UNCLASSIFIED

Not Approved for Public Release

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

Office of Diversity Management

and Equal Employment Opportunity

571-557-7374

Published 2018

Please note that in this report, the term “Black” is utilized to refer to NGA’s Black and/or African-American employees. This was done to 

be as inclusive as possible, to include employees who may not identify with the term “African-American,” and to align with terminology 

already in use at or affiliated with NGA, such as the Black Advisory Council and Blacks in Government.
UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

A Letter from the Director

Diversity and equal opportunity are vital to mission success at NGA and throughout the Intelligence Community.

This State of Black Promotions report reveals differences in promotion rates between Black and White colleagues. This report 

identifies barriers to advancement that our Black teammates experience and offers ten recommendations to help NGA mitigate 

these barriers to promotion.

Accountability for implementing these recommendations is vital. And I am pleased of NGA’s 

 will be spearheading the implementation of these 

recommendations. This plan will include changes to the processes and culture at NGA that will enhance inclusion of our 

entire workforce.

cannot do this alone – implementation will require agency-wide collaboration. I encourage all employees to take an active 

role to identify ways to help strengthen team NGA and make our agency a more equitable place to work.

I am committed to dedicating the necessary resources to implement the recommendations and holding leaders accountable 

for making these impactful changes.

Diversity and inclusion are mission imperatives that require all of our efforts. We can -- and must -- do better.

Robert Cardillo

Director

(b) (3) 10 USC Sec 424 (b) (3) 10 USC Sec 424 (b) (3) 
UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED 1

Office of Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity

Office of Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity

Table of Contents

Foreword...............................................................................................................................................................................................3

Executive Summary.............................................................................................................................................................................5

Introduction..........................................................................................................................................................................................8

What is the Promotion Process at NGA? ...........................................................................................................................................9

Methodology.......................................................................................................................................................................................11

Data Definitions and Study Participants..........................................................................................................................................12

What are the Promotion Rates for Blacks and Whites at NGA?...................................................................................................14

Overall Promotion Rates.................................................................................................................................................................14

Promotion Rates by Band and GEOINT Mission vs. GEOINT Mission Support ..................................................................................15

Promotion Rates by Gender............................................................................................................................................................19

Rank-in-Person (RIP) Promotions ...................................................................................................................................................20

Why Are These Differences Happening?.........................................................................................................................................23

Unconscious Bias...........................................................................................................................................................................24

Supervision ....................................................................................................................................................................................25

Feedback ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 26

Networking/Mentoring ...................................................................................................................................................................27

Developmental Opportunities and Assignments..............................................................................................................................28

Leadership Roles........................................................................................................................................................................... 29

Performance (DCIPS) Appraisals ....................................................................................................................................................31

Promotion Readiness Rating.......................................................................................................................................................... 33

What Can We Do About These Differences? .................................................................................................................................. 35

Recommendation Theme Area #1: Focus on Micro-Decisions........................................................................................................ 36

Recommendation Theme Area #2: Encourage Better Feedback......................................................................................................37

Recommendation Theme Area #3: Enhance Networks and Mentors.............................................................................................. 38

Recommendation Theme Area #4: Evaluate the Promotion Process................................................................................................39

Summary and Conclusion.................................................................................................................................................................41

References and Additional Reading ............................................................................................................................................... 44
UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED 3

Office of Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity

Office of Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity

Foreword

Office of Diversity Management and 

Equal Employment Opportunity (ODE)

, it is my privilege to be your advocate for diversity and inclusion throughout 

our agency. I am committed to supporting efforts to achieve greater equality while remaining transparent and open to new ideas.

This study is a result of NGA’s first-ever Rank-in-Person promotion cycle, when no Black Band 5s were promoted to Senior Executive. 

When then-Director Letitia A. Long became aware of this, she commissioned ODE to conduct a study on Black promotions at NGA to 

identify any inequities or barriers to advancement within NGA specifically for the Black workforce. Once this call to action came, 

 stood up NGA’s Diversity and Inclusion Study Program, composed of research 

psychologists and workforce analysts. 

This “State of Black Promotions at NGA” report reflects the culmination of the study team’s extensive research and analysis 

(including multiple promotion cycles) that required agency-wide coordination and collaboration. The report identified differences in 

promotion rates for Black employees compared to White employees, and the differences have been growing since 2014. The study 

team combined personnel data, academic literature, reports from other federal agencies, and input from current employees across 

the agency to determine what barriers may prevent Black employees from reaching their full potential in the agency. From this, the 

team developed a set of 10 recommendations as a way forward. Agency leadership has approved all of the recommendations in the 

study for implementation. 

As , I have the honor and responsibility to lead this important initiative and champion the implementation efforts. 

Moving toward greater equality in our promotions requires collaboration and active participation agency-wide. I am committed to 

bringing together the right teams to make lasting change at NGA, communicating our progress to the workforce, and measuring 

the impact of these efforts. 

I extend my sincere thanks to our study team and the workforce for their participation, including the Black Advisory Council for their role 

providing input and stakeholder support to shape the final recommendations. I also extend my appreciation to for his leadership 

in standing up the team and seeing the study program through this project. I especially thank NGA’s principal leadership — particularly 

Director Robert Cardillo, Deputy Director Justin Poole, and Executive Director Harry E. Mornston — for their active and visible support 

of NGA’s Diversity and Inclusion Study Program and for recognizing the importance of such studies.

(b) (3) 10 USC Sec 424

(b) (3) 10 USC Sec 424 (b) (3) (b) (3) 10 USC Sec 424 (b) (3) 10 USC Sec 424 (b) (3) 

(b) (3) 10 USC Sec 424
UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED 5

Office of Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity

Office of Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity

Executive Summary

State of Black Promotions at NGA: Barriers and Recommendations

As NGA strives to embody the ideals of diversity and inclusion (D&I), NGA undertook this study to examine whether there were 

differences in promotion rates between Blacks and Whites at NGA, whether barriers to career advancement exist for Black employees, 

and ways to mitigate these barriers. As a result of this study, 10 recommendations are made to address differences and barriers related 

to Black promotions.

Improving D&I throughout the agency results in enhanced decisions and greater cultural competency, which acts as a force multiplier. 

These cumulative effects of D&I yield improved success against increasingly complex global threats and is, therefore, a mission imperative.

Purpose

Recognizing that promotions are not the simple result of performing well at your job, 

but instead reflect a complex system of interrelated parts, this study’s purpose is to:

• Identify whether there are consistent differences between 

Black and White promotion rates at NGA,

• Conduct root cause analysis research to identify possible barriers 

to promotions faced by Blacks,

• Investigate employee perceptions about the state of promotions, and

• Develop a core set of recommendations for improvement and interventions 

to improve the D&I at NGA; specifically, regarding Black promotions.

Methodology

ODE’s team of research psychologists and workforce analysts designed and conducted 

an agency-wide research study utilizing multiple methodologies, with recommendations 

aimed at addressing findings common across these research methods: secondary data 

analyses of NGA’s data metrics, employee attitudes and perceptions, and literature 

reviews of external research.

Summary of Results

Since 2014, Black promotion rates have been lower than White promotion rates.

Focusing on the criteria important under the current promotion system, the study identified and described possible barriers to 

advancement faced by Blacks and developed a set of recommendations to mitigate these barriers.

NGA Data 

Metrics

Attitudes & 

Perceptions

External 

Research

Promotion

Outcomes

Supervision

Feedback

Opportunities

Assignments

Networking

Promotion 

Process

Panel 

Members

ITP

Supervisory 

Input

Unconscious 

Bias

Micro-Decisions

Performance 

Appraisals

Work 

Activities

Exemplar Data

Greater impact

of “hallway file”

Relationships

with Supervisors

Less honest

feedback Feedback

Limited accessibility 

to influential networks

Networking/

Mentoring

Lower rates of

competitive call

Developmental 

Opportunities

Fewer Team Leaders

and Managers Leadership Roles

Higher rates of

“Do Not Recommend”

Promotion 

Readiness Ratings

Unconscious Bias

Promotion Barriers

Lower

DCIPS ratings DCIPS Rating

Current Promotions at NGA

Focus on

Micro-Decisions

Encourage 

Better Feedback

Enhance Networks 

and Mentors

Evaluate 

Promotion Process

Future Promotions at NGA

Consequences/Impact Recommendation Theme Areas

Lower awareness of how

to improve performance

Limited exposure, networks,

and less information shared

Narrowed

candidate pool

Less robust experiences

Lack of leadership experience

needed for the next level

Non-work behaviors shape

perceptions of performance

Fewer competitive

candidates
UNCLASSIFIED

6 UNCLASSIFIED

State of Black Promotions at NGA

Office of Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity

Recommendations

The following recommendations are made to address the identified differences and barriers:

Next Steps

Agency leadership has appointed , to oversee implementation activities for 

all 10 study recommendations. In this role, she will work across the agency to ensure implementation of the recommendations, keep the 

workforce informed, assess implementation efforts to ensure results and return on investment, and hold leadership and the workforce 

accountable for change.

POC: NGABlackPromotionStudy@coe.ic.gov

Theme Area Recommendation

Focus on 

Micro-Decisions

1. Ensure NGA supervisors and managers understand the cumulative effects of their small, 

everyday decisions on employees’ careers.

a. Teach supervisors and managers the types of decisions that they need to pay attention to 

when distributing work and opportunities.

b. Hold supervisors and managers accountable for the mission-appropriate and equitable 

distribution of opportunities in their work group.

2. Make Unconscious Bias Awareness Training mandatory for all supervisors and Career Service 

board and panel members.

Encourage Better 

Feedback

3. Educate supervisors, managers, and promotion panel members on providing quality, timely, and 

more actionable, useful, and constructive feedback to all employees, and hold them accountable 

for delivering said feedback.

a. Ensure this supervisory education includes components highlighting challenges and strategies 

related to providing quality, actionable, and more constructive feedback to all employees (see 

DIV2181 “Building meaningful business relationships across difference” in the NGA College 

(NGC) course catalog for ideas).

