Six Actions to Create Genuine DEI Policies (Report)

Kathrina Robotham, PhD , Danielle Jackson, PhD , Tara Van Bommel, PhD

DOWNLOAD THE PDF

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Organizations that want to attract, retain, and advance talent must keep DEI at the forefront of their identity, even — and especially — in the face of the current backlash. But leaders can’t simply make superficial gestures. Employees can sense when their company’s commitments to DEI are performative, and they are willing to take their talent elsewhere when that is the case.1

This report, based on a survey of 2,572 employees in eight countries, identifies six actions that organizational leaders can take to implement genuine DEI efforts:

Key Findings

  • More than half (52%) of employees’ perception of policies as genuine is explained by the six actions named above.
  • Genuine DEI policies are linked to increased fairness and decreased discrimination, and they elicit more support from dominant group members.
  • Employees from marginalized racial and ethnic groups, LGBTQ+ employees, and employees with disabilities are more likely to report encountering unfair treatment and discrimination, underscoring the need for genuine DEI policies.
Call to Action
Organizational leaders must follow this roadmap of actions to show employees that their DEI commitments are sincere, especially as DEI efforts are being tested and weaponized as never before.

SIX ACTIONS THAT MAKE A DEI POLICY GENUINE

Previous Catalyst research demonstrated that 75% of employees doubt the sincerity of their organization’s racial equity efforts.2 But what informs these judgments? Our findings reveal that more than half (52%) of employees’ perception of DEI policies as genuine is explained by an organization’s communicating a fairness case, building accountability, acting with integrity, ensuring alignment, creating transparency, and preventing a climate of silence.3

Diagram of the 6 actions that drive authentic DEI policies.

These findings suggest that organizations cannot hide behind virtue-signaling statements and lackluster action to advance DEI. Employees see through performative behaviors and pay close attention to the behaviors that actually signal an authentic commitment to advancing DEI.

1. COMMUNICATE A FAIRNESS CASE FOR DIVERSITY

What is a fairness case for diversity?

A fairness case for diversity justifies organizational DEI efforts by stating they are the right and fair thing to do.4

What does communicating a fairness case look like?

An organization emphasizes how workplace diversity:

  • Helps to overcome past discrimination.
  • Is consistent with the organization’s values.
  • Is the socially good and morally right thing to do.
  • Contributes to creating a fairer workplace.5

How much does communicating a fairness case matter?

Employees are 14 times more likely to perceive DEI policies as genuine when organizations communicate a fairness case.

Why is communicating a fairness case important?

  • Employees will listen to how an organization speaks about its DEI initiatives to get more information about how genuine the organization is.7
  • A fairness case demonstrates that the organization’s DEI efforts are based on strong convictions and the belief that DEI is a desirable goal in and of itself.8
  • In organizations that are solely motivated by benefits to organizational performance (or “the business case” for diversity), managers are less likely to continue to support DEI efforts when they do not immediately lead to improved team productivity.9
  • Catalyst research shows that emphasizing a fairness case for diversity is related to increased inclusion and decreased turnover intentions among employees.10

Case Study

UPMC’s DEI initiative was in part motivated by the awareness of systemic barriers and inequities faced by Pittsburgh residents, particularly Black women.

“It seems performative and reactive rather than proactive. There still aren’t many BIPOC or diverse people in leadership roles.”

–Chinese woman, 51, Canada

2. BUILD ACCOUNTABILITY

What is accountability?

Accountability systems increase responsibility for meeting DEI goals through monitoring and evaluation.11

What does building accountability look like?

  • The organization evaluates the effectiveness of its DEI practices.
  • Both leaders and employees are evaluated and rewarded for doing their part. For example, organizational incentives are tied to inclusion goals or competencies.
  • Discrimination and harassment are taken seriously.
  • The organization is willing to learn from missteps and acts of discrimination or exclusion.

How much does building accountability matter?

Employees are 13 times more likely to perceive DEI policies as genuine when leaders build accountability.

Why is building accountability important?

  • Genuine organizations don’t just have good intentions; they hold leaders, employees, and the organization itself responsible for following through.
  • Without accountability, organizational DEI efforts are just superficial statements with no or substandard actions.
  • Organizations that fail to punish employees who engage in discriminatory behavior and harassment signal to employees that the behavior is acceptable and undermine DEI efforts.

