������ý����

Maria Kuntz:  A note for our listeners: this episode was recorded in mid-February 2025 and may not reflect the latest policy changes regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion.

This episode's LBIdea is that intentions and actions must be aligned for organizations to see the benefits of diversity, equity, and inclusion practices.

Our guest today is Becca Mitchell, an Assistant Professor of Organizational Behavior at the Leeds School of Business at ������ý����. Her research seeks to understand how organizations can improve the effectiveness of diversity, equity, and inclusion practices, and how time influences team hierarchy and team affective processes.

Thank you so much for joining today, Becca.

Rebecca Mitchell: Yeah, excited to be here.

Kuntz: Great. Well, let's dive in. Diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI, as it's frequently referred to, has been in the news a lot. So, I'd love if you could share what academic researchers mean when they say they study diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Mitchell: Yeah. So, I, kind of, want to break it down into each bucket. So, diversity is, often, when we say DEI, that's, like, the first thing that people think about, but it's so much more than visible differences, like race or gender or age. In the research, that's what we call surface-level diversity characteristics, the things that we can see. But there's also deep level diversity characteristics — so, the things that are happening underneath this surface — so, differences in, say, your functional background, your education, the knowledge that you have, the experiences you have, or your values.

And so, I often tell my students to think of diversity as like an iceberg. So, often, we only see this little bit that's above the surface, but there's so much more that's happening underneath that waterline. And a lot of that is what’s most important for teams and organizations and leveraging the best of diversity.

Equity has, I think, the longest history in our field. There's a theory that dates back to the ‘60s called equity theory by Adams. So, when we were first thinking about equity, it's really just about what we call input-output ratio. So, if I put in a certain amount of effort and the person next to me is putting in the same amount of effort, I expect to get the same outcome as that person. So, I expect that, what I put in, if I'm putting in that effort, I'm getting the same thing back. And when that is out of balance, so maybe somebody else is getting something, a higher reward for putting in the same amount of work, I feel a sense of unfairness. Like, it doesn't feel very good to me. And that unfairness then impacts my motivation, my behaviors, et cetera.

So, because that's got a long history, there's a really big body of work on what we call organizational justice or fairness. So, we started thinking about, really, outcomes of my work, but have extended it to, are the procedures through which I decide those outcomes fair? How is that communicated to me? Is it, you know, I'm transparent in the information that I'm sharing? How are those interactions, as I'm sharing that information? And, you know, am I being treated fairly as well? So, all of that really influences how we think about pay, promotions, decision making in the workplace, and again, has really big impacts for organizations.

Inclusion is, I think, the newest part, kind of, the newcomer on the scene. Researchers started to really talk about this in the early aughts. And so, I think there's a couple of things that were going on at the same time. The first is a meta analysis. And meta analysis, for those readers or listeners who are not familiar, is where we take studies of studies. So, we say it to 10 different studies of 200 people, and maybe one study finds a positive relationship, one finds a negative relationship. And we're trying to make sense of these differing findings. So, this meta analysis aggregates all of those separate studies up together and says, “Okay, this is a better estimate than any one single study can provide.”

So, there's a meta analysis that came out that said certain types of diversity, like functional background or education, really enhanced team performance, but racial and gender diversity had really mixed effects, even sometimes can negatively impact outcomes. And so, researchers try to make sense of this. There was also a theory that came out around the same time, called the categorization elaboration model. And what both of these were, kind of, indicating is that diversity isn't quite enough to reap the values that we're expecting from diversity.

Kuntz:��So, Becca, let me pause you right there. You know, you've covered in great depth diversity, equity, and inclusion. Can you help frame how all of those are related to each other today?

Mitchell: Yeah. So, diversity is really beneficial, but we get the most out of diversity when we also have equity and inclusion. If we don't have those pieces in place, then we really can't realize the full value of the diverse perspectives that we have in the��

Kuntz: Thank you so much for that overview. I think it's really important to set the context and have a strong understanding of what the terms mean. So, what sparked your interest in studying diversity, equity, and inclusion?

Mitchell:��So, honestly, my interest in these policies and practices came from my own experience. And I always describe it to people as experiences that get my blood boiling, that really frustrate me. And, you know, some of that it's my own personal experience of, you know, having folks comment on the way I dress or my age, or just feeling really excluded from that, kind of, in group. But I've also observed it and other folks, and it just really makes me upset to see this, like, unfairness in the workplace or exclusion, or maybe just missed opportunities because people have some biases that they're experiencing. And so, it's just been this, like, common theme in my career and my life. And so, for me, this is, like, a very personal, personally important research area. I just wanted to understand, not just, like, why these things are happening, but if there was something that we could do to, kind of, change that within organizations and provide people with better experiences in the workplace.

