case study on the diversity

Diversity wins: How inclusion matters

Diversity wins is the third report in a McKinsey series investigating the business case for diversity, following Why diversity matters (2015) and Delivering through diversity (2018). Our latest report shows not only that the business case remains robust but also that the relationship between diversity on executive teams and the likelihood of financial outperformance has strengthened over time. These findings emerge from our largest data set so far, encompassing 15 countries and more than 1,000 large companies. By incorporating a “social listening” analysis of employee sentiment in online reviews, the report also provides new insights into how inclusion matters. It shows that companies should pay much greater attention to inclusion, even when they are relatively diverse.

In the COVID-19 crisis, inclusion and diversity matter more than ever

For business executives the world over, the COVID-19 pandemic  is proving to be one of the greatest leadership tests of their careers. Not only must they protect the health of their employees and customers, they must also navigate far-reaching disruption to their operations, plan for recovery, and prepare to reimagine their business models for the next normal.

In this challenging context, the task of fostering inclusion and diversity (I&D) could easily take a back seat—and the painstaking progress made by many firms in recent years could be reversed. As this report shows, however, I&D is a powerful enabler of business performance. Companies whose leaders welcome diverse talents and include multiple perspectives are likely to emerge from the crisis stronger. As the CEO of a European consumer-goods company told us: “I know we have to deal with COVID-19, but inclusion and diversity is a topic too important to put onto the back burner.”

On the other hand, some companies appear to be viewing I&D as a “luxury we cannot afford” during the crisis. We believe such companies risk tarnishing their license to operate in the long term and will lose out on opportunities to innovate their business models and strengthen their recovery.

If companies deprioritize I&D during the crisis, the impact will be felt not just on the bottom line but in people’s lives. Research and experience warn that diverse talent can be at risk during a downturn for several reasons—for example, downsizing can have a disproportionate impact on the roles typically held by diverse talent. As companies send staff home to work, this could reinforce existing exclusive behaviors and unconscious biases and undermine inclusion. In addition, inequality with regard to sharing childcare and homeschooling responsibilities, as well as the quality of home workspace (including broadband access), could put women and minorities at a disadvantage during this time of working remotely.

Companies need to seize this moment—both to protect the gains they have already made and to leverage I&D to position themselves to prosper in the future.

There is ample evidence that diverse and inclusive companies are more likely to make better, bolder decisions—a critical capability in the crisis. For example, diverse teams have been shown to be better able to radically innovate and anticipate shifts in consumer needs and consumption patterns. Moreover, the shift to technology-enabled remote working presents an opportunity for companies to accelerate building inclusive and agile cultures—further challenging existing management routines. Not least, a visible commitment to I&D during the crisis is likely to strengthen companies’ global image and license to operate.

By following the trajectories of hundreds of companies in our data set since 2014, we find that the overall slow growth in diversity often observed in fact masks a growing polarization among these organizations. While most have made little progress, are stalled or even slipping backward, some are making impressive gains in diversity, particularly in executive teams. We show that these diversity winners are adopting systematic, business-led approaches to inclusion and diversity (I&D) . And, with a special focus on inclusion, we highlight the areas where companies should take far bolder action to create a long-lasting inclusive culture and to promote inclusive behavior.

(Our research predates the outbreak of the global pandemic, but we believe these findings remain highly relevant. See the sidebar, “In the COVID-19 crisis, inclusion and diversity matter more than ever,” for more on why I&D must remain a priority even as the context shifts, or read “ Diversity still matters ” for an even deeper dive. You can also explore a related interactive  for another lens on the issues.)

A stronger business case for diversity, but slow progress overall

Our latest analysis reaffirms the strong business case for both gender diversity and ethnic and cultural diversity in corporate leadership—and shows that this business case continues to strengthen. The most diverse companies are now more likely than ever to outperform less diverse peers on profitability.

Our 2019 analysis finds that companies in the top quartile for gender diversity on executive teams were 25 percent more likely to have above-average profitability than companies in the fourth quartile—up from 21 percent in 2017 and 15 percent in 2014 (Exhibit 1).

Moreover, we found that the greater the representation, the higher the likelihood of outperformance. Companies with more than 30 percent women executives were more likely to outperform companies where this percentage ranged from 10 to 30, and in turn these companies were more likely to outperform those with even fewer women executives, or none at all. A substantial differential likelihood of outperformance—48 percent—separates the most from the least gender-diverse companies.

In the case of ethnic and cultural diversity, our business-case findings are equally compelling: in 2019, top-quartile companies outperformed those in the fourth one by 36 percent in profitability, slightly up from 33 percent in 2017 and 35 percent in 2014. As we have previously found, the likelihood of outperformance continues to be higher for diversity in ethnicity than for gender.

A McKinsey Live event on 'Creating an inclusive environment for transgender employees'

A McKinsey Live event on 'Women in the Workplace 2021: The state of women hangs in the balance'

Yet progress, overall, has been slow. In the companies in our original 2014 data set, based in the United States and the United Kingdom, female representation on executive teams rose from 15 percent in 2014 to 20 percent in 2019. Across our global data set, for which our data starts in 2017, gender diversity moved up just one percentage point—to 15 percent, from 14—in 2019. More than a third of the companies in our data set still have no women at all on their executive teams. This lack of material progress is evident across all industries and in most countries. Similarly, the representation of ethnic-minorities on UK and US executive teams stood at only 13 percent in 2019, up from just 7 percent in 2014. For our global data set, this proportion was 14 percent in 2019, up from 12 percent in 2017 (Exhibit 2).

The widening gap between winners and laggards

While overall progress on gender and cultural representation has been slow, this is not consistent across all organizations. Our research clearly shows that there is a widening gap between I&D leaders and companies that have yet to embrace diversity. A third of the companies we analyzed have achieved real gains in top-team diversity over the five-year period. But most have made little or no progress, and some have even gone backward.

This growing polarization between high and low performers is reflected in an increased likelihood of a performance penalty. In 2019, fourth-quartile companies for gender diversity on executive teams were 19 percent more likely than companies in the other three quartiles to underperform on profitability—up from 15 percent in 2017 and 9 percent in 2015. At companies in the fourth quartile for both gender and ethnic diversity, the penalty was even steeper in 2019: they were 27 percent more likely to underperform on profitability than all other companies in our data set.

Learn more about delivering through diversity

We sought to understand how companies in our original 2014 data set have been progressing, and in doing so we identified five cohorts. These were based on their starting points and speed of progress on executive team gender representation and, separately, ethnic-minority representation (Exhibit 3). In the first two cohorts, Diversity Leaders and Fast Movers, diverse representation improved strongly over the past five years: for example, gender Fast Movers have almost quadrupled the representation of women on executive teams, to 27 percent, in 2019; for ethnicity, companies in the equivalent cohort have increased their level of diversity from just 1 percent in 2014 to 18 percent in 2019.

At the other end of the spectrum, the already poor diversity performance of the Laggards has declined further. In 2019, an average of 8 percent of executive team members at these companies were female—and they had no ethnic-minority representation at all. The two other cohorts are Moderate Movers, which have on average experienced a slower improvement in diversity, and Resting on Laurels, which started with higher levels of diversity than Laggards did, but have similarly become less diverse since 2014.

We also found that the average likelihood of financial outperformance in these cohorts is consistent with our findings in the quartile analysis above. For example, in 2019, companies in the Resting on Laurels cohort on average had the highest likelihood of outperformance on profitability, at almost 62 percent—likely reflecting their historically high levels of diversity on executive teams. Laggards, on the other hand, are more likely to underperform their national industry median in profitability, at 40 percent.

How inclusion matters

By analyzing surveys and company research, we explored how different approaches to I&D could have shaped the trajectories of the companies in our data set. Our work suggested two critical factors: a systematic business-led approach to I&D, and bold action on inclusion. On the former we have previously advocated for an I&D approach based on a robust business case tailored to the needs of individual companies, evidenced-based targets, and core-business leadership accountability.

To further understand how inclusion matters—and which aspects of it employees regard as significant—we conducted our first analysis of inclusion-related indicators. We conducted this outside-in using “social listening,” focusing on sentiment in employee reviews of their employers posted on US-based online platforms.

While this approach is indicative, rather than conclusive, it could provide a more candid read on inclusion than internal employee-satisfaction surveys do—and makes it possible to analyze data across dozens of companies rapidly and simultaneously. We focused on three industries with the highest levels of executive-team diversity in our data set: financial services , technology , and healthcare . In these sectors, comments directly pertaining to I&D accounted for around one-third of total comments made, suggesting that this topic is high on employees’ minds.

We analyzed comments relating to five indicators. The first two—diverse representation and leadership accountability for I&D—are evidence of a systematic approach to I&D. The other three—equality, openness, and belonging—are core components of inclusion. For several of these indicators, our findings suggest “pain points” in the experience of employees:

• While overall sentiment on diversity was 52 percent positive and 31 percent negative, sentiment on inclusion was markedly worse, at only 29 percent positive and 61 percent negative. This encapsulates the challenge that even the more diverse companies still face in tackling inclusion (Exhibit 4). Hiring diverse talent isn’t enough—it’s the workplace experience that shapes whether people remain and thrive.
• Opinions about leadership and accountability in I&D accounted for the highest number of mentions and were strongly negative. On average, across industries, 51 percent of the total mentions related to leadership, and 56 percent of those were negative. This finding underscores the increasingly recognized need for companies to improve their I&D engagement with core-business managers.
• For the three indicators of inclusion—equality, openness, and belonging—we found particularly high levels of negative sentiment about equality and fairness of opportunity. Negative sentiment about equality ranged from 63 to 80 percent across the industries analyzed. The work environment’s openness, which encompasses bias and discrimination, was also a significant concern—negative sentiment across industries ranged from 38 to 56 percent. Belonging elicited overall positive sentiment, but from a relatively small number of mentions.

These findings highlight the importance not just of inclusion overall but also of specific aspects of inclusion. Even relatively diverse companies face significant challenges in creating work environments characterized by inclusive leadership and accountability among managers, equality and fairness of opportunity, and openness and freedom from bias and discrimination.

Winning through inclusion and diversity: Taking bold action

We took a close look at our data set’s more diverse companies, which as we have seen are more likely to outperform financially. The common thread for these diversity leaders is a systematic approach and bold steps to strengthen inclusion. Drawing on best practices from these companies, this report highlights five areas of action (Exhibit 5):

• Ensure the representation of diverse talent. This is still an essential driver of inclusion. Companies should focus on advancing diverse talent into executive, management, technical, and board roles. They should ensure that a robust I&D business case designed for individual companies is well accepted and think seriously about which forms of multivariate diversity to prioritize (for example, going beyond gender and ethnicity). They also need to set the right data-driven targets for the representation of diverse talent.
• Strengthen leadership accountability and capabilities for I&D. Companies should place their core-business leaders and managers at the heart of the I&D effort—beyond the HR function or employee resource-group leaders. In addition, they should not only strengthen the inclusive-leadership capabilities of their managers and executives but also more emphatically hold all leaders to account for progress on I&D.
• Enable equality of opportunity through fairness and transparency. To advance toward a true meritocracy, it is critical that companies ensure a level playing field in advancement and opportunity. They should deploy analytics tools to show that promotions, pay processes, and the criteria behind them, are transparent and fair; debias these processes ; and strive to meet diversity targets in their long-term workforce plans.
• Promote openness and tackle microaggressions. Companies should uphold a zero-tolerance policy for discriminatory behavior, such as bullying and harassment, and actively help managers and staff to identify and address microaggressions. They should also establish norms for open, welcoming behavior and ask leaders and employees to assess each other on how they are living up to that standard.
• Foster belonging through unequivocal support for multivariate diversity. Companies should build a culture where all employees feel they can bring their whole selves to work. Managers should communicate and visibly embrace their commitment to multivariate forms of diversity, building a connection to a wide range of people and supporting employee resource groups to foster a sense of community and belonging. Companies should explicitly assess belonging in internal surveys.

For deeper insights, download Diversity wins: How inclusion matters , the full report on which this article is based (PDF–10.6MB).

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

Diversity still matters

The business case for diversity in the workplace is now overwhelming

More innovative, more profitable ... greater diversity isn't just a moral imperative. Image:  REUTERS/Jessica Rinaldi

.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo{-webkit-transition:all 0.15s ease-out;transition:all 0.15s ease-out;cursor:pointer;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;outline:none;color:inherit;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:hover,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-hover]{-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:focus,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-focus]{box-shadow:0 0 0 3px rgba(168,203,251,0.5);} Vijay Eswaran

.chakra .wef-9dduvl{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-9dduvl{font-size:1.125rem;}} Explore and monitor how .chakra .wef-15eoq1r{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;color:#F7DB5E;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-15eoq1r{font-size:1.125rem;}} Future of Work is affecting economies, industries and global issues

.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;color:#2846F8;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{font-size:1.125rem;}} Get involved with our crowdsourced digital platform to deliver impact at scale

Stay up to date:, future of work.

We live in a complex, interconnected world where diversity, shaped by globalization and technological advance, forms the fabric of modern society. Notwithstanding this interconnectedness, there is also growing polarization – both in the physical and digital worlds – fuelled by identity politics and the resurgence of nationalist ideals.

Not surprisingly, our workplaces tend to mirror the sociocultural dynamics at play in our lives outside work. Having built and scaled a multinational enterprise over nearly two decades, I’ve learned that diversity in the workplace is an asset for both businesses and their employees, in its capacity to foster innovation, creativity and empathy in ways that homogeneous environments seldom do. Yet it takes careful nurturing and conscious orchestration to unleash the true potential of this invaluable asset.

In this era of globalization, diversity in the business environment is about more than gender, race and ethnicity. It now includes employees with diverse religious and political beliefs, education, socioeconomic backgrounds, sexual orientation, cultures and even disabilities. Companies are discovering that, by supporting and promoting a diverse and inclusive workplace, they are gaining benefits that go beyond the optics.