Case Study

The Hartford has individual- and business-unit-level accountability programs.

“My organisation is consistent and thorough in enforcing these policies and keep staff updated and trained in these policies.”

–White man, 47, United Kingdom13

3. ACT WITH INTEGRITY

What is integrity?

Integrity refers to how often an organization follows through on its promises, aligns its words and actions, and enacts the values it espouses.14 The larger the gap between an organization’s words and actions, the lower its perceived integrity.

What does acting with integrity look like?

  • When traumatic events happen to marginalized communities, organizations show support in words and follow through with meaningful action.
  • Organizations do what they say they will do.
  • Organizations show that they prioritize DEI as much as they say they do.

How much does acting with integrity matter?

Employees are 13 times more likely to perceive DEI policies as genuine when their organization acts with integrity.

Why is acting with integrity important?

  • Integrity inspires employee trust in leadership,16 but misalignment between leaders’ words and actions provokes cynicism among employees,17 undermining the sincerity of DEI efforts.
  • Employees from marginalized groups are exceptionally attuned to displays of hypocritical behavior, especially when it comes to values that affect them personally such as inclusion.18

Case Study

TD Bank supports its 2SLGBTQ+ colleagues with words and actions by sponsoring Pride events and instituting inclusive and comprehensive benefits, among other efforts.

“[My company] is taking a stand both externally and internally, admitting bias and being transparent about its current diversity and inclusion, providing safe spaces for employees to report feeling psychologically unsafe, taking actual steps to remove bias, [and] empowering employees to create resource groups.”

—White man, 38, United States

4. ENSURE ALIGNMENT

What is alignment?

Alignment is the degree to which DEI efforts are connected with the organization’s mission and values.19

What does ensuring alignment look like?

  • Organizational leaders ask themselves how DEI efforts can help deliver on their promise to customers and employees, and then articulate these connections to employees.
  • Rather than a generic strategy, DEI efforts are tailored to support the organization’s core business objectives.

How much does ensuring alignment matter?

Employees are 13 times more likely to perceive DEI policies as genuine when leaders ensure alignment.

Why is ensuring alignment important?

  • If an organization’s DEI efforts seem counter to, or not well matched with, its mission and core values, employees are likely to question the organization’s motives for engaging in DEI and its effort will seem inauthentic.
  • On the other hand, the greater congruence between organizational mission and values and DEI efforts, the more employees will see DEI efforts as genuine.21
  • Having strong alignment between DEI and the organization’s mission helps to ensure that DEI is embedded in business activities throughout the organization and strengthens employees’ support of DEI.22

Case Study

Unilever’s tools and processes, including the robust “Hot Spot” approach, Gender Appointment Ratio, goals, and KPIs, are closely tied to the company’s Sustainable Living Plan, a blueprint for business growth and social impact.

“[Our company continues] to diversify and leadership is passionate about continuing to listen and shift things as needed.”

–African American woman, 39, United States

5. CREATE TRANSPARENCY

What is transparency?

Workplace transparency is sharing information with stakeholders regarding DEI policies, practices, and procedures (e.g., representation data, pay equity, and progress on DEI initiatives).23

What does creating transparency look like?

  • Clear, regular, and honest communications about organizational DEI efforts.
  • Being honest about organizational shortcomings and inequities and sharing plans to address them.

How much does creating transparency matter?

Employees are 11 times more likely to perceive genuine DEI policies when leaders create transparency.

Why is creating transparency important?

  • When an organization shines a light on its DEI activities and willingly shares successes and setbacks, employees can more easily assess whether the organization is being authentic and truly working toward meeting DEI goals.
  • Organizational transparency engenders trust,25 commitment,26 and engagement from employees.27
  • Transparency exposes inequities, inspiring change and making it harder to maintain the status quo.

Case Study

Enbridge’s interactive Diversity Dashboard is shared with all employees.

“I believe they are genuine because they make sure the policies and programs are visible and talked about on a regular basis.”

—Black woman, 37, United States

6. PREVENT A CLIMATE OF SILENCE

What is a climate of silence?

A climate of silence describes a workplace environment where employees are discouraged from speaking up about workplace issues.28

What does preventing a climate of silence look like?

