Diversity and Inclusion Practices in Nonprofit Associations: A Resource-Dependent and Institutional Analysis

Abstract

Since the early 1990s, diversity and inclusion (D&I) efforts have received increasing attention among management scholars. Although the benefits and challenges of implementing D&I practices are now well established, few studies have explored the extent to which nonprofit associations, in particular, engage in D&I efforts. As such, we have no knowledge of the role that associations play in assisting with the diffusion of these practices throughout their respective professional fields or trades. Therefore, using a national survey of over 150 executives of nonprofit associations, this study explores the institutional and resource-based challenges associations face when seeking to implement D&I practices, both within their organizations and throughout their professional fields and trades. While the findings from this study suggest that nonprofit associations only engage in D&I practices to a modest degree, there is also evidence of institutional entrepreneurship. Implications of these findings for research on D&I practices in nonprofit associations as well as for association practitioners seeking to improve their D&I programming are provided.

Full text

Research Article
Mason, D. (2020). Diversity and inclusion practices in nonprofit associations: A resource
dependent and institutional analysis. Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs, 6(1),
22-43. https://doi.org/10.20899/jpna.6.1.22-43
Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs
Vol. 6, No. 1
Diversity and Inclusion Practices in
Nonprofit Associations: A Resource-
Dependent and Institutional Analysis
Dyana P. Mason – University of Oregon
Since the early 1990s, diversity and inclusion (D&I) efforts have received increasing
attention among management scholars. Although the benefits and challenges of
implementing D&I practices are now well established, few studies have explored the
extent to which nonprofit associations, in particular, engage in D&I efforts. As such,
we have no knowledge of the role that associations play in assisting with the diffusion
of these practices throughout their respective professional fields or trades. Therefore,
using a national survey of over 150 executives of nonprofit associations, this study
explores the institutional and resource-based challenges associations face when
seeking to implement D&I practices, both within their organizations and throughout
their professional fields and trades. While the findings from this study suggest that
nonprofit associations only engage in D&I practices to a modest degree, there is also
evidence of institutional entrepreneurship. Implications of these findings for research
on D&I practices in nonprofit associations as well as for association practitioners
seeking to improve their D&I programming are provided.
Keywords: Diversity, Inclusion, Nonprofit Associations
Research has long shown that diversity and inclusion (D&I) practices, when managed
effectively, can improve organizational outcomes and performance (e.g., see Barak, 2017; Cox,
1994; Weisinger et al., 2016). Yet, the study of D&I has only recently begun to receive attention
in the nonprofit sector. Among this recent research, Bernstein and Bilimoria (2013) found that
board diversity leads to a more inclusive workplace environment for people of color; further,
Buse, Bernstein and Bilimoria (2016) found that board diversity can also lead to increased
board performance. Additionally, Gazley, Chang, and Bingham (2010) argued that
organizational diversity can lead to better outcomes in nonprofit collaborations. Gündemir,
Dovidio, Homan, and De Dreu (2017) also found that some types of diversity practices in the
nonprofit sector can support the development of under-represented employee perceptions of
leadership opportunities.
Despite these findings, gaps in the literature remain. For example, we have no knowledge of
how often “best practices,” i.e., policies and procedures that support D&I in the workplace, are
used in the nonprofit sector. We also have no knowledge of the common challenges nonprofit
organizations face when seeking to implement changes relating to D&I. Thus, leveraging both
resource-based and institutional perspectives on D&I, this study explores how nonprofit

Diversity and Inclusion Practices in Nonprofit
23
associations, in particular, develop and support D&I programs and activities, both within their
organizations and within their broader professional fields and trades.
Nonprofit associations are member-based organizations that help to educate, train, and
credential individuals and organizations in a particular industry, trade, or profession
(Tschirhart & Gazley, 2014). These organizations are also repositories of best practices since
they often provide resources and technical support as well as advance policy, technology, and
operational practices (Balla, 2001; Gazley, Tschirhart, & Hager, 2014; Greenwood, Suddaby,
& Hinings, 2002; Hager, 2014).
Despite being recognized as important information brokers and leaders in their professions,
little is known about D&I efforts in nonprofit associations and even less is known about their
D&I influence in their respective fields and industries. Although there has been recent
research on various aspects of nonprofit associations (e.g., see Gazley et al., 2014; Hager, 2014;
Nesbit & Gazley, 2012), to date there has been no research assessing how these organizations
have an impact on D&I practices throughout their workforce.
Most extant literature on diversity in nonprofits, writ large, has focused primarily on board
member characteristics and the relationship between diversity and board outcomes (e.g., see
Bernstein & Bilimoria, 2013; Brown, 2015; Brown, 2002; Buse et al., 2016; Gazley et al., 2010;
Gündemir et al., 2017). This focus has emerged, in part, because nonprofit organizations have
often struggled with closing their “diversity gap” (Medina, 2017) where they, themselves, are
primarily homogenous while serving diverse populations.
Using data from a nationwide survey of association executives, the present study is the first of
its kind to measure D&I practices within nonprofit associations specifically; more broadly, this
study is one of the few to measure D&I within nonprofit organizations in general. The study
builds on earlier research that has explored D&I practices in human resources management
(Konrad, Yang, & Maurer, 2016; Yang & Konrad, 2011). This earlier work defined various D&I
practices and described institutional and resource-based constraints and opportunities that
influence the adoption of these practices.
Findings from the present study suggest that while nonprofit associations tend to engage in
D&I practices at modest levels, the role of leadership is crucial to D&I adoption. Leadership,
defined as being when an “individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common
goal” (Northouse, 2018, p. 5), is a well-known factor that has been shown to either facilitate
or prevent organizational change (Kotter, 2012).
The findings from this study also indicate that nonprofit associations are able to overcome
both resource-based and institutional barriers in their efforts to implement D&I practices.
This finding provides evidence of institutional entrepreneurship by showing that some
individuals seek opportunities for change and leverage organizational resources in order to
make this change occur (DiMaggio, 1988).
Literature Review
While the terms diversity and inclusion may seem self-explanatory, these terms often have
contested meanings among scholars and practitioners (Weisinger et al., 2016). For the
purposes of this study, diversity is defined broadly as “any significant difference that
distinguishes one individual from another” (Kreitz, 2008, p. 102).
Although research has traditionally focused on diversity in terms of race and/or gender,
diversity can be conceptualized differently depending upon context. For example, there may
be male- or female-dominated professions that are ethnically diverse but lack gender diversity.

Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs
24
Inclusion, on the other hand, is defined as “the degree to which an employee perceives that
she is an esteemed member of the work group through experiencing treatment that satisfies
her needs for belongingness and uniqueness” (Shore et al., 2011, p. 1265).
To further provide clarity into the differences between diversity and inclusion, Roberson
(2006, p. 228) outlined practices that differentiate the concepts. Diversity practices, she
suggested, are those that affect the “demographic composition of groups or organizations.”
Inclusion, she argued is “employee involvement and the integration of diversity into
organizational systems and processes.”
The Role of Nonprofit Associations in the Diffusion of D&I Practices
As organizations that connect individuals, groups, and other organizations across the
workforce, associations are a unique subsector of the nonprofit sector. Indeed, nonprofit
associations are member-based organizations that are created to “educate, train, and
credential people” (Nesbit & Gazley, 2012, p. 560) in diverse fields such as acting or
performing, engineering, education, nursing, and publishing (to name just a few). Some
nonprofit associations are composed of other organizations (e.g., “institutional members,”
such as businesses or hospitals), others are composed of primarily individual members (e.g.,
teachers), and some are composed of both.
Studies have shown that nonprofit associations can act as “mediating structures” (Berger &
Neuhaus, 1996; Couto, 1999) or facilitators of change, both among their membership as well
as in the broader professional community they represent. Greenwood, Suddaby, and Hinings
(2002) found that professional associations were critical to “theorizing” about change by
developing and advancing innovations and assisting in the diffusion of those innovations
across industries. Nonprofit associations have also been shown to support innovations in
human resources practices (Farndale & Brewster, 2005), environmental sustainability
(Dickson & Arcodia, 2010), economic development (Kshetri & Dholakia, 2009), public policy
(Balla, 2001), and the use of technology (Newell, Robertson, & Swan, 1998; Swan & Newell,
1995).
Nerland and Karseth (2015) argued that the knowledge work of associations is more valuable
now than ever because of the world’s globalized workforce. Perhaps not surprisingly, then,
there has been extensive scholarship focusing on ways that nonprofit organizations, including
associations, can partner with the for-profit sector to support outcomes that increase overall
social value (e.g., see Austin, 2000; Rivera-Santos, Rufín, & Wassmer, 2017; Selsky & Parker,
2005; Villani, Greco, & Phillips, 2017).
Institutional and Resource Based Approaches to D&I
While the business case to support D&I within organizations has generally been well-
established, organizations often struggle with effective policies and practices that support
more diverse and inclusive workplaces. Kossek and Pichler (2007) suggested that successful
diversity management programs should have a broad mandate to create a sense of justice
within an organization, reduce discrimination, and increase financial competitiveness.
In an attempt to provide greater guidance for organizations as they incorporate D&I practices,
Yang and Konrad (2011) identified and defined the types of practices that are likely to support
D&I. These practices are internal hiring, training and mentoring policies (particularly for
individuals from under-represented groups), and offering benefits to a wide range of
employees (such as policies that allow for working remotely). The authors also identified
institutional and resource-dependent factors that support or constrain D&I efforts.

Diversity and Inclusion Practices in Nonprofit
25
In general, institutions can be defined as having “regulative, normative, and cognitive
structures and activities that provide stability and meaning for social behavior” (Scott, 1995,
p. 33). These structures and activities can be laws, regulations, customs, culture, ethics, social,
and/or professional norms that organizations must respond to in order to maintain a
competitive advantage (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Miles, 2012). Adhering to or adopting new
structures supports an organization’s legitimacy, allowing it to gain support and acceptance
from a wider range of stakeholders (Kostova, Roth, & Dacin, 2008; Yang & Konrad, 2011).
Institutional change, however, is not without challenges. For one, organizations tend to resist
change (Oliver, 1991). Indeed, out-of-date rules, practices, norms, and regulations often limit
an organization’s interest or ability to move forward with new ideas and practices. Eisenhardt
(2000) argued that people and organizations are often fundamentally ambivalent about what
progress means, which can stifle innovation. Additionally, Freisel and Kwon (2017) have
discussed the impact that leadership resistance has on change. If leadership fails to support or
champion change then it is unlikely that change will succeed (Kotter, 2012).
In one of the only studies of D&I practices within nonprofit associations, Solebello, Tschirhart,
and Leiter (2016) suggested that using internal structures and institutions may help the
implementation of these practices, particularly in the face of opposition. It is likely, then, that
existing institutions may either facilitate or constrain an organization’s behavior. Based on
this literature, the following hypothesis is offered:
Hypothesis1: Nonprofit associations have more (fewer) D&I practices in the presence
of institutional support (barriers).
Implementing D&I practices within organizations can undoubtedly be difficult. However,
implementing these practices across organizations, industries, or even professional fields can
prove even more challenging. Although there has been some research on the transfer of human
resources practices within multinational organizations (often drawing from Oliver’s [1991]
theory of organizational response to pressure applied by external stakeholders), Ferner,
Almond, and Colling (2005, p. 308) argued that D&I practices exist in a “contested
institutional terrain,” which can make it difficult to successfully support the implementation
across subsidiaries.
While much of the D&I literature centers on the outcome of an industry’s response to external
pressures, little is known about how perceived institutional constraints can affect nonprofit
associations in supporting the adoption of D&I practices throughout their professions or
trades. It stands to reason, though, that if a firm rejects changes at its headquarters then those
changes are unlikely to be adopted by its subsidiaries. Therefore, the second hypothesis
offered is:
Hypothesis2: Nonprofit associations are more (less) likely to support D&I practices
in their field when there are institutional supports (barriers).
An alternative viewpoint to institutions as constraining behavior is that in certain
circumstances individuals are those who strive to influence and change institutions. This
viewpoint is generally conceptualized as institutional entrepreneurship, where “new
institutions arise when organized actors with sufficient resources see in them an opportunity
to realize interests that they value highly” (DiMaggio, 1988, p. 657). Thus, individuals and
organizations can influence the environment in which they exist (Battilana, Leca, &
Boxenbaum, 2009).
Institutional entrepreneurship is likely crucial to the implementation of change within
organizations and professional fields. Individuals proposing changes, however, are not
immune from the resistance of others (Eisenhardt, 2000; Seo & Creed, 2002; Solebello et al.,

Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs
26
2016). Indeed, some D&I efforts can make people feel uncomfortable; and, those experiencing
discomfort are likely to push back against these efforts. As such, two additional hypotheses
are:
Hypothesis3: Institutional entrepreneurs in nonprofit associations are more likely to
support D&I practices within their organizations despite institutional barriers.
Hypothesis4: Institutional entrepreneurs in nonprofit associations are more likely to
support D&I practices within their field despite institutional barriers.
Resource-based approaches to D&I are generally viewed through resource-dependency theory
(Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978), which has frequently been used in research on nonprofit
organizations (e.g., see AbouAssi, 2015; Froelich, 1999; Guo & Acar, 2005; Malatesta & Smith,
2014). Resources are “anything of value, tangible or intangible, that can be exchanged between
organizations” (Saidel, 1991, p. 381). Nonprofit organizations might not produce their own
resources. They may, instead, rely upon their donors, members, funders, and/or other
stakeholders to provide them with resources (AbouAssi, 2015). This type of dependence can
affect decision-making, structures, and strategies in nonprofit organizations (AbouAssi, 2015;
Johnson & Prakash, 2007).
Resources often help to support nonprofit legitimacy (Barney & Clark, 2007; Bies, 2010; Guo
& Acar, 2005; Yang & Konrad, 2011). Indeed, nonprofit organizations can leverage their (often
limited) resources in support of priorities and opportunities the organization may have
available. As such, the degree to which a nonprofit implements D&I practices may be
indicative of its overall capability and capacity (Solebello et al., 2016; Yang & Konrad, 2011).
While much of the literature focuses on financial resources, how nonprofit managers perceive
and prioritize (or resist and prevent) D&I efforts can guide how their (often limited) financial
resources are spent. Ultimately, this can help to further their D&I goals (Yang & Konrad, 2011).
Nonprofit associations, specifically, are highly dependent on their members for financial
resources. These members generally pay an annual fee in order to obtain benefits from the
association. Although in some fields pursuing D&I practices might be encouraged by members
and stakeholders (such as women in STEM fields), in other fields D&I efforts may risk the
support of their membership. Solebello et al. (2016), thus, highlighted a “paradox” in
conducting research on D&I in associations: that is, spending money (i.e., resources) on D&I
efforts tends to limit an association’s ability to reach broader, more general audiences.
These types of tensions are likely to cause executives of nonprofit associations to scale back
D&I efforts so as not to alienate existing members. Especially if members join an association
based on a set of pre-existing standards and values, shifting those standards and values may
cause members to feel as if the organization no longer represents them (Knoke, 1986, 1990;
Solebello et al., 2016). The threat of shrinking membership, then, could jeopardize the survival
of nonprofit associations, which could discourage association executives from engaging in
unsupported activities. As such, the final three hypotheses are:
Hypothesis5: Nonprofit associations with more (fewer) financial resources will
prioritize (de-prioritize) D&I work.
Hypothesis6: Nonprofit associations with greater (lesser) support from their
stakeholders will be more (less) likely to engage in D&I practices within their
organization.
Hypothesis7: Nonprofit associations with greater (lesser) support from their
stakeholders will be more (less) likely to engage in D&I practices in their trades or
professional fields.

Diversity and Inclusion Practices in Nonprofit
27
Methods and Data
A national survey of executives of nonprofit associations was conducted from January to
March 2018. The population for the survey was all registered 501(c)(6) membership
associations and 501(c)(3) professional and trade associations as determined by the National
Taxonomy for Exempt Entity (NTEE) subsection code “3.” To identify the population of
associations, the August 2016 Business Master Files (BMF) of IRS-registered associations was
obtained from the National Center for Charitable Statistics (NCCS). Of those in the BMFs,
36,873 organizations were classified as 501(c)(6) associations. Another 12,518 organizations
were classified as 501(c)(3) professional and trade associations. In total, this resulted in a
population of 49,391 nonprofit associations.
A random sample of the total population was drawn (n=2,099), of which approximately 25%
were 501(c)(3) associations. Two organizations were removed from the sample because they
had a non-U.S. mailing address. A sample analysis was completed to ensure that those
included in the final sample were not systematically different from those not included. None
of the observed variables were statistically significant indicators of selection into the sample.
A survey instrument was developed using extant literature on D&I practices in organizations.
Focus groups with association executives were also organized in order to identify key themes
and practices. The survey was then refined through piloting and cognitive interviews with a
small group of association executives who reviewed questions systematically for clarity and
shared meaning (Sudman, Bradburn, & Schwartz, 2010). The final survey instrument was
administered online using Qualtrics and consisted of 55 questions that asked association
executives about their perceptions of D&I practices within their (“organization”) as well as
their perceptions of D&I practices within their professional field or trade (“the field”). There
were also questions that provided descriptive information about the organization and
demographic information of the respondent (e.g., role in the organization, gender, level of
education, and race/ethnicity).
Adapting Dillman’s (2008) and Millar and Dillman’s (2011) surveying technique, all identified
executive directors or board chairs were mailed a letter that described the purpose of the study.
The letter also invited each individual to participate and offered them a $5 Amazon gift card
for completing the survey. This initial letter was followed by a postcard approximately one
month later. Attempts were also made to contact individuals by e-mail and phone.
Slightly over 300 association executives were not able to be reached either by phone, e-mail
or postal mail, resulting in a final sample of 1,712. Of those who were contacted, 278
individuals responded to the survey. This represents a response rate of 16.24%. Those without
completed surveys were removed from the analysis, for a total of 152 completed and useable
responses. While the response rate is lower than desired, and attrition was high, the nature of
the survey (i.e., questions about D&I practices, which can make some people uncomfortable)
likely attributed to the low response rate (Dillman et al., 2009; Fink, 2002). Smith (1997) also
found that response rates can suffer when surveying at the organizational level, where issues
of authority to speak on behalf of an organization, a respondent’s knowledge of the content
area, or simply a lack of time can weaken response rates.
Dependent Variables
There are six dependent variables in this study. These variables were created using 32
questions on D&I practices developed by Konrad, Yang and Maurer (2016). Specifically,
respondents were asked to first state “whether or not these practices are used in your
organization (among board, staff, and volunteer leaders).” Respondents were then asked if
their association “has worked to implement the practice in your field (members or potential
members, employers, other organizations), either through requested guidance, providing
information or resources, or through collaboration.”

Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs
28
Table 1. D&I Practices within the Association and within the Field
Dependent Variable
Questions on D&I Practices
Yes, within the
Organization
Yes, within the
Field
Linking Diversity to Strategy
α=0.80; X
_
=1.81
α=0.90; X
_
=1.95
•Including valuing diversity in the organization’s mission
statement?
38.00%
34.75%
•Have a clear understanding of how diversity is linked to bottom-
line performance?
35.81%
30.71%
•Align diversity strategy to the business strategy?
31.97%
27.01%
•Have an internal diversity/inclusiveness committee or council?
25.50%
29.79%
•Do senior executives/leaders participate on the internal diversity
committee or council?
25.72%
27.89%
•Does the internal diversity committee participation in strategic
planning?
19.59%
22.46%
•Include diversity goals in the strategic human resource plan?
24.16%
26.43%
•Set goals for achieving staff diversity for specific positions?
16.00%
22.86%
Recruiting Diverse Workforce
α=0.70; X
_
=1.64
α=0.88; X
_
=1.84
•Identify feeder pools likely to generate a diverse set of qualified job
candidates?
26.35%
24.46%
•Support job fairs targeting diverse candidates?
25.00%
32.37%
•Design recruiting materials aimed at attracting a diverse group?
36.49%
38.41%
•Utilizing a diverse group of recruiters?
19.05%
19.29%
•Utilize search firms or unemployment agencies specializing in
finding a diverse set of qualified candidates?
6.00%
13.57%
Selecting Diverse Workforce
α=0.79; X
_
=1.97
α=0.85; X
_
=2.03
•Utilize a structured interviewing process?
45.64%
36.96%
•Identify ways that candidates can demonstrate job qualifications
beyond traditional experiences?
37.84%
30.94%
•Require hiring managers to interview a diverse group of
candidates?
12.84%
17.27%
•Use a diverse team to interview candidates?
32.43%
25.90%