Kuntz: Thank you for sharing that. And we all want great experiences in the workplace. So, we need researchers like you helping us find the ways.

Mitchell: Yeah, hopefully.

Kuntz:��So, tell me, what are the core questions and challenges that you're seeing across this field right now? And what are the challenges that you're trying to address? Or what things, maybe, have already shifted?

Mitchell: Yeah. So, I think, there's, like, a couple of things that I want to hit on, I guess. The one trend that I've noticed recently is more research is happening on what we call performative diversity management. I'd like to think that a lot of it isn't that folks are not committed to DEI, but maybe just don't have the resources or the confidence to really do it well. So, I think there's a lot of work on initiatives that maybe sound really good but in practice don't actually do a lot.

Another thing that I think researchers are scrambling or, you know, there is quite a bit of research on but more is coming out is on backlash to DEI initiatives and trying to understand why there's resistance and how both, you know, individuals and organizations and teams and managers, what they can do to, kind of, overcome that resistance or address it.

Some other really interesting trends I'm seeing are more emphasis on multiple identities. The term intersectionality is referring to, kind of, how different layers of identity overlap and create different experiences, or, say, you know, a Black woman is facing something different than white women are, even though gender is common. And I think that is also broadening to think of a lot of different multiple identities. So, how might neurodiversity, for example, overlap with gender identity? And also, just newer areas of those identities. So, yeah, neurodiversity is, like, a very hot topic right now. The socioeconomic status and how that, kind of, shapes how we show up, whether that was from our childhood or more recent, you know, our current socioeconomic status, gender identity, sexual orientation, all of those are, kind of, increasing in prevalence, I think, in the research.

Kuntz: I think, like, you mentioned the iceberg earlier, right? Like, all of these elements of the iceberg that are below the water, the non-visible or non-obvious identities are really becoming something folks are talking about more.

Mitchell: One thing I wanted to mention is, like, in my class, we do what's called a social identity wheel. And what I talked to my students about is, there are so many different elements of our identity that are not visible. Like, we can talk about, there's a whole, you know, wheel that they have to fill out. Everybody has different identity categories within that wheel. And so, yes, we'll have some commonalities, but we also have a lot of differences. And so, trying to figure out how to navigate those differences and how that informs how we show up as leaders in the workplace.

The last thing I wanted to, kind of, talk about that I find most interesting is some of the recent research that talks about how we talk about diversity really matters. And so, there's some research by Lisa Leslie. She has some really excellent research broadly on this topic. And she has one that talks about rhetoric and how we frame diversity initiatives really matters. So, there's value and diversity rhetoric, and they find, often, managers turn to that kind of rhetoric, that there's value and diversity. We should care about diversity, this kind of business case for diversity. But what they find is that a more effective approach is that diversity is valuable only if some of these challenges are addressed. So, kind of, taking that diversity angle, but then adding in some equity and inclusion. And these are, kind of, hard things to do.

And then there's another piece that talks about business versus… like, using the business case for diversity actually can backfire. So, in some cases, it can make underrepresented groups feel like, you know, they're not… they're just valued for who they are and not what they're bringing to the table.

And then, the last article that stuck out to me is one on DEI statements versus these evidence-based diversity cues. So, they looked at, if I have a DEI statement versus share these evidence-based, you know, diversity cues, such as I've increased minority representation in my higher levels of management. Those evidence-based cues matter a lot more to people than some of the value-based cues like diversity statements.

And then, also, they looked at, when there's these gaps of what companies are doing and what they're saying and found that employees did pick up on that, and they see that, “Oh, this organization is not, kind of, walking the talk,” so to speak. And that can actually hurt their sense of inclusion, their commitment, and even harm retention or intentions to turn over.

So, that, really, I think, taken together, those three articles for me really highlight how we talk about diversity really matters for employees and for organizational outcomes.

Kuntz: Yeah. So, talking about it is one thing, but really, what are the actions that match? And then making sure that the talk includes proof of progress, proof of, you know, not just activity but impact.

Mitchell: Yeah. I guess it also, kind of, links to that performative diversity research that's coming out. Yeah, you have to do the thing. Otherwise, maybe you're better off not. Or, I think this is where we're seeing a lot of the backlash, is to these programs that I think there were, maybe, good intentions behind them, but the actions aren't really aligning with those intentions. And so, we're seeing people react negatively to those programs, as a result.

