Stemming Implicit Bias in High-Tech STEM: The Vision of Project Include

Abstract

Diversity and inclusion are topics about which we hear a great deal, especially in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields. These topics are not only of great interest but also of great concern as we consider the ability of the United States to improve educational opportunities for more Americans and remain competitive in the global economy. Project Include (PI) is a diversity and inclusion initiative spearheaded by a group of women in high-tech professions to support start-up companies who wish to build inclusive organizations. I conducted a qualitative content analysis of the PI Web site and found that the vision of PI suggests useful means by which tech organizations can avoid common missteps that undermine their ability to operate inclusively. I found evidence of three themes: interrogating assumptions about human resources (HR) and hiring, defining true diversity, and building diversity and inclusivity. I discuss each theme and conclude with offering a 10-question self-evaluation that tech and other organizations can use or adapt to critically evaluate HR and operational practices to better align with diversity and inclusion goals.

Keywords

diversity and inclusion social psychology technology implicit bias work and organization

In the United States, we hear a great deal about the importance of and need for diversity and inclusion in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). Yet progress has been slow. Even with laws aimed at reducing bias and preventing discrimination in education and the labor market, de facto practices subtly, and often unintentionally, perpetuate implicit bias.

Project Include (PI) is an initiative started by a group of seven women tech industry professionals supporting diversity and inclusion efforts in high-tech start-ups by providing a resource of free, easily accessible online information and some additional support services. I came across PI when I was preparing to teach a class about STEM fields and decided to analyze the Web site content to answer the following research question:

Research Question 1: What does PI argue that tech organizations should do differently to better support diversity and inclusion?

Background

As concerns about the ability of the United States to remain competitive in a global economy have heightened, so have interests in excellence and innovation in STEM (Carnevale, Smith, and Melton 2011; Casey 2016; Gibbs 2014; Lewis 2015; Ouimet 2015; Randall 2014; Swayne 2016). The U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) (2017) projects that the pace of growth in STEM jobs will be much faster than non-STEM jobs between now and 2024.

The push for strengthening and diversifying STEM began, in earnest, in the 1990s, with a focus on recruiting women, who were mostly white, into STEM fields, and broadened in the 2000s to include racial and ethnic minorities. But despite some advances for underrepresented groups, very little has changed (Bidwell 2015; Change the Equation 2015; M. Smith 2016). White and Asian American men still dominate in STEM fields at proportions that surpass their numbers in the U.S. population, and, even though half of the U.S. population is female and increasingly racially diverse, representation among those groups remains low in comparison. Moreover, when white women and racial minorities pursue STEM careers, they are less likely to attain degrees and more likely to channel into lower status fields with lower pay relative to white male counterparts (U.S. DOL, BLS 2015).

The lack of diversity in STEM is largely considered a pipeline problem. It is often argued that the supply of students appropriately academically prepared to work in these fields is inadequate. Those in higher education sometimes argue that students are ill equipped for the rigors of STEM majors. However, given that the patterns of underrepresentation in STEM careers closely match patterns of marginalization in the larger U.S. society, it is likely that the two are linked (Casey 2016). This suggests the need to rethink what the pipeline is and how it should function, especially in light of the aging, diversifying, and slowed growth that the U.S. population and, therefore, the U.S. labor market are projected to experience in the next 40 years (Toossi 2016). Some have explicitly argued that the pipeline metaphor is no longer useful or accurate (Miller 2015) because supply-side focus alone may be inadequate for explaining the issues faced (Etzkowitz, Gupta, and Kemelgor 2010).

Although pipeline discourse tends to emphasize ways that students make decisions or perform in subpar ways that prevent them from entering or facilitate their exit from STEM training or work, studies have found evidence of biases, exclusionary practices, and unwelcoming environments in educational contexts (Etzkowitz et al. 2010; McCollum 2015; Randall 2014).

Scholars have identified subtle prejudices pertaining to gender, ethnicity, sex, and race. Studies suggest prevalent gendered assumptions that STEM requires stereotypically masculine traits, namely independence, and that these ideas affect evaluations of students and offers of mentoring (Moss-Racusin et al. 2012). Students may also feel dissuaded from STEM fields if they find that their own cultural values do not mesh with STEM occupational cultures, which J. Smith et al. (2014) found contributed to the attrition of Native American students in STEM programs. Other disconfirming messages may exist in sex- and race-biased assessment practices such as educators displaying selective attention and interpretation of their students’ writing, which has been shown to result in confirmation bias favoring white males (Reeves 2014). These acts exemplify implicit bias when perpetrators state that they reject bias and discrimination but then act in ways that unknowingly perpetuate it. These issues then seem to morph into related problems in workplaces.

Studies since Kanter (1977) demonstrate subtle ways that those in positions of power in organizations, most often white men, take actions that lend to the hiring and promotion of other white men. Kanter coined the phrase “homosocial reproduction” to describe the propensity to judge people demographically similar to oneself more favorably. This does not apply solely to white men, but because white men continue to dominate positions of power and authority, the cumulative effects of homosocial reproduction perpetuate continued systematic disadvantage for all other demographic groups (Reskin 2011). Although this is often viewed as an unintentional outcome of normal human tendencies for in-group favoritism, the cumulative effects are no less real (Reskin 2011), especially given the assumed rationality and objectivity of managerial decision making (Kalleberg 2013; Thornton, Ocasio, and Lounsbury 2012).

Studies suggest that these processes not only begin at resume screening (Bertrand and Mullainathan 2011) but also affect how responsibility and authority are assigned, which then affect promotional opportunities (Wilson and McBrier 2005). Processes continue with minorities being more often ignored in requests for guidance in comparison with white males (Milkman, Akinola, and Chugh 2015) and racialized labor expectations, which can serve to distract and limit minority workers in their roles (Collins 1997; Wingfield and Skeete 2016). Studies also point to subtleties of systematic disadvantage in performance review processes wherein women receive more personal, punitive comments in comparison with men, who are more likely to receive constructive criticism (Snyder 2014). Although processes such as these may appear totally unremarkable to organizational insiders, they can indeed function as “generic processes” that reproduce inequality interactionally and systematically disadvantage minority workers (Schwalbe et al. 2000:440).

The ways that we understand these problems are largely based on diversity climates research from the mid-1990s, which relied on intergroup relations theory. Studies found that workers were generally more supportive of gender equity than race equity policies (Kossek and Zonia 1993), and that white men and women generally had less positive attitudes toward the policies than did other racial and ethnic group members (Kossek and Zonia 1994). Although white women and racial and ethnic minorities were more supportive of organizational diversity efforts, they were less often in positions of authority to bring about change (Kossek and Zonia 1993).