  • Making sure that employees are not penalized, shut down, or ignored for raising legitimate workplace concerns, and that promotions and opportunities are not used to reward conformity.
  • Inviting employees to share their opinions about workplace decisions instead of encouraging them to stay silent or refrain from sharing opinions in meetings.
  • Taking employees seriously when they speak out about discriminatory behaviors. Catalyst research suggests that when there is a climate of silence, discriminatory behavior can go unchecked because people are less likely to risk speaking out against these behaviors.29

How much does preventing a climate of silence matter?

Employees are 4 times more likely to perceive genuine DEI policies when leaders prevent a climate of silence.

Why is preventing a climate of silence important?

  • Gathering and implementing employee feedback is essential to building effective DEI programs. If employees feel that they cannot speak up with constructive concerns about inequities in recruitment, pay, and promotion, then organizational leaders miss out on important feedback and policies are unlikely to be based on improving the employee experience.
  • Organizations that take the time to listen to employees, receive uncomfortable feedback, and use that as a catalyst to implement DEI policies around employee concerns demonstrate a genuine commitment to bettering the organization.
  • Climates of silence are costly to organizations as they are associated with greater turnover and may also increase the risk of facing discrimination claims.31

Case Study

Bank of America ensures all employees have a voice through courageous conversations.

“Upper management constantly updates policies and is open to feedback and criticism.”

–Scottish trans woman, 28, Australia

WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?

GENUINE DEI POLICIES AFFECT EXPERIENCES OF FAIRNESS AND DISCRIMINATION

Many DEI policies seek to increase organizational fairness and decrease discrimination. Because of these goals, we examined how perceptions of fairness32 and experiences of discrimination33 are shaped by the race and ethnicity, sexual orientation, and disability status of employees. Employees from these marginalized groups fare worse compared to employees from dominant groups.

People from marginalized groups are more likely to experience discrimination and less likely to say their organization is fair.

These disparate workplace experiences between employees from marginalized backgrounds and those from dominant groups underscore the need for organizations to address discriminatory behavior and create fairer workplaces, which our data show can be accomplished through genuine DEI policies.

When employees view DEI policies as genuine, they are:

6x
more likely to say that their organization is fair.37

74%
less likely to experience discrimination.38

This aligns with previous Catalyst research that found genuine DEI policies are good for business in other ways. For example, employees who believe that their organization’s racial equity policies are genuine are more engaged and less likely to leave the organization.39

GENUINE DEI POLICIES ELICIT MORE SUPPORT FROM MEMBERS OF DOMINANT GROUPS

We also found that when dominant group members perceive that DEI policies are genuine, they are much more likely to be supportive of these efforts. This is important because dominant group members are often less supportive of DEI efforts than marginalized group members.40 However, the support of dominant group members is integral to the success of DEI efforts because they tend to hold more powerful positions and make up the numerical majority within the workplace.

Employees from dominant groups are more likely to support DEI policies when they are genuine.

“I work for a company that is genuine. They do what they [say]. You can see the evidence in the workforce…in the number of women and people of color in [it] at all levels.”

–White man, 52, United States

GENUINE DEI POLICIES ARE MORE EFFECTIVE

These results show that when DEI policies are genuine, they are more likely to be effective. This is important for all employees, but especially those from marginalized groups, who benefit in the form of increased fairness and decreased discrimination.

They also indicate that it’s not just employees from marginalized groups who are paying attention to the legitimacy of DEI efforts. Creating genuine DEI policies can help organizations foster buy-in and support for DEI efforts and avoid backlash from employees from dominant groups who may feel threatened and disadvantaged by DEI initiatives.45

A key takeaway for leaders is that insincere DEI policies are an ineffective use of resources — meaning that organizations that engage in performative policies are unlikely to realize a return on their investment in terms of increased diversity and fairness and decreased discrimination. In these cases, it may not be that their DEI policies are inherently inferior, but that they are not genuinely implemented.

THE CATALYST SOLUTION

CEOs and senior leaders across departments must take action to openly and honestly share DEI-related information with employees, put accountability mechanisms in place to hold people responsible for meeting DEI goals, and correct instances of bias. It’s critical that organizational leaders at every level follow through on their promises and create a work environment where people are encouraged to raise concerns.

Additionally, DEI leaders must demonstrate how DEI is connected with the organization’s overall mission and values while making sure to articulate that DEI is not solely a business imperative, but also an end in and of itself.

