benefit in an

improved understanding of the requisite elements of inclusion. Specifically, they will

have clarity regarding their role and responsibilities in fostering an inclusive work

7
environment. This study also provides guidance to help them make valuable investment

decisions as related to their human capital.

Significance for human resource leaders. Human resource departments are

charged with strategically recruiting, retaining, and rewarding employees. Their

overarching responsibility is to manage people strategically and adroitly as a business

resource. To be effective in this capacity, human resources must build capacity,

capability, and commitment. The insights gleaned from this study will inform their ability

to do so while forging collaboration among them, the business, and diversity leaders.

Human Resources leaders are also often responsible for the diversity in their

workplaces (Kreitz, 2008).

Significance for diversity leaders. Diversity leaders, unlike other functional

leaders, address diversity and inclusion as a first priority. Since they have the primary

responsibility for leading efforts to assess, define, nurture, and cultivate the

organization’s diversity, their focus is myopic regarding the deployment of initiatives to

foster inclusion. This study will augment their ability to do so effectively.

Exclusion threatens certain fundamental human needs, such as belonging and

self-esteem (K. Williams & Nida, 2011). Exclusionary behaviors in the workplace take

on many forms, such as inequity of access to opportunities and outright rejection. The

psychological impact of perceived exclusion includes a host of ills, including increased

social anxiety, depression, loneliness, and hurt feelings. Research indicates that the

perception of exclusion predicts job satisfaction and psychological well being (Hitlan,

Clifton, & DeSoto, 2006).

8
 The emergence of inclusion may portend the lack of success that many

companies have achieved with their workplace diversity initiatives. According to

Bourke, Smith, Stockton, and Wakefield (2014), one factor to which this failure is

attributed may be the company’s treatment of diversity as a matter of compliance versus

transforming the workplace to create an inclusive environment. The focus on

compliance can be best understood from the historical vantage point of the evolution of

diversity. In a presentation on inclusion in the workforce, Deputy Assistant Secretary for

Diversity and Inclusion of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Georgia Coffey

(2013) depicted the evolution as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Evolution of diversity to inclusion. Reprinted from The Inclusion Paradigm: The
Key to Organizational Performance [PowerPoint presentation], by G. Coffey, 2013, slide
5, retrieved from http://www.diversity.va.gov/training/files/the-inclusion-paradigm-
short.ppt. Reprinted with permission.

The African American Civil Rights Movement. Overturning the veto of

President Andrew Johnson, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 marked the beginning of the

African American Civil Rights Movement, declaring that all persons born in the United

States were citizens. On May 17, 1954, the movement was re-energized with the

Supreme Court ruling in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas and in Bolling

9
v. Sharpe. These rulings effectively overturned Plessy v. Ferguson (Janda, Berry, &

Goldman, 1992).

Affirmative Action: March 6, 1961: Executive Order 10925 makes the first

reference to “affirmative action.” This Executive Order, issued by President John F.

Kennedy created the Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity. The Executive

Order mandated that federally funded projects adopt affirmative action to ensure that

hiring and employment practices are free of racial bias (Ferdinand, 2014).

June 4, 1965: Speech defining concept of affirmative action. In a

commencement speech at Howard University, President Johnson spoke of social

injustice and economic inequalities between Blacks and Whites. Johnson’s speech

framed the concept underlying affirmative action, asserting that civil rights laws alone

are not enough to remedy discrimination. Many felt that this was the first time the

President acknowledged the discriminations that Blacks had experienced (MacLean,

2006).

September 24, 1965: Executive Order 11246 enforces affirmative action for

the first time. As a result of an executive order signed by President Johnson,

government contractors, were also required to “take affirmative action” (Leon-Guerrero,

2010, p. 90) toward minority employees. The order was amended 2 years later to

include gender-based discrimination. The Office of Federal Contract Compliance

Programs is responsible for administering this order.

August 8, 1969: Executive Order 11478. Prohibiting discrimination on certain

grounds in the competitive service of the federal civilian workforce, this order was

signed by President Richard M. Nixon. This affected civilian employees of the U.S.

10
Armed Forces as well as the U.S. Postal Service. In subsequent years, the order was

enhanced to offer protection to broader groups and statuses (Rosen, n.d.).

Equal Employment Opportunity: July 2, 1964. The Civil Rights Act of 1964

was a landmark piece of legislation that outlawed unequal application of voter

registration requirements and racial segregation. Other laws enforced by the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission include Equal Pay Act of 1963, Age

Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,

the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, and the Genetic Information

Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (Haberfeld et al., 2005).

Diversity. The term diversity was coined in 1977 to refer to the changing

demographics of the workforce. The term is credited to Merlin G. Pope Jr. (Hughes,

2014). Pope is recognized as a pioneer in the diversity arena.

Managing diversity. The first use of the phrase managing diversity is often

attributed to former Harvard Business School Professor R. Roosevelt Thomas. His 1990

article in the Harvard Business Review began with the prediction: “Sooner or later,

affirmative action will die a natural death. Its achievements have been stupendous, but if

we look at the premises that underlie it, we find assumptions and priorities that look

increasingly shopworn” (p. 107). Instead, Thomas contended, “The goal is to manage

diversity in such a way as to get from a diverse workforce the same productivity we

once got from a homogenous workforce, and do it without artificial programs,

standards—or barriers” (p. 112). Additionally, Thomas asserted that diversity is not

limited to a handful of social characteristics. Rather, it includes other ways in which

11
people differ from one another, including age, background, education, work role, and

personality.

Inclusive workplace. Mor Barak (2000a) used the term for the first time in the

early 2000s. It essentially describes a workplace that invites and appreciates diversity.

This workplace is considered to a model environment.

Key Definitions

The following key terms are used in this study:

Best practices: “Practices, which are most appropriate under the circumstances,

esp. as considered acceptable or regulated in business; techniques or methodologies

that, through experience and research, have reliably led to desired or optimum results”

(“Best Practices,” n.d., para. 1).

Chief Diversity Officer (CDO): An organization’s executive-level role serving as

the diversity and inclusion strategist (D. Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013).

Diversity: The presence of demographic differences, including those that are

visible and those that are not visible (Nishii, 2013).

Exclusion: Employees’ perceptions that they are not valued or respected and

have been barred from participation (Miller & Katz, 2002).

Inclusion: Employees’ perceptions that their unique contribution to the

organization is appreciated and they have full organizational membership (Miller & Katz,

2002).

Insight: An intuitive understanding of relationships that sheds light on or helps to

solve a problem (Robinson-Riegler, 2004).

12
 Perceive: “To be aware of, to recognize, discern, or understand” (“Perceive,” n.d.,

para. 1).

Practices: “The repeated systematic performance or customary way of doing

something” (“Practice,” n.d., para. 1).

Strategies: “Plans or methods to obtain a specific goal or result” (“Strategy,” n.d.,

para. 1).

Work environment: The aggregate of artifacts, conditions, surroundings, and

influences in the workplace (K. Thomas et al., 2010).

Workplace: “A place of employment” (“Workplace,” n.d., para. 1).

Key Assumptions

There are several primary assumptions inherent in this study. First, it was

assumed that the participants, as experienced professionals, would trust the interviewer

and the confidential nature of the research, and would be transparent and fully willing to

provide their insights. Second, the format of the interviews allowed the participants to

share information broader than the scope of the inquiry. Third, despite professional

experience in this area, the researcher strove to maintain objectivity throughout the

research. Finally, it was assumed that the interviews would be scheduled and

completed within the prescribed period.

Limitations of the Study

The limitations of a study are those characteristics of design that influence the

results’ interpretation. Limitations usually derive from the framework and design. All

research has limitations, as none is designed perfectly (Marshall & Rossman, 1989).

13
This researcher understood this reality and acknowledged the following limitations of the

current study.

• Extant literature suggests limited availability of scholarly work and empirical

research related to inclusive work environments.

• The methodology itself relied on the assumption that interviewee memories

are accurate (Creswell, 2010).

• The semi-structured interview format had the potential to yield bias.

• Personal experiences, biases, and characteristics had the potential to

influence the results.

• The principal investigator solely conducted the data collection.

Summary

Diversity management was borne out of a changing demographic landscape and

against a legislative backdrop. With the emergence of workplace diversity, organizations

were focused on diversity for the sake of compliance. Organizational thinking has since

evolved to realize that diversity can provide a competitive advantage. Therefore,

creating an inclusive work environment is a strategic imperative, yet a specific strategy

for doing so has been elusive. CDOs are primarily responsible for creating an inclusive

environment. This study explores the best practices CDOs employ to nurture inclusion

as well as the challenges they face in doing so. The following chapter includes a

comprehensive review of literature regarding inclusive workplaces and related topics.

14
 Chapter 2: Literature Review

To consider and establish best practices for the effective engagement and

management of diverse employees in corporate settings, multiple fields of study may

provide valuable context. In the sections to follow, diversity and inclusion were

considered from various perspectives. In addition, ranges of social and corporate

contexts are also examined. Based on the literature and research reviewed, a set of

best practices were put forth.

Definition of Diversity

It is essential to establish a clear conceptual basis for strategies and approaches

regarding corporate diversity management. Therefore, this initial section focuses on a

comprehensive consideration of approaches and definitions of diversity. In quality- or

characteristic-based definitions, diversity refers to “differences between individuals on

any attributes that may lead to the perception that another person is different from self”

(van Knippenberg, De Dreu, & Homan, 2004, p. 1,008). In most cases, definitions of

diversity focus on visible or easily discernible attributes, or characteristics including

ethnicity, gender, age, etc. Some have advocated for an expansion of visible attributes,

suggesting that elements beyond physical characteristics be considered, including but

not limited to: leadership style, personal and corporate background, education, sexual

preference, geographic origin, and tenure with the organization (R. Thomas, 1991,

1996). However, although these more inclusive definitions do represent a broader

approach to diversity, many still are critical of the attempt to equalize the differences.

Others have criticized the minimization of those elements of diversity that likely have

resulted in greater detriment in the organization (Prasad, 2005).

15
 Another approach to defining diversity highlights various social and interactional

factors. Mor Barak, Cherin, and Berkman (1998) contended that “workforce diversity is

not about anthropological differences among individuals that make them special or

unique; diversity is about belonging to groups that are different than whatever is

considered mainstream in society” (p. 84). As a result of affinity with certain groups, this

definition established diversity on the basis of susceptibility to discrimination and

negative employment (Mor Barak et al., 1998). To that end, Mor Barak (2014) asserted

that in the absence of a universal definition of diversity, one consideration could be to

use a process-based approach. A process-based approach provides a definition of

diversity constructed around:

The division of the workforce into distinct categories that (a) have a perceived

commonality within a given cultural or national context and that (b) impact

potentially harmful or beneficial employment outcomes such as job opportunities,

treatment in the workplace, and promotion prospects—irrespective of job-related

skills and qualifications. (p. 136)

Like Mor Barak, others have similarly proposed definitions based on social groupings,

particularly those who have faced systemic discrimination in the workplace (Hays-

Thomas, 2004; Linnehan & Konrad, 1999). Still other approaches in this category have

defined diversity in terms of intergroup interaction, paying particular attention to

differences in power versus focusing on individual differences and historical

discrimination and marginalization (Konrad, 2003; Konrad, Prasad, & Pringle, 2005).

One final approach to conceptualizing diversity is based in social

constructionism, which defines diversity as “socially (re) produced in on-going, context-

16
specific processes” (Zanoni, Janssens, Benschop, & Nkomo, 2010, p. 10). From

Lumby’s (2009) perspective, diversity is “the collective noun signifying the historically,

socially and politically constructed inequality evident in most, arguably all, human

groups” (p. 347). DiTomaso and Hooijberg (1996) offered a nearly identical definition,

which suggested that:

People act through social, political, and economic institutions that create, embed,

and reproduce the inequality among people, which we then call diversity.

Diversity is then acted out in the practices of everyday life and interpreted

through lenses of moral and ethical reasoning that, when unexamined, legitimate

both unearned privilege and unearned disadvantage. (pp. 164-165)

Dimensions of diversity. The aforementioned definitions underscore a number

of dimensions underlying diversity. The most common of these dimensions are

demographic characteristics (gender, race, age, etc.), which some describe in terms of

visible and invisible traits (Jayne & Dipboye, 2004; Milliken & Martins, 1996; Phillips,

Northcraft, & Neale, 2006). Others instead use surface- and deep-(or underlying) level

categorizations (Harrison, Price, Gavin, & Florey, 2002; McMahon, 2011; Mohammed &

Angell, 2004). Prior research has also divided diversity into primary and secondary

dimensions (Jayne & Dipboye, 2004). The former categories (visible/surface/primary)

generally include traits such as gender, race, age, and sexual orientation, whereas the

latter (invisible/deep/secondary) refer to such factors as education, marital status,

income, work experience, religious beliefs, and functional background (Kirton & Greene,

2005; Mok, 2002; Point & Singh, 2003; Rijamampianina & Carmichael, 2005; Van

Knippenberg & Dijksterhuis, 2000), which may or may not be readily apparent. Hence,

17
these categories may be difficult to measure (McMahon, 2011). Characteristics in these

alternative categories affect personal identity as well as enrich the primary factors

(Jayne & Dipboye, 2004).

Further research supports the consideration of other dimensions of diversity.

Perceived versus objective diversity represents one such dimension (Hobman, Bordia,

& Gallois, 2004). In this case, researchers have postulated that there is a distinct and

measureable difference between diversity as subjectively experienced and diversity as

objectively observable. Evidence suggests that the effects of personal perception are

strong (Hobman et al., 2004; Riordan & Wayne, 2008). Hubbard (2004a) identified four

independent, though sometimes overlapping, aspects of diversity, which represent

another dimensional approach. Hubbard’s factors include: workforce diversity

(composition of organization’s employees), behavioral diversity (work, thinking, or

learning styles), structural diversity (interactions across an organization’s hierarchy),

and business and global diversity (segmentation of customer markets). Finally, Jehn,

Northcraft, and Neale (1999) identified social category diversity and informational and

value diversity, suggesting that the majority of research on the topic fails to differentiate

between these various forms or dimensions. Their perspective largely explains the

resulting conceptual confusion regarding diversity.

Global differences. Notwithstanding definitional or conceptual distinctions,

diversity research is also characterized by context variation. Context variation

addresses the ways in which diversity is defined, operationalized, and even researched,

varying greatly depending on context. Although significant research, theorizing, and

applications of diversity have taken place in North America and Britain, the

18
particularities of these contexts mean that they are underlain by assumptions and

findings that do not necessarily translate or apply to other contexts, such as different

geographic regions. In the Czech Republic, for example, there is emerging awareness

about the terms diversity management and inclusion, and, therefore, research and

related theoretical developments are also emerging (Jiřincová, 2013). Studies

conducted in Denmark (Risberg & Søderberg, 2008) and New Zealand (D. Jones,

Pringle, & Shepherd, 2000) found that U.S. models of difference and diversity

management did not apply in these contexts. Research from Zimbabwe has shown that

diversity is tolerated, rather than valued, in corporate settings (Mkono, 2010). Thus,

whereas diversity is considered by some to represent a universal concept and diversity

management principles to be widely applicable, research from non-American and British

contexts is proving this assumption to be ill founded.

Lack of globally accepted definition. Given the relative import of context

variations, it is clear that consensus has not been reached in regard to the

conceptualization of diversity. Further, no globally accepted definition has been

established (Qin, Muenjohn, & Chhetri, 2013). Likewise, diversity management may

have any number of definitions, interpretations, applications, and implications (Visagie,

Linde, & Havenga, 2011). Konrad et al. (2005) suggested that diversity’s tie to domestic

legal practices, civil rights, and public policy initiatives may explain the term’s lack of

definitional consensus and global applicability. To exacerbate the lack of global

consensus regarding definitions of diversity, the issue is additionally complicated by the

fact that diversity is often used interchangeably with the related concept of inclusion.

19
Definition of Inclusion

Diversity and inclusion are two related concepts that are often used

interchangeably in the literature. Researchers have made efforts to distinguish the two

concepts and study the effects and implications of each one independently (Mor Barak,

2015; Q. Roberson, 2006; Pelled, Ledford, & Mohrman, 1999). For example, Q.

Roberson (2006) suggested that “diversity and inclusion characterize different yet

related approaches to the management of diversity” (p. 217), in that diversity focuses on

demographic elements and inclusion focuses creating a model workplace that is free of

barriers. Mor Barak (2015) distinguished the two by describing diversity as the

demographic differences (including both observable [e.g., gender, race, age] and non-

observable [e.g., culture, cognition, education] attributes) that characterize a group or

organization, and inclusion as employees’ perceptions that their unique contributions to

the organization are appreciated and their full participation is encouraged. Pelled et al.

(1999) defined inclusion as “the degree to which an employee is accepted and treated

as an insider by others in a work system” (p. 1,014). Inclusive organizations are

characterized by cultures and structures that are based on a pluralistic value frame

(Cox, 2001); they constantly strive to modify their values and norms to accommodate

employees (Findler, Wind, & Mor Barak, 2007) and support a sense of empowerment

among their diverse work staff (Petter, Byrnes, Choi, Fegan, & Miller, 2002). By

involving all employees fully and respectfully, regardless of diverse traits (Miller & Katz,

2002), inclusive organizations foster a sense of unity and belonging that satisfies the

two basic needs of membership and uniqueness (Shore et al., 2011). Inclusion, unlike

20
diversity, is predicated on the perceived access, membership, and degree of influence

that employees experience in the workplace (Mor Barak & Cherin, 1998).

Elements of the definition. For the most part, inclusion is based on valuation

and respect. The existing literature identifies several indicators of inclusive

environments. Overall, inclusion is predicated on culture, systems, and social

relationships that fully leverage a workforce that is valued, respected, and supported for

its diversity (Giovannini, 2004; Shore et al., 2011). Mor Barak (2014) suggested that in

the workplace, inclusion refers to a person’s “sense of being part of the organizational

system” (p. 155), and this sense of belonging is indicated both formally (in terms of

access to official information and paths to decision-making) and informally (water cooler

or lunch meetings were informal information exchange occurs). According to Pelled et

al. (1999), inclusion requires three fundamental elements: the degree to which

employees are empowered to make decisions, how knowledgeable they are about

overall strategic objectives, and the viability of their long-term service.

Relationship to engagement. Employee engagement can be defined as a

sustained perception of “a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is

characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (Schaufeli et al., 2002, p. 74).

Research has shown that a company’s practices regarding diversity have a direct

relationship with employee engagement. Downey et al. (2015) found that employment

engagement and a trusting culture in the workplace are linked to diversity practices.

Furthermore, contrary to prior findings, their research has demonstrated that this

relationship exists across all employees, not just diverse employees (Cocchiara,

Connerley, & Bell, 2010; Downey et al., 2015; Findler et al., 2007). McKay et al. (2007)

21
reported similar findings, demonstrating that contentment with the perception of a

diverse environment (James, James, & Ashe, 1990), with significant negative

associations exist between diversity climate and turnover intentions. Seemingly,

developing a common group identity has also been shown to positively affect

engagement in terms of satisfaction with and commitment to one’s organization

(Brewer, von Hippel, & Gooden, 1999) or member institution (Dovidio, Gaertner,

Niemann, & Snider, 2001).

Anthropological Perspectives

Given the theoretical insights rooted in the study of anthropology, the field may

provide a significant contribution to workplace diversity management, highlighting that

culture is acquired and transmitted, cultures are varied, and may change with

intercultural relationships (Hamada, 1999; Jordan, 2009). This notion is evidenced by

the surge in anthropological consultancy firms working in corporate contexts since the

1990s, applying traditional anthropological theories and methods to yield a better

understanding and improvement of the “webs of interwoven and hierarchical culture

groups” that make up an organization (Jordan, 2009, p. 6). Specifically, diversity

management remains a particular area that anthropologists are addressing, working

with organizations to change their organizational cultures to “make better use of the

talents and contributions of each employee” (Kogod, 2009, p. 27). Moreover, bringing

anthropological perspectives to bear on issues of workplace diversity encourages the

consideration of wider contextual factors: governance trends, fair-trade dynamics,

international relations, etc. (Welker, Partridge, & Hardin, 2011).

22
 Evolution of categorization. Human beings naturally categorize others into an

in-group (a we) and an out-group (a they) and consequently favor ingroup members

with regard to evaluations, acknowledgements, material resources, assisting, and social

support (Dovidio, Kawakami, & Beach, 2001). Identifying and categorizing people into

groups is a universal evolutionary facet of human perception necessary for efficient

social functioning (MacDonald, 2001). The ability to sort people, spontaneously and

with minimum effort or awareness, into a small number of meaningful categories is thus

an essential survival skill (Brewer, 1988). Social categorization is a result of conscious

and unconscious attractions and prejudices. The cooperative actions facilitated by in-

group identification have both short- and long-term benefits, based mostly on the fact

that ingroup members reciprocate such actions (Dovidio et al., 2001). The implications

of social identification theories are considered further in the review of the sociological

literature, but the following section outlines how such theories act as a framework for

understanding organizations.

Diversity as a framework for understanding a community/organization.

According to social science literature, organizational culture represents a prime

framework for understanding corporate communities and organizations. Given the

varied and unique nature of these cultures, diversity itself has emerged as the basis for

such frameworks (Findler et al., 2007; Jiřincová, 2013; R. Thomas, 1992; Triandis,

1995). Cox (1994) argued that demographic trends toward diversification, the

incorporation of cross-functional work teams, global marketing, and multinational

business operations validate the relevance and utility of diversity as a framework for

understanding organizations and corporate culture. His Interactional Model of Cultural

23
Diversity provides a singular but important example of the ways in which diversity has

become a foundational theoretical concept in the field. Overall, the work of Cox and

others (Clayton, 2010; Jiřincová, 2013) reinforces the strong relationship between

diversity and organizational culture. Additionally, Findler et al. (2007) provided another

example of the centrality of diversity in theoretical frameworks. These researchers used

diversity attributes to assess both the treatment and perceptions of employees

(regarding inclusion, fairness, social support), thereby further connecting these to

employee stress, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction.

Approach to understanding workplace cultures. In the context of workplace

diversity, anthropological approaches provide meaningful methodologies of assessing

(through ethnographic observation, interviews, etc.), analyzing, and interpreting the

social dynamics of a corporate setting so that diversity may be managed strategically.

Therefore, applying anthropological constructs involves the application of

anthropological facts, viewpoints, theories, and means to identify, assess, and solve

problems (van Willigen, 2002). Consequently, gaining a comprehensive understanding

of the social dynamics defining a particular organization or work group allows inclusion-

based interventions to be applied in order to maximize the benefits latent within diverse

workforces.

Jordan (1995) has suggested that anthropological approaches to work settings

effectively equate an organization to a culture and attend to three levels of structure and

process: the individual, the group, and the organization. The level that addresses the

individual focuses on individual behavior, including motivation. The level that addresses

the group focuses on managing relationships among individuals, with special attention

24
paid to how groups form, their norms, and how they navigate conflict. At the

organizational level, interest shifts to the purpose, structure, technology, and material

environment that yield efficient functioning. Culture can be formed as a result of what it

is or what it has (Smirich, 1983). The first approach is a functionalist one, seeing

culture as something variable to be studied at the organizational level (Schultz & Hatch,

1992), whereas the second approach is symbolic, considering culture as a root

metaphor for conceptualizing organizations (Kunda, 1992).

Social Perspectives

Interdisciplinary. In continuing the interdisciplinary exploration of diversity, the

fields of sociology and social psychology offer numerous theories supported by

empirical research on a range of topics and processes relevant to workplace diversity

management. The two primary viewpoints used to explain the effects of diversity at

group levels are the social categorization perspective (used to explain negative effects

of diversity) and the information-processing perspective (a basis for the positive effects

of diversity; De Dreu & West, 2001). The social categorization standpoint contends that

people perceive similarities with others as indicating in-group status, and perceive

differences as indicative of out-group status. This perceptual process means that actual

differences between members of the same category are minimized and even ignored

(Tajfel, 1969), whereas between-group differences tend to become exaggerated (J.

Turner, 1985). As a consequence, people are less trusting of and cohesive with out-

group members, which means that diversity can result in greater relational conflicts and

more negative effects (Jehn et al., 1999). To provide further evidence of the relational

impact of perceived group membership, it has also been shown that people retain in rich

25
detail information about ingroup versus out-group members (Park & Rothbart, 1982).

In-group members are reported to have an easier time remembering data about those

that are similar to them versus those who are out-group and different (Wilder, 1981). A

second perspective is the information-processing perspective. This point of view

connotes that diverse employees have access to a broad range of knowledge, skills,

and abilities, along with different opinions, leading to enriched innovation and creativity

leading to performance that exceeds the less diverse and more similar groups (De Dreu

& West, 2001).

Acceptance, belonging, and inclusion (membership). Building upon the

theories presented previously, membership and belonging (both actual and perceived)

represent critical elements related to performance outcomes and effectiveness of

groups. Begen and Turner-Cobb (2015) concluded that seeking to increase belonging

via inclusion produces adaptive physiological and psychological outcomes, finding that

experiences of inclusion decrease heart rate and negative mood while increasing social

self-esteem. Social self-esteem and connections within organizations are important

determinants of workplace mobility (Podolny & Baron, 1997), particularly those

cultivated through mentorship (Colley, 2003).

Psychological Impacts

Having established inclusion as a primary factor in organizational culture and

corporate social dynamics, insights gleaned from theories and studies in psychology

may be used to further explore the implications of exclusionary practices and

experiences. The literature identifies that a relationship exists among visible diversity

26
elements, sense of inclusion, equity, and well being (Mor Barak & Levin, 2002).

Workplace interactions may be a significant factor in diverse employees’ well being.

Social. The literature relative to social inclusion and exclusion has generally

concluded that being a member of a minority group has material impact on affective

experiences in diverse organizational environments, often leading to feelings of isolation

(Chrobot-Mason, 2004; Vallas, 2003). Indeed, whereas inclusion and the sense of

belonging that it generates have been shown to increase social self-esteem, decrease

negative mood (Begen & Turner-Cobb, 2015), and increase trust (Hillebrant, Sebastian

& Blakemore, 2011), exclusion can lead to a host of negative social outcomes. When

an employee experiences workplace exclusion, it is noted that his/her engagement,

well-being, and commitment to serve the organization is negatively impacted (Foley,

Hang-Yue, & Wong, 2005; Friedman & Holtom, 2002; Mor Barak et al., 2003).

Physical. Similar to findings on the social consequences of inclusion and

exclusion, inclusion also results in adaptive physiological and psychological outcomes,

whereas exclusion is linked to several negative effects. Exclusion not only is a factor in

social dynamics, but also has profound physiological implications that further impact

interactions in a workplace. Scientific research has shown that those who have

experienced exclusion have a greater propensity to exhibit aggressive behavior

(Buckley, Winkel, & Leary, 2004) and are less likely to act in prosocial (cooperative,

helpful) ways (Baumeister, Twenge, & Nuss, 2005). Heart rates have been shown to

increase in response to exclusion (Sommer, Kirkland, Newman, Estrella, & Andreassi,

2009), as have decreases in the ability to apply logic and reason (Baumeister et al.,

2005).

27
 Psychological. The literature provides conclusive evidence of the relationship

between exclusion and psychological well being (Greenhaus, Parasuraman, &

Wormley, 1990; Mor Barak et al., 1998). People who have been ostracized and/or

excluded display a broad range of distress and pathology (K. Williams, 2007), and

exclusion has been experimentally linked to lower self-esteem (Gerber & Wheeler,

2009; Leary, 2007).

Unconscious bias. Unconscious bias is thought to be a systemic way of

excluding diversity (Dass & Partner, 1999). Experimental psychology has demonstrated

that unconscious bias is pervasive and is a factor of workplace inequality (Kalev, Dobbin

& Kelly, 2006). The social identity theory described previously highlights some of the

primary unconscious biases affecting human behavior and perception in contexts of

diversity (Tajfel & Turner, 1986; J. Turner, 1987). Implicit attitudes are defined as

subconscious beliefs that are automatically activated by the presence of an attitude

object (i.e., others; Dovidio et al., 2001; Killen, McGlothlin, & Henning, 2008). Prejudice

and bias are often tied to these implicit, unconscious attitudes. To that end, one

elevates the perceived value of one’s own group over other groups (Operario & Fiske,

1998). Therefore, it is not surprising that substantial social psychological research

demonstrates that groups (particularly racial or ethnic groups) often have negative

unconscious biases about individuals from groups different than their own (Greenwald

et al., 2002).

Efficacy. Corporate diversity management systems often involve various

elements, including documented statements regarding diversity, sensitivity and diversity

training, and monitoring talent acquisition, career trajectories, and compensation

28
stratifications by demographic elements (Armstrong et al., 2010). When the efficacy of

these systems is evaluated, it appears that organizations lacking comparable systems

experience disproportionate attrition and increased replacement costs, lower return on

their training investments, poor brand and employer image, and increased litigation

(Hubbard, 2004b). Additionally, many have found that organizations employing diversity

and equality management systems (DEMS) have higher levels of employee output,

increased workforce innovation, and decreased voluntary turnover (Armstrong et al.,

2010; Jackson, Joshi, & Erhardt, 2003; Kochan et al., 2003). Diversity training has also

been shown to facilitate a decrease in behaviors in which differences are avoided

(Armour, Bain, & Rubio, 2004) and an increase in diversity-related knowledge (relating

to issues such as stereotypes, discrimination, etc. (Holladay, 2004; L. Roberson, Kulik,

& Pepper, 2001). In summary, workforce diversity may energize individual

performance, increase identification and commitment to an organization, increase

employee output and engagement, and reduce voluntary transitions (McKay, Avery, &

Morris, 2009).