4. Educate all employees on how to receive, accept, and apply constructive feedback.

Enhance Networks 

and Mentors

5. Educate all employees in the value and importance of diverse and inclusive networks. 

6. Ensure all employees recognize that professional networking is a legitimate work activity 

(e.g., consider building professional networking into performance objectives).

7. Encourage all employees to build and maintain diversified and inclusive networks and mentoring 

partnerships.

Evaluate 

Promotion 

Process

8. Ensure the promotion process is implemented consistently across Career Services.

9. Validate the job-relatedness of current promotion profile factors and related selection criteria.

10. Conduct regular program evaluations, particularly when there are changes to the process, to 

ensure that changes do not have unintended consequences for particular demographic groups.

(b) (3) 10 USC Sec 424
UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED

8 UNCLASSIFIED

State of Black Promotions at NGA

Office of Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity

Introduction

At the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) and 

across the intelligence community (IC) as a whole, diversity 

is recognized as a mission imperative. Diversity is one of the 

seven Principles of Professional Ethics for the IC, a set of 

standards which codifies the importance of embracing the 

diversity of the nation, promoting diversity and inclusion (D&I) 

for the IC workforce and encouraging diversity in thinking.1 In 

one of his final memos of his tenure as the director of national 

intelligence (DNI), James R. Clapper wrote:

“The IC’s mission remains unchanged. We exist to provide 

timely, insightful, objective, and relevant intelligence to 

inform decisions on national security issues and events. 

We must continue to advance our mission, leveraging 

the most diverse and inclusive workforce possible. Not 

because it’s altruistically right, but because the security 

of our nation depends on it.”2

Traditional definitions of diversity tend to emphasize 

demographic diversity; differences along characteristics of 

race/ethnicity, gender, age, disability status, etc. More modern 

definitions of diversity also consider individual differences on 

dimensions of culture, religion, language, sexual orientation, 

education level, socioeconomic status, abilities and limitations, 

and life experiences. Leveraging all types of diversity is 

important; but ensuring that traditionally underrepresented 

demographic groups, such as Blacks, are fully integrated 

into an organization must remain an equal priority.

NGA leadership’s commitment to diversity ensures the 

composition of the workforce is such that NGA is bestpositioned to address our country’s most challenging issues. 

Importantly, though, it is when we move beyond mere diversity 

and toward full inclusion that diversity truly acts as a force 

multiplier. As expressed by NGA Director Robert Cardillo in his 

Statement on Diversity and Inclusion:

“The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) 

is committed to an inclusive work environment that 

respects, values, and draws on the strengths of our 

diverse workforce. We appreciate the varied backgrounds, 

attributes, experiences, and perspectives of each individual 

and the unique contributions they make.”3

It is the act of leveraging diversity that moves an organization 

from simply being a diverse organization to actually harnessing 

the benefits that a diverse workforce brings to make a more 

successful organization. Conceptualized as inclusion, this 

can be more fully defined as “the achievement of a work 

environment in which all individuals are treated fairly and 

respectfully, have equal access to opportunities and resources, 

and can contribute fully to the organization’s success.”4 As 

regularly heard at NGA: “diversity is about counting people; 

inclusion is about making people count.”

This study’s investigation focuses on some of these aspects of 

inclusion. Specifically, it examines whether there are barriers 

faced especially by Black employees regarding equality of 

access to opportunities and resources related to promotion. 

Given NGA leadership’s insight as a result of the 2014 

promotion cycle from Band 5-to-Senior — that the lack of any 

Black promotions to Senior suggested that Blacks were not as 

competitive compared to Whites — this study focused on the 

state of Black promotions at NGA.

Considering all of the decision points in an employee’s tenure 

at the agency, receiving — or not receiving — a promotion is 

one that has far-reaching implications, both for the individual 

employee and for the organization. As described in the IC-wide 

report “Diversity and Inclusion: Examining workforce concerns 

within the United States Intelligence Community,” clear career 

paths to leadership and promotion opportunities are both 

incentivizing and motivating, and career progression is seen 

as a “tangible sign of their hard work.”5 Not all employees 

can be promoted, and not all employees should be promoted. 

However, employees who want to be promoted should be 

afforded the same access to those promotion opportunities 

regardless of their gender, race or national origin, disability 

status, and so on. This study focused on one of these 

dimensions of diversity: race; and more specifically, 

promotions for NGA’s Black employees.

First, the study analyzed promotion data to see if there were 

triggers related to Black promotion rates at NGA.6 Second, 

where triggers were found, this study explored possible barriers 

using a combination of personnel data, literature from academia, 

research from other federal agencies, and perspectives from 

1 ODNI (2014) 2 ODNI (2017) 3 NGA (2014) 4 SHRM (2008)5 ODNI IC EEOD (2017), p. 61 6 The EEOC defines triggers as “red flags” which are conditions, disparities, or anomalies, 

including statistical anomalies or trends, which warrant further inquiry to determine if 

barriers exist (US EEOC 2015).
UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED 9

Office of Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity

Office of Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity

NGA employees. Finally, a core set of recommendations was 

developed to mitigate proposed barriers, with the ultimate goal 

of improving D&I at NGA, specifically focused on our Black 

employees. This study is published for the workforce with 

the intent of highlighting quantitative and qualitative data and 

analyses from recent years, culminating in recommendations 

that should help ensure equal opportunities for advancement, 

not only for Black employees, but for all NGA employees.

NGA’s Office of General Counsel reminds readers that this report 

from ODE provides a summary of the research conducted for 

the study; it is not a legal document. This study neither makes 

legal conclusions of disparate impact nor does it recommend that 

Rank-in-Person should not be NGA’s promotion process.

What is the Promotion 

Process at NGA?

On the surface, it seems reasonable to 

expect that promotions are the result of 

performing at an excellent or outstanding 

level in a position; that there is a simple 

linear relationship between doing a job well 

and being rewarded with a promotion. 

However, the reality is that promotions are 

the result of a complex system of interrelated parts. Certainly, 

superior performance at work is a precursor to receiving a 

promotion, but it is not the only factor that matters during 

promotion decisions. Opportunities, including education, 

exposure, and experiences, along with mentors, networks, and 

job performance, are but a few of the different aspects that 

may play a role in helping some individuals be more or less 

competitive for promotion compared to others.

decouples the promotion decisions from assignment decisions. 

Previous to RIP, promotions were determined based on the 

employees’ position or job assignment. For example, a Pay Band 

4 who wanted to be promoted to a Pay Band 5 needed to find 

a job posting for a Pay Band 5 position, apply, compete, and be 

selected for that position. Then, by virtue of being selected for 

a position at a higher band, that employee would be promoted. 

That type of system is known as a Rank-in-Position process.

Unlike Rank-in-Position, where an employee receives a 

promotion based on the position he or she occupies, RIP selects 

for promotion based on Promotion Profile Factors, which reflect 

the combination of education, experience, exposure, and 

technical expertise/skills that demonstrate the person is ready 

to work at the next level. RIP decisions are processed by each 

Career Service (CS) on an annual basis. After determinations 

are made about who is selected for promotion, the assignment 

process is worked separately to find a position at the next 

higher level for those selectees to encumber. NGA began 

transitioning to RIP in FY 2014, when the Band 5-to-Senior 

promotions were the first to be converted to RIP. This was 

followed in FY 2015 by the Band 4-to-Band 5 promotions 

converting to RIP and in FY 2016 with the Band 3-to-Band 

4 promotions converting to RIP. By FY 2017, all promotions 

to Bands 4, 5, and Senior were conducted utilizing the RIP 

process. In FY 2017, promotions from Band 2-to-Band 3 were 

converted to a career development program, so they were not 

included in the RIP transition.

As mentioned in the foreword 

, the impetus for this study on Black promotions at NGA 

came in 2014 with the first RIP cycle, when zero Black Band 

5s were selected for promotion to Senior. From that point, 

ODE built a Diversity and Inclusion Study Program, and the 

research team comprised of Ph.D.- and Masters-level research 

psychologists and workforce analysts determined that to truly 

measure the current state of promotions at NGA, the “new” 

RIP process had to fully become the “current” process. In other 

words, there needed to be more than just one cycle of one level 

of RIP promotions to examine. Now that all promotions to Bands 

4, 5, and Senior are conducted under RIP, this report is the 

culmination of a data-driven research study of Black promotions 

at NGA. This paper is a summary report of the research — it 

identifies whether there are consistent differences between 

Black and White promotion rates between 2009 and 2017, 

identifies potential barriers contributing to these differences, 

and makes a set of recommendations to begin mitigating these 

barriers to promotion.

In 2014, NGA began rolling out a new promotion process called 

Rank-in-Person, or RIP. The RIP promotion process is one that 

Promotion

Outcomes

Promotion 

Process

Work 

Activities

Promotion

Outcomes

Supervision

Feedback

Opportunities

Assignments

Networking

Promotion 

Process

Panel 

Members

ITP

Supervisory 

Input

Unconscious 

Bias

Micro-Decisions

Performance 

Appraisals

Work 

Activities

(b) (3) 10 USC Sec 424
UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED 11

Office of Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity

Office of Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity

Methodology

To first understand whether triggers were present for Black 

promotions, the study examined whether there were trends 

or consistent differences in promotion rates between Blacks 

and Whites overall, at different bands, and/or between GEOINT 

Mission (GM) and GEOINT Mission Support (GMS) work areas. 

GM includes employees with CS designations in the Analysis, 

Collections, Content and Visualization, and Foundation CSs. 

GMS includes employees in all other CSs (Contracts, Corporate, 

Financial Management, Human Capital, Information Technology, 

Program and Office Administration, Security and Facilities, 

and Research and Development).

After examining the Black and White promotion rates at NGA, 

the next step was to investigate why trends or consistent 

differences were occurring instead of similarities or expected 

year-to-year fluctuations between Black and White promotion 

rates. To do this, the study analyzed other workforce metrics, 

data gathered on attitudes and perceptions from NGA employees 

on promotions, and external research from academia and other 

federal agencies. The convergence of these research streams 

shaped the subsequent recommendations that stemmed from 

this data-driven approach. The recommendations focus on 

mitigating barriers that the study found to affect Blacks, with 

the end result being that all employees will benefit from these 

changes. The figures below describe the types of data used for 

each research stream in more detail.