Kuntz:��So, that's a perfect segue into my next question, which is that programs and policies can look really different from organization to organization. So, I'd love to hear, what is working well?

Mitchell: Yeah. So, I'm actually going to pull pretty heavily from a piece that I actually assigned to my students.��

Kuntz: Great. I love it.

Mitchell: And it's an HBR article by Frank Dobbin and Alexandra Kalev in HBR. It's a classic one. And it really breaks us down in a very practitioner oriented way. And again, I assign this to my students every year. So, what they talk about is that, a lot of the things that organizations do, like grievance, so I have, like, a hotline where I can report bias or discrimination, that doesn't really work. Diversity training is a really mixed bag. So, they talk about how, if we're forcing every employee to go to diversity training, that actually can increase bias and discrimination because you're, kind of, activating that bias. And then people are going to do the opposite, right? They feel like, you know, they're being forced to go to this training. They're going to exert that individuality and, kind of, buck that training. We do know, though, that voluntary training is really effective in increasing the representation of Black men, Hispanic men, and Asian men and women.

And then the other thing they talked about, the two things that are really helpful, are contact and social accountability. So, contact, it's just representation. Health increases if we have contact with other groups. And so, some of these are not, like, I think you wouldn't immediately think of DEI when you hear them, but things like cross training. So, I'm getting trained in multiple areas of the business, and then I just have more interactions with people across the board. And then, also, self-managed teams. So, in self-managed teams, there's a lot of communicating going on. Everybody's really talking with each other and collaborating. And so, both of those increase the contact that I have with other folks in my group and the leaders might have with me. And so, that decreases bias, as people start to get to know each other beyond that… you know, they're going below that waterline, right? They're going below that iceberg, starting to get to know those deeper level diversity characteristics.

Kuntz: And through real work experiences, not, sort of, contrived or forced through training, but experiencing it. So, I want to go back to something you said, Becca. You mentioned that there was research that indicated positive impacts and results for Black and Hispanic men and Asian men and women. Is there research or other projects that point toward things that help Black women and Hispanic women in the workplace?

Mitchell: Yeah. So, targeting recruitment of women and minorities helps a ton across the board for minorities and for women. Mentoring also has a really good impact. So, we talk about network homophily. And it sounds like a big term, but all it means is that, “I tend towards people who look like me. I tend to interact with those folks. So, that tends to be what my social network looks like.”

And so, what's really great about mentoring is you start to form those social network ties that maybe wouldn't have happened naturally, especially with senior leaders. And so, your networks become less homogenous. And so, that's a really lovely, easy to implement, I think, intervention that really helps folks across the board.

And then I talked about social accountability. There's also research around just holding people accountable for their decision-making really decreases bias. So, imagine you're a manager and you have to explain… somebody is tracking your metrics for hiring promotion, performance ratings, and you need to explain why you've made those decisions. And so, just having the person in the room that's asking that question really helps decrease bias and discrimination. Managers are thinking, “Is this going to look right, you know, if I'm having to present this in front of my senior leadership?”

So, we talk about diversity task force. And that's really great because it's made up of existing employees. And so, it's more cost effective than, you know, having a full-on chief diversity officer or diversity managers. But diversity managers also really help, so, somebody who is solely responsible for diversity, equity, and inclusion issues at the organization. And again, it's just holding people accountable for their decision-making and asking them to explain publicly why they made decisions that they made.

Kuntz: And I think what you said is responsible for initiatives, guiding them, strategizing, but not responsible for all the work and all the results, right? It takes the whole organization.

Mitchell: Right. There's something I talk about sometimes in my class, which is DEI fatigue, which is this idea that, managers, where it's not, kind of, separate position, they get overwhelmed with some of the DEI work that they have to do. And so, it really helps also take the burden off the managers if there is somebody who's really responsible for that as their full-time job.

Kuntz: Well, diversity, equity, and inclusion programs have been a focal point in the media in recent months. And there are even high-profile companies scaling back or ending their DEI efforts. How do you think these changes could impact employees and companies?

Mitchell: So, obviously, I don't have research on this, yet. You know, these changes are really emerging. But the research that we do have would suggest that there's going to be some pretty strong negative consequences for these organizations, but then also the employees within them. You know, I think, for employees who are from underrepresented groups, the rollback of these programs are a really strong signal of the value that they have within that organization.

You know, if we think that some of these programs are effective in removing biases and discrimination and then we take those programs away, it's likely that these underrepresented groups are going to have increased incidences of bias and discrimination. And that'll affect those employees’ morale, retention, productivity, etc. So, it'll have really big impacts on employees.

