57 PresidentialCommissiononRaceandDiversity:FinalReportAppendices

AppendixJ:DiversityEngagementSurveyExecutiveSummaryVivian Lewis, Tony Kinslow, and Linda Chaudron

IntroductionSince2009,ithasbecomeclearthattoachievegreaterdiversity,theUniversityofRochesterneededtoexpanditsfocusbeyonddemographics.“Wehaveincreasinglyappreciatedthatdiversityisnotonlyaboutnumbers,butaboutculture(Seligman,2009).”Severalinitiativeshavebegunsincethentopromoteamoreinclusiveclimate–includingprofessionaldevelopmentresourcesforfaculty,leadershipprograms,policiestosupportgenderequityandprogramstofacilitateamoreinclusiveorganizationalculture.Thecollectiveimpactoftheseeffortshasnotbeenmeasured.Ourprimarygoalsinconductingthissurveywere:

1. Tounderstandhowourfaculty,staffandstudentsperceivethestateofdiversityandinclusion,

2. Tocomparetheperceptionsofspecificdemographicgroupswithintheuniversity,

3. Tohavebaselinedatafromwhichwewillbeabletomeasurechangesintheclimateandcultureinthefutureinresponsetochangesandinterventions.

TheSurveyToolTheDiversityEngagementSurveymeasuresanddescribestheinclusivenessofanacademicenvironment,definestheinstitutionalareasofstrengthsandareasforimprovement,andcanhelpinformastrategicdirectionfororganizationalchange.Thistooldrawsuponworkforceengagementtheoryandtheoreticalcomponentsoforganizationalinclusion.The22standardsurveyquestionsaremappedtoeight“inclusion”factors(trust,appreciationofindividualattributes,senseofbelonging,accesstoopportunity,equitablerewardandrecognition,culturalcompetence,respect,andcommonpurpose).Theseeightareasarefurthergroupedintothreeworkforceengagementclusters—vision/purpose,camaraderie,andappreciation.Theseaspectsoforganizationalcultureanddiversityhavebeenidentifiedandconfirmedasthekeycomponentsofworkforceinclusionanddiversityidentitybasedonresearchatover33institutions(Person2015).Workplaceengagementtheorypositsthatengagementresultsfrom“culturalconditionsthatfosterasharedsenseofvisionandpurposeoftheorganization,camaraderieandappreciationofemployees’contributionstotheinstitution(Person2015).”Asharedsenseofvisionandpurposehelpsprovidemotivationtoputforthone’sbestefforts.Camaraderieisimportantforteamworkandsenseofbelonging.Appreciationhelpsindividualstoexperienceasenseofmeaningatwork.Theseconditionsfacilitateaninclusiveanddiverseworkforceinindustryandacademia(Colan,2008,Cox,2001,Davidson,2001).AmorecompletedescriptionoftheconceptualframeworkanddefinitionsfortheclustersandinclusionfactorscanbefoundinAppendixA.Oursurveyalsoincluded4-8customizedquestions.

58 PresidentialCommissiononRaceandDiversity:FinalReportAppendices

Responsestoallquestionswerecapturedusinga5-pointLikertscalewhichrangedfrom“stronglydisagree”to“stronglyagree.”Thesurveyalsoallowedrespondentstowriteincommentsinresponsetotheprompt:“Ifyouwish,pleaseprovideadditionalcommentsontheUniversityofRochester’sdiversityandinclusionefforts.”Thisyielded1,882comments.

SurveyAdministrationandPopulationThesurveywasadministeredthroughDataStar,andofferedtoallfacultyandstaffoftheUniversityofRochesterandstudentsinourSchoolofMedicineandDentistry,SchoolofNursing,SimonSchoolofBusiness,andWarnerSchoolofEducationinFebruary2016.Theconfidentialsurveywascompletedonlineaftere-mailinvitationswereextended.Onlyaggregatedataareonlyreportedtoensureanonymity.

AnalysisTodescribeperceptionsaboutdiversityatUR,wefocusedonthepercentageofpositiveresponses(e.g.stronglyagreeoragree).Wecreatedmeansummaryscoresfortheeightinclusionfactors(e.g.groupsofquestionsthatrelatetoaninclusiontheme)usingthemeanscoresforthequestionsthatrelatetoeachinclusiontheme.Tocomparetheperceptionsofspecificdemographicgroupswithintheuniversity,wecomparedmeansummaryscoresusinganalysisofvariance(ANOVA).Inthissummary,weidentifythestrengthsandareasofchallengeuniversity-widethatareespeciallysalientandassociationsbetweendemographiccharacteristicsorpositions.Futurereportswillfocusonspecificunitsorgroupsnotmentionedhere(e.g.trainees)aswellasthequalitativedataandcustomquestions.

