The Potential of Organizational Inclusion to Improve Performance

Introduction

In recent years, public organizations in the United States have increasingly recognized the importance of hiring a diverse workforce that reflects the demographics of the country. Along with this trend, these organizations have also focused  on diversity management policies, which include flexible work options, mentoring for individuals from underrepresented populations, and regulations that promote a family-friendly environment. While many of these changes have led to positive effects  for workers, diversity management alone is arguably insufficient for manifesting  the true potential of a diverse workforce. 

The author of this study advocates that institutions promote organizational inclusive behaviors (OIB), instead of simply focusing on managing diversity. The author classifies these behaviors into three major categories:

• Commitment from top leadership to foster inclusion
• Ability of employees to influence organizational decisions
• Fair or equitable treatment from management

By focusing on these major categories of organizational inclusive behaviors, the author argues that public organizations can more effectively create an inclusive environment for their workers, which will in turn improve performance. This study aims to provide evidence to support this hypothesis, and address a significant gap in existing research on this specific phenomenon.

Dr. Meghna Sabharwal is the Department Head of the Public and Nonprofit Management program at the University of Texas at Dallas. Her work primarily focuses on public human resource management, including diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) best practices. More recently, she has conducted research on understanding immigration patterns of high-skilled workers.

Methods and Findings

The study surveys public managers in the state of Texas across five different departments, such as the Texas Education Agency, and the State Governor’s Office. A total of 815 employees were contacted for this study, and 198 surveys were returned. The survey consisted of 100+ questions about individuals’ perceptions and experiences related to their work. To measure organizational performance, survey items asked workers to rate several dimensions of the quality and skill of their unit. The study used regression analysis to determine the effects of diversity management and inclusion on organizational performance. 

Overall, the results reveal that diversity management policies like flexible work options improved organizational performance. However, when combined with these diversity management policies,among organizations that have strong diversity management policies, those that have a commitment from leadership and empower employees with decision-making power (two of the organizational inclusive behaviors) tend to have greater organizational performance.

Conclusions

Ultimately, the author recommends that public organizations should not only implement diversity management practices but should also foster an inclusive environment for their employees. Leaders should demonstrate their dedication to inclusion across the entire organization, and employees should be given more agency to contribute to decision-making processes. The author cautions that these initiatives should not be carried out in place of existing diversity management policies; rather, both diversity and inclusion practices need to be combined. 

Because the data from this study was constrained to a handful of organizations in Texas, future research can leverage data from more diverse populations to see if the results hold true under other conditions. Additionally, since the OIBs and organizational performance were measured through questionnaires, future research can develop more objective metrics for both factors.

Best Practices for Educational Social Justice Leadership Preparation Programs

Introduction

Given the recent increase in racial diversity of the US university student population, it is critical now more than ever educators and administrators must be equipped to meet the challenges and demands associated with effectively teaching students of all racial, Indigenous, and ethnic identities. As such, racially diverse leaders are crucial in all environments, especially those with greater racial diversity. Previous studies have indicated that schools with administrators of color, for instance, are generally associated with better educational outcomes for students of color. While more research needs to be conducted in this field, the importance of culturally responsive leadership in addressing student needs is abundantly clear.

Nonetheless, there is still much that remains unclear about the most effective strategies that can empower leaders of color in educational space. This study examines a school leadership preparation program’s effectiveness to integrate culturally responsive frameworks into tangible practices and distills the findings into learning that similar programs can leverage in their own practice.

Kyo Yamashiro is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational Leadership and Administration at Loyola Marymount University (LMU) where she researches strategies to improve student outcomes. Karen Hutching is the Director of the Center for Teaching Excellence at LMU where she specializes in quantitative research methodology and survey construction. Manuel N. Ponce Jr. is an Associate Professor and director of the Institute of School Leadership and Administration at LMU where he studies topics like educational leadership preparation. Dana Coleman is an Adjunct Professor in the School of Education at LMU and the Executive Director for the Independent School Alliance, a coalition of schools in Los Angeles that provide opportunities for students from underrepresented backgrounds. Laura McGowan-Robinson is the Founder and CEO of Diversity in Leadership Institute, which is dedicated to improving educational outcomes for Black and Latinx students in California.