It may also be useful to consider the reasons for failed or ineffective diversity

training or management initiatives. One of the central reasons cited for failure relates to

motivation. For example, if companies opt to offer diversity training or programming as a

result of external influence or the perfunctory adoption as a perceived human resources

trend or fad, the effect may be marginal (Allen & Montgomery, 2001). Another reason

for ineffective results is that organizations fail to implement a cohesive, comprehensive,

and customized diversity training or management program. For positive effects to be

achieved, inclusion interventions must consider the organization’s unique culture,

29
strengths, weaknesses, and needs. A third cited reason why diversity and inclusion

initiatives are not successful is that they focus solely and myopically on awareness

training without providing employees with the requisite tools to apply the learnings.

Organizational Considerations

The literature reviewed thus far clearly indicates the potential impact of diversity

and inclusion in the workplace and has explored the current and developing focus on

these themes in corporate contexts. The intentional and focused management of

diversity started in the United States and Canada (Agocs & Burr, 1996; Foldy, 2002).

Diversity management is essentially a committed and systematic effort to acquire,

retain, and engage employees from broad backgrounds (R. Thomas, 1992). Although

approaches to diversity management differ among organizations and sectors, one

common strategy that has often been deployed is the establishment of a position

(commonly referred to as the CDO) dedicated to tasks associated specifically with

diversity.

Chief Diversity Officer (CDO). The CDO role is an executive level position

primarily responsible for the strategic guidance and oversight of the planning and

leveraging of organizational diversity against the backdrop of an inclusive workplace

(Leon, 2014). CDOs are “instruments of change” (Wilson, 2013, p. 435) charged with

steering an organization towards sustained diversity and inclusion. Given the breadth of

tasks and responsibilities associated with this charge, it is not surprising that this

position is multifaceted. CDOs bear a tremendous responsibility to educate the

organization on matters related to diversity and navigate through unpredictable

channels in order to enact change (Wilson, 2013).

30
 A number of factors have been identified as the driving forces behind the

development of CDO positions. In higher education contexts, these include shifting

demographics, the evolution of a knowledge-based economy, systemic social injustice,

and graduates having to be prepared to lead in a global economy (D. Williams & Wade-

Golden, 2007a). Essentially, a CDO is “a senior administrator who guides, coordinates,

leads, enhances, and at times supervises the formal diversity capabilities of the

institution in an effort to build sustainable capacity to achieve an environment that is

inclusive and excellent for all” (D. Williams & Wade-Golden, 2007b, p. 8). D. Williams

and Wade-Golden (2007b) have identified three basic archetypes of CDO structures:

the Collaborative Officer Model, the Unit-Based Model, and the Portfolio Divisional

Model. Regardless of which model an organization adopts, the CDO plays an essential

role in diversity planning and implementation, acting as the chief point person for

diversity issues and fulfilling the role of a relational leader, coordinating initiatives and

networks that include the entire organization structure (D. Williams & Wade-Golden,

2007a). Many factors affect the roles played by a CDO, such as his/her individual

qualifications and leadership competencies, organizational culture, scope of authority,

type of institution, institutional commitment to diversity, and availability of resources

(Stanley, 2014).

Responsibilities. The core responsibility of a CDO is to mobilize the

organization to derive the benefits gained from a diverse workforce. Betters-Reed and

Moore (1992) suggested that this process involves cultivating communal respect,

collaborative work styles, and employee enablement with an organization. The CDO’s

ability to fulfill these responsibilities is aligned with a number of organizational factors,

31
including organizational rank, access to resources and support staff, and reporting

structures (Stanley, 2014). Organizational rank and the scope of positional authority are

imperative in determining the CDO’s ability to build partnerships and direct the work of

others (Leon, 2014). CDOs must forge and maintain productive partnerships with

employees at all levels of the organization, as well as with external partners and

potential organization members. In many cases, where these partnerships are formed,

the employees serve as ambassadors for diversity within their organizations.

Resources. The existence and allocation of resources are undoubtedly

significant determinants of the CDO’s capacity to effect change. In academic contexts,

it has been found that CDOs often lack the support staff necessary to effectively

perform their jobs (D. Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013). The unique attributes of each

institution and organization underscore the fact that the resources required and

available are understandably not uniform for all CDO positions (Stanley, 2014).

Minimally, the allocated resources must ensure that the CDO has the means for

assessing the institution’s subtleties and requirements for diversity (Wilson, 2013).

Workplace systems and structures. The emergence of positions such as

CDOs belies the focused need to embed diversity-related initiatives across a range of

organizational contexts. Diversity management constructs exist in private and public

corporate sectors, ranging from universities and hospitals to Fortune 500 companies

and nonprofit organizations. In the sections to follow, practices that both enhance and

obstruct inclusion are examined, followed by a discussion of best practices related to

inclusive workplace structures.

32
 Practices to create alignment with inclusion. Corporations voluntarily initiated

the concept of organizational inclusion to attract and retain talent from historically

underrepresented groups (Konrad et al., 2005). Over time, diversity has come to be

considered a strategic asset that, if managed effectively, may provide competitive

advantage and other beneficial outcomes (Boxenbaum, 2006; Cox & Blake, 1991; Kelly

& Dobbin, 1998; Zanoni et al., 2010). Inclusion has emerged as an increasingly

essential aspect of organizational culture that leverages diversity. A Harvard Business

Review study of Fortune 500 CEOs found that CEOs “resoundingly agreed” (Groysberg

& Connolly, 2013, p. 73) on the elements of defining inclusive culture. These executives

defined an inclusive culture as one in which employees displaying their authentic selves

can participate freely in the company’s success. Additionally, the company

demonstrates respect for their employee’s unique qualities and uses their talents as an

advantage (Groysberg & Connolly, 2013). These characteristics are achieved through

various practices beginning with the countering of unconscious bias.

Social identity theories highlight that it is human nature to prefer one’s own group

(Brewer & Brown, 1998). It has been suggested that the preference of one’s own group

versus other groups is a common social dynamic. Therefore, organizations should not

only be aware of such dynamics but also work toward mitigating their effects (Konrad et

al., 2005). One suggested method for countering in-group bias is to cultivate shared

goals at the organizational level. This strategy creates focused attention on the

collective with the intent of establishing a common or shared identity. Additionally,

nurturing a single group focus has been shown to reduce negative intergroup affective

reaction and bias and support positive behavioral orientations, such as institutional

33
commitment (Dovidio et al., 2001). Admittedly, emphasizing shared goals may not be

sufficient to counter all of the challenges facing diverse teams; however, as Konrad et

al. (2005) have argued, it is a practice that lays a strong foundation for additional

inclusion efforts.

Additional practices relate to the core inclusionary principle of valuing difference.

Mor Barak (2000a) contended that “valuing diversity goes beyond the golden rule of

treating others as you wish to be treated yourself, because it involves a higher behavior,

one that is receiver-centered rather than self-centered” (p. 344). Thus, practices

supporting inclusion will provide employees with collaborative opportunities that allow

them to both give and receive, share their personal perspectives, contribute actively to

team processes, and be of service to co-workers, one the one hand, and defer to others

and rely on the cooperation and support of others within the workplace, on the other.

Practices that create misalignment with inclusion. Although the

aforementioned practices strive to create alignment with inclusion, other practices may

serve as obstacles to establishing an inclusive organizational culture. Building on the

distinctions between diversity and inclusion established at the start of this review,

Marina (2005) noted that simply hiring a diverse workforce will not create an inclusive

organizational culture. Diversity on its own can actually create conflict, particularly in the

areas of communication and turnover rates (O’Reilly, Caldwell, & Barnett, 1989). Thus,

in order for organizations to “capitalize on the benefits of a diverse workforce, those

conflicts must be actively managed in a culturally sensitive manner” (Marina, 2005,

p.46). Therefore, an important practice that supports inclusion is to have a

comprehensive diversity management plan in place that factors in all levels of the

34
organization and assures that diversity goals are known, shared, and in line with wider

organization goals.

Identification of best practices. With consideration of the interdisciplinary

approaches explored heretofore, best practices may be identified with key touch points

of the talent management lifecycle. Those addressed subsequently include recruitment,

branding, learning and development, health and welfare, performance, and succession

planning.

Talent acquisition/recruitment. The purpose of recruiting diverse talent is to

embed a diverse set of perspectives within the organization in an effort to enhance

organizational performance both internally (decision making) and externally (customer

outreach; Kulik & Roberson, 2008). As Gilrane, McCausland, King, and Jones (2013)

suggested, the primary goals of diversity recruitment strategies are to increase the

diversity within the talent pipeline of potential applicants (Rynes & Barber, 1990) and to

create positive impressions of the organization among potential applicants (Ehrhart &

Ziegert, 2005). Achieving these goals and successfully managing to recruit diverse

applicants benefits organizations by providing them access to larger pools of potential

employees (Niederle, Segal, & Vesterlund, 2013). One recruitment strategy that is often

effective is to rely on internal networks to harness an external network of appropriate

candidates (Shaheen, 2010). Shaheen (2010) additionally noted that these goals

cannot be deployed effectively without concomitantly addressing sound internal

retention and development strategies.

Branding. Employer branding represents the benefits that prospective

employees may associate with a specific organization (Wilden, Gudergan, & Lings,

35
2010). For the employer, effective branding involves clarifying and messaging the

unique employment experience it offers to its employees (Edwards, 2010). Therefore,

branding is an important element of establishing an organization as diverse and

inclusive. Avery (2003) suggested that organizational advertisements incorporating

demographically diverse imagery may, in fact, enhance organizational attractiveness for

diverse employees. Additionally, including a strong diversity statement in job postings

and recruitment advertisements that is genuinely reflective of organizational ethos is

another element of effective branding. Research shows that both those from minority

and non-minority demographic groups view organizations with a diversity statement

positively (Kim & Gelfand, 2003).

Learning and development. Mentoring is a practice used to both retain and

develop diverse employees (Kulik & Roberson, 2008). The effectiveness of mentorship

programs rests in the fact that these mentoring relationships often affect perceptions of

discrimination and social inclusion (Friedman & Holtom, 2002; Friedman, Kane, &

Cornfield, 1998) and may mitigate the negative effects of stereotype threats on minority

performance (Good, Aronson, & Inzlicht, 2003). Group mentoring, as opposed to

dyadic mentor structures, has been shown to be particularly effective for enhancing

organizational outcomes (Kulik & Roberson, 2008). Group mentorship includes network

groups, which are groups established around demographic similarities (i.e., gender,

ethnicity; Brooks & Clunis, 2007).

Performance management. Although previous sections of this review presented

research suggesting that diversity may negatively impact corporate performance and

outcomes (Jehn et al., 1999), others have found that conflict and tension in even very

36
diverse groups are reduced as members of the team spend more time together and

establish norms of interaction (Chatman & Flynn, 2001). It is not uncommon for diverse

teams to have enhanced performance as a result of their developing a common identity

(Earley & Mosakowski, 2000). Other researchers have also shown that members of

diverse teams come to respect and appreciate group complementarities, learning over

time to capitalize on differences in behavior, values, and beliefs (Hambrick, Davison,

Snell, & Snow, 1998) and thereby improve communication and cooperation (Nielsen &

Nielsen, 2013). Another important factor determining performance is diversity climate.

McKay and colleagues (2008) defined a diverse environment as the “degree to which a

firm advocates fair human resource policies and socially integrates underrepresented

employees” (p. 350). Employees’ perceptions of a diverse environment significantly

impact their job-related attitudes and behaviors (Hicks-Clarke & Iles, 2000) and, hence,

performance (McKay, Avery, & Morris, 2008).

Given the existence of unconscious bias and in-group versus out-group

dynamics, the assessment of performance may be an area of corporate life where

inequalities persist. Thus, performance management strategies attuned to inclusion

present an opportunity to establish more equitable working relationships (Lumby, 2009).

In instances where diversity is potent in the workplace the end result impacts in a

positive fashion not only the output of the employee, but also that of the company as

well (McKay et al., 2008). Best practices related to performance management should

therefore be attuned to an intentional and active management of diversity that aims to

develop a strong diversity climate and provides ample opportunities for diverse teams to

develop trust and communication norms over time.

37
 Succession planning. One final area of the talent management cycle in which

best practices may be identified is succession planning. Successful application in this

realm revolves around a few elements including the engagement of involved mentors,

organizing those demonstrating traits of success and deploying a strategic planning

process to form an encouraging community (Groves, 2007). Overall, approaches to

succession planning that consider the talent pool holistically as opposed to a

replacement (position-specific) process tend to be more favorable (Carnazza, 1982).

Additionally, integrated and inclusive approaches that draw on diversity, business, and

human resource strategies have been deemed the most successful when it comes to

succession planning (Greer & Virick, 2008). Greer and Virick (2008) outlined a number

of best practices developed according to this type of integrated approach to succession

planning. They suggested that alignment between business strategy and succession

planning is the critical element of the foundation upon which a value basis for diverse

succession can be built. To chronicle the process of leadership, leaders are encouraged

to include fixed goals in line with diversity in evaluating the performance of managers

and executives, as well as answerability for succession goals adopting diversity. Some

of the applications relating to planning processes include delving into the organization

for prospective candidates and using measurable behaviors, putting in place impartial

testing barometers to avoid implicit social cognition. These development practices are

centered on mentor/mentee of the same race and same gender, which may open the

door for diverse high potentials to be exposed to those executives which could lead to in

an increased awareness of diverse talent. Finally, program management practices that

are deemed most effective include monitoring the career movement of diverse

38
successors into business critical core areas as opposed to peripheral administrative

areas and evaluating diverse succession planning with multiple metrics such as

retention, development, advancement, and size of the “ready now” (Greer & Virick,

2008, p. 364) talent pool. It is apparent that many of the best practices related to

succession planning, as with the other dimensions of diversity management, are

complex and multifaceted. Once facet connecting them, however, is their foundation in

ethical values and principles.

Core values and operating principles. The United Nations Educational,

Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO, 2009) has linked cultural diversity to

economic growth, as well as to intellectual, emotional, and moral satisfaction,

characterizing it as necessary for humans as biodiversity is for nature. Gilbert, Stead,

and Ivancevich (1999) emphasized the ethical basis of diversity and identified three

ethical principles required to undergird successful diversity initiatives. The first principle

is called the Golden Rule, which means to treat others as you wish to be treated. The

second principle is called the Disclosure Rule, which essentially assesses the decision

maker’s comfort with his/her decisions being exposed. The Rights Approach could be

construed as the freedom rule, affording all the choice of how they live their lives. The

work of Pless and Maak (2004) uses a moral theory of recognition as the basis for a

framework of inclusion that emphasizes doctrines of acknowledgement, shared

understanding and enabling, and plurality, coupled with trust and integrity. Olsen and

Martins (2012) characterized diversity management as a socially responsible endeavor,

using the concept of dual-value integration to describe organizations that value diversity

both as a continual process and as an end goal. Although others have also insisted

39
upon the ethical nature of inclusion (Nelson, Poms, & Wolf, 2012), conceptualizing it as

a moral imperative toward eliminating group-based barriers to opportunity and

supporting individuals to achieve their fullest potential (Ferdman & Brody, 1996), some

have suggested that the rise of the business case (to be discussed in a subsequent

section of this review) has compromised this ethical focus (Gotsis & Kortezi, 2013;

Johns, Green, & Powell, 2012; Kirton & Greene, 2009; Martín-Alcázar, Romero-

Fernández, & Sánchez-Gardey, 2012).

Kirton and Greene (2009) acknowledged that a business or economic framing of

inclusion has established its legitimacy, but worry that much is being lost when diversity

and inclusion are used only as neo-liberal rhetorical strategies. From Perriton’s (2009)

perspective, the business case invalidates inclusion as an adequate and appropriate

response to social justice issues. According to Gotsis and Kortezi (2013), the efficiency

and profit-driven motivations underlying much diversity management replicates social

differences and exacerbates socio-demographic inequalities. In this sense, they

contend that the business case’s conceptualization of inclusion does little to affirm the

value of difference or encourage pro-diversity beliefs. By way of response, they

advocate both an ethical framework and a philosophical context for diversity

management practices that would transform diversity management practices into an

intentional system aimed at serving employees rather than organizational bottom lines.

Compassion. For the most part, compassion has been an overlooked element of

workplace culture (Kanov et al., 2004). Compassion is rooted in the recognition of

equality and commonality between all individuals (Lord & Hutchinson, 2007).

40
Workplace compassion makes people feel acknowledged and known (Kanov et al.,

2004). It would follow, then, that compassion is a competency of inclusion.

The ethical foundations of inclusion in corporate contexts are widely recognized,

despite the fact that some argue they are composed of particular conceptualizations

(namely the business case). As K. Jones, King, Nelson, Geller, and Bowes-Sperry

(2013) argued, diversity training and management represent moral imperatives that

support the ethical development of employees as well as the organization as a whole by

institutionalizing compassionate practices that reduce discrimination and champion

inclusion. The importance of leadership will be discussed subsequently, but Lappetito

(1994) suggested that:

If a leader’s vision is rooted in love of neighbor and a sense of justice, that leader

will find ways to enhance employee participation and will set in motion the

practices that will attract, retain, and promote capable personnel with diverse

backgrounds. Genuine respect for an employee as a person who bears

responsibilities that extend beyond workplace production will set the tone for

positive interaction among employees. Thus managers’ display of appreciation

will inspire loyalty and a cooperative spirit. (p. 27)

Thus, the moral basis of inclusion is not limited to universal interpersonal relationships,

but instead is linked directly to the corporate world, given that the economic outcomes

of businesses are tied directly to the most important of resources: the people that make

up a company.

As much of the literature acknowledges, the involvement and support of all levels

of organizational hierarchies are essential for effective diversity management (Cox &

41
Blake, 1991; Dass & Parker, 1996; Ng, 2008; Richard, Kochan, & McMillan-Capehart,

2002). Defined as a “process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to

achieve a common goal” (Northouse, 2007, p. 3), leadership is a crucial component of

diversity management, and a decisive factor that influences the success rates of

diversity initiatives (Morrison, Ruderman, & Hughes-James, 1993; Wheeler, 1994). The

literature also points to the special role played by top executives and senior

management in instigating organizational change. Upper-echelon theory proposes that

executives see their situations based on their personal experiences and beliefs

(Hambrick & Mason, 1984). Thus, commitment, engagement, and the visible

participation of an organization’s leaders in diversity training and management are

essential not only in establishing inclusion, but also in ensuring that an organization can

capitalize on diversity and benefit economically as well as socially from its inclusive

practices. Ng (2008) theorized that there is a connection between a CEO's commitment

to a company and said company's diversity practices; with a low level of engagement

from a CEO, there is little external influence to generate diversity in the workplace.

Commitment in this case is multifaceted and involves allocating more resources to

accomplishing training goals, considering diversity training as part of the business

strategy, assessing the organization’s needs before as well as following the training,

and serving as a model for employees (Ferdman & Brody, 1996). Because corporate

cultural shifts are typically reactionary responses to internal social conflicts, change and

the commitment to it must be based on a longer term trajectory. Thus, the execution of

transformation requires knowledge, tenacity, and thoughtful enactment (Lappetito,

1994).

42
 In considering not only the role of top management but also the placement of

diversity officers within the organizational structure, it is clear that in addition to

commitment and the modeling of behavior, perhaps the most essential factor in diversity

leadership is access to decision making processes (Liberman, 2006). Although CDOs

themselves have highlighted the importance of institutional rank (Stanley, 2014) and

most positions of this type are positioned high up in the organization, reporting directly

to presidents or CEOs (Wheeler, 2001), Liberman (2006) noted that, regardless of rank,

diverse employees’ access to information and decision making may still be lacking.

Thus, diversity management leaders, irrespective of position or rank, must be imbued

with decision making capacities if they are to be effective and drive institutional change

successfully.

In general, although leadership has been studied extensively and abundant

literature exists on the topic, there has not been as much literature regarding diversity in

leadership theories and research. Instead of focusing solely on the role of leaders in

diversity initiatives, the actual diversity of leaders themselves ought to be addressed. In

the process, it would mean magnifying the customary leadership archetypes. These

archetypes or paradigms include traits, situations, and systems to include those of

individuals from diverse identity groups, examining what qualities leaders from such

groups might bring to their styles of leadership that might be different from those of

majority group leaders, and expanding the traits and contexts that might define effective

leadership in a changing, global, and diverse society (Chin, 2010).

Impact of engagement. Overall, diversity training has been shown to increase

self-engagement in diversity practices (De Meuse, Hostager, & O’Neill, 2007).

43
Research supports that there is an undisputed link among the degree to which

organizational members feel accepted, their engagement, and ultimately, their

satisfaction with the company (Lawler, 1994). There is a positive impact on recruitment,

retention, and engagement of diverse employees, when there is an achievement of

diversity visible in leadership. Additionally, visible diversity within leadership increases

organizational output and innovation, which also improves decision-making and quality

management (Allen & Montgomery, 2001).

Performance. Evidently, performance is positively affected by effective inclusion

(as demonstrated previously), which shifts values and culture toward diversity-positive

orientations that motivate personnel and inspire organizational commitment (Lumby,

2009). It has been demonstrated that wage disparities are less prevalent in

environments where there is ethnic diversity; further, gender and ethnic inequities

appeared less in groups in which managers included both women and people of color.

Diversity within an organization’s board has also been shown to positively affect

financial indicators of firm performance (Erhardt, Werbel, & Shrader, 2003). Bantel

(1993) reported that diversity creates a more competitive company; resulting from a

larger base of knowledge, enhanced creativity and innovation, better performance and

more strategic decision-making (Watson, Kumar, & Michealsen, 1993). In the banking

sector, diversity has also been shown to impact firm performance positively (Richard,

2000). Thus, diversity is a potential resource that, when managed properly and

supported by inclusive organizational cultures, may positively affect performance.

Business/financial. As referenced previously, the business case is a particular

model of diversity management that reframes its objective in terms of quantifiable

44
organizational improvements and economic performance advances (Litvin, 2006).

Although diversity was defined previously in exclusively moral and humanitarian terms,

during the 1990s through the early 2000s, corporate rationale began to frame diversity

in economic terms and as a necessary means of competing globally, capitalizing on the

massive domestic spending power of ethnic and racially diverse groups (Thomas, 2004;

D. Williams & Wade-Golden, 2007b). Diversity’s contribution can be distinguished by

four factors: increasing revenue, enhancing compliance, augmenting corporate social

responsibility, and promoting an authentic and credible belief that it is “the right thing to

do” (Orenstein, 2005, p.22). Thus, the business case of diversity is tied to the networks

of diverse individuals (Acosta, 2004), and that diverse employees function as a source

of sustained competitive advantage (Richard, 2000). Prasad and Mills (1997) suggested

that the business case gives greater legitimacy than a purely moral imperative and is a

viable long-term strategy that yields substantial economic benefits. In reflecting market

forces (Foster, Jackson, Cross, Jackson, & Hardiman, 1988; Johnston & Packer, 1987)

and enabling organizations to leverage the skills of their employees (O’Leary &

Weathington, 2006), the business case sets up diversity as a necessary corporate

strategy (Prasad & Mills, 1997) that may lead to cost savings and other competitive

advantages (Simons & Pelled, 1999).

Measurement and empirical evidence. Although the business case for diversity

has been studied extensively, many remain unconvinced (Hansen, 2003; Kochan et al.,

2003). An examination of this area of research found revealed six out of 10 of the

studies exploring the relationship between diversity and performance were unfounded,

two of 10 were positive, and two of 10 were negative (Joshi & Roh, 2009). It has also

45
been found that correlation is stronger in service-based industries, likely due to the

higher rates of interpersonal interaction therein (McMahon, 2011; Richard, Murthi, &

Ismail, 2007). However, this range of findings does not completely discount the

substantial number of studies that do provide evidence of the economic value of

diversity. Homogenous work environments have consistently underperformed those that

are diverse, whether ethnically, demographically, or culturally (Kirchmeyer & McLellan,

1991; Loden & Rosener, 1991; Prasad & Mills, 1997). Demographically heterogeneous

groups have been shown to behave more cooperatively (Cox, Lobel, & McLeod, 1991),

be more innovative (O’Reilly, Williams, & Barsade, 1997), and generate higher-quality

solutions (Kirchmeyer & Cohen, 1992).

Innovation and creativity. Organizations that develop diverse workforces often

do so in order to access and exploit the critical resources represented by variations in

experience and pluralities of worldview (Ortlieb & Sieben, 2013). In regard to innovation

and creativity, Foster et al. (1988) pointed out that “organizations that invite change and

successfully manage diversity are more likely to detect and solve complex business

problems” (p. 39). Evidence suggests, then, that diverse cultural perspectives foster

group-level environments of creativity and innovation (Bantel & Jackson, 1989; Paulus,

2000; Richard & Shelor, 2002).

Decision making improvements. Numerous studies have documented the

superior decision making ability of groups with diversity versus groups where there is no

diversity (McLeod, Lobel, & Cox, 1996; Watson et al., 1993). In fact, the term diversity

capital advantage was coined to describe the phenomenon whereby an organization

defined by diverse demographic groups outperforms its peers relative to the

46
accessibility of a variety of knowledge, skills, and perspectives. Diversity process

advantage is used to describe an improvement in the resolution of problems, social

integration, and communication processes derived from diverse workforces that enable

the more efficient and effective execution of operations (Yang, 2005). Functionally

diverse teams have also been shown to develop clearer strategies than non-diverse

groups (Bantel, 1993).

Employee engagement. Employee engagement is recognized as a vital

business enabler of organizational success (Lockwood, 2007). Some studies have

shown that demographic similarity is associated with greater workplace satisfaction and

commitment (Verkuyten, de Jong, & Masson, 1993); however, Jones and Harter (2005)

suggested that “measuring and improving employee engagement and interpersonal

congruence may provide an avenue by which diversity is transformed from a weakness

to a strength” (p. 87). Indeed, Jehn et al. (1999) found that diversity in general does not

affect organizational performance uniformly. Based on a field study of 92 work teams,

three types of diversity were noted: social category diversity, informational diversity, and

value diversity. Group performance is most influenced by informational diversity, and

group morale is most influenced by social category diversity. Only value diversity had a

negative impact, decreasing satisfaction, intent to remain, and commitment to the

group. Thus, it appears that minimizing diversity in terms of values would go a long way

toward harnessing the positive contributions diversity stands to make to employee

engagement. Management also plays an important role in engagement because, as

Jones and Harter (2005) demonstrated, when employees were involved in cross-race

mentorship dyads with managers, they expressed stronger intentions to remain in their

47
organizations than employees from their same cohorts who were in same-race dyads.

The Corporate Leadership Council (2004) has also noted that managers showing a

strong commitment to diversity promote employee engagement.

Industry examples and learnings. In legal contexts, both gender diversity and

racial diversity in the boardroom affect firm performance positively (Erhardt et al., 2003).

Richard et al. (2007) found that racial diversity and performance are defined by a

curvilinear positive relationship at low and high levels of diversity, but not at an

intermediate level of diversity. However, in the long-term in stable environments, the

relationship becomes linear and positive. This finding indicates that consistent and

sustained efforts to nurture and maintain corporate diversity pay off over time.

Public sector. An example of the effects of diversity management in the public

sector comes from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), an entity founded in July

1944 at the United Nations conference. The intent of the entity was to promote

international financial stability and monetary cooperation. Mor Barak (2015) explained

that, with the failure to forecast the global financial crisis of 2008, the organization

conducted an internal review, determining that change was needed for the inward-

looking culture of the IMF by increasing the diversity of the workforce and creating a

workplace that encouraged contrary perspectives and thoughts. Evidently, some of the

failings of the agency were connected to a lack of diversity, motivating the executive

board to publically express a commitment to “fostering staff diversity in all its

dimensions, including diversity of opinions” (Independent Evaluation Office, as cited in

Mor Barak, 2015, p. 86).

48
 Private sector. The private sector is replete with examples of diversity

management approaches and results. Generally speaking, firms within the hospitality

and tourism sector invest more in diversity management than non-hospitality firms,

largely due to the fact that, as stated previously, diversity has been shown to be more

consequential in service-related industries than in manufacturing or other sectors

(Richard et al., 2007; Singal, 2014). However, plenty of examples may be found among

multinational organizations, Colgate-Palmolive being one. This U.S.-based company

operates in 170 countries and has been challenged in its efforts to translate its

American valuing of diversity to the international arena (Mor Barak, 2000b). As a means

of tackling the problem of the resistance the company was experiencing from affiliates in

more ethnically homogenous (for example, Japan) or gender divided (for example, in

Saudi Arabia) contexts, the company launched a training program called Valuing

Colgate People for people managers globally. Instead of adopting a U.S.-centric

approach, the company demonstrated inclusion by identifying the requirements within

each country. Then, through cross-cultural collaboration, it managed to retain its core

inclusion policies (banning discrimination and sexual harassment) while incorporating

the values and perspectives of its international workforce (Mor Barak, 2000b).

Microsoft Corp. provides another example of effective corporate diversity

strategies, specifically its diversity department, created to support the company’s vision

of “maximizing the company’s performance through understanding and valuing

differences” (Allen & Montgomery, 2001, p. 156). Microsoft is committed to diversifying

its workforce and considers a singular point of view to be disadvantageous in a

globalized market place. This commitment is reflected in the company’s Diversity

49
Advisory Council, which targets a number of specific groups (i.e., women; employees

with disabilities; gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender employees; as well as various

national/ethnic groups) and continually working to ensure that Microsoft remains an

appealing place for all to work (Allen & Montgomery, 2001).