Results

SurveyParticipantsTwelvethousandandeighty(12,080)UniversityofRochesterfaculty,staff,traineesandstudents(seepopulation,excludesASE,ESM)completedthesurvey,representinganoverallresponserateof48%.Therewere11,489respondentsfromindividualizedE-maillinksand591respondents(thosewithoute-mailaddresses)whoaccessedthesurveythroughanetIDportal.Thegenderandracialbreakdownoftherespondentsissimilartoourfullpopulation(table1).

AreasofStrength• CommonPurpose–Individualcontributiontoinstitutionalmissionandconnectiontovision,

purpose,mission.Eighty-threepercentagreeoverall(figure1),including90%agreementonthequestionoffeelingthatone’swork/studiescontributetoinstitutionalmission(table2).

• Respect–Individualsexperience“acultureofcivilityandpositiveregardfordiverseperspectivesandwaysofknowing.”Anaverageof83%agreedwiththethreecomponentsofthisdomain(figure1).

• AppreciationofIndividualAttributes–Individualsperceivethattheyarevaluedandcan“successfullynavigatetheorganizationalstructureintheirexpressedgroupidentity.”Seventy-sevenpercent(77%)ofparticipantsagreedwiththesethreequestions(figure1).

59 PresidentialCommissiononRaceandDiversity:FinalReportAppendices

• AccesstoOpportunity–Seventy-sevenpercent,overall(including90%ofstudents-seepopulation)agreedwiththequestionsdescribingtheability“tofindandutilizesupportfortheirprofessionaldevelopmentandadvancement(figure1).

AreasofChallenge• CulturalCompetence–“Individualsbelievethattheinstitutionhasthecapacitytomakecreative

useofitsdiverseworkforceinawaythatmeetsgoalsandenhancesperformance”These4questionshadthesecondlowestmeanscoreoverall(figure1)andthiswasanareaofsignificantvariancebasedonrace(figure2).Thefollowing2questionsdeservecomment.

• EffectivemanagementofdiversitywasthequestionwiththelargestareaofvariancebetweenBlacksandWhites(71%ofWhitesand53%ofBlacksagree;P<0.01;table3).Notablyonly37%ofBlackfacultyandBlackstudents(seepopulation)believetheinstitutionmanagesdiversityeffectively.Forbothstudents(seepopulation-excludesASE,ESM)andfacultyoverall,thequestionofeffectivemanagementofdiversitywasamonglowestscoringitems(61%studentsagreeand58%offaculty)

• Amongstaff,68%ofallagreedthattheyreceivedsupportforworkingwithdiversegroupsandincross-culturalsituations(table2),howeverthedifferencebetweenBlackandWhitestaffwas19%(P<.001)thoughamajority(55%)ofBlackstaffagreedthatdiversityismanagedeffectively.

• Respect–Althoughthiswasoverallastrongareauniversity-wide,somedemographicgroupsweresignificantlylesslikelytoagreethat“individualsexperienceacultureofcivilityandpositiveregardfordiverseperspectivesandwaysofknowing”(figure2).Themeandifferenceinagreementwas14%lowerforBlackscomparedtoWhites(85%meanagreementforWhitesand71%forBlacks)LGBTindividualswerealsolesslikelytoagreethanheterosexualorcisgenderindividuals(84%agreementforheterosexual/cisgenderand75%forLGBTindividuals)Seefigure3.

• Trust–“Individualshaveconfidencethatthepolicies,practices,andproceduresoftheorganizationwillallowthemtobringtheirbestandfullselftowork.”Overall,meanlevelagreementwiththe3questionsinthisfactorwasat77%howeverbasedonposition(e.g.faculty,staff,student)anddemographics,thefollowingdifferencesforspecificquestionsshouldbenoted.

• Amongfacultyandstudents-womenweresignificantlylesslikelythanmentobelievethat:harassmentisnottolerated(76%offemalefacultycomparedto83%ofmalefacultyand78%offemalestudentscomparedto85%ofmalestudents),that“theinstitutionwoulddowhatisright”withrespecttoconcernsraisedaboutdiscriminationandthattheinstitutionisfairtoallstudentsandemployees(P<.001-all3comparisons).Seefigure4forgenderdifferencesbytheme.

• FewerthanhalfofBlackstudentsandfacultyagreedthattheinstitutionwoulddowhatisrightaboutdiscriminationconcerns(48%Blackfacultyand42%Blackstudentscomparedto73%Whitefacultyand69%ofWhitestudents).