Methods and Findings

The leadership preparation program that is the subject of the study is located in Southern California and embedded in a private university with a Jesuit tradition and a social justice mission. School administrators, teachers, and other education staff enroll in the program, learn skills and tools for making instruction and curriculum more equitable, and graduate with a degree or certificate. Several of the authors of the study are involved in the program, giving them an inside perspective into its design and operation. The authors explore how the program engages educators most effectively at three stages: before entering, while participating, and after completion. The best practices that emerge from the research are as follows:

• Before the program – in recruitment and admissions:
  • Proactively identified and recruited racially diverse educators by utilizing networks that have Black, Indigenous, and educators of color 
  • Created affordable programs and/or offer financial aid to candidates from socioeconomically underrepresented backgrounds
  • Streamlined course offerings and reduced credit requirements, which also reduced tuition and lowered cost barriers
• During the program – through preparation and support:
  • Utilized hands-on field learning that focused on disparities and inequities that are relevant to educators’ and students’ lived experiences
  • Presented various programming formats tailored to different learning needs, including developing a hybrid “executive” model for educators in later stages of their careers
  • Promoted mentorship and networking opportunities for Black, Indigenous and  educators and administrators of color
• After the program – through placement and retention:
  • Providing formal support in the job search process, including mock interviews and alumni connections
  • Continuing assistance for a period of time after program completion to ensure that educators could find employment matching their qualifications
  • Maintaining teams of advisors, mentors, and professors to provide individualized attention

Conclusions

Evidence indicates educators who have completed the program gained knowledge about how to better support teachers, build community, and promote equity at their schools. As a result, the practices outlined in the study can serve as a model that other programs can learn from in order to more effectively support Black, Indigenous and staff of color in their professional development.

Furthermore, the program is continuing to improve. For instance, a new initiative will be launched in the future to specifically recruit more Asian American and Pacific Islander leaders. Curriculum is continually being iterated on to emphasize anti-racism and cultural responsiveness. Ultimately, the authors contend that providing leadership programs is  instrumental to creating more equitable professional development opportunities for Black, Indigenous and educators of color. For the field of education to become more equitable for staff and students alike, it is crucial for universities to address the  racial inequities and barriers, to pave the way forward for its leaders and learners.

How Organizations Can Best Communicate Their Commitment to Diversity

Introduction

As organizations become more aware of the importance of diversity as a tool to attract and retain employees, more of them are actively choosing to communicate why they celebrate diversity. Companies frequently express their commitment to diversity by outlining the reasons why diversity is important through their organizational diversity cases. There are two general forms of diversity cases: the ‘business case’ and the ‘fairness case.’ The ‘business case’ utilizes instrumental rhetoric and argues that diversity is crucial because it enhances organizational performance and ultimately boosts profits. The ‘fairness case’ uses non-instrumental rhetoric and maintains that diversity is inherently valuable and does not need to be tied to a company’s financial gain.

Despite the positive messaging on diversity that is highlighted by the business case, in practice it may actually convey a form of social identity threat (the concern that one will be devalued based on one’s identity) to its audience. Most notably, this occurs among job-seekers from underrepresented backgrounds. When reading the business case message for diversity, individuals might be more likely to believe that they will be devalued, as their contributions at the organization will be interpreted and evaluated through the lens of their identity. Yet, among the Fortune 500 companies who have an organizational diversity case, about 80% of them adopt the business case rather than the fairness case. It is therefore important to further examine the value of organizational diversity rhetoric using a theory-driven empirical approach. 

Dr. Oriane A. M. Georgeac is an Assistant Professor of Organizational Behavior at the Yale School of Management where she conducts research on how people respond to organizations’ messages about diversity. Dr. Aneeta Rattan is an Associate Professor of Organizational Behavior at London Business School where she investigates how to improve belonging, achievement, and equity in organizations.

Methods and Findings

The authors conduct several experiments to test their hypotheses that: (1) exposure to the business case for diversity lowers underrepresented job seekers’ sense of belonging and (2) a lower expected sense of belonging will lead to lower interest in joining an organization. These hypotheses are tested using a between-subjects experimental design with groups who are marginalized due to their sexual orientation, gender, and race. The main findings in the study are as follows:

• Being presented with a business case for diversity results in lower expectations of inclusion among LGBTQ+ professionals compared to when a fairness case for diversity is deployed within the organization.
• Exposure to a business case of diversity instead of a fairness case leads to both a lower anticipated feeling of belonging and a greater anticipation of rejection among female job searchers in STEM fields. 
• African American students perceive greater social identity threat and more profound feelings of being depersonalized when they read a business case for diversity rather than a fairness case.