Business has the transformative power to change and contribute to a more open, diverse and inclusive society. We can only accomplish this by starting from within our organizations. Many of us know intuitively that diversity is good for business. The case for establishing a truly diverse workforce, at all organizational levels, grows more compelling each year. The moral argument is weighty enough, but the financial impact - as proven by multiple studies - makes this a no-brainer.

Have you read?

The future of jobs report 2023, how to follow the growth summit 2023, disruption and innovation.

The coming together of people of different ethnicities with different experiences in cities and societies is a key driver of innovation. The food that we eat every day is a result of this blending of cultures. The most successful musical genres, such as jazz, rock’n’roll or hip-hop, are the products of cultural amalgamation.

If we look at the most innovative, disruptive and prosperous urban centres in the world – New York, Dubai, London and Singapore – they all have one thing in common. They are all international melting pots with a high concentration of immigrants. Research shows that there is a direct correlation between high-skilled immigration and an increase in the level of innovation and economic performance in cities and regions.

Singapore makes a great case study. This tiny South-East Asian island nation, with a population of just over five million, is today one of the globe’s heavyweight financial centres. It scores highly in international rankings for areas as diverse as education and ease of doing business, and has been recognised as the world’s most technology-ready nation. Singapore is also highly multicultural, with an ethnic mix of people of Chinese, Malay and Indian descent, and large populations of different religious faith groups including Buddhists, Christians, Muslims and Hindus.

When Singapore achieved independence in 1965, its founding fathers instituted measures that would not leave racial harmony to chance . Singapore aggressively promoted racial and ethnic integration. One important measure was its housing policy, which ensured that every public housing complex followed a national quota of racial percentage. This forced people of different ethnicities to learn to live with each other, and broke up all the ethnic ghettos that were prevalent at the time of independence.

These seemingly autocratic measures have served the small island nation well in producing a well-integrated populace that values meritocracy more than race or religion. Singapore’s ethnic and religious diversity has proven to be an asset to the country, and the result is relative racial harmony – something the US would do well to learn from.

In neighbouring Malaysia, my home country, ethnic, cultural and religious diversity has always been promoted. By the time I was 18, I could speak five languages and had friends from the Chinese, Indian, Malay and Eurasian communities, who between them hailed from several religious backgrounds. Malaysia has one of the world’s most diverse cultural and ethnic mixes and has outperformed most of its regional partners, with a high annual GDP growth since its independence . The multilingual workforce has given us Malaysians an edge in the workplace.

Diversity and business performance

There is substantial research to show that diversity brings many advantages to an organization: increased profitability and creativity, stronger governance and better problem-solving abilities. Employees with diverse backgrounds bring to bear their own perspectives, ideas and experiences, helping to create organizations that are resilient and effective, and which outperform organisations that do not invest in diversity.

A Boston Consulting Group study found that companies with more diverse management teams have 19% higher revenues due to innovation. This finding is significant for tech companies, start-ups and industries where innovation is the key to growth. It shows that diversity is not just a metric to be strived for; it is actually an integral part of a successful revenue-generating business.

While most of these studies are conducted in the western world, Asian countries are engaging in the equality debate at their own pace. Cultural shifts over the last 40 years mean that South-East Asia currently has a female workforce participation rate of 42% – higher than the global average of 39%.

According to the 2018 Hays Asia Diversity and Inclusion report, improved company culture, leadership and greater innovation were the top three benefits of diversity identified by respondents. However, there was a perception among a significant proportion of participants that access to pay, jobs and career opportunities for those of equal ability could be hampered by factors such as age, disability, ethnicity, gender, family commitments, marital status, race, religion and sexuality.

More than ever, flexibility and versatility are becoming the key to success for individuals, companies and countries alike, and a culturally diverse environment is the best way to acquire these qualities. Assumptions need to be challenged, conversations need to be had and corporate culture needs to be updated so that the modern workplace can accurately reflect and support the population of the region.

The millennial quotient in business diversity

By the year 2025, 75% of the global workforce will be made up of millennials - which means this group will occupy the majority of leadership roles over the coming decade. They will be responsible for making important decisions that affect workplace cultures and people's lives. This group has a unique perspective on diversity. While older generations tend to view diversity through the lenses of race, demographics, equality and representation, millennials see diversity as a melding of varying experiences, different backgrounds and individual perspectives. They view the ideal workplace as a supportive environment that gives space to varying perspectives on a given issue.

The 2018 Deloitte Millennial Survey shows that 74% of these individuals believe their organization is more innovative when it has a culture of inclusion. If businesses are looking to hire and sustain a millennial workforce, diversity must be a key part of the company culture. This 2016 survey shows that 47% of millennials are actively looking for diversity in the workplace when sizing up potential employers.

Women in the workplace

Gender equality remains a major issue in the corporate world. Despite an abundance of research confirming that companies with more women in the C-Suite are more profitable , there is still a gender gap in the vast majority of companies . Women remain significantly underrepresented in the corporate pipeline, with fewer women than men hired at entry level, and representation declining further at every subsequent step.

Companies need a comprehensive plan for supporting and advancing women. This requires a paradigm shift in the corporate culture which will include investing in employee training and giving employees greater flexibility to fit work into their lives.

A survey conducted by Pew Research Centre lists several areas where women are stronger in key areas of both politics and business. Survey respondents noted that women are:

• 34% better at working out compromises
• 34% more likely to be honest and ethical
• 25% more likely to stand up for their beliefs
• 30% more likely to provide fair pay and benefits
• 25% better at mentoring

Forward-thinking companies should be looking for ways to employ and empower more women at work – not just as a moral obligation, but also as a sound business strategy. McKinsey’s most recent Delivering Through Diversity report found corporations that embrace gender diversity on their executive teams were more competitive and 21% more likely to experience above-average profitability. They also had a 27% likelihood of outperforming their peers on longer-term value creation. Different perspectives on customer needs, product improvements and company wellbeing fuel a better business.

It has been estimated that closing the gender gap would add $28 trillion to the value of the global economy by 2025 – a 26% increase. Put simply, companies and societies are more likely to grow and prosper when women gain greater financial independence.

Taking a stand for diversity in business

It is important for corporations to step up and advocate for diversity and tolerance on a public platform. A great example of this is Nike’s support of American football quarterback and rights campaigner Colin Kaepernick . More than a marketing exercise, it showed the world that one of America’s best-known corporations was willing to stand alongside one man in his battle against racial injustice and intolerance.

Procter & Gamble’s (P&G) ‘ We See Equal’ Campaign , which was designed to fight gender bias and work towards equality for all, depicted boys and girls defying gender stereotypes. The company has a history of promoting the issue, and also records 45% of its managers and a third of its board as women. P&G’s clear dedication to equality within its own workforce meant that the campaign came across as authentic and as a genuine push for change.

Why getting workplace diversity right isn't for the faint-hearted

Beyond diversity: how firms are cultivating a sense of belonging.

There is much to learn from leaders in diversity and inclusion, but it is important to remember that every company’s initiatives will look different. Diversity means different things to different people, and organizations must apply those definitions to their companies accordingly.

Diversity and inclusion cannot be a one-time campaign or a one-off initiative. Promoting them in the workplace is a constant work-in-progress, and should be maintained and nurtured to guarantee effectiveness. Empathetic leadership is key to this transformation. For real change to happen, every individual leader needs to buy into the value of belonging – both intellectually and emotionally.

The business world must come together and be more engaged and vocal than it has been to promote the message of a diverse and tolerant society. It is an uphill battle, but peace, prosperity and advancement depend on it.

Don't miss any update on this topic

Create a free account and access your personalized content collection with our latest publications and analyses.

License and Republishing

World Economic Forum articles may be republished in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License, and in accordance with our Terms of Use.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

Related topics:

The agenda .chakra .wef-n7bacu{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-weight:400;} weekly.

A weekly update of the most important issues driving the global agenda

.chakra .wef-1dtnjt5{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;} More on Jobs and the Future of Work .chakra .wef-17xejub{-webkit-flex:1;-ms-flex:1;flex:1;justify-self:stretch;-webkit-align-self:stretch;-ms-flex-item-align:stretch;align-self:stretch;} .chakra .wef-nr1rr4{display:-webkit-inline-box;display:-webkit-inline-flex;display:-ms-inline-flexbox;display:inline-flex;white-space:normal;vertical-align:middle;text-transform:uppercase;font-size:0.75rem;border-radius:0.25rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;line-height:1.2;-webkit-letter-spacing:1.25px;-moz-letter-spacing:1.25px;-ms-letter-spacing:1.25px;letter-spacing:1.25px;background:none;padding:0px;color:#B3B3B3;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;box-decoration-break:clone;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;}@media screen and (min-width:37.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:0.875rem;}}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:1rem;}} See all

Age diversity will define the workforce of the future. Here’s why

Susan Taylor Martin

May 8, 2024

From start-ups to digital jobs: Here’s what global leaders think will drive maximum job creation

Simon Torkington

May 1, 2024

70% of workers are at risk of climate-related health hazards, says the ILO

Johnny Wood

International Workers' Day: 3 ways trade unions are driving social progress

Giannis Moschos

Policy tools for better labour outcomes

Maria Mexi and Mekhla Jha

April 30, 2024

How to realize the potential of rising digital jobs

Stéphanie Bertrand and Audrey Brauchli

April 29, 2024

No matter the  industry, decision-makers must understand and navigate the needs, backgrounds, and perspectives of a diverse array of stakeholders. The cases in this section inspire dialogue and debate on challenging management and policy scenarios—from race relations to user-centered design—with lessons equally pertinent to students of ethics, criminal justice, activism, or the media.

Operation Pufferfish: Building and Sustaining a Department of Neighborhoods and Citizen Engagement in Lansing, Michigan

Publication Date: March 5, 2024

Lansing native Andi Crawford returned home and took over a mismanaged and outdated neighborhood grant program, revamping grant processes, bringing in new money and capacity, and expanding eligibility.This shift became just one element of a much...

"The Toughest Beat": Investing in Employee Well-Being at the Denver Sheriff Department

Facing staffing shortages, safety concerns, and widespread burnout at the Denver Sheriff Department, Chief of Administration Sonya Gillespie was overseeing a novel experiment in boosting staff morale through peer-to-peer support. Over an...

More than a Contract: Black Self-Determination and People’s Assemblies in Jackson, Mississippi Epilogue

Publication Date: March 1, 2024

This epilogue accompanies HKS Case 2276.0. The Jackson People’s Assembly (JPA), a vehicle of “Black self-determination and autonomous political authority of the oppressed peoples and communities in Jackson,” launched the...

More than a Contract: Black Self-Determination and People’s Assemblies in Jackson, Mississippi

The Jackson People’s Assembly (JPA), a vehicle of “Black self-determination and autonomous political authority of the oppressed peoples and communities in Jackson,” launched the political career of Chokwe Lumumba, a veteran...

Addressing Racial Disparities at the Massachusetts Probation Service

Publication Date: July 12, 2023

What does it take to bring about meaningful change that produces good results where racial disparities are concerned? If we want institutions to be responsive and equitable, what will it require? This multimedia case study examines the efforts...

Confronting the Unequal Toll of Highway Expansion: Oni Blair, LINK Houston, & the Texas I-45 Debate (A)

Publication Date: April 6, 2023

 In this political strategy case, Oni K. Blair, newly appointed executive director of a Houston nonprofit advocating for more equitable transportation resources, faces a challenge: how to persuade a Texas state agency to substantially...

Leadership and Negotiation: Ending the Western Hemisphere’s Longest Running Border Conflict

Publication Date: October 4, 2022

For centuries, Ecuador and Peru each claimed sovereignty over a historically significant, but sparsely inhabited tract of borderland in the Amazonian highlands. The heavily disputed area had led the two nations to war—or the brink of...

Work or Exploitation? Debating Whether to Decriminalize the Sex Industry

Publication Date: August 12, 2022

As traditionally written and enforced, laws regulating the sex trade in the United States and abroad have disproportionately penalized the least powerful players in the industry—the people, mostly cis- and transgender women, directly...

Confronting the Unequal Toll of Highway Expansion: Oni Blair, LINK Houston, & the Texas I-45 Debate (B)

Embracing the Uphill Struggle: Marc Morial’s Quest for Corporate Diversity

Publication Date: October 25, 2021

As incoming President and CEO of the National Urban League in 2003, Marc Morial believed that promoting racial equity in corporate America was a natural part of the organization’s remit. In the latter third of the 20th century, the NUL had...

Leading with Empathy: Tarana Burke and the Making of the Me Too Movement

Publication Date: November 16, 2020

In 2017, Tarana Burke, founder of the movement against sexual violence known as Me Too was unexpectedly catapulted to international fame. The phrase she had coined to promote a sisterhood of survivors, 'Me Too,' had become a viral social media...

Making a Statement: Mayor Libby Schaaf and the Sanctuary City of Oakland, CA Practitioner Guide

Publication Date: October 8, 2020

This practitioner guide accompanies HKS Case 2191.0. In February 2018, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf learned through unofficial sources that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was planning to arrest a large number of undocumented...

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Diversity, Equity and Inclusion in the Workplace

A majority of u.s. workers say focusing on dei at work is a good thing, but relatively small shares place great importance on diversity in their own workplace, table of contents.

• The value of DEI efforts at work
• The importance of a diverse workforce
• DEI measures and their impact
• How gender, race and ethnicity impact success in the workplace
• Acknowledgments
• The American Trends Panel survey methodology

Pew Research Center conducted this study to better understand how adults in the United States think about diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in the workplace. This analysis is based on survey responses from 4,744 U.S. adults who are working part time or full time, are not self-employed, have only one job or have multiple jobs but consider one their primary job, and whose company or organization has 10 or more people. The data was collected as part of a larger survey of workers conducted Feb. 6-12, 2023. Everyone who took part is a member of Pew Research Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATP’s methodology .