Scholars theorized that increasing the numbers of underrepresented minority persons in organizations, and given time for people of all groups to gain more experience working together, these attitudes were likely to change (Alderfer et al. 1988; Blau 1977; Kossek and Zonia 1994). However, subsequent studies did not show consonant attitude change (Kossek, Markel, and McHugh 2003).

In addition to specific impediments outlined, there appear to be some that are rather amorphous. Many view science as the “unveiling of individual brilliance” as opposed to learning and skill-building over time in a community of scholars (Gibbs 2014), which leads to the perception that intelligence is fixed (i.e., you’re either “smart” or you’re not) and blurs aspects of privilege (Casey 2016). For example, an article about the University of Texas at Austin’s TAURUS program in Scientific American discusses the goals of the program as “. . . propelling these highly-motivated students of color toward astrophysics careers to which they’ve always aspired” (Casey 2016, https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/promoting-inclusion-in-stem-one-astrophysics-research-project-at-a-time/). Implied here is that only students who demonstrate long-term interest, ability, and commitment to science (i.e., have always wanted to be scientists) should apply. Clearly, this focus mystifies STEM fields and maintains a fairly narrow pipeline.

The focus on “unveiling individual brilliance” is juxtaposed with a focus on compliance, which creates tension. For example, NASA’s MissionSTEM Web page states, “NASA, like many Federal agencies, has obligations under civil rights laws intended to ensure equal opportunities in programs receiving Federal dollars. The MissionSTEM Web site is designed to assist programs and activities receiving NASA funding to meet their obligations under equal opportunity laws.” Likewise, an article on the National Science Foundation’s NSF INCLUDES (Inclusion across the Nation of Communities of Learners of Underrepresented Discoverers in Engineering and Science) states, “NSF INCLUDES began after the congressionally mandated NSF Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering (CEOSE) . . .” (Swayne 2016). In these messages, diversity is, perhaps inadvertently, framed as required rather than presented as valuable. Higher education’s practices of kick-starting diversity initiatives with “hard funds” but ultimately expecting them to be self-sustaining (Rincon and George-Jackson 2016) also seems to reflect this tension. Given the dynamics surrounding diversity and inclusion in STEM, the picture is quite complex.

PI (http://projectinclude.org/) is an initiative that aims to address these complexities by supporting the efforts of small, start-up tech companies who wish to build inclusive organizations from the start. The group, founded by seven women tech professionals and now supported by more than 30 additional leaders, advisors, contributors, supporters, and allies, created a Web site to provide free and easily accessible information in this regard.

Their stated mission is,

. . . to give everyone a fair chance to succeed in tech. We are a non-profit that uses data and advocacy to accelerate diversity and inclusion solutions in the tech industry. We urge companies to implement diversity and inclusion solutions that incorporate the following three values: inclusion, comprehensiveness (and) accountability.” (http://projectinclude.org/)

PI also includes brief explanations under each of the three values. Under “inclusion,” PI states, in part, “Companies should improve opportunities for all employees, including all underrepresented groups . . . .” Under “comprehensiveness,” PI states, “A one-off initiative approach simply cannot achieve systemic change; in many cases, it does harm. An effective solution covers all aspects of a company—its culture, its operations, and its team . . . .” And, last, under “accountability,” PI states, “Companies and their executives should hold themselves accountable by tracking results using comprehensive surveys and benchmarks . . .” (http://projectinclude.org/).

The site provides strategies for increasing inclusivity, focusing on limited and even potentially harmful actions that companies sometimes take, and suggests and explains the value of different approaches. The focus is largely race and gender inclusion and topics likely to come up in these conversations, such as bias, fairness, dealing with change, and measurement.

Theoretical Framework

To approach this study, I employed a framework composed of three theories: social construction of reality, institutional logics, and organizational culture. Instead of explaining social forces erecting barriers to STEM diversity and inclusion as wholly exogenous to the system, these theories bring focus to the many ways that practices adopted in STEM organizations are socially constructed and shape internally logical sense-making in profound ways that may be inadvertently undermining diversity and inclusion efforts.

Starting with social construction of reality, for Berger and Luckmann (1966), people create social order and come to a definition of reality through their interpretation of experiences within a social world. These dynamics are largely transparent to those who inhabit a social world, and all the interpretations, definitions, and descriptions within it are considered objective (Berger and Luckmann 1966).

When people within a social world socialize others, they become even more certain of its objectivity. Berger and Luckmann (1966) state,

The objectivity of the institutional world “thickens” and “hardens” . . . (and) becomes “this is how these things are done.” A world so regarded attains a firmness in consciousness; it becomes real in an ever more massive way and it can no longer be changed so readily . . . it becomes the world . . . . (Berger and Luckmann 1966:4–5)

Within a social world then, definitions and interpretations congeal into coherent groups of ideas.

These make up institutional logics, or groups of symbolic constructions and practices that stem from accepted ideologies and ways of perceiving and solving problems (Friedland and Alford 1991; Thornton et al. 2012). Organizations share logics because of the commonality of looking to other organizations to seek information and solve problems. This results in what DiMaggio and Powell (1983) call isomorphic pressure, which drives organizations to adopt what are considered “best practices” in their social world (Lammers and Garcia 2014).

While logics are socially constructed and change with trends (Thornton et al. 2012), they function to constrain thought and problem-solving in line with accepted standards (Lammers and Garcia 2014) such that organizations end up taking actions and making decisions that “fit” within the framework of established beliefs and practices (Lammers 2011; Lammers and Barbour 2006; Lammers and Garcia 2009, 2014). Institutional logic extends across organizational settings and influences sense-making within individual organizations.

Organizational culture is the manifestation of this sense-making in context. Culture is a historically rooted, relatively enduring collective logic that is produced by people interactionally in an organizational context as they enact the processes of work and try to make sense of circumstances (Blumer 1969; Fine 1984, 2004, 2006, 2012; Fine 2014; Fine and Hallett 2014; Hemmelgarn, Glisson, and Dukes 2001; Ouchi and Wilkins 1985; Pheysey 1993; Rafaeli and Worline 2000; Rollins and Roberts 1998; Schein 2004; Siehl and Martin 1984; Smircich and Calas 1987; Strauss 1978; Strauss et al. 1994; Trice and Beyer 1993; Weick 1979).

Looking across all three theories then, when it comes to STEM careers, those employed in STEM fields have been occupationally socialized into an internally logical social world known as the scientific community. This social world operates with a specific definition of reality. Through social processes, the inhabitants have learned certain ways of perceiving, thinking, solving problems, and evaluating arguments and studies, which form institutional logics. These logics shape all sense-making in the social world, including that pertaining to explaining the lack of diversity in STEM fields and why the problem persists. The ways of the scientific community are considered “the right ways” to conduct the work of science (Brinkmann 2012, Denzin and Giardina 2006; Hérubel 2008; Leahey and Reikowsky 2008; Morse 2006). The logics extend across STEM fields and organizations. As people rely on logics for interaction and sense-making during work in individual organizations within the social world of the scientific community, they produce organizational culture that reflects and reinforces institutional logics.