I think, from an organizational perspective, we talked about how you talk about DEI really matters. And so, I think, overall, it'll probably lead to less inclusive culture, less psychological safety. But then there's really strong evidence that DEI and having, you know, diverse groups that are heard and equal within the organization helps innovation and creativity. And so, I think that there's likely going to be a bottom-line impact for these companies.

And then, also, I wanted to highlight just some of the economic impacts. I think, if we're looking at Black Americans, they wield between 1.4 and 1.8 trillion in spending power annually. And that's comparable to the GDP of entire countries, like Mexico, Canada, or Italy. We see, also, high purchasing power of Latinos, Asian Americans. So, when we're not incorporating those perspectives into business, I think there's just a huge gap in how businesses will be able to target those markets as well.

And the last thing I'd say is, you know, DEI doesn't just benefit marginalized groups. Everyone really benefits, right, from inclusion and equity and diversity as well. It creates more ethical, inclusive, high-functioning organizations. And then the research does say that, if we have really strong DEI initiatives, it can reduce discrimination or harassment across the board. So, just reducing incivility and harassment for all employees.

Inclusion helps to improve trust and belonging, which helps with employee engagement. And then, also, just having space for different voices in the room and having those open dialogues really helps people to build empathy, and again, leads to more, if we have psychologically safe, inclusive environments, we have more innovation and creativity. So, it's not just about underrepresented groups. It also benefits business.

Kuntz: Across the board, yeah. Like, I think where you started that there's so much to identity and diversity and when we're thinking about diversity and inclusion holistically, it opens up the possibility of benefiting everyone in the overall goals.

Mitchell: Yeah. And then, I guess I did want to talk a little bit on meritocracy. You know, I think, like, a lot of what we're seeing, the pullback is actually more targeted towards affirmative action and this idea that, if we have DEI initiatives, we're not hiring the most qualified candidate. But what I would say is, if we don't have those DEI initiatives, we're not hiring based on a meritocracy. There's a lot of research out there on how bias and discrimination shape selection, promotion, et cetera. There's some really early studies that looked at, they call it blind resume reviews. So, you would just take the name off and increase representation just by taking the name off. And the reverse of that is people sending out… they would randomly send out identical resumes and just change the name. So, you know, instead of a “Jared,” it's a “Jamal.” And that decreased the amount of callbacks that those folks got, just by, you know…

Kuntz: Changing the name because it activated a bias.

Mitchell: Yeah, exactly. And, like, orchestras are, kind of, famous for this, too. They now have, like, screens in auditions. And that it also increased representation. So, if I can't see who's playing the violin, you know, and judging based on the sound, that also decreases bias.

And then, also, I highlighted earlier that this tendency towards network homophily, like, that we tend towards people who look like us. And that means that, often, women and people of color are not getting the same mentoring opportunities and the same help that other folks are. So, to say that, you know, taking these away is helping with meritocracy, it's actually… I see it as the opposite. You know, if we don't have this equity and inclusion and diversity, then we're really not actually hiring on merit. We're doing the opposite.

Kuntz: That's a really interesting perspective. Well, I want to go on to the next question. I know your recent work is on affective diversity. So, could you start by telling us what affective diversity is, and what did you and your co authors find?

Mitchell: Yeah. So, I know that's, kind of, a strange term, but all it means is differences in emotional states on a team. And this is one of those deep-level diversity characteristics we're talking about. So, it's something that, you know, you wouldn't normally see, right? You're not going to see somebody's emotion. So, we were interested in how this, kind of, mix of emotions influences team performance, specifically through, “Am I more cautious or risk-taking if I have people with different emotions on the team?”

And what we found is that teams really benefit from having both, like, what I call the positive Paulas and the negative Nancies on the team, right? We want both of them on our teams because the people with positive emotions we found really help us to seize opportunities. So, we're seeing those opportunities and we're going after them. We're taking those risks. And then our negative Nancies are helping us be a little bit more cautious. They're helping us bring things back in and recognizing where there might be some threats or pitfalls in our environment.

And so, that combination really helps teams to navigate complex tasks that require a bit of both, right? We want to be taking risks, but we also don't want to be too risky in our decision-making. So, we found that teams that perform the best had a little mix of both of those folks on the team.

Kuntz: That's great. Okay. And then you're also working on some research about employee resource groups. Could you talk about that?

Mitchell: Yeah. So, this is more emerging than my other work, so, hopefully, will be published soon. So, some practitioners might find this really surprising, but, and I also did when I came into my Ph.D., but there's very little research on employee resource groups. We also call them affinity groups, network groups. And actually, my very first year of my Ph.D., I wanted to study this. And some senior student told me, “I don't think you want to study that.”

