16
Is D&I about Us?
How Inclusion Practices Undermine Black Advancement and How to Design for Real Inclusion
VALERIE PURDIE-GREENAWAY and MARTIN N. DAVIDSON
That inclusion … [the company] knows that that has nothing to do with African Americans.
—Alicia Harris, African American manager (personal communication, February 27, 2018)
One way to interpret Harris’s statement is that she is a stagnant black manager willing to gripe about her company. A deeper look suggests that she may be tapping into a powerful insight: many black professionals have little evidence that diversity and inclusion (D&I) initiatives actually help them advance in their organizations and careers. D&I initiatives are ubiquitous (Dobbin & Kalev, 2017; Nishii, Khattab, Shemla, & Paluch, 2018), and while they are meant to enhance career trajectories and foster inclusive climates for all groups, people tend to believe that D&I practices primarily benefit blacks (Plaut, 2014). Yet while blacks have been entering the professional and managerial ranks of US corporations for decades, they remain dramatically underrepresented at senior levels. In 2018, only three Fortune 500 companies were led by black CEOs (Donnelly, 2018). In three major financial services firms—Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, and Citigroup—only 2.6 percent of top executives were black, a decline in black leadership in these firms between 2013 and 2018 (Abelson & Holman, 2017). Even when black professionals are moving up the ranks, they frequently feel underutilized and perceive there to be a racial “glass ceiling” limiting their future opportunities (McKay et al., 2007).
We suggest that organizations can dramatically increase the impact of their D&I initiatives on the career trajectories of black professionals by “designing for black inclusion.” Designing for inclusion more broadly is defined as attending to a variety of criteria for fostering an inclusive climate by reducing bias in access to resources based on identity-group status, creating opportunities to establish generative relationships across difference, and promoting integration of ideas across boundaries to help solve problems (Nishii, 2013). Designing for black inclusion starts with these concepts and then builds parameters that have been shown to uniquely benefit members of underrepresented groups such as blacks. For example, black leaders benefit from (1) opportunities to learn effective racial identity management competencies across the career life span (Thomas & Gabarro, 1999), (2) partnerships that foster cross-racial relationship intimacy (Davidson & James, 2007; Dutton & Heaphy, 2003), and (3) skills in developing growth-based stories in the wake of professional setbacks (Ospina & Foldy, 2009; Vough & Caza, 2017). Here, we suggest a fourth parameter uniquely critical to the development of inclusion programs and practices that support black leaders: the need to eradicate the perception that race will be a barrier to advancement. In this chapter, we examine the underlying psychological processes that make this parameter so critical for developing black leaders and suggest a set of practices that foster black inclusion and support the success of these leaders.
The Psychology of Black Inclusion: A Hidden Imperative
Consider the following scenario: A firm initiates a black leadership development program. The program selects elite black managers, offers leadership training in functional areas (e.g., strategy, accounting) and strategies for black leaders to navigate racial terrain, and encourages mentoring relationships with senior black executives. Would this D&I initiative foster inclusion for blacks? One black professional may welcome such a program, perceiving that the firm is attuned to the unique challenges of black leadership and is committed to inclusion. Another black professional may be repelled by it, perceiving that the firm assimilates blackness into a stereotyped set of experiences and is not serious about inclusion. The answer is, it depends.
This example illustrates one fundamental challenge with inclusion: the attributions black professionals make fundamentally shape how they experience any given program and ultimately determine whether the program fosters inclusion. We argue that organizations have the capacity to shape how black professionals come to perceive and experience inclusion programs. Differences in how blacks come to experience inclusion reflect not simply the professional’s racial background or cultural fit with the company but the nature of the inclusion program itself and the implicit signals it conveys.
Like most human behaviors, inclusion experiences are symbolic acts (Geertz, 1973). Their meaning depends on their interpretation by the perceiver. Is being asked by the managing director, “How is work going?” in the elevator seen as an affirmation that the director cares or an ominous warning that he or she is tracking one’s work? If the first, it may kindle a friendship. If the second, it may cause avoidance. What appears to be the same situation can in fact be very different for different actors, or for the same actor at different times.
One’s group membership may add another layer through which one perceives a given situation. When a black person receives negative feedback on an essay from a white evaluator in the next room partitioned by a glass window, the black person may see the situation differently depending on incidental changes (Crocker & Major, 1989). Case in point: When the window blinds between rooms are up, the black individual may perceive evidence of potential bias, leading him or her to discount the feedback. When the blinds are down, however, he or she sees the interaction as an opportunity to learn and attends to the feedback (Crocker & Major, 1989). In this case, the critical design feature is the position of the blinds, which dramatically alters how one perceives the feedback. People tend to wonder, What type of person is more likely to perceive feedback as racially biased? We suggest the more critical question one should ask is, What kinds of situations tend to lead people to perceive feedback as racially biased?
