Diversity Impacts the Governance Performance of a Nonprofit’s Board

Introduction

By 2039, a majority of the U.S. workforce will identify as members of nonwhite race-based minoritized groups. Yet, despite this growing workplace diversity, these demographic shifts have not yet been reflected in the makeup of either for-profit or nonprofit boards. One study in 2013 found that across all Fortune 500 companies, board members were 73% white men, 13% white women, 10% men of color, and just 3% women of color. This disparity in representation was also prevalent among nonprofits, where 82% of board members identified as white as of 2012, and a majority also identified as men. 

Ensuring board diversity is critical to meeting the needs of diverse communities and customer segments, promoting an organizational culture of inquiry, and challenging inequities in American society. Therefore, more research is needed on the absence of diversity on nonprofit boards and how diversity policies and practices impact a board’s performance. The authors of this article add to the literature in this space by assessing how and when the performance of a board is impacted by the diversity of its members. Specifically, they study the impact of board diversity on internal governance practices like understanding the organization and the board’s roles and responsibilities, and external governance practices including fundraising, engaging with the community, and recruiting new members.

Kathleen Buse is an adjunct professor at Weatherhead School of Management. Ruth Sessler Bernstein is an Assistant Professor of Nonprofit Management at Pepperdine University. Diana Bilimoria is the KeyBank Professor and Chair of the Department of Organizational Behavior at Case Western Reserve University.

Methods and Findings

To assess the impact of diversity on a nonprofit board’s governance performance, the authors drew on data from Boardsource, an organization focused on improving organizational effectiveness by strengthening the capacity of boards. Specifically, they collected survey responses from 1,456 nonprofit chief executive officers about their board’s structure and demographics, organizational characteristics, diversity and inclusion policies, meeting practices, compliance with governance roles and responsibilities, and collaborative leadership practices. The authors also drew on the survey data to calculate a measure of relative diversity of each board, with respect to race, ethnicity, gender, and age.

The authors tested the following eight hypotheses:

• That gender, age, and racial diversity positively and directly impact (1) internal governance practices and (2) external governance practices;
• That (3) board diversity practices and (4) board inclusion behaviors positively and directly impact the internal and external governance practices of a board;
• That board diversity practices positively influence the relationship between race, age, and gender and a board’s (5) internal governance practices and (6) external governance practices;
• That board inclusion behaviors positively influence the relationship between race, age, and gender and a board’s (7) internal governance practices and (8) external governance practices. 

The authors found mixed results for these hypotheses. Gender diversity, the presence of diversity policies and practices, and board inclusion behaviors all had significant positive effects on internal and external governance practices. 

Contrastingly, racial and ethnic diversity was found to have a negative relationship with both internal and external governance practices. However, this negative relationship was partially mediated by diversity policies and inclusion behavior, such that racial diversity had a positive influence on board performance when diversity policies and inclusion behaviors increased. Age diversity was found to positively impact diversity policies and practices, but did not have a significant relationship with governance performance.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that racial, ethnic, gender, and age diversity on a nonprofit’s board affects its governance performance. This study also provides evidence that diversity policies and practices and inclusion behaviors also have a positive impact on board performance. Finally, it also sheds light on an important nuance regarding the relationship between racial and ethnic diversity and board performance. Specifically, racial and ethnic diversity appears to have a negative relationship with governance performance, but that impact becomes positive when diversity policies and inclusive behaviors are present.  

The authors conclude that organizational leaders must draw on research related to governance effectiveness to materially improve their governing board’s performance. This study also specifically indicates that efforts to enhance board diversity must be paired with meaningful diversity policies and practices and inclusive behaviors to maximize performance improvements. 

This work may be expanded on through further investigation of other relevant factors that may impact nonprofit board effectiveness. Additionally, future research could investigate the role of diversity in other types of organizations like local government bodies or private sector boards.

Student’s Racial Identity Influences Public Schools’ Use of Restorative Justice Discipline

Schools with a greater proportional enrollment of Black students are less likely to use restorative justice techniques when responding to student misbehavior. 

Introduction

Many public schools rely on punitive models of student discipline, employing harsh, exclusionary punishments like detentions, suspensions, and expulsion in response to student misbehavior. Research has shown that students who receive these harsh punishments are at increased risk of future school delinquency and also more likely to eventually become involved in the criminal justice system, a phenomenon known as the “school to prison pipeline.” In contrast, restorative justice models treat misbehavior as a violation of an interpersonal or community relationship and therefore employ interventions like peer mediation, restitution, and community service to constructively repair that harm. Research has found these restorative justice practices are preferred by students and produce higher overall community satisfaction. 

