8

Understanding Organizations and the Role of Leadership in Developing a Culture of Antiracism, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

Previous chapters have emphasized the importance of individual behavior and group dynamics. This chapter considers the broader context of the science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine (STEMM) organizations in which individual and group interactions and behaviors occur.¹ STEMM organizations exist in many sizes, containing groups and individual people working together to achieve common goals. Here, the committee examines the structural and systemic issues that have contributed to inequalities; organizational antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts; and ways to enact change at this level.

The committee relies on several key concepts throughout the chapter. An organization’s culture can be defined as the historically and collectively evolving mix of norms, values, practices, and policies that guides action (Groysberg et al., 2018). Related to organizational culture, the climate of an organization is participants’ perceptions and experience of their immediate context within the organization’s culture. An organization’s culture creates conditions for its structures as well as its climate; in this chapter, the structures of a particular institution come into focus as systems that can shape and guide how individuals and groups behave based on the culture (i.e., norms, values, policies, and practices) that informs decisions. Together, the culture, climate, and structures affect how people gain access to and experience educational and professional STEMM settings (Alvesson, 2002; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2018).

___________________

¹ For the purposes of this report, STEMM organizations include universities, nonprofit organizations, private funders, professional societies, hospitals, and industry.

Those experiences are consequential for performance, persistence, belonging, and well-being, all of which can have direct effects on how teams operate and individual people perform.

One important goal of this chapter is to provide a guide for leaders who want to accelerate progress in advancing antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion in STEMM organizations and fostering cultures and climates where all participants can succeed. As discussed in more detail below, this focus on leadership is in response to evidence showing that culture change is an essential ingredient for systemic and transformational change, and that such change begins at the top of an organization and permeates multiple levels. Leaders, notably those at the very top of the organization such as presidents and chief executive officers, have the unique opportunity to shape the culture and climate of an organization by (re)shaping the norms, values, policies, and practices that comprise that culture and climate. Without the leadership changing organizational structures, culture change may not be sustained or may only advance unevenly in the organization.

The material in the present chapter intersects with and builds on points of discussion from previous chapters in the report. As discussed in Chapter 3, there are fewer people from minoritized racial and ethnic groups in positions of leadership in STEMM organizations. More STEMM organizations are led by non-Hispanic, White men than people from other races, ethnicities, and genders (see Chapter 6 for more on gatekeepers). Such racialized disparities in an organization’s leadership, ones that often reflect the values present in academia and research settings, can cause inequities in the distribution of resources and other foundational aspects of the organization and thus perpetuate racial bias (see Chapter 3 for additional data; Ray, 2019). As discussed in Chapter 5, additional support systems and removal of barriers at the individual level can allow more people from minoritized groups to advance in STEMM organizations to diversify leadership ranks (Allen-Ramdial and Campbell, 2014).

However, as noted in Chapter 6, leaders also have a greater ability to address racial bias and contribute to change in an organization through addressing norms, values, policies, and practices. Such changes can be mutually reinforcing, reflecting the systemic nature of change work. For example, making substantive changes to hiring, promotion, tenure, and advancement policies may also shift norms for recruitment, drawing a more diverse set of participants, which is a condition for the realization of more equitable outcomes. Reviewing policies and updating practices through an antiracist lens can create more equitable and inclusive environments. Furthermore, such structural changes at the institutional level can have an impact on individual behavior; equally importantly, the collective

behavior of individuals can change organizational culture (Society for Human Resource Management, 2016). While organizations, groups, and individuals have their own patterns of behavior, these different levels are interconnected. Changes at one level can transfer up, down, or across to others.

To make large-scale change, leaders need to set forth an agenda that addresses the organization at multiple levels, including gatekeepers, leaders, mid-level management, and administration, with the appropriate resources in terms of person hours and funds. Antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion do not serve as compliance metrics, but rather act as goals or concepts that require sustained effort and learning to maintain. Often, these changes come with dedicated action from all levels and a sense of collective responsibility across the organization to uphold the values of antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion.

As discussed below, changes related to antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion also come with distinct challenges. Leadership can expect resistance, both explicit and implicit, to cultural change centered around antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion, and this chapter provides frameworks for addressing resistance and supporting the individuals who engage in the emotional labor of the work (see Chapter 6 for more in implicit bias). Although the analysis presented here is rooted in the science behind organizational change, not all of the research has been carried out in STEMM organizations specifically.

The first section of this chapter elaborates on these key concepts in an overview of organizations, culture, and climate. The racialization of organizational structures through specific policies and practices and how that can impact culture and climate is the focus of the second part of this chapter. In the third part of the chapter, the committee discusses paths to change organizational culture and climate to center antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion and reviews research on change at individual organizations as well as collective change effected by organizations across a single sector. The fourth part of the chapter discusses barriers to and challenges of culture change. The fifth part provides some frameworks for organizational change, setting out key findings and recommendations on how change can—and must—be brought about at the organizational level.

AN OVERVIEW OF ORGANIZATIONS, CULTURE, AND CLIMATE

Typically, within an organization, there are structures that define individual roles and responsibilities, as well as divide people into separate groups based on function, content area, or level of responsibility. Box 8-1 provides definitions for key terms used throughout this chapter.

Using Schein’s Iceberg to Understand Organizational Culture

Schein’s iceberg model of culture (Schein, 1992) suggests that there are different layers to organizational cultures—artifacts, espoused values, and tacit underlying beliefs—with some visible and others hidden and difficult for newcomers to an organization or those outside of it to understand and interpret. Artifacts, such as branding strategy, logos, organizational structure, job titles, and even décor, are visible indicators of an organization’s culture. Espoused values are the behaviors, methods for accomplishing the mission, and other policies and procedures that an organization states publicly but may not follow on a daily basis. Basic assumptions are tacit underlying beliefs—the unwritten rules, status, relationships, attitudes and feelings, people’s fundamental needs, values, and norms—that manifest themselves in the way an organization actually functions. These assumptions are important sources of influence on activities and behaviors that produce organizational success or failure.

Applied to the advancement of antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion in STEMM organizations, this model proposes that changing culture requires addressing the tacit underlying beliefs, because that is where racism originates. Tacit underlying beliefs about racial hierarchy can be institutionalized in public policies (as discussed in Chapter 2 and Chapter 6) and processes, and they affect the opportunities and experiences that minoritized groups, in particular, have within an organization. Any efforts or recommendations to bring about systemic change, increase the participation of minoritized individuals, and also improve the quality of experience of minoritized groups in STEMM disciplines must therefore address the invisible, underlying beliefs that exist in both academic and non-academic STEMM organizations. While such values and beliefs are abstract, they are critical to address because members of an organization defer to them as justifications for standard practices and for defining possible responses to organizational challenges (Schein, 2010). Such beliefs and values effectively operate as boundaries on what changes and solutions to problems are possible within that particular culture.

Organizations communicate their values to their participants through both formal and informal policies, practices, and norms (Society for Human Resource Management, 2016). Values can help determine importance or priority amid multiple interests; they vary based on individual judgment, biases, and prejudices; and they shape personal behavior (Society for Human Resource Management, 2016). Norms are accepted behaviors or conduct within a social group, such as an organization, and they serve as the unwritten guidelines and expectations for individuals while participating in that group (World Health Organization, 2009). Policies provide documented structure and guidance for decisionmaking, while practices are the formal and informal means of completing tasks. Facially race-neutral policies and norms can end up reinforcing racially unequal outcomes (Ray, 2019). Values and beliefs that have bearing on antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion are made visible in ways that include, but are not limited to, practices such as how an organization defines and applies its goals, what criteria it prioritizes in making decisions, how it evaluates and socializes new members, and what expectations it places on its leaders, including how resources are allocated.

STEMM organizations also express and transmit their cultures through processes such as hiring, admissions, tenure and promotion, and other activities that identify new members and promote those within. Conceptions of merit and excellence in doctoral admissions, for example, are not given or objective, but rather culturally constructed over time within disciplinary communities that have been mostly non-Hispanic White and mostly male; thus, the metrics of merit and excellence that institutions privilege in admissions reproduce cohorts of students who resemble what came before (Posselt, 2016). Faculty hiring and tenure committees make decisions using inherited norms of legitimate scholarship and scholarly behavior for one’s field, which are often themselves biased toward qualities that purport to be race neutral (Gonzales and Rincones, 2012; Posselt, 2018). These norms can mask biases that affect “objective” processes, which, in fact, are socially and culturally constructed over time within disciplinary communities that have been homogeneous in terms of race and gender.