Cultural diversity refers to differences among people in race, ethnicity, gender, religion, nationality, or other dimensions of social identity that are marked by a history of intergroup prejudice, discrimination, or oppression (Ely & Roberts, 2008). Fostering inclusion among such groups is, by definition, an inherently ambiguous task. If the invitation to the leadership training described earlier arrived in a cryptic email to a mysteriously chosen subset of black managers without a clear explanation of the program objectives, the manager may perceive the invitation as racially threatening. In contrast, a knock on the door and an assurance that the training is highly selective and developmental leads the same manager to perceive the invitation as affirming. Practitioners tend to underappreciate that leadership training for black executives is, by definition, ambiguous, conveying either the need for blacks to build skills (i.e., deficiency based) or the opportunity to fast-track the black professional’s career (i.e., based on potential). The personal and specific statement that the program is highly selective is a design feature that can (if said genuinely and bolstered by a history of fair practices in the company) nudge the black manager to perceive the program in a positive light with potential positive downstream consequences that last over the course of the program.
Decades of research in social psychology and organizational behavior reveal that individuals questioning the value of their group identity in interactions can become vigilant to cues that could signal psychological threat or safety based on one or more of their social identities (e.g., Cheryan, Davies, Plaut, & Steele, 2009; Purdie-Vaughns, Davies, Steele, Ditlmann, & Crosby, 2008; Roberts & Creary, 2013; Roberts & Roberts, 2007). For members of historically marginalized groups such as black professionals, such cues can give rise to social identity threat—worry or concern about the value of one’s social identity in the minds of others (Steele, Spencer, & Aronson, 2002).
Research on how historically marginalized groups such as blacks construe diversity messages shows that black professionals can construe them as threatening or affirming, with implications for retention in the company. For example, the more a sample of law firms emphasizes a “value in equality” framing (affirming that differences will not be an obstacle to career opportunities and advancement), in contrast to a “value in difference” framing (advocating for increasing awareness of differences and bias), the lower the turnover rates among racial minorities in the firms (Apfelbaum, Stephens, & Reagans, 2016). Importantly, Apfelbaum and colleagues both measured the degree to which firms conveyed a value-in-difference framing in their diversity messages on web pages and manipulated the value-in-difference frame experimentally (Apfelbaum et al., 2016). The value-in-equality approach was more effective because among the small population of black lawyers assessed in the firms, it made them feel less distinct from others and it affirmed a commitment to fair access to opportunities. Here, the situation cue—relative minority representation—dramatically altered the attributions black employees made about the value-in-equality frame and hence reduced their desire to leave the firm.
In another demonstration of how historically marginalized groups construe diversity messages, black managers viewed a consulting firm brochure that highlighted either a message embracing similarities or a message embracing diversity (Purdie-Vaughns et al., 2008). Those who viewed the similarity message were much more likely to express trust in, and comfort with, the company. They were also less likely to identify race as the cause in a hypothetical situation in which a black employee was fired (Purdie-Vaughns et al., 2008). In both studies, the company’s expressed commitment to fair access to opportunities and fair treatment neutralized concerns about racial injustice, findings consistent with research showing that black employees are attuned to messages an organization sends about fairness (Buttner, Lowe, & Billings-Harris, 2010; Davidson & Friedman, 1998).
In light of these studies, we argue that organizations neutralize the deleterious effects described here by institutionalizing programs, policies, and practices that address these psychological dynamics. Outlining a prescription for specific programs is unlikely to be the best approach. Mentoring programs and employee resource groups abound in corporate settings (Dobbin & Kalev, 2017). What distinguishes successful ones from ineffective ones are the design parameters—the principles of design underlying the specific programs, policies, or practices.
The Blueprint for Black Inclusion
If the situation matters and the person’s attributions matter, then one important design parameter for blacks requires that designers attend to and develop nudge strategies that eradicate the perception that race will be a barrier to advancement. The benefits of investing in such a design strategy are threefold. First, racial inequity and the perception of racial animus are problematic for any organization operating in the United States. They can undermine employee engagement and diminish work performance (e.g., Greenhaus, Parasuraman, & Wormley, 1990). Second, career development is an inherently collaborative task. Certainly, one must be competent and continue to develop expertise in her or his area of responsibility. However, career development also requires a web of relationships that must include connections across difference. Often, race can be an impediment to developing these connections with mentors, sponsors, and peers (Cokley, Dreher, & Stockdale, 2004; Thomas, 1989). Finally, black people are more than the sum of their responses to identity-based trauma. Like any human being, a black person holds both the aspiration to achieve in the world and the need to make sense of who she or he is and could become in a given situation (Ibarra, 1999). Black people want to experience positive aspects of identity, which include growth and flourishing (Dutton, Roberts, & Bednar, 2010).