Prior research has tested the racial threat hypothesis, or the theory that increased presence of black people in a particular space is associated with the use of more punitive policies, and found the racial composition of public schools is associated with the use of punitive disciplinary techniques. These earlier studies have not, however, assessed the impact of racial composition on a school’s propensity to use restorative practices, which the authors assess in this research. Ultimately, the authors find that greater proportional enrollment of Black students is negatively related to a school’s use of restorative justice disciplinary techniques. 

Allison Ann Payne is a Professor in the Department of Sociology and Criminology at Villanova University. Kelly Welch is a Professor and Program Director in the Department of Sociology and Criminology at Villanova University.

Methods and Findings

Payne and Welch used student, teacher, and principal survey responses from the National Study of Delinquency Prevention in Schools as this study’s primary data. The study included results from 294 public, non-alternative secondary schools, and excluded private and religious schools with a wider variety of disciplinary norms. 

Logistic regression analyses indicated the percent of Black students in each school, or its racial composition, was significantly negatively related to a school’s likelihood of using student conferences, peer mediation, restitution, community service, or an overall restorative justice model. Other factors like student body socioeconomic status, measured by percent of students on free or reduced lunch, or levels of delinquency and drug use were also significantly negatively predictive of a school’s likelihood to use restorative justice protocols until the student body’s racial composition was accounted for.

Contrastingly, schools with more present, visible, and engaged principles were more likely to respond to student misbehavior with restorative justice techniques.

Conclusions

While prior research has focused on the impact of racial composition on a public school’s propensity to use punitive disciplinary techniques, this study was the first to test the racial threat hypothesis on a public school’s use of restorative practices. The authors found significant evidence that greater proportional enrollment of Black students is negatively related to a public school’s use of restorative disciplinary practices. 

Whereas restorative approaches to school discipline enhance student outcomes and school climate, the punitive disciplinary techniques often used by public schools decrease student achievement and increase recidivism rates. Integrating a restorative justice philosophy in public schools, particularly those that are communally organized, offers education policymakers an opportunity to improve the experiences of all members of the school community. Strengthening students’ bonds to their school improves their academic interest and achievement, while the same communal model of education improves morale and satisfaction among teachers. 

The results of this study are applicable only to public schools, as private and religious schools were excluded for their variability in disciplinary practices. Female-headed households, urban residents, and low-income families were also underrepresented in the study, as rural participants were more likely to complete the surveys used by the authors. 

Future research may explore how the racial, ethnic, and gender identity of a principal impacts a school’s use of restorative justice techniques. It may also be beneficial for researchers to assess the role of bias and stereotypes among teachers and other school leaders in the use of restorative discipline practices.

An Entrepreneurs’ Racial and Gender Identity Influence their Credit Score and Access to Capital

Introduction

Access to sufficient and affordable credit is a key determinant of a business startup’s ability to finance projects and pursue growth opportunities. An entrepreneur’s creditworthiness is often assessed using their credit score, which has been lauded for expanding access to credit and financing to credit-worthy business owners. However, research also suggests the credit-scoring process is unfairly biased toward white and male entrepreneurs. 

The consistency and fairness often perceived to be a key feature of credit scores are undermined by the many women and people of color who experience barriers in accessing startup funds. These inequities in access to sufficient and affordable credit are a critical challenge both to individual entrepreneurs and to sustaining the central role of startups in promoting economic growth. This study, therefore, seeks to understand the degree to which access to startup credit, as mediated by credit scores and other factors, is influenced by race and gender.

Loren Henderson is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Public Health at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. Cedric Herring was a Professor and Director of the Language, Literacy, and Culture doctoral program at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. Hayward Derrick Horton is a Professor of Sociology at the University of Albany. Melvin Thomas is an Associate Professor at the College of Humanities and Social Sciences at North Carolina State University. 

Methods and Findings

The authors used the Kauffman Firm Survey of startups to access background information on a nationally representative sample of startups, including owner’s race, ethnicity, gender, age, education, work experience, and previous startup experience. They specifically assessed the impact of race and gender of the primary business owner on business creditworthiness, scored by a standardized index of a firm’s bill payback history, and credit access, quantified by the total of a business’ maximum credit lines across debt financing options. The authors also controlled for relevant firm characteristics including number of employees, value of equity, primary location, owner-reported competitive advantage or intellectual property, and legal incorporation status. They also controlled for relevant owner characteristics like industry experience, age, and education. This analysis was limited to startups, or businesses with less than one year of credit history.