Diversity and Inclusion Practices in Nonprofit
29
Training and Developing
Diverse Staff
α=0.69; X
_
=2.14
α=0.80; X
_
=2.21
•Offer internal leadership training?
55.10%
45.37%
•Have a formal mentoring program?
35.57%
35.97%
•Ensure that a diverse group of employees is receiving mentoring?
30.41%
27.86%
•Support employee participation in professional associations
targeting diverse groups, such as women’s professional
associations?
62.42%
53.24%
Monitoring Effectiveness of
Staffing for Diversity
α=0.89; X
_
=1.36
α=0.95; X
_
=1.69
•Track applicant diversity?
13.51%
14.39%
•Track the diversity of candidates invited for interviews?
14.86%
11.51%
•Tracking the diversity of new hires?
14.97%
15.11%
•Track the diversity of employees receiving promotions?
5.41%
9.42%
Providing Work-Life Flexibility
α=0.75; X
_
=2.00
α=0.83; X
_
=1.81
•Training for members?
47.65%
38.35%
•Work-at-Home options?
48.32%
26.28%
•Job Sharing?
16.78%
17.78%
•Reduced work hours?
27.70%
21.80%
•Modified work week, such as a compressed work week (fewer than
five days)?
28.86%
22.46%
•Part-time employment for professional/technical/managerial
staff?
34.23%
28.26%
•Dependent care resources and referral service?
10.14%
20.59%
X(bar)=mean value.
Notes: Percentage of organizations engaging in items included for each dependent variable, for both organization and field. Cronbach’s alpha (α) and mean
factor scores are included for each measure. Question text for survey questions 14-19: “The first option is whether or not these practices are used in your
organization (among board, staff, and volunteer leaders). The second is if your organization has worked to implement the practice in your field (members
or potential members, employers, other organizations), either through requested guidance, providing information or resources, or through collaboration.”

Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs
30
The six D&I practices included as dependent variables are: 1) Linking Diversity to Strategy
(composed of eight items); 2) Recruiting a Diverse Workforce (composed of five items); 3)
Selecting a Diverse Workforce (composed of four items); 4) Training and Developing a Diverse
Staff (composed of four items); 5) Monitoring the Effectiveness of Staffing for Diversity
(composed of four items); and 6) Providing Work-Life Flexibility (composed of seven items).
The first three practices focus on ensuring that there are programs and policies in place to
support D&I in the workforce. All questions had response options of either “No” (coded as “1”),
“Unsure” (coded as “2”), or “Yes” (coded as “3”).
A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to ensure construct validity. Factor scores were
generated for each category. Item descriptions, mean factor scores, and Cronbach alpha scores
are presented in Table 1. Although factor scores above 0.80 are generally considered strong,
factor scores of 0.70 and higher are considered adequate for social science research (Nunnally
& Bernstein, 2017).
Independent Variables
The independent variables were drawn from a list of 18 perceived obstacles and challenges in
conducting D&I work. This list was generated during the survey design process in consultation
with several association executives. Respondents checked off items they recognized as
“obstacles or challenges to implementing new or ongoing diversity and inclusion
programming or policies” in, both, their organization and their field.
These obstacles and challenges were then grouped into either institutional (11 items) or
resourced-based categories (five items). Positive responses were coded as “Yes” (“1”). All other
responses were coded as “0” since a non-answer can reasonably be assumed to be not “yes.”
In addition, several control variables were used in the analysis. These controls were obtained
from each organization’s Form 990 (i.e., their annual nonprofit financial filing form). Controls
included their annual revenue (logged to account for outliers), whether or not the organization
was a 990N e-postcard filer (indicating gross revenues under $50,000 annually) and
organizational age (also logged to account for outliers). A variable was also included to assess
respondents’ perception of their association’s diversity and the diversity within their field.
These responses were measured on a Likert scale ranging from one to seven, with 1=“Not at
All” and 7=“To a Great Extent.”
Results
Descriptive Statistics and Sample Analysis
Of the organizations that were able to be matched to their Form 990 (n=138), 31% are
501(c)(3) associations and 69% are 501(c)(6) associations. The average organizational age is
30.35 years (with a standard deviation (SD) of 21.31) and ranges from two to 91. Average
organizational income is $744,391 (SD $3,800,930) with a median income of $56,899. It
should be noted that the average income value is clearly influenced by some high-income
organizations, as most organizations in the sample are small.
Fifty-two percent of the organizations are professional associations, 11% are trade
associations, 10% are chambers of commerce, and 9% are combined trade and professional
associations. Fifty-six percent of the organizations represent individual members only, while
14% represent institutional members (i.e., other organizations), and nearly 23% represent
both institutional and individual members.
A review of the individual characteristics of survey respondents shows that 49% are male,
while 47% are female. One individual indicated that they are gender-nonconforming. Three

Diversity and Inclusion Practices in Nonprofit
31
Table 2. Dimensions of Diversity
Dimension
% Yes, in my
organization
% Yes, in
our field
Race
58.55
55.92
Religion
19.08
24.34
Socioeconomic Status
28.95
34.21
National Origin
25.00
30.26
Ethnic Group
44.08
44.08
Sexual Orientation
30.92
34.21
Gender (Male or Female)
59.21
54.61
Gender Identity (i.e., Self-Identified Gender)
24.34
27.63
Veteran Status
20.39
25.00
Geography
29.61
29.61
Other
12.50
8.55
Note: Respondents were asked “When your organization discusses what “diversity” is,
which dimensions of diversity are most important to your organization and your field?”
Respondents could select more than one answer.
percent of respondents chose not to respond. Approximately 83% of respondents self-identify
as white. Just under 6% self-identify as Black or African-American, approximately 3% self-
identify as Asian, approximately 1% self-identify as Native American or Alaskan Native, and
approximately 4% of respondents preferred not to respond. Ethnically, 2% of respondents also
indicate that they are Hispanic or Latino. These characteristics are consistent with a recent
national survey of association members, which found respondents to be predominately white
(75%), with only 3% identifying as Black, and 3% identifying as Hispanic. This national survey
also showed that 43% association members are female (Nesbit & Gazley, 2012).
Fifty-two percent of respondents in the present study are executive directors or CEOs of their
association. The next largest group of respondents indicated that they are “other directors.”
Only one respondent indicated they are a “D&I manager or director.” Findings from a sample
analysis suggest that executives from associations that have higher incomes were more likely
to respond to the survey(p<0.05), indicating that there are possibly more professionalized
organizations (based on revenues) in this study.
Respondents indicated that they believed their organizations are doing slightly better than the
average (4.50) when it comes to diversity (mean=4.26). Approximately 49% of respondents
indicated that they engage in D&I practices in both their organization and their field. Table 2
provides a breakdown of responses to the question asking respondents what they thought
diversity meant for their organization and professional field or trade. Although respondents
could choose more than one of 12 responses, most identified race and/or gender as the “single
most important dimension.
The frequency of specific D&I activities ranges from a low of approximately 5% (when it comes
to “tracking the diversity of employees receiving promotions”) to just over 60% (when it comes
to “Supporting employee participation in professional associations targeting diverse groups,
such as women’s professional associations”). The latter item was the only item practiced by
more than half of responding organizations in both their association and their field. The mean
factor score for all measures is relatively low, with only three over the midpoint at a score of
2, indicating a relatively low level of engagement in D&I practices in that category. Figure 1
presents a graphical representation of the mean factor scores for each measure by both the
association and the field.

Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs
32
Figure 1. Distribution of D&I Factor Scores
Notes: Dashed line=Within organization; Solid line=Within field. Kernel density with higher scores (x-
axis) indicates higher factor scores as values increase, or more activity within each category.
0
1
2
3
11.5 22.5 33.5
Linking Org Link Field
0
1
2
3
11.5 22.5 33.5
Recruit in Org Recruit Field
0
1
2
3
11.5 22.5 33.5
Select in Org Select Field
0
1
2
3
11.5 22.5 33.5
Train Org Train Field
0
1
2
3
11.5 22.5 33.5
Monitor Org Monitor Field
0
1
2
3
11.5 22.5 33.5
WorkLife Org WorkLife Field

Diversity and Inclusion Practices in Nonprofit
33
Analysis of Institutional and Resource Based Obstacles
Multivariate analysis using ordinary least-squares (OLS) regression was used to estimate the
relationship between institutional and resource-based barriers and associational practices at
both the organization and field levels. This method is useful when dependent variables are
continuous, not categorical, and the independent variables are homoscedastic and exogenous
(Jarque & Bera, 1980). A total of 12 models were estimated: six pertaining to D&I practices
within associations and an additional six pertaining to D&I practices within respective fields.
All models included the same control variables. Findings for these estimates are displayed in
Figures 2 through 5.
For the first item (i.e., Is the organization diverse? and Is the field diverse?), a positive and
significant relationship indicates that the more diverse an association is (as perceived and
rated by the respondent) the more likely that association is to engage in specific D&I practices.
For the resource-based and institutional constraints, negative and significant values indicate
that those obstacles prevent participation in D&I practices. Positive and significant values,
however, indicate that the association engages in those activities despite facing resource-based
and institutional constraints.
Internal Association Practices (“In the Organization”)
As shown in Figure 2, the self-reported measure of association diversity is positively related to
an association’s efforts to link diversity to strategy. That is, the more diverse an association is,
the more likely it is to engage in this practice.
When considering Hypotheses 1 and 5, they are partially supported by the data. Specifically,
there is evidence that leadership has an impact on the adoption of D&I practices—even when
facing institutional and resource-based constraints. Among institutional constraints, there is
clear evidence that leaders either promote or stifle D&I practices. Indeed, the obstacle labeled
“staff leader opposition” is significant and negative, particularly when it pertains to recruiting
and selecting a diverse workforce, monitoring effectiveness, and work-life flexibility.
Figure 2 also shows that the board being uncomfortable is also significant and negative in
linking diversity to strategy and in training a diverse workforce. This finding may lend support
to previous research showing that managers are more likely to hire individuals who are
culturally similar to themselves (Rivera, 2012). Since the respondents in this study are 85%
white, without giving deliberate attention to supporting diversity in hiring, training, and
mentoring, associations may very well struggle in this area. In other words, the lack of support
among leadership may prevent associations from engaging in D&I practices. This is consistent
with literature in the field of change management, which has argued that organizational and
institutional change must be driven by a champion and that a champion should be a leader
within the organization (if not the director or CEO) (Kotter, 2012).
Hypothesis 4 on institutional entrepreneurship was also partially supported. Only volunteer
opposition was positively related to three categories of activities within associations, i.e.,
recruiting, selecting, and training a diverse workforce. Indeed, associations seem to be
engaging in these activities despite opposition from these key organizational supports. With
the constraining role of leadership, however, it may not be surprising that there is only limited
support for institutional entrepreneurship.
It should be noted that choosing “not applicable/doesn’t apply to us” was significant and
negative in all but one of the six categories. This suggests that executives of associations who
believe that engaging in D&I practices is not relevant to their work do not engage in most
practices.

Journal of Nonprofit and Public Affairs
34
Figure 2. “In the Organization” Estimates of Resource Based and Institutional Factors on Linking Diversity to Strategy,
Recruiting, and Selecting a Diverse Workforce
Note: OLS with coefficients, p<0.01=***, p<0.05=**, p<0.10=*
.052**
-.025
-.07
.0066
.11
-.13*
-.011
.032
.18
-.58
.14
-.013
.0095
.0065
-.48*
.32*
.14
.31
.044
-.25***
-.0033
.069**
-.0049
-.032
.031
-.03
-.19**
-.025
.2
-.14
-.084
-.071
.11
-.52*
.34**
.14
-.16*
.045
.27
.2
-.29
.35*
-.03
-.19**
-.011
.039
-.0048
.036
.045
-.01
-.33
.037
.11
-.22
-.2
.0044
-.24
-2***
.31
.23
-.07
.21
-.093
.26
-.19
1.3***
-.092
-.26
-.05
.085
.00032
-.13
Resource Based
Institutional
Control
Is Organization Diverse?
Is Field Diverse?
Lack Leadership Support
Lack Financial Resources
Lack Member Support
Not a Priority
Don't Have Time
Not Knowing "Best Practices"
Member Opposition
Staff Leader Opposition
Staff Uncomfortable
Lack of Full-Time D & I Staff
Difficulty Reaching Out
Regulations
Board Uncomfortable
Political Climate
Members Uncomfortable
Volunteer Leader Opposition
Other
Not Applicable
501 c3/c6
Organization Age (ln)
Organization Revenu (ln)
990N Postcard filer (1=Y)
-2 -1 0 1 2 -2 -1 0 1 2 -2 -1 012
Link Diversity to Strategy Recruit Diverse Workforce Select Diverse Workforce

Diversity and Inclusion Practices in Nonprofit
35
Figure 3. “In the Organization” Estimates of Resource Based and Institutional Factors on Training a Diverse Workforce, Monitoring
Effectiveness, and Providing Work-Life Flexibility (n=138)
Note: OLS with coefficients, p<0.01=***, p<0.05=**, p<0.10=*
.054
.0011
-.1
.029
.021
.075
-.023
.034
.23
-.2
.1
-.047
.026
-.17
-.67**
.37
.21
.44*
-.0047
-.29**
-.011
.13**
.012
.34*
.015
.00062
-.36***
.01
.35
-.11
-.03
.067
.5
-.5*
.29
.038
-.23
.72
.28
.17
-.41
.83
.024
-.36***
-.048
.082*
.0074**
.34**
.005
-.0035
-.46***
-.073
-.15
.096
.26
.23
.016
-.87*
-.0011
.067
-.17
.32
-.38
-.02
.22
.29
.016
-.35***
-.018
.11*
.029**
.25
Resource Based
Institutional
Control
Is Organization Diverse?
Is Field Diverse?
Lack Leadership Support
Lack Financial Resources
Lack Member Support
Not a Priority
Don't Have Time
Not Knowing "Best Practices"
Member Opposition
Staff Leader Opposition
Staff Uncomfortable
Lack of Full-Time D & I Staff
Difficulty Reaching Out
Regulations
Board Uncomfortable
Political Climate
Members Uncomfortable
Volunteer Leader Opposition
Other
Not Applicable
501 c3/c6
Organization Age (ln)
Organization Revenue (ln)
990N Postcard Filer (1= Yes)
-2 -1 0 1 2 -2 -1 0 1 2 -2 -1 0 1 2
Train Diverse Staff Monitoring Effectiveness Work-Life Flexibility