• EquitableRewardandRecognition–“Individualsperceivetheorganizationashavingequitable

60 PresidentialCommissiononRaceandDiversity:FinalReportAppendices

compensationpracticesandnon-financialincentives.”Ouruniversitywideagreementwiththesetwoquestionsaveraged64%,ourlowestscoringfactor(figure1).Surveyresultsatotherinstitutionshavefoundasimilarpattern(Plummer2012,Person2016).Inareportofover13,000respondentsat14academicmedicalcenterssurveyedin2012,Personetalfoundameanscoreof7.04forthesumofthesetwoquestionscomparedtoUniversityofRochestermeanscoreof7.22.Theonlyotheruniversity-widedataavailableonthissurveycomefromWashingtonUniversity-StLouisin2015wherethiswasthedomain(forbothMedicalCenterandDanforthcampus),showedanaverageof47%agreement(Wrighton2015)).Thedifferenceswefoundbasedondemographics(figure2-4)andposition(e.g.faculty,staff,student)inperceptionsabouttheclimate,werealsoconsistentwithotherpublishedreportsaboutclimateanddemographics(Orom2013,Personetal2016;UMADVANCE2013).

OtherAreasofChallenge• RaceandLGBTstatus–Similartothepublishedreportofotherinstitutions(Personetal2016)

whohavetakenthissurvey,therewasstatisticallysignificantloweragreementforBlackscomparedtoWhitesonallquestionsaswellasthoseindividualswhoidentifiedtheirraceas“Other”comparedtoWhites(table3).WefoundverysimilarpatternscomparingLGBTindividualstotheheterosexualandcisgenderpopulation.Thethemesofculturalcompetence,trust,respectandequitablerewardandrecognitionwerethemostsalient.

ConclusionOverall,theUniversityofRochester’sfaculty,staff,traineesandstudentsperceiveahighlevelofcommonpurposeandthereisawidespreadbeliefthatouruniversityculturereflectsanappreciationforindividualattributesandrespect.Nonetheless,therearealsoimportantareasthatneedimprovement.Notably,culturalcompetence,trustandrespectreflectareaswithlargedisparitiesinperceptionsbasedonposition,gender,LGBTstatusorrace.Confidencethatinstitutionalpolicies,practices,andprocedureswillalloweveryonetobringtheirbestandfullselvestoworkcanimpactindividualengagement,motivationandproductivity(Colan,2008,Cox,2001,Davidson,2001).Thesearepotentialopportunitiesforenhancingalluniversityinitiativesbyengagingandincludingourentireuniversitycommunity.Inthecomingmonths,wewillcontinuetoanalyzethesurveydatabasedonschool,unitandotherattributesandprovidequalitativeanalysisofover1800writtencomments.Greaterandmorepurpose-drivencommunicationcanhelpususeourinstitutionalstrengthstomovetheinstitutionalcultureforward. ReferencesColan, L. (2008). Engaging the Hearts and Minds of. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Cox,T.(2001).CreatingtheMulticulturalOrganization:AStrategyforCapturingthePowerofDiversity.SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass. DavidsonMN,F.B.(2001).Diversityandinclusion:Whatdifferencedoesitmake?IndustrialandOrganizationalPsychology,39(2):36–38.

61 PresidentialCommissiononRaceandDiversity:FinalReportAppendices

OromH,SemaluluT,UnderwoodW:TheSocialandLearningEnvironmentsExperiencedbyUnderrepresentedMinorityMedicalStudents:ANarrativeReview.AcademicMedicine,2013;88:1765-1777 PersonSD,JordanCG,AllisonJJ,FinkOgawaLM,Castillo-PageL,ConradS,NivetMA,PlummerDL:MeasuringDiversityandInclusioninAcademicMedicine:TheDiversityEngagementSurvey.AcademicMedicine.2015;90;1675-1683. PlummerD,PersonSD,FinkOgawaLM,JordanCG,AllisonJJ,Castillo-PageL,SchoolcraftS:DiversityEngagementSurvey,UserGuide.UniversityofMassachusetts.2012 Seligman,J.(2009).DiversityattheUniversity.RetrievedJuly15,2016,fromUniversityofRochester:http://www.rochester.edu/president/memos/2009/faculty_diversity.htm UMADVANCEProgram.Assessingtheacademicworkenvironmentforscienceandengineeringandtenured/tenuretrackfacultyattheUniversityofMichigan2001,2006and2012:genderandraceindepartmentanduniversityrelatedclimatefactors:http://advance.umich.edu/climatestudies.php.AccessedAugust9,2016 WrightonM(2015).MessagefortheChancellor.WashingtonUniversityStLouis:https://hr.wustl.edu/diversity/Documents/WUSTL_Diversity_Survey_Appendix_B_2015.pdf.AccessedAugust29,2016.