1. Regularly assess both the “what” and the “why” of your values, policies, and practices.

Ensure your values, policies, and practices are aligned with your organization’s authentic views and are based on genuine concern for the well-being of people from marginalized groups and equity for everyone at the organization.

Employees perceive DEI policies as genuine when organizations emphasize that their efforts are “the right thing to do,” versus simply emphasizing the business case for their actions (which suggests that DEI efforts can be dropped or deprioritized at any time).46

Read the Report

2. Be transparent about your DEI efforts.

Employees overwhelmingly indicated that their companies’ commitment to DEI was genuine when leaders took the time to communicate openly about new DEI initiatives, regularly report on the impact of those efforts, and identify ways to improve.

Timely and authentic dialogue about these topics between organizational leaders and employees is important, as research shows that more organizational transparency builds trust and promotes retention.47

Get the Infographic

3. Keep your commitment to DEI at the forefront of your company’s identity, even in the face of pushback.

Employees perceive their companies’ DEI efforts as genuine when there is sustained energy and resources invested in DEI initiatives, as opposed to when DEI efforts are reactive and fleeting.

When there is pushback, it is even more critical to remain steadfast and demonstrate continued commitment to DEI goals. Doing so affirms to your employees (and other stakeholders) that you are true to your values and accountable to your commitments, even during challenging times.

Explore Our Resources

Get the Latest Insights

About the Authors

Kathrina Robotham, PhD, is an organizational psychologist whose research aims to understand the experiences, perceptions, and consequences of workplace mistreatment for marginalized groups and discover individual and organizational factors that foster diversity, equity, and inclusion. At Catalyst, Kathy uses her expertise in DEI, research methods, and statistics to create evidence-based and actionable recommendations for building inclusive and equitable workplaces.

Danielle Jackson, PhD, is a sociologist whose longstanding research interests include women’s experiences in the labor market, entrepreneurship, and community economic development. She is passionate about projects related to equity and inclusion and is currently a Research Fellow at Catalyst.

Tara Van Bommel, PhD, is a social psychologist who studies nonconscious bias and the role of nonverbal behavior in interracial interactions. At Catalyst, Tara leads the Women and the Future of Work initiative and brings her background in stereotyping and prejudice to advance an intersectional approach to creating equitable workplaces.

Methodology

About the Study

We surveyed 2,572 employees in eight countries around the world to understand the factors that influence whether employees perceive their organization’s DEI policies as genuine.

Identities such as lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, nonbinary, queer, and many others (LGBTQ+) have meaningful distinctions within and across individuals and contexts.48 At the same time, LGBTQ+ employees often have similar, though certainly not identical, experiences navigating bias and discrimination within and outside of work.49

We simultaneously recognize, respect, and value the integrity of each unique identity within the LGBTQ+ umbrella; emphasize the importance of providing data on experiences of bias and discrimination that would not otherwise be possible for each distinct identity group due to sample size limitations; and honor the social and cultural significance of broader LGBTQ+ communities.

Demographics

Age Gender Race/Ethnicity Sexual Orientation Job level top five industries country
41
Average age		 47%
Men		 48%
White		 12%
Identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, pansexual, or asexual		 33%
Non-management level or individual contributor		 18%
Education		 21%
United States
22-75
Age range		 52%
Women		 52%
Marginalized racial or ethnic group		 88%
Do not identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, pansexual, or asexual		 33%
First-level management		 9%
Finance/Banking/Insurance		 18%
United Kingdom
1%
Trans or nonbinary		 22%
Second-level management		 9%
Computers (Hardware, Desktop Software)		 16%
Canada
10%
Senior-level management		 9%
Business/Professional Services		 14%
Australia
2%
C-level executive		 7%
Government/Military		 11%
France
8%
The Netherlands
7%
Germany
5%
Sweden

Procedure and Analysis

  • Participants were full-time employees recruited through a panel service company. After obtaining informed consent, participants completed a 15-minute online survey. Study participants were asked about the type of DEI policies their organization has and their perceptions of these policies, the work environment, and their leaders in their organization.
  • Participants were also asked demographic questions such as their race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and ability status. Race and/or ethnicity data was available for participants in Australia, Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom. As a result, information related to race and/or ethnicity reflects a subset of the sample.
  • When asked about how often they experienced discrimination at work within the past year, participants’ response options ranged from 1 (never) to 5 (always).
  • Responses to questions about their work environment, fair treatment, and support for DEI efforts ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree).
  • We conducted linear regressions and logistic regressions to understand what organizational characteristics inform employee perceptions of DEI policies, and the impact of these perceptions on rates of fairness, discrimination, and support for DEI. All analyses were performed in IBM SPSS version 25. All results presented in this report were significant at p< .001 unless otherwise noted.