Regression analyses demonstrate that when controlling for other relevant firm and owner characteristics, Black-owned startups have significantly lower business credit scores than white-owned startups. Observed gaps in credit scores for Latinx- and Asian-owned startups relative to white-owned startups and between male- and female-owned firms were present, but not significant when controlling for firm and owner factors.

This analysis also found that women and people of color receive significantly lower financing than male and white owners, respectively, controlling for other relevant firm and owner characteristics. When controlling for credit scores, this disparity was slightly less, but still significant for Black and women entrepreneurs, and greater and still significant for Latinx and Asian entrepreneurs. 

Conclusions

Although credit scoring is often perceived as an important merit-based process that equitably expands access to capital, this study finds that race and gender disparities in credit scores and credit access exist when controlling for other relevant factors. While there is some research on discriminatory mortgage practices, this study adds to the more limited body of research on group-based differences in business credit scores and entrepreneurs’ ability to access capital. 

These results suggest more work is needed to promote consistency and equity in creditworthiness assessments and capital allocation. Further research may further unpack how entrepreneur race and gender affect a startup’s access to credit and their long-term fiscal outcomes, and attempt to identify ways to promote more equitable and well-functioning credit markets.

“Walls of Whiteness” in Historically White Colleges and Universities Uphold White Supremacy and Require Intentional Institutional Efforts to Deconstruct

Introduction

Many white students enter postsecondary education fortified by “walls of whiteness,” or manifestations of racial privilege that shield white students from challenges to white supremacist assumptions about racial disparities and inequality. Those assumptions are reinforced in historically white colleges and universities that are predominately staffed by white male faculty and primarily attended by middle- to upper-class white students. 

While these institutions are undergoing demographic changes that marginally disrupt their embedded class and race privileges, institutional symbols and norms continue to act as a “hidden curriculum” that reinforces the institution’s historic ideology and demography. This inconsistency with many universities’ stated missions of promoting critical thinking, diversity, and multiculturalism presents a critical challenge in disrupting these “whitespaces” and making them more responsive to and representative of historically underserved and marginalized communities. 

David L. Brunsma is a Professor of Sociology at Virginia Tech, where he studies racial identity, the sociology of culture, critical race theory, and the sociology of education. Eric S. Brown is an Associate Professor at the University of Missouri researching urban sociology, inequality and stratification, and the sociology of social policy. Peggy Placier is a Professor Emerita in the College of Education and Human Development at the University of Missouri. 

Methods and Findings

Brunsma, et al., provide a comprehensive analysis of the various walls of whiteness that exist in historically white colleges and universities and propose methods for deconstructing them. They classify these walls into three categories: spatial walls, curricular walls, and ideological walls. 

• Spatial Walls: Following the white flight era of the 1980s and ‘90s, many white students were socialized in primarily white spaces to adopt common behaviors, beliefs and norms that are accepted by the group as naturally occuring, rather than constructed. In these spaces, contact with people of color is largely limited to non-white low-wage employees, service employees, and impersonal public interactions, contributing to outgroup bias and negative views of racial minorities. 
• Curricular Walls: Ignorance of the mechanisms behind and social realities of racial injustice allows white students to accept their privileged social positions without cognitive challenge. Through historically white colleges and universities’ formal academic curriculum, hidden curriculum of norms and values, and null curriculum of actively excluded information, universities fail to provide students with the tools to recognize and deconstruct prior assumptions about and justifications for racial inequities.
• Ideological Walls: Broader ideologies including color-blindness, individualism, and essentialism provide various justifications for racial inequities that obfuscate realities of injustice and oppression. Dismissal of racial inequalities through cultural or biological arguments ultimately serves to legitimize the marginalization of underrepresented groups and minimize the consequences of structural oppression. 

The authors present numerous proposals to deconstruct each of these walls of whiteness in historically white colleges and universities. Spatial walls can continue to be challenged through the protection of affirmative action policies. These policies have enhanced the representation of minority students and produced a ‘welcoming’ effect not experienced by some minority students at institutions lacking affirmative action policies. Curricular walls can be deconstructed through semester-long courses on racism and integrating antiracism and historical context of social movements and global ideology into instruction of other relevant subjects. Ideological walls can be assailed by prompting white students to reevaluate their perceptions of society, acknowledge their role in upholding existing structures and institutions, and recognize the ways their actions might reinforce existing racial inequalities.