The results confirm the authors’ initial theory that organizations who employ business cases for diversity actually undermine their own goals of recruiting employees from underrepresented backgrounds. Across several distinct categories of job seekers, the business case caused significantly more detriment to their views of the organization in question.

Conclusions

There are several theoretical implications of the study. Previous research on social identity threat has generally focused on negative cues (such as the presence of negative stereotypes), but diversity cases – both business and fairness cases – are ostensibly positive cues. As a result, there is potential for future exploration of other positive phenomena that yield negative effects. Additionally, traditional research on social identity threat has focused on deeply entrenched structures, systems, and norms as its root causes. This study shows, however, that the presence of a diversity case, also identified as a cause of social identity threat, is more immediate and susceptible to change. There may be more opportunities to analyze and resolve similar sources of social identity threat. 

Practically, the findings of this study indicate that organizations ought to reject the use of the business case when explaining their commitment to diversity. Instead, the authors suggest that organizations should emphasize the importance of diversity without any justification, signaling that diversity is inherently embedded within the organization’s core values.

The Powerful Potential of Restorative Justice in Education

Introduction

More than ever before, punitive disciplinary practices in educational settings are coming under increasingly fierce scrutiny. Practices like suspension and expulsion have disproportionately affected  students from marginalized and minoritized backgrounds, particularly those in poor and under-resourced communities. Not only have these types of zero-tolerance disciplinary policies failed to improve students’ academic achievement, but they have also served to widen racial disparities between white students and students of color within the classroom.

As a result of a greater recognition of the inefficacy and harm of traditional disciplinary policies, restorative justice practices (RJP) have emerged as a viable alternative to keep students in school while decreasing racial inequities. In educational contexts, restorative justice focuses on establishing and upholding an atmosphere that prioritizes values and relies on strong relationships as the cornerstone of a restorative culture. Though RJP have demonstrated significant promise as a form of justice in schools, research on both their impact and implementation has been limited. This paper thus aims to evaluate the effectiveness of restorative justice in schools and examine existing barriers to carrying out RJP.

Dr. Mara Schiff is an Associate Professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida Atlantic University where she specializes in restorative philosophy and practice in criminal-legal, juvenile, and educational areas. She is also a Board Member for the National Association for Community and Restorative Justice and President of PeaceWorks Consulting, Inc.

Methods and Findings

The author draws upon a variety of existing works on the effects of RJP within individual schools and specific districts. Acknowledging that published peer-reviewed research about RJP is still lacking in academic circles, she leverages data that generally comes from book chapters, non-peer-reviewed articles, and implementation reports, Dr. Schiff also utilizes critical race theory (CRT) as an analytic framework for understanding how institutions function in order to assess the obstacles preventing widespread adoption of RJP.

A variety of restorative justice practices in both domestic and global communities were found to be quite effective. Some success stories identified in the study include:

• Cole Middle School in Oakland, CA experienced a significant 87% decrease in suspensions and reported no expulsions following the adoption of a whole-school restorative justice approach.
• Restorative practices in 17 schools in Denver, CO led to a 68% decrease in police tickets overall, a 40% decrease in out-of-school suspensions, and an 82% decrease in expulsions.
• Through restorative circles, conferences, peer mediation, and other restorative methods, the Minnesota Department of Education achieved a reduction in behavioral referrals and suspensions, ranging from 45 to 65 percent,  as well as an increase in academic achievement in 2 schools.
• After introducing several restorative practices, school exclusions were notably reduced in 14 out of 18 public schools in Scotland.

Despite growing evidence of the positive implications of RJP, there still exist substantial impediments to its mainstream adoption. The dominant values that characterize most educational disciplinary policies are retributive in nature—emphasizing punishment, isolation, deprivation, and the proportionate infliction of harm. These values are at odds with the fundamental principles of restorative justice: inclusion, respect, fairness, tolerance, and acceptance. More tangibly, factors including the complexity of school bureaucracies, a lack of RJP training for teachers, and insufficient resources for the long-term implementation of a restorative culture,  make it extremely difficult for RJP to gain rapid traction in entrenched educational structures.

Conclusions

The growing awareness of unacceptable levels of racial inequality and inequity has led to an increased use of restorative responses to address harm in schools and in other settings around the world. Nevertheless, addressing the ‘school-to-prison pipeline’ requires more than just a single disciplinary or educational tactic. It is crucial to consider how institutional bias and structural racism can hinder the acceptance and execution of restorative strategies. While it is necessary to have empirical support for the use of RJP in schools, restorative justice as a movement must also confront the systemic injustices that normalize social, political, and racial inequality.

