Understanding Employee Engagement

The idea that providing employees with meaningful work that allows them to learn, grow, and ultimately obtain high performance is relatively novel. In fact, although it may be common knowledge now, the concept that employees’ attitudes on the job are paramount to understanding their performance was not a topic of academic study until the 1920s when the Western Electric Company began its famous inquiry into employees’ sociopsychological circumstances in the workplace (known as the Hawthorne studies) (Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939). After decades of research on job satisfaction (Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001), the conceptualization of what psychological conditions make employees productive at work gradually evolved into an understanding of employee engagement. Early definitions of engagement stem from Kahn (1990), who discussed the benefits of employees who bring their whole selves to work—physically, mentally, and emotionally. Representing the integration of management science and positive psychology, the concept of employee engagement is presently ubiquitous throughout organizational and human resource management circles.

Though there are presently several definitions of employee engagement (Kahn, 1990; Macey, Schneider, Barbera, & Young, 2011; Robinson, Perryman, & Hayday, 2004; Rothbard, 2001), most researchers’ definitions of engagement use concepts such as satisfaction, involvement, and enthusiasm for work (Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002). Importantly, all definitions distinguish engagement from satisfaction, emphasizing that engagement is a unique state of investment, commitment, and motivation, whereas satisfaction is an affective state of happiness that may result. Taking a formative approach to understanding employee engagement, Gallup researchers study employee engagement by assessing workers’ perceptions of twelve critical elements of the workplace experience that create engagement (table 5-1). Using their responses to these items, employees are further categorized into three different groups: engaged, not engaged, and actively disengaged. Engaged workers are psychologically committed to the organization, their team, and their work. They are more productive and less likely to leave the organization. In contrast, employees who are not engaged might be productive in their roles but not committed to the organization. They might be actively looking for other jobs and are more likely to leave the organization. Finally, actively disengaged workers are disconnected from the organization and psychologically absent from their work.

Gallup’s measure of engagement is designed to address four levels of employee development needs. First, basic needs such as having clear expectations and the tools necessary to complete the job are critical to providing workers with a solid foundation in their roles. Second, engagement also encompasses employees’ individual needs, such as receiving recognition for good work and feeling cared about and encouraged in their roles. Third, workers have team-related needs. They should be welcomed and comfortable in their teams and know that their ideas and opinions are contributing to organizational goals in order to feel engaged. Finally, engagement involves employees’ needs for growth and development in their roles and careers within the organization. Through years of research with clients across many industries, Gallup has found that until workers have these needs met, they will not feel committed and enthusiastic about their work.

According to the recent State of the American Workplace report (Gallup, 2016a), using a representative sample of the working population in the United States, it was estimated that only one-third of all workers are engaged in their jobs. More than half of all workers were found to be not engaged (51 percent), while 16 percent were actively disengaged with their current role. If we look at these metrics globally, Gallup finds that only 15 percent of all workers around the world are engaged in their jobs (Gallup, 2017c). However, there are large regional differences in engagement, with East Asian countries in the single digits in terms of percentage engaged and the United States and Canada having nearly one in three workers engaged (figure 5-1).

The Benefits of Employee Engagement

As demonstrated by research in both academic and practitioner outlets, employee engagement is foundational to individual, team, and organizational success. For instance, Harter and his colleagues (Harter et al., 2002) conducted a meta-analysis at a business-unit level using the measure of employee engagement just outlined. They found that engagement at a business-unit level predicted better customer perceptions, greater productivity, and higher profit, as well as less turnover and fewer safety incidents. Additionally, Saks (2006) found that employee engagement predicted greater job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behaviors and less intention to quit the organization.

Employee engagement results among residents who are employed for an employer, globally and by region Based on data aggregated from 2014–2016 Gallup World Polls

Source: Copyright © 2017 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.