ListofTablesTableJ1:UniversityofRochesterRespondentCharacteristicsTableJ2:UniversityofRochesterInternalComparisonsbyPositionTableJ3:Differencesamongdemographicgroups,ANOVAresults

ListofFiguresFigureJ1:AveragePercentAgreebyInclusionFactorandPositionFigureJ2:AveragePercentAgreebyInclusionFactorandGenderFigureJ3:AveragePercentAgreebyInclusionFactorandRaceEthnicityFigureJ4:AveragePercentAgreebyInclusionFactorandLGBTStatus

62 PresidentialCommissiononRaceandDiversity:FinalReportAppendices

TableJ1:RespondentCharacteristics

ParticipationbyDivisionandPosition Faculty Staff Students ResidentsPost-docs/Fellows

GrandTotal

CentralAdministration&MemorialArtGallery

11 1,062 1 1,074

Arts&Sciences 252 545 22 819HajimSchoolofEngineering 127 184 10 321EastmanSchool 88 81 169SimonSchool 52 70 180 302WarnerSchool 50 33 136 219SchoolofMedicineandDentistry 957 909 369 81 57 2,373SchoolofNursing 57 75 77 3 212EastmanInstituteofOralHealth 126 14 140StrongMemorialHospital 4,896 273 5,169HealthSciences 4 470 474MedicalFacultyPracticeGroup 1 806 1 808GrandTotal 1,599 9,257 776 355 93 12,080

Gender Men WomenTransgenderandGenderNon-Conforming

SkippedQuestion Total

University-wide

3,635 8,075 123 247 12,080

30.1% 66.8% 1.0% 2.0%

Race/Ethnicity White Asian

BlackorAfricanAmerican

Hispanic/Latino(a)

Otherand2+Race/Ethnicities

SkippedQuestion Total

University-wide

8,912 705 1,064 370 642 387 12,080

73.8% 5.8% 8.8% 3.1% 5.3% 3.2%

LGBTStatus Hetero/cis1 LGBT2SkippedonorBothQuestions Total

University-wide10,175 762 1,143 12,080

84.2% 6.3% 9.4%

1Hetero/cis=heterosexualandcisgender(apersonwhoisheterosexualandwhosegenderidentitymatchestheirsexassignedatbirth)

2LGBTincludesrespondentswhoself-selectedLesbian,Gay,Bisexual,Transgender,Gender-Non-conformingorOtherLGBTstatus.

63 PresidentialCommissiononRaceandDiversity:FinalReportAppendices

TableJ2:PercentAgree/StronglyAgreebyUniversityPositionFactors Item

no.Item University-wide1

(n=12,080)Faculty

(n=1,599)Staff

(n=9,257)Students(n=776)

CommonPurpose

4Ifeelthatmyworkorstudiescontributetothemissionoftheinstitution.

90% 95% 90% 85%

17 Ifeelconnectedtothevision,missionandvaluesofthisinstitution. 75% 71% 76% 73%

AccesstoOpportunity

5Thislastyear,Ihavehadopportunitiesatwork/schooltodevelopprofessionally.

76% 83% 73% 92%

9 Thereissomeoneatwork/schoolwhoencouragesmydevelopment. 75% 72% 74% 87%

CulturalCompetence

7Inthisinstitution,Ihaveopportunitiestoworksuccessfullyinsettingswithdiversecolleagues.

82% 75% 83% 78%

11 Ibelievemyinstitutionmanagesdiversityeffectively. 68% 56% 71% 60%

15Inmyinstitution,Ireceivesupportforworkingwithdiversegroupsandworkingincross-culturalsituations.

68% 63% 68% 72%

20Inthisinstitution,thereareopportunitiesformetoengageinserviceandcommunityoutreach.

78% 82% 76% 85%

EquitableRewardandRecognition

10Ireceiverecognitionandpraiseformygoodworksimilartootherswhodogoodworkatthisinstitution.

69% 66% 68% 74%

16Inmyinstitution,Iamconfidentthatmyaccomplishmentsarecompensatedsimilartootherswhohaveachievedtheirgoals.

58% 52% 58% 72%

Trust

1 Itrustmyinstitutiontobefairtoallemployeesandstudents. 78% 74% 79% 74%

13IfIraisedaconcernaboutdiscrimination,Iamconfidentmyinstitutionwoulddowhatisright.

73% 70% 74% 67%

19 Ibelievethatinmyinstitutionharassmentisnottolerated. 80% 79% 80% 80%

SenseofBelonging

6 Atwork/school,myopinionsmatter. 70% 71% 69% 74%

14Iconsideratleastoneofmycoworkersorfellowstudentstobeatrustedfriend.