The social world of the scientific community is viewed as objective. As those within the community socialize others, they teach about the world and become even more committed to the objectivity of it all. Teaching includes substantive content within STEM disciplines and the established frameworks of beliefs and practices that garner perception, thought, problem solving, and evaluation. The established frameworks include beliefs and practices about what constitutes “good science,” who is best suited to do it, how it should be conducted, how new scientists should be trained, and what constitutes scientific achievement.

Because most of those in positions of power and authority in STEM fields are white males, their perspectives, though not singularly cohesive, largely conform to and confirm the logic of the scientific community and dictate the framework for the institutional logics that scaffold it. Given what we know about the coded nature of racial language in the contemporary United States (e.g., Bonilla Silva 2013), references to race, gender, and other social constructions are likely to be presented using seemingly neutral language that only further legitimates the assumptions that the social world of the scientific community is wholly rational, objective, and singularly committed to “good science.”

Method

Incorporating this theoretical framework, I analyzed the content of the PI Web site. To collect data, my research assistant Margaret Clark took screen shots of each page of the Web site and divided the screenshots into categories reflective of the organizational scheme of the Web site: introduction, defining culture, implementing culture, employee lifecycle, training, resolving conflict, measuring progress, and leading as VCs (venture capital firms). The data capture, conducted in November 2016, resulted in 129 pages of content.

I conducted conventional qualitative content analysis (Hsieh and Shannon 2005) of the information provided on the Web site. Qualitative content analysis is the “. . . interpretation of the content of text data through the systematic classification process of coding and identifying themes or patterns” (Hsieh and Shannon 2005: 1278).

I began by reading all the data and noting main ideas in each section. I open-coded to inductively derive themes and patterns that captured both explicit and underlying meaning in the text. I compared segments of text that appeared to evidence a theme with other segments of text already assigned to that thematic category. I also re-evaluated and adjusted the categories as I moved through the process of coding. My goals were to identify dimensions of thematic categories, relationships between categories, and any patterns across the data (Bradley 1993).

Findings

I found evidence of three themes that described PI’s vision of what tech organizations should do differently to better support diversity and inclusion. The themes were interrogating assumptions about human resources (HR) and hiring, defining true diversity, and building diversity and inclusivity.

Interrogating Assumptions about HR

PI sees the role of HR as central, however, not as currently designed:

Without rethinking how HR interacts with employees and operates, the company will perpetuate the history of competing interests between HR and the needs of employees. (http://projectinclude.org/implementing_culture#base-your-hr-strategy-on-inclusion-not-protection-from-legal-liability)

As a discipline, HR centers on hiring and administering personnel matters in ways that minimize risk and cost to organizations (Kalleberg 2011). Within this model, the interests of companies, as represented by HR, and the interests of employees are indeed likely to be seen as competing. HR is, thus, likely to focus on doing what it must for employees to protect company interests. This focus on compliance is particularly visible when it comes to matters of diversity:

. . . Companies still employ a check the box approach that prioritizes mitigating liability and improving public perception over building an inclusive workforce. Internal policies have been shaped more by lawyers and risk mitigators, focused on avoiding lawsuits . . . . (http://projectinclude.org/defining_culture#why-did-we-choose-this-area)

The HR person’s first response to a problem should not be to bring in legal because legal is about risk mitigation for the company and can accelerate conflict. (http://projectinclude.org/implementing_culture#make-hr-one-of-the-first-25-hires)

Within the current model of HR, diversity policies, too, are likely framed with a focus on risk-aversion. A “check the box” approach implies a desire to methodically move through specific steps quickly and cleanly. PI also appears critical of confining the conversation to lawyers, whose perspectives condition them to view diversity as a matter of legal compliance and may inadvertently worsen conflict by framing it as between two “sides.”

This same type of limited focus is also discussed by PI in reference to zero-tolerance policies against harassment:

Ironically, zero-tolerance rules may in some ways be antithetical to diversity, because they treat everyone and/or every behavior equally, rather than understanding the individual, subjective experience, nuance and context of behaviors . . . Rigid policies disempower HR managers and can stifle win-win solutions. (http://projectinclude.org/implementing_culture#emphasize-principles-over-rules-in-a-diversity-policy)

“Zero-tolerance” policies, which we hear about quite commonly referring to offenses in workplaces and schools, are intended to send a wholly consistent, clear message that a behavior or action will not be tolerated, not even once. However, PI argues that if HR has the authority to gauge the severity of offenses, rather than rushing to treat every offense the same, it could open up possibilities for dialogue that supports organizational learning about diversity and inclusion.

Another commonly accepted practice with which PI takes issue is that of seeking “fit” during interviews with prospective employees:

“Culture fit” or . . . “value alignment,” “lack of personal connection,” and the “Saturday” or “beer” tests . . . are cited frequently as rationale for a positive or negative hiring decision. This is reflective of interview failure. (http://projectinclude.org/employee_lifecycle#rethink-traditional-interview-practices)

When “culture fit” is a focus, organizations are likely implicitly relying on criteria that will support homogeneity in their new hires. Based on what studies suggest about homosocial reproduction (Kanter 1977) and in-group favoritism in hiring and promotion decision making (e.g., Reskin 2011), people are highly likely to judge someone demographically similar to them as demonstrating better “fit.” PI argues that bias permeates the entire interview process, down to the interactional dynamics interviewers rely on to gauge candidate talent and drive:

Not everyone communicates in the same conversational style. Train interviewers to be thoughtful about how they shape their questions to get the information they need. For example, people from some cultural backgrounds may have learned that it’s impolite to take personal credit for work done in a team, and will have difficulty saying “I did this project” instead of “the team did this project.” Dig in for more information by asking, “And how did you divide up the work? Which part did you tackle?” (http://projectinclude.org/employee_lifecycle#train-employees-who-interview-on-how-to-interview)

For candidates who come from underrepresented groups, the interview process can also be a minefield of untrained interviewers, poorly structured questions, and a process that leaves them feeling excluded from opportunities. It can be hard to move from standard processes that have been used in tech companies for years, but they don’t work and are worth investing time and resources in to fix. (http://projectinclude.org/employee_lifecycle#rethink-traditional-interview-practices)

PI argues that interview skills require training. They also provide specific examples of questions that may be problematic and recommend alternative phrasing. The phrasing differences are indeed subtle, suggesting how probing questions might be used to foster the ability of a candidate to talk about the specific role they played even if they are not comfortable declaring individual accomplishments. These examples suggest just how simple these practices may be to change.