Best Practices to Create Inclusion

An analysis of the literature reviewed previously may reveal a series of best

practices for creating inclusive corporate environments. The following sections outline

key practice areas and strategies deemed most effective in those areas. Following this

presentation of best practice areas, complete sets of practices proposed in the literature

are also considered.

Assessment and metrics. An essential step in establishing appropriate diversity

management strategies is the performance of a needs analysis, which will allow an

organization to identify the particular issues that should be addressed. Subsequently,

this analysis will guide decisions regarding the most appropriate actions to be taken in

relation to the particular needs of an organization (Gilrane et al., 2013; Koonce, 2001;

Larkin Ford, 2004). The particular advantage of attending to needs assessments is that

diversity interventions and strategies may be tailored to context-specific needs (L.

Roberson et al., 2003). A related crucial step that complements needs assessments is

compiling and analyzing metrics that allow the effectiveness of the diversity initiative to

be measured and assessed (Babcock, 2006).

Comprehensiveness. A second key element of best practices is

comprehensiveness, which Bendick, Egan, and Lofhjelm (2001) have defined in terms

of nine key benchmarks related to diversity training:

50
 1. Strong support from top management;

2. Tailors to each client organization;

3. Links diversity to central operating goals;

4. Trainers/officers are managerial or organization development professionals;

5. All levels of employees are enrolled in trainings;

6. Training discusses discrimination as a general process;

7. Training explicitly addresses individual behavior;

8. Training is complemented by changes in human resource practices;

9. Training impacts the corporate culture. (pp. 18-21)

This list of training-related best practices underscores the importance of diversity

management being conceptually grounded and combining behavioral changes with

policy and procedural reforms, in addition to selective changes in personnel in order to

achieve extensive changes in the corporate culture. Enrolling employees from all levels

and all departments is indispensable when establishing an inclusive organizational

culture. Also essential for effective diversity training and management is an emphasis

on the social methods associated with inclusion versus exclusion on general

psychological and social processes of inclusion and exclusion (i.e., stereotyping, own

group preference, insular thinking, etc.), rather than focusing on specific groups’

experiences.

Don’t be color blind. The notion of color blindness refers to the downplaying or

ignoring of individual differences. Lappetito (1994) asserts that race, gender, and

cultural differences cannot continue to be ignored. Rather, these differences should be

deemed central to a larger snapshot of our population. She went on to assert that

51
diversity leaders are responsible for fostering the acceptance, as opposed to the

assimilation, of differences. To overlook color denigrates the long and arduous history

of economic and cultural differences that are the byproduct of discrimination against

minorities and the underprivileged. It must not be overlooked that these same gender

and cultural differences are perceived in the real world as a sense of fulfillment (Konrad

et al., 2005). Thomas, Mack, and Montigliani (2004) additionally warned that the color-

blind approach can provide the pathway to -isms such as racism and sexism.

Address the specificities of context. A fourth area of best practice relates to

paying close attention to the specificities of particular contextual factors, on both a

micro- and macro-level. Mor Barak (2000b) asserted that diversity is not solely about

the organization but the systems inherent within it. Indeed, macro contexts (related to

history and broad socio-political processes) are crucial for understanding workplace

diversity. To this effect, considering social meanings and power dynamics on a wide

scale is vital for understanding how diversity initiatives may best be implemented in a

particular organization.

Develop collaborative, inter-disciplinary networks. Practices that rely on and

encourage collaboration between various sources provide opportunities for learning and

insight that aid diversification efforts. Earlier sections of this review have demonstrated

the benefits of consulting with researchers and practitioners from a variety of fields.

Partnerships across a wider range of sectors create opportunities for considering

alternative perspectives, approaches, and theories that only stand to increase

management knowledge (Holvino & Kamp, 2009).

52
 Extensive involvement of top management. One of the most consistent

findings throughout the literature is the importance of top management engagement and

support. Given the critical role that organizational leaders play in shaping the climate of

an organization, their full support is necessary for effective diversity management

(Hayes, 1999; Schmidt, 2004; Sluss & Ashforth, 2007). Kreitz (2008) acknowledged that

the commitment of senior leaders to organizational changes toward inclusion creates

the capacity for more effective changes on individual levels. Part of involving

management in diversification and inclusion efforts is mentoring, a system that previous

sections of this review have highlighted as an important element of successful diversity

management. Moreover, mentoring provides opportunities for people from different

backgrounds to interact, which helps to reduce stereotypes and broaden knowledge and

perspective (Blum, Ben, Fang-Yi, 2003; Slone, Tarrasch, & Hallis, 2000).

These six areas of best practice reflect the complexity involved in diversity

management and provide guidelines for organizational reform. Several authors have

compiled independent best practice lists that, in many instances, overlap with the

practices detailed previously. However, in considering their contributions, an even

broader understanding of the efforts required and the most effective means of creating

an inclusive work environment may be achieved.

In 2005, the U.S. Government Accountability Office published a set of nine best

practices for diversity management. Their list includes:

1. Engagement of executives whereby they can adroitly and authentically

communicate a compelling vision of the desired outcomes.

2. Diversity is embedded in the organizational strategic imperatives.

53
 3. There is enterprise-wide understanding and acceptance of the positive impact

diversity can have on outcomes and performance.

4. Quantitative and qualitative measures are requisite.

5. Executives are accountable for the success and progress of diversity.

6. Succession planning is critical to the organization’s ability to identify and

develop diverse talent.

7. Talent acquisition is the organizational lifeblood and requires diverse

candidate pipelines of talent.

8. Employee engagement and accountability necessitate that all levels within the

organization are engaged and held accountable for the inclusion of diverse

employees.

9. Learning and development highlights the organization’s initiatives to

consistently educate its members on the benefits, expectations, and

outcomes associated with diversity.

In 2009, the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) published their

own best practices list relating to diversity and inclusion on a global scale. Best

practices were highlighted in terms of four major categories: (a) management structure,

(b) metrics and rewards, (c) internal communications and training, and (d) external

outreach. Based on interviews with top American CEOs, Groysberg and Connolly

(2013) summarized responses regarding which practices they have found to be most

effective in harnessing diversity. Their list includes:

1. Measurement

2. Accountability

54
 3. Diverse candidate pools

4. Scheduling flexibility

5. Promotion of diverse employees

6. Training

7. Employee affinity groups

8. Offer quality role models.

9. Make the chief diversity officer position count. (pp. 73-76)

After evaluating existing literature on which best practices related to diversity

have the most efficacy, Kalev et al. (2006) determined that three essential mechanisms

exist for correcting workplace inequality:

1. Creating specialized positions to achieve new goals.

2. Deploying learning to mitigate bias.

3. Organizational goals focusing on those who have been underrepresented.

In considering these various articulations of best practices, it is clear that many

similarities exist, creating a general consensus on the core practices that have been

shown to be most effective in the field of diversity management. With that being said, it

has also been suggested “there is no single best way, but that the organization’s

approach depends on the degree of pressure for diversity, the type of diversity in

question, and managerial attitudes” (Dass & Parker, 1999, p. 68). Thus, although many

best practices related to diversity and inclusion have been identified and elaborated

across a range of fields, their truest value may lie in their ability to function as guidelines

and as frameworks to be adapted to the particular contexts, issues, and intentions of a

given organization.

55
Global Considerations

Echoing the conclusion stated previously, Dass and Parker (1991) stated that

“the best approach to diversity management is particular rather than universal” (p. 68).

Indeed, as globalization continues to shape economic and social processes of

exchange, diversity and inclusion have become ever more important, yet the solutions

to the challenges associated with each of these areas may be best realized on

particular, local levels. This interplay of global and local, universal and particular, is a

defining characteristic of diversity work given that improving organization-level

performance is simultaneously connected to lower level individual-based interactions,

as well as to broad level political and social dynamics. Sharp, Franzway, Mills, and Gill

(2012) critiqued diversity management as it fails to acknowledge that the underlying

problem is political and therefore, addressing it would necessitate confronting the

dominant gender and power relations. Moreover, as previous sections of this review

revealed, major differences exist in the ways in which diversity, equality, and inclusion

are conceptualized and valued (or devalued) in various contexts around the world.

Summary

This review has considered a range of empirical and theoretical literature across

an array of fields in order to develop a set of best practices related to establishing

diverse and inclusive corporate environments. Although diversity is a descriptive term

denoting differences of various types and across multiple dimensions, inclusion is the

experience in which employees feel valued in organizational contexts for their distinctive

attributes, qualities, and ways of being. On the whole, when the complex nature of these

concepts is considered, it may be concluded that when diversity is managed in a fair

56
and effective manner, positive outcomes are likely to be achieved (Armstrong et al.,

2010). Certainly, if an organization implements diversity initiatives and inclusive policies

in a comprehensive way—that is, in alignment with operational goals as well as

employee well-being—then these efforts will be treated more seriously and yield greater

and sustainable impacts. As the best practices presented previously demonstrate, these

initiatives are most effective when broad implementation actions (i.e., appointing senior

level leaders or cross functional teams that address cultural organizational changes)

are combined and complemented with narrower actions (i.e., employee training

programs that are purposed to facilitate behavior changes; Kreitz, 2008). In this regard,

diversity management not only is a social imperative and a response to shifting

workplace demographics, but also subsidizes financial performance and organizational

success (Singal, 2014).

57
 Chapter 3: Research Design and Methodology

Creating a work environment where diverse employees feel included is one of

the primary objectives of the CDO. The CDO is charged with developing and executing

the strategies to achieve inclusion by maximizing diversity. Understanding the practices

of CDOs to promote inclusion and identify patterns associated with those practices can

prove beneficial for other CDOs and their organizations. Uncovering how others have

achieved success in this journey can provide a roadmap. In response to the need to

improve diverse employees’ connection to the workplace and participants, many CDOs

are seeking to achieve full participation for everyone within their organizations. It is

expected that by doing so, the organization will experience optimal performance

(Kochan et al., 2003).

This grounded theory study considered and described the organizational

behaviors and practices that facilitated participation by diverse employees. CDOs were

asked to describe the strategies that their organizations had implemented that yielded

workplace connection and involvement. Hedrick et al. (1993) asserted that descriptive

studies provide for a picture of a phenomenon to show how characteristics are related

to each other. It is expected that facilitating full participation of diverse employees will

necessitate leveraging multiple strategies and characteristics.

The cornerstone of descriptive research is to accurately portray the

characteristics of persons, situations, or groups (Polit & Hungler, 2004). Therefore, the

descriptive data were mined and sorted to identify common themes. The identification of

those themes will contribute additional literature to facilitate the journey to inclusion and

enhance the well-being of diverse employees.

58
Nature of Study

This descriptive study employed a qualitative approach. The objective of

qualitative descriptive studies is to provide a comprehensive summarization of specific

events experienced by individuals or groups of individuals (Lambert & Lambert, 2012).

Rather than testing a predicted relationship between variables, descriptive research

describes variables within the phenomenon in which they appear (Polit & Hungler,

2004). Qualitative description provides value in the resulting knowledge. Additionally, it

provides a framework to present research methodologies as living entities that can

establish meaning (Giorgi, 1992; Holloway & Todres, 2005; Sandelowski, 2010). One

advantage of this approach is that it provides the ability to collect data and create a

descriptive image of the phenomenon under study (Mouton & Marais, 1996). In the

present study, a descriptive approach was appropriate because an accurate description

of an inclusive work environment was required of the experiences of CDOs involved in

engaging diverse employees. Further, according to Streubert, Speziale, and Carpenter

(2003), descriptive research is central to unstructured or semi-structured research

interview investigations.

Qualitative research is predicated on the exploration of a phenomenon, issue, or

problem. According to Hancock, Ockleford, and Windridge (2007), key elements of

qualitative research include:

1. A focus on how people or groups of people can have differing views of their

social or psychological reality.

2. An account of complexity by incorporating the real world context.

3. A use of people’s accounts as data.

59
 4. A focus on reports of experience(s) that cannot be adequately expressed

numerically.

5. A focus on description and interpretation, which might lead to development of

new concepts or theory or to an evaluation of an organizational process.

Creswell (2012) posited that qualitative research starts with “assumptions and the use

of interpretive/theoretical frameworks that inform the study of research problems

addressing the meaning individuals or groups ascribe to a social or human problem”

(p. 44). Specifically, Creswell (2007) defined qualitative research as beginning:

With the assumptions, a worldview, the possible use of a theoretical lens, and the

study of research problems inquiring into the meaning individuals or groups

ascribe to a social or human problem. To study this problem, qualitative

researchers use an emerging qualitative approach to inquiry, the collection of

data in a natural setting sensitive to the people and places under the study, and

data analysis that is inductive and establishes patterns or themes. The final

written report or presentation includes the voices of participants, the reflexivity of

the researcher, and a complex description and interpretation of the problem, and

it extends the literature or signals a call for action. (p. 37)

Inclusion, as related to engaging diverse employees in the workplace, is an

emerging concept. This study explored the perceptions and lived experiences of CDOs

in establishing and maintaining an inclusive work environment. Therefore, qualitative

research methodology was aligned to the purpose of exploring the meaning assigned to

this experience to identify best practices.

60
 The qualitative approach relied upon semi-structured interviews conducted on a

one-on-one basis with the survey participants. In using a one-on-one format, the

investigator was able to glean deep understanding and insight regarding the practices of

CDOs. These practices and insights could prove instructive.

Restatement of Research Questions

Sekaran (2003) defined research as “an organized, systematic, data based,

objective, scientific inquiry or investigation into a specific question, undertaken with the

purpose of finding answers or solutions to it” (p. 5). To discover how to overcome the

challenges associated with failing to engage diverse employees, the first two research

questions this study posed were: (a) What strategies and practices are employed by

CDOs in global organizations to promote and facilitate inclusion of diverse employees?

and (b) What challenges were faced by these CDOs in implementing strategies and

practices employed to achieve inclusion of diverse employees? To ascertain the

measurements associated with inclusion, this study asked: (c) How do CDOs measure

success of their inclusive workplace practices? Finally, to glean forward looking insights

into their practices, this study asked: (d) Based on their experiences, what

recommendations would CDOs make for future implementation of inclusive workplace

practices?

Framework. This research study was grounded in part by social inclusion

theory, which correlates with principles of social justice. Social justice ideologies

postulate that social inclusion is based in rights, equity of access, and fairness (Gidley,

Hampson, Wheeler, & Bereded-Samuel, 2010). The concept of social inclusion was

initially rooted in social and economic theories, and evolved into European government

61
policies (Dodd & Sandell, 2011). Politicians’ use of the terminology subsequently found

application and usage in other segments (Rawal, 2008; Silver, 1994; Tlili, 2008). In

those broader segments of use, social inclusion is often defined by its antonym, social

exclusion (Rawal, 2008). According to Rawal (2008), social exclusion is essentially

marginalization, being denied the rights and privileges afforded to the socially included.

Within the work environment, social inclusion has found application in the realm of

workplace diversity and highlights the degree to which employees are able to participate

fully in the organization. Conceptually, diversity focuses on the demographic

composition of an organization. Inclusion focuses on barrier-free workplaces to allow

for the participation and contribution of all employees within the organization (Roberson,

2004).

Methodology

This study employed a grounded theory methodology. Grounded theory is

“discovered, developed and provisionally verified through systematic data collection and

analysis of data pertaining to that phenomenon” (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 23). Since

grounded theory does not begin with initial assumptions, this methodology provided the

opportunity to construct the data in partnership with the CDOs. Further, as noted

previously, the descriptive approach aligns well with the interview format and analysis of

content for theme identification.

The investigator considered other methodologies in the planning of this study.

First, the case study method was selected. The case study method allows the

researcher to develop an in-depth analysis of an event, activity, or process (Creswell,

2014). A case study is best suited when attempting to answer how and/or why

62
questions (Yin, 2003). While significant details may result, the case study approach is

limited to a single event. Therefore, this method was determined to be impractical for

this study.

In addition to considering the case study method, ethnography was also

considered. Rooted in anthropology and sociological perspectives, ethnography studies

patterns of behavior that are shared within an intact cultural group and observed by the

researcher (Creswell, 2014). Like the case study method, ethnography proved not to be

suited for this study.

Phenomenological research helps to understand the commonality of experiences

shared by several people and provides an understanding of the phenomenon by

describing how a better understanding may help individuals, organizations, or the

society with the challenges they face (Leedy & Ormrod, 2013). According to Moustakas

(1994), using a phenomenological design will encourage participants to conceptualize

ideas, pulling from their lived experiences. Gray (2009) posited that phenomenological

research, then:

• Emphasizes inductive logic.

• Seeks the opinions and subjective accounts and interpretations of

participants.

• Relies on qualitative analysis of data.

• Is not so much concerned with generalizations to larger populations, but with

contextual descriptions.

Therefore, a qualitative phenomenological investigation was deemed the best approach

to understanding the lived experiences of CDOs in this study, as greater information is

63
needed to identify their best practices. Qualitative research attempts to explore how

individuals perceive things and why things are the way they are (Gelo et al., 2009). The

qualitative method provides for a broader base of knowledge for collecting and

understanding common experiences with regard to a phenomenon (Creswell, 2013).

To appreciate the subjects’ experiences, it was important to use the

phenomenological approach, which requires those conducting the research to group

their own experiences (Locke et al., 2004; Nieswiadomy, 1993). Bracketing the

researcher’s experiences is addressed in further detail in the subsequent Role of the

Researcher section. Phenomenological research is based on the study of a limited

number of participants and identifying patterns with meaning (Moustakas, 1994). To do

so, Creswell (2003) advocated emerging data review with the primary intent of

developing themes from the data. Interviews, which were conducted for this study, are

the most frequently utilized data gathering methodology for phenomenological research

(Locke et al., 2004). The interviews are described in detail in the Data Collection

section.

Research Design

The research design is critical to collection and analysis (Wright & Craig, 2011).

It has been said that research design is the bridge between research questions and the

data, outlining how the data will be reviewed (Gray, 2009). Given the import of this

critical bridge, the researcher was diligent and purposeful in the determining the

approach associated with participant selection, data collection, and the protection of

human subjects.

64
 Participant selection and description. The study population consisted of a

defined group of individuals all possessing similar characteristics relevant to the

research (Sokolowski, 2008). The target population of this study consisted of 20 CDOs

in global organizations. A CDO serves as the chief point person for diversity issues and

fulfilling the role of a relational leader, coordinating initiatives and networks that include

the entire organization structure (D. Williams & Wade-Golden, 2007a).

The Conference Board is a global independent business membership and

research organization headquartered in New York City. It counts approximately 1,2000

public and private companies as members, which represent 60 countries. One

component of the Conference Board membership is membership in councils: peer

networks that provide benchmarking, industry insights, and confidential dialogue to help

its members shape strategic decisions. The members of the Global Diversity &

Inclusion Executive Council (GDIEC) include the most senior executives responsible for

global diversity and inclusion in companies where at least 20% of revenues are earned

outside of the United States. The principal investigator is a member of the companies.

By virtue of that membership, access was provided to the membership directory of

those within the GDIEC.

The membership directory was reviewed and CDOs from broad industries were

invited to participate in the research. Therefore, a purposeful sampling strategy was

used with maximum variation, in which a small number of units maximize the diversity

relevant to the research. Patton (1990) posited that:

This strategy for purposeful sampling aims at capturing and describing the

central themes or principal outcomes that cut across a great deal of participant or

65
 program variation. For small samples a great deal of heterogeneity can be a

problem because individual cases are so different from each other. The

maximum variation sampling strategy turns that apparent weakness into a

strength by applying the following logic: Any common patterns that emerge from

great variation are of particular interest and value in capturing the core

experiences and central, shared aspects or impacts of a program. (p. 53)

To that end and based on the GDIEC membership, invitations were sent to CDOs in

consumer products, education, financial services, hospitality and travel, media and

entertainment, professional services, public administration, and services and

technology. Once the final list of GDIEC member participants was confirmed, the

approved IRB recruitment script (See Appendix A) was used to solicit their participation.

Definition of analysis unit. The unit of analysis for this study was CDOs in

global organizations. The purpose of this study was to explore and identify those

practices and organizational behaviors associated with facilitating inclusion for diverse

employees. The sample of 12 CDOs chosen for this study met the following criteria:

(a) hold or have held the CDO position, equivalent to Director or above, (b) employed by

a global organization, and (c) have been employed in the CDO post for at least a year in

the same organization. The study participants represented broad experiences and were

chosen for their ability to articulate the practices that they deployed to promote

inclusion. Creswell (2013) recommended that researchers select participants who can

“purposefully inform an understanding of the research problem and central phenomenon

in the study” (p. 156).

66
 The CDO participants were selected by purposive sampling. In purposive

sampling, the researcher may choose to make decisions regarding the participants

based on their unique knowledge to support their involvement (Jupp, 2006). For this

reason, some refer to it as subjective sampling.

According to Dworkin (2012), data redundancy may be achieved with a

participant number range between five and 30. Therefore, the total of 20 participants

met this objective. Denzin and Lincoln (2011) agreed, noting that the lived experiences

of five to 20 participants suffice to provide new knowledge on the subject studied. Each

participant in the study had the potential to provide a variety of concepts, and large

samples are not necessary in generating significant data (Sokolowski, 2008).

Sources of data. The most common sources of data collection in qualitative

studies are interviews, observations, and document review (Creswell, 2009). The

interview is the most common source of data (Creswell, 2014). Beyond the qualitative

semi-structured interview process, additional sources of data enhanced the veracity of

the study in addressing the organizational practices that yield full participation of diverse

employees. One such source was the observation of the survey participant during the

semi-structured interview. Specifically, body language was observed in order to assess

if certain behaviors and practices elicited intense reactions.

Protection of human subjects. The protection of human subjects is the

cornerstone of ethical research; this study adhered to those high standards. The nature

of this study provided minimal; no social, economic, or legal risks were incurred as a

result of participating in the study. The meticulous data collection process, which

included anonymity of participants, supported the minimization of said risks. Further,

67
Pepperdine University requires that researchers have their research plans reviewed by

the Institutional Review Board (IRB) to assess the potential for risk to the study

participants.

Institutional Review Board. In accordance with the requirements set forth by

Pepperdine University regarding research involving human participants, the requisite

application and supportive materials were provided. As reported by Pepperdine

University’s IRB,

It is the policy of Pepperdine University that all research involving human

participants must be conducted in accordance with accepted ethical, federal, and

professional standards for research and that all such research must be approved

by one of the university’s Institutional Review Boards (IRBs). In the review and

conduct of research, Pepperdine University is guided by the ethical principles set

forth in the Belmont Report. In addition, all human subjects research conducted

by or under the auspices of Pepperdine University must be performed in

accordance with the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, DHHS (CFR), Title 45

Part 46 (45 CFR46), entitled Protection of Human Research Subjects, and Parts

160 and164, entitled Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health

Information and the California Protection of Human Subjects in Medical

Experimentation Act.

CDOs who voluntarily agreed to participate in this study were given informed

consent forms to sign (See Appendix B). Informed consent forms ensure that the

participants agree to the provisions of the study prior to their participation (Creswell,

2014). In most cases, informed consent forms include the following identifications:

68
(a) the name and identity of the researcher, (b) the sponsoring institution, (c) the

purpose of study, (d) benefits of participating, (e) level and type of participant

involvement, (f) noted risks to the participant, (g) guarantee of confidentiality,

(h) assurance of ability to withdrawal at any time without penalty, and (i) names of

persons to contact if questions or concerns arise (Creswell, 2014).

Study participants, who were voluntary and received no remuneration for

participation, were invited to take part in the study. Each participant received a written

invitation letter to participate, which not only included a comprehensive explanation of

the research but also outlined the following:

1. A statement indicating that the study was being conducted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements of a dissertation;

2. The purpose of the study;

3. A summary of the research methodology used in the study;

4. An estimate of the time required to participate;

5. Reiteration that the participant’s identity and organization would be

confidential and anonymous because specific identifiers would not be used;

6. An overview indicating how the interview would be conducted and how

content would be stored and disposed of after the completion of the study;

7. A statement indicating that participation was voluntary, that participants could

withdraw from any part of the interview process at any time, and that

participants could choose not to answer all the questions; and

8. Notification that interview data would be retained for a period of 5 years after

the acceptance date of the dissertation.

69
 Data collection. Data collection for this study included a two-phased approach.

First, a comprehensive review of literature was completed and is included in the

preceding chapter. According to Boote and Beile (2005), a prerequisite of substantive

research is the completion of a thorough literature review. Inasmuch, the literature

review provided historical context, identified major issues, and refined the study focus

(Grey, 2010). The literature review helped to identify the research problem worthy of

research and informed the creation of the research questions. Secondly, since semi-

structured interviews allow for probing of views and opinions, this type of question was

employed for this study. This study used semi-structured interviews to understand the

lived experiences of CDOs with regard to the best practices associated with promoting

an inclusive work environment for diverse employees. As participants in semi-

structured interviews are encouraged to expand on their answers, this aligned well with

the phenomenological approach where the objective was to explore subjective

meanings that participants assign to concepts, events, and experiences (Gray, 2013).

Interview process. The interview process for this study was initiated by

contacting participants who met the aforementioned participant description criteria. The

participants were contacted by either email and by phone. Once it was determined and

confirmed that they consented to be included in the study, the Participant Informed

Consent form (See Appendix B) was sent. Upon receipt of the executed Informed

Consent form, the form was filed and the participant was re-contacted to coordinate the

interview logistics. Interviews were scheduled for 60 minutes at a location of

convenience for the participant. If it was not feasible for to conduct the interview in

person, the interviews were conducted by telephone. The complete list of interview

70
questions was provided to each participant in advance of their scheduled interview. At

the onset of the interview, permission was requested to audio record the interview. If

permission was granted or not, thorough handwritten notes were taken.

At the conclusion of the interview, an additional 90 minutes were set aside to

reflect. During the reflection period, the researcher sat in a quiet place to listen to the

digital recording and reflectively journal about the interview experience (Creswell, 2003;

Gray, 2010; Seidman, 2006). According to Herda (1999), the personal journal

represents the heart of the data collection process as it allows the researcher the

cathartic opportunity to log fears, questions, ideas, observations, and comments.

The researcher opted to personally transcribe the data from the interviews. This

process, while time consuming, provided the ability to capture nuances that would likely

be missed if the transcription were completed by a third party. An additional 3 hours

was allowed to complete each transcription. According to Seidman (2006), it is normal

for there to be a multiple of three from the length of the interview to the time required for

transcribing. Once the interview was transcribed and corrected, it was then emailed to

the participant for his/her review.

Interview protocol. An interview protocol provides a procedural guide for

conducting qualitative research. The Interview Protocol, which outlines the procedures

undertaken, was reviewed by the preliminary review committee and approved and

finalized by the dissertation committee. To ensure consistency, the Interview Protocol

was taken to each interview and followed. Since the protocol was designed for a

specific one-time use, traditional methods of establishing reliability of a data collection

instrument were not applicable.

71
 According to Gray (2010), interviewing is a skill that requires practice and

preparation. The researcher prepared in advance of the interview. To that end, best

practices associated with research interview techniques, including active listening,

impression management, use of language, use of silence, maintaining control of the

interview, and improvising as appropriate were reviewed (Evans, 2009; Fraizer, 2009;

Gray, 2010; Miramontes, 2008). Active listening was critical as it helped to deepen the

interviewer’s understanding of the participants’ experiences by creating empathy and

facilitating engagement. Guillaume (2000) argued that phrasing and the intention of the

researcher’s prompts establish the kind of reflection, insights, and connections that yield

success in active listening. The strategies deployed were outlined by Louw, Todd, and

Jimakron (n.d.) to further active listening (See Table 1). The purpose of the active

listening was to probe, evaluate, and capture the essence of the participant’s responses

to insure that they were captured in the study.

Table 1

Active Listening Strategies

Questions/Statements Objective
“How do you Probing using open-ended questions extended the participant’s
typically…?” response and created further opportunities for exploration
“Why do you think...?” Evaluating the meaning behind a response and encourage the
participant to visit from a new direction
“It sounds like….” Allows for paraphrasing and the opportunity for the researcher
to validate understanding of the participant’s stated experience
“I’m not sure that I Encourages the participant to add, explain or clarify
understand…”

For each in-person interview, the researcher arrived at the agreed upon location

60 minutes in advance of the scheduled interview to set up the recorder, organize the

questions, and prepare to conduct the interview. The recorder was tested prior to

72
conducting an interview. For each interview, an ample supply of pens and pencils, a

journal, and two digital recording devices with extra power cords were available.

As described in the Interview Protocol, the process included: (a) expressing

gratitude for the participant’s willingness to participate; (b) reviewing the Informed

Consent form; (c) an explanation of the interview process, request to audio record and

notification of note taking; (d) confirmation of confidentiality; (e) inquiring if the

participant had questions or concerns; (f) starting with an ice breaker to build rapport

and open the interview (Moustakas, 1994); and (g) posing each of the interview

questions. To close the interview, the researcher: (a) inquired if the participant had

anything additional to include, (b) reiterated confidentiality, (c) advised that the written

transcript would be provided, (d) expressed gratitude for his/her time and participation,

and (e) provided a business card. This protocol was followed for each interview and

each participant received a formal handwritten thank you note within a week of his or

her completed interview.