Kuntz: Interesting. There's not enough for your lit review.

Mitchell: Exactly. Yeah. There's just not enough out there for you to really, you know, form a theory.

Kuntz: But really, that exemplifies the need, right?

Mitchell: Yeah. And I didn't learn that until later when, thankfully, you know, I had… one of my committee members, Quinnetta Roberson, was like, “Yeah, I think that's actually a good idea. Let's study it.”

And so, we interviewed these high-level organizational leaders. So, not leaders of ERGs, but, people like a CEO, CHRO, VPs of diversity or chief diversity officer, that, kind of, like, top-level management of diversity initiatives. And we were interested in understanding this trend towards using ERGs as more of a business resource and starting to consult them on strategy for, say, how do we target a certain consumer group? Or, what can we do better in terms of our HR policies and practices? How can we retain folks a little bit better?

So, thinking more strategically about how they're leveraging these groups. And so, we were interested in understanding, “Well, what are these people actually doing?” And so, we found that there was, kind of, yeah, there are some folks who are using it as, kind of, this business resource group. Some even go as far as to call it a business resource group. There's some that call it an employee resource group. And really, truly, they emphasize it's for the employees. If we start to ask folks about strategy, etc., we're, kind of, changing the mission. And then there's some that are, kind of, in the middle, doing a little bit of both.

And so, we found that folks who really take that purpose all the way through and the way that they form ERGs, the way that they operate it, the way they evaluate ERG effectiveness, were a lot more successful than the folks who we did see some, like, misalignment, right? I really wanted employee resource group to be for employees. Maybe I've got some activities that aren't really aligned with that mission.

And so, that was really interesting that we also looked at employee perspectives and asked employees what they thought about these, kind of, different purposes. And we found that employees don't really agree with these top management folks in how they're talking about ERGs. Some of the employees did, but others also identified that they really just were looking for community in these ERGs. It wasn't about, “What resources can the organization provide me? Or, how can we change HR policies, practices? How can we help with your business strategy?” It was, like, just offering a space.

Kuntz: Yeah, to build community, connection.

Mitchell: Yeah, build community and connection. So, more to come there. That's the one that hopefully will get published in the next couple years here. But I'm really excited about that one.

Kuntz: We'll be looking for it. Well, I want to thank you so much, Becca, for talking today. And this is a really complex topic. There's many avenues. So, I'm sure folks are going to be looking for your research, looking for that HBR article. And some of them might want to follow up with you. So, if somebody wanted to be in touch, how could they best find you?

Mitchell: Yeah. You can always email me, if you even just Google me, you should be able to find my email, the CU ������ý���� employee webpage. So, you're welcome to email me or add me on LinkedIn, and would love to have further conversations, especially if you're interested in research. I think I'm always looking for research partners.

Kuntz: Great. And what are your top, maybe, two or three resources, if folks are like, “Okay, what do I do next,” where would you point them to start?

Mitchell: Yeah. So, I think the Dobbin and Kalev article is great in thinking about affective diversity programs. Their HBR is called Why Diversity Programs Fail.

There's also a really lovely piece by Lisa Burrell in the HBR called We Just Can't Handle Diversity. And it explains what I was talking about with the meritocracy approach. Like, we also call this, like, the colorblind approach to diversity, and why it doesn't really work. And then I also really love this piece. I assigned this one to my students as well, by Rosalind Chow and colleagues at MIT Sloan Management Review called Fighting Backlash to Racial Equity Efforts.

And they talk about common reasons why people resist diversity efforts, specifically racial equity efforts, but I think it could be applied across the board and how to respond to that, too. So, I really love that piece. And even though it's, like, back in ‘21 that they wrote this, I think it really has, you know, the same kind of impact today. Yeah. So, those would be my recommendations. And I promise you, they're easy reads.

Kuntz: Wonderful.

Mitchell: I'm not assigning, you know, anything I wouldn't assign undergrads.

Kuntz: Good. We're going to get those in the show notes. We've got our homework. And maybe, there's a future episode down the line. Becca, thank you so much for joining us today. It's been a real pleasure having this conversation.

Mitchell: Great. Thanks for having me. Hopefully, this is helpful for folks as they're going out and talking and thinking about how to apply it to their own organizations.

Kuntz: I'm sure it will be.

Thank you again for listening to Leeds Business Insights. Make sure you’re one of the first to hear every episode by subscribing to the show wherever you get your podcasts. Leeds Business Insights Podcast is a production of the Leeds School of Business and is produced by University FM. We’ll see you next time!