Journal of Nonprofit and Public Affairs
36
Figure 4. “In the Field” Estimates on Supporting the Association’s Field in Linking Diversity to Strategy, Recruiting, and
Selecting a Diverse Workforce
Note: OLS with coefficients, p<0.01=***, p<0.05=**, p<0.10=*
-.025
.018
-.057
.21*
-.0059
-.23
.19
-.18
.21
.62*
.41**
-.43***
.26**
-.59**
.014
.27
-.5***
-.59
-.13
-.24
-.0055
.07
.019*
.4***
.011
.0059
-.17
-.032
-.13
.17
-.31*
.25
.74
-.37
.41
-.3*
.14
.2
-.37
-.0017
-.21
1.3**
-.096
-.39**
.015
.06
.021
.44**
.0021
.021
-.07
-.046
.13
.064
-.15
-.11
.55*
-.44
.54**
-.18
.19
.35
-.27
.18
-.47
-.47
-.28
-.014
-.024
.12*
.03**
.45**
Resource Based
Institutional
Control
Is Organization Diverse?
Is Field Diverse?
Lack Leadership Support
Lack Financial Resources
Lack Member Support
Not a Priority
Don't Have Time
Not Knowing "Best Practices"
Member Opposition
Staff Leader Opposition
Staff Uncomfortable
Lack of Full-Time D & I Staff
Difficulty Reaching Out
Regulations
Board Uncomfortable
Political Climate
Members Uncomfortable
Volunteer Leader Opposition
Other
Not Applicable
501 c3/c6
Organization Age (ln)
Organization Revenue (ln)
990N Postcard Filer (1= Yes)
-2 -1 0 1 2 -2 -1 0 1 2 -2 -1 0 1 2
Link Field Recruit Field Select Field

Diversity and Inclusion Practices in Nonprofit
37
Figure 5. “In the Field” Estimates on Supporting the Association’s Field in Training a Diverse Workforce, Monitoring for
Effectiveness, and Providing Work-Life Balance
Note: OLS with coefficients, p<0.01=***, p<0.05=**, p<0.10=*
-.0081
.031
-.061
.18
-.099
.13
-.22
-.2
.47**
.13
.55***
-.17
.0062
-.16
-.012
-.023
-.18
.93*
-.14
-.19
.024
.071
.043***
.63***
-.0091
.0067
-.088
.0053
.1
.0034
.05
-.019
.66***
-.18
.46*
-.41***
-.17
.11
-.28
.44*
-.49
-1**
-.28
-.38**
.032
.096
.031**
.61***
.026
-.017
-.1
-.12
-.0035
.11
.0044
.045
.28
-.058
.41***
-.007
-.035
.3*
-.23
.001
-.3
-.24
-.21
-.21
.029
.036
.031***
.48***
Resource Based
Institutional
Control
Is Organization Diverse?
Is Field Diverse?
Lack Leadership Support
Lack Financial Resources
Lack Member Support
Not a Priority
Don't Have Time
Not Knowing "Best Practices"
Member Opposition
Staff Leader Opposition
Staff Uncomfortable
qLack of Full-Time D & I Staff
Difficulty Reaching Out
Regulations
Board Uncomfortable
Political Climate
Members Uncomfortable
Volunteer Leader Opposition
Other
Not Applicable
501 c3/c6
Organization Age (ln)
Organization Revenue (ln)
990N Postcard Filer (1=Y)
-2 -1 0 1 2 -2 -1 0 1 2 -2 -1 0 1 2
Train Field Monitor Field Work-Life field

Journal of Nonprofit and Public Affairs
38
Resource-based Hypotheses 5 and 6 receive limited support. For Hypothesis 5, the
relationship between the organization’s revenues and its participation in D&I practices is
unclear. Revenues are significant and positive for some activities, but interestingly, it is also
significant and positive (when it comes to training a diverse staff and monitoring effectiveness)
for small organizations (i.e., for organizations that file a Form 990N e-postcard, indicating
that they have gross revenues of under $50,000 annually). Taken together, this provides
evidence of a U-shaped relationship. Thus, larger associations may have the resources and
capacity necessary to act as information brokers and leaders in their respective fields, but
smaller organizations may also see this work as part of their primary mission. Other resource-
based variables were not significant, providing no evidence for support of Hypothesis 6.
External Association Practices (“In the Field”)
When considering the role of association activity in promoting D&I efforts in their respective
fields, there were different patterns. For one, resource-based variables outside of revenues
neither constrain nor facilitate associations engaging in specific activities. However, the U-
shaped difference between larger and smaller groups is also evident here. Additionally,
association age is positively related to engaging in D&I practices. Indeed, older, assumedly
more established, associations take a more aggressive role in D&I efforts than younger
associations.
Hypotheses 3 and 5 are partially supported. That is, there is evidence suggesting the existence
of institutional entrepreneurship. When facing institutional constraints, there is limited
influence of leadership opposition in an association’s behavior. In fact, the findings suggest
that associations overcome institutional barriers to engage in D&I practices in their fields. For
example, several practices are carried out despite resistant leadership and member or
volunteer opposition. This could mean that association staff believe that they have an
imperative to act on D&I. Perhaps some are compelled to engage in these practices in order to
educate their members, volunteers, and stakeholders.
It is important to note that staff being uncomfortable while working on D&I issues is positive
and significant in all but one category. This likely means that association staff often operate
outside of their comfort zones. Finally, despite a heightened political climate around issues of
D&I, the findings show that associations continue to engage in many practices, including
linking diversity to strategy and training a diverse workforce. While some association
employees may find institutional constraints difficult to overcome, these findings highlight the
importance of institutional entrepreneurship, where individuals take it upon themselves to
support changes in institutional norms and behaviors.
Discussion and Conclusion
This study explored the relationship between engaging in D&I practices and institutional and
resource-based obstacles. The findings of the study were mixed. However, the role of
leadership in associations, the findings suggest, is crucial to providing a barrier to, or
supporting, D&I practices. Importantly, the impact of leadership was found to be a constraint
on D&I practices but only when attempting to promote these practices inside of the
association. As associations looked to influence their overall field, the impact of leadership
was lessened. Thus, various factors affect the promotion of D&I within associations and their
respective fields differently.
While many associations struggle to include D&I practices in their policies and procedures,
this study provides evidence of institutional entrepreneurship of associations within their
fields. Indeed, within their fields, associations are more likely to engage in some D&I practices
despite facing (what is perceived as) opposition from their members, leaders, and volunteers.