Ultimately, there is a high risk that RJP in schools may inadvertently reinforce the institutional racial bias that contributes to the ‘school-to-prison pipeline.’ To prevent such an outcome, restorative justice must go beyond by confronting the root causes of institutional bias and the structures that uphold violence as a legitimate response to harm. Policies that underscore respect, inclusiveness, and compassion will do much more in protecting students.

Recommendations for Applying Antiracism to Implementation Science

Introduction

Over the last several years, the field of implementation science (IS) has become an increasingly popular framework for policymakers to translate evidence-based interventions (EBIs) into routine, real-world practices. IS is most salient in health settings, as it is primarily used with the objective of improving the quality and effectiveness of healthcare services. Despite the noble intent of implementation science, there exist significant gaps with respect to how it can best be leveraged to close racial disparities.

This piece of research aims to address these areas of opportunity by applying an antiracism lens to the core facets of implementation science. The authors seek to provide tangible and actionable recommendations for researchers looking to actively reduce the influence of structural racism on their work. Furthermore, they emphasize the need for grounding and self-reflection that can empower implementation scientists to bring an antiracism perspective to their research. Incorporating antiracism into IS can improve the efficacy, implementation, and sustainability of policy interventions in diverse settings.

Dr. Rachel Shelton is an Associate Professor at the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, where she helps lead a university-wide implementation science initiative across Columbia. Dr. Prajakta Adsul is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at the University of New Mexico, where she currently studies the implementation context of cervical and colorectal cancer screening to improve population-level outcomes. Dr. April Oh is a Senior Advisor for Implementation Science at the National Cancer Institute, where she leads efforts to advance the intersection of implementation science and health equity research. Dr. Nathalie Moise is the Florence Irving Associate Professor of Medicine at the Columbia University Irving Medical Center, where she researches the implementation of team based care at the intersection of chronic cardiovascular disease and mental illness. Dr. Derek M. Griffith is a founding Co-Director of Georgetown University’s Racial Justice Institute, where he specializes in interventions to promote Black men’s health and well-being.

Methods and Findings

The authors build their discussion of antiracism upon existing scholarship on health equity and structural racism. Drawing from a variety of sources of antiracism literature, the authors outline specific recommendations for combatting structural racism within IS across five distinct elements: stakeholder engagement; conceptual models and frameworks; development, selection, and adaptation of interventions; evaluation approaches; and implementation strategies.

First, the researchers argued for the importance of community engagement and co-creation in stakeholder engagement. By emphasizing transparency, acknowledging power dynamics, and including diverse partners as decision-makers, implementation scientists can more effectively create interventions that target the underlying problems that communities face.
Second, IS frameworks should give greater consideration to racism as a key factor that can shape how care is distributed to populations. Equity-focused frameworks will acknowledge how racism permeates institutional norms, healthcare systems, and organizational structures.
Third, the authors assert that implementation science demands the development, selection, and adaptation of interventions that focus on health equity and antiracism. Few existing interventions truly address the root causes of health inequity, so it is imperative to create new interventions that mitigate the detrimental health effects of racism.
Fourth, there are few metrics within IS that are able to capture either racism or racial equity. In order to track improvements in health equity outcomes, IS researchers need to develop new measures that can more clearly operationalize the effects of racism.
Finally, there needs to be a demonstrated antiracist effort when it comes to implementation strategies. Examples include building diverse teams or training on antiracist principles.

Across all five of these elements, the authors underscore the need for implementation scientists to engage in critical self-reflection, consistently thinking about whether racism is explicitly or implicitly affecting their work.

Conclusions

Because implementation science is located at such a critical juncture between research and practice, it is necessary to apply an antiracism lens in order to improve health equity. By positioning IS in the long history of antiracism scholarship, researchers can generate interventions that achieve social justice and lasting impact.

The authors conclude by raising more questions that need to be answered in implementation science, such as: 

• How has structural racism shaped the field of implementation science?
• Is one of the reasons that interventions struggle in communities experiencing inequities the lack of examination of structural racism?
• How could an antiracism approach facilitate the sustainability of EBIs?
• What would it mean to center the values and experiences of individuals experiencing racism in adaptation and de-implementation efforts?
• What does it mean that dissemination efforts encouraging adoption typically focus on gatekeepers and those who already hold power?