Conclusions

Deconstructing walls of whiteness in historically white colleges and universities demands a bold and comprehensive institutional commitment. Administration, faculty and staff must take initiative in disrupting these walls within institutions of higher education by introducing practices that prompt white students to critically reexamine their personal perceptions of society and inequality. Failure to make this change will only exacerbate the propensity of some white students to enter American society with little recognition of their privilege and their individual and collective roles in upholding or deconstructing the systems, institutions, and practices that reinforce racial inequality. 

Further research may focus on identifying the pedagogical imperatives and methods necessary to significantly address walls of whiteness in historically white colleges and universities.

Diversity Training Modules May be an Effective Tool in Promoting Inclusion and Equity in the Workplace

Introduction

One-time diversity training is a common tool deployed by more than half of mid-size and large organizations seeking to promote equality in the workplace. However, the existing body of research on the effectiveness of diversity training is limited by a lack of field experiments and the difficulty of identifying and measuring objective behavioral outcomes. Because of these limitations, it is still somewhat unclear whether those trainings significantly impact attitudes and behaviors toward women and other historically marginalized and underserved groups. 

With collaboration from a large international organization, the authors designed and executed a diversity training module to gauge the effects of training on employee attitudes and workplace behaviors. The results of this study suggest that diversity training has varying effects on attitudinal and behavioral change based on prior individual attitudes and belonging to historically disadvantaged groups. 

Edward H. Chang is an Assistant Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School. Katherine L. Milkman is a Professor of Operations, Information and Decisions and the James G. Dinan Endowed Chair at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School. Other contributors included Dena M. Gromet, the Executive Director of the Behavior Change for Good Initiative, Robert W. Rebele, a Senior Research Fellow at The Wharton People Analytics Initiative, and Cade Massey, who is a Practice Professor in the Wharton School’s Operations, Information and Decisions Department. Lastly, Angela L. Duckworth, the Founder and CEO of Character Lab, and Adam M. Grant, the Saul P. Steinberg Professor of Management also contributed to the paper. 

Methods and Findings

The authors used an online training module to gauge the effects of diversity training on inclusive attitudes and behaviors toward women with a secondary analysis of its impact on attitudes and behaviors toward racial minorities. Employees of a large organization were asked to participate by voluntarily completing the training module as part of a broader strategy to promote inclusion and inclusive leadership. 

Participants were randomly assigned to one of three experimental conditions, including a gender-bias group, a general-bias group, and a control group. In the treatment groups, participants received instruction in how stereotypes reinforce bias and adversely impact equity and inclusion in the workplace. Control group participants received structurally similar training on psychological safety and active listening with no stereotyping content.

The study found significantly increased attitudinal support for women among treatment groups relative to the control group, driven by non-U.S. participants. Contrastingly, U.S. employees in the treatment group showed no significant change in attitudinal support for women. Participants in the treatment group also demonstrated increases in willingness to acknowledge their own gender and racial biases and gender-inclusive intentions, although the latter effect was again driven by non-U.S. employees. Behaviorally, U.S. employees in the treatment group nominated more women for an office-wide mentorship program and for office-wide excellence recognition by a three-week follow-up date. 

Conclusions

In a body of research that has provided inconsistent evidence on the impact of diversity training, this study found that the effectiveness of training may be dependent on the modules’ audience and their preexisting attitudes toward women and other social groups. Specifically, the authors suggest that the presence of attitudinal effects exclusively for non-U.S. employees and the presence of behavioral effects exclusively for U.S. employees may be related to the fact that non-U.S. employees on average reported initial lower attitudinal support toward women, indicating more room to grow attitudinally but lower susceptibility to behavioral change.

The study also highlights unexpected drivers of behavioral change, having found in additional explanatory analyses that increased mentorship of U.S. women was driven by those employees seeking out mentorship proactively following the treatment. This lack of behavioral change among dominant group members indicates a need for additional strategies to create a truly equitable, inclusive, and representational work environment for women and racial minorities. 

The authors acknowledge that this study is limited by its analysis of employees from a single organization, and on a narrow set of attitudinal and behavioral outcomes. To overcome these limitations, future research may explore the behavioral and attitudinal effects of diversity training in organizations with varying levels of pre-existing attitudinal support for women and racial minorities. Future research may also study the mechanisms through which diversity training motivates women and other underrepresented groups to seek mentorship opportunities with senior officials in their organization.