PI also critiques the practice of convening a panel to discuss candidates after interviews:

. . . (I)nterview panel convenes for 30 minutes . . . (This) structure (is) supposed to provide an open forum to air opinions and weigh in . . . .” (http://projectinclude.org/employee_lifecycle#standardize-your-offer-process)

PI argues that bias is introduced as some members of the panel may have more power to make cases for or against certain candidates. Thus, each interviewer on the panel is not able to consider the qualifications of each candidate independently. The panel discussion format is likely to be adopted in the interest of streamlining the process, but it may introduce bias, for example, if some persons are hesitant to offer their opinions in these open forum discussions if their assessments of candidates do not match the assessments of those in positions of authority, who are most likely to be white males. As a result, PI suggests,

All interviewers should write feedback within 24 hours and submit it independently to avoid weighting and bias. (http://projectinclude.org/employee_lifecycle#train-employees-who-interview-on-how-to-interview)

Individual assessments are much less likely to be affected by the views of others, creating a context for open feedback. Thus, accepted processes that offer efficiencies may not offer optimal means of supporting diversity and inclusion but can be addressed with relatively small changes.

PI is also critical of processes for performance reviews. They cite 2016 research conducted by Gartner, formerly CEB, a best practice insight and technology organization, and a 2015 Washington Post article (Cunningham 2015) about Accenture doing away with reviews:

. . . 95 percent of managers are dissatisfied with the way their companies conduct performance reviews, and nearly 90 percent of HR leaders say the process doesn’t even yield accurate information . . . . (http://projectinclude.org/employee_lifecycle#design-objective-and-inclusive-performance-reviews)

PI then relates this specifically to matters of diversity and inclusion. Citing an Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Sloan Management Review article (Cable, Gino, and Staats 2013), PI speaks to ways that performance reviews continue to gauge measures akin to the problematic notions of “fit,” for example,

. . . (A)dopting core values should not be confused with subverting identity or perspective. For employees from underrepresented backgrounds, the pressure to conform with company culture can be emotionally and cognitively draining, detracting from their job performance. An inclusive working environment is one in which employees feel encouraged to share their unique perspectives, leverage their strengths, and act authentically. (http://projectinclude.org/employee_lifecycle#use-diverse-role-models)

If employees feel compelled to conform to what they find to be “preferred” ways of doing things, this undermines inclusivity and productivity. In short, if employees get the impression that they should shed aspects of their identities, perspectives, and individual strengths to demonstrate “fit,” this does not foster an environment of true diversity, which was another important theme.

Defining True Diversity

PI argues that “true diversity” is authentically including people who possess diverse perspectives, incorporating the whole of the organization, and tracking efforts using metrics that allow leaders to understand the extent of their success at achieving diverse work groups:

Inclusivity goes beyond a statement of purposes and reflects a proactive, tangible culture at your company. First and foremost, inclusivity is a visible, tangible thing. It’s not simply posting a statement on your letterhead indicating that no applicant or employee will be discriminated against on a list of several possible characteristics . . . . (http://projectinclude.org/defining_culture#commit-to-inclusivity-in-the-company-culture)

Creation of a policy or posting a statement is only a cursory action. To say that inclusivity is a “visible, tangible thing” implies not only that one would see that work groups are diverse in their composition but also that people could experience commitment to diverse perspectives in everyday operations, which creates a culture of diversity and carries far-reaching implications:

The culture of a company determines who joins, who succeeds, how people behave, how teams run, and how the company performs . . . . (http://projectinclude.org/defining_culture#how-do-we-think-about-defining-culture)

PI views early actions of management as truly formative to how organizational culture develops. In line with this conceptualization of culture, PI also states,

We recommend a holistic approach to inclusivity— one that covers every aspect of the culture. (http://projectinclude.org/implementing_culture)

PI argues that inclusivity must be present in each and every aspect of company culture, rather than being compartmentalized, in order for the organization to achieve “true diversity.”

PI states that this holistic focus also requires a degree of transparency:

Transparency is a key part of building an inclusive culture; it builds and encourages trust relationships in a startup. (http://projectinclude.org/defining_culture#how-do-we-think-about-defining-culture)

At base, transparency lends to broader sharing of information and empowerment of workers. However, they offer a caveat:

We are not recommending complete transparency of all information . . . (E)mployees may have a hard time understanding certain decisions, especially if they become personal (like individual compensation packages). (http://projectinclude.org/defining_culture#include-transparency-in-company-values-and-culture)

The proper amount of transparency is left to the discretion of organizations. However, PI is clearly encouraging more openness than companies may at first consider, even as they acknowledge that tech start-up operational norms make this challenging:

. . . (S)ecretive, fast-paced, high-growth, high-risk . . . those within it rely heavily on their trusted networks . . . Decisions related to recruitment, hiring, collaborative working arrangements, performance evaluations, promotions and terminations are all heavily influenced by relationship concerns and can be group decisions. (http://projectinclude.org/implementing_culture#make-guidelines-specific-and-cover-all-employee-behavior-in-all-settings)

This is not to give organizations an “out” but, instead, to demonstrate understanding of complexities and common rebuttals as to why diversity and inclusion are often challenging.

PI also uses this strategy to address the common charge that there is a lack of availability of workers from underrepresented groups due to a “leaky (talent) pipeline”:

Companies blame the pipeline and unconscious bias for lack of diversity without addressing their own internal failures to be inclusive . . . . (http://projectinclude.org/defining_culture#why-did-we-choose-this-area)

This appears to be a direct refutation of the notion that the leaky pipeline is the responsibility of educational institutions who are unable to recruit and train viable candidates for STEM careers all along the route to the organizations who wish to hire them. The leaky pipeline also infers that the students themselves are failing to perform. PI critiques the “leaky pipeline” argument, arguing that companies who use it are just deflecting responsibility for the lack of diversity in their organizations.

Directly related to the “leaky pipeline” rhetoric is the lingering concern about diversity and inclusion efforts impeding the quality of the workforce, which is commonly heard in popular discourse about STEM. PI also takes issue with this:

(Organizations fear) . . . “lowering the bar” or hiring less qualified individuals. This assertion has no basis in reality and is inherently both racist and sexist as it assumes candidates from underrepresented groups must, by definition, not meet the hiring qualifications. (http://projectinclude.org/employee_lifecycle#what-are-we-concerned-about)

PI interrogates the assumption that persons from underrepresented groups are less likely to meet hiring qualifications in comparison with white males. This assumption, which also remains prevalent around the topic of Affirmative Action, carries the implied meaning that when organizations hire persons from underrepresented groups, they must lower their standards to do so. This demonstrates a social psychological trajectory of thought about the leaky pipeline assumption in that it is presumed that efforts to keep the pipeline full of up-and-coming tech workers have led to “watering down” standards and “lowering the bar,” which allows organizations to further deflect blame as they allege that the pipeline is failing to deliver. The prevalence of this assumption lends credence to PI’s focus on the notion that diversity and inclusion must be built.