To affect antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion, it is necessary to understand and change organization-level structures and cultures. Organization-level analyses can address the problematic environmental factors that impede individual success as defined by both organizations and its participants and actors. Leaders who remove organization-level barriers in the system can allow people to succeed and thrive, for example, rather than simply struggle and persist.

THE RACIALIZATION OF ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES

Organizations striving to advance antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion need to address not only the racial bias and behaviors of individuals,

but also the institutionalized forms of racism that are embedded in organizational policies, practices, norms, and values, which are structures upheld by organizational culture. Understanding how structures of an organization can produce and reproduce inequality is a foundation for understanding the changes in its culture needed to advance diversity, equity, inclusion, and antiracism, particularly given that most organizations do not operate in a “neutral” or unbiased way. Each institution reflects values through a combination of its mission; expenditures of time and money; membership and stakeholders; how it describes itself on social media platforms and literature; the behaviors it promotes in its students or employees; and other factors. How an organization chooses to distribute resources; hire, advance, retain, promote, and reward individuals; and enforce policies related to race and ethnicity reveal the depth of its commitment to antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion (Ray, 2019).

For example, a medical school’s hiring process or admissions criteria may appear to be race-neutral or colorblind (Tiako et al., 2022). However, without taking existing inequities into account or analyzing disparate impacts, selection processes or criteria may produce racially disparate outcomes (Obermeyer et al., 2019). These differential outcomes reflect—and can reinforce—the broader race-related history of access and barriers, wealth accumulation, and discrimination in the United States (see Chapter 2). A neutral policy or standard cannot erase this history, and ignoring the impacts of race can perpetuate cumulative and inequitable outcomes (Small and Pager, 2020).

Affirmative action is a class of policies and programs that considers race among the multiple criteria that are used to assess applicants for educational and professional opportunities (Cornell Law School, n.d.). It is intended to promote the inclusion and representation of historically minoritized groups, including both women and people of color. Race-conscious policies may take the form of targeted recruitment and hiring, grants and scholarships for students from disadvantaged backgrounds, and the formal consideration of an applicant’s race and ethnicity within processes of holistic review (Posselt, 2020). Introduced by President Lyndon Johnson in 1965, and extended into federal agencies in 1969 by Richard Nixon, before diffusing throughout higher education institutions, the parameters by which colleges and universities can consider race have been narrowing since the 1978 Regents of the University of California vs. Bakke case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court (U.S. Supreme Court, 1978). At the time this report was written, two additional U.S. Supreme Court cases are under review that will have an impact on the future of affirmative action, Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina (U.S. Supreme Court, 2021a,b). The goals of affirmative action may vary and

have included compensating for histories of discrimination and inequality, realizing the educational benefits of diverse learning environments, and correcting for the ways that conventional processes often produce racialized outcomes (Jayakumar, et al., 2018).

How STEMM and other types of organizations produce racialized outcomes is a quickly growing area of theory and research (Jayakumar et al., 2018; Ray, 2019). Leaders in organizations are a key part of both perpetuation and change in that they define and manage the environments in which individuals and groups operate. One of the most important ways that do this is through their power to determine the distribution of resources (e.g., entry and membership, monetary, opportunities and advancement); financial and monetary rewards in an organization (Ray, 2019). Decisions about resource distribution that have implications for racial inclusion and equality take place across multiple areas in an organization, including:

• Recruitment: where you search for talent
• Hiring: whom you select and through what methods
• Evaluation criteria: how people and their performance are assessed
• Rewards: who gets key assignments, recommendations, leadership positions, promotions, and higher compensation
• Resources: who gets access to career development, funding, mentorship and sponsorship, support systems, and peer and professional networks

The sections below examine how racialized selection criteria, standards, and processes can impact the composition of an organization. Selection processes used for admissions as well as those used for hiring, the typical evaluation criteria used, the biases of decisionmakers, and other processes all directly institutionalize racial inequality (Ray, 2019). How STEMM organizations determine who merits access is a powerful reflection of organizational culture and has been a topic of considerable research.

Standardized Tests in Undergraduate, Graduate, and Medical School Admissions

The alarming numeric underrepresentation of persons of color in STEMM (see Chapter 3) is a powerful indicator of a culture that permits the differential exclusion of persons along lines of ethnicity and race. Admissions processes are important both as a reflection of that culture and as a reinforcer of it—they determine access to credentials that affect participation in STEMM professions. While colleges and universities strive for fairness in their admissions processes, many rely on criteria and credentials that are unevenly distributed by race, and therefore produce racialized outcomes.

Among the criteria that have received the most research attention, standardized admissions tests, such as the ACT and SAT (for undergraduate programs), Graduate Record Examination or GRE (graduate programs), and Medical College Admissions Test or MCAT (medical programs) have been associated with inequalities in results related to the race and ethnicity of students (Camara and Schmidt, 1999). There is also a growing body of research about holistic admissions as an alternative approach that, when thoughtfully designed and implemented, can better align organizational action with values of ADEI (Posselt, 2020).

SAT

While the SAT was originally designed to open access to more students to test into higher education, present-day results show Black and Latine students score lower, on average, than White and Asian students on both sections of the exam (Reading/Writing and Math):

The average [math] scores for Black (454) and Latino or Hispanic students (478) are significantly lower than those of white (547) and Asian students (632). The proportion of students reaching college-readiness benchmarks also differs by race. Over half (59%) of white and four-fifths of Asian test takers met the college readiness math benchmark, compared to less than a quarter of Black students and under a third of Hispanic or Latino students. [. . .]

Despite a wide range of efforts to reduce inequality, the racial gap in SAT scores has scarcely narrowed during the lifetimes of the class of 2020. In 2002, the average white student’s SAT math score was 106 points higher than the average Black student’s (533 compared to 427); by 2020, the gap narrowed to 93 points. Still, nearly a third (31%) of white test takers scored above 600 on the math portion of the SAT, compared to just 7% of Black test takers (Smith, 2020).

Disparities in college preparedness and readiness manifest in test scores, and they trace back to unequal access to high-quality pre-K–12 education: Black and Latine students are more likely to attend schools that do not offer college preparatory courses, such as Advanced Placement courses, and less than 50 percent of American Indian and Alaska Native students have access to a full range of math and science courses in high school (United Negro College Fund; U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, 2014).² In addition, research shows the effect of stereotype threat (see more details in Chapter 5), which “refers to a psychological phenomenon

___________________

² Full range of math and science courses defined as Algebra I, geometry, Algebra II, calculus, biology, chemistry, physics.

in which a member of a negatively stereotyped group underperforms on an activity because of increased anxiety that they may confirm the negative stereotype” (U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, 2014). The observed effect sizes in one meta-analysis suggest that the SAT Math and Reading/Writing tests underestimate the intellectual ability of Black and Hispanic Americans by 39 to 41 points for each group. This underestimation of latent ability is a substantial portion of the overall Black-White and Hispanic-White test gaps typically observed on SATs—199 and 148 points, respectively (Smith, 2020). These results suggest that the psychological context of common testing environments significantly undermines real-world performance (Walton and Spencer, 2009).³

The SAT has significant effects on college admissions for students beyond acceptance letters, contributing also to university decisions about which students to actively recruit and offer financial aid (Sackett et al., 2009). As Black and Latine students are less likely to come from households with generational wealth, the effect of lower SAT scores on financial aid packages can further exacerbate challenges in funding higher education (Hernández Kent and Ricketts, 2021). The challenges on the academic and affordability side can persist into other educational and financial outcomes:

But significant gaps in graduation rates and test scores remain; representation is increasing, but success rates have yet to catch up. Half of Asian students and 45% of white students graduate college in 4 years compared to 21% of Black students, and 32% of Latino or Hispanic students. Default rates on student loans tell a similar story; Black and Latino or Hispanic students are much more likely to default within 12 years of graduation (Smith, 2020).