Instrumentation. Each participant was asked 11 questions. Specifically,

interview question number one is a meaning question. Creswell (2009) defined

meaning questions as questions that solicit information that leads to an understanding

of the phenomenon. This question did not link to any research question but provided

additional substantive information about the participants’ experiences. The meaning

question posed was, “I thought we would start by having you tell me a little about

yourself…what prompted you to become involved in diversity and inclusion.” The intent

of the meaning question was to ease the transition into the other interview questions

while providing an understanding of the phenomenon. From there, the following 15-

73
question interview protocol was used for data collection. The researcher designed the

original set of questions on the interview protocol. Purposeful attention was given to the

design of the protocol questions to ensure that they would be collectively

comprehensive and mutually exclusive. The interview questions included:

1. How do you define “inclusion”?

2. What are your best practices for promoting and facilitating inclusion of diverse

employees?

3. What practices do you think hinder “inclusion”?

4. What resources did you need to recruit and retain diverse employees?

(Assuming creating an inclusive work environment starts with talent

acquisition)

5. What were the major challenges and/or obstacles in creating an inclusive

work environment?

6. How did you deal with and/or overcome those challenges?

7. How would you personally describe the elements of a successfully inclusive

work environment?

8. How could these elements be measured and tracked to ensure a successfully

inclusive work environment?

9. What measures does your leadership value in assessing the success of your

inclusive practices?

10. What cautionary tale(s) would you share with executive leaders in the

implementation of inclusive workplace practices?

74
 11. Is there anything else that you would like to share about implementing

inclusive workplace practices that you think would be relevant to this study?

Digitally recording each interview and capturing interview content via handwritten notes

collected the data. Both were transcribed into a paper copy in a MS word file.

Validity and reliability. The principles of validity and reliability ensure that the

research protocol instrument addressed the research questions (Gray, 2010). The

methodology and contextual framework of this study also helped to establish validity.

Internal and external validation and reliability are critical elements of credible research

(Creswell, 2007). Meltzoff (1998) asserted that external validity is “the demonstrated

validity of the generalizations that the researcher intended at the outset and the validity

of the generalized inferences that the researcher offers at the end” (p. 46). Flick (2002)

supported the notion of reliability by positing that documenting the research process

serves to increase the study’s reliability. Lincoln and Guba (1985) postulated that

reliability is determined by the dependability and consistency of the findings related to

the collected data. Further, “auditability is achieved when the researcher leaves a clear

decision trail concerning the study from its beginning to end” (Sandelowski, 1986,

p. 34). To that end, a three-step process of validity was employed.

Step 1: Prima facie validity. Throughout history, this Latin term has referred to

a surface or cursory initial impression. In this initial phase, what were thought to be

appropriate interview questions were designed based on the literature review and were

reflected in Table 2. Essentially, prima facie in this regard connotes upon the initial

observation (Herlitz, 1994).

75
 Step 2: Peer review validity. Peer review validity was achieved by the review

and input of a panel of doctoral students at Pepperdine University’s Graduate School of

Education and Psychology. The panel consisted of accomplished business and civic

leaders who have completed graduate level coursework in Organizational Leadership.

Based on their feedback, questions were refined to achieve greater clarity and bias

reduction. Once modifications were completed, the interview and research questions

were submitted to the dissertation committee, composed of three faculty members,

leading to the final step in the validity process.

Step 3: Expert review validity. This final step of validity was accomplished by

faculty review and comment upon the recommendations provided via the peer review.

Where directed by the expert panel, interview questions were again modified. The

questions include in Table 2 represent those that were approved by the expert panel.

Table 2

Research Questions and Corresponding Interview Questions

Research Questions Corresponding Interview Questions

RQ1: What strategies 1. How do you define “inclusion”?
and practices are
employed by CDOs in 2. What are your best practices for promoting and facilitating inclusion
global organizations to of diverse employees?
promote and facilitate
inclusion of diverse 3. What practices do you think hinder “inclusion”?
employees?
4. What resources did you need to recruit and retain diverse
employees? (Assuming creating an inclusive work environment
starts with talent acquisition)

(continued)

76
Research Questions Corresponding Interview Questions
RQ 2: What 5. What were the major challenges and/or obstacles in creating
challenges are faced inclusive work environment?
by these CDOs in
implementing 6. How did you deal with and/or overcome those challenges?
strategies and
practices employed to 7. What is the role of inclusion in your talent acquisition strategy?
achieve inclusion of
diverse employees? 8. Do you think that the characteristics of an inclusive work
environment will change in the future?

RQ 3: How do CDOs 9. How would you personally describe the elements of a

measure success of successfully inclusive work environment?
their inclusive
workplace practices? 10. How could these elements be measured and tracked to
ensure a successfully inclusive work environment?

11. What measures does your leadership value in assessing

the success of your inclusive practices?
12. What methods did you employ to benchmark and track
inclusive workplace practices?

13. In what other way(s) is inclusion defined and measured

differently at your organization?

RQ 4: Based on their 14. What cautionary tale(s) would you share with executive leaders in
experiences, what the implementation of inclusive workplace practices?
recommendations
would CDOs make for 15. Is there anything else that you would like to share about
future implementation implementing inclusive workplace practices that you think would
of inclusive workplace be relevant to this study?
practices?

Statement of Personal Bias

As noted previously, qualitative research is utilized as a way to discover the lived

experiences of the participant. Although semi-structured interviews provide practical

opportunities to glean insights from the informant, they are not necessarily objective

(Tufford & Newman, 2010). As the researcher serves as the primary instrument for this

qualitative research project, Tufford and Newman (2010) asserted that this “subjective

endeavor entails the inevitable transmission of assumptions, values, interests, emotions

77
and theories, within and across the research project. These preconceptions may

influence how data are gathered, interpreted, and presented” (p. 81).

It is important for researchers to try to transcend some of their own biases and

confront their own opinions and prejudices regarding the data (Rajendran, 2001). Given

that multiple tasks were performed associated with the completion of this study, the

investigator’s biases were inherent in every stage. Researchers should identify their

“biases, values and personal interest about their research topic and process” (Creswell,

2003, p. 184). To that end, the researcher is an African-American woman with

professional experience in Human Resources and Diversity and Inclusion.

Bracketing is an often-used method to mitigate the inclusion of bias in the

research. Wall, Glenn, Mitchinson, and Poole (2004) described bracketing as a

researcher’s endeavor to attain impartiality by vacating foreknowledge. Gearing (2004)

defined bracketing as a “scientific process in which a researcher suspends or holds in

abeyance his or her presuppositions, biases, assumptions, theories, or previous

experiences to see and describe the phenomenon” (p. 1,430). To further illuminate the

import, Starks and Trinidad (2007) declared that the investigator

must be honest and vigilant about her own perspective, pre-existing thoughts and

beliefs, and developing hypotheses…engage in the self-reflective process of

‘‘bracketing’’, whereby they recognize and set aside (but do not abandon) their a

priori knowledge and assumptions, with the analytic goal of attending to the

participants’ accounts with an open mind. (p. 1,376)

Researchers must identify their biases early in the study and then set those biases

aside while the research study is underway (Creswell & Miller, 2000).

78
 In this study, reflective journaling was used as a method of bracketing; the

researcher’s observations, assumptions, and outstanding queries were captured using

this method. Cutcliffe (2003) suggested writing notes during the data collection and

analysis processes as a means to reflect upon the engagement with the data; this

process can serve as a method of bracketing. Hanson (1994) also supported this

technique by noting that maintaining a reflective journal may facilitate increased

awareness of biases via sustained reflection throughout the research process.

Data Analysis

Overview. Once the data were collected and transcribed, the analysis phase

was initiated. The process of qualitative data analysis is described by some as much

art as science because the interpretation involves both creative artistry and technical

preciseness (Miller & Crabtree, 1999). “Qualitative data analysis is...an inductive

process of organizing data into categories and identifying patterns...among the

categories” (McMillan & Schumacher, 2006, p. 364). Creswell (2003) posited, “data

analysis ―involves preparing the data for analysis, conducting different analyses,

moving deeper and deeper into understanding the data, representing the data, and

making an interpretation of larger meaning of the data” (p. 190). A rigorous and

systematic set of procedures was followed to produce a legitimate and sound theory.

The inductive coding process ensures that patterns and/or themes emerge from the

transcribed content.

Coding. To facilitate the emergence of patterns and categories, the principles

suggested by Gray (2003) were followed:

79
 1. Organize and transcribe the data, focuses on the developing an

organizational framework to catalog the notes, tapes, documents, etc.,

2. Collect, code, collect addresses the repetitive process, recognizing that early

coding iterations can assist in creating familiarity with the data,

3. Familiarization provides the opportunity to orient oneself with the breadth of

data gathered during the research study,

4. Focused reading initiates the process of categorizing by underlining words

and phrases.

5. Review/amend and refine codes during the second reading.

6. Generate theory provides the opportunity to connect the dots that emerged

from the data in order to draft theoretical principles or models.

Given that the veracity of the study results can be affected by the data analysis,

throughout the literature, authors suggest using an independent coder. Therefore, in this

study, interrater reliability was established using a co-reviewer process. To improve the

study’s reliability and validity, Vargo et al. (2003) suggested that that the principal

researcher and the secondary researcher possess sufficient knowledge about the

phenomenon that is being studied. The data were coded individually and a table of

constructs was produced. These constructs or themes resulted from the analysis of

content. Within the table, each of these themes identified those key words and phrases,

which were used to glean the constructs.

As a next step, a panel of co-reviewers individually assessed the coding. The

co-reviewers and the researcher then discussed the themes and keywords to determine

modifications. The investigator then reviewed the co-reviewers’ recommendations with

80
one of the members of the dissertation committee before finalizing the coding process.

The major constructs/themes that were gleaned, as well as their descriptions and a

sampling of participant quotes, will be provided in Chapter 4.

Inter-rater Reliability and Validity

Reliability is the degree to which a tool produces consistent results. Inter-rater

reliability is a measure of reliability used to assess the degree to which different raters

are in agreement regarding their assessments. Since observers may not construe the

data in the same manner, the raters may not be aligned as to how specific responses

connote knowledge or familiarity with the skills being evaluated (Cozby, 2001). Validity,

in contrast, denotes how well a test measures what it is purported to measure.

To ensure inter-rater reliability and validity, the principal investigator used a

three-step process. The first step of the process involved coding the data

independently. From this initial coding process based on content analysis, major

themes were identified and the results noted. The second step required the

engagement of two peer reviewers. The goal of this step was to achieve consensus

regarding the coding results from the initial step. The third and final step was activated

when the peer review did not result in consensus and required the engagement and

review of the dissertation committee. The goal of this step was resolution regarding the

coding themes and strategies.

Summary

The objective of Chapter 3 was to present the elements associated with the

qualitative research design deployed for this study. To provide context, an overview of

the study was provided, including the research questions. The phenomenological

81
approach for the research methodology, which incorporated interviews and content

analysis, was explored and provided the foundational elements of the research design

and interview protocol. The chapter concluded with a comprehensive examination of

the steps associated with the data analysis, which segue into the research findings

provided in Chapter 4.

82
 Chapter 4: Findings

Workplace diversity in the United Stated is rooted in the Civil Rights movement of

the 1960s. The efforts to increase diversity have evolved from a focus on compliance to

a focus on inclusion. The latter is predicated on creating a work experience in which

diverse employees perceive belonging, respect, and acknowledgement of their

uniqueness. The increase in demographic diversity in the U.S. should signal to

organizations to not only value diversity but also consider it as talent or human capital

that can facilitate competitive advantage. Should they opt to do so, the outcomes of

organizational diversity initiatives include improved competitiveness (Oyler & Pryor,

2009). Essential to this would be a transformed culture and a differentiated employee

experience that indicates that inclusion is central to the organization and diversity is

“unequivocally, unconditionally valued” (Richard & Johnson, 2001, p. 179).

The aim of this qualitative study was to explore the best practices and related

measures of CDOs associated with creating inclusive environments. To accomplish this,

four research questions were asked

1. What strategies and practices are employed by CDOs in global organizations

to promote and facilitate inclusion of diverse employees?

2. What challenges are faced by these CDOs in implementing strategies and

practices employed to achieve inclusion of diverse employees?

3. How do CDOs measure the success of their inclusive workplace practices?

4. Based on their experiences, what cautionary tales would CDOs share for

future implementation of inclusive workplace practices?

83
 In support of these research questions, 11 interview questions were developed

and posed to the participants. Open-ended interview questions are the most popular

data gathering technique used in qualitative research studies (D. Turner, 2010). The

interview questions in this study were designed to be open-ended, allowing for probing

and providing the participant the opportunity to express the information that he or she

found important (Berg, 2007). The interview questions were explicitly intended to give

voice to the CDOs’ views and experiences (Herman & Bently, 1993). The interview

questions were:

1. How do you define “inclusion”?

2. What are your best practices for promoting and facilitating inclusion of diverse

employees?

3. What practices do you think hinder “inclusion”?

4. What resources did you need to recruit and retain diverse employees?

(Assuming creating an inclusive work environment starts with talent

acquisition)

5. What were the major challenges and/or obstacles in creating an inclusive

work environment?

6. How did you deal with and/or overcome those challenges?

7. How would you personally describe the elements of a successfully inclusive

work environment?

8. How could these elements be measured and tracked to ensure a successfully

inclusive work environment?

84
 9. What measures does your leadership value in assessing the success of your

inclusive practices?

10. What cautionary tale(s) would you share with executive leaders in the

implementation of inclusive workplace practices?

11. Is there anything else that you would like to share about implementing

inclusive workplace practices that you think would be relevant to this study?

This chapter presents the findings of the study through the analysis of the CDOs’

responses to the semi-structured interview questions coupled with their directly quoted

insights.

Profile of the Participants

Fourteen participants were interviewed for this study. The participants hold or

have held the position of CDO, or an equivalent position in global organizations

headquartered in the United States. The gender profile of the 14 research participants

was 57% men and 43% women. The gender profile is represented in Figure 2. The

distribution of industries represented and the titles held are depicted in Table 3. The

titles of the CDO participants are reflected in Figure 3.

Figure 2. Gender distribution of research participants.

85
Table 3

Participant Demographics by Industry and Title

Industry (Alphabetical Number of Participants

order)
Consumer Products 5
Consumer Services 1
Entertainment 3
Financial Services 2
Tech 3

Figure 3. Distribution of CDO titles.

Data Collection

The second phase of data gathering for this study involved asking a set of semi-

structured interview questions, which were confirmed subsequent to the review and

validated by the panel experts and the committee. Initially, it was planned to source

participants from the membership of the GDIEC. The researcher had concerns

86
regarding the appearance of solicitation from a group of which she is a member and

which could be incongruent with the spirit of the GDIEC. Consequently, the strategy for

sourcing participants was modified slightly. The names of potential participants were

derived from the three sources: (a) the researcher’s professional network, (b) peer

referrals by participants, and (c) referrals from the researcher’s professional network.

The preliminary process to screen participants included confirming that

participants were from one of the aforementioned sources, providing them with the

recruitment flyer, conducting an initial call to answer questions, and determining if the

prospective participant met the required criteria. CDOs who voluntarily agreed to

participate were then given informed consent forms. A mutually convenient time to

conduct the interview was scheduled. At the onset of the interview, informed consent

was again reviewed and permission to record was granted. In all cases, permission to

record was given. The semi-structured interviews began with the exchange of

pleasantries and the posing of an icebreaker or meaning type question. Icebreaker

questions are designed to develop rapport and engage participants in a conversation

about the key aspects of their lives, careers, etc. According to the works of Douglass

(1985) and DiCicco-Bloom and Crabtree (2006), rapport is a foundational element of the

interview and serves as the means of establishing a trusting environment as well as a

trust-based relationship with the respondent. The icebreaker questions included can you

please tell me about your career, what prompted you to become involved in diversity

and inclusion, is this the work that you thought that you would be doing, and why is

diversity and inclusion work important to you? “Once trust has been established

87
through your icebreaker questions, it is time to focus your questions more directly on the

research topic” (Brennen, 2013, p. 33).

The semi-structured interview format was chosen because it typically affords the

flexibility to approach respondents differently while still covering the key data areas

(Noor, 2008). As the data collection began, based on the responses from the

participants, it was clear that interview questions #10 and #13 were redundant.

Therefore, they were not posed to participants #4 through #14. As is a benefit of the

semi-structured interview framework, each participant was asked the same set of

questions, though there was not a defined ordering. The nature of this interviewing

format served this research well. It provided respondents the opportunity to share their

accounts of their experiences via open-ended questions (Dearnley, 2005). From this

wealth of data, common and best practices started to emerge in the post interview

process.

The post interview process included several critical steps relevant to data

collection. At the completion of each interview, an additional 60-90 minutes were taken

to review and refine notes and reflect on the interview. Boud, Keogh, and Walker

(1985) described reflection as “an important human activity, which enables people to

recapture their experience, think about it, and evaluate it” (p. 19). The audio recordings

were also checked to confirm that the entire interview had been recorded. Once the

interviews were transcribed, the audio was destroyed. Consideration was given to the

importance of anonymity; therefore, personal and organizational identifiers were

removed from the transcriptions.

88
Data Analysis

“Data analysis is the systematic search for meaning” (Hatch, 2002, p. 148). The

analysis of qualitative research involves the process of uncovering and understanding of

what the data describe. According to NSF (1997), qualitative data analysis is a highly

fluid process that evolves as the patterns and themes emerge. Data reduction is an

inductive process for creating meaning through the development of summary themes

and categories (Thomas, 2006). Figure 4, adapted from Creswell (2009), presents the

qualitative data analysis process

Figure 4. Qualitative data analysis process.

Data cleaning is the process of preparing and organizing the data into meaningful

units of analysis. Data reduction is the researcher’s first and repeated pass at

immersing himself/herself in the data to facilitate classification and categorization, a

practice that leads to winnowing. Prior to and during the transcription, the interview

notes and audio recorded interviews were reviewed several times to ensure depth of

familiarity and immersion. The third step in the process occurred once the coded and

chunked data became clustered with similar categories. As similar themes emerged, a

color-coded MS Excel spreadsheet was used to capture them. In addition to the color-

coding, the frequency of the responses was also noted. The final step involved the

89
themes facilitating the development of the story or narrative associated with the

research. To ease understanding of the responses to the interview questions, the data

were presented graphically to summarize the findings. The steps were employed:

1. Preparing of the raw data.

2. Close reading and rereading of the verbatim transcripts to insure familiarity.

3. Allowing themes to emerge from the data.

4. Identifying themes, concepts, and constructs that became clustered.

5. Noting overlapping and uncoded text.

6. Refining categories to include a search for contradictory points and insights.

7. Selecting appropriate direct quotes that underscored the essence of the

theme.

8. Assimilating themes to tell the story of the lived experiences of the CDO

participants.

The qualitative study sought to find meaning in the experiences of CDOs.

Through data analysis, the researcher saw patterns, identified themes, and made

interpretations. Through this process, the purpose was to share this meaning to help

others who are creating an inclusive workplace or who intend to do so.

Establishing Interrater Reliability

The researcher independently coded the transcript data to discern common

themes from the interviews. This provided a preliminary coding structure. Two

colleagues then reviewed this initial structure. The initial review consisted of the

researcher sharing the coding findings and discussing to the consensus. If consensus

were not found, a committee member would review and provide the tiebreaker. Once

90
the decisions were made in this preliminary round, the researcher continued to code in

a second cycle. At the completion of the second cycle of coding, the researcher and

colleagues met again to conduct a final review. Following the same process as in the

initial coding cycle, the group sought consensus. Again, if consensus were not found

the committee would again be engaged to provide a second tiebreaker.

Data Display

At the completion of the data collection and analysis processes, several themes

emerged including the importance of culture, measurement and leadership

accountability. Other themes, which may be instructive also emerged yet, were less

prominent. The data was organized by research question and is presented below.

Research Question One

The first research question posited was, what strategies and practices are

employed by CDOs in global organizations to promote and facilitate inclusion of diverse

employees? The four interview questions that collectively addressed Research

Question One were:

1. How do you define “inclusion?”

2. What are your best practices for promoting and facilitating inclusion of diverse

employees?

3. What practices do you think hinder inclusion?

4. What resources do and did you need to recruit and retain diverse employees

(assuming creating an inclusive work environment starts with talent

acquisition)?

91
 Interview question one: Defining inclusion. The first interview question asked

was, How do you define “inclusion?” The purpose of this question was to provide

insight into the respondent’s perspective of inclusion and context for their subsequent

responses. The predominant responses addressed participation. As depicted in

Figure 5, the four key themes were (a) participation and membership, (b) embracing of

difference/diversity, (c) consideration and recognition, and (d) respect.

Figure 5. The definition of inclusion: Coding results.

Participation and membership. There were 78 elements identified in the

definition of inclusion. Of the 78 referenced in total, 21 (26%) were in this category. The

statements offered by Participants #3, #12 and #14 illustrated the importance of

participation and membership as a key element of the definition of inclusion. There is no

inclusion without being “in,” asserted Participant #3 (personal communication, February,

18, 2016). To echo that point, Participant #12 elaborated, “The whole intent of inclusion

is to provide equity of access, participation and membership; that no one is excluded

92
and left out. Inclusion, in its most pure sense, insures full participation” (personal

communication, March 15, 2016).

Finally, Participant #14 likened his definition of inclusion to having an all access

pass. “Inclusion is not having to be triple screened, delayed or denied at the velvet rope

of entry. It’s being welcomed in liked a revered guest” (personal communication, March

18, 2016). According to Mor Barak and Cherin (1998), inclusion encompasses three

attributes: access, involvement, and influence. Access involves the degree to which a

particular person can access information. Involvement addresses the degree to which

an employee is involved in the team environment. Influence specifically points to the

degree to which a person is empowered to impact the decision-making processes.

Inclusion represents complete and effective contribution.

Embracing difference. Embracing difference and diversity was the second most

reported element; 20 (25%) responses were included in this category. Participant #1

summarized the importance of this theme by stating, “I think inclusion is the next step

once you have diversity. If diversity is the engine then, inclusion is the destination. You

cannot get to your destination without an engine. Inclusion maximizes diversity”

(personal communication, February 18, 2016). Inclusion as a workplace strategy

attempts to embrace and maximize employee differences to advantage the company

(Jayne & Dipboye, 2004).

Consideration and recognition. Consideration and recognition had 19 (24%)

responses in this category. In exploring this response with respondents, a subtheme of

covering was often cited with this element. Covering is a concept that NYU Law

Professor Kenji Yoshino borrowed from 20th century sociologist Erving Goffman. In

93
Goffman’s (1963) book, Stigma, he coined the term to describe the behavior that

attempts to modulate our true identities. Yoshino’s (2002) paper titled, “Uncovering

Talent: A New Model of Inclusion,” argues that in many cases inclusion is predicated on

the employee’s surrender of his/her elements of diversity. For the respondents

articulating covering as a subtheme, consideration and being recognized for one’s true

self with one’s true identity was cited as being at odds with covering.

I define inclusion as being considered, thought of and being recognized based on

my true authentic self – which embodies all of my and your diversities, Covering,

which is sadly prevalent in corporate America, essentially asks me to turn all of

that down to be considered as a member. (Participant #9, personal

communication, March 1, 2016)

Participant #14 described it this way; “Diversity is being thought of and being invited to

the party, whereas, inclusion is being asked to dance” (personal communication, March

18, 2016).

Respect. Respect had 18 (23%) mentions this category. “Respect and dignity

enable inclusion. If there’s no respect and dignity, there won’t be any inclusion”

(Participant #10, personal communication, March 15, 2016). A cursory review of

diversity statements of public companies would support the prevalence of respect.

In these statements, respect is included prominently (Jayne & Dipboye, 2004).

McDonald’s (as cited in Jayne & Dipboye, 2004) stated, “Respecting, listening to and

participating in knowledge-sharing and eclectic insights have helped make us the

organization we are today” (p. 411). Fannie Mae (as cited in Jayne & Dipboye, 2004)

noted:

94
 Our goal is to support an inclusive culture that enables all employees to be fully

engaged and feel respected and valued for who they are, enabling them to do

their best work and achieve the company’s vision to be America's most valued

housing partner. (p. 411)

In taking a stand for equality, PepsiCo (as cited in Jayne & Dipboye, 2004) reported, “As

a global company, we work in countries with a broad array of laws and regulations. But

regardless of where we operate, we take care to respect the diversity, talents and

abilities of all” (p. 411). Note that the inclusion of this sample of statements does not

connote that the participants in this research represented these organizations.

Interview question one: Summary. The data revealed common themes

regarding the key components of the definition of inclusion. Those elements included

participation and membership, embracing difference, consideration and respect. Taken

together, these elements highlight the importance of having a sense of valued belonging

and being respected in defining inclusion.

Interview question two: Best practices. The second interview question

inquired, what are your best practices for promoting and facilitating inclusion of diverse

employees? The purpose of this inquiry was to allow the respondent to share those

experiences that they deemed to be effective. The respondents thereby believed in the

efficacy of these practices. During the coding process, the following three themes were

gleaned (See Figure 6):

1. Cultural actions

2. Program oriented

3. Leadership accountability

95
Figure 6. The best practices to promote inclusion.

Cultural actions. According to Ely and Thomas (2001), contextual factors within

organizations can affect reaction to those who are different. Organizational culture is

one of those factors. Shared values and beliefs amongst the employees comprise the

organizational culture (Schein, 1985). For this research, respondents noted that cultural

actions highlighted the necessity to embed inclusion into the organizational DNA. Of the

45 best practices cited, 17 (37%) were attributed to this category.

Essentially, the most important best practice is for our diverse employees to have

more magic moments than tragic moments. Meaning, that there are more

opportunities afforded by the culture, which they experience inclusion and feel

embraced than there are that they feel excluded, rejected and disrespected.

(Participant #13, personal communication, March 17, 2016)

Some of the cultural actions associated with best practices were rooting out systemic

barriers to inclusion and viewing/treating difference as strength. In conjunction, setting

rules of engagement, which included quick response to intolerance and exclusion, was

96
also noted. “Far too often, leaders claim that inclusion is important to them, yet slow or

no response to wrong-doings connotes intolerance thwarts those claims” (Participant

#9, personal communication, March 1, 2016).

Program oriented practices. Program oriented practices emerged as the

second grouping of best practices with 15 (30%) responses. These responses

underscored the necessity of creating and sustaining a learning rich culture. According

to Wheeler (1999),

Organizations that truly value inclusion are characterized by effective

management of people who are different, ability to admit weakness and

mistakes, heterogeneity at all levels, empowerment of people, recognition and

utilization of people’s skills and abilities, an environment that fosters learning and

exchanging of ideas, and flexibility. (pp. 33–34)

Participant #5 commented, “The blueprint for workplace inclusion has learning and

development to enhance awareness as its stable foundation.” To that point, Participant

#4 similarly offered,

We saw the greatest progress when we implemented a required learning

curriculum targeted by level and leadership scope. Our learning extends personal

awareness, inspires behavior change and presents a compelling ROI of

inclusion. Without question, it proved to be the secret sauce for us, especially our

senior execs. (personal communication, February 18, 2016)

Nadler and Tushman (1990) described the senior team as a learning system with an

open system approach. The open system uses a consistent stream of learning,

exposing them to new ideas, situations, and opportunities. Participant #8 agreed that

97
learning was important, but expanded her response to also reflect broader elements of

the talent management process,

Learning unlocks awareness, but unless and until we accept and activate

inclusion throughout all of our people programs, we’re just whistling Dixie. As

well, unless and until we engage and fully activate our leaders and hold them

accountable, we may as well throw in the towel. (personal communication,

February 26, 2016)

Leadership accountability. A burgeoning body of research speaks to executive

leadership as a vital aspect of large-scale organizational change. Leadership

accountability, while representing the third most cited best practice, was accompanied

by passionate discussion. Ten attributes, representing 22% of the total responses

related to leadership accountability, were in this category. The key attributes that

connote leadership accountability are as follows:

• To whom the CDO reports

• Availability of resources

• Accountability included in performance management

• Component of total rewards

• Component of career mobility

A 2015 study by i4CP (Davis, 2015) suggested that high performance organizations are

up to 4.5 times more likely to hold executives accountable for diversity and inclusion.

Participant #1 echoed the themes of the i4CP study:

All leaders should be held accountable for diversity & inclusion. But, there are 3

key executive leaders who unquestionably have to be accountable and that is the

98
 CEO– as they set the organizational tone, strategy and priorities, the Chief

Human Resources Officer (CHRO)– as they set and own the people practices

and associated culture and finally, the CFO – as they set the financial resource

allocations. (personal communication, February 15, 2016)

In sharing the evolution of the reporting relationship and leadership accountabilities,

Participant #2 submitted,

This role used to report lower in the organization and my predecessor, despite

their best efforts, couldn’t get any traction. At that time, the organization believed

that the CDO was the sole person responsible for diversity & inclusion. As a

condition of my accepting the role, I required that it report to the CEO. Then in

short order, I lobbied the CEO and the Board that all of the Leadership team

have specific accountabilities related to D&I. What gets rewarded gets done.

Now, we’ve not only been able to get traction, but also make solid progress

because everyone has skin in the game. (personal communication, February 17,

2016)

Business leaders have an opportunity to send powerful messages when they

consistently demonstrate their commitment to Diversity & Inclusion (D&I). It moves

beyond rhetoric to personal experience (Groysberg & Connolly, 2013). In short,

leaders’ behavior influences culture (Schein, 1985).