Building Diversity and Inclusion

PI states that “true diversity” must be built by top management within organizations:

We want to provide our perspectives, recommendations, materials and tools to help CEOs and their teams build meaningful inclusion. We know how hard change is from our own experience. (http://projectinclude.org/about/)

We are focusing our efforts on CEOs and management of early to mid-stage tech start-ups, where we believe change is possible and can have a broad impact on the industry and beyond. (http://projectinclude.org/about/)

PI underscores the difficulties that organizations are likely to face, alluding to the point that organizational change may not be possible; however, they feel that the best opportunity for building diversity and inclusion exists when a tech start-up is very young. PI states that “change is hard.” This is both a confirming statement for small groups or organizations who may find themselves struggling and a realistic assessment of what lies ahead for those who wish to achieve “true diversity” after the fact.

Although PI addresses interviewing and hiring, they emphasize that diversity and inclusion does not stop there:

We are . . . concerned that companies believe building a diverse team begins and ends with hiring, when there is so much more to it. (http://projectinclude.org/defining_culture#what-are-we-concerned-about)

PI argues that what happens after an employee is hired is just as impactful as how the interview is conducted. Thus, PI addresses “on-boarding” and “care” over the employee lifecycle:

Diversity and inclusion only works well when companies commit to administering it with care. It starts with diversity recruiters and a hiring manager who is committed to building a diverse workforce. It continues through to supportive HR and D&I teams focused on promoting inclusion and upholding company values throughout an employee’s time at a company. It should incorporate an inclusive onboarding process, strong mentoring and sponsorship programs, and thoughtfully administered performance reviews and promotions that consider both conscious and unconscious biases. (http://projectinclude.org/employee_lifecycle#how-do-we-think-about-the-employee-lifecycle)

It takes a lot of effort to build diversity and inclusivity into a new startup and culture, and even more to fix it if its missing. (http://projectinclude.org/implementing_culture#why-did-we-choose-this-area)

PI makes it very clear that diversity and inclusion require attention, upkeep, and long-term commitment. Although hiring is part of that process, it extends beyond that to a strategic onboarding process focused on employee growth over time. PI also emphasizes communication and network access needed to build human and social capital.

PI cautions that organizations should resist the desire to simplify onboarding:

This process should not take the form of a checklist, afterthought or series of documents to sign. (http://projectinclude.org/employee_lifecycle#decide-whether-and-how-to-allow-offer-compensation-negotiation)

Again, the dangers of the “check the box” mentality are made clear. Relying on checklists or requiring that employees sign documents about policies, despite being clear-cut actions and, therefore, likely being attractive to managers, are likely to maintain focus on “compliance” and perpetuate views of diversity and inclusion as obligatory but not necessarily preferred.

Implied in the content on onboarding is that organizations who use some of these problematic practices should not be singled out as mismanaged. The founders of PI seem to be keenly aware of the propensity for organizations to look to peer organizations and institutional logics and adopt others’ policies on matters of diversity and inclusion. However, PI argues that “true diversity” requires something different:

VCs (venture capital firms) and tech companies should not adopt the policies and practices that already demonstrably do not work in corporate America. Instead they should build HR from the perspective of inclusionary practices, not legal liability. (http://projectinclude.org/implementing_culture#base-your-hr-strategy-on-inclusion-not-protection-from-legal-liability)

Given the minimal overall gains that have come about from STEM intervention programs and corporate policy regarding STEM training and professional recruitment of underrepresented groups, PI argues that the “best practices” currently relied on are ineffective.

Despite direct criticisms of the current HR model, PI does advocate for the early involvement (within the first 25 hires) of an HR professional:

Dedicated resources are needed to design, track and implement changes—and to make sure they are working. (http://projectinclude.org/implementing_culture#why-did-we-choose-this-area)

They also advocate for a diversity and inclusion lead who is broadly involved in operations:

Because D&I efforts must be comprehensive, the D&I lead should be included in all aspects of a company, including planning, strategy and executive meetings and discussions. (http://projectinclude.org/implementing_culture#hire-and-empower-a-di-lead-to-execute-the-ceos-vision-for-inclusivity)

Along with these personnel suggestions, PI attempts to encourage organizations to act early rather than waiting:

. . . We’ve seen startups too often wait, focusing on other priorities, and by the time they get to it, the engineering team has 30 men, mostly white, with a homogenous, exclusive culture that women and people of color are reluctant to join. (http://projectinclude.org/defining_culture#design-a-worklife-balance-benefits-plan-to-grow-with-your-startup)

Invoking a “business case” argument, PI attempts to incentivize companies to act quickly to build diversity and inclusion. The implication is that if culture is built inclusively, it will remain inclusive. They also suggest both practical and symbolic benefits. First, the achievement of diversity is, in itself, valuable in that it brings together different perspectives and strengthens a company from the outset. Second, companies will strengthen their ability to continue to attract a diverse body of talent, since it will be clear to prospective employees that the organization is serious about and truly is diverse and inclusive.

Discussion

Project Include provides information to support diversity and inclusion in startup tech companies by offering a critical examination of common practices in organizations and directly confronting common logic about why organizations have struggled in this regard. The themes I identified center on interrogating HR practices and defining and building diversity and inclusion. First, PI argues that organizations must step back from their standard practices for interviewing and hiring and consider means by which the status quo could be or is undermining their efforts. Then, they must consider what true diversity is and, last, how to build it over time with an intentionality and consistency that ensures measured and genuine pursuit of inclusivity in all aspects of operations.

It is significant that the themes that emerged from the Web site content centered on interrogating, defining, and building. This suggests a useful roadmap or order for approaching these matters in organizations. The first step requires an ability to turn a critical lens on oneself, one’s organization, and the occupational cultural context within which one operates, rather than falling prey to default arguments about the “leaky pipeline” and focusing only on deflecting blame and defending the legitimacy and objectivity of the status quo.

PI argues that critical evaluation must interrogate the very model of HR. Rather than focusing on interactional dynamics concerning diversity and inclusion, PI directly confronts the structural assumptions about what HR, as a standard component of organizations, is supposed to do and how it is supposed to function when it comes to diversity and inclusion. The argument here is what makes the vision of PI particularly unique.