NGA Data 

Metrics

Attitudes & 

Perceptions

External 

Research

NGA Data 

Metrics

• Quantitative analyses of race and promotion overall and by band, GEOINT Mission 

(GM) vs. GEOINT Mission Support (GMS), and Rank-in-Person (RIP); Additional 

analyses by supervisory status, DCIPS ratings, supervisory recommendations, etc.

Attitudes & 

Perceptions

• Survey results from NGA’s Employee Engagement Survey (EES)

• Qualitative analyses of interviews with Seniors and focus groups with a stratified 

random sample of Black and White employees

• Partnership with the Black Advisory Council on recommendations

External 

Research

• Academic literature review

• Environmental scan of other government agencies, private companies, 

and other publications
UNCLASSIFIED

12 UNCLASSIFIED

State of Black Promotions at NGA

Office of Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity

Data Definitions 

and Study Participants

Definition of Race Categories

In this study, Blacks were those who self-identified in NGA’s 

personnel system as Black, Non-Hispanic, whereas Whites were 

those who self-identified as White, Non-Hispanic. Those who 

self-identified as Black and/or White as part of a multiple-race 

identity were not included in the Black or White categories for 

the purposes of this study.

Promotion Rate Calculations

Promotion rates can be calculated as the number of employees 

in a particular demographic group who were promoted (e.g., 

Blacks who were selected for promotion in FY 2012) divided 

by the total number of employees in that same group (e.g., all 

Black employees who were at NGA during FY 2012). This latter 

number, the denominator, can be defined in multiple ways, and 

accordingly, each resulting rate should be interpreted keeping in 

mind the relative comparison population (i.e., the denominator). 

For this study, the denominator was defined in one of three 

ways, depending on the specific analyses being conducted:

1. Promotion rate relative to the population: the number 

of employees in a demographic group that were 

promoted divided by the total number of employees in 

the same demographic group at NGA. This calculation 

is used to examine promotion rates holistically at NGA 

(i.e., all promotions in a given year, regardless of Band).

2. Promotion rate relative to the population that could 

have been promoted: the number of all employees in a 

demographic group that were promoted divided by the 

total number of employees in the “feeder” population7

that belong to the same demographic group at NGA. 

This calculation is used to examine promotion rates 

for each band separately.

3. Promotion rate relative to the population that applied: 

the number of all employees in a demographic group 

that were selected for promotion divided by the total 

number of employees in the same demographic group 

that self-nominated. This calculation is used to examine 

promotion selections for RIP-specific analyses.

Focus Groups and Senior Interviews 

NGA employees’ attitudes and perceptions about promotion 

were collected via focus groups with the banded workforce 

and one-on-one interviews with Senior executives.

To understand the perspectives and experiences of the 

workforce at large regarding the promotion process and 

perceived barriers to promotion, focus groups were conducted 

with the banded NGA workforce. For the focus groups, a 

moderator’s guide was used that asked participants about their 

experiences with the promotion process, including reasons for 

self-nominating or not, if they felt they experienced barriers 

in their career at NGA (and if so, what those barriers were), 

feedback they did or did not receive during the RIP process, 

and their thoughts on how race might play a role in the path 

to promotion. Focus group participants consisted of a sample 

of Black and White employees, selected at random based on 

RIP promotion status (did not self-nominate, self-nominated, 

promoted, not promoted). A total of 33 focus groups were held, 

including in-person focus groups (at NGA’s East (NCE) and West 

(NCW) headquarters), as well as virtual focus groups (by phone 

for external employees). To ensure that all employees were given 

the opportunity to participate even if they were not part of the 

randomly selected group and if their race/ethnicity was other 

than Black or White, “open” focus groups were also held for 

NCE, NCW, and external employees. In addition, employees were 

invited to email the study team to share their perspectives.

For the Senior interviews, a semi-structured interview protocol 

was used that asked Seniors to describe such things as their 

path to Senior leadership, roadblocks or obstacles they faced 

along the way, and advice they would share with others. The 

goal of these interviews was to: understand the experience of 

Blacks who successfully reached Senior levels; identify whether 

they faced barriers specific to advancement at NGA; determine 

whether these barriers were similar to or different than barriers 

experienced by the workforce and non-Black Seniors; and learn 

how they overcame these barriers to become a Senior. Ninety 

percent of all Black Seniors who were not otherwise involved 

as advisors in the initial launch of the study participated in 

one-on-one interviews for the study. In addition, a random 

selection of non-Black Seniors at NGA were also invited 

to participate. Overall, eight percent of all Seniors at NGA 

participated in individual interviews.

7 “Feeder” population means the group from which employees are being promoted (e.g., the feeder population for Black Band 4 promotions is the population of Black Band 3 employees).
UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED

14 UNCLASSIFIED

State of Black Promotions at NGA

Office of Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity

What are the Promotion Rates 

for Blacks and Whites at NGA?

NGA Black and White Promotion Rates

The quantitative data described in this section moves from a 

macro-level look at promotions at NGA to a micro-level look. 

To begin, annual promotion rates for Blacks and Whites are 

examined for all band levels together. Then, promotion rates 

are reviewed separately for each band level and to Senior. 

Within the examination of each band separately, we further 

explore promotion rates for GM and GMS work areas. Finally, 

we separately analyze promotions conducted under the RIP 

process for each band and include an examination of available 

self-nomination data as well.

Overall Promotion Rates

To begin, the annual promotion rate for all bands combined 

allowed for an overall view to see whether triggers exist for 

Blacks’ promotion rates. This assessment utilized the first 

promotion rate calculation described earlier, determining 

promotion rates relative to the population. This allowed for an 

initial look at the promotion rates of all Black and White NGA 

employees since 2009, which marked the implementation of 

the DCIPS performance appraisal system.

From 2009 to 2014, Black and White promotion rates at NGA 

fluctuate year to year, with neither demographic having a 

consistently higher or lower rate than the other. Since then, 

promotion rates for Blacks have been trending lower, while 

promotion rates for Whites have been trending higher, and this 

emergent pattern was explored to see whether it held across 

promotion rates at all Band levels and work areas.
UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED 15

Office of Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity

Office of Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity

Promotion Rates by Band 

and GEOINT Mission vs. 

GEOINT Mission Support

Next, to examine whether the overall trend previously 

identified is similar across all band levels or if a single 

band is influencing the overall promotion rates, this section 

describes analyses conducted on each band separately. 

Furthermore, to identify if distinct trends existed by work area 

(i.e., GM/GMS), promotion rates were analyzed separately for 

Blacks and Whites by GM and GMS for each band. Therefore, 

promotion rates in this section were calculated using the 

second method: the number of selectees in a given year 

divided by the number of employees in the feeder pool for 

that same demographic.

Band 2-to-3 Promotions, Overall and by GM/GMS

Since 2011, Black promotion rates to Band 3 have been 

consistently lower than promotion rates for Whites.

However, when these rates are separated out by GM/GMS, 

this difference appears to be driven by promotion rates in 

GMS, since Black promotion rates for GM are either on par 

with or higher than Whites since 2009 (except for 2011). 

Given that the vast majority of Black Band 2 employees are 

in GMS (since 2009, between 71 percent and 93 percent), 

the difference in promotion rates between Blacks and Whites 

in GMS is potentially indicative of an early-career bottleneck 

for Black employees. This early bottleneck in the pathway to 

advancement may eventually limit the pool of Black candidates 

that can compete for higher Bands and Senior roles.

NGA Black and White Promotion Rates 

to Band 3 in GEOINT Mission Support Areas

NGA Black and White Promotion Rates 

to Band 3

NGA Black and White Promotion Rates 

to Band 3 in GEOINT Mission Areas
UNCLASSIFIED

16 UNCLASSIFIED

State of Black Promotions at NGA

Office of Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity

NGA Black and White Promotion Rates

to Band 3, Police Excluded

One potential explanation for these findings at Band 3 is that 

differences in promotion rates could be work role-driven. If 

Whites are more equally spread out across work roles than 

Blacks, a bottleneck of sorts may occur for Blacks, since only 

a small fraction of people in a given work role can be promoted 

each year. From 2009–2017, anywhere from one-third to over 

half of Black Band 2s were found in the police officer work 

role each year (the percentage of Blacks in Band 2 who were 

police officers has ranged from 32–65 percent, whereas only 

about 16–38 percent of White Band 2s were police officers 

during these same years). To determine if the promotion rate 

gap between Blacks and Whites to Band 3 is work role-driven, 

the study re-analyzed promotion rates to Band 3 without 

the police officer work role. Differences between Black and 

White promotion rates should disappear if the promotion rate 

differences are due to Blacks being more concentrated in this 

one work role. Excluding police officers from the promotion 

rates slightly reduces the Black and White promotion rate gaps 

to Band 3, compared to the Black and White promotion rate 

gap when police are included. However, a large gap remains 

(except for 2017 when the Black Band 3 promotion rate 

exceeded the White promotion rate), indicating that this 

clustering of employees in a single work role does not fully 

explain overall promotion rate differences.

Future promotions to Band 3 will be done via the Career 

Development Program, which involves completing a set of 

prescribed milestones and obtaining supervisory approval. 

This program will include all Band 2s in a “Professional Work 

Category” but does not include police officers. The study 

anticipates that with standardized milestones, promotion 

rate differences will likely be mitigated and minimized under 

this new system, which is similar to how most of the GM 

promotions to Band 3 were already being conducted. However, 

these rates should continue to be tracked as the new system 

is put into place.
UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED 17

Office of Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity

Office of Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity

NGA Black and White Promotion Rates

to Band 4

NGA Black and White Promotion Rates 

to Band 4 in GEOINT Mission Areas

NGA Black and White Promotion Rates 

to Band 4 in GEOINT Mission Support Areas

8 RIP started in 2016 for Band 3-to-4 promotions, and nearly three-fourths of promotions to Band 4 were awarded through RIP; in 2017, all promotions to Band 4 were through RIP.