Interview question two: Summary. The best practices that CDOs accounted

for involved culture, programs and leadership. Each of these practices underscored the

importance of these elements individually and collectively. The CDOs provided specific

actions they took to achieve best practice for their organization. The data indicated that

99
these actions were critical to establishing best practices in creating and sustaining an

inclusive workplace.

Interview question three: Hindrances to inclusion. The third interview

question associated with Research Question One asked, What practices do you think

hinder inclusion? This question sought to identify speed bumps and organizational

obstacles. Similar to the themes that emerged from the prior question regarding best

practices, the main themes that emerged here were culture and leadership (see Figure

7).

Figure 7. Practices that hinder inclusion.

Culture. Schein (1985) defined culture as a pattern of shared basic assumptions

that a group most often learns in solving problems and achieving integration. Overall,

participants noted 41 practices that hinder inclusion. Nineteen (43%) responses were

ascribed to culture. Respondents spoke of the cultural tolerance and acceptance of

apathetic and ill-skilled middle managers, consistent disrespect, lack of resources, and

cultural malaise preventing change. Also cited as a hindrance were unchecked

unconscious biases, which manifest in the form of institutionalized micro-inequities.

100
 One of the first things that we addressed was unconscious bias. We all have

biases and but they can have detrimental impact on individuals and collectively,

on organizations. When they are left unchecked, they become part of cultural

fabric and slowly degrade systems and processes. (Participant #10, personal

communication, March 15)

To echo the importance and impact of culture, Participant #6 simply stated, “Culture

eats strategy for breakfast” (personal communication, February 19, 2016). In essence,

culture is the preeminent factor of inclusion.

Leadership themes. Leadership is the source of the beliefs and values, which

requires leaders to understand the deeper levels of culture (Schein 1985). In regard to

leadership, respondents addressed leaders’ lack of support and authenticity as

significant hindrances to inclusion. Fifteen (37%) practices were categorized herein.

These were manifest in senior leaders not being engaged or accountable for

organizational inclusion. Concomitantly, leaders who failed to provide visible,

demonstrative, financial, and related support could counteract other great work in the

organization. Participant #4 shared an experience that highlighted the impact a

misaligned leader can have on the organization:

Up until recently, we had a senior leader who failed to engage in our efforts

around diversity and inclusion. Interesting enough, there were notable efforts

occurring organically beneath him in support of D&I. But his indifference became

a deterrent and began to dampen the energy and accomplishments of his team.

A surprise to no one, that team began to hemorrhage talent and obviously,

101
 started to miss their targets. At that point, it got the attention of the most senior

leaders. (Participant #4, personal communication, February 18, 2016)

Interview question three: Summary. The CDOs identified culture, leadership

and systems as key hindrances to workplace inclusion. It was interesting to note that

culture and leadership were also identified as required elements in best practices. Their

repetition as a hindrance would demonstrate how critical they are to inclusion. The

element of systems was least reported indicating that it was not a significant hindrance.

Interview question four: Resources needed. The final interview question that

corresponded to Research Question One was, what resources did you need to recruit

and retain diverse employees (assuming creating an inclusive work environment starts

with talent acquisition)? Recruitment and retention require strategic thought and active

planning.

Financial resources. The respondents identified 30 distinct resources. To set

the stage for the significance of resources, Participant #7 was emphatic. “The only way

that this work gets done is if the organization places a priority on it and then resources it

accordingly” (personal communication, February 26, 2016). In the data coding process,

three primary themes arose in response to this question: financial resources,

interdepartmental support and systems/processes (See Figure 8). Of the 30 total

responses, 12 (40%) were attributed to financial resources, which consisted of budget

for staff resources, programs, marketing, branding, and communications.

102
Figure 8. Resources required to recruit and retain.

Interdepartmental support. Upon review of the transcriptions and notes,

interdepartmental support had 10 (30%) resources allocated. Specifically,

interdepartmental support was described as collaboration in creating a supportive

organization. Participant #9 captured this factor succinctly; “One of the overlooked

resources to recruit and retain diverse employees is creating a web of collaboration and

support” (personal communication, March 1, 2016). Further, Participant #3 provided the

following analogy to illuminate interdepartmental support;

Do you know about the redwood trees? They could be the model that we follow

in organizations and teams within them. Redwoods grow up 300 or 350 feet tall.

Redwoods only reach their height because they grow close to each other.

Despite their height, their root systems are quite shallow. They thrive because

their roots interlock and integrate with the systems of surrounding trees, which

supports them. That’s how we should look at talent management. How can we

create an interlocking/supportive system to recruit and retain our employees?

(personal communication, February 18, 2016).

103
In the ideal workplace, there would be one organizational support construct that

considers respect and support for all from all groups (Huffman et al., 2008). Social

support is anchored by interpersonal interactions at work.

Systems and processes. Systems and processes were also put forth as vital

resources, garnering eight (26%) of the responses in the category. Specifically, these

included talent management systems and processes, which were thought to be

requisite resources. In addition, the data consistently revealed that a systems approach

is important to recruiting and retaining talent. Systems thinking addresses how one

element interacts with the other elements within the system (Senge, 1990).

I want to change my answer to this question. I don't think that answer is the

obvious resources like financial resources. I think that it’s in fact, learning

resources. Specifically, it’s learning resources to facilitate our thinking about

diversity systematically, whether we’re talking recruitment, retention, promotion,

rewarding. We should think of this from a system, not a singular unit or singular

issue perspective. (Participant #14, personal communication, March 18, 2016)

Also relative to systems and process, respondents spoke of leveraging existing talent

management systems. The most frequently talent management systems was applicant-

tracking systems for recruitment and employee satisfaction for retention. Pertinent to D

I, two respondents referenced their recent adoption of applications, which reduced

gender bias in recruitment postings. Given a systems approach, removing or mitigating

bias could positively impact the other elements in the system.

Interview question four: Summary. Resources represent a vital component to

sustain organizational efforts. The CDOs reported that the most significant resources

104
were financial, interdepartmental support and systems. While the delta between each

of the reported themes may not appear to be significant, the CDOs spoke of the lack of

financial resources being the most necessary.

Research Question One summary. Overall, Research Question One provided

clear insights regarding the requisite strategies and practices to promote inclusion.

Responses to the interview questions posed related to the research question and

insights gleaned from the review of literature research implied that culture, leadership,

and systems could be high impact levers to either facilitate or obstruct the CDO’s and

organization’s progress. Schein (1986) substantiated this understanding, asserting that

leadership, strategy, and organizational culture are linked in the process of change. In

summary, Bass and Avolio (1994) expanded upon that assertion, stating that the

change rests, rules, and abides in the heart of leadership and the systems they deploy.

Research Question Two

Research Question Two sought to identify the challenges that CDOs face in

implementing strategies and practices to achieve inclusion. There were initially four

corresponding interview questions. Yet, as previously addressed, during the actual data

collection phase only two of the corresponding questions were asked. The two

questions that were posed more closely aligned with the research question and directly

solicited data related to challenges faced and resilience exhibited. The questions were

(a) what were/are the major challenges in creating an inclusive work environment, and

(b) how did you deal with and/or overcome those challenges.

105
 Interview question one: Challenges. Given that none of the participants had

achieved the panacea of inclusion, they freely addressed the challenges in embarking

on their journey to inclusion.

I don’t think that you have enough time to record all of the challenges that me

and my fellow CDOs encounter. I liken it to being a pioneer or space explorer.

No matter how many challenges you anticipate and prepare for, there always a

slew more that you didn’t. You just can’t get discouraged by the challenges. I

refuse to allow temporal challenges derail permanent changes. (Participant #1,

personal communication, February 15, 2016)

Lack of resources. The themes that emerged from their responses primarily

included challenges associated with various elements that were lacking. Respondents

provided 30 distinct challenges, which were attributed to the categories depicted in

Figure 9. There were 12 responses (40%) aligned under lack of resources, 9 (30%)

mentions each for lack of support and lack of cultural malleability (See Figure 9).

Similarly, Participant #2 addressed the challenges associated with lack from the

vantage point of resources and resistance to change.

Whew, this has been a challenging experience. I feel like it’s been a nonstop and

very intense round of whack a mole. Just when I think I’ve resolved one

challenge, another series of them arises. The major challenges have been two-

fold. They revolve around the absence of something that is critical to move

forward or the existence of something that seems daunting to change. (personal

communication, February 17, 2016)

106
Participant #11 summarized her perspective on challenges. “I just think of the

challenges as a part of the journey. What we have sought to do is transform a culture

that has evolved into its current state for decades. Inherently, that is fraught with

challenges” (personal communication, March 15, 2016).

Figure 9. Challenges CDOs face.

At various points during the interview, the CDOs expressed that transformation

takes time. Four of the CDOs referenced that time could be considered a challenge.

Upon further probing, the participants relayed that the length of time it takes to see

progress could be perceived as a challenge. It is noteworthy that none of the CDOs

considered that they had completed their journeys. In fact, all respondents

acknowledged that their journeys remained in progress and that the destination was far

in the future.

This concept, which we all ascribe to, of being on a journey to achieve workplace

inclusion is I think the longest trip that I’ve ever been on. I submit that its length

directly correlates to the challenges that my organization has faced in getting to

the destination. As well, I think that as the organization evolves, new

107
 opportunities present new challenges. (Participant #5, personal communication,

February 19, 2016)

Interview question one: Summary. In articulating challenges that they have

faced, the CDOs indicated that the preeminent ones were lack of resources, support

and cultural malleability. The former two echo themes gleaned from the earlier

interview question regarding resources. Likewise. cultural malleability reiterates an

element of best practice.

Interview question two: Responding to challenges. The second interview

question sought to understand how the CDOs responded to the challenges they faced.

The question asked was how did or do you overcome challenges. Figure 10

summarizes the elements of the responses. The data revealed three primary areas (see

Figure 10):

1. Review and realign

2. Revisit learning

3. Resign

Figure 10. How CDOs deal with challenge.

108
 Review and realign. Reviewing the challenge and reassessing the current state

emerged as a dominant theme. Participant #7 shared the repositioning approach she

uses to deal with challenge:

I have to be honest. I’ve faced very few challenges in getting D&I off the ground

here. I know that I’m fortunate, but I attribute it to an enlightened executive team.

They inspire us all by their passion and true commitment. Depending on the

scale and scope of the problem, I’ve usually overcome it by repositioning a

program, message, strategy, etc. My experience has been that quick responses

have mitigated most of the challenge. I’ve learned to realign, be super flexible

and pivot fast. (personal communication, February 26, 2016).

Revisit learning. For several respondents, the existence of a learning rich

culture served as a viable and productive response to challenges. For these

participants, learning counteracted many of the challenges that they faced.

We spend millions of dollars each year pouring into the development of our

employees. It is one of our differentiators in the market. It is also the first place

that we look when any area of our business is challenged. If our financials are

trending to be slightly off target, our CEO asks if there is a missed learning

opportunity. The same is true with my work, if we encounter challenge; we revisit

our learning profiles. (Participant #10, personal communication, March 15 2016)

The Learning & Development lever was also deployed in Participant #8’s organization.

We see our journey as being paved by learning. What comes to you dressed like

challenge is usually a teachable moment. I know that training doesn’t solve all

problems, but in the early stages like where we are, it helps. At a minimum,

109
 expanding awareness through our learning and development function has

provided useful context to understand the nature of the challenge. (personal

communication, February 26, 2016)

Resign. In 29% of the 14 respondents’ cases, their response to the challenges

resulted in their exiting the organization. Of those, each of them reported that the

decision to resign was his/her own and was prompted by the overwhelming challenges

that they faced. Participant #7 reflected on his experience.

I didn’t accept this role, to then resign a short time afterwards. But, I’m not sure

how anyone could overcome that situation. For 2 years, it was promised that I

could hire a team. I did my due diligence and put forth my headcount request and

every year it was denied. Yet, I watched other teams grow. When I questioned

why, I was told that to do D&I work, the part time graduate school intern and

myself were enough. This was a global organization with thousands of

employees. Unfortunately, I don’t think that they had realistic expectations. For

me to do the type of work that I wanted and to have the impact that I know that I

could, opting out seemed the most reasonable solution. (Participant #7, personal

communication, February 26, 2016)

A second respondent shared some of the preeminent reasons that facilitated his exit.

I am not faint of heart and I’m not a quitter. I had five bosses in 17 months. The

C-suite couldn’t seem to decide where my function should align. The back and

forth just seemed to confirm that this wasn’t important nor was I. (Participant #13,

personal communication, March 18, 2016).

110
 Interview question two: Summary. The CDOs reported responding to

challenges in three ways. Those ways included realigning, revisiting learning and

resigning. Realigning and revising learning underscored collaborative actions.

Resigning, on the other hand, underscored the independent action based on the CDOs

assessment of long term viability.

Research Question Two summary. Research Question Two provided the

participants the opportunity to move from context to challenges and how they

responded to them. The data revealed that the greatest challenges were borne out of

lack and the greatest responses were borne out of resiliency. Resiliency was inherent

in those elements that encompassed realigning and revisiting, which equated to almost

80% of their responses. Finally, in those cases where the challenges were

overwhelming, the CDOs opted out of those roles. When this did occur, the

respondents were reflective and articulate that the seeming lack of viable options

predestined their departure. Overall, this research question elicited transparency. There

was transparency regarding the challenges faced, and transparency regarding their

response to those challenges up to and including resignation.

Research Question Three

It was alluded to in the interviews that effective CDOs consider their work to be

strategic as well as the outcomes that it achieves. Therefore, measuring the impact and

contributions is requisite to assess the performance of the strategies they deployed.

Performance management systems allow an organization to monitor its plans to

determine their success and if they require improvement or not (Atkinson, Waterhouse,

& Wells, 1997). The third research question queried the CDOs regarding the metrics

111
that they deployed to assess success of their practices. Three corresponding interview

questions were designed to probe for a description of the qualitative elements,

quantitative measures, and benchmarking.

Interview question one: Elements of inclusion. Prior to discussing

assessments and measures, the first interview question requested that the CDOs

describe the elements of a successfully inclusive work environment. This question

allowed participants to consider either those elements, which existed in their

organizations, or those that they envisioned. The elements cited coalesced around

common themes.

Participation and respect. From the data, 88 elements were shared. The five

most often stated responses are depicted in Figure 11 and involved:

1. Participation and respect

2. Leveraging diversity as a competitive advantage

3. Policies and Practices that are integrated and aligned

4. Demographics that are representative of the community, customer and

broader geography of operation

5. Compassion

112
Figure 11. Elements of a successfully inclusive work environment.

Participation and respect. Respect and participation, according to Participant

#12, are the preeminent elements of a successfully inclusive workplace. Participant #12

stated:

Inclusion requires access to participate, which in my mind implies respect.

Consider this, if I were having a meeting to solve a problem, I would invite those

to participate that I respect, revere and value. That’s exactly what our

businesses are doing, or should be doing with regard to inclusion. We shouldn’t

exclude, as that is probably the most clear and visible sign of disrespect

(personal communication, March 15, 2016).

Leveraging diversity. This element spoke to the opportunity to view difference

as a strength. In doing so, CDO’s reported that considering diversity as a strength could

then be a competitive advantage. Therefore, diversity could be leveraged to yield

positive outcomes.

113
 Policy alignment. Alignment in this regard addressed harmony. Specifically,

the CDO’s noted the importance of ensuring that the organizational policies and

practices supported inclusion. Otherwise, employees would experience an organization

whose practices and policies were obstructions versus facilitators to an inclusive

experience.

Representative demographics. CDO’s reported that successfully inclusive

organizations had diverse employee rosters. Particularly, they felt that their employee

rosters should be representative of the communities in which the organization operated.

As well, it was thought important that the demographics also represented the customers

of the organization.

Clarity of vision. Vision was thought to be an important element of successfully

inclusive environments. Given the criticality of engaging broad stakeholders in the

journey. The CDO’s noted that the vision must be clearly articulated and understood by

all.

Compassion. In probing further, respondents described compassion as being

“other oriented and focused” and “having a positive effect on others.” To clarify,

Participant #13 described the relationship between compassion and inclusion.

Amplifying that same point Participant #6 offered:

There is a body of research that states that people are likely to catch the

emotions of their leaders, which implies that workplace emotions are contagious.

Imagine just for a moment the firestorm that would take place if leaders led with

and authentically demonstrated compassion. I submit to you that it would propel

114
 our journey faster and further than we could anticipate. (personal communication,

February 19, 2016)

“Compassion and inclusion are siblings, best friends that need each other” (personal

communication, March 17, 2016).

Interview question one: Summary. The data derived from this query

concerning the elements of successfully inclusive environment closely aligned with the

elements of the definition of inclusion. The elements of successfully inclusive

environments included participation, differences being leveraged, alignment of policies,

representative demographics, clear vision and compassion. To recap, the definition of

inclusion elements, were also participation, embracing differences and consideration,

which closely paralleled the CDO’s definition of compassion.

Interview question two: Measures leaders value. Having an understanding of

the elements of an inclusive workplace provided perspective of the elements to

measure. The importance of measurement was shared by all of the respondents.

Specifically, the second interview question asked about the measures that leaders

value.

Representation and engagement. As noted, the criticality of measurement was

repeated often. Participant #9 shared the following thoughts on measurement:

Of course, we measure the results of our initiatives and efforts. Inclusion

represents a strategic business opportunity, just as, for example, expanding our

product line or extending into a new territory. We would expect and require those

leaders to present a compelling business case, replete with measures and

115
 milestones. I am expected and required to do the same. (personal

communication, March 1, 2016)

The importance of measurement was shared by all of the respondents. From the data,

the salient themes regarding the quantitative measures that CDOs value coalesced

around four themes. The themes, which are depicted in Figure 12, were:

1. Representation

2. Engagement

3. Retention

4. Other

Figure 12. Measures that leadership values.

There were 40 measures collectively cited. Of the 40, 12 (30%) were cited within

Representation. The most noted measures were increases in diverse employee

representation, increased representation of diversity at varied organizational levels,

diverse hiring sources, and increased throughput or yield of diverse candidates (e.g.,

116
resumes, interviews, offers, acceptances, starts). Within Engagement, 11 measures

(28%) were cited. Engagement measures included climate surveys, employee

satisfaction, employee referrals, increased participation in affinity groups, and increased

participation in voluntary learning/training programs. Retention, which had nine (23%)

responses attributed, was focused primarily on key talent, differential between high/low

performers, and turnover rates by leader. The Other measures had eight (20%)

mentions credited to it; respondents referenced supplier diversity, client feedback

regarding innovation, Intercultural Development Inventory, project assignments, and

correlation between mentoring and promotions.

Retention. Three of the respondents spoke of the measures that their leaders

valued as leading versus lagging indicators. Leading indicators are those that predict

employee experiences. Lagging indicators represent measures that look back and

capture what has already occurred. Retention is a lagging indicator. “Most experienced

CDOs have scorecards that address demographics, environment, program

effectiveness and business impact. We’re not there yet. We’re still focused on lagging

indicators, which are retrospective in nature” (Participant #10, personal communication,

March 15, 2016).

Throughout the interviews, the CDOs discussed their assessment of where their

organizations were in the quest for inclusion. The data indicated a wide range of

progress along the journey and organizational maturity. Despite being at varied states,

each respondent underscored the need for measurement at every stage.

When we first started this journey, we knew that to move forward and engage our

stakeholders, we had to have measurements. I mean, we had to have

117
 measurements. So, we started with a short list of easy to gather and assess

metrics that primarily focused on visible difference, or diversity, and

representation. As we have evolved and gotten further down the path, our

measurements have evolved as well. Now, we measure everything. (Participant

#1, personal communication, February 15, 2015)

According to Hubbard (2004a), leaders should establish a credible measurement

strategy and measurement process to identify the specific measures that highlight the

links to bottom line performance. “There is an adage that says what gets measured

gets done. As a tech company, we subsist on data and metrics. Our mantra is if we

don’t measure it, we can’t improve it” (Participant #3, personal communication, February

18, 2016). To summarily capture the significance of measurement, Participants #4 and

#12 provided Table 4, which identifies the combination of the diversity and inclusion

measures that their organizations monitor.

Interview question two: Summary. According to the CDOs, their leaders value

measures of representation/engagement and retention. These measures were cited as

being either leading or lagging. Leading measures, or indicators, predict and plan for.

Lagging measures are retrospective. Many of the CDOs reported that their focus had

been on lagging measures.

Interview question three: Benchmarking. The third interview question inquired

about benchmarking. The question posed was, what methods did you employ to

benchmark and track inclusive workplace practices? In general, benchmarking is the

process for comparing the key business attributes of a process or program to others in

the industry. Benchmarking usually provides a snapshot in which ongoing monitoring

118
and assessment can occur internally and/or externally to identify areas of opportunity as

well as areas of excellence.

Table 4

Annual Measures for Global Inclusion

Creating a Diverse Managing a Diverse Valuing a Diverse Leveraging a Diverse

Workforce Workforce Workforce Workforce
Representation Promotions Culture & Customer Satisfaction
Environment
Turnover Career Pathing Language(s) in Workforce
workplace Representative of
Customers
Job Offer Acceptance Reductions in Force Utilization of Benefits Community & Corp
Image
Tenure Hiring Freezes Leadership Behaviors Participation in
Vendor Fairs
Voluntary Terms Succession Planning Networking Groups Community
Relationships
Talent Acquisition Performance Reviews Organizational Success/Failures in
Costs Attitudes (Culture) Global Markets
Turnover Costs ADA Accommodations Referral Usage
National Litigation Integration of D&I in
Demographics Talent Management
Returns from Leaves Grievances & Events highlighting
of Absence Complaints Inclusion
Skills & Languages Mentoring Organizational &
Executive Access
Compensation Inclusive Language
Analysis
Training Program Barriers to
Attendance Contribution

Informal benchmarking. The data, summarized in Figure 13, revealed that

seven of the 15 CDOs benchmark utilize informal methods, such as peer relationships,

six CDOs do not benchmark at all, and one (Participant #11) participates in formal

industry benchmarking.

We participate in an annual industry survey, for all core functions – which for us

is Finance, Sales and Human Resources. We try to keep our measures as

straightforward as possible. Essentially, they include attrition, employee

119
 engagement, external recognition and promotions. (Participant #1, personal

communication, March 15, 2016)

Figure 13. Methods CDOs employ to benchmark inclusion practices.

Seven CDOs indicated that they benchmark either internally or informally. Those

who benchmarked informally via peer networks said, in all cases, that it consisted of

calls to their peers to inquire about a specific practice or response to an email

solicitation from a membership-based organization to which they belonged. In contrast,

internal benchmarking consisted of tracking key metrics within which their organization

and reflected year of year progress.

No benchmarking. Six of the CDO’s indicated that they did not actively

participate in benchmarking. For them, benchmarking represented an opportunity to

explore. Specifically, they correlated benchmarking as a process for those organizations

who had made more progress in their journey to inclusion than that felt that they had

currently achieved.

Interview question three: Summary. Overall, formal benchmarking was not a

preeminent practice for the CDOs. Half of them reported informally benchmarking

120
externally on a sporadic basis. The remaining respondents indicated that they did not

benchmark at all.

Research Question Three summary. It was clear from the respondents that

there is a strategic imperative associated with creating an inclusive work environment.

Further, the CDOs universally agreed that thoughtful and aligned performance

measurement reinforced the strategic imperative and solidified D&I as a vital corporate

function. The data implied two correlations. First, once the elements of a successfully

inclusive work environment were identified, a correlation to the measures was revealed.

Table 5 outlines the correlation. Second, the data implied that there was a correlation

between the sophistication of the metrics and the maturity/progress achieved relative to

creating an inclusive workplace.

Table 5

Elements of Inclusion with Corresponding Measures

Elements of Successfully Inclusive Environments Corresponding

Measures
1. Participation & Respect Engagement
2. Diversity = Competitive Advantage Engagement
Retention
3. Integrated Policies & Procedures Retention
4. Representative Demographics Demographics
5. Compassion Engagement

Research Question Four

Demographic shifts, demands for innovation, comfort with difference, and the

shrinking globe will have a clear impact on the workplace of the future. It is expected

that the next generation workplace will, in many cases, be virtual, collaborative,

connected, and inclusive (Townsend et al., 1995). Research Question Four sought to

allow CDOs to imagine that future workplace and expressly share their

121
recommendations for those who are about to embark on the journey. The

corresponding interview questions were, (a) what cautionary tale(s) would you share

with executive leaders in the implementation of inclusive workplace practices, and (b) is

there anything else that you would like to share about implementing inclusive workplace

practices?

Interview question one: Cautionary tales In regard to the interview question

about cautionary tales that the respondents would share; the data suggested two

primary themes. The themes were (a) setting an integrated stage for the

implementation (culture) and (b) keeping analytics in the foreground (measurement; see

Figure 14). CDOs reported keeping analytics in the foreground by reiterating the

necessity for measurement and quantifiable analysis, which accounted for six (40%)

elements.

Setting the stage. CDOs shared various attributes that were coded as setting

the stage or laying the foundation, of which 8% (60%) fell into this category. In

reviewing the data, the elements of setting the stage tied back to organizational culture.

The attributes were:

1. Setting a compelling vision

2. Engaging executives early

3. Espouse cultural transformation

4. Defining acceptable behaviors (norms)

5. Challenging long standing patterns and practices

6. Aligning individual performance

122
Figure 14. Highlights of cautionary tales.

The cautionary tale that Participant #6 shared captured much of the essence of

the elements of culture.

I said earlier that culture eats strategy for breakfast. I believe that to be true and I

believe that it indicates where someone doing this work should start. Breakfast is

the start of the day and it’s the most important meal of the day. Therefore, my

cautionary tale would be to start with culture and recognize that it’s the most

important thing to focus on at the beginning, in the middle, throughout and in the

end because it eats strategy. (personal communication, February 19, 2016).

Keeping analytics (measurement). The respondent’s perspectives aligned with

the research. The intensity of organizational culture can have a direct impact on intra-

group relationships and moderate inclusion (Chuang, Church, & Zikic, 2004). Setting

the stage implies preparation before execution and measurement.

I would caution executives to accept that this work is primarily about experience

and not about numbers. I’m not saying that it cannot be measured because we

do. Just know the difference. Diversity is about numbers. I would tell them

123
 diversity is about counting heads while inclusion is about making heads count

and feel counted. Therefore, the initial step should be to prepare for the

experience, which means assessing and examining the organization and the key

leaders within it. Prepare them for the experience and prepare the organization

to support inclusive experiences. Lastly, I would tell them to be dexterous

enough to shift and switch as necessary. (Participant #7, personal

communication, February 26, 2016)

The cautionary tale that Participant #6 shared highlighted doing things

“differently” and introduced the concept of branding. Branding is essentially a promise of

expected performance or a commitment by an organization (Love & Singh, 2011).

The workforce of the future will be different. It is unchartered waters, a new

frontier. It will mandate that we respond differently. We will have to recruit

differently. We will have to lead, assess and manage differently. We will have to

brand differently. (Participant #5, personal communication, February 19, 2016).

Given that Research Question Four had a reflective orientation, allowing CDOs

to imagine the future state, interview question #8 was relocated as it seemingly better

aligned with this research query. Interview question #8 asked if the CDOs think that the

characteristics of an inclusive workplace would change in the future. Figure 15

represents their responses.

124
Figure 15. Will characteristics change in the future?

Future characteristics. Believing that the characteristics would change,

Participant #6 stated, “Yes, I think the characteristics will change. They will continue to

evolve. Think about the fact that we didn’t have the concept of inclusion a couple of

decades ago. Assimilation was the goal that we aspired to achieve” (personal

communication, February 19, 2016). Conversely, Participant #4 offered,

I don’t think that the characteristics will change. Right now, it’s a pretty high bar

and a long game. I think that the shifts to this point have been seismic. I don’t

anticipate more change. If we can consistently deliver on an employee

experience that embraces of 95% of the elements, I think we call that victory.

(personal communication, February 14, 2016)

To that end, effective branding allows the organization to distinguish itself via desirable

practices and be attractive to employees and prospective employees (Love & Singh,

2011). The earlier theme that emerged regarding keeping the analytics in the

foreground, referenced back to the earlier question regarding measures. Eight of the 15

125
respondents repeated the importance of measurement. No additional insights were

provided.

Interview question one: Summary. The responses that the CDOs provided

with regard to cautionary tales reinforced primary messages and themes. Specifically,

they spoke of setting the stage, which addressed cultural factors as well as analytics,

which addressed measures. Both of these were repeated from earlier inquiries

regarding best practices or key elements. In addition, the CDOs indicated that given the

dynamic nature of the workplace demographics and organization’s quest for inclusion,

there would be changes to the future characteristics.

Interview question two: Additional comments. The second corresponding

interview question asked if the CDO had anything else that he/she would like to share.

This question afforded the participants the opportunity to provide any additional

thoughts. Only three respondents provided additional comments.

Inclusion is knocking on all of our doors right now. The best of us will smart and

welcome Inclusion in. Those of us that aren’t as smart will pretend that we’re not

home, and the new normal of the workplace will cause that knock to become so

loud that it’ll be deafening. (Participant #13, personal communication, March 17,

2016)

Employer brands. As a final thought, Participant #6 revisited his comments

regarding employer brands;

It is interesting to me that some of the most admired consumer brands are

publicly struggling with diversity and inclusion. I cannot help but wonder how

long they can retain their brand standing against this backdrop. They may not

126
 have a lot of time before there’s impact to the brand. That’s bad news for them,

but could be good news for us. It provides us an opportunity to sneak in build an

inclusive workplace and strong employment brand (personal communication,

February 19, 2016).