This suggests that colleges and universities may be creating barriers to their services and to financial aid due to the racialized results produced by standardized tests. As undergraduate education is a major prerequisite for advanced study and many STEMM careers, the inequities produced by the SAT are noteworthy. Some colleges and universities have in recent years decided to drop the SAT as well as the ACT (another standardized test) from their admissions process. Many did so in response to the COVID-19 pandemic (Nietzel, 2021). For example, the University of California system decided to remove the standardized tests in 2020 and launched an investigation to determine whether to reintroduce the exams; it decided to continue with the test suspension until fall 2024 (Nietzel, 2021). In the years after the standardized test suspension, the University of California system has

___________________

³ In 2009, each section of the SAT was worth 800 points or 1600 for the combined score.

seen an increased number of applications from students from minoritized racial and ethnic groups (Nietzel, 2021).

GRE

The GRE has been a significant part of graduate admissions since its establishment in 1936 (Boykin, 2022). According to the Educational Testing Service (ETS), which administers the GRE, women and people from minoritized racial and ethnic groups score lower, on average, than White men and Asian men (Langin, 2019). The disparities have a direct effect on racial equity in terms of access to STEM doctoral programs: “A 2014 analysis found that a GRE cutoff of 700 eliminated 94.8 [percent] of Black applicants from the admissions pool in the physical sciences versus 18 [percent] of white and Asian applicants” (Roberts, 2021). While ETS discourages the use of cutoff scores in admissions decisions, research from a variety of sources suggests that an emphasis on GRE scores play a significant role in the admissions process and strongly shapes professors’ judgments of admissibility (Petersen et al., 2021; Posselt, 2016). One study found that with only undergraduate GPA and physics GRE score, the likelihood of a person’s admission to physics Ph.D. programs could be predicted with 75 percent accuracy (Young and Caballero, 2021).

Research evidence is mixed concerning the predictive validity of the GRE across different outcomes, disciplinary and institutional contexts from which samples are drawn, research methods, and versions of the test. Studies show GRE scores are associated with first-year grades, but current research does not demonstrate whether GRE scores correspond to longer term outcomes (Moneta-Koehler et al., 2017). According to one recent study:

Although we did not examine any other indices of success in STEM Ph.D. programs related to GRE scores, Hall et al. [20] found that neither GRE V nor GRE Q scores predict the number of first author publications. Moneta-Koehler et al. [21] found that GRE V scores were moderate predictors of first semester grades, graduate GPAs and of better subjective faculty evaluations of some aspects of students’ performance. However, these predictions did not translate to differences in time to degree, passing qualifying exams, numbers of conference presentations, or numbers of individual fellowships or grants (Petersen, 2018).

Since 2018, many STEM graduate programs have dropped the test as an admissions requirement. These decisions began during the COVID-19 pandemic as graduate programs in most STEM fields decided to suspend the requirement at least during the public health emergency (Langin, 2022). Overall, movement away from GRE requirements varies by discipline. Up to 50 percent of programs in the life sciences had already eliminated GRE

requirements before COVID-19 (Langin, 2019). Most graduate schools have delegated to individual programs the decision about whether to require scores, but some, such as University of Michigan and Montana State University, have stopped collecting GRE scores altogether in admissions processes for all graduate programs (Nietzel, 2022).

MCAT

Introduced in 1947, the MCAT has been assessed for its ability to predict success in medical education coursework, licensing exams, and graduation within four to five years (AAMC, 2019; Searcy et al., 2015). An individual application to medical school includes MCAT scores, in addition to undergraduate GPA, academic achievements, and personal essays. While many medical schools have moved to a holistic approach to admissions that balance these components, lower scores on the MCAT, even those within the predictive range of success, are associated with lower rates of acceptance to medical schools (Lucey and Saguil, 2020). In a study of 2009 MCAT scores, White applicants had a higher mean score (26.3) than Black (20.0) or Latine (21.6) students (Davis et al., 2013).

While there have been differences in mean scores, a comprehensive study of the MCAT and racial bias found that “Factors other than bias in the exam might explain differences in performance [on the exam], such as family, neighborhood, and school conditions, which relate to academic achievement and differ by group” (Davis, 2013). This study also found evidence that many admissions committees accept students at similar rates regardless of race, and they are looking beyond MCAT data to select students with a wide range of experiences and characteristics (Davis, 2013).

Yet, in a review of data from the American Association of Medical Colleges, admission rates for Black and Latine students have not yet reached parity with their broader representation in the U.S. population: “Of accepted applicants, nearly half (49.8 [percent]) were White, 22.0 [percent] were Asian, 7.1 [percent] were Black or African American, and 6.2 [percent] were Hispanic, Latino, or of Spanish Origin” (AAMC, 2019).

Here, a tension exists between the available data showing that on one hand, similar acceptance rates across different racial and ethnic groups, and on the other hand, that rates have not yet reached parity. Looking at the data on applicants in the 2021–2022 class, only seven percent of applicants self-identified as Black, suggesting that while the admissions rates are similar, the number of total applications has not yet reached parity (AAMC, 2021).

The U.S. scientific enterprise has long recognized this minoritization, which exists also in Ph.D. admissions. Over the past several decades, STEMM writ large has implemented interventions supported by federal funding agencies and private philanthropies to increase the representation of people from minoritized racial and ethnic groups in doctoral and medical education (National Science and Technology Council, 2021). Efforts to support STEMM departments in redesigning their selection and recruitment processes are one exception to a general tendency in antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion interventions to reflect a “fix the person” mindset. That is, rather than changing the organizations and systems that students and early career scientists must navigate, most interventions provide students or early career faculty with experiences, support, mentoring, community, and coaching to better guide them for survival and eventual assimilation in a STEMM environment that some individuals may find hostile (Posselt, 2021). In contrast, relatively few programs have focused on changing the structure of access to STEMM organizations or their learning and working environments itself, although there are important and promising exceptions. Thus, despite the work of local champions who lead these student-centered programs, progress on a national level has been slow.

CONCLUSION 8-1: Although standardized tests, such as the SAT, GRE, and MCAT, may not be biased as instruments, they often replicate the educational inequities endured by students from historically minoritized racial and ethnic groups, and they are not consistent predictors of academic and professional success. Reliance on standardized test scores can exacerbate racial inequities in admissions and financial aid decisions for undergraduate, graduate, and medical programs.

Holistic Admissions

In undergraduate, graduate, and medical education, the movement away from reliance on standardized tests has been coupled with a movement toward holistic review, which is defined as an assessment of “academic ability coupled with a flexible assessment of applicants’ talents, experiences, and potential to contribute to the learning of those around them” by evaluating “all of the information available in their file” (U.S. Supreme Court, 2003). There is a growing body of evidence about holistic admissions in undergraduate, graduate, and medical admissions and the conditions under which the practice of holistic admissions can serve as a means of improving diversity and reducing inequalities. Research shows that this approach reflects a cultural shift for organizational admissions practices to look beyond metrics that reinforce racial and other social inequalities; align standards of quality with expressed commitments to antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion; and formally assess professional skills and socio-emotional

qualities that affect professional success and organizational health (Bastedo, 2016; Garces and Jayakumar, 2014; Roca-Barcelo, 2021). Such skills and qualities include distance traveled, teamwork or leadership, contributions to the diversity goals of an organization, and prior experience with navigating challenging situations with regard to antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion (Roca-Barcelo, 2021; Wilson, 1981).

Research on holistic admissions across higher education sectors also shows that in addition to broadening the criteria that are assessed, changes must be made to how organizational decisionmakers interpret information in applications if the goals are to increase diversity and create more equitable selection processes (Posselt, 2020). Like test scores, other information in applications for admissions, such as extracurricular involvement and research experience, may reflect existing inequities; therefore, organizational evaluations should contextualize information in the application instead of taking credentials information at face value (Bastedo, 2016; Posselt, 2021; Rosinger, Meyer, and Wang, 2021). Strategies for contextualization include considering the error on metrics such as grades and test scores and considering an applicant’s achievements considering the opportunities they had or did not have access to (Posselt, 2016).

In addition to conducting more comprehensive and contextualized review, research shows the importance of being systematic and equity-minded in admissions, particularly in graduate admissions, which is especially subject to bias because it is decentralized and often lacking in formal policy (Klitgaard, 1985). There is evidence that utilizing evaluation protocols or rubrics can support holistic review implementation. When thoughtfully designed, such protocols or rubrics create more consistent evaluations across applications and among multiple reviewers. They can also make holistic review of applications more efficient and accountable and result in selection of more underrepresented racial minority applicants (Roca-Barcelo, 2021). Research on rubrics in K–12 education indicates that they also reduce implicit bias (Quinn, 2020).