Band 3-to-4 Promotions, 

Overall and by GM/GMS

From 2009 to 2014, Black and White promotion rates at 

NGA fluctuate year to year, with neither demographic having 

a consistently higher or lower rate than the other. However, 

starting in 2014, Black promotion rates to Band 4 have been 

trending lower than White promotion rates.8

When examining promotion rates separately by GM/GMS, 

consistent trends starting in 2014 become apparent. For 

promotions to Band 4 in GM, prior to 2016, Black promotion 

rates have been similar to or slightly lower than White promotion 

rates but by no more than 3 percentage points in any given year. 

In 2016, the gap increased to a 4-percentage-point difference, 

then increased to 5 percentage points in 2017. 

Looking at promotions to Band 4 in GMS, the study finds lower 

rates for Blacks in most years compared to Whites, but it was 

not until 2014 that this gap became consistent and large: 

starting in 2014, Blacks’ promotion rates have been differing 

from Whites’ promotion rates on average by 7 percentage points.
UNCLASSIFIED

18 UNCLASSIFIED

State of Black Promotions at NGA

Office of Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity

NGA Black and White Promotion Rates 

to Band 5

NGA Black and White Promotion Rates

to Band 5 in GEOINT Mission Areas

NGA Black and White Promotion Rates

to Band 5 in GEOINT Mission Support Areas

9 In 2015, nearly three-fourths of promotions to Band 5 were awarded through RIP; in 2016 and 2017, nearly all Band 5 promotions were done through RIP.

Band 4-to-5 Promotion Rates, 

Overall and by GM/GMS

From 2009 to 2014, Black and White promotion rates to Band 

5 were on par with each other. Since then, Band 5 promotion 

rates overall for Blacks start to be consistently, but only slightly, 

lower than Whites. When separated out by GM/GMS, promotion 

rates for GM do not diverge until 2015, and in GMS, rates stay 

mostly similar to each other.9
UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED 19

Office of Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity

Office of Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity

Band 5-to-Senior Promotion Rates

From 2009 to 2017, promotion rates to Senior show no 

consistent pattern between Blacks and Whites, either before 

or after the implementation of RIP. Since such a small group of 

Band 5s are promoted to Senior each year, the promotion rates 

are less consistent over time, as differences of even one or two 

people easily create fluctuations in the promotion rates in any 

given year.

NGA Black and White Promotion Rates

to Senior

As noted earlier, this study was prompted when no Blacks 

were promoted during the first RIP cycle for promotions to 

Senior in 2014, but since 2009, there have been no consistent 

differences between Black and White promotion rates to 

Senior.10 Although there have been no consistent differences 

in promotion rates to Senior, that does not mean there are no 

barriers for Blacks at this point. In fact, the vast majority of 

Black Seniors interviewed reported facing barriers that they 

had to overcome along the way to reach Senior Executive. 

Senior promotion rates should continue to be tracked, since 

they act as a lagging indicator of issues percolating at lower 

levels. If a healthy pool of competitive candidates who can apply 

for promotion to Senior does not exist (as not all Band 5s will 

necessarily apply for promotion), then Black promotion rates 

to Senior may start to drop consistently below Whites, as a 

consequence of not having a robust pipeline of Black candidates 

at lower Bands.

Promotion Rates By Gender

Averaging across all Bands, promotion rates for Blacks have 

been lower than promotion rates for Whites for the past four 

years. A previous study from this office examined how women 

were faring at NGA, finding that on average, women had higher 

promotion rates than men.11 In order to test whether this same 

advantage is present specifically for Black women, the study 

analyzed promotion rates separately for Blacks by gender.

NGA Promotion Rates for Black Men and Women

NGA Promotion Rates for White Men and Women

In four of the last nine years, Black women had slightly lower 

promotion rates than Black men, demonstrating Black women 

do not appear to experience the same consistent benefit that 

White women have regarding promotion rates compared to 

men. In fact, for Blacks, being a man conferred some benefits: 

rates for Black men were generally on par with or slightly higher 

than rates for White men.

10 It is important to note that 2013 was actually a year where there were no Black promotions to Senior, but it was less visible to the workforce since promotions were not centralized and occurred 

throughout the year. 2014 did include some non-RIP promotions even though it was the first year of RIP, which explains why the promotion rate for Blacks in 2014 is not 0 percent.

11 NGA (2016)
UNCLASSIFIED

20 UNCLASSIFIED

State of Black Promotions at NGA

Office of Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity

Rank-in-Person (RIP) Promotions

To understand if there were differences in Black and White 

promotion rates occurring under RIP, promotion rates were 

calculated using the third method described earlier: promotion 

rates relative to those employees who applied for promotion; 

that is, using the employees that self-nominated for RIP as the 

denominator in the rate calculation. Knowing the demographics 

of the pool that applied for promotion allows for calculations of 

whether promotion rates are statistically different, rather than 

simply examining trends.

RIP Promotion Rates by Band 

(Overall and by GM/GMS)

When isolating promotions to those selected via RIP and 

computing promotion rates relative to those who selfnominated, the study finds that in almost every instance of RIP 

to Band 4 and to Band 5, Blacks have lower promotion rates 

compared to Whites, and these differences are statistically 

significant (as noted by asterisks in the graphs).12 The only 

instance where the difference in promotion rates was not 

statistically significant was the 2016 cycle of RIP to Band 5.

For promotions to Band 4, these lower rates remain consistent, 

even when separating out rates by GM/GMS. However, for 

promotions to Band 5, the difference in promotion rates for 

Blacks compared to Whites is greater in GM than in GMS.13

NGA Black and White RIP Promotion Rates

Band 3 to 4

NGA Black and White RIP Promotion Rates

Band 4 to 5

12 Assessments of differences in rates were determined via both Impact Ratios, as set forth in the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures and statistical tests 

(Chi-square tests, ZIR, ZD, and Fisher’s Exact Test). 13 Promotion rates in these tables differ from the promotion rate graphs displayed earlier for promotions to Bands 4 and 5 for all years, since different denominators were used for each: 

RIP rates are calculated using just those who self-nominated; earlier graphs use the entire relevant population as the denominator.

Band

3-to-4 RIP

GM GMS

Black White Black White

2016 12.0% 20.0% 12.1% 21.9%

2017 13.1% 24.8% 14.3% 23.6%

Band

4-to-5 RIP

GM GMS

Black White Black White

2015 3.7% 12.0% 7.5% 12.7%

2016 4.5% 15.1% 6.1% 8.8%

2017 9.1% 19.6% 8.5% 14.2%

White

Black

White

Black
UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED 21

Office of Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity

Office of Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity

One possible explanation for lower promotion rates for Blacks 

is that Blacks might not self-nominate in rates similar to Whites. 

However, self-nomination rates for Blacks are on par with, or 

higher than, self-nomination rates for Whites, indicating that 

lower promotion rates for Blacks are not due to fewer Black 

employees self-nominating.

For RIP promotions to Senior, there is one additional stage in the 

promotion process compared to the banded promotions. First, 

each CS panel reviews its respective nominees. Then, each 

panel selects which candidates to put forth to the next stage, 

the agency-wide panel. This NGA panel then decides who is 

promoted. Therefore, the promotion rates to Senior, under RIP, 

were calculated using the percentage of employees nominated 

to the agency-wide panel as the denominator, since final 

selectees were chosen from that agency-wide candidate pool. 

Across all years of RIP to Senior, no consistent trend emerged; 

in two out of four years, Blacks were promoted at rates either 

higher than or on par with Whites’.

This pattern is consistent with the overall promotion rates 

to Senior and indicates that even when rates are isolated to 

only those conducted under RIP, no stable trends are present. 

However, these rates should still be tracked to ensure that 

disparities do not emerge.

Utilizing a root cause analysis approach, the next section 

combines quantitative and qualitative analyses to identify 

possible promotion barriers faced by Blacks at NGA, regardless 

of the point in a career at which the barrier may arise.

Knowing that Blacks self-nominated for promotions in rates 

similar to or higher than Whites, the next analysis tried to 

answer the question: Were the most competitive candidates 

applying? To test this hypothesis, DCIPS ratings were used 

as a proxy for applicant competitiveness, since there is no 

comprehensive measure of applicant readiness and DCIPS is an 

agency-wide standard measurement of employee performance. 

The study found that among the pool of eligible employees who 

received high DCIPS ratings,14 Blacks in this pool self-nominated 

at similar or higher rates than Whites in this pool. Therefore, 

using DCIPS as a proxy, the study did not find support for this 

hypothesis (that less competitive applicants were applying 

for promotion) and found that similar rates of “competitive” 

employees — both Black and White — applied for promotion.

14 A high rating was defined as promotion-eligible employees who received a DCIPS rating in the year prior to the RIP year that was in the 75th percentile or higher 

of all promotion-eligible employees.

NGA Black and White RIP Promotion Rates

to Senior

RIP Self-Nomination Rates Black White

2016 Band 3-to-4 41% 42%

2017 Band 3-to-4 37% 38%

2015 Band 4-to-5 42% 31%

2016 Band 4-to-5 31% 27%

2017 Band 4-to-5 25% 21%
UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED 23

Office of Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity

Office of Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity

Why Are These Differences Happening?

Promotion decisions reflect a culmination of numerous factors 

prior to the selection process and at the point of selection itself. 

Barriers to promotion can arise at several places along the way. 

This section describes the results of the root cause analysis and 

some of the barriers that may explain the differences between 

Black and White promotion rates. Sources include Human 

Resource (HR) metrics, perspectives gathered from the NGA 

workforce, peer-reviewed empirical research, and industry 

best practices.

As already discussed, RIP emphasizes a variety of criteria to 

determine promotion readiness; promotions are no longer based 

mainly on the best fit for a particular position at the next level. 

As a result, many of the challenges existing prior to RIP still 

exist, but now, they may be barriers to promotion.

Utilizing a mix of quantitative (e.g., HR metrics) and qualitative 

(e.g., focus group findings) analyses, this section describes 

barriers to promotion faced by Blacks at NGA. It is important to 

note that although unconscious bias is described as a separate 

potential barrier, it may influence many of the other barriers.