Read more about the questions used for this report and the report’s methodology .

References to workers or employed adults include those who are employed part time or full time, are not self-employed, have only one job or have multiple jobs but consider one their primary job, and whose company or organization has 10 or more people.

References to White, Black and Asian adults include those who are not Hispanic and identify as only one race. Hispanics are of any race.

References to college graduates or people with a college degree comprise those with a bachelor’s degree or more. “Some college” includes those with an associate degree and those who attended college but did not obtain a degree.

References to disabled workers include those who say a disability or handicap keeps them from fully participating in work, school, housework or other activities.

All references to party affiliation include those who lean toward that party. Republicans include those who identify as Republicans and those who say they lean toward the Republican Party. Democrats include those who identify as Democrats and those who say they lean toward the Democratic Party.

Workplace diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, or DEI, are increasingly becoming part of national political debates . For a majority of employed U.S. adults (56%), focusing on increasing DEI at work is a good thing, according to a new Pew Research Center survey. But opinions about DEI vary considerably along demographic and political lines.

Most workers have some experience with DEI measures at their workplace. About six-in-ten (61%) say their company or organization has policies that ensure fairness in hiring, pay or promotions, and 52% say they have trainings or meetings on DEI at work. Smaller shares say their workplace has a staff member who promotes DEI (33%), that their workplace offers salary transparency (30%), and that it has affinity groups or employee resource groups based on a shared identity (26%). Majorities of those who have access to these measures say each has had a positive impact where they work.

Related : How Americans View Their Jobs

This nationally representative survey of 5,902 U.S. workers, including 4,744 who are not self-employed, was conducted Feb. 6-12, 2023, using the Center’s American Trends Panel . 1 The survey comes at a time when DEI efforts are facing some backlash and many major companies are laying off their DEI professionals .

Some key findings from the survey:

• Relatively small shares of workers place a lot of importance on diversity at their workplace. About three-in-ten say it is extremely or very important to them to work somewhere with a mix of employees of different races and ethnicities (32%) or ages (28%). Roughly a quarter say the same about having a workplace with about an equal mix of men and women (26%) and 18% say this about a mix of employees of different sexual orientations.
• More than half of workers (54%) say their company or organization pays about the right amount of attention to increasing DEI. Smaller shares say their company or organization pays too much (14%) or too little attention (15%), and 17% say they’re not sure. Black workers are more likely than those in other racial and ethnic groups to say their employer pays too little attention to increasing DEI. They’re also among the most likely to say focusing on DEI at work is a good thing (78% of Black workers say this), while White workers are the least likely to express this view (47%).
• Women are more likely than men to value DEI at work. About six-in-ten women (61%) say focusing on increasing DEI at work is a good thing, compared with half of men. And larger shares of women than men say it’s extremely or very important to them to work at a place that is diverse when it comes to gender, race and ethnicity, age, and sexual orientation.
• There are wide partisan differences in views of workplace DEI. Most Democratic and Democratic-leaning workers (78%) say focusing on DEI at work is a good thing, compared with 30% of Republicans and Republican leaners. Democrats are also far more likely than Republicans to value different aspects of diversity. And by wide margins, higher shares of Democrats than Republicans say the policies and resources related to DEI available at their workplace have had a positive impact.
• Half of workers say it’s extremely or very important to them to work somewhere that is accessible for people with physical disabilities. About three-in-ten workers (29%) say this is somewhat important to them, and 21% say it’s not too or not at all important. A majority of workers (76% among those who do not work fully remotely) say their workplace is at least somewhat accessible for people with physical disabilities.
• Many say being a man or being White is an advantage where they work. The survey asked respondents whether a person’s gender, race or ethnicity makes it easier or harder to be successful where they work. Shares ranging from 45% to 57% say these traits make it neither easier nor harder. But far more say being a man and being White makes it easier than say it makes it harder for someone to be successful. Conversely, by double-digit margins, more say being a woman, being Black or being Hispanic makes it harder than say it makes it easier to be successful where they work.

A majority of workers (56%) say focusing on increasing diversity, equity and inclusion at work is mainly a good thing; 28% say it is neither good nor bad, and 16% say it is a bad thing. Views on this vary along key demographic and partisan lines.

Half or more of both men and women say focusing on increasing DEI at work is a good thing, but women are more likely than men to offer this view (61% vs. 50%). In turn, men are more than twice as likely as women to say it is a bad thing (23% vs. 9%).

About two-thirds or more of Black (78%), Asian (72%) and Hispanic (65%) workers say that focusing on DEI at work is a good thing. Among White workers, however, fewer than half (47%) say it’s a good thing; in fact, 21% say it’s a bad thing. But there are wide partisan, gender and age gaps among White workers, with majorities of White Democrats, women and those under age 30 saying focusing on DEI at work is a good thing.

Workers under 30 are the most likely age group to say focusing on DEI at work is a good thing. About two-thirds (68%) of workers ages 18 to 29 say this, compared with 56% of workers 30 to 49, 46% of those 50 to 64, and 52% of those 65 and older.

Views also differ by educational attainment, with 68% of workers with a postgraduate degree saying focusing on DEI at work is a good thing, compared with 59% of those with a bachelor’s degree only and 50% of those with some college or less education.

Democratic and Democratic-leaning workers are much more likely to say focusing on DEI at work is a good thing (78%) than to say it is a bad thing (4%) or that it is neither good nor bad (18%). Views among Republican and Republican-leaning workers are more mixed: Some 30% say focusing on DEI at work is a good thing, while the same share (30%) say it’s a bad thing, and 39% say it’s neither good nor bad.

A majority of workers say their employer pays the right amount of attention to DEI

When it comes to the focus of their own employer, 54% of workers say their company or organization pays about the right amount of attention to increasing diversity, equity and inclusion. The remainder are divided between saying their employer pays too much (14%) or too little attention (15%), or that they’re not sure (17%).

Women are more likely than men to say their employer pays too little attention to increasing DEI (17% vs. 12%). In turn, men are more likely than women to say too much attention is paid to this where they work (18% vs. 10%).

Black workers (28%) are the most likely to say their company or organization pays too little attention to increasing DEI, compared with smaller shares of White (11%), Hispanic (19%) and Asian (17%) workers who say the same.

Views on this question also differ by party. While half or more of both Republican and Democratic workers say their company or organization pays the right amount of attention to DEI, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say their employer pays too little attention to it (21% vs. 7%). In turn, Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say their employer pays too much attention to DEI (24% vs. 6%).

While a majority of workers say focusing on increasing diversity, equity and inclusion at work is a good thing, relatively small shares place great importance on working at a place that is diverse when it comes to gender, race and ethnicity, age, and sexual orientation. About three-in-ten workers say it’s extremely or very important to them to work somewhere with a mix of employees of different races and ethnicities (32%) and ages (28%), while 26% say the same about having about an equal mix of men and women. And 18% say this about having a mix of employees of different sexual orientations at their workplace.

Women are more likely than men to say it’s extremely or very important to them to work at a place that is diverse across all measures asked about in the survey. For example, there are 11 percentage point differences in the shares of women compared with men saying it is extremely or very important to them to work somewhere that has a mix of employees of different races and ethnicities (37% vs. 26%) and about an equal mix of men and women (31% vs. 20%).

Black workers are among the most likely to value racial, ethnic and age diversity in the workplace. Some 53% of Black workers say it is extremely or very important to them to work somewhere with a mix of employees of different races and ethnicities, compared with 39% of Hispanic workers and 25% of White workers who say the same; 43% of Asian workers say this is important to them. (There is no statistically significant difference between the share of Asian workers and the shares of Black and Hispanic workers who hold this view.) And while 42% of Black workers highly value working somewhere with a mix of employees of different ages, smaller shares of Hispanic (33%), Asian (30%) and White (24%) workers say the same.

When it comes to diversity of sexual orientation, 28% of Black workers and 22% of Hispanic workers say it is extremely or very important to them to work somewhere that is diverse in this way; 15% each among White and Asian workers say the same.

Workers under age 50 are more likely than those 50 and older to say racial and ethnic diversity in their workplace is extremely or very important to them (35% vs. 26%). Workers younger than 50 are also more likely to say having about an equal mix of men and women is important to them, with workers ages 18 t0 29 the most likely to say this (34% vs. 26% of workers 30 to 49, and 20% each among those 50 to 64 and 65 and older).

There are also differences by educational attainment, with larger shares of workers with a postgraduate degree than those with less education saying it’s extremely or very important to them that their workplace is diverse across all measures asked about in the survey. For example, 44% of workers with a postgraduate degree say having a mix of employees of different races and ethnicities is extremely or very important to them, compared with 34% of those with a bachelor’s degree only and 27% of those with some college or less.

Democratic workers are much more likely than Republican workers to say working somewhere that is diverse when it comes to gender, race and ethnicity, age, and sexual orientation is extremely or very important to them. In fact, about half of Democrats (49%) place great importance on having a mix of employees of different races and ethnicities where they work, compared with 13% of Republicans. And there are differences of at least 20 points between the shares of Democrats and Republicans saying it’s extremely or very important to them to work somewhere that has about an equal mix of men and women (39% of Democrats say this vs. 12% of Republicans) and a mix of employees of different ages (39% vs. 17%) and sexual orientations (27% vs. 7%).

Overall, a majority of workers say their workplace has a mix of employees of different ages (58% say this describes their current workplace extremely or very well). Smaller shares say their workplace has about an equal mix of men and women (38%) and a mix of employees of different races and ethnicities (46%) and sexual orientations (28%). These assessments do not vary much across demographic groups.

Half of workers place great importance on working at a place that is accessible for people with physical disabilities

Half of workers say it is extremely or very important to them to work somewhere that is accessible for people with physical disabilities; 29% say it is somewhat important and 21% say it is not too or not at all important to them.

Highly valuing an accessible workplace varies by gender, race and ethnicity, and party, but there is no significant difference in responses between those who do and don’t report having a disability.

About six-in-ten women (58%) say it is extremely or very important to them that their workplace is accessible, compared with 41% of men.

Black workers are more likely than workers of other racial and ethnic groups to place great importance on their workplace being accessible: 62% of Black workers say this is extremely or very important, compared with 51% of Hispanic, 48% of White and 43% of Asian workers.

A majority of Democrats (59%) say it is extremely or very important to them to work somewhere that is accessible for people with physical disabilities; 40% of Republican say the same. Some 27% of Republicans say this is not too or not at all important to them, compared with 15% of Democrats.

There is no statistically significant difference in the shares of workers who have a disability and those who do not saying it is extremely or very important to them to work somewhere that is accessible for people with physical disabilities. But workers who do not have a disability are more likely than those who do to say this is not too or not at all important to them (21% vs. 15%).

Among those who don’t work fully remotely, about three-quarters of workers (76%) say their workplace is at least somewhat accessible for people with physical disabilities, with 51% saying it is extremely or very accessible. Some 17% say their workplace is not too or not at all accessible, and 8% are not sure.

When asked whether the company or organization they work for has a series of measures that are typically associated with diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, a majority of workers say their employer has policies that ensure everyone is treated fairly in hiring, pay or promotions (61%), and 52% say there are trainings or meetings on DEI where they work.

Smaller shares say their workplace has a staff member whose main job is to promote DEI at work (33%), a way for employees to see the salary range for all positions (30%), and groups created by employees sometimes known as affinity groups or employee resource groups (ERGs) based on shared identities such as gender, race or being a parent (26%).

Responses do not vary much by most demographic characteristics. However, workers with at least a bachelor’s degree are consistently more likely than those with less education to say each of these five measures is available where they work.

Workers tend to see positive impact from policies and resources associated with DEI where they work

Among those whose workplace offers each policy or resource, a majority of workers say each measure has had a somewhat or very positive impact where they work. About a third or fewer workers say each resource has had neither a positive nor negative impact, and about one-in-ten or fewer say each of these has had a somewhat or very negative impact.

Democrats and Republicans are about equally likely to say their workplace has these measures in place, but Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say the impact of each has been positive by margins ranging from 10 to 32 points (among those who say their workplace has these measures). For example, 66% of Democrats who say their workplace has a way for employees to see the salary range for all positions say this has had a somewhat or very positive impact, compared with 56% of Republicans who say this. And while about three-quarters of Democrats (74%) say having a staff member whose main job is to promote DEI at work has had a positive impact, fewer than half of Republicans (42%) say the same.

Women are more likely than men to say each of these policies and resources has had a very or somewhat positive impact where they work. This is mainly driven by gender differences among Republicans: There are double-digit differences in the shares of Republican women and Republican men who say many of these resources have had a positive impact. For example, 58% of Republican women say having a staff member whose main job is to promote DEI at work has had at least a somewhat positive impact where they work, compared with 31% of Republican men who hold this view. The same share of Republican women (58%) say having affinity groups or ERGs has had a positive impact, compared with 38% of Republican men who say the same.

Among Democrats, majorities of both men and women offer positive assessments of these resources in their workplace, but Democratic women are more likely than Democratic men to say having trainings or meetings on DEI at work have had a positive impact (72% vs. 65%).

While there are differences by race, ethnicity and age on overall attitudes about DEI in the workplace, there are no consistent differences along these dimensions in how workers with access to these policies and resources at their workplace assess their impact.

About half of workers who have participated in DEI trainings in the last year say they’ve been helpful

Out of all workers, about four-in-ten (38%) have participated in a DEI training in the last year. A similar share (40%) did not participate or say their workplace does not offer these trainings, and 21% are not sure if their employer offers these trainings.