Hiring and Wage Setting

In contrast to research on admissions, which looks mainly at selection criteria and processes with disparate impacts, there has been a strong focus on direct racial discrimination in the research on selection for hiring (Liera and Hernandez, 2021). Major audit studies have demonstrated that racial discrimination exists in hiring processes across organizations (Eaton et al., 2020). While not STEMM specific, one meta-analysis covering research from 1980 to 2015 found that White applicants received 36 percent more callbacks from employers than African American candidates and 24 percent more than Latines with equal qualifications (Quillian et al., 2017).

This research suggests that there has been no change since 1972 in terms of racial discrimination in hiring for African American people, and while there is a possible decline for Latine people, that decline was not considered significant.

What does the discrimination look like? One non-STEMM specific study looking at credentials created identical applications for 350 employers posting for entry-level jobs, except some noted that applicants had a criminal record and others did not. Here, the criminal record is meant to be a negative credential, as it is often correlated with less desirable outcomes in the labor market. For the White applicants, the impact of a criminal record was a 50 percent reduction in the likelihood of receiving a callback. Adding race as a factor, the study showed that an application for a White individual with a criminal record had a nearly 2.5-fold higher likelihood of receiving a callback than an application for a Black candidate with no criminal record (Pager, 2009). Returning to the theory of racialized organizations, Whiteness here serves as a credential for employment without any indication of additional skill or education. If Black individuals have a lower likelihood of receiving a callback, they will likely spend more time securing employment.

This has impacts beyond the application process. When Black individuals do find a job, it is likely that they will spend more time commuting to their place of employment, reducing their leisure and rest hours (Ray, 2019). Earnings are also negatively impacted. The Bureau of Labor Statistics notes that once people are hired, there are racialized and gendered wage gap discrepancies, possibly reflecting that Black and Latine people may also be in lower-wage positions. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, in the first quarter of 2022, the median weekly earnings of Black people ($840) and Latine people ($799) working full-time jobs for all employment sectors were lower than those of White ($1,064) and Asian ($1,362) employees. Median weekly earnings for both Black and Hispanic men were just over 75 percent of the median weekly earnings for White men, while the median weekly earnings for Black and Latine women were 85 percent and 77 percent, respectively, less than the median weekly wage for White women. Earnings of Asian men ($1,452) and women ($1,237) were higher than those of their White counterparts (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2022). Specifically for faculty jobs, the salaries that Asians and Asian-Americans earn are often higher than for White people and people from other minoritized groups; however, while they may earn more money, they often are appointed to leadership positions at a lower rate (Lee, 2002).

As with many phenomena in academia, these patterns and the causes for them may vary by discipline. A recent study in chemistry found, for example, that discrimination is responsible for wage differentials between chemists who identify as White and those who are Asian and Black, whereas most of the wage differential between White and Hispanic chemists was

that result of differences in human capital, such as educational attainment and experiences (Broyles and Fenner, 2010).

CONCLUSION 8-2: Racial discrimination continues to be a significant factor in hiring processes and wages. In terms of hiring, Black people are less likely to receive callbacks than less-credentialed White people. In terms of wages, across occupations Black people and Latine people have lower median weekly earnings than their White and Asian counterparts. Analyses of salary levels and start-up packages by race/ethnicity for science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine faculty are limited but recent data suggest that White men receive higher salaries and larger start-up packages than scientists who are women or who are not White.

Academic Positions, Advancement, Retention, and Tenure

While many of the major audit studies focus on the labor market broadly, there has been less research on what happens to individuals once they have gained employment in terms of promotion and advancement, especially in non-academic STEMM organizations.

There are well-documented barriers in academia to the advancement and tenure of individuals from historically minoritized groups in STEMM, as mentioned previously in Chapter 5. One such area is the long-lasting and amplifying effect of publication record. For example, one study shows that a less productive first-author predoctoral publication record, along with other qualifications, correlates with lower likelihood of obtaining a faculty position (Tregellas, 2018). Early success in publications can aid an early scientist’s long-term efforts in a self-reinforcing situation known as the Matthew effect:

This happens [compounding benefits to early success] because the winner enjoys resource and status advantages over the nonwinner. These advantages cause differences in future success to further grow, setting in motion a cumulative advantage process of increasing distinction. To the extent that luck plays a role in early academic success, the Matthew effect may undermine meritocracy by allowing an initially fortunate scientist’s recognition to self-perpetuate, while an equally talented but initially less fortunate counterpart remains underappreciated (Bol et al., 2018).

This phenomenon suggests that so called “early winners” may continue to enjoy the cumulative benefits into the future. Because of disparity along racial lines related to early career outcomes, White people may enjoy amplified benefits if there are compound effects, while people from minoritized groups do not meet success at the same level. This disparity is also evident

in the proportion of individuals from each group who are able to obtain tenure track positions, with nearly 50 percent of White doctoral scientists and engineers employed at four-year colleges having a tenured position as opposed to 40 percent of Asian employees and 42 percent of employees from minoritized racial and ethnic groups (National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, 2021).

A study of medical faculty found that medical schools promoted nonWhite assistant professors at lower rates than their White counterparts. The promotion gap was largest for minoritized faculty, smaller for Asian and Pacific Islander faculty, and not statistically significant for Hispanic faculty. This study also found lower promotion rates for systemically minoritized associate professors compared to White peers, although the difference was not statistically significant. There was no evidence that these gaps in promotion rates had narrowed over time. Medical schools have also been noted as sites of discrimination, with racialized processes shaping admissions, learning climate, and career trajectory (Xierali et al., 2021).

One review of the literature on barriers for African American individuals in academia (not STEMM-specific fields) identified the following factors: microaggressions from White colleagues, no acknowledgment of Black faculty as credible researchers, Eurocentric work environments, and higher workload responsibilities compared to White faculty. Studies have also shown that African American faculty are less satisfied with their jobs compared to White faculty (Frazier, 2021). It may be that these differences in job satisfaction and workload distribution result from Black faculty having less opportunity to select committees, administrative appointments, or the courses they teach.

In terms of antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion, organizational climate and culture can have a profound impact on the experience of participating individuals. One term that describes the issues that faculty of color face is cultural taxation, or, the unique burden placed on them to fit into the academy, often at the expense of their own cultural identity (Padilla, 2002). One scholar described cultural taxation as the

. . . obligation to show good citizenship towards the institution by serving its needs for ethnic representation on committees, or to demonstrate knowledge and commitment to a cultural group, which, though it may bring accolades to the institution, is not usually rewarded by the institution on whose behalf the service was performed (Padilla, 2002).

There is growing evidence that for White women and people of color, both of whom face pressures and expectations outside of their academic responsibilities, the preset time-clock and vague but high expectations for promotion may lead to decisions not to progress up the academic ladder.

One report referred to this as “bias avoidance” and suggested that many academics, particularly those who are parents, make choices about their careers that may be counterproductive to career advancement (Drago et al., 2006). Current research and campus demographic realities suggest that women, for example, do not progress in their careers as faculty or in their progression to leadership positions at the same rate as their male colleagues (Ceci et al., 2014; Mason et al., 2013; Ward and Wolf-Wendel, 2012). While the ideal-worker framework, often characterized by a culture where workers center their profession as the primary obligation and have additional support to attend to their domestic needs (Zhanhour and Sumpter, 2022) is most often used in relation to White women and work and family concerns, looking at faculty from minoritized racial and ethnic groups through this lens is also important. This is because they too are impacted by these systemic norms, not only as a result of personal concerns, but also because of the demands of cultural taxation. For women of color, the cultural tax related to race and ethnicity combined with ideal-worker norms associated with gender represent a double set of pressures (Kachchaf et al., 2015).