Exemplar Data

Greater impact

of “hallway file”

Relationships

with Supervisors

Less honest

feedback Feedback

Limited accessibility 

to influential networks

Networking/

Mentoring

Lower rates of

competitive call

Developmental 

Opportunities

Fewer Team Leaders

and Managers Leadership Roles

Higher rates of

“Do Not Recommend”

Promotion 

Readiness Ratings

Unconscious Bias

Promotion Barriers

Lower

DCIPS ratings DCIPS Rating

Current Promotions at NGA

Focus on

Micro-Decisions

Encourage 

Better Feedback

Enhance Networks 

and Mentors

Evaluate 

Promotion Process

Future Promotions at NGA

Consequences/Impact Recommendation Theme Areas

Lower awareness of how

to improve performance

Limited exposure, networks,

and less information shared

Narrowed

candidate pool

Less robust experiences

Lack of leadership experience

needed for the next level

Non-work behaviors shape

perceptions of performance

Fewer competitive

candidates
UNCLASSIFIED

24 UNCLASSIFIED

State of Black Promotions at NGA

Office of Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity

Unconscious Bias

The field of social psychology refers to implicit bias as the 

collection of attitudes, beliefs, and stereotypes that can 

influence people’s decisions, understanding, or behavior in 

ways that they are unaware. In non-academic settings, implicit 

bias is more commonly known as unconscious bias. These 

unconscious biases are often learned via socialization — and 

reinforced by society. Constant exposure to these attitudes, 

beliefs, and stereotypes about different social groups results in 

this information being stored in memory — which in turn, can 

subconsciously influence behaviors, often in a negative way.15

Unconscious biases typically reflect cultural stereotypes and 

may or may not align with someone’s stated values. The 

consequence of having these implicit attitudes is that even 

when they do not align with someone’s stated, or explicit, belief 

system, they can still influence people’s decisions and behaviors 

in ways that people do not intend or are not aware. This is 

particularly the case when quick judgments are made which 

tend to rely more on inferences and assumptions than careful 

processing of information or when not enough information is 

present such that implicit bias serves to “fill in the blanks.”16

In the workplace, Black employees face barriers due to these 

often invisible biases.17 For example, someone growing up in a 

society that has pervasive negative stereotypes about Blacks 

may subconsciously associate Blacks with having a poor work 

ethic. These unconscious biases become a problem when 

they influence explicit attitudes, thoughts, and behaviors. For 

example, if someone who is Black did not complete a task, 

perhaps an automatic assumption — influenced by unconscious 

bias — is that that person did not work hard enough; but if the 

task was not completed by someone who is White, perhaps the 

initial assumption is that that person did not have not enough 

time. The presence of these hidden biases can affect employees 

at multiple points in their careers. If unconscious bias influences 

decision-making within the context of the promotion system, this 

may disadvantage particular groups, including Blacks, at NGA.

NGA’s employees appear to be aware of the negative impact 

of both conscious and unconscious biases on decisions that 

ultimately affect promotions, as evidenced by focus group 

data collected for this study. In addition to many Black focus 

group participants who mentioned unconscious bias, several 

White employees also recognize the extra barriers faced by 

Blacks as a result of unconscious bias. As one White focus 

group participant said, “I see unconscious bias entering the 

equation well before [panels]. The things you can and can’t 

put on your Integrated Talent Profile (ITP) — opportunities, 

challenging projects handed to non-minorities. I think a lot of 

that is unconscious bias.” Regardless of race or RIP status, 

a common theme across many focus groups was that bias 

— whether conscious or unconscious — influences even the 

smallest decisions that eventually impact career development 

opportunities and promotions. To overcome negative 

stereotypes about Black people, many Black focus group 

participants reported feeling they have to work twice as hard 

as their White counterparts and that they are not rewarded for 

their efforts even after proving themselves. For example, one 

Black focus group participant mentioned that “I looked at my 

coworkers, and I’m doing things at an excellent level, almost 

outstanding; and I see people that just did their jobs, and they 

got promoted. But I’m not getting promoted.” Others explicitly 

talked about carrying out work at higher Bands, as one Band 3 

reported, “I’ve been working at a Band 4 level and outworking 

them [but not receiving a promotion].”

As the rest of this section will demonstrate, unconscious biases 

may underlie many decisions eventually influencing promotions.

15 Banaji & Greenwald (2013) 16 Dovidio & Gaertner (2000); U. S. EEOC (2013) 17 Lowe (2013)
UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED 25

Office of Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity

Office of Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity

Supervision

Supervisors are an integral component in employees’ careers. 

Supervisors have the most immediate say in what work 

individual employees are tasked with completing. They are 

also the primary driver behind giving special assignments 

(experience), high-visibility opportunities (exposure), support 

for competitive call opportunities (education), and approving 

“extra-curricular” activities such as participating in an 

Employee Council, the Combined Federal Campaign, or 

a Special Emphasis Program Council, all of which have 

implications for employees’ competitiveness for promotion.

Supervisors are also critical purveyors of institutional 

information, information which empowers employees to take 

charge of their careers and effectively maneuver through 

changing systems. This has been of particular importance 

in recent years, as the transition to RIP has resulted in slight 

changes to the promotion process each year. Supervisors are 

responsible for ensuring organizational information is passed 

down to individual contributors, whether it is information closer 

to home (e.g., division-level expectations) or closer to the 

flagpole (e.g., agency-wide policy changes). Some supervisors 

may rely on informal channels of communication rather than 

on formal channels. For instance, supervisors may share news 

with employees who happen to be at their desks instead of at a 

staff meeting where all employees are present. These informal 

channels of communication certainly have a set of benefits — 

they are more timely, encourage open, two-way dialogue, and 

increase the frequency of supervisor-direct report interactions. 

However, informal communication becomes an issue if 

information is communicated to some employees but not 

others. If supervisors are unintentionally biased toward which 

employees they informally chat and share information 

with, then other employees may miss valuable, careerenhancing information.18

Research shows that people tend to favor, be more helpful to, 

reward, and have more robust relationships with those who are 

perceived to be similar to themselves.19 This is often referred 

to as the “like me” bias. Supervisors may develop more robust 

relationships with their “like me” employees and, as a result, 

unknowingly help to better develop the careers of their “like 

me” employees and disadvantage the dissimilar ones.20

In FY 2017, the vast majority of Blacks had supervisors of 

a different race (8 in 10); the vast majority of Whites had 

supervisors who were similar to them (i.e., also White) — only 

2 in 10 Whites had supervisors of a different race. It is possible 

that Blacks at NGA experience the negative aspects of the “like 

me” bias.

In each of the last four years of NGA’s EES, proportionately 

fewer Black than White employees at NGA report that 

supervisors work well with employees of different 

backgrounds.21 For example, in 2017, 80 percent of White 

employees but only 68 percent of Black employees agreed that 

supervisors work well with employees of different backgrounds, 

a statistically significant difference. Thus, the majority group 

(Whites) has a more positive perception compared to the 

minority group (Blacks) regarding how well supervisors work 

with their dissimilar employees.

The “like me” bias can influence supervisors’ perceptions 

of both performance and behavior. Focus group participants 

noted that this plays out in the workplace. For instance, 

one Black participant stated, “You prefer people who look 

like you. If the person making the decision is White, that 

person is more likely to hire a White person — he [the White 

person] is going to get the job and get the bonus.” Differing 

perceptions of performance may make it appear that decisions 

are meritocratic, but in reality, supervisors’ assessments of 

employees and their performance may be subconsciously 

influenced by the “like me” bias. In a similar vein, many 

Black participants, particularly in the West, noted that they 

were judged based on their casual conversations or who 

they “hung out with” away from their desks. More Black than 

White participants expressed concern with their “hallway file,” 

which is essentially an unofficial, informal assessment about 

an employee’s performance and conduct that is discussed off 

18 Pallais (2017) 19 Gelfand, Nishii, Raven, & Schneider (2005); Griffin, Phillips, & Gully (2017) 20 Wanguri (1996) 21 NGA’s EESs (2014–2017) show statistically significant differences on this question.

Most Blacks at NGA have

Racially Dissimilar Supervisors

2

Supervisors of another race:

of 10 Whites at NGA have 

8 of 10 Blacks at NGA have 

Supervisors of another race:

In FY 2017, Most Blacks at NGA 

had Racially Dissimilar Supervisors
UNCLASSIFIED

26 UNCLASSIFIED

State of Black Promotions at NGA

Office of Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity

the record (e.g., in hallways) and often includes perceptions 

unrelated to the work itself, such as making judgments based 

on with whom people socialize, their personality, cultural fit, 

and so forth. Some Black participants even expressed that 

they did not think White employees even had hallway files. 

This demonstrates the pervasive effect of the “like me” 

bias at work: even behaviors that are not work-related can 

shape supervisors’ perceptions of employees, which may 

then influence the lens through which performance is judged 

and reflected in performance appraisals. Since performance 

appraisals are used in multiple personnel decisions for several 

years, it is important to ensure they are not influenced by bias, 

whether intentional, unintentional, or unconscious.

Feedback

In addition to challenges faced in simply receiving organizational 

information from supervisors, many focus group participants, 

both Black and White, reported that supervisors have difficulties 

with performance feedback, particularly when it comes to 

providing negative feedback or constructive criticism.

Having difficult conversations about performance is critical in 

helping employees progress in their careers. The NGA College 

(NGC) acknowledges this and is currently offering at least 

two different courses to help supervisors better have these 

discussions in general.22 However, the challenges associated 

with having difficult conversations may be exacerbated 

by race. Supervisors of employees who are dissimilar to 

them (e.g., White supervisors of Black employees) may fear 

appearing prejudiced or discriminatory if they provide negative 

or hard feedback23 and may therefore be even less likely 

to have difficult conversations with Black employees. One 

Black focus group participant made the link directly, saying 

that “Supervisors will hinder an employee. Black people will 

sometimes have bad supervisors that are not used to dealing 

with certain [Black] people and don’t want to offend anyone.”