Looking only at those whose company or organization has trainings or meetings on DEI, about three-quarters (73%) say they have participated in such trainings in the past year. And assessments of these trainings tend to be positive, with 53% of workers who’ve participated saying they were very or somewhat helpful. About a third (34%) give a more neutral assessment, saying the trainings were neither helpful nor unhelpful, and 13% say they were very or somewhat unhelpful.

While men and women are about equally likely to have participated in trainings on DEI in the past year, women are more likely than men to say the trainings have been at least somewhat helpful (60% vs. 46%).

Republicans and Democrats are also equally likely to say they’ve participated in these trainings in the past year, but Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to say the trainings have been helpful (66% vs. 36%). About one-in-five Republicans say they’ve been unhelpful (19%), compared with 9% of Democrats.

While both Democratic men and women offer similar assessments of the DEI trainings they’ve participated in, there are gender differences among Republican workers. Republican women are more likely than Republican men to say the trainings they’ve participated in have been helpful (47% vs. 28%). Conversely, 22% of Republican men, compared with 14% of Republican women, say the trainings have been unhelpful.

Few workers are members of affinity groups or ERGs at work

While 26% of workers say there are affinity groups or employee resource groups (ERGs) where they work, members of these groups account for a very small share of workers overall. Just 6% of workers say they are members of an affinity group or ERG, with 58% of workers saying these groups are either not available at their workplace or that they aren’t a member. Another 37% say they are not sure if their workplace offers these groups.

Among workers who say there are affinity groups or ERGs at their workplace, 22% say they are personally a member. Women are more likely than men to be members of these groups (28% vs. 16%). And 28% of non-White workers say they are a member of an affinity group or ERG, compared with 18% of White workers. 2

When asked about the impact a person’s gender, race or ethnicity has on their ability to succeed at work, workers tend to say these characteristics neither make it easier nor harder to be successful at their workplace.

Still, when it comes to gender, workers are more likely to say being a man makes it easier to be successful where they work than to say it makes it harder (36% vs. 6%). In contrast, a larger share says being a woman makes it harder to be successful than say it makes it easier (28% vs. 11%).

Men and women have different views on the impact gender has on a person’s ability to succeed where they work. Some 44% of women say being a man makes it at least a little easier to be successful, including 24% who say it makes it a lot easier. This compares with 29% of men who say being a man makes it at least a little easier to be successful.

Similarly, 34% of women say being a woman makes it harder to be successful where they work, compared with 21% of men.

Women under age 50 are especially likely – more so than women ages 50 and older or men in either age group – to say being a man makes it easier to be successful where they work and that being a woman makes it harder. For example, 38% of women ages 18 to 49 say being a woman makes it harder to be successful where they work. This compares with 29% of women 50 and older, 25% of men younger than 50, and an even smaller share of men 50 and older (13%).

When it comes to views about how race or ethnicity affects people’s ability to succeed at work, 51% of Black workers say being Black makes it harder to be successful where they work. This is significantly higher than the shares of Asian (41%), Hispanic (23%) and White (18%) workers who say the same about the impact of being Black.

Similarly, about four-in-ten Asian workers (39%) say being Asian makes it harder to be successful in their workplace, a higher share than workers of other racial and ethnic groups who say the same about being Asian.

Hispanic, Black and Asian workers are about equally likely to say being Hispanic makes it harder to be successful where they work. A smaller share of White workers say the same about being Hispanic.

When asked about the impact of being White in their workplace, workers across racial and ethnic groups are more likely to say it makes it easier than to say it makes it harder to be successful. This is especially the case among Black and Asian workers. About half of Black (52%) and Asian (51%) workers say being White makes it easier to be successful where they work, compared with 37% of Hispanic and 24% of White workers who say the same about being White.

Previously released findings from this survey found that Black workers are more likely than White, Hispanic and Asian workers to report that they have experienced discrimination or have been treated unfairly by an employer in hiring, pay or promotions because of their race or ethnicity at some point in their careers (though not necessarily where they currently work). Women are also more likely than men to say they’ve experienced such discrimination because of their gender.

There are large partisan gaps in views of whether gender, race or ethnicity make it easier or harder to be successful at work. Some 47% of Democratic workers say being a man makes it at least somewhat easier to be successful at their workplace, compared with 25% of Republican workers. Democrats are also more likely than Republicans to say being a woman makes it harder to succeed (37% vs. 17%).

Democratic and Republican women are more likely than their male counterparts to say being a woman makes it harder – and being a man makes it easier – to be successful where they work. The differences between Republican women and Republican men are particularly striking. About a quarter of Republican women (26%) say being a woman makes it harder to be successful, compared with 10% of Republican men. And while 36% of Republican women say being a man makes it easier to be successful where they work, just 16% of Republican men say the same.

Democratic workers are more than three times as likely as Republican workers to say being White makes it easier to succeed where they work (48% vs. 13%), and they are also more likely than Republicans to say being Black, Hispanic or Asian makes it harder. About four-in-ten Democrats (39%) say being Black makes it harder for someone to succeed at their workplace, compared with just 9% of Republicans. Similarly, 30% of Democrats say being Hispanic makes it harder to succeed, compared with 8% of Republicans. And while smaller shares in both parties say being Asian makes it harder to succeed, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say this (16% vs. 6%). These partisan differences remain when looking only at Democrats and Republicans who are White.

• For details, see the  Methodology  section of the report. The analysis in this report is based on U.S. workers who are employed full time or part time, who are not self-employed, and who have only one job or have multiple jobs but consider one their primary job (99% of workers who are not self-employed have one job or a primary job). Additionally, the analysis is restricted to workers at companies or organizations with at least 10 employees as certain federal requirements such as non-discrimination mandates apply to larger workplaces. ↩
• Non-White adults include Black, Hispanic, Asian and other races besides White, as well as people who identify as more than one race. The sample sizes among Black, Hispanic and Asian workers who have affinity groups or ERGs at work are too small to analyze separately. ↩

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Asian Americans
• Black Americans
• Business & Workplace
• Discrimination & Prejudice
• Economics, Work & Gender
• Economy & Work
• Gender & Work
• Happiness & Life Satisfaction
• Hispanics/Latinos
• Partisanship & Issues
• Race & Ethnicity
• Racial Bias & Discrimination
• Sexual Misconduct & Harassment

A look at small businesses in the U.S.

Majorities of adults see decline of union membership as bad for the u.s. and working people, a look at black-owned businesses in the u.s., from businesses and banks to colleges and churches: americans’ views of u.s. institutions, 2023 saw some of the biggest, hardest-fought labor disputes in recent decades, most popular, report materials.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

• New! Member Benefit New! Member Benefit
• Featured Analytics Hub
• Resources Resources
• Member Directory
• Networking Communities
• Advertise, Exhibit, Sponsor
• Find or Post Jobs

• Learn and Engage Learn and Engage
• Bridge Program

• Compare AACSB-Accredited Schools
• Explore Programs

• Advocacy Advocacy
• Featured AACSB Announces 2024 Class of Influential Leaders
• Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging
• Influential Leaders
• Innovations That Inspire
• Connect With Us Connect With Us
• Accredited School Search
• Accreditation
• Learning and Events
• Advertise, Sponsor, Exhibit
• Tips and Advice
• Is Business School Right for Me?

Teaching DEI Through Case Studies

Sponsored Content

In the summer of 2020, the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement took center stage across the United States. At the height of a devastating pandemic and in the wake of several high-profile murders of Black Americans by law enforcement and others, a diverse range of citizens took to the streets to protest systemic racism and the inhumane treatment of African Americans.

Through the lens of bystander Darnella Frazier’s smartphone camera, the world watched in horror as George Floyd died at the hands of a white police officer on a street in Minneapolis. On May 25, 2020, officer Derek Chauvin knelt on Floyd’s neck for 9 minutes and 29 seconds as Floyd repeatedly said that he could not breathe. His death, along with those of Breonna Taylor and Ahmaud Arbery a few months earlier, sparked international protests and drew intense scrutiny about how African Americans are treated by the police, the criminal justice system, and their fellow citizens.

The protests of 2020 prompted many companies, organizations, and educational systems to express their public support of the BLM movement and commit to the goal of achieving racial equity and social justice. While for many companies this was likely a fleeting PR move, others announced that they were taking a hard look at their own systemic issues. Business leaders at companies in many industries began the challenging but necessary work of exposing and addressing the deep biases that have been hardwired into their organizations. The Quaker Oats Company, for example, announced its discontinuation of the 130-year-old Aunt Jemima breakfast foods brand, which had been inspired by a minstrel show song and had long perpetuated a Black stereotype.

Many businesses responded by not only committing to increasing diversity within their workforces, but also examining their supply chains and external partners. Target Corporation, headquartered in Minneapolis, pledged to “…work with diverse suppliers that are at least 51 percent owned, controlled, and operated by women; Black, Indigenous, and People of Color; LGBTQ+; veterans or persons with disabilities.” In 2020, U.S. Bank committed to “doubling its Black-owned suppliers within the next 12 months.”

Further, because of the BLM movement, many major companies are recruiting from historically black colleges and universities more than ever before. Morgan State University in Baltimore reports that its online job portal saw a “263 percent increase in employer logins between July 1, 2020, and June 30, 2021, with major companies like Apple, Bank of America, and Estée Lauder reaching out for the first time ever.”

The Growing Diversity of the Student Body

Against this backdrop of the fight for racial equity and social justice, the U.S. is undergoing a significant change in demographics. In a recent article , The Washington Post shared the following conclusions from newly released 2020 census data:

“The country … passed two more milestones on its way to becoming a majority-minority society in the coming decades: For the first time, the portion of White people dipped below 60 percent, slipping from 63.7 percent in 2010 to 57.8 percent in 2020. And the under-18 population is now majority people of color, at 52.7 percent.”

These statistics apply to our students as well as our future leaders and labor force. Businesses and those in the business of educating students for a future of fulfilling work must respond in kind to a changing college campus. Some schools already are, as shown by these recent examples:

• The University of California system announced that for the incoming 2021 class, “underrepresented students will comprise 43 percent of the new admits, with Latinx students making up 37 percent and the number of Black students being admitted increasing by 15.6 percent.”
• In July, the Governing Board of California Community Colleges (CCC) announced its approval of two new requirements, including one adding ethnic studies as a graduation requirement for students seeking associate’s degrees and another mandating that CCC schools incorporate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and anti-racism into their employment procedures.
• Purdue University has created a new Equity Task Force and has committed more than 75 million USD over five years to support Black students. Purdue states that the “goals of the task force are split into three categories that will measure success in making Purdue a better place for Black students, faculty, and staff: Representation, Experience, and Success.”

DEI in the Curriculum

Universities and college campuses have long been at the forefront of a range of social justice movements, codifying these movements into academic programs such as Black studies, women’s studies, disability studies, queer studies, and more. But there remains much work to be done, including in the integration of DEI content into our curricula. As educators, publishers, and academics who create scholarly content, we are all responsible for taking a close look at how we approach teaching the lessons of diversity. We must build and use curricular tools that reflect the world our students will enter and their experiences within it.

We need more case studies in our classrooms that are written by authors from a range of backgrounds and perspectives—not just by those who represent predominately white, privileged, Western viewpoints.

The traditional case study is one such tool we can use to support DEI and the changing face of business. That said, the case study, long a stalwart in business and management education, is ripe for reinvention where DEI is concerned. It’s true that case studies can expose students to the challenges of a wide variety of organizations, from global publicly traded entities to local startups to social enterprises. But it’s just as essential that cases expose students to a range of perspectives and reflect the myriad backgrounds—cultural and economical—of those who work within the featured organizations.

Moreover, the importance of DEI in case studies extends beyond their subject matter to their authorship. We need more case studies in our classrooms that are written by authors from a range of backgrounds and perspectives—not just by those who represent predominately white, privileged, Western viewpoints.

Fortunately, case studies can be developed far more quickly than textbooks or even mass market book titles. Their short format means that professors can use them not only to keep content fresh and current for students, but also to better capture the shifting nature of businesses and the people who help them thrive. Cases also can show real-time examples of companies undergoing successful evolutions in their DEI initiatives, as well as companies that still have a long way to go.

By looking at business through a DEI lens, students can better see the reality of our economic landscape. They can truly connect to, and see themselves in, today’s business environment.

Building a Modern Case Collection

Our SAGE Business Cases collection is a testament to SAGE’s dedication to prioritizing cases that represent a broad and inclusive range of backgrounds and perspectives from around the world. SAGE is committed to developing cases around emerging and underserved topics that accurately reflect the diversity and shifting priorities of the global business landscape, as well as the experiences of those who work within it.

For example, in 2021 we launched a new case series called Immigrant Entrepreneurs . This groundbreaking series is edited by Bala Mulloth, an assistant professor of public policy at the University of Virginia and himself an immigrant entrepreneur. It features the stories of founders who started businesses outside their countries of origin.

While there has been a spike of interest in case studies that feature protagonists of a variety of backgrounds, we have also seen a rise of nativist politics across countries and cultures. Part of our vision for this series is to combat the damaging and false political narrative that immigrants harm economies. We want to defuse that narrative with positive and inspiring examples of the value immigrants add to communities around the world.

Our SAGE Business Cases platform enables us to quickly publish brief, news-driven cases. Faculty and students can quickly employ the offerings in our Express Case series for classroom or online discussion. Examples include:

• How Will BLM Change Corporate Activism?
• Analyzing Pfizer’s COVID-19 Vaccine PR Strategy

We also offer longer-form cases in our SAGE Originals collection, such as the following:

• Woke-Washing: The Promise and Risk of Linking Branding With Politics
• Policing the Police: Privatization as a Means of Oversight
• Organizational Responses to Athlete Activism Post-Kaepernick: An Exercise in Decision-Making
• Nike and the Balancing Act Between Social Justice and Selling Products

Tools That Reflect the Reality of Business

For its part, AACSB has shown its deep commitment to diversity and inclusion in its 2020 business accreditation standards , in which it embeds ideals related to diversity and inclusion in six out of nine standards, compared to six out of 15 in the 2013 standards. To align with this commitment, our curricular tools must reflect the varied reality of those engaged in the global business environment, no matter their locations, roles, organization types, gender, race, age, religion, sexuality, or disability status.