How to cite: Robotham, K., Jackson, D., & Van Bommel, T. (2024). Six actions to create genuine DEI policies. Catalyst.

Endnotes

  1. Van Bommel, T. Robotham, K. & Jackson, D. (2022). Words aren’t enough: The risks of performative policies. Catalyst.
  2. Van Bommel et al. (2022).
  3. Participants were asked “Does your organization have DEI policies or practices that ensure that decision-making (e.g., hiring, promotions, allocating desirable assignments) is based on qualifications and abilities, not demographics?” and provided with a list of example policies they could select from (e.g., policies that help to remove bias from hiring, evaluation, and promotion decisions). Participants then shared their perceptions of how genuine the policies are by rating them on three items. A linear regression was conducted to examine the impact of accountability, transparency, integrity, alignment, fairness case, and climate of silence on genuine DEI policies. This was followed up by a relative weights analysis using the RWA shiny app to better understand how important each predictor was in explaining variance in the outcome. Fairness case for diversity is measured with five items, which were used to create a composite score, α =.89. Organizational accountability is measured with five items, which were used to create a composite score, α =.86. Integrity is measured with eight items, which were used to create a composite score, α =.95. Alignment is measured with four items, which were used to create a composite score, α =.89. Organizational transparency is measured with five items, which were used to create a composite score, α =.91. Climate of silence is measured with eight items, which were reverse-scored and then used to create a composite score, α =.96. The model was significant, R2 = .52, F(6, 2565) = 458.13, p < .001. Integrity explained the most variance employee perceptions of genuineness. Greater levels of integrity were associated with increased perceptions of genuineness (b=.21, SE =.03, p <.001, RW=.11). A fairness case for diversity explained the second largest amount of variance in employee perceptions of genuineness. Greater use of a fairness case for diversity was associated with increased perceptions of genuineness (b=.19, SE =.03, p <.001, RW=.10). Transparency explained the third largest amount of variance in employee perceptions of genuineness. Greater transparency was associated with increased perceptions of genuineness (b=.17, SE =.02, p <.001, RW=.10). Accountability explained the fourth largest amount of variance in employee perceptions of genuineness. Greater accountability was associated with increased perceptions of genuineness (b=.13, SE =.03, p <.001, RW=.10). Alignment explained the fifth largest amount of variance in employee perceptions of genuineness. Greater alignment between the organization’s mission and DEI efforts was associated with increased perceptions of genuineness (b=.13, SE =.03, p <.001, RW=.10). A climate of silence explained the smallest amount of variance in employee perceptions of genuineness. Preventing a climate of silence was associated with increased perceptions of genuineness (b= .04, SE =.01, p =.001, RW=.02).
  4. Robotham, K. (2021). Principles vs. profits: Is a fairness or business rationale for workplace diversity most effective at promoting diversity? [Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan], Deep Blue Data.
  5. Shaffer, E. & Torrez, B. (2024). How to talk about diversity with employees to achieve your company’s objectives. Catalyst.
  6. The fairness case for diversity composite score was dichotomized such that responses 1-3 were coded as low use of a fairness case and responses 4-6 were coded as high use of a fairness case. Higher scores indicate greater use of a fairness case for diversity. A logistic regression was conducted to examine how a fairness case shapes employee perceptions of DEI policies. The logistic regression was statistically significant: X2 (1) = 399.52, p < .001, Nagelkerke R Square = .25. When employees report high usage of a fairness case they are 14X more likely to report that their organization’s DEI policies are genuine, b = 2.61, Exp(B) =13.66, p < .001.
  7. Kröger, L. C. (2018). ‘The right thing to do’ or ‘good for business’: The importance of morality in formulating diversity policies of public and private sector organisations. [Master’s thesis, Utrect University]. Utrecht University Repository; Robotham, K. (2021).
  8. van Dijk, H., van Engen, M., & Paauwe, J. (2012). Reframing the business case for diversity: A values and virtues perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 111, 73-84.