Further, a Gallup meta-analysis of over eighty-two thousand workgroups demonstrated that compared with those that are less engaged, business units with engagement scores in the top quartile demonstrate 10 percent higher customer metrics, 17 percent higher productivity, 20 percent higher sales, 21 percent higher profitability, and 41 percent lower absenteeism (Harter, Schmidt, Agrawal, Plowman, & Blue, 2016). These high-engagement teams also have 24–59 percent lower turnover depending on their base rate of turnover, 28 percent less shrinkage, 70 percent fewer employee safety incidents, 58 percent fewer patient safety incidents, and 40 percent fewer quality defects in work (figure 5-2) (Gallup, 2016a).

Taken together, these studies show that employee engagement is important not only to employee motivation and psychological involvement but also to improving individual, team, and organizational performance.

Demographic Differences in Employee Engagement

Given the benefits of employee engagement, it is clear that a failure to engage employees puts individuals, teams, and organizations at a disadvantage. Consistently low engagement can have a negative effect on company success. Teams with low engagement are less productive, less profitable, and less likely to be loyal. This lack of loyalty to the company can cause turnover, which can cost businesses approximately 1.5 times the annual salary of every person who quits (Gallup, 2015). There are also negative impacts at the individual level from low engagement. Employees who are actively disengaged and suffering are emotionally disconnected from their work and workplace and rate their current well-being at high risk. Employees who are not engaged are also more likely to feel stress in the workplace; actively disengaged workers are more likely than engaged employees to say that they felt burned out due to work stress in the last month (50 percent versus 16 percent), that they were expected to deliver more in the same amount of time (40 percent versus 13 percent), and that they often feel rushed at work (31 percent versus 7 percent) (Nink, 2013). Thus, engagement and the absence of engagement can have important effects at the team and individual levels.

Demographic differences in employee engagement make it clear that some worker subgroups have vastly different experiences at work. For example, women in the workforce have generally been more engaged than men throughout Gallup’s history of tracking employee engagement. Recent Gallup data shows that in the United States, 35 percent of female employees are engaged, compared with 29 percent of male employees (Gallup, 2016b). Additionally, Gallup has also identified generational differences in employee engagement. Specifically, millennials (individuals born between 1980 and 1996) appear to be the least engaged generation in the workforce. Only 29 percent are engaged, another 16 percent are actively disengaged, and the majority (55 percent) are not engaged, leading all other generations in this category of workers. However, there has been limited research on the racial demographic differences of workers’ engagement.

Therefore, to investigate how the experiences of Black employees may differ from those of other ethnic groups, Gallup studied employee engagement in working adults in the United States¹ (table 5-2) (Gallup, 2017a). Results revealed that although there was no difference in the percentage of Black and White employees who were categorized as engaged (33 percent) (Gallup, 2017a), a closer look at individual facets of engagement exposed that there are significant differences in the work experiences of Black employees compared with other employees. As discussed in more detail later, although there were several areas in which there were no differences between racial groups, when there were differences, Black employees scored lower on key elements of employee engagement (table 5-2). Importantly, in these areas, Black employees scored lower than both White employees and Hispanic employees (Gallup, 2017a), a finding that indicates that this is not simply a majority/minority discrepancy but rather a unique challenge faced by the Black employee population. Further, this finding suggests that there are differences between minority subgroups in their workplace attitudes, challenges, and experiences.

The Manager’s Role in Creating Engaging Workplaces

When trying to further understand the racial disparities in engagement, our analysis looked to the manager’s impact on individual and team engagement. Many of the workplace conditions that are necessary to create engaged teams should be owned by and expected of the team leader or manager. In fact, Gallup has found that as much as 70 percent of the variance in employee engagement can be traced back to the influence of the local manager (Gallup, 2015). Certainly, individual workers are not exempt from influencing their own engagement, such as finding ways to learn and grow in their roles or having positive and productive interactions with coworkers. However, team leaders are in the unique position of setting up the conditions that create enthusiasm among team members for their work. Managers who don’t know how to meet the engagement needs of their team become a barrier to employee, team, and company performance. The dynamic between managers and their team is therefore critical in understanding differential engagement results across employee groups. For example, performance development best practices suggest that managers who provide frequent and meaningful feedback to employees can lead to higher-performing teams (Wigert & Harter, 2017). Yet Gallup research finds that only about one in four employees “strongly agree” that their manager provides meaningful feedback to them, or that the feedback they receive helps them do better work (Wigert & Harter, 2017).