Diversity and Inclusion Practices in Nonprofit
39
This indicates a degree of tenacity among association executives to do what they believe is
right for their field, regardless of what some stakeholders may feel. Association staff may feel
that it is necessary to promote these practices in their field specifically because of this
opposition. That is, they may feel obligated to educate and inform those in their field about
the value of D&I in their industry.
Associations, however, should bear in mind that staff may be uncomfortable doing this work,
and association managers may benefit from providing additional staff training or professional
development to employees, board members, and key volunteers regarding issues of D&I. This
word of caution is important given the finding that more D&I practices occurred at the
industry level than at the organizational level. Although this could be due to lack of internal
capacity, implementing D&I practices can undoubtedly be challenging. Future research can
help to clarify these explanations.
The findings regarding resources were also mixed. Indeed, the findings indicated that small
associations (with one or no staff) seem to be engaging in similar patterns of D&I work as
larger associations. It should be noted, however, that this study did not actually measure the
scale of these efforts. Thus, future research can help to provide insights into this relationship.
Although the first of its kind, this study is not without limitations. For one, the response rate
is lower than desired. Selection bias is always a consideration in studies with a low response
rate. Considering that those who responded were voluntarily willing to take a survey on D&I
practices in their associations, those opting not to participate may be facing D&I challenges at
either the organizational or industry level. Thus, it is plausible that the constraints outlined in
this study may be more pronounced in associations that opted not to participate.
In addition, this study did not measure the existence of respondent bias. If individuals inside
organizations resist policies and processes that create diverse or inclusive environments, this
could reasonably be expected to have an impact on their responses. Future research that
includes measures of bias would add additional insights to the impact of individual
preferences on organizational D&I outcomes. Moreover, qualitative research and case studies
may add greater depth and understanding about organizational culture and processes,
allowing the opportunity to evaluate how organizations value D&I for themselves and their
stakeholders. Despite these limitations, this study provides evidence of the types of barriers
associations face when attempting to engage in D&I practices.
Implications
Findings from this study have implications for both research and practice in associations as
well as in the nonprofit sector more broadly. With ever-growing attention to D&I practices in
organizations of all types, acknowledgment of the importance of leadership support in D&I
activities and programs is certainly timely. While the findings from this study are consistent
with most literature on change management in organizations and institutional
entrepreneurship, overcoming deeply felt discomfort or opposition to these issues may affect
decisions to assign often scarce resources to the work of becoming more diverse and inclusive
(Solebello et al., 2016). Yet, individuals committed to change can engage in these practices and
help change the norms of their associations and their fields. Nonprofit leaders, however,
should take stock of their own commitment to D&I as well as the commitment of their
organization’s before implementing programs and practices relating to D&I.

Journal of Nonprofit and Public Affairs
40
Disclosure Statement
This project was funded through a grant provided by the American Society of Association
Executives (ASAE) Foundation.
References
AbouAssi, K. (2015). Testing resource dependency as a motivator for NGO self-regulation:
Suggestive evidence from the global south. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly, 44, 1255-1273. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764014556774
Austin, J. E. (2000). Strategic collaboration between nonprofits and business. Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29,69-97.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764000291S004
Balla, S. J. (2001). Interstate professional associations and the diffusion of policy
innovations. American Politics Research, 29, 221-245.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X01293001
Barak, M. E. M. (2017). Managing diversity: Toward a globally inclusive workplace.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publishing.
Barney, J. B., & Clark, D. N. (2007). Resource-based theory: Creating and sustaining
competitive advantage. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Battilana, J., Leca, B., & Boxenbaum, E. (2009). How actors change institutions: Towards a
theory of institutional entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Annals, 3, 65-
107. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520903053598
Berger, P. L., & Neuhaus, R. J. (1996). To empower people: From state to civil society.
Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.
Bernstein, R. S., & Bilimoria, D. (2013). Diversity perspectives and minority nonprofit board
member inclusion. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 32,
636-653. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-02-2012-0010
Bies, A. L. (2010). Evolution of nonprofit self-regulation in Europe. Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39, 1057-1086.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764010371852
Brown, A. (2015, May 12). The state of diversity in the nonprofit sector. Retrieved from
http://communitywealth.com/the-state-of-diversity-in-the-nonprofit-sector/
Brown, W. A. (2002). Racial diversity and performance of nonprofit boards of directors.
Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 7(4), 43-57.
Buse, K., Bernstein, R. S., & Bilimoria, D. (2016). The influence of board diversity, board
diversity policies and practices, and board inclusion behaviors on nonprofit
governance practices. Journal of Business Ethics, 133, 179-191.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2352-z
Couto, R. A. (1999). Making democracy work better: Mediating structures, social capital,
and the democratic prospect. Chapel Hill, NC: UNC Press Books.
Cox, T. (1994). Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory, research, and practice. San
Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Dickson, C., & Arcodia, C. (2010). Promoting sustainable event practice: The role of
professional associations. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29,
236-244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2009.10.013
Dillman, D. A. (2008). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design
method (3rd edition). Hoboken, N.J: Wiley.
Dillman, D. A., Phelps, G., Tortora, R., Swift, K., Kohrell, J., Berck, J., & Messer, B. L.
(2009). Response rate and measurement differences in mixed-mode surveys using
mail, telephone, interactive voice response (IVR) and the Internet. Social Science
Research, 38, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2008.03.007