Faculty of color can bear quite high professional, psychological, and emotional costs as a result of experiencing common barriers, including tokenism, marginalization as scholars, racial microaggressions, devaluation of their scholarship, and a disconnect between their racial/ethnic culture and the culture within academia (Settles et al., 2021). Research has found this is particularly true for STEMM faculty of color leading scholarship in the diversity, equity, and inclusion space (Clauset et al., 2015; Payton et al., 2018). These penalties adversely affect faculty advancement, which is closely tied to psychological well-being. Studies have found that faculty who have high levels of social support or mentoring, enhanced sense of belonging within their department, and satisfactory work-life balance are the most successful in the academy (Bean et al., 2014; Freel et al., 2017; Stupnisky et al., 2014). In contrast, faculty penalized because of their race and ethnicity experience a variety of psychosocial and professional consequences, ranging from loneliness, race-related stress, decreased job satisfaction, to imposter syndrome (Allen et al., 2004; Dancy and Jean-Marie, 2014; Niemann, 2011; Payton et al., 2018).

Particularly for Black women, a welcoming environment may change over time. In a phenomenon called Pet-to-Threat, which is not limited to STEMM, Black women, especially those early in their career, may initially receive support from managers and supervisors, who most often are White men (Thomas et al., 2013). While at first the mentorship may go smoothly, as the women grow in their roles and begin to assert themselves, the attitudes of the managers and supervisors shift as they perceive this increased agency as a threat to the status quo in a culture typically dominated by White males. These women, who once received guidance, can

find those resources retracted and their career trajectories undermined by their previous supporters. This phenomenon underscores that belonging is not a binary state, but rather is a continuum that can vary over time and where one’s place in that spectrum depends on the treatment from others (Thomas, 2013). (For more on group and team dynamics, see Chapter 7.)

Within academia, one model proposes a dual process for creating epistemic exclusion, which occurs when certain areas of scholarship are seen as outside of a discipline’s dominant discourse. First, it reflects a racial prejudice that faculty of color do not have the capability or credibility to be scholars based on stereotypes related to Black, Latine, and Native Americans as lacking intelligence, being lazy, and willing to game the system for their advantage. Asian Americans often suffer from stereotypes of being foreign. Second, while many disciplines have strong norms for research topics and methods, faculty of color are more likely to adopt alternative approaches and conduct studies on topics and groups that fall outside of the established expectations. This can be seen in the devaluation of scholarship led by faculty of color that does not appear to fall within the mainstream of their discipline’s research activities. Those scholars who choose research outside of the norms are more likely to face delegitimization. At the same time, faculty of color who chose to study mainstream topics may not necessarily benefit from conforming to the mainstream, as racial prejudice will negatively impact how their colleagues regard their research. Taken together, epistemic exclusion serves as a gatekeeper in which bias regarding certain scholars and specific types of research prevents faculty of color from being valued as legitimate and credible knowers and scholars. This devaluation has negative consequences for the hiring, retention, and advancement of faculty of color (Griffin et al., 2013; Patton, 2017; Settles et al., 2021).

Non-tenure-track positions have implications for racial and ethnic bias as well. These positions are important for understanding the professoriate, as 70 percent of faculty across all academic departments are non-tenure-track or contingent (American Association of University Professors, 2018). While departments often promote prestigious tenure-track positions as synonymous with research and development and the opportunity to contribute to their disciplines, non-tenure-track positions are more strongly associated with service and teaching. Non-tenure-track positions, lacking the security of tenure, are therefore seen as less acclaimed and often come with fewer support than their tenure-track peers. Hiring for these positions may follow a different path than tenure-track positions, opening the door for bias to creep in. In addition, many non-tenure-track positions are hired outside of traditional processes, which often excludes them from affirmative-action oversight. Department chairs often do much of the non-tenure-track hiring, and they are often White men who may unconsciously hire from their own peer groups and networks (AAUP, 2018). (For more on gatekeepers see Chapter 6.)

In terms of part-time positions, there has been an increase in the proportion of scholars of color, from nine percent in 1993 to 14 percent in 2013 (Finkelstein et al., 2016; Flaherty, 2016). Faculty of color are less likely to be at large, research-intensive universities as well, although the reasons behind this could be multifaceted and result from bias in hiring at four-year schools or because faculty of color are opting to be at diverse institutions in order to mentor and support students of color (Bavishi et al., 2010). Some qualitative data suggest that faculty sometimes chose to help their communities and return to particular types of institutions (Baez, 2000; Stanley, 2006).

In addition to facing discrimination in tenure and promotion, Black and Asian professors across all academic disciplines face different kinds of treatment in student evaluations. One study found that students judged their Black professors to be significantly less competent and legitimate than their White and Asian counterparts (Bavishi et al., 2010). Students also judged both Black and Asian professors to have significantly fewer interpersonal skills than White professors (Kreitzer and Sweet-Kushman, 2022).

CONCLUSION 8-3: People from minoritized racial and ethnic groups encounter significant race-related barriers in academia that affect their career advancement and retention, including but not limited to bias in tenure and promotion, challenges to align with the dominant culture, and everyday discrimination from colleagues and students including microaggressions and tokenism.

Career Development, Mentorship, and Professional Networks

In addition to the research demonstrating that Black individuals are paid less for the same level of employment as their White counterparts, White individuals are also shown to be more likely to receive other non-monetary resources, such as formal and informal mentoring, access to professional networks, sponsorship from institutional or other STEMM leaders, and opportunities for professional development. As a result, despite having similar credentials and working in equivalent positions, it will take a Black person more time to accumulate wealth, which will affect decisions related to housing, education, and health (Ray, 2019).

For example, given the low numbers of Black researchers in computer science and engineering, there are limited opportunities for the Black students in those departments to find mentors and advisors who understand and can advocate against anti-Blackness (the National Academies, 2019). As a result, Black students in those fields may turn to an unsupportive advisor who believes the narrative that STEM is colorblind and a meritocracy (McGee, 2020). It is not the case that all Black students, Indigenous students, and other students from historically minoritized backgrounds

require a mentor of the same racial or ethnic background, and it would be problematic to assume that faculty of color have to be responsible for mentoring all students of color.

However, professors of all races and ethnicities do need to have cultural competence to serve as effective mentors to students of color (Chrobot-Mason, 2003). Emerging literatures on cultural humility and racial literacy build on the evidence about cultural competence to highlight the importance of mentors and faculty, as representatives of disciplinary cultures, engaging with students’ cultures of origin. The same is true for research advisors, who serve a different role than mentors and who may not otherwise appreciate a student’s interest in pursuing research topics that come out of their unique minority experiences. Some advisors may not believe that antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion issues are legitimate topics for scholarly study, while others may feel they are protecting their minority student protégés from the negative judgements of future colleagues who do not consider such research to be important. In either case, faculty advisors may steer their graduate students away from diversity research and only support them if they pursue more mainstream research that future colleagues will find credible, advice that limits academic freedom relative to White graduate students.

CONCLUSION 8-4: Lack of diversity within organizations can limit access to career resources for people from minoritized racial and ethnic groups, such as mentorship, sponsorship, and professional networks, that could support their development.

RECOMMENDATION 8-1: Organizational leaders should take action to redress both individual bias and discrimination as well as organizational processes that reproduce harm and negative outcomes for people from minoritized racial and ethnic groups at critical points of access and advancement. This action should include a review of evaluation criteria and decisionmaking practices (i.e., in admissions, hiring and wage and start-up resource-setting, promotion, advancement) to understand whether and to what degree existing standards perpetuate underlying racial and ethnic inequities.

CHANGING ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND CLIMATE TO CENTER ANTIRACISM, DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION

How Leaders Change Organizations

As stated at the beginning of the chapter, individuals leading hierarchical organizations have the power and responsibility to make decisions about values and determine priorities on behalf of others in the organization. This can be demonstrated through the distribution and allotment of resources such as financial, material, mentorship, level of comfort, and prestige (Ray, 2019). These individuals can also shape the application of rules and bureaucratic procedures in ways that reinforce, or at least do not undermine, their power. Racism can thus be framed as a differential power dynamic, in which policies, practices, norms, and values explicitly or implicitly provide one group additional privilege based on race or ethnicity rather than other factors. Even in organizations that have diverse numerical representation overall, it matters where individuals are located within the hierarchical structure. Inequities can arise in organizations where people from minoritized racial and ethnic groups are limited to entry-level or administrative positions (Wilkie, 2018).