As educators, publishers, and business school administrators, we have a responsibility to provide all students with not only access and opportunity, but also exposure to a wide range of perspectives. By exposing them to the true, diverse nature of business, we can prepare them for the world today and enable them to change it for the better.

• societal impact

Tackling Diversity in Case Discussions

Explore more.

• Case Teaching
• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

C ompanies with diverse teams—and diverse leaders—perform better and  are more profitable . Yet many executives remain uncertain about what the secret sauce is for achieving the right balance of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

This confusion is shared by business educators, who not only struggle to  adequately represent diversity in course materials , but also are apprehensive about conducting class discussions around diversity issues.

PRACTICAL TIPS ON FACILITATING DIVERSITY DISCUSSIONS

Zoe Kinias provides some practical advice for leading discussions in class on diversity, equity, and inclusion topics:

Be vulnerable ourselves. “There’s actually a lovely case on Microsoft about how Satya Nadella has done a great job of demonstrating to others how he would rather learn than be right,” says Kinias. “We can model this and encourage it in our classrooms.”

Ask the right questions. How do I ask the right questions to encourage additional input? How can I ask the questions in a way that enables empathy as opposed to defense? It’s subtle, says Kinias, but it’s about exploring other perspectives rather than establishing who is right.

Avoid the token trap. It can be tempting to ask the minority person or one of the few members of underrepresented groups to speak on behalf of their group. If they want to speak to their experience, this is of course important to encourage, says Kinias. But it can also be powerful when members of the majority group are able bring in their perspectives, “because they are aware as they talk with other folks and are generally empathetic.”

Get on common ground. Empathy is hugely important for handling these conversations, says Kinias. “Before we get into the details of the challenges with respect to a particular social identity or group status, I ask everyone to remember a time when they’ve been an insider and also a time when they’ve been an outsider. No matter what our demographic characteristics, everyone has felt both of those. Enabling everyone to recall what that feels like can help to set up for empathy.”

Find balance. Raising awareness of the particular challenges that members of underrepresented groups can face without problematizing their experience is an important thing to carefully balance.

Designate support. INSEAD instituted diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) representatives within MBA classes. These student representatives add additional perspectives and support to help maximize the management of these conversations and increase the learning.

Having tough conversations with students on diversity issues and interpreting business cases through the lenses of gender and race are not skills most educators are taught. Business schools must do a better job of providing adequate resources for professors—such as gender-specific leadership training, professional mentors, and variety in teaching tools—or provide incentives to diversify their course materials.

In schools where this support is lacking, faculty should lead the way. “Educators who take the responsibility of developing future leaders seriously can do a lot on their own,” says Zoe Kinias, Associate Professor of organizational behavior at INSEAD and the Academic Director of INSEAD’s Gender Initiative.

INSEAD hosts gender balance teaching sessions for faculty in the school’s campuses in both Singapore and Fontainebleau. “We are trying to help to facilitate some general awareness and also have conversations about what to do in some of these challenging situations for faculty of all disciplines,” she says.

Emphasizing That Leadership Is Diverse

Students at INSEAD want more diverse case protagonists. “This is something we hear in our face-to-face interactions and also something we saw in [a recent] gender climate survey,” says Kinias.

In addition to ensuring that a variety of case protagonists are presented to students, Kinias says, it’s equally important to use cases that highlight challenges for members of underrepresented groups as well as ones that show that there are diverse ways of enacting leadership. “This could be a male protagonist who has a bit of a softer side or has work/life challenges he’s coping with, as opposed to just sticking with stereotype-reinforcing protagonists from diverse backgrounds.”

Another way to bring these issues forward in class is to embed opportunities to discuss this kind of content. In an entrepreneurship class, for instance, have a discussion with students about the lack of well-funded female entrepreneurs. Bring in female guest speakers. Really challenge the class to think about what could be different in the scenarios being discussed, Kinias suggests.

Classroom management is also important. Educators need to learn more about issues concerning stereotypes, microaggressions, and subtle power signaling. They must also be able to introduce questions along these lines and respond effectively when students bring them up, says Kinias.

“Every conversation we have—especially on issues that I teach around ethics and corporate responsibility—if we’re honest and engaged in it candidly, should take students to a point where they are potentially uncomfortable.” Nien-hê Hsieh

Tips for Leading Class Discussions Through a Diverse Lens

Exposing students to a greater variety of leaders and management styles not only helps to develop them into future leaders who value inclusivity, but also prepares them to be more comfortable addressing these issues.

“This has a lot to do with psychological safety,” says Kinias. “We’re trying to create an environment in which students are expanding their perspective and exploring ideas. It’s OK not to have the answers in the beginning, but rather focus on engaging in exploratory conversations that involve trying to learn from each other within the classroom context.”

Cases, whether directly focused on diversity issues or not, help students to think through the challenges of managing with respect to diversity and also find solutions. In his ethics and corporate accountability classes at Harvard Business School, Professor Nien-hê Hsieh uses a case he wrote on the well-known Google diversity dispute in which the tech giant fired a top engineer who wrote a memo critical of the company’s diversity efforts.

“The case is meant to examine two sides of the issue—if we think that diversity of opinion and open debate is important for innovation on the one hand, how do you then navigate that while at the same time wanting to ensure that the way people engage in conversations and the general culture in which people engage with one another is one in which people feel comfortable and not threatened,” says Hsieh. “That’s a general issue that all organizations face.”

The case also touches on gender equity challenges in the context of Google, tech firms, and the workplace more generally, as well as how we think about free speech in a way that creates balance and a safe environment for people to engage with one another. An extension of that effort involves looking more generally at issues of race and how to achieve more racial equity, he says. “I also want students to understand, at least in the American context, the extent to which workers are or are not protected with regard to free speech, and other things as well.”

Be Willing to Be Uncomfortable

In navigating difficult classroom discussions, an educator may be inclined to flag them, call them out in advance, and then remind the group to engage respectfully, says Hsieh. However, that can actually be counterproductive.

“Every conversation we have—especially on issues that I teach around ethics and corporate responsibility—if we’re honest and engaged in it candidly, should take students to a point where they are potentially uncomfortable,” he explains. “In that sense, we don’t want to single this out as something different. If we’re really trying to get at these issues and learn about them and learn more about ourselves, we have to be willing to open ourselves up to engage in difficult conversations and be willing to accept the possibility that people may say things that we really disagree with, and be careful about how we talk about things.”

Be an Advocate for Respectful Discourse

Hsieh makes sure to instill this culture of respect right from the start. If a sensitivity or personal experience does require acknowledgement, he creates space for that in the moment by reminding the class to approach it in the same spirit of openness, engagement, and respect as they do in all conversations. He also lets students know there are standards for how they should engage.

“It’s good for students to engage and debate with one another,” he says. “My role as an instructor is to create the space for that to happen, but also knowing when to stop.”

Be Clear About Objectives

Hsieh also ensures he is clear about his objectives for every discussion.  What are the challenges or questions that we want to understand?  “It’s not just learning about something,” he says. “It’s actually learning what they can do or how they can effect change or make judgements.”

Be a Good Listener

Once objectives are clear, educators should listen. “When a student knows I’m actively listening, that’s the first step for opening up the environment for students to have these kinds of difficult conversations,” says Hsieh. “And by active listening I mean being willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and really trying to understand where they’re coming from. Not simply imposing my own lens on what they’re saying.”

Be Careful About the Kinds of Questions You Ask

Both in terms of opening up the discussion and also in terms of follow up, educators should be mindful about the questions they ask. “A question we ask [as educators] is in a sense a permission to speak on a certain topic,” he says. “Being precise in what we’re asking students to engage with actually comes from being very precise with the questions.”

“We’re trying to create an environment in which students are defending their perspective and exploring ideas. It’s OK not to have the answers in the beginning, but rather focus on engaging in exploratory conversations that really involve trying to learn from each other with the classroom context.” Zoe Kinias

Making Business Leadership More Inclusive

The most effective use of class time is for students to do something they can’t do on their own, “where students come together, and by the end of class, collectively as a group, have come to some greater understanding,” says Hsieh. “And individually, we have come to something—either we’ve understood ourselves better or something about each other better.”

Educators—and business schools—worldwide who are taking strides toward more diversity and inclusivity are making progress, says Kinias.

“We are energized, and this has enabled us to engage with the students and with our colleagues in a way that can really improve the situation across all of our schools,” she says. “Really, we are trying to make business leadership more inclusive through the students whose lives we touch while they’re at our school. I’m optimistic that we are moving in the right direction.”

Colleen Ammerman works with the faculty leadership of the Harvard Business School Race, Gender & Equity Initiative to support a research community and a platform for disseminating practice-relevant insights for advancing equity, diversity, and inclusion in organizations. She is a member of the Life & Leadership After HBS research team, an ongoing longitudinal study of Harvard Business School alumni which examines the influence of gender and race on their life and career outcomes. She is also coauthor, with Boris Groysberg, of Glass Half Broken: Shattering the Barriers That Still Hold Women Back at Work (Harvard Business Review Press 2021).

Zoe Kinias  is an associate professor of organizational behavior at INSEAD and the academic director of INSEAD’s Gender Initiative. She is also a member of the INSEAD Randomized Control Trials Lab. Her teaching topics focus on leadership development, social issues at the intersection of business and society, and psychological research in applied/business contexts.

Nien-hê Hsieh  is a professor of business administration and Joseph L. Rice, III Faculty Fellow in the general management unit at Harvard Business School. His research concerns ethical issues in business and the responsibilities of global business leaders, and it centers on the question of whether and how managers are guided by not only considerations of economic efficiency, but also by values such as freedom and fairness and respect for basic rights.

Related Articles

We use cookies to understand how you use our site and to improve your experience, including personalizing content. Learn More . By continuing to use our site, you accept our use of cookies and revised Privacy Policy .

• About   General Information Permissions Company Collaboration Case Competitions Best Case Award Press Releases Access Options Submission Guidelines

Berkeley Haas Case Series

The Berkeley Haas Case Series is a collection of business case studies created by UC Berkeley faculty

Responsible A.I.: Tackling Tech’s Largest Corporate Governance Challenges

In 2017, Google announced that it would be an "AI first" company and prioritized the development of an ethical charter to guide the company when it came to AI.

Zendesk: Building Female Leaders Through Mentorship

A new mentorship program launched with early success at Zendesk in the United States and is now expanding to all employees across 15 countries. Women at Zendesk supports junior-level women in achieving their personal and professional goals by connecting them with role models.

Promoting a Culture of Equity in the #MeToo Era

The #MeToo movement brought global awareness to the magnitude of gender-related inequalities in the workplace, including unequal pay and the lack of women in the C-suite and boardroom. Boston Consulting Group (BCG), a global management consulting firm, has a history of success in developing equity fluent leaders.

Eliminating the Gender Pay Gap: Gap Inc. Leads the Way

Since Gap Inc. made history in 2014 by becoming the first Fortune 500 company to announce that it pays female and male employees equally for equal work, attention towards equal pay by individual employees, companies, and governments has continued to grow.

CASE COMPENDIUM

EGAL is dedicated to educating Equity Fluent Leaders™ to ignite and accelerate change. As part of this mission, EGAL developed a case compendium that includes: (a) case studies with diverse protagonists, and (b) case studies that build “equity fluency” by focusing on DEI-related issues and opportunities. The goal of the compendium is to support professors at Haas, and business schools globally, to identify cases they can use in their own classrooms, and ultimately contribute to advancing DEI in education and business. Learn more

The State of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Business School Case Studies

In addition to developing the compendium, EGAL conducted an analysis of the case studies collected. The results are documented in an executive summary and full report .

The Berkeley-Haas Case Series is a collection of business case studies written by Haas faculty. Our culture and vision at the Haas School of Business naturally offer distinctive qualities to the Series, filling a gap in existing case offerings by drawing upon lessons from UC Berkeley's rich history and prime location in the San Francisco Bay Area. We seek to publish cases that challenge conventional assumptions about business, science, culture, and politics.

Siemens Healthineers: A Digital Journey

Maersk: Driving Culture Change at a Century-Old Company to Achieve Measurable Results

Flourish Fi: Empowering Positive Money Habits

Just Climate: A New Investment Model?

Roche Pakistan

A new collection of business case studies from Berkeley Haas

The aim of the Berkeley Haas Case Series is to incite business innovation by clarifying disruptive trends and questioning the status quo.

Advertisement

Diversity in the Classrooms: A Human-Centered Approach to Schools

• Published: 17 April 2020
• Volume 51 , pages 429–439, ( 2020 )

Cite this article

• Daniela Fontenelle-Tereshchuk 1 , 2  

3007 Accesses

5 Citations

2 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This article explores the perceptions of experiences and insights of four Alberta teachers on the understanding of diversity in the classrooms. The teachers in this multiple case study argue that the popular understanding of diversity, especially in schools, is often supported by American contextualized narrative of polarized racial views focusing on assumptions of contrasting ‘whiteness’ visible in race, culture and socio-economic status associated to ones’ skin colour, for instance it recognizes dark-skinned students as diverse as opposed to teachers who are perceived simply as a large group of ‘white, middle-class ladies’. Such conceptualization of diversity is problematic as its social-constructed understanding implies that teachers of European descent share a common ‘Euro-centered’ history, culture, and ethnicity, while Europe is in fact an ethnically, historically and culturally diverse continent. These assumptions have serious implications on teaching and learning as it directly reflects on teacher preparation programs, professional development practices and educational policies. The selective approach to diversity based on race and culture does a disservice to education’s purpose as it over-focuses on visible aspects of differences among students while it disregards the universal needs of a community of learners in schools. This paper advocates for a human-centered understanding of diversity in schools, which seeks to understand diversity beyond the socially constructed borders surrounding race, culture and gender, often used to define teachers as simply ‘white’ in the context of diversity in Canada.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Intersectionality: A pathway towards inclusive education?