Diversity and Inclusion Practices in Nonprofit
41
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism
and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48,
147-160. https://doi:10.2307/2095101
DiMaggio, P. J. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory. In L. Zucker (Ed.),
Institutional patterns and culture (pp. 3-22). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (2000). Paradox, spirals, ambivalence: The new language of change and
pluralism. Academy of Management Review, 25, 703-705.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.3707694
Farndale, E., & Brewster, C. (2005). In search of legitimacy: Personnel management
associations worldwide. Human Resource Management Journal, 15, 33-48.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-8583.2005.tb00152.x
Ferner, A., Almond, P., & Colling, T. (2005). Institutional theory and the cross-national
transfer of employment policy: The case of “Workforce Diversity” in US
multinationals. Journal of International Business Studies, 36, 304-321.
https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400134
Fink, A. (2002). How to ask survey questions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publishing.
Friesl, M., & Kwon, W. (2017). The strategic importance of top management resistance:
Extending Alfred D. Chandler. Strategic Organization, 15, 100-112.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127016665253
Froelich, K. A. (1999). Diversification of revenue strategies: Evolving resource dependence in
nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28, 246-268.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764099283002
Gazley, B., Chang, W. K., & Bingham, L. B. (2010). Board diversity, stakeholder
representation, and collaborative performance in community mediation centers.
Public Administration Review, 70, 610-620. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-
6210.2010.02182.x
Gazley, B., Tschirhart, M., & Hager, M. A. (2014). Engagement motivations in professional
associations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43, 39S-60S.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764013502582
Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R., & Hinings, C. R. (2002). Theorizing change: The role of
professional associations in the transformation of institutionalized fields. Academy
of Management Journal, 45, 58-80. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069285
Gündemir, S., Dovidio, J. F., Homan, A. C., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2017). The impact of
organizational diversity policies on minority employees’ leadership self-perceptions
and goals. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 24, 172-188.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051816662615
Guo, C., & Acar, M. (2005). Understanding collaboration among nonprofit organizations:
Combining resource dependency, institutional, and network perspectives. Nonprofit
and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34, 340-361.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764005275411
Hager, M. A. (2014). Engagement motivations in professional associations. Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43, 39S-60S.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764013502582
Jarque, C. M., & Bera, A. K. (1980). Efficient tests for normality, homoscedasticity and serial
independence of regression residuals. Economics Letters, 6, 255-259.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-1765(80)90024-5
Johnson, E., & Prakash, A. (2007). NGO research program: A collective action perspective.
Policy Sciences, 40, 221-240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-007-9043-x
Knoke, D. (1986). Associations and interest groups. Annual Review of Sociology, 12, 1-21.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.12.080186.000245
Knoke, D. (1990). Organizing for collective action: The political economies of associations.
New York, NY: Transaction Publishers.

Journal of Nonprofit and Public Affairs
42
Konrad, A. M., Yang, Y., & Maurer, C. C. (2016). Antecedents and outcomes of diversity and
equality management systems: An integrated institutional agency and strategic
human resource management approach. Human Resource Management, 55, 83-107.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21713
Kossek, E. E., & Pichler, S. (2007). EEO and the management of diversity. In P. J. Boxall, &
P. Wright (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Human Resource Management (pp. 251-272).
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Kostova, T., Roth, K., & Dacin, M. T. (2008). Institutional theory in the study of
multinational corporations: A critique and new directions. Academy of Management
Review, 33, 994-1006. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.34422026
Kotter, J. P. (2012). Leading change, with a new preface by the author. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Business Press.
Kreitz, P. A. (2008). Best practices for managing organizational diversity. The Journal of
Academic Librarianship, 34, 101-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2007.12.001
Kshetri, N., & Dholakia, N. (2009). Professional and trade associations in a nascent and
formative sector of a developing economy: A case study of the NASSCOM effect on
the Indian offshoring industry. Journal of International Management, 15, 225-229.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2008.09.003
Malatesta, D., & Smith, C. R. (2014). Lessons from resource dependence theory for
contemporary public and nonprofit management. Public Administration Review, 74,
14-25. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12181
Medina, S. (2017). The diversity gap in the nonprofit sector. Retrieved from
http://philanthropynewsdigest.org/columns/the-sustainable-nonprofit/the-
diversity-gap- in-the-nonprofit-sector
Miles, J. A. (2012). Management and organization theory: A Jossey-Bass reader. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Millar, M. M., & Dillman, D. A. (2011). Improving response to web and mixed-mode surveys.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 75, 249-269. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfr003
Nerland, M., & Karseth, B. (2015). The knowledge work of professional associations:
Approaches to standardisation and forms of legitimisation. Journal of Education and
Work, 28, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2013.802833
Nesbit, R., & Gazley, B. (2012). Patterns of volunteer activity in professional associations and
societies. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit
Organizations, 23, 558-583. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-011-9218-0
Newell, S., Robertson, M., & Swan, J. (1998). Professional associations as ‘Brokers,’
facilitating networking and the diffusion of new ideas: Advantages and
disadvantages. In J. L. Alvarez (Ed.), The Diffusion and Consumption of Business
Knowledge (pp. 182-200). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-25899-4_8
Northouse, P. G. (2018). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publishing.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (2017). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill
Publishing.
Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management
Review, 16, 145-179. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1991.4279002
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource
dependence perspective. New York, NY: Harper & Row Publishing.
Rivera, L. A. (2012). Hiring as cultural matching: The case of elite professional service firms.
American Sociological Review, 77, 999-1022.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122412463213
Rivera-Santos, M., Rufín, C., & Wassmer, U. (2017). Alliances between firms and non-
profits: A multiple and behavioural agency approach. Journal of Management
Studies, 54, 854-875. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12271
Roberson, Q. M. (2006). Disentangling the meanings of diversity and inclusion in
organizations. Group & Organization Management, 31, 212-236.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601104273064

Diversity and Inclusion Practices in Nonprofit
43
Saidel, J. R. (1991). Resource interdependence: The relationship between state agencies and
nonprofit organizations. Public Administration Review, 51, 543-553.
https://doi.org/10.2307/976605
Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations: Ideas and interests. London, UK: SAGE
Publishing.
Selsky, J. W., & Parker, B. (2005). Cross-sector partnerships to address social issues:
Challenges to theory and practice. Journal of Management, 31, 849-873.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279601
Seo, M.-G., & Creed, W. E. D. (2002). Institutional contradictions, praxis, and institutional
change: A dialectical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 27, 222-247.
https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2002.6588004
Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., Holcombe Ehrhart, K., & Singh, G.
(2011). Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future
research. Journal of Management, 37, 1262-1289.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310385943
Smith, J. (1997). Nonresponse bias in organizational surveys: Evidence from a survey of
groups and organizations working for peace. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly, 26, 359-368. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764097263007
Solebello, N., Tschirhart, M., & Leiter, J. (2016). The paradox of inclusion and exclusion in
membership associations. Human Relations, 69, 439-460.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726715590166
Sudman, S., Bradburn, N. M., & Schwartz. (2010). Thinking about answers: The application
of cognitive processes to survey methodology (1st edition). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Swan, J. A., & Newell, S. (1995). The role of professional associations in technology diffusion.
Organization Studies, 16, 847-874. https://doi.org/10.1177/017084069501600505
Tschirhart, M., & Gazley, B. (2014). Advancing scholarship on membership associations:
New research and next steps. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43, 3S-17S.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764013517052
Villani, E., Greco, L., & Phillips, N. (2017). Understanding value creation in public–private
partnerships: A comparative case study. Journal of Management Studies, 54, 876-
905. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12270
Weisinger, J. Y., Borges-Méndez, R., Milofsky, C., Weisinger, J. Y., Borges-Méndez, R., &
Milofsky, C. (2016). Diversity in the nonprofit and voluntary sector. Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45, 3S-27S. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764015613568
Yang, Y., & Konrad, A. M. (2011). Understanding diversity management practices:
Implications of institutional theory and resource-based theory. Group &
Organization Management, 36, 6-38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601110390997
Author Biography
Dyana Mason is an Assistant Professor in the School of Planning, Public Policy, and
Management at the University of Oregon. Her research interests include governance and
management of nonprofit organizations, and the role of nonprofits in policymaking
processes—from policy formulation to implementation.