The Role of Color-Blindness in Rationalizing and Reinforcing Racial Inequity

Introduction

In response to a gap in the existing literature, scholars are beginning to study how race shapes organizational practices and how those institutional policies contribute to racialization. This study specifically seeks to understand the role that color-blind racial ideology, when prevalent in multi-racial societies, plays in producing and justifying racialization in organizations.

In societies where racial color blindness is prevalent, racial stratification exists without the explicit recognition of race. The author of this study proposes that color blindness is deeply entrenched in “Iberian America” and has contributed to the creation of a racial democracy. In racial democracies like Brazil, centuries of racial subjugation are downplayed through alternative narratives that romanticize paternalism and miscegenation, ultimately producing a unified Brazilian people. Similar to the United States, color-blind racial ideology in Brazil promotes “nonracial” justifications for inequities in access, outcomes, and opportunity that ultimately reinforce these dynamics. This research leverages the racial hierarchies of sugar-ethanol mills in Brazil to assess the impacts of color-blind racial ideology on racial inequity in organizations.

This work was completed by Dr. Ian Carrillo, who serves as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology at the University of Oklahoma. Much of his research uses qualitative and ethnographic methods to study the roles that race and racism play in shaping environmental practices and policies in multi-racial societies.

Methods and Findings

Dr. Carillo first conducted interviews with “elites” in the sugar-ethanol industry, including mill owners and managers, scientists, consultants, professional association leadership, and planters, most of whom were white men. He specifically chose this group because they wield substantial influence in Brazil’s political and business spheres. Interviewees were probed on their perceptions of the ongoing transitions in the industry, including statutory changes and industry responses to market trends. To complement these interviews, Dr. Carrillo also recorded ethnographic observations at several mills and plantations, where he focused on observing daily agricultural and industrial processes.

Interviews and observations afforded Dr. Carrillo substantial insight into the organizational practices that perpetuate racial inequality in Brazil’s sugar-ethanol industry. These inequalities are often rationalized and reproduced through four nonracial discursive frames: cultural racism, naturalization, victimization, and politicized markets. 

• Cultural Racism – As one of the most prevalent forms of racism in Brazil, this frame involves activating negative stereotypes to disparage the work ethic of non-white and rural inhabitants. For example, elites interviewed by Dr. Carrillo justified labor exploitation as a means to inhibit nonwhite rural workers’ inherent criminal tendencies.

• Naturalization – With much of northern Brazil lacking the flat land needed for mechanization, many producers in the region rely on manual harvesting and straw burning. Both methods are economically inefficient and yield worse socio-environmental outcomes for the non-white and rural inhabitants employed in the industry. By attributing the difficult conditions and environmentally destructive processes to these topographical features, elites reinforce the colorblind narrative that nature, not race, is responsible for the chronic poverty that many of their non-white rural laborers experience.

• Victimization –  Conscious of the sugarcane industry’s history of slavery and sharecropping, elites advance a color-blind narrative that racism ended with abolition and see themselves as rightful and legitimate “owners of power” in the industry. Based on this narrative, these elites re-frame themselves as victims of attempts to regulate the industry and prosecute bad actors, obscuring their true position in the industry’s racial power dynamics.

• Politicized Markets – Sugar-ethanol industry elites successfully lobbied politicians for favorable economic and regulatory provisions, including deterrence from alternative industrial development in the northeast of Brazil. Those provisions sustain the industries’ demand for labor while limiting alternative sources of employment to reinforce the industries’ control over the employment opportunities and choices of non-white and rural workers. 

These nonracial discursive frames are used to rationalize inequities in access and outcomes and reinforce the norms and structures that compel non-white communities to continue their employment in the mill industry.

Conclusions

This study shows how color-blind ideologies reproduce and legitimize racial inequities in
organizations. In the Brazilian sugar mill example, industry stakeholders actively work to ensure
their survival and the survival of the racial order while advancing narratives that rely on non-
racial rationalizations for the hierarchies in place.

This case study demonstrates the capacity of private entities and their elite ranks to embed racial
inequities without relying on explicitly racial justifications or means. Furthermore, it illustrates how social structures can reinforce discriminatory practices in organizations and how color-blind
racial ideology contributes to inequities in labor and environmental policies.

A wide range of opportunities remain to study how race shapes organizational preparedness and
response to social, political, and environmental threats. These studies could evaluate how white
elites leverage their disproportionate access to resources and political influence to shape
institutional practices and legitimize narratives that rationalize inequity. Further research can also
contribute to this study’s findings on the ability of private entities and powerful social groups to
employ and amplify prevalent racial ideologies to amass and protect power.