In the last few moments of the interview with Participant #4 offered this quote by

businessman Max de Pree (2004).

We need to give each other the space to grow, to be ourselves, to exercise our

diversity. We need to give each other space so that we may both give and

receive such beautiful things as ideas, openness, dignity, joy, healing and

inclusion. (p. 17)

Interview question two: Summary. The majority of the CDOs did not offer

additional comments. On the two occasions when they did, one shared concern

regarding the current state of employer branding relative to inclusion. The other shared

a quote regarding giving all the space to grow and be ourselves.

Research Question Four summary. Research Question Four set out to

bookend the interview experience by encouraging participants to share their final

insights. Throughout the data collection process, each of the participants was generous

with his/her time and expressed his/her appreciation for having another opportunity to

pay it forward. In this research question, the data confirmed the consistent theme of

culture and measurement. The repetition of these themes would indicate their priority

for anyone or an organization considering how to create an inclusive workplace for

diverse employees.

127
 Chapter Five: Conclusions and Recommendations

The necessity to better understand how to retain and engage diverse talent will

increase with the anticipated demographic trends in the U.S. The purpose of this study

was to determine the strategies employed and challenges faced by CDOs in creating an

inclusive work environment for diverse employees and what measures and

recommendations they would suggest to help others seeking to cultivate an inclusive

work environment. The CDOs who participated in this study were at different points

along their organization’s journey to cultivate inclusion. Despite this, all participants

reported attaining various levels of success in their service as their organizations’

architects of diversity and inclusion. Their collective insights and achievements can

provide a guide for others aspiring to undertake the same journey. To provide a

balanced and comprehensive view, the CDOs described the barriers or challenges they

faced. As well, many of their quotes are included so as to retain their perspectives in

their voice. Their willingness to share their experiences, anecdotes, and stories could be

instructive to current and future CDOs as well as organizational leaders.

The intent of this study was to provide an enhanced understanding of how to

establish and sustain workplace inclusion. This study sought to augment the existing

body of knowledge, support current and aspiring CDOs in their respective journeys to

inclusion, and in doing so favorably impact the perceptions and experiences of diverse

employees in the workplace. This chapter outlines the findings of the research, asserts

recommendations for future research, and provides conclusions associated with the

lived experiences of the CDOs.

128
Research Questions

This study investigated and identified the best practices used by Chief Diversity

Officers. The four specific research questions explored during this study were:

RQ 1. What strategies and practices are employed by CDOs in global

organizations to promote and facilitate inclusion of diverse employees?

RQ 2. What challenges are faced by these CDOs in implementing strategies and

practices employed to achieve inclusion of diverse employees?

RQ 3. How do CDO’s measure the success of their inclusive workplace

practices?

RQ 4. Based on their experiences, what cautionary tales would CDOs share for

future implementation of inclusive workplace practices?

Summary of Findings

The 14 participants in this study were current or former CDOs or held a

comparably titled position within their organizations. Collectively, they possessed over

350 years of professional experience with over 80% or 280 years of experience directly

related to service in a corporate or consulting diversity and inclusion capacity. With

regard to gender distribution, 57% (eight) were men and 43% (six) were women.

Data were collected through one on one semi-structured interviews. The semi

structured interview questions provided a flexible framework for the interviews. The

objective was to engage the leaders in conversational dialogue to understand their

experiences from their vantage points. A panel of experts provided clarity regarding the

research questions. Over 140 pages of interview transcripts coupled with the

handwritten notes served as the raw data. The principal researcher independently

129
completed the coding, which was subsequently verified by a three-step process to

ensure inter-rater reliability and validity. From the initial coding process based on

content analysis, major themes were identified and the results noted. The second step

required the engagement of two peer reviewers. The results of the coding prepared by

the researcher were upheld as all were in agreement.

The findings of this research address the lived experiences of CDOs in global

organizations. These findings include the strategies that they have deployed, the

challenges they have faced, and the recommendations that they would make. The goal

of the findings is to provide: (a) a context for those aspiring to create an inclusive

workplace, and (b) a blueprint to help others navigate their journeys to inclusion.

The experiences of the CDOs provided insights that corroborate the general

findings of the study. Additionally, the richness of their stories exposed greater detail

about the CDOs themselves. The icebreaker questions, “Tell me about your career”

and “What prompted you to become involved in diversity and inclusion,” not only served

to establish trust, but also revealed details about the career and personal journeys of

the participants. Those details served to present collective themes, which suggested

that CDOs possessed:

1. Compassion

2. Actualization

3. Resiliency

4. Strong personal fairness doctrines

5. Bias towards equality and social responsibility

130
 In inquiring about their careers, each CDO spoke of his/her career in highly

positive and purposeful terms with meaning and achievement. Specifically, they noted a

desire to change behaviors for the greater good of the individual and the organization.

Additionally, in every case in which they discussed their careers, some element of their

personal life was also included. In many cases, personal life experiences served as a

catalyst to do this work. There was a clear sense that each of them viewed

himself/herself as principle-based servant leaders who sought to transform their

respective organizations.

The importance of the leadership style of the CDO cannot be minimized.

Inherent in their roles as architects is a change/transformation component. Higgs and

Rowland (2011) proposed a leadership paradigm that is aligned with scope of the CDO

role. This paradigm is predicated on leaders engaging employees to affect change.

Essentially, leaders assume the role of an enabler, facilitating the conditions that inspire

others to engage and grow in the transformation. This is in essence the heart of the

CDO role, as revealed via the data and their personal stories. The transformation of

followers’ values is a requisite responsibility of transformational leaders. The goal is to

transform the followers’ values so as to align to the vision and support the goals. In

doing so, it is intended to establish a trust-based workplace (Bass, 1985).

Trust was one of several elements that the CDOs cited as a requirement for

inclusive work environments. More frequently cited were participation, leveraging

diversity, and aligning policy and practices. In addition, demographics representative of

the customer and community, clarity of vision and values, and compassion were also

mentioned. These characteristics correlated directly with the components of great

131
cultures. Vision, values, practices, people, narrative, and place were the prerequisite

elements to shaping a new and productive culture (Coleman, 2013). The main findings

are outlined as follows.

Strategies and practices of CDOs in global organizations. The CDO is

typically an organization’s executive level diversity and inclusion strategist. Strategy is

a set of guiding principles that facilitates a pattern of decision-making to yield desired

outcomes.

A good strategy provides a clear roadmap, consisting of a set of guiding

principles or rules, that defines the action people should take (and not take) and

the things that they should prioritize (and not prioritize) to achieve desired goals.

(Watkins, 2007, para. 2)

Vision and culture. The strategies and practices that the CDOs employed to

promote inclusion were multi-faceted. One of the key elements of their strategies was a

compelling vision and alignment with organizational values. “Without an appropriate

vision, a transformation effort can easily dissolve into a list of confusing, incompatible,

and very time- consuming projects which take you in the wrong direction or nowhere at

all” (Kotter, 1996, p. 3). Other elements of their strategies included leveraging learning

to activate awareness, engaging and holding leaders accountable, and blending

inclusion rich practices throughout the employee life cycle. Various models regarding

employee life cycle exist, but the most common stages include recruitment,

onboarding/orientation, performance management, and transition. Relative to the

common employee life cycle stages, examples that the CDOs cited of inclusion rich

practices are reflected in Figure 16.

132
Figure 16. Inclusion-rich practices per lifecycle stage.

In summary, the most often repeated strategies tied back to the organizational

culture. Organizational culture includes the predominant and accepted systems of

values and practices that are internalized by its employees (Starling, 1982) and can be

a critical lever to drive inclusion. In reviewing the data, it became apparent that CDOs

in global organizations view their strategies as being targeted to two focal points:

individuals and culture. Participant #15 summarized this sentiment appropriately; “Our

strategies, to be successful, have to serve two masters, our employees and our

organizational culture” (personal communications, March 18, 2016).

Challenges. The CDOs expressed the challenges that they faced in highly

objective terms, which spoke of their professional maturity and personal resolve. In

many cases, their challenges were attributed to the lack of individual and organizational

learning, which portended the chance to increase individual and/or organizational

133
capability. Organizational capability focuses on internal processes and systems,

ensuring those employees’ skills and efforts are directed toward achieving the stated

goals and outcomes (Ulrich & Lake, 1990). Further, developing organizational capability

is not achieved by quick fixes or simple isolated programs, but requires the adoption of

shared tenets that determine and guide organizational behavior.

The data illustrated the need to insure that leaders and employees have a

baseline of understanding of what it means to be an inclusive workplace and their

responsibilities therein. In short, the challenges that the participants frequently

articulated highlighted the absence of key resources and the lack of a pliable culture

that could be transformed to accomplish the tasks at hand. Figure 17 summarizes the

challenges the respondents cited by theme and subtheme.

Figure 17. Challenges CDOs face.

Lack of Resources. The most significant and obvious lacked resource was that

of budget or financial resources. CDOs shared the expectation of their ability to deliver

134
against global initiatives on shoestring budgets, while other areas appeared to be

generously resourced. While the specific reasons for this may be unclear, insights

shared by CDOs would suggest the preeminent need for CDOs to garner legitimacy and

credibility for their function and their work. It would seem that unless an organization

embraced the priority of inclusion, resources would be slow to follow. Similarly, another

subtheme associated with lacking resources was human capital. CDOs spoke of the

inability to deliver against the strategic imperatives to create a diverse and inclusive

environment with little to no staff or human capital resources. Respondent #14

commented, “For my few years, the ratio of my staff to globally based employees was

1:9,000. I don’t think many would disagree that that is not ratio that is designed to

support success” (personal communication, March 18, 2016). For comparison, the

Bureau of National Affairs Guide to HR Benchmarks (2016) noted that for the 10 years

between 2002 -2012, the median ratio of human resources staff to total headcount was

1:100 employees served by the HR department. The final subtheme aligned with lack

of resources covered the lack of technology. In this case, CDOs referenced the lack of

the technological tools to tell the necessary stories associated with their diverse

employees and inclusive practices. For example, Participant #8 noted,

Tech tools and the data they provide can support and inform every single

element of the inclusion strategy. When we lack those vital tech resources, we

lack the ability to steer our time and resources to identify our issues, measure the

impact and influence the results. (personal communication, February 26, 2016)

Lack of support. The second theme of lack highlighted the lack of support.

CDOs identified the lack of support as primarily an absence of executive and board

135
support, as well as peer support. Specifically, CDOs correlated the lack of support to

lack of engagement by these key organizational stakeholders. Additionally, the lack of

executive and board support minimized what the CDOs felt was enterprise-wide

influence. Lastly, the lack of support of the learning and development function also

posed a noted challenge. The import with which CDOs viewed learning and

development has been highlighted herein.

Lack of cultural malleability. In further exploring the third challenge of lack of

cultural malleability, the CDOs noted that the preeminent manifestation of this was in

the cultural resistance to change. Participant #3 shared,

This was most apparent when I would inquire about a practice and I’d get in

response something like, well that’s the way we do things. Equally as bad was

my other favorite response was do we really need to do this especially since we

don’t know what we’ll get from it. (personal communication, February 18, 2016)

Measuring success. The CDOs did not equivocate on the importance of

measurement. Participant #1 remarked, “Measurement and evaluation accompany

every important business strategy” (personal communication, February 15, 2016).

Many of the respondents spoke of measurement as the link to ensure organizational

credibility and maintain organizational priority. According to Kaplan and Norton (1992),

senior leaders appreciate that there is a direct connection between the organization’s

measurement system and the behavior of employees. When asked about measures,

several respondents discussed the early challenge that they faced with regard to

establishing organizational legitimacy of diversity and inclusion. Participant #1

described it thusly; “The first battle I fought was the perception that this is nice to do

136
work versus must do work” (personal communication, February 15, 2016). Therefore, to

counteract perceptions that diversity and inclusion is fluff, CDOs employed

measurements and scorecards to assess progress against key performance indicators.

Further, they ensured that the selection of the key performance indicators was the result

of collaboration with senior leaders. Such measures afforded CDOs the opportunity to

make meaningful predictions about the outcomes associated with their efforts and

proactively diagnose speed bumps and obstacles. In doing so, the CDO deployed a

systemic approach.

Cautionary tales. The cautionary tales that CDOs offered reiterated themes that

had been discovered previously via the data. More specifically, they concentrated on

the prominence of culture and measurement. The primary picture that the data painted

was one of preparation. The tales addressed the pre-work and preparation required to

launch a successful campaign for workplace inclusion. Setting the stage, as

respondents reported, included a far reaching check list of actionable items, from setting

a vision to determining metrics and gaining executive support. The cautionary tales

also reflected and recommended an integrative approach.

Key Findings

Global organizations have committed resources and attention to increasing the

diversity of their workforce. Despite making these investments, many have yet to fully

realize the benefits and anticipated outcomes of workplace inclusion. In addition, some

organizations have assumed that diversity initiatives coupled with increased diverse

representation automatically would result in inclusion. Many leaders have the

inaccurate perception that just by their presence alone diverse employees are fully

137
engaged and feel included in their organizations. Belongingness and uniqueness are

the predominant requirements of feeling included (Shore et al, 2011).

Culture eats strategy. Culture is the gatekeeper to inclusion. CDOs have to

be adroit at assessing, evaluating, and transforming it in order to successfully achieve

and sustain a workplace of inclusion. Therefore, the efficacy of their strategies rests on

the foundation of culture. Since culture manifests in a three predominant levels—

artifacts, values, and assumptions (Schein, 1985)—it is wise not to attempt the

impossible task to boil the vast ocean of culture, but instead consider small and

intentional interventions. These small, yet well placed and well embraced interventions

can be the spark to lead to greater change. Culture is a double-edged sword. Time

after time, the respondents referenced that culture can augment or obstruct the

progress that the CDO seeks to achieve. Consequently, CDOs should seek to overlay

on and align their strategies with the organization’s culture. The finding that

organizational culture, as identified in this study, is a key component of inclusion

strategy aligns with the frameworks espoused by Cox (1994). His Interactional Model of

Cultural Diversity, coupled with the works of Clayton (2010) and Jirincova (2013),

reinforces the integral relationship among diversity, inclusion, and organizational

culture.

The journey to inclusion is a marathon and not a sprint. Transforming

organizational culture does not happen overnight. According to Kotter (2007), change

usually takes a long time, especially when it involves a shift in how people think and

behave. Therefore, the process of shifting has to be intentional and measured, which

will require critical thinking, agility, and consistency. CDOs have to recognize that this is

138
a long play game that should be characterized by a series of interim victories.

Lappetito’s (1994) work also aligns to the findings herein and speaks to the terms of

execution for culture transformation, as well as the knowledge, tenacity, and thoughtful

enactment required.

Assess and evaluate. Assessing signifies an attempt to objectively understand

the state of a certain item. Conversely, evaluation addresses observing and measuring

to determine the item’s value or efficacy. CDOs should frequently do both because

organizational assessments can help facilitate the organization’s ability to validate its

work. Kirkpatrick’s evaluation framework provides applicable insights for CDOs to

consider a comprehensive approach evaluation, comprising four levels:

1. Reaction

2. Learning

3. Behavior

4. Results (Rouse, 2011).

In summary and in alignment with the findings, Babcock (2006) contended that

assessment should be complemented with metrics that signify the effectiveness of the

diversity interventions and strategies.

Respect, dignity, and membership. When diverse employees have a sense of

belonging to the work-group, it creates the level of affinity that CDOs seek to achieve.

This sense of belonging is achieved when employees derive dignity from feeling respect

and appreciation as a result of their uniqueness or difference. Figure 18 summarizes the

corollary relationship between belonging and uniqueness to facilitate to inclusion, based

on respect and dignity. The research of Begen and Turner-Cobb (2015) outlined in the

139
literature review supports the findings herein. Begen and Turner-Cobb (2015)

concluded that increased belonging produces positive individual and organizational

outcomes.

Figure 18. Inclusion framework. Adapted from “Inclusion and Diversity in Work Groups:
A Review and Model for Future Research,” by L. M. Shore, A. E. Randel, B. G. Chung,
M. A. Dean, K. H. Ehrhart, & R. Singh, 2010, Journal of Management, 37, p. 1266.
Copyright 2010 by the authors.

Learning is both king and queen. CDOs consistently acknowledged the

criticality of organizational learning. Argyris (1994) described organizational learning as

a process of discovering and course correcting errors. Learning that creates awareness

and changes behavior is a process, not an event. Training, in contrast, is an event.

Organizations that have embraced establishing a culture of learning versus executing a

series of training classes have come much closer to their mission of creating a

workplace of inclusion. B. Kim (2006) theorized that developing a learning organization

is a key strategy to D&I. In support of that theory, Senge (1990) asserted that a learning

organization allows the organization the capacity to create and become what it wants to

create.

140
Researcher’s Observations

Several observations were noted during the course of conducting this study. All

of the participants were transparent and very comfortable sharing their experiences.

They appeared to be honest and were forthcoming in sharing their experiences. It was

noted that the freely shared both those experiences that were positive, as well as those

that were not. In sharing their experiences, there was an attempt on their part to reflect

and extract learnings. On several occasions, participants paused to reflect before

answering a question. In those instances, many times they adopted a retrospective

perspective, conveying how they may have handled a situation differently now. This

foretold of their individual desires to continuously learn and develop.

An additional observation was their collective involvement in community service

organizations outside of their work responsibilities. Each of the 14 participants spoke of

his/her extra-curricular activities in support of historically underrepresented groups.

This was thought to connote their sincere commitment to the greater good of all.

A final observation concerned the participants’ emotional intelligence. All 14

participants appeared to demonstrate the five elements of emotional intelligence

(Greenspan, 1996):

1. Self aware, knowing their own strengths and weaknesses.

2. Self regulated, having an ability to display emotions in a controlled manner.

3. Motivated, to produce sustainable results.

4. Empathic, having the ability to understand the needs and desires of others.

5. Socially skilled, displayed by effective communication, listening and

relationship building skills.

141
Given the findings of this research, it would seem that these attributes would be

requirements for successful CDOs.

Implications of the Study

The implications of the study were considered against the backdrop of the

theoretical framework. The theoretical framework for this research was based on social

inclusion theory, which typically relates to various social and demographic groupings

such as, race, gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, age, etc. A broader

interpretation of social inclusion intersects with social justice ideology. From the lens of

social justice, social inclusion centers on access and opportunity for all to fully

participate with respect for their human dignity (Gidley, Hampson, Wheeler, & Bereded-

Samuel, n.d.). In essence, social inclusion and social justice exemplify the “ability to

participate in the key activities” (Saunders, Naidoo, & Griffiths, 2007, p. 17).

The literature review in Chapter 2 provided multiple perspectives from which to

consider workplace inclusion, which framed the implications of the study. Starting first

with definitions of diversity and inclusion, the literature review then explored multiple

fields of study as a contextual framework. The approaches to the definition of diversity

considered quality or characteristic-based elements, as well as social and interactional

factors and social constructionism. The definition of inclusion related most directly to

the employees’ perceptions of their unique contributions being appreciated (Mor Barak,

2015) and acceptance and treatment as an insider (Pelled et al, 1999). With these

definitions as a foundation, the research considered three perspectives: anthropological,

social, and psychological. The anthropological contributions posed by Dovidio et al.

(2001) target the categorization of people into in-group and out-group. Van Willigen

142
(2002) applied anthropological constructs to assess and solve problems and Jordan

(1995) suggested that workplaces are equivalent to cultures. The social perspective

piggybacked on the concepts of in-groups and out-groups, the minimization of

perceived similarities, and the exaggeration of perceived differences (J. Turner, 1985).

Begen and Turner-Cobb (2015) concluded that enhancing belonging leads to adaptive

physiological and psychological outcomes. Specifically, the literature provided

conclusive evidence of the psychological and physical impact that exclusion can have

(K. Williams, 2007). Finally, the review of literature assessed the organizational

considerations of the role and responsibilities of the CDO and its relationship with and

impact on the workplace. Given that the research purposed to understand the best

practices associated with creating an inclusive workplace, the elements of the

workplace specifically explored organizational culture, leadership engagement and

compassion, and measurement, all of which were highlighted in the literature review.

Figure 19 reflects the intersection of key elements of inclusion derived from the

literature review and the CDO feedback.

Figure 19. Individual and common elements from literature review and CDOs.

143
 The complexities and nuances of these elements and the manner in which they

manifest in the CDO’s organization provided valuable insights regarding best practices

and their implications for various groups.

The researcher also noted that an opportunity exists to expand the definition of

inclusion to reflect a key element derived from the study. The findings of the study

underscored the criticality of the diverse employees lived experience in cultures in which

they perceived to be respected and had welcome opportunity for full membership.

While the opportunity to participate is vital, the opportunity to do so in a dynamic and

engaging culture appears to be key. Participation alone as a key attribute of the

definition of inclusion does not seem sufficient. Participating and having membership in

an attractive culture is the distinction. Full membership, in this regard means equity of

access, equity of opportunity and equity of respect/cooperation.

Full membership, according to the findings in this study, is specifically the result

of the alignment of leadership, organizational culture, systems/processes and employee

experience. The researcher suggests that since culture plays such a requisite

component, it must proactively and purposefully diagnosed, assessed and transformed.

Such cultures would consider and embody inclusive practices prior to the employee’s

entry into the organization and throughout the employee lifecycle. To that end, key

elements of the culture would:

• Be learning rich, affording all employees to evolve their awareness and

further their development

144
 • Be feedback and communication rich, in that productive dialogue regarding

opportunities to enhance inclusion would be frequent and results oriented. As

well, communication would be transparent.

• Include performance metrics and rewards predicated on leader’s ability to

attract, retain, develop, engage and promote diverse employees and not on

increasing representation with no regard for the diverse employee’s

experience

• Afford appropriate resourcing to connote the value and importance of

embedding and embracing diversity, in the broadest sense, into the

organization

• Authentic advocacy and engagement on behalf of organizational leaders,

coupled with a willingness to confront the brutal facts with the same rigor as

any other business problem

In the introduction, it was noted that this study has potential significance for three

groups: business leaders, human resources leaders, and CDOs. These three groups

may benefit the most from this body of research. Each of these groups could derive

knowledge that would further their respective agendas attendant to workplace inclusion.

Business leaders. Given the seismic shift that is occurring and will continue to

occur in employee demographics and employee expectations, astute business leaders

will want to be poised to respond to this shift and proactively create workplaces that

allow for equity and opportunity. This study provides the foundational context for new

business leaders who want to understand how to embed inclusive leadership and

cultural practices at the launch of their business entity versus having to later unwind or

145
transform to the desired state. As business leaders are increasingly becoming more

globally focused, van Willigen’s (2002) application of anthropological constructs as a

means to identify, assess, and problem solve will serve leaders’ agendas well.

Chief Diversity Officers. It was intended that this study would provide a

blueprint for future and current CDOs to navigate their journeys to inclusion in their

service as “instruments of change” (Wilson, 2013, p. 435). In addition, the study outlines

key elements derived from best practices that those in this space can consider.

Hopefully, this study will also provides motivation and inspiration for them to continue

their journeys, despite any challenges that they may encounter.

Human Resources leaders. Human Resources (HR) leaders are vital partners

to CDOs. Chief HR Officers own the people programs that the CDOs have to leverage

to accomplish the work of inclusion. The insights gleaned from the study will help

provide common language and understanding of best practices to forge collaboration

between these leaders.

The phenomenon under investigation in this study was the lived experiences of

CDOs in the establishment of inclusive workplaces and the associated best practices for

doing so. The findings herein add to the emerging body of research regarding the

evolution of inclusion as a key lever to attract and engage diverse talent and provide

greater context to increased understanding. Therefore, the opportunity to continue to

further the body of knowledge in this arena is significant.

Recommendations for Future Research

As the next evolution of the workplace diversity continuum, inclusion is a

relatively new construct. Therefore, a whole body of research has yet to be completed.

146
Specifically, outstanding research should address the elements of workplace inclusion

and how to achieve it. This study, with its focus, on best practices scratches the surface

of inclusion and inclusive practices. Further studies are recommended to continue to

increase the body of knowledge regarding inclusive workplace practices to engage

diverse employees. Paul Block, CEO of Mersant (as cited in Groysberg & Connolly,

2013), summed up perfectly the importance of making diversity and inclusion an

organizational priority; “People with different lifestyles and different backgrounds

challenge each other more. Diversity creates dissent, and you need that. Without it,

you’re not going to get any deep inquiry or breakthroughs” (p. 14). To ensure greater

breakthroughs, the following are recommended for future studies:

• More in-depth study that explores organizations’ best practices at various

stages in their journey to inclusion. It would also be instructive to offer

detailed steps and programs could be correlated to each stage in the journey.

• A study regarding the leadership styles of CDOs and their significance in the

execution of their responsibilities. According to Dulewicz and Higgs (2005),

there is a significant body of existing research regarding leadership styles and

their impact on the organization. Given the relatively brief existence of the

CDO role, it would be noteworthy to understand if certain styles were able to

better achieve successful execution of inclusive workplaces.

• A study that reviews cultural transformation of workplace inclusion in

comparison to other cultural transformations. This study proposed that

workplace inclusion requires a system-based cultural transformation. It would

be productive to compare cultural transformation associated with inclusion to

147
 other types of transformation to ascertain commonalities, differences, and

practical discernments.

• A study that addresses the best practices in creating and sustaining an

inclusive workplace by industry. Given that organizations have discernible

differences based on industry (Chatman & Jehn, 1994), it would be

worthwhile to research if these differences impact the creation and sustaining

of inclusion.

• A study that focuses on CDOs at various tenure points, as they evolve their

skills and learning. Given the insights revealed by this study’s participating

CDOs and the evolution of their journeys, individually and organizationally,

research that considers their skills and increased knowledge at key

milestones could enhance the knowledge base of a peer.

• A study that explores the impact of the relationship between the CDO and

CEO in developing an inclusive workplace. Insights provided in this study

indicated that reporting relationship of the CDO could an have impact goal

attainment. Additionally, this study offered insights that C-level support is

required for inclusion campaigns. Therefore, research that investigates the

reporting relationship could be useful.

• A study that follows the launch of inclusive practices in an organization and

provides phase-by-phase insights, in addition to proposing explicit activities,

actions, responses, etc., for a CDO planning to embark on or already

embarking on the same.

148
 • A study that explores the leadership competencies of successful CDOs to

identify profiles for future CDOs. An investigation with this focus would yield

predictive analysis for potential candidates to serve as CDO.

Final Thoughts

From the beginning of this study, this investigator had a genuine desire to hear

the CDOs’ stories. It was relevant to better understand the successes that they had

achieved and the practices that they employed to do so. This desire was admittedly

heightened by the current headlines of global organizations’ focus on increasing

workplace diversity, and yet a seeming lack of focus on inclusion.

The current emphasis on increasing representation fails to consider a

comprehensive systems approach. Focusing on an element here and an element there

will not only fail to deliver the desired outcomes but also most certainly facilitate

negative outcomes. With each unproductive step resulting from a myopic focus, the

journey to inclusion is derailed and the destination farther away. A systems approach to

creating a culture of inclusion addresses culture, notes informal and formal practices,

establishes a shared definition of terms and the problems to solve, provokes self

awareness and behavior change, rethinks processes and existing systems, engages

leaders, embeds accountability, and most importantly, provides equity of access and

opportunity, measures and predicts outcomes, and seeks and values the input of the

diverse employees that they purpose to retain. Simply focusing on increasing the

numbers will not achieve the goal of inclusion. To paraphrase the sentiments of

Participant #7, diversity is about counting heads; however, inclusion is about making

those heads count and feel counted.

149
 REFERENCES

Acosta, A. S. (2004). A diversity perspective on organizational learning and a learning

perspective on organizational diversity. Academy of Management Proceedings,
8, D1-D6. doi:10.5465/AMBPP.2004.13862803

Agocs, C., & Burr, C. (1996). Employment equity, affirmative action and managing
diversity: Assessing the differences. International Journal of Manpower, 17(4/5),
30-45. doi:10.1108/01437729610127668

Allen, R. S., & Montgomery, K. A. (2001). Applying an organizational development

approach to creating diversity. Organizational Dynamics, 30(2), 149-161.
doi:10.1016/S0090-2616(01)00049-3

Armour, M. P., Bain, B., & Rubio, R. (2004). An evaluation study of diversity training for
field instructors: A collaborative approach to enhancing cultural competence.
Journal of Social Work Education, 40(1), 27-38.
doi:10.1080/10437797.2004.10778477

Armstrong, C., Flood, P. C., Guthrie, J. P., Liu, W., MacCurtain, S., & Mkamwa, T.
(2010). The impact of diversity and equality management on firm performance:
Beyond high performance work systems. Human Resource Management, 49(6),
977-998. doi:10.1002/hrm.20391

Argyris, C. (1994). Good communication that blocks learning. Harvard Business

Review, 72, 77-85. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/1994/07/good-communication-
that-blocks-learning

Atkinson, A. A., Waterhouse, J. H., & Wells, R. B. (1997). A stakeholder approach to

strategic performance measurement. Sloan Management Review, 38(3), 25-37.
Retrieved from http://sloanreview.mit.edu

Avery, D. R. (2003). Reactions to diversity in recruitment advertising: Are differences

black and white? Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 672-679.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.672

Babcock, P. (2006). Detecting hidden bias. HR Magazine, 51, 50-55. Retrieved from
http://www.shrm.org/publications/hrmagazine/pages/default.aspx

Bantel, K. A. (1993). Strategic clarity in banking: Role of top management-team

demography. Psychological Reports, 7, 1187-1201.
doi:10.2466/pr0.1993.73.3f.1187

Bantel, K. A., & Jackson, S. E. (1989). Top management and innovations in banking:
does the composition of the top team make a difference? Strategic Management
Journal, 10(S1), 107-124. doi:10.1002/smj.4250100709

150
Bargal, D., & Mor Barak, M. (2000). Social services in the workplace: Repositioning
occupational social work in the new millennium. Binghamton, NY: Haworth.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY:
The Free Press.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through

transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Baumeister, R. F., Twenge, J. M., & Nuss, C. K. (2002). Effects of social exclusion on
cognitive processes: Anticipated aloneness reduces intelligent thought. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 817-827.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.4.817

Begen, F. M., & Turner-Cobb, J. M. (2015). Benefits of belonging: Experimental

manipulation of social inclusion to enhance psychological and physiological
health parameters. Psychology & Health, 30(5), 568-582.
doi:10.1080/08870446.2014.991734

Berg, B. (2007). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (6th ed.). Boston,
MA: Pearson Allyn Bacon.

