Appendix J: Diversity Engagement Survey Executive Summary...Workplace engagement theory posits that...
15
57 Presidential Commission on Race and Diversity: Final Report Appendices Appendix J: Diversity Engagement Survey Executive Summary Vivian Lewis, Tony Kinslow, and Linda Chaudron Introduction Since 2009, it has become clear that to achieve greater diversity, the University of Rochester needed to expand its focus beyond demographics. “We have increasingly appreciated that diversity is not only about numbers, but about culture (Seligman, 2009).” Several initiatives have begun since then to promote a more inclusive climate – including professional development resources for faculty, leadership programs, policies to support gender equity and programs to facilitate a more inclusive organizational culture. The collective impact of these efforts has not been measured. Our primary goals in conducting this survey were: 1. To understand how our faculty, staff and students perceive the state of diversity and inclusion, 2. To compare the perceptions of specific demographic groups within the university, 3. To have baseline data from which we will be able to measure changes in the climate and culture in the future in response to changes and interventions. The Survey Tool The Diversity Engagement Survey measures and describes the inclusiveness of an academic environment, defines the institutional areas of strengths and areas for improvement, and can help inform a strategic direction for organizational change. This tool draws upon workforce engagement theory and theoretical components of organizational inclusion. The 22 standard survey questions are mapped to eight “inclusion” factors (trust, appreciation of individual attributes, sense of belonging, access to opportunity, equitable reward and recognition, cultural competence, respect, and common purpose). These eight areas are further grouped into three workforce engagement clusters— vision/purpose, camaraderie, and appreciation. These aspects of organizational culture and diversity have been identified and confirmed as the key components of workforce inclusion and diversity identity based on research at over 33 institutions (Person 2015). Workplace engagement theory posits that engagement results from “cultural conditions that foster a shared sense of vision and purpose of the organization, camaraderie and appreciation of employees’ contributions to the institution (Person 2015).” A shared sense of vision and purpose helps provide motivation to put forth one’s best efforts. Camaraderie is important for teamwork and sense of belonging. Appreciation helps individuals to experience a sense of meaning at work. These conditions facilitate an inclusive and diverse workforce in industry and academia (Colan, 2008, Cox, 2001, Davidson, 2001). A more complete description of the conceptual framework and definitions for the clusters and inclusion factors can be found in Appendix A. Our survey also included 4-8 customized questions.
Transcript of Appendix J: Diversity Engagement Survey Executive Summary...Workplace engagement theory posits that...
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