The justification for inclusive education in Australia

Inclusion and equity in education: Making sense of global challenges

Alberta Education (2010). Making a difference: Meeting diverse learning needs with differentiated instruction . Retrieved from https://education.alberta.ca/media/384968/makingadifference_2010.pdf

Aoki, T. T. (2005) Toward curriculum inquiry in a new key (1978/1980). In Aoki, T. T., Pinar, W. F., Irwin, R. L., & Ebrary, I.  Curriculum in a new key: The collected works of Ted T. Aoki . Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum.

ATA -Alberta Teachers Association (2014). Report of the blue ribbon panel: Inclusive education in Alberta school . Retrieved from https://www.teachers.ab.ca/SiteCollectionDocuments/ATA/News-Room/2014/PD-170-1%20PD%20Blue%20Ribbon%20Panel%20Report%202014-web.pdf

ATA -Alberta Teachers Association (2009). Mental health in Schools: Teachers have the power to make a difference . Edmonton, Canada. Retrieved from https://www.teachers.ab.ca/Publications/ATA%20Magazine/Volume%2090/Number%201/Articles/Pages/MentalHealthinSchools.aspx

Banks, J. A., & Banks, C. A. M. (2004). Handbook of research on multiculturalism education (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Google Scholar  

Bhabha, H. (1994). The location of culture . New York, NY: Routledge.

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Courtland, M. C., & Gonzalez, I. (2013). Imagining the possibilities: The potential of diverse Canadian picture books. In I. Johnston & J. Bainbridge (Eds.), The pedagogical potential of diverse Canadian picture books: Pre-service teachers explore issues of identity, ideology, and pedagogy (pp. 96–113). Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto.

Cranston, A. J. (2015). Navigating the Bermuda Triangle of teacher hiring practices. In N. Maynes & B. E. Hatt (Eds.), Canada the complexity of hiring, supporting, and retaining new teachers across Canada (pp. 128–149). Polygraph Series: Canadian Association for Teacher Education (CATE).

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th Ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design (international student edition): Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Crocker, R. K., & Dibbon, D. C. (2008). Teacher education in Canada: A baseline study. Society for the Advancement of Excellence in Education. Kelowna, Canada: University of Calgary. Retrieved from https://deslibris.ca/ID/216529

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2008). Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Fontenelle-Tereshchuk, D. D. (2019). Exploring teachers' insights into their professional growth and other experiences in diverse classrooms in Alberta. University of Alberta, Canada. Doctoral unpublished dissertation.

Gérin-Lajoie, D. (2012). Racial and ethnic diversity in schools: The case of English Canada. Prospects, 42 (2), 205–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-012-9231-0 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Gérin-Lajoie, D. (2008). Educators' discourses on student diversity in Canada: Context, policy, and practice . Toronto, Canada: Canadian Scholars.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine. Retrieved from https://www.sxf.uevora.pt/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Glaser_1967.pdf

Guess, T. J. (2006). The social construction of whiteness: Racism by intent, racism by consequence. Critical Sociology, 32 (4), 649–673. https://doi.org/10.1163/156916306779155199 .

Guo, Y. (2011). Perspectives of immigrant Muslim parents: Advocating for religious diversity in Canadian schools. (Researching bias). Multicultural Education, 18 (2), 55–60.

Howe, E. (2014). Bridging the aboriginal education gap in Alberta: The provincial benefit exceeds a quarter of a trillion dollars. Rupertsland Centre for Métis Research .

McLaren, P. (1994). Life in schools : An introduction to critical pedagogy in the foundations of education (2nd ed.). Toronto, Canada: Irwin.

McLeod, K. (1975). Education and the assimilation of new Canadians in the North-West territories and Saskatchewan1885–1934 . University of Toronto, Canada. (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation).

Miller, J. (2018). Residential Schools in Canada. The Canadian Encyclopedia. Retrieved from https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/residential-schools

Milner, H. R. (2010). What does teacher education have to do with teaching? Implications for diversity studies. Journal of Teacher Education, 61 (1–2), 118–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109347670 .

Moore, A. (2004). The good teacher: Dominant discourses in teaching and teacher education . New York, NY: Routledge Falmer.

Book   Google Scholar  

Padula, A. P., & Miller, L. D. (1999). Understanding Graduate Women's Re-entry Experiences: Case Studies of Four Psychology Doctoral Students in a Midwestern University. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23 , 327–343.

Palmer, H. (1982). Patterns of prejudice: A history of nativism in Alberta . Toronto, Canada: McClelland and Stewart.

Peacock J., Holland D., (1993) The Narrated Self Life Stories in Process. Ethos 21(4): 367–383

Rodrigues, S. (2005). Teacher professional development in science education . In S. Rodrigues, International perspectives on teacher professional development: Changes influenced by politics, pedagogy and innovation (pp.1 13). New York, NY: Nova Science

Ryan, J., Pollock, K., & Antonelli, F. (2009). Teacher diversity in Canada: Leaky pipelines, bottlenecks, and glass ceilings. Canadian Journal of Education, 32 (3), 591–617.

Syed, K. T. (2010). Canadian educators’ narratives of teaching multicultural education. International Journal of Canadian Studie s, 42, 255–269. Retrieved from https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/ijcs/2010-n42-ijcs1516360/1002181ar.pdf

Statistics Canada (2017). Focus on Geography Series, 2016 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98–404-X2016001. Ottawa, Ontario. Data products, 2016 Census. Retrieved from https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/as-sa/fogs-spg/Facts-pr-eng.cfm?Lang=Eng&GK=PR&GC=48&TOPIC=7

U.S. National Library of Medicine (2019). Help me understand genetics: Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing. Retrieved from PDF version of https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/dtcgenetictesting/ancestrytesting .

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Secondary Education, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

Daniela Fontenelle-Tereshchuk

Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniela Fontenelle-Tereshchuk .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

We have no known conflict of interest to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Fontenelle-Tereshchuk, D. Diversity in the Classrooms: A Human-Centered Approach to Schools. Interchange 51 , 429–439 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-020-09402-4

Download citation

Received : 03 January 2020

Accepted : 08 April 2020

Published : 17 April 2020

Issue Date : December 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-020-09402-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• About the Case Studies
• Blue Engine
• College Track
• DEI Case Studies: Overview

Understanding Our Data

• acknowledgements

DEI in Action: ‍ A Radically Human Approach to Case Studies

Curious about what’s happened since the moment in time of the cases? Watch our webinars with leaders from each organization and the co-authors of the cases as we discuss in more detail. ‍ Watch webinar recordings: TNTP: Facing Difficult Conversations College Track: Moving Beyond Diversity to Inclusion Blue Engine: The Challenge of Living Out Values

You’ve probably seen those case studies — the ones that all too often gloss over thorny, multidimensional challenges and deeply human imperfections for the sake of a neat narrative or sales pitch. 

These are not the case studies you’re used to.

Since the release of Unrealized Impact — Promise54’s first-of-its-kind, rigorous effort to quantify the state of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the field — we’ve received many requests for narratives sharing organizations’ actual DEI journeys. In response, we’ve decided to write a series of in-depth case studies that reflect the messy reality of the work to create thriving environments for adults so they can do their best work on behalf of students, families, and communities. 

We’ve endeavored to create a radically human alternative to the run-of-the-mill case study. Based on hours of interviews and analyses of artifacts, staff experience survey data, and DEI plans, we strove to honestly represent the journey of each organization featured — including progress made, comparisons to sector benchmarks, missteps along the way, and the challenges that these organizations are still grappling with today.

We also recognize that the stories we share are not fully representative of the wide range of perspectives and experiences that exist within these organizations. Bias is inherent in any research endeavor, and we acknowledge that there are likely biases into ours as well as the perspectives of the “storytellers” in each organization.

This honest and radically human representation requires an immense amount of vulnerability and bravery from the participating organizations, their staff, and leadership. They have invited us into not only their moments of success but also their messiest, most difficult moments - and we are profoundly appreciative for that. 

The organizations you’ll read about here are not groups who have “arrived,” and we’re not holding them up as models of perfection for others to emulate - either in process or outcomes. We believe perfection is an impossibility — and the focus on it is often a manifestation of white-dominant culture in our organizations. Instead, we embrace the imperfect work of these featured organizations as an opportunity to learn, surface discussion questions and considerations, to ultimately help drive forward progress on DEI in our own organizations and in the field collectively. 

What’s more, DEI work simply can’t be automated. There’s no universal checklist to follow — not even in these case studies — and no one-size-fits-all formula for how to get to diverse, equitable, and inclusive. Each organization’s path is highly specific to its own culture, beliefs, and challenges. DEI work within organizations is a winding process that requires maintenance, patience, and tailoring.

That’s why we’re shining a spotlight on organizations of different sizes, types, and geographies, and at different points in their journey. The first three featured organizations in this series model courage, candor, and vulnerability by baring their often uncomfortable truths. And therein lies the essence of the work itself.

How do we measure, compare, and classify organizations on diversity, inclusion, and equity?

Throughout the case studies, you will see references to Promise54’s DEI surveys, our aggregate field-level DEI data, and our “ Unrealized Impact ” report. Here’s a bit more information on how we use those tools to help organizations measure, benchmark, and classify DEI efforts.

In spite of a desire to drive progress related to diversity, inclusion, and equity, we see many organizational leaders struggle to measure and monitor their efforts over time. In our Promise54 DEI surveys and associated reports, we offer a solution: Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity Indices. These indices offer an aggregate look across a battery of questions on staff perspectives for each distinct DEI concept. Many organizations find the Diversity Index,  Equity Index, and Inclusion Index to be powerful metrics to watch as they seek to monitor the effectiveness of their DEI work over time while using our more detailed reporting on each index to inform their plans for the future.

While each organization’s DEI journey is distinct, leaders and staff alike can find it informative to understand how their organization’s current state compares to those of their peers. Therefore, we continue to collect and report on aggregate field-level DEI data over time. Our repository of DEI data is always growing, but at the time of these case studies, our benchmarks include over 20,000 respondents across over 400 organizations, largely in the field of education. Our benchmarks span all 50 states of the U.S. and the District of Columbia, include organization sizes from no full-time staff to several thousand, and represent various types of education organizations.

See some of our most updated national data here!

As we looked across all three dimensions of diversity, inclusion, and equity for organizations that have participated in the Promise54 Staff Experience DEI Survey, we noted substantial similarities among clusters of organizations (as illustrated in the scatterplot below):

Based on these common characteristics, we created Organizational Profiles to describe organizations in a similar place in relation to DEI. Leaders often find Organizational Profiles useful to contextualize their experiences and to get a sense, across all three dimensions, of their organization’s past, present, and future state.

In brief, the Organizational Profiles based on Promise54 DEI Staff Experience Survey data are:

Profile: Early Stage Organization

Early Stage organizations typically have relatively:

• Low staff and leadership demographic diversity
• Low staff experiences of inclusion
• Low staff experiences of equity
• High reports of bias being witnessed and experienced
• Low Net Promoter Scores
• Low staff intent to stay

Our data indicates that this pattern could be driven by a couple of conditions (or a combination of them): 1) good intentions coupled with low or inconsistent prioritization of DEI efforts, 2) a need for a clear articulation of the link between DEI and the organization’s mission, and 3) an understanding of which DEI-related strategies will prove to be high leverage within the organizational context.

Profile: Diversified Organization

Diversified organizations typically have relatively:

• High staff and leadership demographic diversity

Our data indicates that this pattern could be driven by an expectation that staff and leaders of color will assimilate to preexisting culture, practices, and systems versus an organization identifying and making the necessary changes to effectively receive and support a more diverse staff so they can thrive. Alternatively, some Diversified organizations may expect, whether implicitly or explicitly, that inclusion and equity will automatically follow from diversity. The underlying assumption is that staff who “represent” the communities served will drive forward this progress, and thus they are seen as responsible for the work rather than sharing the responsibility and the burden of the work across an organization.

Profile: Kindred Organization

Kindred organizations typically have relatively:

• High staff experiences of inclusion
• High staff experiences of equity
• Low reports of bias being witnessed and experienced
• High Net Promoter Scores
• High staff intent to stay

While inclusive and equitable, these organizations are not diverse and may be experienced as inclusive or equitable because they’re homogeneous. Additionally, our data indicates that these organizations may not be generating the myriad benefits that studies demonstrate result from diversity. 

Profile: Advanced Organization

Advanced organizations typically have relatively:

Our data indicates that many Advanced organizations have organically integrated DEI into their fabric without articulating, documenting, or codifying their approaches, beliefs, or practices. This can expose these organizations to risks of not being able to sustain their strong DEI in periods of uncertainty or during substantial organizational inflection points.

When we support organizations to work on their priorities around diversity, inclusion, and equity, we encourage an intentional, inclusive process to define these critical terms in context. This is especially important because while ~50% of education organizations believe DEI is related to their vision, mission, and/or values, less than ~20% have defined the terms for their own organizational context. This can lead to substantially different ideas of what an organization is working toward, how to best get there, or what individuals can expect from their day-to-day experiences. For a set of common starting definitions applicable across each of our case study organizations, we use the following:

Variation; the presence of different types of people (from a wide range of identities and with different perspectives, experiences, etc.).