Similar to findings from the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA’s) 

Diversity in Leadership Study,24 in NGA’s focus groups, Black, 

but not White, participants reported feeling that they receive 

disingenuous feedback from their supervisors. For example, 

many Black focus group participants — both those who were 

promoted under RIP and those who were not — reported that 

instead of receiving meaningful feedback about promotion 

decisions both before and after RIP, they received placating 

comments saying how close they were to promotion. Being 

told you were “really close” or “almost there; right below the 

line” does not provide the type of critical performance feedback 

that will assist employees in advancing their skill set and 

competencies in ways that will actually help them be more 

competitive for promotion.

Additionally, Black focus group participants expressed that their 

supervisors appeared reluctant to tell them about any areas 

needing improvement and that they feel that they receive less 

honest and informative feedback than their White teammates. 

For example, one said, “Just give me honest feedback ... don’t 

just say something. Be honest, and give it to me straight. Don’t 

dance around it.” The lack of critical feedback from supervisors 

and the perception that supervisors may not be comfortable 

with employees who differ from them may partly explain why 

proportionately fewer Blacks (66 percent) than Whites (73 

percent) report having trust and confidence in their supervisor.25

Finally, the nature of unconscious bias may make it so that 

supervisors are not even aware of why they hold negative 

perceptions of employees’ performance. The lack of effective 

feedback may be due to both discomfort in providing feedback 

and in the inability to accurately describe or define the 

performance needing improvement if supervisors’ assessments 

of performance are influenced by unconscious bias. Without 

effective feedback, it is difficult for employees to reach their 

full potential in the agency if they are not receiving sufficient 

supervisory feedback on how to improve performance.

22 The NGC offers “Constructive Conversations” (an in-person half-day course) and “Preparing for Difficult Conversation” (a self-paced online course). 23 Gelfand et al. (2005) 24 CIA (2015) 25 NGA (2017) EES; differences of at least 4 percentage points are statistically significant.
UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED 27

Office of Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity

Office of Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity

Networking/Mentoring

Supervisors are not the only people who play a role in 

employee career development and advancement. Mentors 

provide support, information, guidance, and access beyond 

what a single supervisor can reasonably offer to all of his 

or her employees. Networks also play an important role in 

sharing information, providing visibility to opportunities that 

employees might not otherwise have known about, and lending 

behind-the-scenes support for an employee in a variety of 

situations, among other things.26 Although research has shown 

the importance of having a diverse set of mentors across 

such varying characteristics as race and gender, there is also 

evidence that employees tend to seek out people who are 

similar to them in those characteristics for their networks and 

as mentors.27 Having similar mentors and networks enables 

employees to feel understood, knowing that the mentors and 

networks truly comprehend what employees may be going 

through, whereas a diverse set of mentors and networks may 

be better positioned to help employees to grow by allowing 

them to learn to see things from a different perspective.

Virtually all Seniors interviewed for this study described the 

importance of having strong mentors and networks. However, 

in focus groups, both Black and White employees identified 

difficulties Black employees have when it comes to being a 

part of networks, particularly informal networks. For example, 

a White employee noted that “you see it in social activities. 

They [Black colleagues] are not invited to go out to lunch. 

They forget to let them [Black colleagues] know about it; don’t 

include them on emails.” On the surface, it may not seem like 

that much of a disadvantage to be excluded from some of the 

more social events at work, but as pointed out by another focus 

group participant, “If a leader is going out to lunch and chatting, 

they’re giving pointers. For the Black community, we don’t have 

that ... we don’t really have the same mentoring for what to 

put on paper and what to write and how to write it ... it’s a 

hindrance for the Black community.”

At NGA, Blacks comprise a small proportion of the workforce 

(13 percent in FY 2017), so it is particularly important that they 

have a diverse set of networks and mentors. If mentors and 

networks remained homogenous, this would limit the potential 

network that Black employees could form, whereas the network 

Whites could reach out to would be extensive. For example, 

estimating the potential “like me” (homogenous) network of 

leaders (Band 5s and Seniors) shows a network that is seven 

times larger for White employees than for Black employees:

A consequence of mainly having similar others for their 

mentees, mentors, and networks for NGA’s Black employees 

is that it limits informational access. This is particularly a 

problem for information that is not explicitly stated in guidelines 

and policy or easily accessible otherwise. Access to unwritten 

information is critical, given that both Black and White focus 

group participants reported inconsistencies across CSs in how 

each CS implemented RIP. If Blacks have to rely mainly on the 

official and formal documented policies and information rather 

than information received informally from robust informative 

networks, their ability to be as competitive for promotion as 

their White counterparts may be unduly constricted.

In fact, this barrier was similarly identified at CIA28 and further 

across the IC, where it was recognized that minorities in the IC 

have challenges participating in and therefore benefitting from 

“traditional, predominantly white male mentoring networks.”29

Since inclusive relationships are two-way streets, it is 

incumbent upon both the majority and minority group members 

to be aware of and willing to participate in inclusive mentoring 

and networking.30

26 U.S. EEOC (2013); U.S. MLDC (2011) 27 Sosik & Goshalk (2000); Gelfand et al. (2005); Thomas (2001) 28 CIA (2015) 29 ODNI IC EEOD (2017), p. 62 30 Thomas (2001)

White “like me” network:

Black “like me” network:


UNCLASSIFIED

28 UNCLASSIFIED

State of Black Promotions at NGA

Office of Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity

Developmental Opportunities 

and Assignments

There are many ways that employees become aware of 

developmental and high-profile opportunities and assignments 

— usually through their supervisors, mentors, or networks. 

But awareness is only one piece of the puzzle: employees must 

also be selected for these opportunities and assignments. Black 

employees at NGA perceive that they are not often offered 

opportunities and assignments that enrich their experience, 

education, and exposure, which are all critical components 

leading to positive promotion decisions, mirroring concerns 

across the federal government.31

At NGA, there are a wide variety of opportunities and 

assignments for employees outside of the formal assignments 

process for full-time positions. Through NGA’s competitive 

call program, employees can self-nominate for selection into 

such programs as Military Service Schools (e.g., Army War 

College, Air Command and Staff College), Masters of Science 

in Strategic Intelligence, and Harvard National Security Fellows 

Program. Other types of opportunities, many of which are not 

formally competed, include working on agency-wide tiger teams 

or IC-wide working groups, both of which involve completing 

specific tasks while also having the added benefit of broadening 

employees’ networks. In addition to these longer-term options, 

there are many domain-specific opportunities available to the 

workforce, such as delivering a briefing during the director’s 

daily Operations Intelligence (Ops Intel) morning meeting, being 

an invited guest speaker to an IC Chief Human Capital Officer’s 

Council meeting, or participating in a Culture of Respect 

facilitation training.

Despite having a variety of opportunities for education, 

experience, and exposure, Black employees perceive that they 

are often not selected for these opportunities. For instance, 

among competitive call decisions since 2013, Blacks have had 

numerically lower selection rates than Whites each year, though 

the differences have only been statistically significant in two of 

those years (2015 and 2016).

Similarly, an examination of the briefers at Ops Intel 

across 2016 and 2017 demonstrates that Blacks were 

underrepresented as briefers (only 2 to 3 percent were Black) 

as compared to both Analysis, or A (the directorate where most 

briefers came from), and NGA as a whole.

In NGA’s 2017 EES, proportionately fewer Blacks than 

Whites felt that competitive call was competed fairly, 

that their supervisor provided them with opportunities to 

demonstrate leadership skills, and that supervisors support 

employee development.32

Focus group participants also routinely mentioned that Black 

employees are not typically selected for opportunities. One 

Black participant said, “You look at the people who get picked 

for special projects or tiger teams, and they are not African 

Americans ... I didn’t know about these extra projects; I wasn’t 

invited!” This quote highlights two barriers faced by Black 

employees regarding assignments and opportunities — one is 

the selection decision itself, and the second, even more difficult 

to address, is the knowledge aspect. If Black employees are not 

hearing about opportunities through their supervisors, mentors, 

or networks, then they do not even know that there is something 

for which they should volunteer.33 Blacks, therefore, face an uphill 

battle at NGA to obtain high-visibility, high-impact opportunities 

which may affect competitiveness for promotion, since their talent 

profiles will not reflect these types of experiences.

Minority Status Briefers

FY17

Briefers

FY16

A 

FY17 NGA FY17

Black 2% 3% 7% 13%

Employee Engagement Survey Item

Percentage-Point (pp) 

Difference in BlackWhite Agreement

I believe competitive training and development 

opportunities are competed fairly here. -7 pp

My supervisor provides me with opportunities to 

demonstrate my leadership skills. -5 pp

Supervisors in my work unit support employee 

development. -4 pp

31 U.S. MSPB (2009) 32 NGA (2017) EES; differences of at least 4 percentage points are statistically significant. 33 U.S. EEOC (2013)
UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED 29

Office of Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity

Office of Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity

Leadership Roles

The opportunities discussed thus far reflected mainly shortterm education, experience, and exposure opportunities 

such as competitive call training, high-visibility briefings, and 

time-limited tiger teams. It is also important to examine the 

longer-term opportunities or job assignments that may have 

an impact on promotion readiness and competitiveness. One 

such experience that may make employees more competitive 

for promotion, particularly for promotion to higher bands and to 

Senior, is leadership experience held while at NGA. Leadership 

experience in this context is defined as being in a team lead, 

supervisory, or managerial position. Team leads are those 

individuals who oversee employees on their work teams, 

distributing work, setting priorities, and ensuring tasks are 

completed. Team leads are different from supervisors in that 

team leads do not have formal authority or responsibility for 

rating employees or for employee development. Supervisors are 

those individuals who have all the responsibilities of team leads, 

plus requirements for performance evaluations and employee 

development. Managers are those supervisors who have among 

their direct reports at least one supervisor. In other words, 

a manager is a supervisor of at least one supervisor. 

Participants across multiple focus groups reported believing 

that having experience in leadership roles while at NGA is 

particularly critical for obtaining a promotion under RIP. 