For STEMM organizations today, increasing demographic diversity and increasing sensitivity to equity, inclusion, and antiracism across society are motivating changes that many institutions had previously resisted (Foster, 2016). This trend is consistent with the established open-systems view of organizations today, a perspective that argues that organizations’ internal activities by necessity evolve with political, economic, and social forces in the environment (Scott and Davis, 2015). Like other forms of organizational change, efforts to make changes that advance antiracism,

diversity, equity, and inclusion may come from outside the organization (i.e., exogenous) or from within the organization (i.e., endogenous) factors. Internal drivers of change might be reflected in low recruitment and high attrition rates for STEMM professionals from minoritized racial and ethnic backgrounds. Member demands for greater transparency and equity in treatment can also reflect internal drivers for change.

There are a number of exogenous factors that can create incentives for change. A potent example of exogenous change was provided in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic, when universities’ very financial survival depended upon their ability to quickly pivot to online instruction. Funding agencies and organizations can motivate change by creating new criteria and can shift norms through policy changes. International and national events can change the overall environment in which research takes place. For example, the 2020 murders of George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, and Breonna Taylor by law enforcement spurred a broader national movement and conversation around racism in the United States. Boards, trustees, and investors can demand greater transparency in antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion; track results; and request meaningful progress over time. In addition, as organizations compete for talented minoritized students and scientists, this can provide a powerful motivation for change in order to attract and retain diverse talent.

Organizations in a Sector Collectively Change

Research and theory have documented how organizations in a field or a sector may collectively trend toward new, shared forms and values, including changes that advance antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Posselt, 2020). Organizational theorists call this institutional isomorphism, and three mechanisms of institutional isomorphism have been identified: mimetic, normative, and coercive isomorphism (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983).

Mimetic Isomorphism

In some circumstances, notably if an overarching strategy has not been formed or the organization is at a decision point, organizations may take actions that imitate or align with those of the most powerful in their field, sometimes referred to as mimetic isomorphism (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). Therefore, organizing influential organizations in some sector or field around changes that support antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion can be a powerful lever for field-wide change. In such situations, diffusion of some new practice or policy can reach a tipping point, wherein what was once a minority viewpoint overturns established consensus

(Centola et al., 2018). An example of this is the elimination of GRE requirements in many U.S. astronomy Ph.D. programs. Through a combination of equity-minded advocacy from the American Astronomical Society’s president and board of directors in 2015, and the coordinated action of several top-ranked Ph.D. programs in the field, a sea change occurred in the field in a relatively short time (American Physical Society, 2020). As of summer 2022, across 50 top-ranked universities in the United States, only three percent of programs required the GRE in psychology, computer science, physics, geology, chemistry, ecology, neuroscience, and molecular biology (Langin, 2022). Mimetic influences are widespread and can be leveraged in support of antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion values when influential organizations use their privileged position within status hierarchies to lead their field in challenging the status quo.

Normative Isomorphism

Systems of professionalization and socialization, including advanced training in STEMM disciplines, are another important potential source of sector-level changes because it is through professionalization experiences that students are socialized to community standards. Graduate and professional education may be an important site for such change. As students are trained into professional norms, there is an opportunity for changing the expectations that we associate with the work and performance of scholars, doctors, engineers, and others relative to the last generation regarding what it means to uphold their roles with excellence. For example, to the extent that racial literacy, mentoring, equitable project management, or more inclusive approaches to teaching are promulgated in graduate and professional training programs, STEMM organizations can begin to reshape the culture of whole fields. Disciplinary and professional societies have an important role in this regard as conveners who shape the collective conversation and priorities in fields (Greenwood et al., 2002).

Coercive Isomorphism

Coercive isomorphism results from both formal and informal pressures exerted on organizations by other organizations upon which they are dependent and by cultural expectations in the society (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). Given the dependence of many STEMM organizations on federal agency funding, for example, changes in the requirements for federal grants and contracts can reshape what everyone judges and tries to produce as a meritorious proposal. When universities change their tenure and promotion requirements to include effective teaching, mentoring, and contributions to departmental change efforts, faculty are more likely to dedicate time and

energy to this work (Mbuagbaw et al., 2020). Calls to change incentive structures are effectively calls to leverage the influence of coercive isomorphism on professional behavior. However, as evidence from studies of the Athena SWAN Charter in the United Kingdom have found, institutions that adopt policies and practices supportive of antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion to align with external standards, without strong internal commitment or mission alignment, may engage in “box-ticking,” performative, and other contradictory behaviors that can undermine long-term equity, diversity, and inclusion efforts (Tzanakou and Pearce, 2019).

BARRIERS TO AND CHALLENGES OF CULTURE CHANGE

Although a growing number of organizations are working to create positive cultural change toward realizing values of antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion, there is also evidence of several common contradictions and barriers that may emerge as organizations begin working on these issues.

Contradictions in Cultural Change

STEMM organizations that formally espouse values of antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion might still signal or create hostile or chilly climates for racial minority groups. There are several reasons this may occur: (i) a failure to interrogate the outcomes of prior practices and the messages sent during recruitment; (ii) how people are experiencing the ways that an organization is operationalizing its commitment to antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion; and (iii) the racialized equity labor that an organization often requires of minoritized members as it evolves its organizational culture toward antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion (Lerma et al., 2020; Wynn and Correll, 2018). Rather than attracting Black students, Indigenous students, and other students of color, the STEMM organizations that publicly embrace antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion values but struggle with participation, low stay rates, and limited leadership of color may send messages that they do not prioritize diversity, and that Black students, Indigenous students, and other students of color may risk isolation, alienation, harassment, and discrimination.

Another challenge is that even the STEMM scholars and organizations that elevate messages of inclusive excellence may perpetuate scientific norms that marginalize, exclude, or devalue minoritized individuals or groups. This gatekeeping reality (see Chapter 6) creates a disconnect between the diversity rhetoric and the realities of diverse scientists who continue to experience exclusion and fewer opportunities for funding, advancement, and tenured academic positions. (Fini et al., 2022; Ginther et al., 2011;

Hofstra et al., 2020). This unevenness has several origins. As noted above, culture is unlikely to be uniform across an organization and fragmentation is a common feature in processes of cultural change (Martin, 2001). In addition, STEMM organizations often operate within incentive structures whose values are at odds with antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion. While significant strides are possible with investment and sustained effort, no organization can instantaneously undo the entire scope of its inherited racialized practices, beliefs, norms, and policies.

Emotional Dimensions of Organizational Change Theory Related to Antiracism, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

For organizations broadly, change related to antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion⁴ may be experienced as qualitatively different from many other types of organizational change because it is bound up with members’ social identities and the emotional and political dimensions of those identities. Discussions and other activities centered around race and inequity are often accompanied by feelings such as anger, fear, and pain (Ahmed, 2004; Zembylas, 2011, 2012). A growing body of research documents the importance of recognizing and managing racialized emotions, which tend to differ significantly between White individuals, who enjoy racial privilege, and people of color, who have experienced racism (Joseph et al., 2015).

For leaders and those within an organization, change management can feel personal: “Change begins by recognizing the fields of influence in a situation and identifying the points at which there are ‘gatekeepers’ that impede the flow of change in a system” (Estrada et al., 2016).⁵ Disrupting the status quo, for any reason, calls into question the often-overlooked assumptions buried in the values and practices of an organization (Southern, 2022). This can cause cognitive dissonance for White members. It is not uncommon for professionals to feel and believe that they hold values supportive of antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion while the organizations they work for may not fully uphold them. This dissonance can prompt individuals to confront parts of themselves and biases that may be uncomfortable or troubling.

It is here that processes happening at the organizational and individual levels can reinforce one another. While individuals may uphold the principles

___________________

⁴ Research on antiracism as a component of organizational change is newer to the field, and the findings in this section may not have the evidence on antiracist efforts in the same depth as diversity, equity, and inclusion.