  9. Birnbaum, H., Apfelbaum, E. P., and Waytz, A. (August 2019). When the business case backfires: Economic standards jeopardize support for diversity programs. In O. Georgeac & S. Kaplan (Chairs), Reevaluating the business case for diversity: Consequences for advocates, women, leaders, & scholars. [Symposium presentation]. Academy of Management annual conference; Roberts, L. M. (2020, June 28). Move beyond the business case for diversity. Bloomberg.
  10. Shaffer & Torrez (2024).
  11. Leslie, L. M. (2019). Diversity initiative effectiveness: A typological theory of unintended consequences. Academy of Management Review, 44(3), 538-563.
  12. The accountability composite score was dichotomized such that responses 1-3 were coded as low accountability and responses 4-6 were coded as high accountability. Higher scores indicate greater organizational accountability. A logistic regression was conducted to examine how organizational accountability shapes employee perceptions of DEI policies. The logistic regression was statistically significant: X2 (1) = 458.81, p < .001, Nagelkerke R Square = .29. When employees report high organizational accountability, they are 13X more likely to report that their organization’s DEI policies are genuine, b = 2.57, Exp(B) =13.09, p < .001.
  13. Participant quotes have been lightly edited for clarity. Participant quotes were responses to the following question “Tell us about why you perceive your organization’s DEI policies as genuine or performative.”
  14. Simons, T. (2002). Behavioral integrity: The perceived alignment between managers’ words and deeds as a research focus. Organization science, 13(1), 18-35; Simons, T., Leroy, H., & Nishii, L. (2022). Revisiting behavioral integrity: Progress and new directions after 20 years. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 9, 365-389.
  15. The integrity composite was dichotomized such that responses 1-3 were coded as low integrity and responses 4-6 were coded as high integrity. Higher scores indicate greater organizational integrity. A logistic regression was conducted to examine how organizational integrity shapes employee perceptions of DEI policies. The logistic regression was statistically significant: X2 (1) = 453.33, p < .001, Nagelkerke R Square = .28. When employees report high organizational integrity, they are 13X more likely to report that their organization’s DEI policies are genuine, b = 2.56, Exp(B) =12.97, p < .001.
  16. Simons, T., Leroy, H., Collewaert, V., & Masschelein, S. (2015). How leader alignment of words and deeds affects followers: A meta-analysis of behavioral integrity research. Journal of Business Ethics, 132, 831-844.
  17. Kannan-Narasimhan, R., & Lawrence, B. S. (2012). Behavioral integrity: How leader referents and trust matter to workplace outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics, 111, 165-178.
  18. Mor Barak, M. E., Luria, G., & Brimhall, K. C. (2022). What leaders say versus what they do: Inclusive leadership, policy-practice decoupling, and the anomaly of climate for inclusion. Group & Organization Management, 47(4), 840-871; Simons, T., Friedman, R., Liu, L. A., & McLean Parks, J. (2007). Racial differences in sensitivity to behavioral integrity: Attitudinal consequences, in-group effects, and” trickle down” among Black and non-Black employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 650.
  19. Milanesi, C. (2023). The business impact of diversity, equity and inclusion. Forbes.
  20. The alignment composite was dichotomized such that responses 1-3 were coded as low alignment and responses 4-6 were coded as high alignment. Higher scores indicate greater alignment between DEI efforts and the organizational mission. A logistic regression was conducted to examine how alignment shapes employee perceptions of DEI policies. The logistic regression was statistically significant: X2 (1) = 394.55, p < .001, Nagelkerke R Square = .25. When employees report high alignment, they are 13X more likely to report that their organization’s DEI policies are genuine, b = 2.56, Exp(B) = 12.97, p < .001.
  21. Alhouti, S., Johnson, C. M., & Holloway, B. B. (2016). Corporate social responsibility authenticity: Investigating its antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Business Research, 69(3), 1242-1249; Joo, S., Miller, E. G., & Fink, J. S. (2019). Consumer evaluations of CSR authenticity: Development and validation of a multidimensional CSR authenticity scale. Journal of Business Research, 98, 236-249.
  22. How to get DEI buy-in: 5 actions leaders should take. (2024). Catalyst.