Looking across all cycles of RIP, for promotion to Bands 4 and 

to Band 5, the percentage of selected employees who had 

recent leadership experience (within the last three years at 

NGA) was higher than the percentage of self-nominees who 

had recent leadership experience. Similarly, for promotion to 

Senior, the percentage of selected employees who had recent 

leadership experience was slightly higher than the percentage 

of those nominated to the agency-wide board with leadership 

experience. The impact of recent leadership experience on 

selection was particularly notable for promotion to Band 5.

NGA Black and White Rates of Team Leads

NGA Black and White Rates of Supervisors

NGA Black and White Rates of Managers

In general, Blacks and Whites have similar rates of being in 

supervisory positions, but in both 2016 and 2017, Blacks 

start to have lower rates of being in supervisory positions. In 

team lead and manager roles, there are proportionately fewer 

Blacks than Whites. Considering that the leadership experience 

may be viewed as either highly desirable or even unofficially 

required for promotion, the lower proportion of Blacks in team 

lead and manager roles and the emergent gap between Blacks 

and Whites at supervisor may culminate in Blacks being less 

competitive for promotion.

Percent in Each Group with Leadership 

Experience

Self-Nominated Selected

Band 3-4 8% 11%

Band 4-5 45% 60%

Band 5-Senior 92% 96%
UNCLASSIFIED

30 UNCLASSIFIED

State of Black Promotions at NGA

Office of Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity

Even when Blacks are supervisors and managers, seemingly 

leveling the playing field and helping to make both Blacks and 

Whites similarly competitive for promotion, a deeper analysis 

demonstrates that Blacks have, on average, fewer employees 

reporting to them than do Whites. In other words, Blacks’ span 

of control as supervisors and managers is smaller than Whites’, 

and this — when written up in an ITP — may make Blacks 

appear less qualified and competitive for promotion than their 

White counterparts. The difference in span of control was very 

minor at Band 4 but grew considerably at Band 5. And even 

though Seniors do not compete for promotions under RIP, they 

do compete for assignments, and the span of control difference 

between Black and White Seniors was particularly dramatic.34

With Black Band 5s and Seniors having smaller spans of control 

than their White counterparts, Black employees in lower bands 

may have difficulties seeing “like me” others in positions of 

greater responsibility and perceived authority, as reported by 

many focus group participants and measured by Blacks at Band 

5 and Senior having, on average, smaller spans of control than 

Whites at Band 5 and Senior.

Placement of Seniors into roles of varying spans of control are 

accomplished by both competition and directed assignments. 

In interviews, both Black and White Seniors expressed 

the importance of being willing to take on new leadership 

assignments when asked. In fact, a common thread across 

interviews was the importance of being “tapped on the 

shoulder” to take on an assignment. However, Black Seniors 

also expressed that it was very difficult, if not impossible, to 

be seen as desirable for stretch or high-profile/high-visibility 

positions. One Black Senior even remarked that “I’ve been 

pegged and pigeonholed. Now I’m stymied in my career. I have 

changed things, created programs, but across the agency it 

seems to not be respected. I’ve been labeled a one-trick pony. 

It’s frustrating; I have more to offer ... Non-minorities [Whites] 

get more assignments or get put in positions to be recognized 

more. I have seen this.” If even Senior Blacks — those who 

have purportedly “made it” to the highest levels of the agency 

— feel that they are passed over for the most meaningful, 

highly visible, critical positions, an even more daunting uphill 

battle can be imagined for Blacks at the lower levels.

As described throughout this report, it is the compounding 

effect of a series of decisions that subtly disadvantages Blacks 

over time that may eventually manifest as lower promotion 

rates for Blacks compared to Whites. Employees can only 

write in their ITP what they have done — if Black employees 

are not selected for the plum assignments, opportunities, or 

leadership roles, their ITPs may indeed be less competitive than 

Whites. Thus, less competitive ITPs may not reflect differences 

in potential; but may rather be a result of not being able to 

demonstrate potential in the ITP due to the lack of access 

to opportunities.

34 This was even true after removing the outliers with extremely large spans of control, such as the director of Analysis and the EXCOM leadership. Numbers in the table reflect average span 

of control with these outliers removed.

2017 Average Span of Control Overall 

Average Band 4 Band 5 Senior

Black 8 16 83 21

White 9 22 135 34
UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED 31

Office of Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity

Office of Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity

Performance (DCIPS) Appraisals

Performance appraisals, inclusive of both ratings and narratives, 

are part of employees’ ITPs. The ratings themselves are one of 

the few quantitative metrics that panelists have when reviewing 

promotion packages. Including ratings in the ITP reflects a shift 

from a recent (2013) NGA decision that actually removed ratings 

from personnel processes, including the corporate resume. In 

initial RIP cycles, three years of performance appraisals were 

part of the ITP package, and beginning in 2017, only two years 

of appraisals were included in packages. On average, Blacks 

have lower DCIPS ratings than Whites. Although small, these 

differences have been statistically significant every year since 

the implementation of DCIPS. If Blacks who are competing for 

promotion tend to have lower ratings relative to their White 

counterparts, this, along with other factors, may contribute 

to panelists’ possible perceptions that Blacks are less 

prepared to perform at the next level, affecting their chances 

of being promoted.

Among those who were promoted to Band 4 in RIP (2016–

2017), the average DCIPS rating for Blacks was lower than 

the average DCIPS ratings for Whites and in a magnitude that 

is similar both before and after the implementation of RIP.35

In other words, some Black Band 3s were effectively able to 

overcome their slightly lower DCIPS ratings to be promoted to 

Band 4, but Blacks in RIP, overall, were still promoted to Band 4 

at a lower rate than Whites.

When looking at Band 5 promotees, there is a smaller difference 

between the average Black and White DCIPS ratings for 

promotions made during RIP (2015–2017) than the difference 

between ratings prior to RIP. That is, in years prior to RIP, Blacks 

selected for promotion to Band 5 tended to have lower DCIPS 

ratings compared to selected Whites, indicating DCIPS ratings 

under the previous promotion system were not as important, since 

Blacks with lower DCIPS ratings were still promoted. However, 

since the implementation of RIP, Blacks and Whites that were 

selected for promotion had similar DCIPS ratings on average.

 Average DCIPS Ratings of NGA’s 

Black and White Employees

In RIP, DCIPS ratings appear to play more of an important 

role in promotion decisions to Band 5 but not necessarily for 

promotions to Band 4. This difference can be explained when 

considering the nature of duties at each of these bands. To 

advance from Band 3 to Band 4, technical accomplishments 

are likely more important, and Blacks may be able to overcome 

a less competitive DCIPS rating by effectively highlighting 

their technical experience in their ITP narrative. But at Band 

5, specific technical expertise becomes less critical, and a 

broader array of experience, to include leadership experience, 

becomes more important. Candidates for Band 5 promotions 

may therefore have a more difficult time overcoming lower 

DCIPS ratings and the accompanying narratives when the softer 

leadership and supervisory skills become potentially more 

important than technical expertise.

Average DCIPS Ratings of NGA’s 

Black and White Band 4 Promotees

Average DCIPS Rating of NGA’s 

Black and White Band 5 Promotees

Lower DCIPS ratings may be a manifestation of the barriers 

faced by Blacks that have already been discussed. For example, 

Blacks’ lack of selection for high-profile opportunities and 

assignments may contribute to lower DCIPS ratings. If Blacks 

are not selected for more complex opportunities, they are 

35 Graphs show the average DCIPS rating from the year prior to the promotion decision (e.g., Black promotees in 2017 had an average 2016 DCIPS rating of 4.06).
UNCLASSIFIED

32 UNCLASSIFIED

State of Black Promotions at NGA

Office of Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity

unable to be rated on performance that reflects taking on more 

challenging duties. Additionally, lower DCIPS ratings for Blacks 

may be perpetuated by a lack of informative feedback that could 

otherwise help them improve their performance.36

It should be emphasized that while DCIPS ratings are not the 

only indicator of quality used to make selection decisions, 

having a high DCIPS rating can certainly enhance employees’ 

competitiveness. If a Black employee lacks a high enough 

DCIPS rating, this means he or she will need to compensate for 

it in other ways.

36 Glover, Pallais, & Pariente (2017)
UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED 33

Office of Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity

Office of Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity

Promotion Readiness Rating

As discussed already, Black employees have faced potential 

barriers to promotion in both the new and old promotion 

system at NGA. The promotion readiness rating is a new 

component in promotion applications under RIP that was not in 

existence before. Now that it is an integral component of the 

promotion packet, it should be examined. Each self-nominated 

employee obtains a promotion readiness assessment from his 

or her second-line supervisor. When RIP was first instituted, 

the promotion readiness indicator was three levels (“Do Not 

Recommend,” “Recommend,” and “Highly Recommend”), 

and it was determined by the supervisor. In 2017, this was 

revised; ratings were made by the second-line supervisor 

and were reduced to two levels (“Do Not Recommend” and 

“Recommend”). Narratives accompany this readiness rating 

as part of the ITP. The promotion readiness rating is clearly a 

critical input into selection decisions; across all 2016 and 2017 

RIP cycles, only three employees with “Do Not Recommend” 

ratings were selected for promotion — representing less than 

one-half of one percent of those selected for promotion — 

and none of those three employees were Black. An analysis of 

the available readiness indicators (2016 and 2017) revealed 

that a higher proportion of Blacks than Whites are not 

recommended for promotion. Because being selected with 

a “Do Not Recommend” rating is so rare and Blacks receive 

proportionately more of these ratings than Whites, this may be 

a barrier to promotion for Blacks.

receiving a “Do Not Recommend,” one Black focus group 

participant said, “Hell yeah, I am upset! You [the supervisor] 

didn’t tell me all year long that I was lacking something.” 

Other focus group participants, particularly Black participants, 

reported being surprised by the “Do Not Recommend,” 

because they felt it was inconsistent with their DCIPS ratings. 