When we partner with organizations to support their DEI work, some of the critical considerations we surface as they work to tailor their definition of diversity are:

• Whether they’re intentionally placing a disproportionate emphasis on race and ethnicity in defining diversity, and why they would or would not do so;
• Whether they are intentionally focusing on any other aspects of diversity, and why or why not; and
• What the ideal demographic makeup of their staff would be if they thought about their staff representation goals from a diversity standpoint.

Embracing diversity by creating an environment of involvement, respect, and connection — where the richness of ideas, backgrounds, and perspectives is harnessed to create value.

When we partner with organizations to support their DEI work, some of the critical considerations we surface as they tailor their definition of inclusion are:

• What indicators various identity groups may experience today related to sense of belonging, connectedness, agency, voice, and psychological safety as well as whether, how, and why those indicators differ by identity groups; and
• Whether and how those varied experiences need to change in the future.

Ensuring equally high outcomes for all and removing the predictability of success or failure that currently correlates with any identity marker. 

When we partner with organizations to support their DEI work, some of the critical considerations we surface as they tailor their definition of equity are:

• The distinction between equity and equality. Equity ensures that everyone has what they need to be successful, taking into account different starting points and institutionalized biases. Equality means everyone receives the same resources and support, no matter their starting point. While equality may aim to promote fairness, it assumes that everyone starts from the same place and faces the same institutional barriers along the way toward outcomes; and
• To what degree the organization intends to focus on liberation (freeing ourselves and those whom we aim to serve from the oppressive structures around us) versus equity (supporting those whom we aim to serve to be successful within oppressive structures) and how those answers should impact an organization’s specific definition of equity.

Net Promoter Score

We created a promoter index comprised of a high score on intent to stay and/or willingness to recommend the organization to a friend.

Intent to Stay

This measure in our Staff Experience Survey looks at a staff member’s self-reported likelihood of working in the same organization in three years. 

White Dominant Culture

Culture refers to the norms, values, beliefs, ways of thinking, behaving, and decision-making within a group - or in this case within an organization. White-dominant culture norms (defined by Kenneth Jones and Dr. Tema Okun ) “are damaging because they are used as norms and standards without being pro-actively named or chosen by the group. They are damaging because they promote white supremacy thinking. They are damaging to both people of color and to white people. Organizations that are people of color led or a majority people of color can also demonstrate many damaging characteristics of white supremacy culture.” 

Kenneth Jones and Dr. Tema Okun defined white-dominant culture norms as listed below. 

Psychological Safety

A concept coined by Amy Edmondson which refers to a shared belief held by members of a team that “the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking - a belief that one will not be punished or humiliated for speaking up with ideas, questions, concerns, or mistakes.”

In a team with high psychological safety, individuals feel safe taking risks around other team members and/or supervisors. Psychological safety facilitates continuous learning in organizations because it alleviates concern about how others will react to actions or behaviors that could have the potential for threat or embarrassment. Psychological safety is critical to DEI work because it supports and enables vulnerability, learning, growth, and behavior change.

Acknowledgements

Promise54 is deeply grateful to the leaders and staff of College Track, TNTP, and Blue Engine for their candor and their courage to vulnerably share their experiences working toward diversity, inclusion, and equity. In particular, we want to thank Elissa Salas, Julia Chih, Tonya Horton, Tequilla Brownie, Tamecca Chester, Leticia De La Vara, Anne Eidelman, and Elandria Jackson. Further we’d like to thank Lyle Hurst and Leslye Louie for data support, Heather Buchheim for writing, Amy Blizzard-Brown for research, Varona Productions for video production, Giant Rabbit for web build and support, and VBG Solutions for pdf design and build. Finally, we appreciate the thoughtful feedback and thought-partnership provided by Rebecca Crowe, Kaya Henderson, Chris Gibbons, Jonas Chartock, Frances Messano, and Idrissa Simmonds-Nastili. ‍ We also want to thank the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, especially the contributions of program officers Katherine Martin and Rachel Leifer, and the Walton Family Foundation for supporting this critical work.

Promise54 ’s  mission is to help adults thrive so they can better serve students, families, and communities. We envision a day when organizations committed to educational equity can have maximum impact because they have:

• The right people excelling in the right roles;
• Teams that include perspectives, identities, and experiences of the communities served;
• Cultures of belonging, trust, and connection; and  
• Equitable internal structures, systems, and behaviors.

Copyright 2019, Promise54.org

Designed and built by Giant Rabbit

• Arts & Culture
• Civic Engagement
• Economic Development
• Environment
• Human Rights
• Social Services
• Water & Sanitation
• Foundations
• Nonprofits & NGOs
• Social Enterprise
• Collaboration
• Design Thinking
• Impact Investing
• Measurement & Evaluation

Organizational Development

• Philanthropy & Funding
• Current Issue
• Sponsored Supplements
• Global Editions
• In-Depth Series
• Stanford PACS
• Submission Guidelines

Building Inclusion from the Inside-Out: A Brief Case Study

The philanthropic sector believes diversity, equity, and inclusion are central to any social mission, but how can organizations ensure that their own people and processes reflect those values?

• order reprints
• related stories

By Sampriti Ganguli & Graham Murphy Jul. 27, 2016

The philanthropic sector is in agreement that diversity, equity, and inclusion are central to any social mission, but what does that look like in practice—especially within our own hallways and cubicles? While there’s consensus that our field has work to do in better representing and serving our diverse population, putting intentions into practice can be complicated and difficult.

Earlier this year, the D5 Coalition , a recently completed five-year initiative to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion in philanthropy, released its annual State of the Work report outlining the movement’s progress and challenges. While D5’s creation five years ago, and the growing number of social-sector institutions who partnered with it over the years, are testament to the importance philanthropy places on diversity, equity, and inclusion, its latest report found that we still have a way to go. For example, people of color are still underrepresented at foundation leadership levels—and the lack of reliable data about the number of women, people of color, LGBT people, and people with disabilities in decision-making positions within foundations presents an ongoing challenge. As D5 Director Kelly Brown stated in the report, “The data itself may not be telling the whole story because many foundations have yet to share information about personnel and grant making.”

Given this, D5 decided to focus its final report on stories of people in philanthropic organizations taking action to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion. Brown continued, “These stories can inform strategy, but more importantly they instill hope, inspire courage, and buttress our shared commitment to advance the common good.”

In the spirit of the report, we are sharing our story—stumbles and all—in the hopes that others can learn from our experience as they work toward our shared goals.

Are you enjoying this article? Read more like this, plus SSIR's full archive of content, when you subscribe .

Arabella Advisors, which since 2005 has advised foundations and other donors on philanthropic strategy, began a concerted effort five years ago to increase the diversity of our workforce. We made many mistakes in our earliest days. It took time to understand what works and what doesn’t, and recalibrate, and we have come to realize that fully embodying these values is hard, in the same way that any kind of social change is hard.

Good Intentions Aren’t Enough

Leading up to this effort, we were growing rapidly, and we increasingly heard—particularly from junior and mid-level staff—that that our workplace felt disconnected from the people and places we served. At the same time, our clients—current and prospective—were more frequently highlighting how mission-critical diversity, equity, and inclusion is to the social sector. In 2011, we made a commitment to increase the diversity of our workforce.

At first, our efforts were scattershot and disorganized. We drafted a statement of our commitment , but though the sentiment was genuine, we had no coherent strategy to achieve it. We solicited ideas from staff about how to reach more diverse networks and set up a few ad-hoc staff diversity committees comprised of people who believed deeply in the mission. But while they proposed worthy goals, they made limited progress. These ideas and committees weren’t integrated into the organization’s broader strategic plan, and it was difficult to persuade management to accept accountability for goals that that it did not fully understand.

A couple of years into our efforts, we were seeing some positives—for example, broader recruiting networks and relationships with professional associations whose members brought new experiences to our firm—but staff sentiment remained ambivalent. We also heard clients express a desire for more diversity on our project teams. This led the firm’s leadership to pressure the recruitment team to seek more “diversity candidates,” but without a clear strategy for how to do that—or, most crucially, a common understanding of what we meant by diversity—the perspectives and insights we were bringing to the table felt static.

Listening and Learning

Two years into our efforts, we took a step back, acknowledging that we had misjudged the complexity of what it meant to be a diverse firm. Because of a desire to see and demonstrate progress, we had jumped into a series of actions geared at outputs measurable by statistics, without stopping to understand the problem.

We decided to approach diversity, equity, and inclusion as we would other firm-wide strategic issues: by designating people to lead the charge and be accountable, integrating it into our broader goals and infrastructure, and identifying outsiders to fill the gaps in our expertise. A brand-new HR department took responsibility for the firm’s commitment to diversity and set a simple goal for the first year: to develop a long-term vision and strategy for what a diverse, equitable, and inclusive Arabella should look like.

The team began with two important steps focused on learning. First, it reached out to diversity experts and external groups with diversity, equity, and inclusion success stories, including D5, academia, diversity consultants, and competitors. These groups helped us understand that diversity goes beyond demographics and statistics—that it is woven into every aspect of the workplace, from the obvious (recruiting and hiring) to the less obvious (water cooler chatter, happy hour themes, and who leads presentations at all-staff meetings). They also helped us determine where we needed to train staff on issues like unconscious bias and navigating challenging conversations.

Second, the team asked staff members what they were experiencing when it came to the diversity of our workforce and how our workplace supported it. We disseminated an all-staff survey, and interviewed individuals to learn about their experiences inside and outside Arabella. To our surprise, the internal data turned out to be the most enlightening. We hadn’t previously tracked demographic data in a systematic way, and our survey highlighted the extent to which racial and ethnic minorities were underrepresented at the firm—something we could set clear goals to address. We also learned that there was a perception that the firm promoted only dominant and extroverted personalities, and that people with different personalities weren’t heard.

Diversity at an organizational level is much more complex than demographic representation. Organizations must also create an environment in which different voices are heard, different skills and backgrounds are valued and promoted, and everyone feels they can be their authentic selves without professional repercussions. By seeking outside perspective and creating a platform that allowed employees to share their feelings, we discovered that every aspect of our systems, processes, and culture feeds into how diverse, equitable, and inclusive we are.

Initial Progress and Moving Forward

Understanding the problem better means we’ve become better at addressing it. With full backing from our senior leadership and our new CEO, we implemented a number of strategies. In 2015, we set a goal of increasing the racial and ethnic diversity of the firm so that it better reflected the general population. A revamped recruiting team identified and cultivated partnerships with organizations that would connect us with candidates from a broader set of backgrounds. We forged a partnership with the DC chapter of the National Black MBA Association , for example, and co-hosted meetings and events for its members. We also affirmed our commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion in our branding, particularly on our recruiting materials, and have heard from several candidates that this was a factor in their decision to apply to Arabella.

Simultaneously, we made a series of internal changes that went hand-in-hand with more expansive recruiting and hiring. We trained hiring managers to understand unconscious bias and how it can generate homogenous candidate pools. Prior to this work, one of our hiring criteria was “cultural fit”—a vague rationale that we now interrogated, realizing it was an umbrella under which people could lump biases. Our recruiters no longer allowed hiring teams to turn down a candidate because they were “not a cultural fit.” We also had external experts do intensive, full-day trainings with every member of our staff about what constituted an equitable and inclusive environment, including sessions on issues such as microaggressions and power in the workplace. We identified a cohort of staff from across the firm to serve as inclusion leaders, tasked with working on an ongoing basis with leadership, HR, and their peers on changing internal culture, processes, and models to better integrate these values.

Through these measures, we have begun to see progress on several fronts. For example, in 2015, we increased the racial and ethnic diversity of the firm by 32 percent, broadening and deepening the perspectives we bring to our work with clients and to our daily interactions with each other. And we formed a cohort of inclusion leaders—a cross-section of staff spanning the firm’s teams and regional offices—tasked with drawing on their experiences to drive the firm’s work on diversity and inclusion. In addition to helping us identify a number of other ways in which staff have felt disconnected, the inclusion leaders have led the development of a multi-pronged strategy to incorporate diversity, equity, and inclusion into the firm’s culture, recruiting and hiring, and client relationships. While we address the issues this cohort raises at the leadership level, staff members now drive trainings and events, as well as the broad direction of our efforts on this front.

Through these efforts, we have become better at incorporating diversity, equity, and inclusion values into our work with clients. One of our project teams, for example, was able to help a major client uncover implicit bias and blind spots in their giving strategy; this resulted in a new set of criteria for their grant making that is enabling them to reach more vulnerable populations. Living these values by being better partners to our clients is deeply satisfying.

We all have a role to play in making our field more diverse, equitable, and inclusive—both in how we treat the people who work there and in how we think about the work we do. It is a tough journey that takes time, facing hard truths, and learning from mistakes, but the change we want to see in the world needs to start in our own hallways. 

Support  SSIR ’s coverage of cross-sector solutions to global challenges.  Help us further the reach of innovative ideas.  Donate today .

Read more stories by Graham Murphy & Sampriti Ganguli .

SSIR.org and/or its third-party tools use cookies, which are necessary to its functioning and to our better understanding of user needs. By closing this banner, scrolling this page, clicking a link or continuing to otherwise browse this site, you agree to the use of cookies.

Excerpt: Case Studies on Diversity & Social Justice Education

This text is an abridged excerpt from chapters 1 and 2 of Case Studies on Diversity and Social Justice Education , reproduced here with permission of Routledge

Samantha, a vivacious seventh grader at Hillside School, a middle school in the predominantly low-income mountainous outskirts of northern Virginia, loves science class. By all apparent accounts, Samantha has a gift for the sciences, too. She aces all of her quizzes and tests and regularly helps classmates who are struggling with experiments. 

This makes it particularly difficult for Ms. Grady to understand why Samantha rarely turns in her science homework. Wondering whether there was an issue at home, Ms. Grady has touched base several times with her colleagues who have Samantha’s younger siblings in their classes to see whether they were noticing similar patterns. To the contrary, she learned that her younger siblings always turn in their homework.