When racial reactivity exists, stoked both by a larger societal reality in which racism persists and by everyday experiences of bias at work, the detriment of that reactivity is best neutralized by developing “race-intelligent” inclusion. Race-intelligent inclusion is composed of programs, policies, and practices that explicitly address the importance of eliminating explicit racial inequity in the organization and reducing psychological reactivity to racial animus when black professionals encounter it. This type of inclusion acknowledges that organizations must rigorously combat racial inequity in their practices, policies, and culture. In addition, it equips black leaders with competencies that support them to flourish even in the midst of race-based headwinds. Race-intelligent inclusion benefits the black professional as it affords that person tools to advance in the organization. It also benefits the company in its quest to develop more effective leaders and more functional corporate climates. Moreover, it benefits the larger external community and society, helping to foster a citizenry of whole human beings with high integrity.
It may seem contradictory that blacks would prefer value-in-equality approaches that seem to diminish the importance of race (e.g., Apfelbaum et al., 2016), yet we propose developing a culture of inclusion by promoting practices that foreground race. In fact, racial dynamics are omnipresent for blacks in US organizations. What matters for black professionals in their work experience and their professional growth is how race is engaged by the organization. It would not be inconsistent for an organization to engage race by affirming the importance of racial equality while simultaneously promoting race-intelligent inclusion practices. Corporate communication that engages race by promoting a value-in-equality vision that performance matters most signals the aspiration that race won’t be a barrier to success, which would be consistent with the Apfelbaum et al. (2016) findings. Inclusion practices that engage race explicitly by tactically leveling the playing field may be seen simply as a step in achieving that vision of racial equality.
Three Design Parameters for Black Inclusion
If the cornerstone of black inclusion is the eradication of race as a psychological impediment for blacks, three organizational practices are necessary to encourage this: facilitating explicit communication about race, building knowledge about race, and developing an organizational learning orientation. These practices alone cannot eliminate racial inequity from an organization. However, they can equip emerging black leaders to engage the company, their colleagues, and their careers in generative ways, even when racial animus arises.
Facilitating Explicit Communication
A hallmark of the dysfunction of race in US companies is the unwillingness to talk about it openly (Ely, Meyerson, & Davidson, 2006). This silence has significant costs for black employees. It reinforces the habit of withholding performance feedback from black employees, depriving them of the opportunity to learn and develop (Thomas, 1993; Yeager et al., 2014). It diminishes the capacity to develop relationship resilience with colleagues across race, including the skill of managing conflict related to racial identity (Davidson & James, 2007). It also has costs for nonblack colleagues, as the trust needed to foster authentic interaction is underdeveloped and they lose the benefits, both pragmatic and affective, of creating high-quality connections with black colleagues (Dutton & Heaphy, 2003; Phillips, Dumas, & Rothbard, 2018).
One company altered this script of “race silence” by creating contexts for its senior leaders to develop skill and comfort in talking about race publicly. Leveraging a highly salient community incident involving racial conflict, the predominantly white leadership team sought coaching on how to talk about race, with emphasis on how they entered into cross-race dialogue by discussing their whiteness. Some executives were less conscious of their race experiences; others, more mindful and articulate. All were accountable for engaging in dialogue with their direct reports on the racial climate. The impact of their openness was to begin to legitimize cross-racial dialogue throughout the organization several months after the impact of the precipitating event had lessened. Importantly, these more general experiences in the company need to be tied explicitly to inclusion programs.
If, as Groysberg and Slind (2012) argue, leadership in the modern economy is predicated on the capacity to communicate, thereby promoting operational flexibility, employee engagement, and strategic alignment, black leaders cannot develop this competency absent a culture of communication about race.
Building Knowledge about Race
Frequently, black employees describe “diversity fatigue” that arises from constantly engaging in conversations about race, serving on a task force, or attending diversity training because they bring diversity to the conversation (Cocchiara, Connerley, & Bell, 2010). A design for black inclusion counteracts this phenomenon by creating contexts for nonblack employees to develop their knowledge about race without requiring their black colleagues to participate in every aspect of the learning. Cross-racial interaction and dialogue are central to building a racially inclusive environment; black employees want and need to be engaged in these interactions. However, a key design parameter for black inclusion is for nonblacks to initiate their own program of learning as a first phase.