⁵ Change management is personal, for both those leading change and those within organizations.

of antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion in theory, the practice of change may require naming realities of racism in the organization, which can provoke “White guilt.” It may also require redistributions of power and resources, which can elicit an emotions-based resistance to change efforts. At a minimum, White individuals may resist confronting uncomfortable racialized emotions because they reap frequently unexamined privilege from systems that prioritize Whiteness. They may therefore resist the personal transformation that accompanies a journey of antiracism, a reaction that leaders may reinforce by prioritizing colleagues and their comfort when setting the pace for their organization’s antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion transformation efforts (Patton and Haynes, 2018; Southern, 2022)

Finally, reiterating issues highlighted earlier in Chapter 5 in relation to organizational fit and comfort, White members of an organization often experience a greater level of comfort in the status quo than people from systemically minoritized groups. In particular, if leadership is predominantly White, the culture, climate, and norms will likely center Whiteness and give the privilege of comfort to White individuals (Hauge, 2019). In contrast, cultural change also compels attention to the comfort—or lack thereof—experienced by Black people, Indigenous people, and other people of color in work environments that were not designed with their needs in mind, that may be downright hostile, and that can lead them to be less committed to and satisfied with the organization (Cady and Valentine, 1999; Greenhaus et al., 1990; Tsui et al., 1992, 1997).

Additionally, organizational policies and standard practices may differentially affect Black scientists, Indigenous scientists, and other scientists of color. For example, as mentioned earlier in this chapter, policies that limit or ban natural hairstyles have a disproportionate impact on Black women in the workplace. The policing of Black women’s appearance sends the signal that they do not belong in the workplace or educational setting. Racialized identities are a filter through which people experience racialized organizations and change processes around antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion. Therefore, how leaders manage both the implementation of new policies and practices and the experience of the change process and the emotions that accompany it can be the difference between a change effort succeeding or failing (Southern, 2022).

Resistance to Change

In thinking about cultural change, particularly in regard to antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion, it is important for organizations to anticipate and identify resistance among its members. One definition of diversity resistance is “a range of practices and behaviors within and by organizations that interfere, intentionally or unintentionally, with the use

of diversity as an opportunity for learning and effectiveness” (Plaut et al., 2014). For STEMM, this can also manifest in arguments that seek to rationalize inequalities or use logic to delegitimize diversity efforts, in addition to the emotional dimension to resistance briefly discussed above. Often these arguments rest upon misperceptions, myths, or otherwise false claims, such as the claims that people from historically minoritized groups are not interested in STEMM, that they have not received adequate preparation to participate in STEMM, that science is a meritocracy so it does not matter who is conducting the research, that discrimination no longer exists, a lack of supportive resources for diversity programs, and the argument that there is not a strong business case for diversity (Plaut et al., 2014).

The widespread presence of such myths in STEMM organizations, which are ostensibly dedicated to data and truth, makes it clear that learning must be a critical element of organizational change (Smith, 2020). While many organizations will offer diversity or implicit bias training for employees, the literature indicates limited efficacy of mandating participation.

Efforts to moderate managerial bias through diversity training and diversity evaluations are least effective at increasing the share of white women, black women, and black men in management. Efforts to attack social isolation through mentoring and networking show modest effects. Efforts to establish responsibility for diversity lead to the broadest increases in managerial diversity (Kalev et al., 2006).

Research suggests five reasons why mandating participation may not necessarily yield the intended results. First, short-term trainings do not generally have a strong enough effect to change behavior in and of themselves (Dobbin and Kalev, 2018). Second, diversity training may activate thoughts of racial stereotypes, which may be counterproductive (Dobbin and Kalev, 2018). Third, the training may inspire an unrealistic expectation that the program eliminated bias when it, in fact, merely raised attention to its existence (Dobbin and Kalev, 2018). Fourth, efforts to promote multiculturalism in training may result in White participants feeling left out or resistant to change (see Chapter 6 on gatekeepers; Dobbin and Kalev, 2018). Finally, research from organizational sciences suggest that people react negatively when they think that others are attempting to control them. “Self-determination research shows that when organizations frame motivation for pursuing a goal as originating internally, commitment rises, but when they frame motivation as originating externally, rebellion increases” (Dobbin and Kalev, 2018).

As discussed above and in Chapter 6, resistance to change related to diversity often arises because it can provoke emotional responses related to power, privilege, and comfort, as well as fears about an uncertain future

and losing status and influence. Resistance to change to address antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion issues can manifest itself in emotions such as anger, fear, anxiety, and mourning perceived loss of power and prestige (Plaut et al., 2014).

The discussion of race and racism in the United States remains fraught with tension, making it a challenging issue to discuss freely for fear of being called a racist or associated with racism. The conversation begs for a deeper analysis of value and belief systems that rarely get aired, in part a result of Americans’ strong individualistic value systems (Plaut et al., 2014). The focus on the individual in the broader U.S. value system overlaps with an emphasis on individual merit in STEMM. In both instances, the dominant group has been White men, who may feel that disruption to the status quo poses a serious risk to their historic access to power and will leave them being outnumbered by presumably unqualified women and minorities (Plaut et al., 2014). This belief demonstrates a devotion to the current system as a true meritocracy, in that those with the most potential and skills will rise to the top rather than a biased, racialized system that offers opportunities inequitably.

In practice, organizations may experience diversity resistance in blatant instances of discrimination or harassment, such as the appearance of a hangman’s noose or Klu Klux Klan attire, which appear in approximately 5.8 percent of all hostile work environment claims with the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Godhart, 2017). While a member may use this image as a mark of aggression against a peer, the response to the action can indicate resistance from the organization as a whole if the action or similar behavior is not held accountable through policy and practice. Unintentional actions, such as microaggressions, may also demonstrate the presence of diversity resistance, which can be especially pernicious as those who inflict damage may rely on their good intentions to rationalize their behavior (Plaut et al., 2014).

There are also more subtle ways that individuals can demonstrate their diversity resistance. Silence or passive reactions when discrimination, harassment, and mistreatment occur or failing to object to the overt behavior can be viewed as tacit agreement with it. Other methods include exclusion, avoidance, and social distancing that create social barriers and can foster a hostile environment in which Black people, Indigenous people, and people of color do not feel a sense of belonging (Plaut et al., 2014).

Access and legitimacy issues are a similar form of resistance, and these are apparent in limited efforts that can, in effect, marginalize people from minoritized groups into certain roles, divisions, or initiatives without fully integrating their perspectives into the core and strategic functions of the organization. Organizations often allow people from minoritized groups to lead work to advance antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion without providing the appropriate resources or recognition. This disparity in responsibility, and lack of reward, is also known as the “minority tax” or

“cultural tax” (Rodriguez et al., 2015). The failure to include efforts to advance antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion in an organization can be a way that organizations delegitimize these efforts (Rodriguez et al., 2015). Finally, organizations can cause secondary victimization when they fail to provide opportunities for recourse against discriminatory behavior: “This experience can eventually lead the victimized to accept (and in some cases rationalize the prejudice directed to them)” (Plaut et al., 2014).

Second-order conflict is one way to describe the more covert and subtle forms of discrimination that can undermine efforts to address the blatant acts of “old-fashioned” racism, or first-order conflicts. Second-order conflict may represent conflict about how to address workplace discrimination and harassment, how diversity is defined, and which diversity strategies to pursue (Plaut et al., 2014). For example, individuals may have different views of affirmative action as a strategy but they may not voice these opinions for fear of conflict (Plaut et al., 2014). This can create an organizational climate that restricts open and honest conversation about key issues:

What prevents organizations from enacting these efforts? Two explanations include: (1) organizations rarely engage in reflective (double-loop) learning, and (2) organizations adopt defensive routines when events occur . . . when these [harassment and discriminatory] events occur, they deny claims, defend the organization (and at times justify the organization), and use the mere existence of EEO [equal employee opportunity] as a rationale for why discrimination could not possibly occur (Plaut et al., 2014).

There are ways that organizations can counter resistance and that are most effective when pursued at multiple levels and approaches:

But large corporations and big universities are developing multipronged diversity initiatives that tackle not only implicit biases, but structural discrimination. The trick is to couple diversity training with the right complementary measures. Our research shows that companies most often couple it with the wrong complementary measures. The antidiscrimination measures that work best are those that engage decision makers in solving the problem themselves (Plaut et al., 2014).

Additionally, it is important to think of the issues as linked together: We find that special college recruitment programs to identify women and minorities—sending existing corporate managers out to find new recruits—increase managerial diversity markedly. So do formal mentoring programs, which pair existing managers with people a couple of rungs below them, in different departments, who seek mentoring and sponsorship. So do diversity task forces that bring together higher-ups in different departments to look at the data on hiring, retention, pay and promotion;

identify problems; brainstorm for solutions and bring those back to their departments. So do management training programs that use existing managers to train aspiring managers. All of these programs put existing higher-ups in touch with people from different race/ethnic/gender groups who hope to move up. All of them help existing managers to understand the contours of the problem. And all of them seem to turn existing managers into champions of diversity (Dobbin and Kalev, 2018).