  23. How to create transparency in DEI measurement: A guide for senior leaders (Infographic). (2022). Catalyst.
  24. The transparency composite was dichotomized such that responses 1-3 were coded as low integrity and responses 4-6 were coded as high integrity. Higher scores indicate greater organizational transparency. A logistic regression was conducted to examine how organizational transparency shapes employee perceptions of DEI policies. The logistic regression was statistically significant: X2 (1) = 414.31, p < .001, Nagelkerke R Square = 0.26. When employees report high organizational transparency, they are 11X more likely to report that their organization’s DEI policies are genuine, b = 2.41, Exp(B) = 11.11, p < .001.
  25. Rawlins, B. L. (2008). Measuring the relationship between organizational transparency and employee trust. Public Relations Journal, 2(2).
  26. Scheller, E. M. & Harrison, W. (2018). Ignorance is bliss, or is it? The effects of pay transparency, informational justice and distributive justice on pay satisfaction and affective commitment. Compensation & Benefits Review, 50(2), 65-81.
  27. Jiang, H. & Shen, H. (2023). Toward a relational theory of employee engagement: Understanding authenticity, transparency, and employee behaviors. International Journal of Business Communication, 60(3), 948–975.
  28. Shaffer, E., Sattari, N., & Pollack, A. (2020). Interrupting sexism at work: How men respond in a climate of silence. Catalyst.
  29. Sattari, N., Shaffer, E., DiMuccio, S., & Travis, D. J. (2020). Interrupting sexism at work: What drives men to respond directly or do nothing? Catalyst.
  30. The climate of silence composite was dichotomized such that responses 1-3 were coded as high climate of silence and responses 4-6 were coded as low climate of silence. Higher scores indicate lower levels of climate of silence. A logistic regression was conducted to examine how preventing a climate of silence shapes employee perceptions of DEI policies. The logistic regression was statistically significant: X2 (1) = 123.70, p < .001, Nagelkerke R Square = .08. When employees report low climates of silence, they are 4X more likely to report that their organization’s DEI policies are genuine, b = 1.29, Exp(B) = 3.63, p < .001.
  31. DiMuccio, S. & Sattari, N. (2022). How to tackle negative workplace climates head-on: A guide for senior leaders and managers. Catalyst.
  32. Fair treatment is measured with six items, which were used to create a composite score, α =.76. Higher scores indicate greater fairness.
  33. Experiences of discrimination were measured with a single item “During the PAST YEAR, how often have you experienced discrimination at work?”
  34. The fair treatment composite was dichotomized such that responses 1-3 were coded as low fair treatment and responses 4-6 were coded as high fair treatment. Participants were categorized as belonging to a marginalized racial or ethnic group if they did not self-identify as White. A logistic regression was conducted to examine how race and ethnicity shape employee experiences of fairness. The logistic regression was statistically significant: X2 (1) = 6.19, p = .013, Nagelkerke R Square = .01. Employees from marginalized racial and ethnic groups are 23% less likely than White employees to report that their organization is fair, b = -0.26, Exp(B) = 0.77, p = .013. The discrimination composite was dichotomized such that response 1 was coded as no discriminatory treatment and 2-5 were coded as discriminatory treatment A logistic regression was conducted to examine how race and ethnicity shape experiences of workplace discrimination. The logistic regression was statistically significant: X2 (1) = 37.43, p < .001, Nagelkerke R Square = .03. Employees from marginalized racial and ethnic groups are 2X more likely to report experiencing discrimination at work, b = .61, Exp(B) = 1.84, p < .001.
  35. Participants were categorized as LGBTQ+ if they indicated that they were lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, or asexual regarding sexual orientation or if they indicated that they were transgender or nonbinary regarding gender. Participants were categorized as cisgender heterosexual if they indicated man or woman with regard to gender and did not indicate that they were lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, or asexual regarding sexual orientation. A logistic regression was conducted to examine how LGBTQ+ status shapes employee experiences of fairness. The logistic regression was statistically significant: X2 (1) = 12.69, p < .001, Nagelkerke R Square =.01. LGBTQ+ employees are 36% less likely than cisgender heterosexual employees to report that their organization is fair, b = -0.44, Exp(B) = 0.64, p < .001. A logistic regression was conducted to examine how LGBTQ+ status shapes experiences of workplace discrimination. The logistic regression was statistically significant: X2 (1) = 13.01, p < .001, Nagelkerke R Square = .01. LGBTQ+ employees are 2X more likely than cisgender heterosexual employees to report experiencing discrimination at work, b = 0.44, Exp(B) = 1.55, p < .001.