The Adverse Impact of Diversity-Valuing Behavior on the Career Prospects of Historically Underrepresented Employees

Introduction

Despite the gains in representation that non-white people and women have attained in the
workplace, they remain considerably underrepresented in leadership roles at large companies.
These gaps in representation are particularly jarring in light of the absence of significant
disparities in performance ratings between men and women (Joshi et al., 2015). Growing
evidence also shows women are often perceived to be more effective leaders than men (Paustian-
Underdahl, Walker, & Woehr, 2014). When non-white or non-male professionals attain
leadership positions, they have been found to actively oppose the advancement of other
underrepresented employees. While one explanation for this phenomenon is that these leaders do
so to protect their position in the organization, the authors of this study propose that
underrepresented leaders are also penalized through performance ratings for engaging in
“diversity-valuing behavior.” This penalty for promoting demographic balance reinforces the
glass ceiling in many predominately white organizations. It also highlights the various dynamics
that restrict the ability of non-white and female employees to achieve leadership positions.

As in most contexts in the United States, white men hold a disproportionate amount of power
and status in corporate settings. Despite the extent of their underrepresentation, there remains a
perception that non-white and female leaders that hire and promote other minority members are
nepotistic or socially competitive. Additionally, the visibility of these diversity-valuing behaviors
increases the salience of their identity for others in the corporate setting and may activate
negative stereotypes associated with their demographic. In contrast, white and male leaders who
engage in the same types of diversity-valuing behaviors may benefit from increased perceptions
of their interpersonal warmth and competence because they are not vulnerable to the same
presumptions of nepotism, social threat, or negative stereotyping.

David R. Hekman and Stefanie K. Johnson are both Associate Professors of Organizational
Leadership and Information Analytics at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Maw-Der Foo
serves on the faculty of the National University of Singapore in the Division of Engineering and
Technology Management. Wei Yang is an Assistant Professor of Management at George Mason
University.

Methods and Findings

The authors conducted two experiments to analyze the impact of diversity-valuing behavior on
perceptions of non-white and female employees’ competence and performance ratings. First,
they tested the hypothesis that non-white and female leaders who exhibit diversity-valuing behavior would be penalized in their performance ratings. They next tested the hypothesis that
the demographics of leaders engaging in diversity-valuing behavior on performance ratings
would impact their perceived competence.

Data from the first study indicated that non-white and female employee evaluations are adversely
impacted when they engage in diversity-valuing behavior. This dynamic may be rooted in the
activation of subtle and unconscious stereotypes that perceive non-white people and women as
less competent. When diversity-valuing activities increase, so does the relevance of
underrepresented leaders’ identities in the eyes of their peers or evaluators. Activation of these
stereotypes may then manifest in lower performance ratings. The authors also acknowledge
potential alternative explanations for these findings, including the possibility that the negative
ratings are a function of more direct collusion by white male superiors to protect their
organizational status by negatively rating underrepresented colleagues who seek to promote
more demographic balance.

In the second study, the authors hone in on the mediating function of perceived competence in
this dynamic by asking study participants to read materials about a senior hiring official’s
decision between equally qualified candidates and rate the hiring manager’s performance and
competence as a leader. This analysis found that non-white and female managers who advocated
for hiring non-white or female candidates were perceived to be significantly less competent than
those that did not. Contrastingly, male managers who valued diversity received the same
performance and competency rating as those who did not value diversity. White managers were
similarly not penalized for valuing diversity. This study suggests that lower performance ratings
for non-white and female leaders that advocate for similarly underrepresented candidates are a
consequence of lower perceived leadership competence.

Conclusions

These studies provide evidence that non-white and female employees who engage in diversity-
valuing behavior are likely to be perceived as less competent than those who do not and to be
materially penalized in their performance reviews that often influence promotions and pay.
Because white men are not similarly punished and retain a majority of leadership positions in
many organizations, the authors propose shifting the narrative to promote “demographic-
unselfishness behavior” and incentivize white male leaders to use their status and power to
remedy these disparities in representation.

The authors also propose placing a white man in a spokesman role of organizations’ diversity
offices. Because this study’s findings indicate that white men are taken more seriously when
advocating for underrepresented employees, involving them in diversity offices, which are
frequently staffed and led by minority employees, could advance diversity objectives. There are
several precedents for this strategy among large corporations using the placement of white men
to signal the operational integration of their organization’s diversity efforts. This strategy has
some risks, including continued reliance on white men as sources of legitimacy, potential
perceptions that these white men are condescending to current and prospective minority
employees, and the challenge of ensuring that white men in these roles are qualified to be
unbiased advocates themselves.