Few question the structure and practices of HR, but PI draws attention to the ways that HR is premised on the notion of “compliance.” When it comes to diversity, a focus on compliance puts organizations in a reactive position within which they take action to “cover their bases” and protect themselves, but this is very different from a proactive approach premised on the notion that diversity is not only valuable but preferable. However, despite their criticisms, PI still advocates the hiring of an HR professional and a dedicated diversity and inclusion lead.

Organizations, especially small organizations, may view it as inefficient and unnecessary to hire dedicated personnel in this area, especially those focused on “billable hours,” which could inadvertently (and quite accurately) portray the notion that diversity and inclusion come second to “the business of doing business” in the minds of company leadership.

It is quite common to come across arguments for dedicated personnel overseeing diversity and inclusion; however, this may also introduce a stumbling block for organizations. From an organizational structure and culture perspective, if organizations hire a dedicated person or persons to handle these matters, there is a risk of compartmentalization. That is, some individuals and departments are likely to view the matter as “handled” by those dedicated personnel and view the building of diversity and inclusion as outside of their foray and charge. Too often, diversity seems to be viewed as the responsibility of specific departments and individuals, for example, a Chief Diversity Officer, as opposed to being a priority that is driven by departments and individuals across the enterprise. This coincides with the “check the box” mentality.

Employing the theoretical framework I have here, it becomes clear just how readily and silently these and other noninclusive and potentially problematic practices can be perpetuated in workplaces. Biases in HR and operational practices learned and relied on in STEM disciplines are likely to remain invisible within the context of organizations as they are assumed to be an objective part of the social world in which STEM professionals operate. Within this social world, institutional logics exist across STEM fields, and the resulting organizational cultures enacted in individual organizations demonstrate similar characteristics across contexts. Thus, factors that hinder diversity and inclusion in STEM tend to turn up across organizational settings. Because HR is also institutionalized, the discipline functions within its own logic, characterized by a focus on compliance, “check the box” mentality, and interviewing practices, onboarding norms, and performance reviews that explicitly or implicitly emphasize “fit.” When the HR institutional logic lens converges with the STEM institutional logic lens, “best practices” relied on just make sense within that social world. The fact that these “best practices” are visible across contexts makes them appear all the more objective, practical, and necessary to the proper functioning of the social world.

Because thinking and problem solving are constrained, inhabitants of the STEM social world may assume that the factors hindering diversity and inclusion are insurmountable without compromising the enterprise. Instead, these factors are likely to be interpreted as rational, essential filters that protect the viability of the talent pipeline by “weeding out” those less able to do science in this prescribed model and, therefore, viewed as functioning to ultimately support the best interests of the scientific community.

The hopeful take-away from all this is that just like the current circumstances that hinder organizations’ abilities to build inclusivity, the model of HR, too, is a socially constructed institutional logic and does not represent an objective “truth” about how to handle personnel matters. Clearly, there are legal matters to which HR professionals must attend; however, critically considering and taking steps to move away from some of the assumptions inherent in the discipline are possible and may yield gains when it comes to diversity and inclusion.

By setting out to directly problematize standard HR practices to disrupt taken-for-granted notions endemic to the noninclusive status quo, PI effectively identifies sources of implicit bias in what are otherwise viewed as “best practices.” That begins with critical consideration of HR practices and then flows into all other aspects of operation. Interviewing, hiring, onboarding, and evaluating employees are indeed socially constructed processes that reflect institutional logics incorporated into organizational culture. For PI, all this hinges on clarity, measured consistency, and an optimal amount of transparency rather than confidentiality, focus on liability, and the presumed logic of best practices.

Although PI focuses on the tech industry, the same concerns and impediments they discuss may relate to other industries and organizations, particularly those that fall under the banner of STEM. Thus, further research is needed to examine how the findings here may relate or compare with other industries and specific organizations. Scholars should also seek out case studies wherein organizations have effectively reduced bias in HR and operational practices.

Given the persistent challenges and slow progress with diversity and inclusion in STEM, the critical perspective and thought-leadership provided by PI are particularly important at this juncture. They provide concrete examples of how practitioners can act to improve interviewing, hiring, and evaluation practices, suggesting straightforward means by which organizations can take steps to reduce bias and more effectively build diverse and inclusive environments.

Self-Evaluation Tool

To assist practitioners in incorporating the insights gleaned from PI, I offer a 10-question self-evaluation tool that HR, diversity officers, or other organizational leaders could utilize to conduct an initial critical review of interviewing, hiring, employee development, and evaluation practices. The questions all hinge on the avoidance of assessments of “fit” and the broader incorporation of diversity and inclusion standards and goals across the organization:

How is “fit” bias present in our applicant screening processes, and what can we do to reduce that?

How is “fit” bias present in our candidate interview processes, and what can we do to reduce that?

How can we better train interviewers to reduce bias in the process?

How can we design interview questions to reduce bias in the process?

How are diversity and inclusion (D&I) goals actively pursued in how we conduct employee onboarding?

How are D&I goals actively pursued in how we conduct employee development?

How are D&I goals actively pursued in how we conduct employee evaluations?

How is “fit” bias present in our employee performance evaluations, and what can we do to reduce that?

How are mentoring and sponsorship programs used to support these goals, and what can we do to improve in this area?

Outside of hiring and onboarding processes, how are diversity and inclusivity promoted and supported in day-to-day operations?

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Margaret Clark provided research assistance for this study.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was supported by the College of Wooster Sophomore Research Program, which enabled the author to hire a student research assistant.

Author Biography

Lisa Fisher, PhD, is consulting director for a Washington, DC–based IT firm, where she serves as an organizational solutions analyst, strategist, writer, and facilitator. She has worked in faculty and administrative roles in higher education, most recently at the College of Wooster in Ohio, served as a reviewer and editor, and is the author of numerous articles, chapters in edited volumes, and one book, all of which address social psychology in contemporary American society.

References

Alderfer

Clayton

Tucker

Robert

Alderfer

Charleen

Tucker

Leota

. 1988. “The Race Relations Advisory Group: An Intergroup Intervention.” Research in Organizational Change and Development 2:269–321.

Berger

Peter

Luckmann

Thomas

. 1966. The Social Construction of Knowledge: A Treatise on the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Bertrand

Marianne

Mullainathan

Sendhil

. 2011. “Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal: A Field Experiment on Employment Discrimination.” Pp. 254–59 in The Inequality Reader: Contemporary Readings in Race, Class and Gender, edited by Grusky

David

Szlenyi

Szonja

. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Bidwell

Allie

. 2015. “STEM Workforce No More Diverse than 14 Years Ago.” U.S. News & World Report, February 24. Retrieved January 2018 (https://www.usnews.com/news/stem-solutions/articles/2015/02/24/stem-workforce-no-more-diverse-than-14-years-ago).