Ms. Grady has reached out to Samantha every way she knows how, from pleading with her to offering to give her more advanced work that might engage her in new ways. On several occasions she has asked Samantha why she rarely turns in her homework. 

“It’s nothing,” Samantha typically responds. “I’ll do it next time. I promise.”

Regardless of how often she calls Samantha’s parents, nobody answers. Imagine how successful Samantha could be if only her parents cared enough to support her education , Ms. Grady has often thought to herself. 

As a conscientious teacher, Ms. Grady wants to support Samantha. On the other hand, she has roomfuls of other students who also need her attention. And, when it comes down to it, Ms. Grady’s grading policy is clear: students are allowed to turn in one homework assignment one day late without penalty—she calls this her “life happens” rule; but in every other instance, failure to turn in homework results in a grade of “0” for that assignment. 

One day after school Ms. Grady approaches Mr. Burns, a social studies teacher at Hillside who had taken a particular interest in Samantha during the previous academic year. 

“I know,” Mr. Burns says. “Brilliant young woman. I had the same experience with her. I didn’t know what to think until I decided to pay her family a visit at home.” Having grown up in the area and attended Hillside as a low-income student, Mr. Burns bristled at some of his colleagues’ deficit-laden perceptions of the local community.

It never occurred to Ms. Grady to visit Samantha’s home. “Wow!” she responds, taken aback by her colleague’s “direct action” approach to student success. “What did you learn?”

“A lot ,” he answers, explaining that Samantha’s father finally found a steady job four months after the local mill shut down. As she has done for years, Samantha’s mother continues to piece together multiple jobs. “She usually sneaks in the door around 11 p.m., an hour or so after her husband, trying not to wake the kids,” Mr. Burns explains. 

“From the moment she gets home from school until her dad returns from work, she’s babysitting Francis and Kevin, her younger siblings. She’s busy taking them to the playground, cooking them dinner, helping them with their homework.”

“Well,” Ms. Grady reflects, “that explains why her siblings’ homework is always in on time and how well Samantha does helping her classmates with their work.”

“Now all I have to do is figure out what to do about Samantha’s grade. And I wonder how many of my other students are in similar situations,” Ms. Grady says.

There exists no magic formula for solving the conundrum in which Ms. Grady finds herself. This is why, in our estimation, we must develop and hone the sorts of competencies that help us to make sense out of real-life messiness. Otherwise, we risk allowing ourselves to be swayed by popular mythology (“poor people do not care enough about their children’s education”). We risk responding without a contoured understanding for why certain conditions exist in our classrooms and schools. 

We have the power to strengthen our abilities to create equitable learning environments and to maintain high expectations for all students by considering contextual factors in addition to the everyday practicalities of our work as we shape our professional practice. 

From the moment she gets home from school until her dad returns from work, she's babysitting Francis and Kevin, her younger siblings. She's busy taking them to the playground, cooking them dinner, helping them with their homework.

The Case Method

One tool—and, in our experience, a particularly effective one—for strengthening those abilities is what is commonly called the “case method.” The premise of the case method is that by analyzing real-life scenarios based on actual events, such as the situation involving Samantha and Ms. Grady, we can practice applying theoretical ideas (such as educational equity ) to on-the-ground professional practice.*

Our process for analyzing educational cases is comprised of seven steps. The steps are accumulative, building steadily and holistically toward a set of informed, mindful responses to often complex classroom and school situations.   

Step 1: Identify the Problem or Problems Posed by the Case 

Begin by naming the challenges or problems (or potential problems) that are explicit and immediately apparent to you. Once you have a grasp of those more obvious dynamics, try to dig a little deeper. Look for less explicit, not-so-obvious examples of existing or potential bias, inequity, interpersonal tensions, stereotypes, prejudices, or assumptions. What does the case tell us about school or classroom policy, about instructional practices or curricula, about individuals’ attitudes that might hint at something deeper than those surface-level biases and inequities? 

Step 2: Take Stock of Varying Perspectives

Our case has at least a couple of obvious stakeholders. Our first task, then, for Step 2 is, as best we can, to walk in Ms. Grady and Samantha’s shoes. How might they, given who they are in relation to one another, be experiencing the situation?

Complicating matters, despite being at the center of the scenario, Samantha and Ms. Grady are only two of many affected parties. Samantha’s parents, whose other two children, Frances and Kevin, also attend the school and in the future might even have Ms. Grady as a teacher, are involved. Then there are Samantha’s classmates, the “bystanders.” How might Ms. Grady’s decisions affect other students who are from families in poverty?   

Step 3: Consider Possible Challenges and Opportunities

Our next task is to imagine the potential challenges and opportunities presented by the case. Start with the individuals involved. We might surmise that Ms. Grady has an opportunity to develop a deeper understanding of low-income students—of both the hurdles they might face and the resiliencies they demonstrate. Of course, she also faces a number of challenges, not least of which is overcoming her own biases. What sorts of opportunities and challenges does the case present for Samantha? For her classmates?

We also want to consider the institutional challenges and opportunities. We might assume, by way of challenges, that Ms. Grady might not get a tremendous amount of support if she chose to enact a homework policy that did not conform to those of her colleagues. An institutional opportunity, on the other hand, might be the chance to collaborate toward more equitable school-wide policies and practices in order to more effectively engage low-income students and families.

Step 4: Imagine Equitable Outcomes 

[W]e turn, in Step 4, to imagining what a fair and equitable resolution to the situation might look like. This is a critical step, as Steps 5 through 7 are designed to facilitate the process of working toward the outcomes we define in Step 4.

First, it’s important to distinguish equitable outcomes from equal outcomes. Equality, as we see it, connotes sameness . Equity, on the other hand, connotes fairness . Equity takes context into account.

Second, remember to think both immediate term and long term . What can be resolved right now, on the spot, and what will equity look like once it is resolved? You might decide, for example, that Ms. Grady needs to find a different strategy right now to communicate with Samantha. Perhaps an equitable outcome would be professional development on socioeconomic issues for the teachers at Samantha’s school or a strengthened relationship between Ms. Grady and Samantha’s parents.

Finally, be specific . Identify very specific, on-the-ground outcomes. How, specifically, will things be different in that classroom and school if we commit to resolving the issue and all its complexities equitably? 

Step 5: Brainstorm Immediate-term Responses

Now that you have some equitable outcomes in mind, it is time to begin brainstorming strategies to get us there. What are some of the things you might do right now , if you were in Ms. Grady’s shoes, to achieve those outcomes? This is a brainstorm, remember, so do not overthink.  

All we are doing here is making a list. It’s an informed list, based on all the work we have been doing in the previous steps. But it is still just a list.

Step 6: Brainstorm Longer-term Policy and Practice Adjustments  

In Step 6 we turn to longer-term strategies, often for more substantive change. This is where we might brainstorm ways to bolster awareness about the sorts of challenges Samantha faces throughout the school, if that is one of our equitable outcomes. It is where we focus on things such as institutional culture, school-wide practices, or even district policy, if we believe they need to be altered in order to achieve our equitable outcomes.

Here, again, we’re brainstorming. Try not to self-censor. Just focus on recording whatever ideas come to mind based on Steps 1 through 5.

Step 7: Craft a Plan of Action

During this, the final step, we craft our brainstorms into a set of specific actions that will result in the equitable outcomes we imagined in Step 5. How would you respond in order to ensure, to the best of your knowledge and power, equity for everybody involved?

A Few Final Thoughts

We recognize, of course, that in the heat of the moment we do not always have time to sit down and think through the seven steps of a case analysis process. The point is not to memorize these steps. Instead, the idea is to use them to practice our skills by reflecting on classroom situations through a diversity and social justice lens. Practice enough, and that view will become second nature. 

* Darling-Hammond, L. (2006) P owerful Teacher Education: Lessons from Exemplary Programs . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Apply the seven-step case method to another case—or to a case of your own with our toolkit. 

• Student sensitivity.
• The Power of Advertising and Girls' Self-Image

Print this Article

Would you like to print the images in this article?

• Google Classroom

Sign in to save these resources.

Login or create an account to save resources to your bookmark collection.

Learning for Justice in the South

When it comes to investing in racial justice in education, we believe that the South is the best place to start. If you’re an educator, parent or caregiver, or community member living and working in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana or Mississippi, we’ll mail you a free introductory package of our resources when you join our community and subscribe to our magazine.

Get the Learning for Justice Newsletter

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Getting Serious About Diversity: Enough Already with the Business Case

• Robin J. Ely
• David A. Thomas

Leaders may mean well when they tout the economic payoffs of hiring more women and people of color, but there is no research support for the notion that diversifying the workforce automatically improves a company’s performance. This article critiques the popular rhetoric about diversity and revisits an argument the authors made 25 years ago: To fully benefit from increased racial and gender diversity, organizations must adopt a learning orientation and be willing to change the corporate culture and power structure.

Four actions are key for leaders: building trust and creating a workplace where people feel free to express themselves; actively combating bias and systems of oppression; embracing a variety of styles and voices inside the organization; and using employees’ identity-related knowledge and experiences to learn how best to accomplish the firm’s core work.

It’s time for a new way of thinking.

Idea in Brief

The context.

Business leaders often make a business case for diversity, claiming that hiring more women or people of color results in better financial performance.

The Problem

There’s no empirical evidence that simply diversifying the workforce, absent fundamental changes to the organizational culture, makes a company more profitable.

A Better Approach

Companies can benefit from diversity if leaders create a psychologically safe workplace, combat systems of discrimination and subordination, embrace the styles of employees from different identity groups, and make cultural differences a resource for learning and improving organizational effectiveness.

“The business case has been made to demonstrate the value a diverse board brings to the company and its constituents.”

• RE Robin J. Ely is the Diane Doerge Wilson Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School and the faculty chair of the HBS Gender Initiative.
• DT David A. Thomas is the president of Morehouse College. He is also the H. Naylor Fitzhugh Professor Emeritus at Harvard Business School and the former dean of Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business.

Partner Center

Best practice case study project

We are promoting and showcasing the best examples in recruitment and retention where initiatives and schemes have successfully improved the diversity of the workforce, in particular the representation of women, disabled people and those from minority ethnic backgrounds.

Our best practice case studies include case studies from Atkins, BAE Systems, B-MEntor, BT, Caterpillar, the Department of Health, FDM, IBM, Jaguar Land Rover and Microsoft; as well as North Energy Associates. The next call for submissions will open in Autumn 2015.

Atkins “Atkins’ endeavours have demonstrated that we are prepared to push ahead and offer something new to prospective employees, which should stand us out from our competitors.”  Read the case study (PDF)

BAE Systems “At BAE Systems we value diversity because it benefits our people and helps our business grow. There are many ways in which we are supporting a more diverse and inclusive environment, and one such opportunity we saw was to create an additional route into our summer internship programme for individuals who are female and/or from a Black, Asian or minority ethnic group.” Read the case study (PDF)

B-MEntor B-MEntor is a cross-institutional mentoring scheme to support BME early career researchers and is run by 3 London based universities: University College London (UCL), Kings College London and Queen Mary University of London. B-MEntor was launched in 2012 and some of its aims include encouraging BME staff to take on leadership and decision-making roles and to make a positive difference to BME staff with sustainable outcomes. Read the case study (PDF)

BT “BT is very proud of its well established and diverse networks for employees. The networks create a communication channel between members and the business; create developmental opportunities for members; enhance the corporate brand and work with our Inclusion team to plan and implement our diversity and inclusion strategy” Read the case study (PDF)

Caterpillar "Caterpillar recognises that one of its key competitive edges, and therefore the reason for its success as a business, is its employees and the talent they bring to the organisation." Read the case study (PDF)

Department of Health The Department of Health (DH) currently has 11 recognised staff networks spanning most of the protected characteristics defined in the Equality Act 2010. The networks in DH cover: Disability, Race, LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender), Religion, Women, Maternity and Flexible working. DH also has a number of Staff Groups that provide targeted support to staff, such as domestic abuse, health and wellbeing and dyslexia. Read the case study (PDF) 

FDM “Only 17% of IT professionals in the UK are women; FDM is committed to addressing this imbalance!” Read the case study (PDF)

IBM –  The Girls’ Outreach Programme “Girls consistently outperform boys in IT related subjects at school yet they rarely continue with these studies or choose careers in technology. The Girls’ Outreach Programme was established to address this declining pipeline of female talent.” Read the case study (PDF)

Jaguar Land Rover “Jaguar Land Rover has created the Women in Engineering Sponsorship Scheme- a unique scheme to support the training of female engineers alongside their degree.” Read the case study (PDF)

Microsoft “Confidence is key for women progressing within IT so by bringing the components of role models, inspiration and sponsorship together we hope to create interest in women to follow a career path they might not previously had the opportunity to follow and to tap in to the huge number of women who are qualified to work in IT but have never pursued it.” Read the case study (PDF)

Individual case studies 

Charlotte Hatto –  Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Consultant and Life Cycle Assessment Practitioner, North Energy Associates “With a physics degree and research experience from UMIST, I felt that I had much to offer potential employers, but had virtually given up hope of ever finding a job to suit my lifestyle and interests.” Read the case study (PDF)

Helen Wilson – Reader in Mathematics, University College London “Since my first maternity leave I have been appointed Deputy Head of Department; since my second, things have really taken off for me and I have been appointed to a surprising number of national and international bodies. There are times when the demands of two small children and a full-time job feel too much; but my institution is really doing its best to make things work for me.” Read the case study (PDF)

Email updates

We promote excellence in science so that, together, we can benefit humanity and tackle the biggest challenges of our time.

Subscribe to our newsletters to be updated with the latest news on innovation, events, articles and reports.

What subscription are you interested in receiving? (Choose at least one subject)