One counter-resistance measure is through communication that enables employees to feel involved in the change process and that provides honest and straightforward communication about the change, as opposed to hearing about it via rumor and innuendo (Plaut et al., 2014). This approach can take place in tandem with another strategy, which is the demonstration and justification of change based on how the status quo does a disservice to the organization and its members (Plaut et al., 2014). Another measure, centered more on the implementation of change, includes policies and practices that hold members accountable for learning and adapting. There is evidence that employee and member perceptions can shift. In a series of randomized controlled trials, researchers found that brief interventions that educate individuals about historical acts of discrimination can lead to greater understandings of the presence of discrimination in modern society (Bonam et al., 2019; Nelson et al., 2012). Those with deep resistance may choose to leave the organization entirely (Plaut et al., 2014).

CONCLUSION 8-5: The process of cultural change toward antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine organizations can be complex, multi-layered, and uneven in its progress due to the significant demands from leadership and participants. Cultural change around antiracism, diversity equity, and inclusion can involve personal reflection, emotional labor, and challenges to individual beliefs, all of which cause discomfort.

RECOMMENDATION 8-2: Leaders, managers, and human resource departments in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine organizations should anticipate resistance to antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts and investigate with rigorous empirical tools, the impacts of training on different types of antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion outcomes (hiring, climate, promotion, retention, leadership roles, resource allocation).

INTERROGATING STEMM VALUES AND BARRIERS TO CHANGE

While this chapter has drawn on some research, theory, and evidence beyond the STEMM realms, this section will dissect instances specific to STEMM environments. The committee understands the term “STEMM

environments” to include a variety of settings in which STEMM education, training, and work take place: classrooms, labs, administrative settings, universities, corporations, hospitals, and nonprofit organizations. They help make up the scientific enterprise, and they all require support in advancing antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Dominant beliefs about science and the process of research contribute to the framing of diversity in STEMM. There may be pushback on the value of antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion; the ways that lived experience and other ways of knowing can contribute to understanding; and the superiority of quantitative, experimental research. A prominent theme in STEMM culture includes an image of a researcher with singular devotion to the lab or theory, who has the support to put in hours well beyond a nine-to-five workday, and whose “passion” operates sometimes to the deficit of other parts of their life (Blair-Loy and Cech, 2022). This norm precludes the kind of people who cannot see themselves fitting into that role, as many individuals with family and community responsibilities, broader interests, and the need for greater work-life balance do not identify with this image or feel less belonging because of their divergence from it.

Many STEMM environments also lack an accountability and incentive structure for antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion work. While individuals may feel drawn to the work out of personal interest and dedication, the extra time and energy devoted to improving antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion may be less sustainable if leadership does not provide structures to integrate the work into process and practice. On the other hand, it is rare to find organizations with accountability measures that ensure that members attend to antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion goals and priorities (Bersin, 2021).

Many organizations, including those focused on STEMM, often fail to put into place learning systems for continuous improvement and reinforcement of key priorities. There are two important terms that can help describe patterns of behavior. The first is single-loop learning, “When the process enables the organization to carry on its present policies or achieve its objectives” (Argyris, 1977). This kind of change around the edges, also known as first-order change, is often limited to direct adjustment of existing processes, and can be seen as correcting the outcomes or the symptoms of an issue (Argyris, 1977).

In contrast, double-loop learning is a more comprehensive process that interrogates both existing policies and practices and the underlying assumptions, structures, norms, and objectives that have motivated current processes. This kind of learning, one that seeks to understand and address the root causes of an issue, requires an organizational culture with the safety to identify and talk about core beliefs or structures that are problematic. Research on a group of STEMM Ph.D. programs that all became more diverse by race and ethnicity over time found that only some were able to sustain

that diversity, and that the major difference among those that did and did not sustain diversity was the presence of double-loop learning and active questioning of longstanding cultural norms and practices (Posselt, 2020). Cultural change, one that reaches to affect norms, values, and rules, is an example of double loop learning that brings in second-order change, the kind of transformative shift that impacts the system and the way things are done.

FRAMEWORKS FOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE

As stated at the beginning of this chapter, the goal here has been to provide a guide for leaders who want to accelerate progress in advancing antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion in STEMM organizations. The evidence shows that culture change is an essential ingredient for systemic and transformational change, which begins at the top of an organization and permeates multiple levels. There are a variety of published frameworks designed to guide leaders and organizations that are committed to advancing antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion and creating systemic and impactful change. Highlighted in Table 8-1 below are 10 recently published change frameworks focused on antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion in industry and academic settings. The frameworks encompass multiple levels in an organization and are aimed at creating ongoing learning and achieving systemic and sustainable results. While each framework is unique, there are common themes which can serve as helpful guideposts for leaders looking to advance antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion diversity, equity, and inclusion in STEMM organizations.

Many of the frameworks in Table 8-1 highlight the importance of recognizing and acknowledging the problems at the highest level of an organization and doing the necessary analytics to uncover the root cause of the problems and why inequities continue to exist. Most frameworks have an explicit focus on race and racial inequalities. While diversity representation is key, a critical emphasis is placed on the experiences of those from minoritized groups who are facing deeply embedded inequities. The frameworks emphasize the importance of listening to those individuals and learning from their lived experiences and about valuing cultural differences. These frameworks also emphasize an orientation toward action vs. rhetoric. This includes: (i) articulating an antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion vision of the future; (ii) establishing a clear set of measurable goals and outcomes; (iii) ensuing ongoing assessment and evaluation; (iv) engaging individuals at multiple levels to be a part of the desired change; and (v) ensuring leaders are held accountable for results.

Finally, several frameworks highlight the value of engaging human resources or others responsible for implementing policies and practices associated with the professional growth and development of the students, faculty or members of nonacademic STEMM organizations, especially for those who have experienced inequities in the past.

TABLE 8-1 Summaries of Culture Change Frameworks for Organizations

SOURCE: Excerpts from Daniels, 2022; Livingston, 2020; Berson, 2020; Roberts et al., 2019; Ely and Thomas, 2020; White, Smets, and Canwell, 2022; AAC&U, 2015; McNair et al., 2020; Posselt, 2020; Kezar, 2013.

RECOMMENDATION 8-3: Presidents, chief executive officers, and leaders of science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine organizations, including those in higher education and the private sector, should use a framework (such as those listed below) to evaluate the institution’s values and norms and identify specific ways to address norms that impede diversity and promote a culture that is genuinely accessible and supportive to all. These top-level leaders should work with managers, supervisors, and other mid-level leaders who influence the local culture within organizations and can be a critical part of implementation. The evaluation should include review of:

The ability to change an organization begins with evaluation of the institution’s existing norms, values, policies, and practices. Through an investigation of the organization’s current culture and climate, the leadership can identify the different areas needed for growth related to antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion. These issues may begin at the entrance point, such as with recruitment, admissions, or hiring. Many STEMM practices in these areas disproportionately disadvantage people from minoritized racial and ethnic groups. Other areas for review may include wages, curriculum, promotion, tenure, and advancement, which affect the participants’ experience, sense of inclusion and belonging, and persistence within an organization. Reviewing the underlying criteria for entrance into an organization and the advancement within an organization can surface biases based on race and ethnicity in those practices.

Organizational change requires motivation, strategic alignment of mission and values, leadership commitment, and an understanding of the current culture and climate. To avoid a compliance-based mentality, leaders can use antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion as guiding principles to shape decisionmaking rather than goals in and of themselves. The process of culture change around antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion can challenge organizations, as the work itself can encourage individuals to interrogate their own values and behavior. In addition to the intense nature of the work, culture change can also come with a redistribution of resources, which can create feelings of loss for individuals who previously held privilege. These tensions can contribute to resistance to antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in organizations, which can slow change efforts if not sufficiently addressed by leadership and management. To encourage this work, this chapter has offered a series of frameworks that provide multiple perspectives on creating a vision and strategic plan for culture change centered on antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion.

REFERENCES

This page intentionally left blank.