84% 88% 83% 90%

21 IfeelthatIamanintegralpartofmydepartmentorschool. 76% 76% 77% 63%

Respect

2Theleadershipofmyinstitutioniscommittedtotreatingpeoplerespectfully.

82% 81% 82% 83%

12Inmyinstitution,Iexperiencerespectamongindividualsandgroupswithvariousculturaldifferences.

84% 84% 84% 81%

18 Ibelievethatmyinstitutionreflectsacultureofcivility. 82% 80% 82% 84%

AppreciationofIndividualAttributes

3 Iamvaluedasanindividualbymyinstitution. 72% 70% 72% 75%

8 Someoneatwork/schoolseemstocareaboutmeasanindividual. 83% 82% 83% 88%

22Thecultureofmyinstitutionisacceptingofpeoplewithdifferentideas.

75% 71% 76% 76%

Note:Respondentswhochose'Notabletoevaluate'wererecodedasnonresponse.1Trainees(includingpost-docs,residents,andfellows)areincludedinthisUniversity-wideresponse.

64 PresidentialCommissiononRaceandDiversity:FinalReportAppendices

TableJ3:ComparisonofInclusionFactormeanscoresbydemographicgroupsandposition

CharacteristicCommonPurpose Accesstoopportunity

Mean(SD)a SignificantGroupDifferencesb

Mean(SD)a SignificantGroup

DifferencesbGender A.Female 4.07(0.66) AvsB

3.93(0.85) AvsB

B.Male 4.12(0.72) 3.98(0.86) Race/Ethnicity A.Asian 4.16(0.68) AvsB,D

4.12(0.77) AvsB,D,E

B.Black 3.92(0.77) BvsA,C,E

3.75(0.92) BvsA,C,EC.Hispanic/Latino 4.11(0.73) CvsB,D

4.00(0.80) CvsB

D.Other/2+RacesorEthnicities 3.94(0.80) DvsA,C,E

3.83(0.95) DvsA,EE.White 4.11(0.66) EvsB,D 3.95(0.85) EvsA,B,DLGBTStatus A.LGBT 3.99(0.80) Avs.B

3.89(0.92) AvsB

B.Heterosexual/Cisgender 4.10(0.68) 3.96(0.85) Position A.Staff 4.07(0.68) AvsD

3.87(0.87) Avs(all)

B.Student 4.06(0.82) BvsD

4.30(0.70) BvsA,DC.Trainee 4.12(0.75) (none)

4.35(0.65) CvsA,D

D.Faculty 4.18(0.68) DvsA,B 4.03(0.86) Dvs(all)

CharacteristicEquitablereward&recognition Culturalcompetence

Mean(SD)a SignificantGroupDifferencesb

Mean(SD)a SignificantGroup

DifferencesbGender A.Female 3.60(0.97) AvsB

3.91(0.71) (none)

B.Male 3.72(0.98) 3.94(0.75) Race/Ethnicity A.Asian 3.91(0.89) AvsB,D,E

4.03(0.75) AvsB,D,E

B.Black 3.49(1.02) BvsA,C,E

3.64(0.86) BvsA,C,EC.Hispanic/Latino 3.80(1.00) CvsB,D,E

3.97(0.79) CvsB,E

D.Other/2+RacesorEthnicities 3.46(1.07) DvsA,C,E

3.73(0.86) DvsA,CE.White 3.63(0.96) Evs(all) 3.95(0.68) EvsA,B,DLGBTStatus A.LGBT 3.52(1.04) Avs.B

3.73(0.84) AvsB

B.Heterosexual/Cisgender 3.65(0.97) 3.93(0.72) Position A.Staff 3.59(0.97) AvsB,C

3.91(0.71) AvsC

B.Student 3.90(0.95) BvsA,D

3.95(0.83) BvsDC.Trainee 4.02(0.88) CvsA,D

4.06(0.76) CvsD

D.Faculty 3.56(1.04) DvsB,C 3.91(0.71) DvsB,C

a

65 PresidentialCommissiononRaceandDiversity:FinalReportAppendices

TableJ3:Continued

Characteristic

Trust SenseofBelonging

Mean(SD)aSignificantGroupDifferencesb

Mean(SD)a

SignificantGroupDifferencesb

Gender A.Female 3.91(0.81) AvsB 3.94(0.71) AvsBB.Male 4.01(0.84) 3.98(0.76)