Organizations can develop a capability for understanding race (e.g., Davidson, 2011) by relying on a critical mass of nonblack employees taking personal action to learn. In one consulting company, nonblack employees started a book club focused on black writers and organized visits to African American museums and historical sites.
But this knowledge development is not only personal. Like many other retail organizations, American Express has developed a market segmentation strategy that emphasizes understanding the communities and customers it serves, including the African American population. It tried to drive business growth by designing appropriate and appealing products and services for those constituents. To provide the necessary knowledge to expand into new markets, American Express developed a patent-pending process called Diverse Marketplace Intelligence. This system drew insights both from the firm’s existing talent base and from strategically chosen external partners. The most prominent avenue for learning within the company was provided by the black employee network group, among others.
Organization-wide learning about race is powerful, not only because it increases knowledge but also because it signals to black employees that race is important. That signal is another clue to black employees that the company is trying to engage with their racial experience.
Developing an Organizational Racial Learning Orientation
Building a knowledge base about race is fundamentally a learning task. However, racial learning cannot be a discrete project with an identifiable endpoint. It is unlikely that any member of an organization would credibly state, “Now I am a race expert and know everything about race in the United States!” Rather, racial intelligence requires all organization members—both nonblack and black—to engage in ongoing learning about race. Cultivating this racial learning orientation is essential because racially significant events persist outside and inside the organization. Externally, demographic shifts continue to create more diversity among black communities in the United States as blacks immigrate from Africa, the Caribbean, and elsewhere. These shifts add complexity to our understanding of what drives black advancement (Anderson & López, 2018). In addition, societal events, often traumatic, persist as social media reveals ongoing discriminatory behavior in places of business, police shootings, and social protest (Opie & Roberts, 2017). Internally, developing black talent requires greater understanding of the evolving professional needs of blacks at different career stages (e.g., how a cohort of black junior analysts learn to collaborate as a group of minorities, or what dynamics accrue to someone who becomes the first black CEO of an organization). A design for black inclusion requires the development of a culture of inquiry about race.
One online financial services firm began to cultivate such a learning orientation after deciding to tap into younger, more ethnically diverse customer bases. The company struggled to understand why its widely successful business model was not appealing to black customers who should have been eager to adopt the online platform. The predominantly white male company instituted a program of cross-race dialogues called Know Us, which focused on bringing small groups of employees together to talk candidly about racially relevant topics. The dialogues started in response to police shootings of blacks in the United States in 2015 and 2016. But they persisted as relationships developed, both colocated and virtual. Some of the groups dissipated, but others have continued. The company is now working to encourage more targeted cross-functional diversity in the groups as a way of learning how to solve emerging business challenges related to its black customer base.
Leaders Emerge from the Design for Black Inclusion
Black leaders thrive in part because they are talented. However, far too often, relying on exceptional talent only creates short-term gain. Companies committed to fostering black excellence must be strategic and relentless in creating the conditions for that excellence. Understanding the underlying psychology of the black experience in such companies allows leaders to construct inclusive climates and cultures that create black leaders. A company knows it has done so successfully when its Alicia Harris comes to believe that inclusion and black inclusion have become one and the same.
REFERENCES
Abelson, M., & Holman, J. (2017, July 27). Black executives are losing ground at some big banks. Retrieved from https://
Anderson, M., & López, G. (2018, January 24). Key facts about black immigrants in the U.S. Retrieved from http://
Apfelbaum, E. P., Stephens, N. M., & Reagans, R. E. (2016). Beyond one-size-fits-all: Tailoring diversity approaches to the representation of social groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(4), 547–566.
Buttner, E., Lowe, K., & Billings-Harris, L. (2010). The impact of diversity promise fulfillment on professionals of color outcomes in the USA. Journal of Business Ethics, 91(4), 501–518.
Cheryan, S., Davies, P. G., Plaut, V. C., & Steele, C. M. (2009). Ambient belonging: How stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 97(6), 1045–1060.
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.
Cokley, K., Dreher, G. F., & Stockdale, M. S. (2004). Toward the inclusiveness and career success of African Americans. In M. S. Stockdale & F. J. Crosby (Eds.), The psychology and management of workplace diversity (pp. 168–190). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of stigma. Psychological Review, 96(4), 608–630.