Best practices. (n.d.). In Dictionary.com Online. Retrieved from

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/best%20practice?s=t

Betters-Reed, B. L., & Moore, L. L. (1992). Managing diversity: Focusing on women and
the whitewash dilemma. In U. Sekaran & F. T. L. Leong (Eds.), Womenpower:
Managing times of demographic turbulence (pp. 31-58). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.

Blum, S. C., Ben K., G., & Fang-Yi, L. (2003). Cultural diversity and mentoring: Tracking
stereotype changes. Journal Of Hospitality & Tourism Education, 15(3), 5-10.
doi:10.1080/10963758.2003.10697022

Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (Eds.) (1985). Reflection: Turning experience into
learning. London, UK: Kogan Page.

Boxenbaum, E. (2006). Lost in translation: The making of Danish diversity

management. American Behavioral Scientist, 49(7), 939-948.
doi:10.1177/0002764205285173

Brennen, B. (2013). Qualitative research methods for media studies. New York, NY:
Routledge.

Brewer, M. B. (1988). A dual process model of impression formation. In T. S. Srull & R.

S. Wyer (Eds.). Advances in social cognition: A dual process model of
impression formation (Vol. 1, pp. 1-36). Hillsdale, NY: Erlbaum.

151
Brewer, M. B., & Brown, R. J. (1998). Intergroup relations. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske &
G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. II, pp. 554-94). New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Brewer, M. B., von Hippel, W., & Gooden, M.P. (1999). Diversity and organizational
entity: The problem of entree after entry. In D. A. Prentice & D. T. Miller (Eds.),
Cultural divides: Understanding and overcoming group conflict (pp. 337-363).
New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Brooks, A. K., & Clunis, T. (2007). Where to now? Race and ethnicity in workplace
learning and development research. Human Resource Development Quarterly,
18, 228-252. doi:10.1002/hrdq.1201

Bryan, J. H. (1998). Diversity-A strategic business imperative. Vital Speeches of the

Day, 65(2), 44-45. Retrieved from http://www.vsotd.com

Buckley, K., Winkel, R., & Leary, M. (2004). Reactions to acceptance and rejection:
Effects of level and sequence of relational evaluation. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 40, 14-28. doi:10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00064-7

Carnazza, J. (1982). Succession/replacement planning programs and practices. New

York, NY: Center for Research in Career Development, Columbia Business
School, Columbia University.

Chatman, J. A., & Flynn, F. J. (2001). The influence of demographic heterogeneity on

the emergence and consequences of cooperative norms in work teams.
Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 956-974. doi:10.2307/3069440

Chatman, J. A., & Jehn, K. A. (1994). Assessing the relationship between industry
characteristics and organizational culture: How different can you be? Academy of
Management Journal, 37(3), 522-553. doi:10.2307/256699

Chin, J. (2010). Introduction to the special issue on diversity and leadership. American
Psychologist, 65(3), 150-156. doi:10.1037/a0018716

Chrobot-Mason, D. L. (2003). Keeping the promise: Psychological contract violations for

minority employees. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18(1), 22-45.
doi:10.1108/02683940310459574

Chuang, Y., Church, R., & Zikic, J. (2004). Organizational culture, group diversity and
intra‐group conflict. Team Performance Management: An International Journal,
10(1/2), 26-34. doi:10.1108/13527590410527568

Clayton, C. B. (2010). The diversity scorecard: Evaluating the impact of diversity on

organizational performance. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.

152
Cocchiara, F. K., Connerley, M. L., & Bell, M. P. (2010). “A GEM” for increasing the
effectiveness of diversity training. Human Resource Management, 49, 1089-
1106. doi:10.1002/hrm.20396

Coffey, G. (2013). The inclusion paradigm: The key to organizational performance

[PowerPoint presentation]. Retrieved from
http://www.diversity.va.gov/training/files/the-inclusion-paradigm-short.ppt

Coleman, J. (2013). Six components of a great corporate culture. Harvard Business

Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2013/05/six-components-of-culture

Colley, H. (2003). Mentoring for social inclusion: A critical approach to nurturing mentor
relationships. New York, NY: Routledge.

Corporate Leadership Council. (2004). Driving performance and retention through

employee engagement. Washington, DC: Corporate Executive Board.

Cox, T. H. (1994). Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory, research and practice.

San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Cox, T. H. (2001). Creating the multicultural organization: A strategy for capturing the
power of diversity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Cox, T. H., & Blake, S. (1991). Managing cultural diversity: Implications for
organizational competitiveness. Academy of Management Executives, 5(3), 45-
56. doi:10.5465/ame.1991.4274465

Cox, T. H., Lobel, S., & McLeod, P. (1991). Effects of ethnic group cultural differences
on cooperative and competitive behavior on a group task. Academy of
Management Journal, 34, 827-847. doi:10.2307/256391

Dass, P., & Parker, B. (1996). Diversity: A strategic issue. In E. Kossek & S. Lobel
(Eds.), Managing diversity: Human resource strategies for transforming the
workplace (pp. 365-391). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Dass, P., & Parker, B. (1999). Strategies for managing human resource diversity: From
resistance to learning. Academy of Management Executive, 13(2), 68-80.
doi:10.5465/AME.1999.1899550

Davis, E. (2015). Create leadership accountability for D&I in 3 steps. Retrieved from
http://www.i4cp.com/productivity-blog/2015/08/03/create-leadership-
accountability-for-d-i-in-3-steps

Dearnley, C. (2005). A reflection on the use of semi-structured interviews. Nurse

Researcher, 13(1), 19-28. doi:10.7748/nr2005.07.13.1.19.c5997

153
De Dreu, C. K. W., & West, M. A. (2001). Minority dissent and team innovation: The
importance of participation in decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology,
86, 1191-1201. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.6.1191

De Meuse, K. P., Hostager, T. J., & O’Neill, K. S. (2007). A longitudinal evaluation of

senior managers’ perceptions and attitudes of a workplace diversity training
program. People and Strategy, 30(2), 38-46. Retrieved from
http://www.hrps.org/?page=peoplestrategy

De Pree, M. (2004). Leadership is an art. New York, NY: Doubleday

DiCicco-Bloom, B., & Crabtree, B. F. (2006), The qualitative research interview. Medical
Education, 40, 314–321. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02418.x

DiTomaso, N., & Hooijberg, R. (1996). Diversity and the demands of leadership. The
Leadership Quarterly, 7(2), 163-187. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(96)90039-9

Douglas, J. (1985). Creative interviewing. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Niemann, Y. F., & Snider, K. (2001). Racial, ethnic, and
cultural differences in responding to distinctiveness and discrimination on
campus: Stigma and common group identity. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 167-
188. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00207

Dovidio, J. F., Kawakami, K., & Gaertner, S. L. (2002). Implicit and explicit prejudice and
interracial interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(1), 62-
68. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.1.62

Downey, S., Van Der Werff, L., Thomas, K., & Plaut, V. (2015). The role of diversity
practices and inclusion in promoting trust and employee engagement. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 45, 35-44. doi:10.111/jasp.12273

Dulewicz, V., & Higgs, M. (2005). Assessing leadership dimensions, styles and
organizational context. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(2), 105–123.

Earley, C. P., & Mosakowski, E. (2000). Creating hybrid team cultures: An empirical test
of transnational team functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 43(1), 26-
49. doi:10.2307/1556384

Edwards, M. R. (2010). An integrative review of employer branding and OB theory.

Personnel Review, 39(1), 5-23. doi:10.1108/00483481011012809

Ely, R., & Thomas, D. (2001). Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity
perspectives on work group processes and outcomes. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 46, 229–273. doi:10.2307/2667087

154
Erhardt, N. L., Werbel, J. D., & Shrader, C. B. (2003). Board of director diversity and
firm financial performance. Corporate Governance: An International Review,
11(2), 102-111. doi:10.1111/1467-8683.00011

Ferdinand, P. (2014). Affirmative action: From a Caribbean perspective. Bloomington,

IN: Xlibris Corp.

Ferdman, B. M., & Brody, S. E. (1996). Models of diversity training. In D. Landis & R.
Bhagat (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (Vol. 2., pp. 282-303).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Findler, L., Wind, L. H., & Mor Barak, M. E. (2007). The challenge of workforce
management in a global society: Modeling the relationship between diversity,
inclusion, organizational culture, and employee well-being, job satisfaction and
organizational commitment. Administration in Social Work, 31(3), 63.
doi:10.1300/J147v31n0305

Foldy, E. (2002). “Managing” diversity: Identity and power in organizations. In I. Aaltio &
A. Mills (Eds.), Gender, identities and the culture of organizations (pp. 92-112).
London, UK: Routledge.

Foley, S., Hang-Yue, N., & Wong, A. (2005). Perceptions of discrimination and justice:
Are there gender differences in outcomes? Group and Organizational
Management, 30(4), 421-450. doi:10.1177/1059601104265054

Foster, B. G., Jackson, G., Cross, W. E., Jackson, B., & Hardiman, R. (1988).
Workforce diversity and business. Training and Development Journal, 42(4), 38-
42. Retrieved from https://www.td.org/Publications/Magazines/TD

Frey, W. H. (2014). Diversity explosion: How new racial demographics are remaking
America. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Friedman, R. A., & Holtom, B. (2002). The effects of network groups on minority
employee turnover intentions. Human Resource Management, 41(4), 405-421.
doi:10.1002/hrm.10051

Friedman, R. A., Kane, M., & Cornfield, D. B. (1998). Social support and career
optimism: Examining the effectiveness of network groups among black
managers. Human Relations, 51(9), 1155-1177.
doi:10.1177/001872679805100903

Gardenswartz, L., & Rowe, A. (2009). Understanding the evolving role of cultural
diversity in the workplace. In M. Moodian (Ed.), Contemporary leadership and
intercultural competence: Exploring the cross-cultural dynamics within
organizations (pp. 33-35). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

155
Gerber, J., & Wheeler, L. (2009). On being rejected: A meta-analysis of experimental
research on rejection. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 468-488.
doi:10.1111/j.1745- 6924.2009.01158.x

Gidley, J. M., Hampson, G. P., Wheeler, L., & Bereded-Samuel, E. (n.d.). Social
inclusion: Context, theory and practice. Lismore, Australia: AUCEA.

Gidley, J. M., Hampson, G. P., Wheeler, L., & Bereded-Samuel, E. (2010). From access
to success: An integrated approach to quality higher education informed by social
inclusion theory and practice. Higher Education Policy, 23(1), 123-147.
doi:10.1057/hep.2009.24

Gilbert, J. A., Stead, B. A., & Ivancevich, J. M. (1999). Diversity management: A new
organizational paradigm. Journal of Business Ethics, 21(1), 61-76.
doi:10.1023/A:1005907602028

Gilrane, V. L., McCausland, T. C., King, E. B., & Jones, K. P. (2013). The evaluation
and effectiveness of workplace diversity programs. In M. A. Paludi (Ed.), Vol 4:
Implementing best practices in human resources (pp. 45-64). Santa Barbara, CA:
Praeger/ABC-CLIO.

Giovannini, M. (2004). What gets measured gets done. Journal for Quality &
Participation, 27(4), 21-27. Retrieved from http://asq.org/pub/jqp/

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. New York,
NY: Simon & Schuster.

Good, C., Aronson, J., & Inzlicht, M. (2003). Improving adolescents’ standardized test
performance: An intervention to reduce the effects of stereotype threat. Journal
of Applied Developmental Psychology, 24(6), 645-662.
doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2003.09.002

Gotsis, G., & Kortezi, Z. (2013). Ethical paradigms as potential foundations of diversity
management initiatives in business organizations. Journal of Organizational
Change Management, 26(6), 948-976. doi:10.1108/JOCM-11-2012-0183

Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, S., & Wormley, W. M. (1990). Effects of race on

organizational experiences, job performance evaluations, and career outcomes.
Academy of Management Journal, 33(1), 64-86. doi:10.2307/256352

Greenspan, S. (1996). Am I jealous, or is it my stupid amygdala [Review of the book

Emotional intelligence by D. Goleman]? Contemporary Psychology, 41(12),
1206. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/cnt/index.aspx

Greenwald, A. G., Banaji, M. R., Rudman, L. A., Farnham, S. D., Nosek, B. A., &
Mellott, D. S. (2002). A unified theory of implicit attitudes, stereotypes, self-
esteem, and self-concept. Psychological Review, 109(1), 3-25.
doi:10.1037/0033-295X.109.1.3

156
Greer, C. R., & Virick, M. (2008). Diverse succession planning: Lessons from the
industry leaders. Human Resource Management, 47(2), 351-367.
doi:10.1002/hrm.20216

Groves, K. S. (2007). Integrating leadership development and succession planning best

practices. Journal of Management Development, 26(3), 239-260.
doi:10.1108/02621710710732146

Groysberg, B., & Connolly, K. (2013). Great leaders who make the mix work. Harvard
Business Review, 91(9), 68-76. Retrieved from https://hbr.org

Haberfeld, D. M., Schulz, D. M., Sullivan, L. E., Rosen, M. S., & Sullivan, L. (2005).
Encyclopedia of law enforcement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hamada, T. (1999). Practicing anthropology in business organizations. Practicing

Anthropology, 21(4), 2-4. doi:10.17730/praa.21.4.t7m4484p761p4293

Hambrick, D. C., Davison, S. C., Snell, S. A., & Snow, C. C. (1998). When groups
consist of multiple nationalities: Towards a new understanding of the
implications. Organization Studies, 19(2), 181-205.
doi:10.1177/017084069801900202

Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a

reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193-206.
Retrieved from http://aom.org/Publications/AMR/Academy-of-Management-
Review.aspx

Hansen, F. (2003). Diversity’s business case doesn’t add up. Workforce, 82(4), 28-32.
Retrieved from http://www.workforce.com

Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H., & Florey, A. T. (2002). Time, teams, and task
performance: Changing effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on group
functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1029-1045.
doi:10.2307/3069328

Hatch, J. A. Doing Qualitative Research in Education Settings. Albany: SUNY Press,

2002.

Hayes, E. (1999). Winning at diversity: The win is seeing returns on investment.

Executive Excellence, 16(5), 9. Retrieved from
http://www.worldcat.org/title/executive-excellence/oclc/42326528

Hays-Thomas, R. (2004). Why now? The contemporary focus on managing diversity. In

M. Stockdale & F. J. Crosby (Eds.), The psychology and management of
workplace diversity (pp. 3-30). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

157
Herman, E., & Bentley, M. (1993). Rapid assessment procedures (RAP) to improve the
household management of diarrhea. Boston, MA: International Nutrition
Foundation for Developing Countries.

Hicks-Clarke, D., & Iles, P. (2000). Climate for diversity and its effects on career and
organizational attitudes and perceptions, Personnel Review, 29, 324-346.
doi:10.1108/00483480010324689

Higgs, M., & Rowland, D. (2011). What does it take to implement change successfully?
A study of the behaviors of successful change leaders. Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 47(3), 309-335. doi:10.1177/0021886311404556

Hillebrant, H., Sebastian, C., & Blakemore, S. J. (2011). Experimentally induced social
inclusion influences behavior on trust games. Cognitive Neuroscience, 2, 27-33.
doi:10.1080/ 17588928.2010.515020

Hitlan, R., Clifton, R., & DeSoto, M. (2006). Perceived exclusion in the workplace: The
moderating effects of gender on work-related attitudes and psychological health.
North American Journal of Psychology, 8(2), 217-236. Retrieved from
http://najp.us

Hobman, E. V., Bordia, P., & Gallois, C. (2004). Perceived dissimilarity and work group
involvement-The moderating effects of group openness to diversity. Group &
Organization Management, 29, 560-587. doi:10.1177/1059601103254269

Holladay, C. L. (2004) An evaluation of diversity training: Effects of trainer

characteristics and training focus. Unpublished manuscript, Rice University,
Houston, TX.

Holvino, E., & Kamp, A. (2009). Diversity management: Are we moving in the right
direction? Reflections from both sides of the North Atlantic. Scandinavian Journal
of Management, 25(4), 395-403. doi:10.1016/j.scaman.2009.09.005

Hubbard, E. E. (2004a). Diversity management. Amherst, MA: HRD Press.

Hubbard, E. E. (2004b). The diversity scorecard: Evaluating the impact of diversity on

organizational performance. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier
Science/Butterworth-Heinemann.

Huffman, A. H., Watrous-Rodriguez, K. M., & King, E. B. (2008). Supporting a diverse

workforce: What type of support is most meaningful for lesbian and gay
employees? Human Resource Management, 47(2), 237-253.
doi:10.1002/hrm.20210

Hughes, C. (2014). Impact of diversity on organization and career development.

Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

158
Jackson, S. E., Joshi, A., & Erhardt, N. L. (2003). Recent research on team and
organizational diversity: SWOT analysis and implications. Journal of
Management, 29(6), 801-830. doi:10.1016/S0149-2063(03)00080-1

James, L. R., James, L. A., & Ashe, D. K. (1990). The meaning of organizations: The
role of cognition and values. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and
culture in B. Schneider (pp. 40-84). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Janda, K., Berry, J. M., & Goldman, J. (1992). The challenge of democracy:
Government in America. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Jayne, M. E. A., & Dipboye, R. L. (2004). Leveraging diversity to improve business

performance: Research findings and recommendations for organizations. Human
Resource Management, 43, 409-424. doi:10.1002/hrm.20033

Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1999). Why differences make a
difference: A field study of diversity, conflict and performance in workgroups.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 741-763. doi:10.2307/2667054

Jiřincová, M. (2013). Potential future managers and their opinion on the issue of
diversity, inclusion and their possible use in management. Journal of
Competitiveness, 5(2), 37-50. doi:10.7441/joc.2013.02.03

Johns, N., Green, A., & Powell, M. (2012). Diversity in the British NHS: the business
versus the “moral” case. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International
Journal, 31(8), 768-783. doi:10.1108/02610151211277626

Johnston, W., & Packer, A. (1987). Workforce 2000: Work and workers for the 21st
century. Indianapolis, IN: Hudson Institute.

Jones, D., Pringle, J., & Shepherd, D. (2000). “Managing diversity” meets Aotearoa/New
Zealand. Personnel Review, 29(3), 364-380. doi:10.1108/00483480010324715

Jones, J. R., & Harter, J. K. (2005). Race effects on the employee engagement-turnover
intention relationship. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 11(2), 78-
88. doi:10.1177/107179190501100208

Jones, K. P., King, E. B., Nelson, J., Geller, D. S., & Bowes-Sperry, L. (2013). Beyond
the business case: An ethical perspective of diversity training. Human Resource
Management, 52(1), 55-74. doi:10.1002/hrm.21517

Jordan, A. T. (1995). Managing diversity: Translating anthropological insight for

organization studies. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 31(2), 124-140.
doi:10.1177/0021886395312003

Jordan, A. T. (Ed.). (2009). NAPA bulletin: Practicing anthropology in corporate

America: Consulting on organizational culture. New York, NY: John Wiley &
Sons.

159
Joshi, A., & Roh, H. (2009). The role of context in work team diversity research: A meta-
analytic review. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 599-627.
doi:10.5465/AMJ.2009.41331491

Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. (2006). Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the
efficacy of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies. American
Sociological Review, 71(4), 589-617. doi:10.1177/000312240607100404

Kanov, J., Maitlis, S., Worline, M. C., Dutton, J. E., Frost, P. J., & Lilius, J. (2004).
Compassion in organizational life. American Behavioral Scientist, 47, 808-827.
doi:10.1177/0002764203260211

Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The balanced scorecard: Measures that drive
performance. Harvard Business Review, 70(1), 71-79. Retrieved from
http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=9161

Kelly, E., & Dobbin, F. (1998). How affirmative action became diversity management
employer response to antidiscrimination law, 1961 to 1996. American Behavioral
Scientist, 41(7), 960-984. doi:10.1177/0002764298041007008

Killen, M., McGlothlin, H., & Henning, A. (2008). Explicit judgments and implicit bias: A
developmental perspective. In S. R. Levy & M. Killen (Eds.). Intergroup attitudes
and relations in childhood through adulthood (pp. 126-145). Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.

Kim, B. Y. (2006). Managing workforce diversity. Journal of Human Resources in

Hospitality & Tourism, 5(2), 69-90. doi:10.1300/J171v05n02_05

Kim, S. S., & Gelfand, M. J. (2003). The influence of ethnic identity on perceptions of
organizational recruitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63(3), 396-416.
doi:10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00043-X

Kirchmeyer, C., & Cohen, A. (1992). Multicultural groups: Their performance and
reactions with constructive conflict. Group & Organization Management, 17(2),
153-170. doi:10.1177/1059601192172004

Kirchmeyer, C., & McLellan, J. (1991). Capitalizing on ethnic diversity: An approach to

managing the diverse workgroups of the 1990s. Canadian Journal of
Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de
l’Administration, 8(2), 72-79. doi:10.1111/j.1936-4490.1991.tb00546.x

Kirton, G., & Greene, A. M. (2009). The costs and opportunities of doing diversity work
in mainstream organisations. Human Resource Management Journal, 19(2), 159-
175. doi:10.1111/j.1748-8583.2009.00091.x

Kirton, G., & Greene, A.-M. (2005). The dynamics of managing diversity: A critical
approach. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.

160
Kochan, T., Bezrukova, K., Ely, R., Jackson, S., Joshi, A., Jehn, K., . . . Thomas, D.
(2003). The effects of diversity on business performance: Report of the diversity
research network. Human Resource Management, 42(1), 3-21.
doi:10.1002/hrm.10061

Kogod, S. K. (1994). The bridges process: Enhancing organizational cultures to support

diversity. NAPA Bulletin, 14(1), 27-47. doi:10.1525/napa.1994.14.1.27

Konrad, A. (2003). Defining the domain of workplace diversity scholarship. Group and
Organization Management, 28(1), 4-17. doi:10.1177/1059601102250013

Konrad, A. M., Prasad, P., & Pringle, J. (Eds.). (2005). Handbook of workplace diversity.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Koonce, R. (2001). Redefining diversity. Training and Development, 55, 22-29.

Retrieved from https://www.td.org/Publications/Magazines/TD

Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Kotter, J. P. (2007). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business
Review, 85(1), 96-103. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2007/01/leading-change-
why-transformation-efforts-fail

Koys, D. J. (2001). The effects of employee satisfaction, organizational citizenship

behavior, and turnover on organizational effectiveness: A unit-level, longitudinal
study. Personnel Psychology, 54(1), 101-114.
doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00087.x

Kreitz, P. (n.d.). Best practices for managing organizational diversity. The Journal of
Academic Librarianship, 34(2), 101-120. Retrieved from
http://www.journals.elsevier.com/the-journal-of-academic-librarianship/

Kulik, C. T., & Roberson, L. (2008). Common goals and golden opportunities:
Evaluations of diversity education in academic and organizational settings.
Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7(3), 309-331.
doi:10.5465/AMLE.2008.34251670

Kunda, G. (1992). Engineering culture: Control and commitment in a high-tech

corporation. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Lappetito, J. (1994). Workplace diversity: A leadership challenge. Health Progress,

75(2), 22-27. Retrieved from https://www.chausa.org/publications/health-
progress/

Larkin Ford, R. (2004). Needs assessment helps ensure effective diversity training.
Public Relations Tactics, 11(6), 6. Retrieved from
http://www.prsa.org/Intelligence/Tactics/Issues#.VjmLnITO670

161
Lawler, E. E. (1994). Total quality management and employee involvement: are they
compatible? The Academy of Management Executive, 8(1), 68-76.
doi:10.5465/ame.1994.9411302396

Leon-Guerrero, A. (2010). Social problems: Community, policy, and social action.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Leary, M. R. (2010). Affiliation, acceptance, and belonging: The pursuit of interpersonal

connection. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindsey (Eds.), Handbook of social
psychology (pp. 864-897). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Leon, R. A. (2014). The chief diversity officer: An examination of CDO models and
strategies. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 7, 77-91.
doi:10.1037/a0035586

Liberman, V. (2006). Do companies truly value their diversity directors? Conference

Board Review, 44(5), 16-22. Retrieved from http://www.tcbreview.com

Lilius, J. M., Worline, M. C., Maitlis, S., Kanov, J., Dutton, J. E., & Frost, P. (2008). The
contours and consequences of compassion at work. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 29(2), 193-218. doi:10.1002/job.508

Linnehan, F., & Konrad, A. M. (1999). Diluting diversity: Implications for intergroup
inequality in organizations. Journal of Management Inquiry, 8(4), 399-414.
doi:10.1177/105649269984009

Litvin, D. (2006). Diversity: Making space for a better case. In A. M. Konrad, P. Prasad,
& J. K. Pringle (Eds.), Handbook of workplace diversity (pp. 75-94). London, UK:
Sage.

Lockwood, N. R. (2007). Leveraging employee engagement for competitive advantage.

Society for Human Resource Management Research Quarterly, 1, 1-12.
Retrieved from
https://www.shrm.org/Research/Articles/Articles/Documents/0605RQ.pdf

Loden, M., & Rosener, J. B. (1991). Workforce America! Managing employee diversity
as a vital resource. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Lord, J., & Hutchison, P. (2007). Pathways to inclusion: Building a new story with people
and communities. Concord, ON, Canada: Captus Press.

Love, L. F., & Singh, P. (2011). Workplace branding: Leveraging human resources
management practices for competitive advantage through “Best Employer”
surveys. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26(2), 175-181.
doi:10.1007/s10869-011-9226-5

Lumby, J. (2009). Performativity and identity: Mechanisms of exclusion. Journal of

Education Policy, 24(3), 353-369. doi:10.1080/02680930802669284

162
MacLean, N. (2006). Freedom is not enough: The opening of the American workplace.
New York, NY: R. Sage.

Marina, B. H. L. (2005). Managing diversity in communities, workplaces, and society. In

M. F. Rice (Ed.) Review of diversity and public administration: Theory, issues,
and perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 44-30). New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (1989). Designing qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.

Martín-Alcázar, F., Romero-Fernández, P. M., & Sánchez-Gardey, G. (2012).

Transforming human resource management systems to cope with diversity.
Journal of Business Ethics, 107(4), 511-531. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-1061-0

McCormick, K. (2015, September). Diversity programs and the evolution of workplace

diversity. Paper presented at the 15th Annual Labor and Employment Law
Conference, University of Texas School of Law, Austin, TX.

McDonald, K. (2001). An integrative evolutionary perspective on ethnicity. Politics and

the Life Sciences, 20(1), 67-80. Retrieved from
http://politicsandthelifesciences.org

McKay, P. F., Avery, D. R., & Morris, M. A. (2008). Mean racial-ethnic differences in
employee sales performance: The moderating role of diversity climate. Personnel
Psychology, 61(2), 349-374. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00116.x

McKay, P. F., Avery, D. R., & Morris, M. A. (2009). A tale of two climates: Diversity
climate from subordinates’ and managers’ perspectives and their role in store
unit sales performance. Personnel Psychology, 62(4), 767-791.
doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2009.01157.x

McKay, P. F., Avery, D. R., Tonidandel, S., Morris, M. A., Hernandez, M., & Hebl, M. R.
(2007). Racial differences in employee retention: Are diversity climate
perceptions the key? Personnel Psychology, 60(1), 35-62.
doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00064.x

McLeod, P. L., Lobel, S. A., & Cox, T. H. (1996). Ethnic diversity and creativity in small
groups. Small Group Research, 27(2), 248-264. doi:10.1177/1046496496272003

McMahon, A. M. (2011). Does workplace diversity matter? A survey of empirical studies

on diversity and firm performance, 2000-09. Journal of Diversity Management,
5(2), 37-48. Retrieved from http://www.cluteinstitute.com/journals/journal-of-
diversity-management-jdm/

Miller, F. (1998). Strategic culture change: The door to achieving high performance and
inclusion. Public Personnel Management, 27(2), 151-160.
doi:10.1177/009102609802700203

163
Miller, F., & Katz, J. (2002). The inclusion breakthrough: Unleashing the real power of
diversity and inclusion. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Milliken, F., & Martins, L. (1996). Searching for common threads: Understanding the
multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of Management
Review, 21, 402-433. Retrieved from http://aom.org/Publications/AMR/Academy-
of-Management-Review.aspx

Mkono, M. (2010). An analysis of Zimbabwean hotel managers’ perspectives on

workforce diversity. Tourism & Hospitality Research, 10(4), 301-310.
doi:10.1057/thr.2010.18

Mohammed, S., & Angell, L. C. (2004). Surface- and deep-level diversity in workgroups:
Examining the moderating effects of team orientation and team process on
relationship conflict. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 1015-1039.
doi:10.1002/job.293

Mok, C. (2002). Managing diversity in hospitality organizations. In N. D’Annunzio-Green,

G. A. Maxwell, & S. Watson (Eds.), Human resource management: International
perspectives in hospitality and tourism (pp. 212-224). New York, NY: Continuum.