Unfortunately, previous research has found that Black employees may receive extra scrutiny from managers, which can lead to worse performance reviews, lower wages, and even job loss (Cavounidis & Lang, 2015) and can be further disadvantaged by lack of candid feedback (Harber, 2004). White male leaders particularly struggle to provide candid feedback to diverse coworkers (Shelton & Thomas, 2013). Without adequate feedback and development, coupled with Gallup’s evidence that Black employees do not feel as encouraged to learn and grow at work, it is not surprising that Black professionals trail their peers in attaining senior positions in organizations. Though discrimination and institutional barriers are often cited as drivers of racial disparities in senior management (Knight, Hebl, Foster, & Mannix, 2003; Weisenfeld & Robinson-Backmon, 2007), it is evident that poor management skills, or those that are insensitive to the unique perspective of Black employees, also help create the glass ceiling encountered by Black professionals.

Though there are racial differences in the percentage of Blacks who are promoted to management positions, in the United States, Blacks hold 8 percent of management jobs (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2017). Our analysis further explored engagement by race for managers, given the link between engaged managers and engaged employees.² Gallup finds that employees who are supervised by highly engaged managers are 59 percent more likely to be engaged than those supervised by actively disengaged managers (Gallup, 2015). Consistent with the pattern for employees, Black managers were found to be less engaged than White and Hispanic managers (table 5-3). These findings suggest that even for Black professionals with upward mobility, there remain challenges with engaging them. Thus, a failure to engage Black managers is likely to have a negative impact on their teams.

Practical Recommendations

Taken together, the research discussed indicates that Black employees have different experiences with employee engagement and overall job satisfaction from their peers of other races. Furthermore, our research suggests that underlying these differences are critical discrepancies in the day-to-day experiences of Black employees in the workplace, most notably in their perception of development opportunities, including access to new learning and to discussions about their progress. To address disparities in the engagement of Black employees, managers and organizations should address the specific experiences and expectations of these employees. When evaluating disparities between Black employees and other groups, it can be tempting to focus on diversity management best practices (Kalev, Dobbin, & Kelly, 2006) and overlook the fundamentals of what drives engagement. Engagement is built through relationships with teams and managers and by having trust in the organization. Critically, diversity practices are only effective in increasing employee engagement when executed in such a way that they promote inclusion (Downey, van der Werff, Thomas, & Plaut, 2015). In light of this, we recommend focusing on creating an inclusive environment by making Black employees feel that their opinions are valued, facilitating inclusive conversations, and providing better training for managers on effective feedback and development.

First, leaders must gain knowledge of the ways in which the employee experience can be improved. One of the primary methods to understand employee perceptions across groups within organizations is simply to ask their opinions. Annual surveys, short-term pulse surveys, qualitative interviews, focus groups, and other organizational data sources are the primary tools necessary to adequately understand the needs and motivations of the workforce. These information-gathering tools should be focused not only on engagement but also on thinking more broadly about the employee experience within the organization, including feelings of inclusivity. Organizations can then use advanced analytics to understand this employee perception data on a team-by-team basis. These analyses should always include examining subgroup differences to understand different working conditions throughout the organization. Specifically, this means making sure the opinions of Black employees are being heard and responded to by leadership. Other data sources such as performance metrics, training participation, or customer metrics should also be integrated into this analysis plan. Finally, individual team leaders and managers should be provided with team-level results, feedback, and coaching on this data, what it means for their team needs, and how they should act on the data.