Race/Ethnicity A.Asian 4.03(0.78) AvsB,D

4.06(0.71) AvsB,D,E

B.Black 3.62(1.00) BvsA,C,E

3.77(0.78) BvsA,C,EC.Hispanic/Latino 4.02(0.84) CvsB,D

3.98(0.73) CvsB,D

D.Other/2+RacesorEthnicities 3.73(0.96) DvsA,C,E

3.78(0.82) DvsA,C,EE.White 3.98(0.78) EvsB,D 3.97(0.71) EvsB,D

LGBTStatus A.LGBT 3.71(0.95) Avs.B 3.83(0.82) AvsBB.Heterosexual/Cisgender 3.96(0.81) 3.97(0.72)

Position A.Staff 3.93(0.82) AvsC 3.92(0.72) Avs(all)B.Student 3.89(0.93) BvsC

4.01(0.77) BvsA

C.Trainee 4.07(0.76) Cvs(all) 4.09(0.72) CvsAD.Faculty 3.91(0.87) DvsC 4.01(0.77) DvsA

Characteristic

Respect Appreciationofind.attributes

Mean(SD)aSignificantGroupDifferencesb

Mean(SD)a

SignificantGroupDifferencesb

Gender A.Female 4.03(0.68) AvsB 3.93(0.75) AvsBB.Male 4.08(0.74) 3.98(0.79)

Race/Ethnicity A.Asian 4.13(0.70) AvsB,D

4.08(0.74) AvsB,D,E

B.Black 3.75(0.86) BvsA,C,E

3.77(0.84) BvsA,C,EC.Hispanic/Latino 4.06(0.75) CvsB,D

4.03(0.76) CvsB,D

D.Other/2+RacesorEthnicities 3.84(0.86) DvsA,C,E 3.80(0.89) DvsA,C,EE.White 4.08(0.66) EvsB,D 3.96(0.75) EvsA,B,D

LGBTStatus A.LGBT 3.85(0.83) Avs.B 3.80(0.88) AvsBB.Heterosexual/Cisgender 4.06(0.69) 3.96(0.75)

Position A.Staff 4.02(0.70) AvsB,C

3.92(0.76) AvsB,C

B.Student 4.09(0.72) BvsA

4.04(0.80) BvsA,DC.Trainee 4.14(0.73) CvsA

4.07(0.77) CvsA,D

D.Faculty 4.05(0.72) (none) 3.93(0.80) DvsB,CaMeanscorescouldrangefrom1to5,withhigherscoresindicatinggreaterperceivedengagementandinclusionbyrespondents.bForeachfactor,thePvaluefromANOVAisstatisticallysignificantattheP<.001level,indicatingthatthereisatleastonedifferencebetweengroups.Groupdifferencesignificancewasestimatedusingleastsquaresmeansandadjustedformultipletesting.AlllisteddifferencesaresignificantatleastattheP<.05level.Asanexampleofinterpretation:Forrace/ethnicity,Avs(B,C,D,E)indicatesthatrespondentswhoself-identifiedasAsianhaveasignificantlydifferentmeanfactorscorethanthoseofrespondentswhoself-identifiedasblack/AfricanAmerican,Hispanic/Latino,other,orwhite.

66 PresidentialCommissiononRaceandDiversity:FinalReportAppendices

FigureJ1:InclusionFactors-AgreementbyPositionattheUniversity:AveragePercent‘Agree’or‘StronglyAgree’byTheme

FigureJ2:InclusionFactors-AgreementbyGenderAveragePercent‘Agree’or‘StronglyAgree’byTheme

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Men

Women

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

U-wide

Faculty

Staff

Students

67 PresidentialCommissiononRaceandDiversity:FinalReportAppendices

FigureJ3:InclusionFactors-AgreementbyRace/EthnicityAveragePercent‘Agree’or‘StronglyAgree’byTheme

FigureJ4:InclusionFactors-AgreementbyLGBTStatusAveragePercent‘Agree’or‘StronglyAgree’byTheme

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

White

Black

Hispanic

Asian

Other

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Hetero/cis

LGBT

68 PresidentialCommissiononRaceandDiversity:FinalReportAppendices

AppendixJ.A:DESConceptualFrameworkThisappendixisexcerptedfromtheDESUserGuide,pp.12-15.

