Is The Pipeline Really Empty? Still Lack Of Diversity In Top Leadership Positions

Let’s keep it right. Colleges and universities have never been leaders or facilitators of social change. Too often in these contexts, deep structural change is a protracted and ongoing struggle. Higher education has instead become preoccupied with achieving numeric diversity goals, with a level of attention that exceeds that paid by other organizations and businesses, including some sport organizations that purport to be epicenters of diversity. Colleges and universities are guided by compelling evidence of the educational benefits associated with a diverse student body, a rationale supported by the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978).

Campus leaders signal their commitment to diversity by making curricular changes, encouraging co-curricular activities across racial lines, establishing cultural spaces, and issuing public statements of support for inclusiveness. They may offer voluntary diversity trainings and workshops, craft diversity hiring statements, rename buildings, and paste slogans like “Excellence Through Diversity” and “You Belong” across campus. These efforts should not be rejected, of course—particularly when they make a campus more hospitable to those who historically have not been well served by these institutions. But how far and how wide does this diversity commitment extend? And is it enough? Current data indicate that it is not.

As I noted above, the most intentional push on college campuses has been to increase the numeric diversity of students, staff, and faculty. Despite such collective efforts, however, people of Color and women remain disproportionately excluded at the top ranks of the higher education ecosystem. A report by the Eos Foundation and the American Association of University Women on leadership compensation at major research universities, for example, describes how women hold few leadership positions among the highest paid medical center and athletics employees (12% and 7%, respectively). The numbers are even more disturbing when race is factored into the equation. Women of Color are severely underrepresented in positions like chancellor, president, dean, chief financial officer, and executive vice president: Asian women hold 0.6% of these positions, Black and African American women hold 0.8%, and Hispanic and Latina women hold 0.8%. These figures clearly demonstrate the promotion gap that women of Color face. Notably, Black/African American men and Hispanic/Latino men are also underrepresented and excluded, holding 3.5% and 3.1% of these positions, respectively.

Contrary to popular belief, this lack of diversity in top higher education leadership positions is not an empty pipeline problem. A diverse and qualified talent pool has been visibly present for many years. According to a report by the Council of Graduate Schools, between 2009 and 2019 women earned the majority of master’s and doctoral degrees, and they outnumbered men in graduate school enrollment. Moreover, men and women of Color have continued to show higher numbers of enrollment in and graduation from doctoral programs over the past two decades.

These inequitable outcomes for top earners are far from the instructive model of diversity that colleges and universities so emphatically promote.

Similar leadership patterns exist within some major professional sport organizations. In 2021, a report from the Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport revealed that 37.6% of Major League Baseball (MLB) players on the active opening day roster were people of Color. Yet, during the same period, only one of 30 owners, four of 30 general managers (one woman and three men), and six of 30 managers were people of Color. Likewise, just 15.3% of team vice presidents and 19.8% of team senior administrators were people of Color and 22.0% and 28.5% of these positions, respectively, were held by women.

The National Football League (NFL) has also showed little diversity in its head coaching and top executive positions at the team level. In 2020, an Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport report reported that 69.4% of NFL players were people of Color. In contrast, only 12.6% of head coaches, 12.1% of team CEOs and presidents, 6.5% of general managers, and 13.7% of team vice presidents were people of Color. Moreover, only 6.1% of team CEOs and presidents, 0.0% of general managers, and 21.1% of team vice presidents were held by women.

Notably, in these same time periods, 40.5% of MLB assistant coaches and 35.6% of NFL assistant coaches were people of Color—findings that have been fairly consistent over the past five years and two decades, respectively. In other words, diverse assistant coaches are in the talent pool and are likely qualified candidates for managerial and head coach consideration in these organizations.

When we take all of this into account, it is clear that there are shortcomings in organizational rationales and initiatives to promote diversity. The current historical moment has amplified the need for leaders to shift from diversity and inclusion to pursue notions of equity and social transformation in the foreseeable future, particularly with respect to hiring practices. This is especially urgent for those of us charged with organizing, leading, and serving diverse organizations.

We know the lack of attention to diversity, equity, and inclusion in organizations can hinder innovation, problem solving, and financial performance. Higher education and other organizations must develop effective strategies that not only cultivate and support diversity but also focus on advancing equity prior to and at every stage of the high-stakes hiring process.

The events of 2020—such as the murders of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, and the Black Lives Matter movement—will not magically boost the diversity of the highest-ranking employees within organizations. Rather, leaders must embrace this moment and help to create more intentional opportunities for people of Color and other nondominant groups to advance through the ranks and ultimately reach equitable leadership representation in their organizations’ highest levels.

To be clear, Mychal Denzel Smith reminds us that “representational progress, while important, does not necessarily translate to material progress.”

Organizations can and should take a fresh look at their current hiring practices and develop and enact more equity-focused and data-driven approaches. They would be wise to collect in-depth employee data to measure and monitor equity in recruitment, hiring, and promotion outcomes by demographic group. Research shows that sound employee data monitoring strategies can inform the creation of more equitable and inclusive environments over time. Specifically, meaningful data with benchmarks can highlight organizational strengths and problem areas, drive deliberate and targeted action, and create commitment and accountability among hiring leadership teams.

These benchmarks and dashboards will help monitor data collection and inform better leadership team decisions, but they will not be enough. The underlying norms, assumptions, and beliefs of a given organization must also be addressed. As the evidence referenced above reveals, the dearth of diverse leadership at the highest levels of some organizations is not a pipeline problem—it’s a people problem. People are tied to inadequate recruitment, hiring, and promotion practices that drive inequitable outcomes.

White men—members of the dominant group—have been in positions of power for generations, and whites hold 85% of top executive positions across all S&P 500 companies. Gatekeepers—those in powerful positions who make decisions, including major executive search firms—tend to assess merit based on qualities ascribed to dominant group candidates. This is a form of racism that creates more racism and inequalities in the workplace. These shared cognitive frames among gatekeepers are unlikely to serve the goal of increasing diversity at the highest levels.

Organizations that view candidates of Color and women as assets, broaden their understanding of successful candidates, and openly integrate the diverse perspectives of all their members can overcome these structural barriers in the hiring process. The responsibility for real change will also require champions who continue to organize, lead, resist, and actively disrupt business-as-usual practices. Further, it would be prudent for organizations to provide comprehensive mentoring and leadership programs to develop and grow the pool of qualified candidates—particularly women and candidates of Color—for senior-level executive positions.

In short, organizations need to be part of the solution. Programs should include learning sessions on a range of topics—for example, career goal refinement, interview strategies, and performance and data analytics—to better prepare historically excluded individuals for the hiring process. As well, these qualified candidates should receive ongoing support and campaigning to elevate their visibility in the industry.

The current lack of diverse leaders at the highest levels of prominent institutions appears to be an organizational learning problem within hiring committees and executive leadership teams rather than an individual problem or a deficiency among candidates. Businesses and postsecondary institutions are spending millions of dollars on diversity initiatives, including to diversify their staff, but often to little avail. Until gatekeepers wake up to new possibilities and understand the strengths and assets that candidates of Color and women bring to the workplace, organizations will continue to operate (though not as efficiently) absent some of the most gifted, talented, and deserving leaders.

My next book is Organized Captivity: Control, Hyper-Surveillance, and Disposability of Black Athletes in the Corporate University.