Second, as previously discussed, managers must take responsibility for fulfilling the needs of diverse employees in accordance with the insights provided by data analytics, as well as with the tenets of creating a fair and inclusive environment. Because team leaders control many aspects of the team’s work, assignments, and definitions of success, any treatment that is preferential to one group or type of employee greatly determines employees’ relative engagement in that job. Specifically, the current Gallup research identifying differences across the elements of engagement for Black versus White and Hispanic employees reveals several areas in which working conditions for Black employees can be improved by managers. For example, managers can ensure that all employees believe that their opinions count at work by carefully fostering an inclusive environment in which all team members feel that their perspectives are heard and valued both by the manager and by the team collectively. Facilitating a team where everyone feels included and valued can also help employees develop a more positive view about their coworkers’ commitment to doing quality work. One easy way that managers can achieve this is by encouraging team members to have conversations about non-work-related topics in which members engage in mutual self-disclosure, the reciprocal sharing of personal information, including information about background and experiences as well as thoughts and feelings (Phillips, Dumas, & Rothbard, 2018). Research demonstrates that even a ten-minute feedback conversation has lasting benefits for team functioning for months (Polzer, Milton, & Swarm, 2002).

Further, managers can help employees feel a sense of connection to their organization’s mission and purpose by helping them see how their daily work connects to a larger goal that has personal and interpersonal value. This will require that managers take the time to have deep conversations with their employees to discover what is important to them and how they can make their jobs feel meaningful. One way managers can connect work to what employees value is to leverage their strengths. Strengths highlight what employees naturally do best; moreover, having conversations about individual strengths demonstrates to employees that their organization celebrates and values their uniqueness and diverse ways of thinking. For example, Gallup conducted a study to determine the extent to which strength-development efforts affected employees’ perceptions of inclusion in a Fortune 100 corporation. When evaluated as a single group, teams who took an assessment to learn about their strengths reported significantly higher levels of inclusion. In this study, the process of learning about and communicating individual strengths helped employees satisfy the needs of belonging and uniqueness. Although employees can take some initiative in finding ways to learn and grow at work, it is also managers’ responsibility to help support this sort of development by identifying and encouraging new learning and development opportunities for their employees. Importantly, managers need to develop an awareness of how to execute their responsibilities with respect to their Black employees, whose needs and expectations may differ in regard to each of these facets of engagement.

Indeed, two of the primary predictors of employee engagement are job characteristics, such as making employees feel their jobs are important and giving them autonomy in their roles, and feelings of procedural justice (Saks, 2006). Additionally, given the myriad positive outcomes associated with workers who are engaged, differential treatment across demographic groups can not only influence their engagement but also affect their performance. Therefore, one of the most common practical recommendations to improve employee engagement across groups is manager or team leader training. Managers should be aware of their biases and any differential treatment that they might demonstrate as team leaders. Managers need development and support through internal and external learning resources, mentorship systems, leader support, and consistent feedback from their team members and peers. Team leaders need to develop the skills necessary to have critical conversations with their team about workplace processes and expectations. At the same time, workers need to feel that their opinions and ideas count and that there is some procedural justice in how work and recognition are distributed throughout the team.

Team leaders who are effective at individualizing their feedback and coaching to each member of their team will create the most inclusive and engaging environment. This means being skilled at facilitating conversations about diversity that have the potential to be tense. There is often a misconception among leaders that in order to be effective at talking about diversity and inclusion, one has to have a high level of expertise. Though cultural competence should be the goal of all leaders, at the core, inclusive conversations are about fostering environments where employees can express themselves in what they perceive to be a “safe” place (Shao, Feng, & Wang, 2017). For leaders, sometimes this simply means acknowledging that one does not know everything about inclusion. When managers are open to learning about employees’ differences and are reflective about how personal and social identities can influence these interactions, they are able to build an environment of conversational excellence around inclusion. Simply taking the time to have conversations about employees’ life circumstances can go a long way; research consistently shows that feeling accepted and valued by leaders in and of itself is critical to employees’ perceptions of inclusion (Brimhall, Lizano, & Mor Barak, 2014; Brimhall et al., 2017; Shore et al., 2011).

This includes establishing clear expectations, coaching the employee on a continuous basis, and creating accountability around that employee’s performance. However, it is also critical for the manager to take into consideration the employee’s life situation. For instance, if the employee is a single mother who also takes night classes, the manager should be flexible enough to shift expectations of the hours the employee is at work. Managers must balance their expectations of high performance with team member needs for individualized work conditions and assignments. This process can only work if managers listen to their team members and act on that feedback.