Mor Barak, M. (2000a). Beyond affirmative action: Toward A model of diversity and
organizational inclusion. Administration in Social Work, 23(3-4), 47-68.
doi:10.1300/J147v23n03_04

Mor Barak, M. E. (2000b). The inclusive workplace: An ecosystems approach to

diversity management. Social Work, 45(4), 339-353. doi:10.1093/sw/45.4.339

Mor Barak, M. E. (2014). Managing diversity: Toward a globally inclusive workplace (3rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mor Barak, M. E. (2015). Inclusion is the key to diversity management, but what is
inclusion? Human Service Organizations Management, Leadership &
Governance, 39(2), 8388, doi:10.1080/23303131

Mor Barak, M. E., & Cherin, D. (1998). A tool to expand organizational understudying of
workforce diversity: Exploring a measure of inclusion-exclusion. Administration in
Social Work, 22(1), 47-64. doi:10.1300/J147v22n01_04

Mor Barak, M. E., Cherin, D. A., & Berkman, S. (1998). Organizational and personal
dimensions in diversity climate: Ethnic and gender differences in employee
perceptions. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 34, 82-104.
doi:10.1177/0021886398341006

Mor Barak, M. E., Findler, L., & Wind, L. H. (2003). Cross-cultural aspects of diversity
and well-being in the workplace: An international perspective. Journal of Social
Work Research and Evaluation, 4, 145-170. Retrieved from
http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2003-10617-002

164
Mor Barak, M., & Levin, A. (2002). Outside of the corporate mainstream and excluded
from the work community: a study of diversity, job satisfaction and well-being.
Community, Work & Family, 5(2), 133-157. doi:10.1080/13668800220146346

Morrison, A. M., Ruderman, M. N., & Hughes-James, J. (1993). Making diversity

happen: Controversies and solutions. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative
Leadership.

Nadler, D. A., & Tushman, M. L. (1990). Beyond the Charismatic Leader: Leadership
and Organizational Change. California Management Review, 32(2), 77-97.

National Science Foundation. (1997). User friendly handbook for mixed methods
evaluations. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/1997/nsf97153/

Nelson, J. K., Poms, L. W., & Wolf, P. P. (2012). Developing efficacy beliefs for ethics
and diversity management. Academy of Management Learning & Education,
11(1), 49-68. Retrieved from http://aom.org/Publications/AMLE/Academy-of-
Management-Learning---Education.aspx

Ng, E. S. (2008). Why organizations choose to manage diversity? Toward a leadership-

based theoretical framework. Human Resource Development Review, 7(1), 58-
78. Retrieved from http://hrd.sagepub.com

Niederle, M., Segal, C., & Vesterlund, L. (2013). How costly is diversity? Affirmative
action in light of gender differences in competitiveness. Management Science,
59(1), 1-16. Retrieved from http://pubsonline.informs.org/journal/mnsc

Nielsen, B. B., & Nielsen, S. (2013). Top management team nationality diversity and
firm performance: A multilevel study. Strategic Management Journal, 34(3), 373-
382. doi:10.1002/smj.2021

Nishii, L. H. (2013). The benefits of climate for inclusion for gender-diverse groups.
Academy of Management Journal, 56, 1754-1774. doi:10.5465/amj.2009.0823

Noor, K. B. (2008). Case study: A strategic research methodology. American Journal of

Applied Sciences 5(11), 1602-1604. doi:10.3844/ajassp.2008.1602.1604

Northouse, P. (2007). Leadership: Theory and practice (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

O’Leary, B. J., & Weathington, B. L. (2006). Beyond the business case for diversity in
organizations. Employee Responsibilities & Rights Journal, 18(4), 1-10.
doi:10.1007/s10672-006-9024-9

Olsen, J. E., & Martins, L. L. (2012). Understanding organizational diversity

management programs: A theoretical framework and directions for future
research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(8), 1168-1187.
doi:10.1002/job.1792

165
O’Reilly, C. A., III, Caldwell, D. F., & Barnett, W. P. (1989). Work group demography,
social integration, and turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34(1), 21-37.
doi:10.2307/2392984

Orenstein, E. G. (2005). The business case for diversity. Financial Executive, 21(4), 22-
27.

Operario, D., & Fiske, S. T. (1998). Racism equals power plus prejudice: A social
psychological equation for racial oppression. In J. L. Eberhardt & S. T. Fiske
(Eds.), Confronting racism: The problem and the response (pp. 33-53). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ortlieb, R., & Sieben, B. (2013). Diversity strategies and business logic why do
companies employ ethnic minorities? Group and Organization Management,
38(4), 480-511. doi:10.1177/1059601113497094

Oyler, J. D., & Pryor, M. G. (2009). Workplace diversity in the United States: The
perspective of Peter Drucker. Journal of Management History, 15(4), 420-451.

Park, B., & Rothbart, M. (1982). Perception of out-group homogeneity and levels of
social categorization: Memory for the subordinate attributes of ingroup and out-
group members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(6), 1051-
1068. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.42.6.1051

Paulus, P. (2000). Groups, teams, and creativity: The creative potential of idea-
generating groups. Applied Psychology, 49(2), 237-262.
doi:10.1111/1464-0597.00013

Pelled, L. H., Ledford, G. E., Jr., & Mohrman, S. A. (1999). Demographic dissimilarity
and workplace inclusion. Journal of Management Studies, 36(7), 1013-1031.
doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00168

Perceive. (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved from http:://www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/perceive

Perriton, L. (2009). “We don’t want complaining women!” A critical analysis of the
business case for diversity. Management Communication Quarterly, 23(2), 218-
243. doi:10.1177/0893318909343122

Petter, J., Byrnes, P., Choi, D. L., Fegan, F., & Miller, R. (2002). Dimensions and
patterns in employee empowerment: Assessing what matters to street-level
bureaucrats. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12(3), 377-
400. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a003539

Phillips, K. W., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (2006). Surface-level diversity and
decision-making in groups: When does deep-level similarity help?. Group
Processes & Intergroup Relations, 9(4), 467-482.
doi:10.1177/1368430206067557

166
Pless, N., & Maak, T. (2004). Building an inclusive diversity culture: Principles,
processes and practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 54(2), 129-147.
doi:10.1007/s10551-004-9465-8

Podolny, J. M., & Baron, J. N. (1997). Resources and relationships: Social networks and
mobility in the workplace. American Sociological Review, 62(5), 673-693.
doi:10.2307/2657354

Point, S., & Singh, V. (2003). Defining and dimensionalising diversity: Evidence from
corporate websites across Europe. European Management Journal, 21(6), 750-
761. doi:10.1016/j.emj.2003.09.015

Practice. (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/practice

Prasad, P., & Mills, A. (1997). Understanding the dilemmas of managing workplace
diversity. In P. Prasad, A. J. Mills, M. B. Elmes, & A. Prasad (Eds.), Managing the
organizational melting pot: Dilemmas of workplace diversity (pp. 3-27). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Qin, J., Muenjohn, N., & Chhetri, P. (2013). A review of diversity conceptualizations:
Variety, trends, and a framework. Human Resource Development Review, 13(2),
133-157. doi:10.1177/1534484313492329

Richard, O. C. (2000). Racial diversity, business strategy, and firm performance: A

resource-based view. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 164-177.
doi:10.2307/1556374

Richard, O. C., & Johnson, N. B. (2001). Understanding the impact of human resource
diversity practices on firm performance. Journal of Managerial Issues, 13(2), 177-
195. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/journal/jmanaissues

Richard, O. C., Kochan, T. A., & McMillan-Capehart, A. (2002). The impact of visible
diversity on organizational effectiveness: Disclosing the contents in Pandora’s
black box. Journal of Business and Management, 8(3), 265-291. Retrieved from
https://www.chapman.edu/business/faculty-research/journals-and-essays/

Richard, O. C., Murthi, B. P., & Ismail, K. (2007). The impact of racial diversity on
intermediate and long-term performance: The moderating role of environmental
context. Strategic Management Journal, 28(12), 1213-1233. doi:10.1002/smj.633

Richard, O. C., & Shelor, R. M. (2002). Linking top management team age
heterogeneity to firm performance: Juxtaposing two mid-range theories.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 13(6), 958-974.
doi:10.1080/09585190210134309

Rijamampianina, R., & Carmichael, T. (2005). A pragmatic and holistic approach to

managing diversity. Problems & Perspectives in Management, 1, 109-117.

167
 Retrieved from
http://www.businessperspectives.org/component/option,com_journals/id,3

Riordan, C. M., & Wayne, J. H. (2008). A review and examination of demographic

similarity measures used to assess relational demography within groups.
Organizational Research Methods, 11, 562-592. doi:10.1177/1094428106295503

Risberg, A., & Søderberg, A. M. (2008). Translating a management concept: diversity

management in Denmark. Gender in Management: An International Journal,
23(6), 426-441. doi:10.1108/17542410810897544

Roberson, L., Kulik, C. T., & Pepper, M. B. (2003). Using needs assessment to resolve
controversies in diversity training design. Group & Organization Management,
28(1), 148-174. doi:10.1177/1059601102250028

Roberson, Q. M. (2004). Disentangling the meanings of diversity and inclusion (CAHRS

Working Paper #04-05). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, School of Industrial and
Labor Relations, Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies.

Roberson, Q. M. (2006). Disentangling the meanings of diversity and inclusion in

organizations. Group & Organization Management, 31(2), 212-236.
doi:10.1177/1059601104273064

Robinson-Riegler, B., & Riegler, G. (2004). Cognitive psychology: Applying the science
of the mind (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Allyn & Bacon.

Rosen, T. (n.d.). Four more years at the equal employment opportunity commission
[Data set]. doi:10.1037/e573182011-003

Rosenzweig, P. (1998). Managing the new global workforce: Fostering diversity, forging
consistency. European Management Journal, 16(6), 644-652.
doi:10.1016/S0263-2373(98)00041-3

Rouse, D. (2011). Employing Kirkpatrick’s evaluation framework to determine the

effectiveness of health information management courses and
programs. Perspectives in Health Information Management, 8. Retrieved from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3070232/

Rynes, S. L., & Barber, A. E. (1990). Applicant attraction strategies: An organizational

perspective. Academy of Management Review, 15(2), 286-310. Retrieved from
http://aom.org/Publications/AMR/Academy-of-Management-Review.aspx

Saunders, P., Naidoo, Y., & Griffiths, M. (2007). Towards new indicators of
disadvantage: Deprivation and social exclusion in Australia (Project report from
the ARC Linkage Project, Left Out and Missing Out: Towards New Indicators of
Disadvantage). Sydney: Social Policy Research Centre (University of New South
Wales).

168
Schaufeli, W. B., Martínez, I. M., Marques Pinto, A., Salanova, M., & Bakker, A. B.
(2002). Burnout and engagement in university students: A cross-national study.
Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, 33, 464-481.
doi:10.1177/0022022102033005003

Schein, E. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.

Schmidt, P. (2004). An approach to diversity training in Canada. Industrial and

Commercial Training, 36, 148-152. doi:10.1108/00197850410542374

Schultz, M., & Hatch, M. J. (1992, August). Functionalism and symbolism in cultural
studies: From theoretical prisons to methodological interplay. Paper presented to
the National Academy of Management annual meeting, Las Vegas, NV.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning
organization. New York, NY: Doubleday/Currency.

Shaheen, J. (2010). An overview of diversity recruiting practices. Journal of Corporate

Recruiting Leadership, 5(4), 33-35. Retrieved from http://www.crljournal.com

Sharp, R., Franzway, S., Mills, J., & Gill, J. (2012). Flawed policy, failed politics?
Challenging the sexual politics of managing diversity in engineering
organizations. Gender, Work & Organization, 19(6), 555-572.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-0432.2010.00545.x

Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., Ehrhart, K. H., & Singh, G.
(2010). Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future
research. Journal of Management, 37, 1262-1289.
doi:10.1177/0149206310385943

Simons, T., & Pelled, L. H. (1999). Making use of difference: Diversity, debate, and
decision comprehensiveness in top management teams. Academy of
Management Journal, 42, 662-673. doi:10.2307/256987

Singal, M. (2014). The business case for diversity management in the hospitality
industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 40, 10-19.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2014.02.009

Slone, M., Tarrasch, R., & Hallis, D. (2000). Ethnic stereotypic attitudes among Israeli
children: Two intervention programs. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 46(2), 370-389.
Retrieved from http://www.wsupress.wayne.edu/journals/detail/merrill-palmer-
quarterly

Sluss, D. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2007). Relational identity and identification: Defining
ourselves through work relationships. Academy of Management Review, 32, 9-
32. doi:10.5465/AMR.2007.23463672

169
Society for Human Resource Management. (2009). Global diversity and inclusion:
Perceptions, practices and attitudes. Retrieved from
http://www.shrm.org/research/surveyfindings/articles/documents/diversity_and_in
clusion_report.pdf

Sommer, K. L., Kirkland, K. L., Newman, S. R., Estrella, P., & Andreassi, J. L. (2009).
Narcissism and cardiovascular reactivity to rejection imagery. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 39, 1083-1115. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00473.x

Stanley, C. A. (2014). The Chief Diversity Officer: An examination of CDO models and
strategies. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 7(2), 101-108.
doi:10.1037/a0036662

Starling, G. (1982). Managing the public sector. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.

Strategy. (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/strategy

Subeliani, D., & Tsogas, G. (2005). Managing diversity in the Netherlands: A case study
of Rabobank. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16, 831-
851. doi:10.1080/09585190500083392

Tajfel, H. (1969). Cognitive aspects of prejudice. Journal of Social Issues, 25(4), 79-97.
doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1969.tb00620.x

Tajfel, H., & Turner. J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S.
Worchel & L. W. Austin (Eds.) Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24).
Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.

Taylor, P. (2014). The next America: Boomers, Millennials, and the looming
generational showdown. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/next-
america/#Who-Are-the-Millennials

Thomas, D. A. (2004). Diversity as strategy. Harvard Business Review, 82(9), 98.

Retrieved from https://hbr.org

Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation

data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237-246. Retrieved from
https://flexiblelearning.auckland.ac.nz/poplhlth701/8/files/general_inductive_appr
oach.pdf.

Thomas, K. M., Mack, D. A., & Montigliani, A. (2004). The arguments against diversity:
Are they valid? In M. Stockdale & F. J. Crosby (Eds.), The psychology and
management of workplace diversity (pp. 31-51). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Thomas, K. M., Tran, N. M., & Dawson, B. L. (2010). An inclusive strategy of teaching
diversity. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 12(3), 295-311.
doi:10.1177/1523422310375035

170
Thomas, R. R. (1991). Beyond race and gender: Unleashing the power of your total
workforce by managing diversity. New York, NY: American Management
Association.

Thomas, R. R. (1992). Managing diversity: A conceptual framework. In S. E. Jackson

(Ed.), Diversity in the workplace: Human resource initiatives (pp. 306-318). New
York, NY: Guilford

Thomas, R. R. (1996). Building a house for diversity. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.

Townsend, A. M., Demarie, S. M., & Hendrickson, A. R. (1998). Virtual teams:

Technology and the workplace of the future. Academy of Management
Perspectives, 12(3), 17-29. Retrieved March 28, 2016, from
http://amp.aom.org/content/12/3/17.short

Triandis, H. C. (1995). A theoretical framework for the study of diversity. In M. Chemers,

S. Oskamp, & M. Constanzo (Eds.), Diversity in organizations: New perspectives
for a changing workplace (Vol. 8, pp. 11-36). Thousand Oaks, Sage.

Turner, D. W., III (2010). Qualitative interview design: A practical guide for novice
investigators. Qualitative Report, 15(3), 754-760. Retrieved from
http://tqr.nova.edu

Turner, J. C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive

theory of group behavior. In E. J. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in group processes:
Theory and research (Vol. 2, pp. 77-122). New York, NY: Basil Blackwell.

Turner, J. C. (1987) Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory.

Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.

Tutu, D. (2010, March 12). In Africa, a step backward on human rights. The Washington
Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2010/03/11/AR2010031103341.html

Ulrich, D., & Lake, D. G. (1990). Organizational capability: Competing from the inside
out. New York, NY: Wiley.

United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. (2009). Article 1,

Universal declaration on cultural diversity. Retrieved from
http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-
URL_ID=35636&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2005). Diversity management: Expert-Identified

leading practices and agency examples. Retrieved from
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0590.pdf

171
Vallas, S. P. (2003). Rediscovering the color line within work organizations: The knitting
of racial groups’ revisited. Work and Occupations, 30(4), 379-400.
doi:10.1177/0730888403256454

van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity
and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 89, 1008-1022. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1008

van Willigen, J. (2002). Applied anthropology: An introduction. Westport, CT:

Greenwood.

Visagie, J., Linde, H., & Havenga, W. (2011). Leadership competencies for managing
diversity and inclusion. Managing Global Transitions, 9, 225-247. Retrieved from
http://www.fm-kp.si/zalozba/ISSN/1581-6311.htm

Watkins, M. (2007, September 10). Demystifying strategy: The what, who, how, and
why. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from
https://hbr.org/2007/09/demystifying-strategy-the-what/

Watson, W. E., Kumar, K., & Michealsen, L. K. (1993). Cultural diversity’s impact on
interaction process and performance: Comparing homogenous and diverse task
groups. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 590-602. doi:10.2307/256593

Welker, M., Partridge, D. J., & Hardin, R. (2011). Corporate lives: New perspectives on
the social life of the corporate form. Current Anthropology, 52(S3).
doi:10.1086/657907

Wheeler, M. L. (1994). Diversity training: A research report. New York, NY: Conference
Board.

Wheeler, M. (1999, Winter). Global diversity: A culture-change perspective. The

Diversity Factor, 31–34.

Wheeler, M. L. (2001). The diversity executive: Tasks, competencies, and strategies for
effective leadership. New York, NY: Conference Board.

Wilden, R., Gudergan, S., & Lings, I. (2010). Employer branding: strategic implications
for staff recruitment. Journal of Marketing Management, 26(1-2), 56-73.
doi:10.1080/02672570903577091

Wilder, D. A. (1981). Perceiving persons as a group: Categorization and intergroup

relations. In D. L. Hamilton (Ed.), Cognitive processes in stereotyping and
intergroup behavior (pp. 213-257). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Williams, D. A., & Wade-Golden, K. C. (2007a). The Chief Diversity Officer. CUPA-HR
Journal, 58(1), 38-48. Retrieved from http://www.cupahr.org

172
Williams, D. A., & Wade-Golden, K. C. (2007b). The Chief Diversity Officer: A primer for
college and university presidents. Washington, DC: American Council on
Education.

Williams, D., & Wade-Golden, K. (2013). Strategic diversity leadership: Activating

change and transformation in higher education. Fairfax, VA: Stylus.

Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism: The kiss of social death. Social and Personality
Psychology Compass, 1(1), 236-247. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00004.x

Williams, K. D., & Nida, S. (2011). Ostracism: Consequences and coping. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 20(2), 71-75.
doi:10.1177/0963721411402480

Wilson, J. L. (2013). Emerging trend: The Chief Diversity Officer phenomenon within
higher education. Journal of Negro Education, 82(4), 433-445.
doi:10.7709/jnegroeducation.82.4.0433

Worthington, R. L., Stanley, C. A., & Lewis, W. T. Sr. (2014). National Association of
Diversity Officers in Higher Education standards of professional practice for chief
diversity officers. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 7(4), 227-234.
doi:10.1037/a0038391

Workplace. (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/workplace

Yang, Y. (2005, August). Developing cultural diversity advantage: The impact of

diversity management structures. Academy of Management Annual Meeting
Proceedings, H1-H6. doi:10.5465/AMBPP.2005.18778669

Yoshino, K. (2002). Covering. The Yale Law Journal, 111(4), 769. Retrieved from
http://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/covering

Zanoni, P., Janssens, M., Benschop, Y., & Nkomo, S. (2010). Unpacking diversity,
grasping inequality: Rethinking difference through critical
perspectives. Organization, 17(1), 9-29. doi:10.1177/1350508409350344

173
 APPENDIX A

Recruitment Script

Hi. My name is Britta Wilson. I am a doctoral student in the Organizational Leadership

program within the Graduate School of Education and Psychology at Pepperdine
University. As part of fulfilling my degree requirements, I am conducting a study
regarding the best practices to engage diversity and create an inclusive work
environment.

I came across your name through your affiliation with the Conference Board’s Global
Diversity & Inclusion Council, of which I am also a member. As a result of your
exemplary practices and contributions to your field, you have been carefully selected to
participate. Participation in the study is voluntary and confidentiality will be maintained
throughout the study. Participation entails a 60-minute interview, ideally in person or via
phone. The questions that will be asked during the interview and an Informed Consent
form will be sent to you in advance of scheduling the interview. Your participation in
this study will be extremely valuable to other scholars, Chief Diversity Officers, HR and
Diversity and Inclusion practitioners and business leaders in the engagement of diverse
talent to create an inclusive work environment.

Are you willing to be interviewed as a part of this study?

Thank you,

174
 APPENDIX B

Informed Consent

PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY

INFORMED CONSENT FOR PARTICIPATION IN RESEARCH ACTIVITIES

ENGAGING DIVERSITY: BEST PRACTICES TO CREATE AN INCLUSIVE WORK

ENVIRONMENT

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Britta M. Wilson, MBA,
Principal Investigator and Farzin Madjidi, Ed.D, Faculty Advisor, at Pepperdine
University, because:
(a.) You are a Chief Diversity Officer (or equivalent),

(b.) Have held the CDO position, equivalent to Director or above,

(c.) Are or were employed by a global organization,

(d.) Have been employed in the CDO post for at least a year in the same
organization.

Your participation is voluntary. You should read the information below, and ask
questions about anything that you do not understand, before deciding whether to
participate. Please take as much time as you need to review the consent form. Given
your role and/or level in the organization, it is suggested that discuss your participation
with your employer and confirm that your participation does not conflict with any Non-
Disclosure or Confidentiality Agreements.

You may also decide to discuss participation with your family or friends. If you decide to
participate, you will be asked to sign this form. You will also be given a copy of this form
for you records.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of the study is to

● Determine the strategies employed and challenges faced by Chief Diversity

Officers (CDOs) in creating an inclusive work environment for diverse

employees.

175
 ● Determine what measures and recommendations CDOs would suggest to

implement an inclusive workplace.

● Determine what recommendations CDOs provide to help others seeking to

cultivate an inclusive work environment

STUDY PROCEDURES

If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to participate in an

approximately 60 minute interview. The following interview protocol will be used:

BEST PRACTICES ASSOCIATED WITH CREATING AN INCLUSIVE WORKPLACE

Interview Protocol

Icebreaker (a): Tell me about your career

Icebreaker (b): What prompted you to become involved in diversity and inclusion?

1. How do you define “inclusion”?

2. What are your best practices for promoting and facilitating inclusion of diverse
employees?
3. What practices do you think hinder “inclusion”?
4. What resources did you need to recruit and retain diverse employees (assuming
creating an inclusive work environment starts with talent acquisition)?
5. What were the major challenges and/or obstacles in creating an inclusive work
environment?
6. How did you deal with and/or overcome those challenges?
7. What is the role of inclusion in your talent acquisition strategy?
8. Do you think that the characteristics of an inclusive work environment will change in
the future?
9. How would you personally describe the elements of a successfully inclusive work
environment?
10. How could these elements be measured and tracked to ensure a successfully
inclusive work environment?
11. What measures does your leadership value in assessing the success of your
inclusive practices?
12. What methods did you employ to benchmark and track inclusive workplace
practices?
13. In what other way(s) is inclusion defined and measured differently at your
organization?
14. What cautionary tale(s) would you share with executive leaders in the
implementation of inclusive workplace practices?

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS

176
 The potential risks associated with participation in this study include those associated
with:
a.) Professional Reputation - should their identification become known, the exposure of
their thoughts and experiences could cause embarrassment or impact their
professional standing;
b.) Breach of Non Disclosure Agreement (NDA) or Confidentiality Agreements – given
that CDOs are senior executives they are often privy to confidential business
information necessitating them to sign NDAs and Confidentiality Agreements. Their
responses could impact those Agreements;
c.) Psychological Impact – given the possible sensitivity of the topic, the process of
interviewing may elicit memories or experiences, which may cause emotional
discomfort. Boredom, mental fatigue and frustration may also occur as a result of
the interview questions asked.

These risks may be mitigated by allowing participants to:

a.) Withdraw at any time without reason. Should the participant have second
thoughts about their participation, feel that they may have “over-shared” or are
uncomfortable with their participation they can withdraw.
b.) Request and review their transcripts.

Further, risks will be reduced by strongly protecting confidentiality and using data
collection processes so that it is difficult to link identifying info with participant
responses.

DATA MAINTENANCE, ACCESS, STORAGE & DESTRUCTION

The security of data is an important component of research and insuring the

confidentiality of the
participants. The original signed Informed Consent form will be kept secured and
separate from
other data and files linking names and id numbers/pseudonyms.

All data that include personal identifiers or the identity of the participant could be
deduced will
be encrypted. Data that does not include personal identifiers will be maintained on
password
protected systems. Other data categories will be managed as outlined:

Data Type Who Has Where Stored? How it will be When Destroyed &
Access Secured? How Destroyed
1. Creation of Codes Researcher 2 Separate File Cabinets Locked File a.) Destroyed after 3
a.) Pseudonyms a.) Researchers Cabinets for a.) years
b.) Real Identities Residence and b.) b.) Destroyed after
b.) Researcher’s Office transcription
2. Audio Tapes Researcher & Laptop Password Once transcribed;
Transcriptionist Protected Laptop destroyed via
& Audio Files commercial software
applications & physical

177
 destruction
3. Electronic Researcher Laptop Password 3 years after the
Records Protected Laptop completion of research;
& Audio Files destroyed via
commercial software
applications & physical
destruction
4. Handwritten Researcher File Cabinet in Locked File 3 years after the
Notes Researcher’s Residence completion of research;
destroyed via shredding
5. Transcription Researcher & Laptop Password 3 years after the
Transcriptionist protected laptop completion of research
& Word doc file
6. Codes & Coded Researcher I-Pad (Codes) Password 3 years after the
Data Laptops (Coded Data) protected laptop completion of research
Stored separately & encrypted files

Any personal information that could identify you will be removed or changed before files
are shared with the professional transcriptionist.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY

While there are no direct benefits to the study participants, there are several anticipated
benefits to society which include:

1. The identification and compilation of the results of this study will be beneficial to
CDOs, business leaders, Human Resources and diversity practitioners.

2. Findings in the study will provide insight and inform scholars and practitioners on
best practices associated with the inclusion of diverse employees.

CONFIDENTIALITY

Based on your selection below, I will keep your records for this study confidential.

_______ (Please initial) I agree to permit the researcher to use my name,

professional affiliation and the name of my organization. I understand that prior to
submission of this research for publication; I will receive a copy of the manuscript and
review if for two weeks. I may then request revisions to any quotes/information directly
attributed to me. If the researcher cannot accommodate my request, the researcher will
then delete my name, professional affiliation, name of my organization, and any other
pertinent identifying information related to me and simply refer to me by a pseudonym
and my organization as a “generic organization”, e.g., Susan Smith, CDO of a global
organization.

_______ (Please initial) I agree to permit the researchers to refer to me only by a

pseudonym from a “generic organization.” I understand my identity and the name of my
organization will be kept confidential at all times and in all circumstances any research
based on this interview is presented.

178
However, if I am required to do so by law, I may be required to disclose information
collected about you. Pepperdine’s University’s Human Subjects Protection Program
(HSPP) may also access the data collected. The HSPP occasionally reviews and
monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

The data will be stored on a password-protected computer in the principal investigator’s

place of residence. The data will be stored for a minimum of three years and then
destroyed. The audio recordings will be destroyed once transcribed.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL

Your participation is voluntary. Your refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss
of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You may withdraw your consent at any
time and discontinue participation without penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims,
rights or remedies because of your participation in this research study.

ALTERNATIVES TO FULL PARTICIPATION

The alternatives to participation in the study is not participating or completing only the
items which you feel comfortable in doing so.

EMERGENCY CARE AND COMPENSATION FOR INJURY

If you are injured as a direct result of research procedures you will receive medical
treatment; however, you or your insurance will be responsible for the cost. Pepperdine
University does not provide any monetary compensation for injury.

INVESTIGATOR’S CONTACT INFORMATION

I understand that the investigator is willing to answer any inquiries I may have
concerning the research herein described. I understand that I may contact:

Dr. Farzin Madjidi, or

Britta Wilson, if I have any other questions or concerns about this research.

If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact:
Dr. Judy Ho, Chairperson, Graduate & Professional School Institutional Review Board
(GPS IRB) at Pepperdine University.
at [email protected] or by phone at
310.568.5753

179
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT – IRB CONTACT INFORMATION

If you have questions, concerns or complaints about your rights as a research

participant or research in general please contact Dr. Judy Ho, Chairperson of the
Graduate & Professional Schools Institutional Review Board at Pepperdine University
6100 Center Drive Suite 500
Los Angeles, CA 90045 310-568-5753 [email protected].

180
APPENDIX C

IRB Approval

181