DESConceptualFrameworkResearchliteraturesuggeststhatdiversityinorganizationshasanadvantageiftheconditionsareright–whenthevaluepropositionfordiversityisendorsedandastrongbusinessrationalehasbeendefined,andwhenithasbeenimplementedcomprehensively.Researchfindingsalsoindicatethatwhenthereisahighpro-diversityclimateandalignmentbetweenemployeesandmanagers’perceptionsoftheclimate,theworkplaceenvironmentismoreconduciveforimprovedindividualandoverallorganizationalperformance.Moreover,teamsthatconsistofdiverseperspectives,ideas,interpretations,experiences,andbackgroundscontributetobetterproblemsolvingandorganizationalproductivitythanhomogenousones.Inordertoachievethesebenefits,itisnecessarytoexaminetheconditionssupportingdiversityandinclusionasinstitutionsstrivetomeettheirgoalsandpursueexcellenceandinnovation.Onesuchconditionisthepracticeofemployeeengagement.Engagedemployeeswhodemonstrateastrongconnectiontothemissionoftheinstitutionandwhoarecommittedtoworkingtowardstheinstitution’ssuccessarethefoundationforaninclusiveworkenvironment.Thus,DES,asaninstitutionaldiversitymeasurementtool,isgroundedinworkforceengagementtheory.Workforceengagementtheoryisabusinessandmanagementphilosophywhichproposesthatemployeeswhoaremoreconnectedtoworkaremoreproductiveandaremorelikelytocontributetoachievinginstitutionalgoals.Notethatworkforceengagementisdistinctlydifferentfromemployeesatisfactionandmotivationwhicharerelatedtosuchfactorsastheirrelationshipwiththeirmanagerorco-workers,fairnessofpay,workenvironmentandbenefits.Employeeengagementtheoriesarederivedfrom1920studiesofmoraleoragroup’swillingnesstoaccomplishorganizationalobjectives.Thesestudieswerefurtherincorporatedintoacademicresearchasdistinctfromemployeesatisfactionintheearly1900’s.Engagementtheoryformsthebasisoftheeightdefinedinclusionfactorsthatdescribethefullacceptanceofindividualsandgroupsinanorganization.TheDESisdesignedtoidentifytheworkplaceconditionsthatsupportinclusionofallofitsemployees.Thetwenty-twoitemsoftheDESassesslevelsofemployeeengagementasameanstodevelopameaningfulinclusionscorecardthatcharacterizestheinstitution’sprogresstowardcreatinganinclusiveworkenvironment.Eachofthe22itemsinthesurveyismappedtooneofeightinclusionfactor,andeachoftheeightinclusionfactorismappedtooneofthreeengagementclustersasillustratedinTable1.

69 PresidentialCommissiononRaceandDiversity:FinalReportAppendices

TableJ.A1.RelationshipofEngagementClusterCategoriestoInclusionFactorsEngagementCluster InclusionFactors

Vision/Purposecommonpurpose,accesstoopportunity,equitablerewardandrecognition,culturalcompetence

Camaraderie trust,senseofbelonging

Appreciation Appreciationofindividualattributes,respect

WhatisEngagement?DefinitionsofengagementdescribeaconnectionbetweentheemployeeandthegoalsoftheInstitution:• Employees’willingnessandabilitytocontributetocompany’ssuccess.• Staffcommitmentandsenseofbelongingtotheorganization.• Employees’commitmenttotheorganizationandmotivationtocontributetothe• organization’ssuccess.• Employee’sexertionof“discretionaryeffort”…goingbeyondmeetingtheminimum• standardsforthejob.• Creatingthesensethatindividualsareapartofagreaterentity.ResearchsuggeststhatthemajorityofAmericanworkersarenotengagedintheirjobswithareportedhighof70%asdisengagedandonly30%asactivelyengaged.Thisisanalarmingconceptsinceacademicliteraturepointstoastrongconnectionbetweenhumanachievementandtheintellectualandemotionallevelsofengagementofindividuals.Peoplebringtheirfullselvestowork.Thus,tomaximizeperformanceindividualsmustbeengagedintellectuallyandemotionally.

Engagementleadsto:• Loyalty:Employeesexperienceanemotionalattachmenttotheinstitutionandwanttoremainan

employee.• Confidence:Employeesperceivethatresourcesareavailabletohelpthemsucceed.• Integrity:Employeesareconsistentlytreatedfairlyandrespectfully.• Pride:Employeesexperienceassenseofbelongingandactasgoodambassadorsfortheinstitution.• Passion:Employeesbelievethattheinstitutionisthebestplacetousetheirenergyandtogrow

professionallyandpersonally.

Engagedemployeesareloyalandpsychologicallycommittedtotheorganizationanditsgoals.Employeeswhoarenotfullyengagedmaybeproductivebutarenotpsychologicallyconnectedtotheorganization’sgoalsandmission.Activelydisengagedemployeesarenotonlypsychologicallyabsentbutrisksabotagingthemissionandbusinessgoalsoftheinstitution.Giventhebenefitsofhavinganengagedemployeebase,itisimperativetomeasurethedegreeofengagementintheorganizationandtoworktowardrespondingnotonlytotheintellectualneedsofemployeesbuttoaddressthoseemotionalneedsthatconnectemployeestotheorganization’svisionandpurpose;othermembersoftheinstitutionascomrades;andtheirneedtobeappreciatedasindividualcontributorstotheorganization’soverallmission.