Overall, this study indicates that tokenizing non-white and female leaders may reinforce the glass
ceiling by disincentivizing those leaders from promoting similarly underrepresented employees.
This reality perpetuates non-white and female employees’ reliance on white men for career
opportunities; a vicious cycle that highlights the difficult position facing many predominately
white organizations as they strive to achieve demographic balance.

The Underpinnings of “Trust Talk” in Medicine

Introduction

African-Americans have historically been subjected to experimental medical research while simultaneously denied access to various healthcare services. Since the enactment of legislation requiring that experimental medical research maintain a racially diverse population, researchers have found it difficult to meet those statutory requirements. Many researchers believe that the reluctance of African-Americans to enroll in experimental medical research is largely rooted in the perceived tendency of non-white people to distrust science and medicine. 

By attributing distrust in science as a broadly held belief in the African-American community, scholars have contributed to creating and reinforcing racial group boundaries. In doing so, researchers have largely ignored the institutional structures of inequality in biomedicine, differences within racial groups, and similarities across racial groups. Studying the context of stem cell research, Dr. Ruha Benjamin focuses on the ways in which discourse in biomedicine constructs racial group boundaries through diversity outreach, clinical gatekeeping, and charismatic collaborations. 

Dr. Benjamin is an Associate Professor in the Department of African American Studies at Princeton University. Much of her work specializes in the interdisciplinary study of science, medicine, and technology; race-ethnicity and gender; knowledge and power. 

Methods and Findings

Researchers’ attempts to create and maintain racially diverse populations in experimental treatments have contributed to the creation of a culturally framed binary: trust in experimental treatment is implicitly associated with whiteness and distrust is associated with those who are not white. Some researchers attribute distrust in experimental treatment among communities of color to inequities in literacy and historical abuses inflicted on those communities. Consequently, this focus on individual and group behavior neglects to discuss how existing institutional norms and practices may be sustaining ongoing acts of marginalization in how those communities experience the American healthcare system.

White clinicians may also take on the role of clinical gatekeepers, where their distrust of new treatments and expensive medications can undermine positive perceptions of medical institutions. In doing so, clinical gatekeepers prevent their patients from accessing experimental procedures, such as stem cell transplants, and reinforce the perception of whiteness as akin to trust. At the same time, charismatic research enthusiasts can also play a key role in attempting to alleviate mistrust of medical institutions. However, they often fail to motivate assessments of how those institutions impact the communities from which they strive to recruit for experimental research.

These findings were derived from a two-year (2005-2007) mixed-method study conducted by the California Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative and the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. As a “training fellow” formally affiliated with the agency during that time, Dr. Benjamin engaged in an extensive range of activities throughout the agency. These activities included shadowing physicians, observing patients’ visits to clinics, and observing discussions between medical staff. 

Conclusions

Dr. Benjamin argues that the racialized cultural concept of trust in biomedicine reinforces existing inequities in how science impacts different groups of people. Further, the binary perception of trust, which associates whiteness with trust and distrust with people of color, also plays a role in defining the institutional norms of the scientific community. Therefore, whiteness has been framed as an ideal, and distrust of medical institutions has become a perception in need of treatment. 

Whiteness goes beyond physical and cultural traits and serves as a symbol of a ‘calculating modern rationality’. With ongoing cases of people of color systematically denied access to high-quality healthcare services even after heeding medical institutions’ calls to serve as research participants, communities of color may be justified in harboring distrust of those scientific and medical institutions. 

Enhancing Advantaged Racial Groups’ Recognition of Racial Inequality

Introduction

Members of advantaged racial groups have historically denied or minimized the existence of racial inequality in the United States and other countries. Existing research has extensively analyzed the incentives and motivations behind why advantaged racial groups resist acknowledging the existence or scale of racial inequality. Some of those motivations include fear of losing privileged status in an increasingly multicultural society. This may contribute to subsequent efforts among those advantaged racial groups to preserve their privileged positions. Other potential factors include ignorance about the role racial identity plays in the lived experiences of people in communities of color. 

While there is significant literature on why advantaged racial groups may resist acknowledging racial inequality, we know very little about why some members of those privileged groups do acknowledge inequities. Emerging research has begun to provide insight into this topic by studying the role of interpersonal contact in enhancing empathy and psychological investment among privileged racial groups in the welfare of disadvantaged groups. This article draws on that research by providing several theories on why some members of advantaged racial groups may be motivated to acknowledge racial inequality and engage in collective efforts to alleviate it. 