Davidson, M. N. (2011). The end of diversity as we know it: Why diversity efforts fail and how leveraging difference can succeed. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Davidson, M. N., & Friedman, R. A. (1998). When excuses don’t work: The persistent injustice effect among black managers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(1), 154–183.
Davidson, M. N., & James, E. H. (2007). The engines of positive relationships across difference: Conflict and learning. In J. Dutton & B. R. Ragins (Eds.), Exploring positive relationships at work: Building a theoretical and research foundation (pp. 137–158). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dobbin, F., & Kalev, A. (2017). Are diversity programs merely ceremonial? Evidence-free institutionalization. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, T. B. Lawrence, and R. E. Meyer (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 808–828), London: Sage.
Donnelly, G. (2018, February 28). The number of black CEOs at Fortune 500 companies is at its lowest since 2002. Retrieved from http://
Dutton, J. E., & Heaphy, E. (2003). The power of high-quality connections. In K. Cameron, J. Dutton, & R. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 263–278). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Dutton, J. E., Roberts, L. M., & Bednar, J. (2010). Pathways for positive identity construction at work: Four types of positive identity and the building of social resources. Academy of Management Review, 35(2), 265–293.
Ely, R., Meyerson, D., & Davidson, M. N. (2006). Rethinking political correctness. Harvard Business Review, 84(9), 79–87.
Ely, R., & Roberts, L. M. (2008). Shifting frames in team-diversity research: From difference to relationships. In A. P. Brief (Ed.), Diversity at work (pp. 175–201). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Geertz, C. (1973). Interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York, NY: Basic Books.
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.
Groysberg, B., & Slind, M. (2012). Leadership is a conversation. Harvard Business Review, 90(6), 76–84.
Ibarra, H. (1999). Provisional selves: Experimenting with image and identity in professional adaptation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 764–791.
McKay, P. F., Avery, D. R., Toniandel, S., Morris, M. A., Hernandez, M., & Hebl, M. R. (2007). Racial differences in employee retention: Are diversity climate perceptions the key? Personnel Psychology, 60(1), 35–62.
Nishii, L. H. (2013). The benefits of climate for inclusion for gender-diverse groups. Academy of Management Journal, 56(6), 1754–1774.
Nishii, L. H., Khattab, J., Shemla, M., & Paluch, R. M. (2018). A multi-level process model for understanding diversity practice effectiveness. Academy of Management Annals, 12(1), 37–82.
Opie, T., & Roberts, L. M. (2017). Do black lives really matter in the workplace? Restorative justice as a means to reclaim humanity. Equality, Diversity & Inclusion, 36(8), 707–719.
Ospina, S., & Foldy, E. (2009). A critical review of race and ethnicity in the leadership literature: Surfacing context, power and the collective dimensions of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 20(6), 876–896.
Phillips, K. W., Dumas, T. L., & Rothbard, N. P. (2018). Diversity and authenticity. Harvard Business Review, 96(2), 132–136.
Plaut, V. C. (2014). Diversity science and institutional design. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(1), 72–80.
Purdie-Vaughns, V., Davies, P. G., Steele, C. M., Ditlmann, R., & Crosby, J. R. (2008). Social identity contingencies: How diversity cues signal threat or safety for African Americans in mainstream institutions. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 94(4), 615–630.
Roberts, L. M., & Creary, S. J. (2013). Navigating the self in diverse work contexts. In Q. M. Roberson (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of diversity and work (pp. 73–97). New York: Oxford University Press.
Roberts, L. M., & Roberts, D. D. (2007). Testing the limits of antidiscrimination law: The business, legal, and ethical ramifications of cultural profiling at work. Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy, 14, 369–405.
Steele, C. M., Spencer, S. J., & Aronson, J. (2002). Contending with group image: The psychology of stereotype and social identity threat. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 379–440). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Thomas, D. A. (1989). Mentoring and irrationality: The role of racial taboos. Human Resource Management, 28(2), 279–290.
Thomas, D. A. (1993). Racial dynamics in cross-race developmental relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(2), 169–194.
Thomas, D. A., & Gabarro, J. J. (1999). Breaking through: The making of minority executives in corporate America. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Vough, H. C., & Caza, B. B. (2017). Where do I go from here? Sensemaking and the construction of growth-based stories in the wake of denied promotions. Academy of Management Review, 42(1), 103–128.
Yeager, D. S., Purdie-Vaughns, V., Garcia, J., Apfel, N., Brzustoski, P., Master, A., … Cohen, G. L. (2014). Breaking the cycle of mistrust: Wise interventions to provide critical feedback across the racial divide. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 143(2), 804–824.