Organizations can also create policies that enable managers to better support the needs of Black employees—for example, introducing formal mentoring and sponsorship programs that provide institutional support for managers to take responsibility for the career development of another employee, such as by offering advice and experiences that can help an employee learn and grow or by advocating for promotions and other opportunities on the employee’s behalf (Cocchiara, Connerley, & Bell, 2010; Kalev et al., 2006). Mentoring and sponsorship relationships help to provide a clear career path to success for those who typically lack one due to institutional barriers (Kalev et al., 2006; Society for Human Resource Management, 2009). Such mentoring relationships within organizations have been shown to be effective for increasing diversity among management through the promotion of diverse employees (Kalev et al., 2006).

Importantly, the latest Gallup research emphasizes that after taking into consideration their employees’ feedback and life circumstances, managers must consider the unique ways in which they can make their Black employees feel that they are heard on a continual basis, that their work is meaningful, that they have a sense of belonging and team commitment, and that they are encouraged to learn and grow in their roles. Managers’ ability to bridge these gaps in engagement will make the difference for their organizations in leveraging the benefits of workforce diversity, which is a critical competitive advantage in the ever-changing marketplace. Black professionals have a lot to offer to their organizations, but they will only do so when they are engaged.

Conclusion

Achieving high employee engagement is a goal for most organizations today as a way to demonstrate care and investment in their workforce, as well as reap the performance and productivity benefits of an engaged workplace. This chapter illuminates disparities in engagement for Black professionals in the workplace. The findings of this work provide an area of opportunity for managers and leaders to analyze their own organizational dynamics that may lead to lower engagement for some populations. Though there are likely many factors, including historical, cultural, structural, and individual ones, that are likely to influence engagement for Black professionals, it is clear that managers can have a profound impact on engagement by proactively creating more inclusive teams for all.

NOTES

1. In all analyses, the sample was weighted to be demographically representative of the US adult population based on the Current Population Survey, and relevant factors, including gender, age, industry, income, and position, were controlled for as covariates. Comparisons are only made between White, Black, and Hispanic groups based on adequate sample size (more than 2 percent of total sample).

2. Managers are defined as those who selected “I am a manager/supervisor whose main responsibilities are the work output of other people” in response to the following question: Which of the following best describes your role or job responsibilities within your organization?

1. I am a leader who manages other managers.

2. I am a manager/supervisor whose main responsibilities are the work output of other people.

3. I am a project manager who is responsible for other people’s work.

4. I am an individual contributor responsible for my own work or output.

REFERENCES

BoardSource. (2017). Leading with intent: 2017 national index of nonprofit board practices. Retrieved from https://boardsource.org/research-critical-issues/nonprofit-sector-research/

Brimhall, K. C., Lizano, E. L., & Mor Barak, M. E. (2014). The mediating role of inclusion: A longitudinal study of the effects of leader–member exchange and diversity climate on job satisfaction and intention to leave among child welfare workers. Children and Youth Services Review, 40, 79–88.

Brimhall, K. C., Mor Barak, M. E., Hurlburt, M., McArdle, J. J., Palinkas, L., & Henwood, B. (2017). Increasing workplace inclusion: The promise of leader-member exchange. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 41(3), 222–239.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2017). Household data, annual averages: 11. Employed persons by detailed occupation, sex, race, and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.pdf

Campbell, A., & Yeung, S. (1991). Creating a sense of mission. Long Range Planning, 24(4), 10–20.

Cavounidis, C., & Lang, K. (2015). Discrimination and worker evaluation (NBER Working Paper w21612). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Cocchiara, F. K., Connerley, M. L., & Bell, M. P. (2010). “A GEM” for increasing the effectiveness of diversity training. Human Resource Management, 49(6), 1089–1106.

Downey, S. N., van der Werff, L., Thomas, K. M., & Plaut, V. C. (2015). The role of diversity practices and inclusion in promoting trust and employee engagement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 45(1), 35–44.

Gallup. (2015). State of the American manager: Analytics and advice for leaders (Report). Omaha, NE: Gallup.