This study was written by Professor of Social Psychology Linda R. Tropp and Associate Professor of Psychology Fiona Kate Barlow. Dr. Tropp is based at the College of Natural Sciences at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and Dr. Barlow is based at the School of Psychology at the University of Queensland in Australia. These researchers have both completed extensive research on intergroup contact, the structural factors that determine the development of empathy, and the role of status and power in those relationships.

Methods and Findings

Intergroup contact may be a key strategy for enhancing empathy and psychological investment among members of advantaged racial groups. The authors ground this theory in prior research that found contact between members of different racial and ethnic groups is correlated with reduced prejudice and improved intergroup attitudes. Ongoing and friendly contact can create meaningful relationships with the potential to motivate advantaged groups to support reforms benefiting disadvantaged communities. This dynamic has been observed in the context of affirmative action, where white individuals’ propensity to engage in interracial friendships was associated with their support for affirmative action. 

Some academics disagree with these assertions and argue that enhanced interracial contact does not address the structural relations between racial groups. Instead, these scholars argue, interracial contact may prevent some members of advantaged racial groups from recognizing racial inequality and may even undermine collective action among members of disadvantaged racial groups. However, the authors of this article point to recent research suggesting ways to prevent those dynamics from taking root.  Moreover, much of the existing literature suggests that interracial contact promotes psychological investment and enhances people’s capacity for caring about the welfare of other groups of people. 

Dr. Tropp and Dr. Barlow also pose the question: Why does interracial contact motivate reduced prejudice in some people, but motivate others to engage in collective action to address underlying structural inequalities? The authors posit that interracial contact has the potential to foster empathy among white individuals, leading to greater anger at racial injustice, and ultimately contributing to engagement in collective action.

Conclusions

Emerging literature on members of advantaged racial groups suggests that intergroup contact may be pivotal in enhancing these groups’ recognition of racial inequality and motivate their collective action. The authors recognize that these theories may present various challenges. For example, cognitive and motivational processes may guide individuals to focus on the welfare of members of their own perceived groups. With racial segregation continuing to inhibit opportunities for meaningful relationships between different racial and ethnic groups, these processes may be exacerbated as some members of advantaged racial groups believe they are locked in a competition to defend their status or resources. 

To counter these adverse effects, the authors suggest creating opportunities for racial and ethnic groups to engage in ongoing and meaningful relationships. This may require policies that promote racial integration and positive reinforcement by public figures and media. Ultimately, these public engagement efforts may inspire greater societal change that leads to a more inclusive and equitable society.

Diversity as a Tool in Enhancing Profitability, Efficiency, and Quality of Decision-Making

Introduction

Until recently, workplace diversity was primarily perceived as a tool for enhancing corporate profitability. It was understood that private corporations that excelled in enhancing diversity based on race, ethnicity, and gender generally had more significant financial outcomes, particularly in terms of net income growth and return on economic equity. Yet, recent research has explored the topic further and found that diversity not only improves an institution’s financial performance but also enhances innovation and decision-making within employee groups. 

Methods and Findings

The authors indicate groups that are inclusive of individuals with diverse backgrounds generally have improved accuracy in their decision-making process. This finding builds on previous studies, which found diverse groups focus more closely on facts and are less likely to make errors when discussing them. Furthermore, diverse groups are unique in that they are more likely than homogenous groups to remain objective and challenge each other’s approaches to problem-solving. These benefits of diversity ultimately lead to improved decisions. Such groups are more likely to process information closely and arrive at conclusions that are generally more effective than homogenous peer groups. 

Beyond these benefits, diverse groups are also more effective in promoting innovation in their respective organizations. Most private companies rely on their capacity to continuously evolve their products and processes in ways that meet the needs and demands of society. Competing in an increasingly globalized economy requires organizations to maintain a culturally diverse workplace that discourages conformity. In doing so, companies and other organizations can create diverse groups that introduce innovative products and services at a rate that often surpasses homogenous entities. 

Conclusions

Enhancing the performance of organizations requires intentional efforts to promote greater diversity in their workforce. Inclusive groups are vital in improving the organization’s capacity to challenge existing norms and reject conformity. Thus, inclusivity must serve as a priority for all organizations that intend to remain competitive in an increasingly globalized economy. Failing to do so will only serve to their detriment.

These findings are provided by David Rock, the co-founder of the NeuroLeadership Institute, and Heidi Grant, the Chief Science Officer at the NeuroLeadership Institute.