Furthermore, racism manifests in unique ways across a variety of physical and cultural environments, which necessitates more research. 

Improving Diversity in Education: The Impacts of a Diversity Plan on a University Campus

Introduction

The benefits of diversity in educational environments are well documented – diversity in the classroom helps to prepare students to live in a global world, enhance civic engagement, and reduce racism. On the other hand, there has been little research conducted on how educational institutions can achieve such diversity. Specifically, the impact of diversity plans in higher education institutions is not yet sufficiently understood. Moreover, diversity plans are often implemented without a thorough inspection of the institution’s culture.

An increasing number of colleges and universities have hired Chief Diversity Officers (CDOs) and attempt to integrate diversity-related goals into formal plans, but literature in this field has not meaningfully analyzed the efficacy of these diversity plans. To address these gaps in the scholarship, the authors in this study examine the effects of a diversity plan launched in 2010 by a public research-intensive university. They review both the successes and challenges of this diversity plan and discuss implications for efforts to enhance diversity in other educational settings.

Dr. Christine Stanley is a Regents Professor in the College of Education and Human Development at Texas A&M University, where she is a leader in diversity and justice in higher education. Dr. Karan Watson is a Regents Professor in the Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering at Texas A&M University, where she has also previously served as the associate provost for diversity. Dr. Jennifer Reyes is the Assistant Vice President for Diversity at Texas A&M University, where she works with campus leaders to develop, implement, and assess diversity and inclusion strategies on campus. Dr. Kay Valera is a Presidential Postdoctoral Scholar in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Arizona State University, where she studies how race, class, and gender impact perceptions of and experiences with public and personal safety.

Methods and Findings

The authors employed a mixed method approach for their case study. Quantitatively, they utilized institutional and descriptive statistical surveys. Qualitatively, they relied on interviews with student leaders, faculty, staff, and administrators; documented analyses of diversity and accountability reports; and observations of student, faculty, and administrative group diversity committees and councils meetings. To evaluate whether the diversity plan did indeed produce change, the authors studied the data over a 6-year period from 2010 to 2016. There were three overarching questions that helped to guide the researchers’ mixed method approach:

• How do we know that changes are occurring with the diversity plan to make the campus environment inclusive to all?
• How do we know that the diversity plan is having an organizational impact on the campus diversity culture?
• What is the diversity plan not sufficiently addressing?

Overall, the case study found that the diversity plan was effective in a variety of ways. Because the diversity plan embedded its three goals of improving accountability, campus climate, and equity within the organization’s existing goals of academic success and institutional excellence, the CDO was able to work with multiple stakeholders to effect change. The results of the diversity plan include:

• An increase in enrollment of Latinx undergraduate students
• An increase in overall job satisfaction for staff
• More focused dialogues around diversity and inclusion within the campus climate
• Compared to previous years, surveys showed there was a higher rate of ethnic minority students reporting that they strongly agreed with the survey item that the college “values diversity” 
• 13 of 16 academic colleges have appointed diversity deans, compared to no individuals holding titled diversity leadership positions prior to the diversity plan
• 17 of 23 academic and administrative units have included diversity statements and other relevant materials on their websites
• Multiple “firsts” in institution leadership positions (e.g. the university appointed the first African American dean of the business school in 2015, and all of the deans of the science, technology, engineering, and math colleges were women in 2016)

Still, there are a few areas that the diversity plan did not sufficiently address.

• For instance, students expressed concern that, despite the diversity on campus, people tended to stay within their own identity groups. 
• Another challenge for the university is changing courses and curricula to reflect greater social and cultural discourse. 
• Finally, the authors note a need for constant monitoring of the university climate for minority populations to address perceptions of inequity within people, practices, and policies.

Conclusions

While the diversity plan has not fully rectified the inequities within the higher education institution, it has been successfully ingrained into the campus culture. A significant learning from this case study is the importance of grounding strategic plans (including diversity plans) within broader institutional goals, which will enable these plans to be more effective.

To ensure long-term progress and sustainability, diversity plans must be continuously refreshed to be relevant and forward-looking. Institutions as large as colleges and universities are often slow-moving, so it is necessary to avoid inertia by building a culture of inclusiveness and accountability. Doing so requires culturally relevant leadership, race-conscious student engagement practices, and deeper dialogues around power. Ultimately, Chief Diversity Officers cannot tackle these structural problems individually as such a challenge demands committed leadership and shared responsibility from all aspects of an organization.