Gallup. (2016a). State of the American workplace (Report). Omaha, NE: Gallup.

Gallup. (2016b). Women in America: Work and life well-lived (Report). Omaha, NE: Gallup.

Gallup. (2017a). American workforce panel survey [Data file]. Omaha, NE: Gallup.

Gallup. (2017b). Gallup daily well-being poll [Data file]. Omaha, NE: Gallup.

Gallup. (2017c). State of the global workplace (Report). Omaha, NE: Gallup.

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.

Harber, K. D. (2004). The positive feedback bias as a response to out-group unfriendliness. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(11), 2272–2297.

Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., Agrawal, S., Plowman, S. K., & Blue, A. (2016). The relationship between engagement at work and organizational outcomes: 2016 Q12 meta-analysis (9th ed.). Omaha, NE: Gallup.

Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268–279.

James, E. H. (2000). Race-related differences in promotions and support: Underlying effects of human and social capital. Organization Science, 11(5), 493–508.

Jones, S. (2017, June 9). White men account for 72% of corporate leadership at 16 of the Fortune 500 companies. Fortune. Retrieved from http://fortune.com/2017/06/09/white-men-senior-executives-fortune-500-companies-diversity-data

Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction–job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127(3), 376–407.

Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724.

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.

Knight, J. L., Hebl, M. R., Foster, J. B., & Mannix, L. M. (2003). Out of role? Out of luck: The influence of race and leadership status on performance appraisals. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(3), 85–93.

Macey, W. H., Schneider, B., Barbera, K. M., & Young, S. A. (2011). Employee engagement: Tools for analysis, practice, and competitive advantage (Vol. 31). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 171–194.

Nink, M. (2013). Low employee well-being and engagement hurt German companies. Gallup Business Journal. Retrieved from http://news.gallup.com/businessjournal/162053/low-employee-wellbeing-engagement-hurt-german-companies.aspx

Phillips, K. W., Dumas, T. L., & Rothbard, N. P. (2018, March–April). Diversity and authenticity. Harvard Business Review, 132–136.

Polzer, J. T., Milton, L. P., & Swarm, W. B., Jr. (2002). Capitalizing on diversity: Interpersonal congruence in small work groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(2), 296–324.

Robinson, D., Perryman, S., & Hayday, S. (2004). The drivers of employee engagement (Report 408). Brighton, England: Institute for Employment Studies.

Roethlisberger, F. J., & Dickson, W. J. (1939). Management and the worker: An account of a research program conducted by the Western Electric Company, Hawthorne Works, Chicago. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Rothbard, N. P. (2001). Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and family roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(4), 655–684.

Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600–619.

Schmitt, M. T., Branscombe, N. R., Postmes, T., & Garcia, A. (2014). The consequences of perceived discrimination for psychological well-being: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 921–948.

Shao, Z., Feng, Y., & Wang, T. (2017). Charismatic leadership and tacit knowledge sharing in the context of enterprise systems learning: The mediating effect of psychological safety climate and intrinsic motivation. Behaviour & Information Technology, 36(2), 194–208.

Shelton, C., & Thomas, D. A. (2013). The study on White men leading through diversity & inclusion. Retrieved from http://www.whitemensleadershipstudy.com/

Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., Holcombe Ehrhart, K., & Singh, G. (2011). Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future research. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1262–1289.

Society for Human Resource Management. (2009). Global diversity and inclusion: Perceptions, practices, and attitudes (Report). Retrieved from https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/trends-and-forecasting/research-and-surveys/Documents/09-Diversity_and_Inclusion_Report.pdf

Thomas, D. A. (2001). The truth about mentoring minorities: Race matters. Harvard Business Review, 79(4), 98–107.

Weisenfeld, L. W., & Robinson-Backmon, I. B. (2007). Upward mobility and the African American accountant: An analysis of perceived discrimination, perceived career advancement curtailment, and intent to remain. Accounting and the Public Interest, 7(1), 26–49.

Wigert, B., & Harter, J. (2017). Re-engineering performance management (Report). Omaha, NE: Gallup.