Blau

Peter

. 1977. Inequality and Heterogeneity. New York: The Free Press.

Blumer

Herbert

. 1969. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bonilla Silva

Eduardo

. 2013. Racism without Racists: Color-blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in America. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Bradley

Jana

. 1993. “Methodological Issues and Practices in Qualitative Research.” Library Quarterly 63(4):431–49.

Brinkmann

Svend

. 2012. “Qualitative Research between Craftsmanship and McDonaldization: A Keynote Address from the 17^th Qualitative Health Research Conference.” Qualitative Studies 3(1):56–68.

10.

Cable

Daniel

Gino

Francesca

Staats

Brad

. 2013. “Reinventing Employee Onboarding.” MIT Sloan Management Review, March 19. Retrieved April 2016 (http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/reinventing-employee-onboarding/).

11.

Carnevale

Anthony

Smith

Nicole

Melton

Michelle

. 2011. “STEM: Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics.” Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. Retrieved June 15, 2018 (http://cew.georgetown.edu/stem/).

12.

Casey

Caitlyn

. 2016. “Promoting Inclusion in STEM, One Astrophysics Research Project at a Time.” Scientific American, November 21. Retrieved January 2018 (https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/promoting-inclusion-in-stem-one-astrophysics-research-project-at-a-time/).

13.

Change the Equation. 2015. “People of Color Are Not Gaining Ground in STEM Degrees.” Retrieved June 15 2018 (http://vitalsigns.changetheequation.org/state/united-states/diversity#not-gaining-ground).

14.

Collins

Sharon

. 1997. Black Corporate Executives: The Making and Breaking of the Black Middle Class. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

15.

Cunningham

Lillian

. 2015. “In Big Move, Accenture Will Get Rid of Annual Performance Reviews and Rankings.” Washington Post, July 21. Retrieved April 2015 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2015/07/21/in-big-move-accenture-will-get-rid-of-annual-performance-reviews-and-rankings/).

16.

Denzin

Norman

Giardina

Michael

. 2006. Qualitative Inquiry and the Conservative Challenge: International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry Series. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

17.

DiMaggio

Paul

Powell

Walter

. 1983. “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields.” American Sociological Review 48:147–60.

18.

Etzkowitz

Henry

Gupta

Namrata

Kemelgor

Carol

. 2010. “The Gender Revolution in Science and Technology.” Journal of International Affairs 64(1):83–100.

19.

Fine

Gary Alan

. 1984. “Negotiated Orders and Organizational Cultures.” Annual Review of Sociology 10:239–62.

20.

Fine

Gary Alan

. 2004. “Adolescence as a Cultural Toolkit: High School Debate and the Repertoires of Childhood and Adulthood.” The Sociological Quarterly 45(1):1–20.

21.

Fine

Gary Alan

. 2006. “Shopfloor Cultures: The Idioculture of Production in Operational Meteorology.” The Sociological Quarterly 47(1):1–20.

22.

Fine

Gary Alan

. 2012. Tiny Publics: A Theory of Group Action and Culture. New York: Russell Sage.

23.

Fine

Gary Alan

. 2014. “The Hinge: Civil Society, Group Culture and the Interaction Order.” Social Psychology Quarterly 77(1):5–26.

24.

Fine

Gary Alan

Hallett

Tim

. 2014. “Group Cultures and the Everyday Life of Organizations: Interaction Orders and Meso-analysis.” Organization Studies 35(12):1773–92.

25.

Friedland

Roger

Alford

Robert

. 1991. “Bringing Society Back In: Symbols, Practices and Institutional Contradictions.” In The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, edited by Powell

William

DiMaggio

Paul

. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

26.

Gibbs

Kenneth

. 2014 “Diversity in STEM: What it Is and Why it Matters.” Retrieved January 2018 (https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/diversity-in-stem-what-it-is-and-why-it-matters/).

27.

Hemmelgarn

Anthony

Glisson

Charles

Dukes

Denzel

. 2001. “Emergency Room Culture and the Emotional Support Component of Family-centered Care.” Children’s Healthcare 30:93–110.

28.

Hérubel

Jean-Pierre V.M.

2008. “Historical Scholarship, Periodization, Themes and Specialization: Implications for Research and Publication.” Journal of Scholarly Publishing 39(2):144–55.

29.

Hsieh

Hsiu-Fang

Shannon

Sarah

. 2005. “Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis.” Qualitative Health Research 15(9):1277–88.

30.

Kalleberg

Arne

. (2013). Good Jobs, Bad Jobs: The Rise of Polarized and Precarious Employment Systems in the United States, 1970s-2000s. New York: Russell Sage.

31.

Kanter

Rosabeth Moss

. 1977. Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books.

32.

Kossek

Ellen Ernst

Markel

Karen

McHugh

Patrick

. 2003. “Increasing Diversity as an HRM Change Strategy.” Journal of Organizational Change Management 16(3):328–52.

33.

Kossek

Ellen Ernst

Zonia

Susan

. 1993. “Assessing Diversity Climate: A Field Study of Reactions to Employer Efforts to Promote Diversity.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 14(1):61–81.

34.

Kossek

Ellen Ernst

Zonia

Susan

. 1994. “The Effects of Race and Ethnicity on Perceptions of Human Resource Policies and Climate regarding Diversity.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication 8(3):319–34.

35.

Lammers

John

. 2011. “How Institutions Communicate: Institutional Messages, Institutional Logics and Organizational Communication.” Management Communication Quarterly 25(1):154–82.

36.

Lammers

John

Barbour

Joshua

. 2006. “An Institutional Theory of Organizational Communication.” Communication Theory 16(3):356–77.

37.

Lammers

John

Garcia

Mattea

. 2009. “Exploring the Concept of ‘Profession’ for Organizational Communication Research: Institutional Influences in a Veterinary Organization.” Management Communication Quarterly 22(3):357–84.

38.

Lammers

John

Garcia

Mattea

. 2014. “Institutional Theory.” In The Sage Handbook of Organizational Communication: Advances in Theory, Research and Methods, 3rd ed., edited by Putnam

Linda

Mumby

Dennis

. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

39.

Leahey

Erin

Reikowsky

Ryan

. 2008. “Research Specialization and Collaboration Patterns in Sociology.” Social Studies of Science 38(3):425–40.

40.

Lewis

Dandrielle

. 2015. “Increasing Diversity and Inclusion for Women in STEM.” Doceamus 62(8):919–22.

41.

McCollum

Lesley

. 2015. “The Importance of Mentoring to Increase Diversity in STEM.” Inside Higher Ed, April 12. Retrieved January 2018 (https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/gradhacker/importance-mentoring-increase-diversity-stem).