  36. Participants were categorized as having a disability if they indicated that they had a physical, learning, cognitive, or another disability. A logistic regression was conducted to examine how ability status shapes experiences of workplace discrimination. The logistic regression was statistically significant: X2 (1) = 23.94, p < .001, Nagelkerke R Square = .01. Employees with disabilities are 2X more likely than able-bodied employees to report experiencing discrimination at work, b = 0.70, Exp(B) = 2.02, p < .001.
  37. A logistic regression was conducted to examine how genuine DEI policies shape employee perceptions of fairness. The logistic regression was statistically significant: X2 (1) = 253.37, p < .001, Nagelkerke R Square = .13. When employees report genuine DEI policies, they are 6X more likely to report that their organization is fair, b = 1.83, Exp(B) = 6.22, p < .001.
  38. A logistic regression was conducted to examine how genuine DEI policies shape experiences of workplace discrimination. The logistic regression was statistically significant: X2 (1) = 137.15, p < .001, Nagelkerke R Square = .07. When employees report genuine DEI policies, they are 74% less likely to report experiencing discrimination at work, b = -1.35, Exp(B) = .26, p < .001.
  39. Van Bommel et al., (2022).
  40. Dover, T. L., Major, B., & Kaiser, C. R. (2016). Members of high-status groups are threatened by pro-diversity organizational messages. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 62, 58-67.
  41. Support for DEI was measured with three items which were used to create a composite score α =.90. The support for DEI composite was dichotomized such that responses 1-3 were coded as low support and responses 4-6 were coded as high support. A logistic regression was conducted to examine how genuine DEI policies shape White employees’ support for DEI. The logistic regression was statistically significant: X2 (1) = 159.37, p < .001, Nagelkerke R Square = .32. White employees are 23X more likely to support genuine policies compared to ungenuine policies, b = 3.13, Exp(B) = 22.81, p < .001.
  42. A logistic regression was conducted to examine how genuine DEI policies shape male employees’ support for DEI. The logistic regression was statistically significant: X2 (1) = 168.46, p < .001, Nagelkerke R Square = .24. Male employees are 13X more likely to support genuine policies compared to ungenuine policies, b = 2.56, Exp(B) = 12.99, p < .001.
  43. A logistic regression was conducted to examine how genuine DEI policies shape cisgender heterosexual employees’ support for DEI. The logistic regression was statistically significant: X2 (1) = 319.09, p < .001, Nagelkerke R Square = .25. Cisgender heterosexual employees are 14X more likely to support genuine policies compared to ungenuine policies, b = 2.62, Exp(B) = 13.72, p < .001.
  44. A logistic regression was conducted to examine how genuine DEI policies shape able-bodied employees’ support for DEI. The logistic regression was statistically significant: X2 (1) = 341.93, p < .001, Nagelkerke R Square = 0.26. Able-bodied employees are 14X more likely to support genuine policies compared to ungenuine policies, b = 2.67, Exp(B) = 14.42, p < .001.
  45. Dover et al. (2016); Plaut, V. C., Garnett, F. G., Buffardi, L. E., & Sanchez-Burks, J. (2011). “What about me?” Perceptions of exclusion and Whites’ reactions to multiculturalism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 337–353.
  46. Kröger (2018); Robotham (2021).
  47. Rawlins (2008); Jiang & Shen (2023).
  48. van Anders, S. M. (2015). Beyond sexual orientation: Integrating gender/sex and diverse sexualities via Sexual Configurations Theory. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44(5), 1177-1213.
  49. Cech, E. A., Montgomery, G., Settles, I. H., Elliott, K., Cheruvelil, K., & Brassel, S. T. (2021). The social is professional: The effects of team climate on professional outcomes for LGBTQ persons in environmental science. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 27(5), 25-48; Gates, G. J. & Newport, F. (2012, October 18). Special report: 3.4% of US adults identify as LGBT. Gallup.