70 PresidentialCommissiononRaceandDiversity:FinalReportAppendices

Insum,Vision/Purpose,CamaraderieandAppreciationarethreeengagementdomainsrelatedtotheeightdefinedinclusionfactors.Anengagedworkforceisthefoundationuponwhichaninclusiveworkenvironmentcanbebuilt.Diversegroupsofengagedemployeesareapowerfulforce.Theygeneratemoreideas,makemorepositivechangesandhelpadvancegreatinstitutions.Toachievethesekindsofremarkableresultsaninclusiveorganizationmustbecreated.

WhatisInclusion?Inclusionisasetofsocialprocesses,whichinfluenceanindividual’saccesstoinformationandsocialsupport,acquisitionoforinfluenceinshapingacceptednormsandbehavior,securitywithinanidentitygrouporinapositionwithintheorganization,accesstoandabilitytoexerciseformalandinformalpower.Fullacceptanceofmembershipinanorganizationdependsonanindividual’sabilitytobeseenastheprototypeofthatorganization.Theprototypicalmemberwillpersonifythenorms,behaviors,valuesandevenappearanceseenasimportanttomaintainingthecultureoftheorganizationandpowerrelationswithinit.Asaresult,diversityordivergencefromtheprototypeintroducestensionsaroundwhobelongsintheorganization.Whenunderstoodandmanagedeffectivelythistensioncanbedescribedasgoodorcreativetensionthatproducesnewideas,newproductsandnewprocesses.Creativetensionsappearandarenegotiatedthroughsocialdynamicsthatinfluenceinclusionasitisexperiencedbyindividuals.Thesedynamicsaretheresultofthreefactorsexperiencedorperceivedbyindividuals:

• Inclusion-Exclusion—thequality,frequency,andtoneofday-to-daysocialinteractionsandinterpersonalexperiencesthatmoveindividualstowardorawayfromasenseoffullmembership.

• IdentityIntegration—theextenttowhichindividualsareabletobringtheirsocialgroupidentities(e.g.gender,race,nationalculture,sexualorientation)intotheorganizationandstillrealizefullmembership.

• SocialPower—theauthorityorlegitimacyindividualshaveinexercisingpowerwithintheorganizationorthedegreetowhichtheyexperiencedifferencesinhowpowerisexercisedoverthemcomparedtothosewhoenjoyfullmembership.

Attheorganizationallevel,inclusiondynamicsarereinforcedandembeddedinanorganization’sculturethroughits:

• Mission,Vision,Values—usesinclusivelanguageandspecificallyreferencesdiversity

• Strategy,Structure,Systems—organizationisstructuredtoallowfordiversewaysofknowing,limitsbureaucracyandinformationandresourcesareaccessible

• Policies,Practices,Procedures—open,transparentandconsistentlyapplied

Thus,inclusioncanbebestunderstoodinitsdynamicstate.Thediversityoftheemployeebase,theinclusiondynamicstheyexperience,andanorganization’scultureallinfluencetheemergenceofaninclusiveworkenvironment.SuchanenvironmentischaracterizedbythefollowingfactorsasmeasuredbytheDES:

71 PresidentialCommissiononRaceandDiversity:FinalReportAppendices

1. CommonPurpose:individualexperiencesaconnectiontothemission,visionandvaluesoftheorganization

2. Trust:individualhasconfidencethatthepolicies,practicesandproceduresoftheorganizationwillallowthemtobringtheirbestandfullselftowork

3. AppreciationofIndividualAttributes:individualisvaluedandcansuccessfullynavigatetheorganizationalstructureintheirexpressedgroupidentity

4. SenseofBelonging:individualexperiencestheirsocialgroupidentitybeingconnectedandacceptedintheorganization

5. AccesstoOpportunity:individualisabletofindandutilizesupportfortheirprofessionaldevelopmentandadvancement

6. EquitableRewardandRecognition:individualperceivestheorganizationashavingequitablecompensationpracticesandnon-financialincentives

7. CulturalCompetence:individualbelievestheinstitutionhasthecapacitytomakecreativeuseofitsdiverseworkforceinawaythatmeetsbusinessgoalsandenhancesperformance

8. Respect:individualexperiencesacultureofcivilityandpositiveregardfordiverseperspectivesandwaysofknowing