42.

Milkman

Katherine

Akinola

Modupe

Chugh

Dolly

. 2015. “What Happens before? A Field Experiment Exploring How Pay and Representation Differentially Shape Bias on Pathways into Organizations.” Journal of Applied Psychology 100(6):1678–712.

43.

Miller

David

. 2015. “A Metaphor to Retire.” Inside Higher Ed, March 3. Retrieved January 2018 (https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2015/03/03/essay-calls-ending-leaky-pipeline-metaphor-when-discussing-women-science).

44.

Morse

Janice

. 2006. “The Politics of Evidence.” Pp.79–92 in Qualitative Inquiry and the Conservative Challenge: International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry Series, edited by Denzin

Norman

Giardina

Michael

. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

45.

Moss-Racusin

Corinne

Dovidio

John F.

Brescoll

Victoria

Graham

Mark

Handelsman

. 2012. “Science Faculty’s Subtle Gender Biases Favor Male Students.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America 109(41):16474–79. Retrieved January 2018 (www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1211286109).

46.

Ouchi

William

Wilkins

Alan

. 1985. “Organizational Culture.” Annual Review of Sociology 11:457–83.

47.

Ouimet

Maeghan

. 2015. “Five Numbers That Explain Why STEM Diversity Matters to All of Us.” Wired, May. Retrieved January 2018 (https://www.wired.com/brandlab/2015/05/5-numbers-explain-stem-diversity-matters-us/).

48.

Pheysey

Diana

. 1993. Organizational Cultures: Types and Transformations. New York: Routledge.

49.

Rafaeli

Anat

Worline

Monica

. 2000. “Symbols in Organizational Culture.” Pp. 71–84 in The Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate, edited by Ashkanasy

Neil

Wilderom

Celeste

Peterson

Mark

. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

50.

Randall

Donna

. 2014. “Increasing Diversity in the STEM Pipeline.” Huffington Post, July 16. Retrieved January 2018 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/donna-randall/increasing-diversity-in-t_b_5333264.html).

51.

Reeves

Arin

. 2014. “Written in Black and White: Exploring Confirmation Bias in Racialized Perceptions of Writing Skills.” Retrieved January 2018 (https://nextions.com/portfolio-posts/written-in-black-and-white-yellow-paper-series/).

52.

Reskin

Barbara

. 2011. “Rethinking Employment Discrimination and Its Remedies.” Pp. 378–88 in The Inequality Reader: Contemporary and Foundational Readings in Race, Class, and Gender, edited by Grusky

David

Szelenyi

Szonja

. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

53.

Rincon

Blanca

George-Jackson

Casey

. 2016. “STEM Intervention Program: Funding Practices and Challenges.” Studies in Higher Education 41(3):429–44.

54.

Rollins

Thomas

Roberts

Darryl

. 1998. Work Culture, Organizational Performance and Business Success. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

55.

Schein

Edgar

. 2004. Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

56.

Schwalbe

Michael

Godwin

Sandra

Holden

Daphne

Schrock

Douglas

Thompson

Shealy

Wolkomir

Michele

. 2000. “Generic Processes in the Reproduction of Inequality: An Interactionist Analysis.” Social Forces 79(2): 419–52.

57.

Siehl

Caren

Martin

Joanne

. 1984. “The Role of Symbolic Management: How Can Managers Effectively Transmit Organizational Culture?” Pp. 227–39 in Leaders and Managers: International Perspectives on Managerial Behavior and Leadership, edited by Hunt

James

Hosking

Dian-Marie

Schrieshelm

Chester

Stewart

Rosemary

. New York: Pergamon.

58.

Smircich

Linda

Calas

Marta

. 1987. “Organizational Culture: A Critical Assessment.” Pp. 228–63 in Handbook of Organizational Communication, edited by Jablin

Frederic

Putnam

Linda

Roberts

Karlene

Porter

Lyman

. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

59.

Smith

Jessi

Cech

Erin

Metz

Anneke Metz

Huntoon

Meghan

. 2014. “Giving Back or Giving Up: Native American Student Experiences in Science and Engineering.” Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology 20(3):413–29.

60.

Smith

Megan

. 2016. “No Permission, No Apology.” Address presented at MIT Media Lab Conference, September 9. Retrieved January 2018 (https://sap.mit.edu/news/media-lab-conference-addresses-gender-bias-diversity-and-inclusion-stem).

61.

Snyder

Kieran

. 2014. “The Abrasiveness Trap: High-achieving Men and Women are Described Differently in reviews.” Fortune, August 26. Retrieved April 2017 (http://fortune.com/2014/08/26/performance-review-gender-bias/).

62.

Strauss

Anselm

. 1978. Negotiations: Varieties, Contexts, Processes and Social Order. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

63.

Strauss

Anselm

Schatzman

Leonard

Ehrlich

Danuta

Bucher

Rue

Sabshin

Melvin

. 1994. “The Hospital and Its Negotiated Order.” Pp. 147–69 in The Hospital in Modern Society, edited by Freidson

Eliot

. New York: The Free Press.

64.

Swayne

Matt

. 2016. “NSF Grant to Promote More Diversity, Inclusion in STEM Fields.” Penn State News, September 12. Retrieved January 2018 (http://news.psu.edu/story/425347/2016/09/12/research/nsf-grant-promote-more-diversity-inclusion-stem-fields).

65.

Thornton

Patricia

Ocasio

William

Lounsbury

Michael

. 2012. The Institutional Logics Perspective: A New Approach to Culture, Structure and Process. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

66.

Toossi

Mitra

. 2016. “A Look at the Future of the U.S. Labor Force to 2060.” U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retrieved June 15 (https://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2016/a-look-at-the-future-of-the-us-labor-force-to-2060/home.htm).

67.

Trice

Harrison

Beyer

Janice

. 1993. The Culture of Work Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

68.

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2015. “Current Population Survey, Household Data Annual Average 2015, Table 39.”

69.

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2017. “Occupational Outlook Handbook.” Retrieved June 2017 (https://www.bls.gov/ooh/management/).

70.

Weick

Karl

. 1979. The Social Psychology of Organizing. New York: Random House.

71.

Wilson

George

McBrier

Debra Branch

. 2005. “Race and Loss of Privilege: African American/White Differences in the Determinants of Job Layoffs from Upper-tier Organizations.” Sociological Focus 20(2):301–21.

72.

Wingfield

Adia Harvey

Skeete

Renee

. 2016. “Maintaining Hierarchies in Predominantly White Organizations: A Theory of Racial Tasks as Invisible Labor.” Pp. 47–67 in Invisible Labor: Hidden Work in the Contemporary World, edited by Crain

Marion

Poster

Winifred

Cherry

Miriam

. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.