Black participants more than White participants also shared 

their perceptions that decisions about who would receive the 

“Highly Recommend” and “Recommend” versus “Do Not 

Recommend” ratings were decided by office- or directoratelevel leadership, and Black participants reported being less 

likely to have connections with that level of leadership, which 

put them at a disadvantage. Even when Blacks did receive 

the “Recommend” or “Highly Recommend” ratings, they 

reported that their accompanying narrative was sub-par. Both 

Black and White focus group participants commented that 

discrepancies between the rating and the narrative reduce the 

likelihood of being selected for promotion. In other words, some 

Black employees felt that their supervisors were “gaming the 

system”— avoiding difficult conversations that would ultimately 

benefit the employee while simultaneously writing a less-thanglowing report so that the Black employee would not stand out 

among the applicants for promotion.

Similar to the performance appraisals, decisions made earlier 

in the year — or during employees’ careers — about what 

opportunities they receive, what training they get, and so 

forth, all culminate with this readiness recommendation that 

can stagnate an otherwise-capable employee in his or her 

career. Considering that promotion recommendations are the 

confluence of all of these experiences, many of which may be 

influenced by unconscious biases, the greater rate of Blacks 

that receive a “Do Not Recommend” highlights the many 

interconnected challenges faced by Blacks at NGA as they 

seek promotions.

Each of these individual barriers on their own may be but a 

small bump in the road — a molehill, if you will. However, when 

taken together, they combine into mountains that only a very 

select few manage to climb. The next section details how the 

identified barriers can be addressed holistically via very specific 

recommendations for interventions.

Not only do proportionately more Blacks receive “Do Not 

Recommend” ratings than Whites, but in focus groups, 

more Blacks than Whites reported being surprised by their 

recommendation. This seems partly due to the general lack 

of honest feedback Blacks reported receiving from their 

supervisors, along with challenges expressed in knowing 

their second-line supervisor. For example, when asked about 

Rates of “Do Not Recommend”

2016 2017

Black White Black White

Band 3-4 25.9% 18.7% 33.3% 17.5%

Band 4-5 20.8% 17.1% 22.1% 17.1%

Band 5-Senior 24.0% 22.5% 22.2% 16.3%
UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED 35

Office of Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity

Office of Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity

What Can We Do About These Differences?

The 10 recommendations presented in this section offer ways 

to address differences and barriers to promotion that may 

disproportionately affect Black employees at NGA. When 

implemented, these recommendations will help NGA realize 

long-lasting and meaningful change, working to advance 

the agency towards a more equitable and fully inclusive 

organization for all employees.

This set of recommendations is the culmination of a 

comprehensive data collection effort (quantitative and 

qualitative data), thorough and rigorous data analyses, 

and an extensive academic literature review and 

environmental scan of other government agencies, private 

industry, and popular press. Collectively, these research 

streams enable a better understanding of the complexities 

behind the promotion rate differentials the study found 

between Blacks and Whites.

Once the quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed, the 

results were distilled and synthesized to identify themes and 

trends, and the team established key recommendations, which 

aligned to four theme areas: 1) Focus on Micro-Decisions, 

2) Encourage Better Feedback, 3) Enhance Networks and 

Mentors, and 4) Evaluate the Promotion Process. These four 

theme areas encompass many of the activities and associated 

barriers that may arise long before an employee applies for 

promotion, as well as barriers that might occur during the 

promotion process itself. Each of these areas presents an 

opportunity for a stumbling block, and while these obstacles may 

not entirely prevent Black employees from obtaining promotions, 

they may pose significant obstacles to Black employees, as a 

group, at NGA.

Many of the challenge areas identified by the study are not 

necessarily new; however, they may not have posed as much 

of a barrier to promotions for Blacks in the old system as they 

do now. Therefore, the recommendations are designed to 

address the possible root causes for each of these challenge 

areas, consistent with the new promotion system and within 

the context of the organization’s current programs and 

processes (CSs, Mission-Talent Alignment, etc.).

While meaningful and enduring change does not occur instantly, 

the 10 recommendations detailed in this report increase the 

likelihood of producing lasting change, thereby ensuring the 

highest possible return on investment.
UNCLASSIFIED

36 UNCLASSIFIED

State of Black Promotions at NGA

Office of Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity

Recommendation Theme Area #1: Focus on Micro-Decisions

As discussed earlier in the report, supervisors play a critical role 

in employees’ careers — whether through informal mentoring, 

selections for professional development opportunities, or 

exposure to leadership and other high-visibility projects or 

roles. Inherent in most of these opportunities and situations 

are decisions made by supervisors. Supervisors’ decisions 

can sometimes be made with a lot of thoughtful consideration 

and objective reflection as to why the decision was made and 

who was selected, but other times, these decisions, especially 

minor and seemingly unimportant ones, can be made somewhat 

subjectively with little awareness or contemplation by the 

decision-maker.

At first glance, these small and seemingly inconsequential 

decisions that are made on a daily basis — otherwise known 

as micro-decisions — may not look like major obstacles 

to promotion. However, when grouped together and taken 

collectively over time, the effects of these small decisions can 

compound and have positive or negative impacts on employees’ 

careers. These decisions and their associated experiences may 

seem minor, but collectively across employees’ careers, they 

signify important chances for development, exposure, learning, 

networking, visibility, and growth.

Some examples of these types of decisions include selecting 

an “acting” supervisor while out of the office, choosing an 

employee to attend a meeting on a leader’s behalf, encouraging 

(or discouraging) an employee to take a stretch assignment, 

nominating an employee for a training or leadership development 

class, or picking an employee to brief at a meeting or event.

Academic, peer-reviewed D&I research shows that when 

micro-decisions consistently favor certain groups, often via 

unconscious bias, subtle discrimination can manifest in the 

workplace, often disadvantaging minorities.37 When these daily 

decisions afford fewer opportunities for a particular group of 

people, it can be career-limiting and result in lower promotion 

rates, among other outcomes.

These findings, coupled with the conclusion that microdecisions may play a greater role in the new promotion system 

than the old, elevates the importance of these experiences and 

leads to two recommendations pertaining to micro-decisions.

The study recommends: first, ensuring NGA supervisors and 

managers understand the cumulative effects of their small, 

everyday decisions on employees’ careers; and second, 

making Unconscious Bias Awareness training mandatory for 

all supervisors and CS board and panel members in addition 

to Seniors, for whom it is already mandatory. These two 

recommendations underscore the importance of teaching 

supervisors and managers to recognize the small, seemingly 

inconsequential decisions made on a daily basis and understand 

the possible downstream effects these decisions have on 

employees’ careers. Supervisors and managers should be held 

accountable for the equitable distribution of opportunities in 

their work group to avoid inadvertently favoring one group over 

another, while also ensuring that the mission demands are met. 

Given that many of these daily, small decisions are influenced 

by biases, often unconscious in nature, it is critical for 

employees — especially supervisors and those serving on CS 

boards and promotion panels — to learn about these biases via 

the Unconscious Bias Awareness training held at NGA. Together, 

these two recommendations will help foster awareness and 

promote equal access to opportunity through unbiased and 

impartial decision-making.

37 McCormick (2016); Deitch et al. (2003)

Theme Area Recommendation

Focus on 

Micro-Decisions

1. Ensure NGA supervisors and managers understand the cumulative effects of their small, everyday 

decisions on employees’ careers.

a. Teach supervisors and managers the types of decisions that they need to pay attention to 

when distributing work and opportunities.

b. Hold supervisors and managers accountable for the mission-appropriate and equitable 

distribution of opportunities in their work group.

2. Make Unconscious Bias Awareness Training mandatory for all supervisors and Career Service 

board and panel members.
UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED 37

Office of Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity

Office of Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity

Recommendation Theme Area #2: Encourage Better Feedback

As stated earlier in the report, race may play a role in the nature 

of relationships between supervisors and employees via the 

“like me” bias. As expressed in focus groups, some Blacks at 

NGA perceive that the lack of robust supervisory relationships 

manifests in the form of less honest and constructive feedback 

from supervisors.

Actionable feedback is a critical component to the unbiased 

implementation of performance management and promotion 

systems.38 Constructive feedback is an important component 

for professional growth and development, career progression 

and advancement, and self-awareness and self-improvement; 

it is critical that employees understand their gaps and 

professional development needs throughout their career 

before the promotion cycle.39 In the absence of a clear 

attribution for decisions such as promotions, people often try 

to determine the motive for those decisions, assuming it may 

be linked to a salient physical characteristic (e.g., race) rather 

than performance.40 Literature suggests that Blacks can be 

disadvantaged by managers who are afraid of providing critical 

feedback due to concerns with appearing or being accused of 

being prejudiced/racist.41 However, the onus is not solely on 

supervisors and managers. In instances where an employee 

receives actionable and constructive feedback, the employee 

must know how to process and apply the feedback.

The study recommends educating supervisors, managers, and 

promotion panel members on providing quality, timely, and more 

actionable, useful, and constructive feedback to employees and 

holding supervisors accountable for delivering such feedback. 

Supervisors should provide employees with recommendations 

on steps employees can take to strengthen their overall 

performance and promotion potential. This will both provide 

useful feedback to employees and reinforce to supervisors 

the impact of their micro-decisions in a timelier fashion, since 

feedback would be more regular and robust.

The focal point of the supervisory education should be to aid 

supervisors in overcoming hesitation in giving feedback to 

dissimilar employees. That said, providing honest feedback 

is only half of the solution. Feedback is most beneficial to 

employees if they understand how to utilize it. Thus, an equally 

critical recommendation is to educate employees on how to 

receive, accept, and apply constructive feedback.

The intended goal of this recommendation theme area is to 

create a culture that emphasizes honest, quality, and actionable 

feedback that will provide employees with useful information 

with which they can make informed career development 

decisions. Furthermore, quality feedback will mitigate 

perceptions of bias in selection decisions, thereby reducing 

the possibility for recipients to question whether an action or 

decision was based on a personal attribute.

38 Gelfand et al. (2005) 39 Heilman & Haynes (2005) 40 Deitch et al. (2003) 41 Gelfand et al. (2005)

Theme Area Recommendation

Encourage Better 

Feedback

3. Educate supervisors, managers, and promotion panel members on providing quality, timely, and 

more actionable, useful, and constructive feedback to all employees, and hold them accountable 

for delivering said feedback.

a. Ensure this supervisory education includes components highlighting challenges and strategies 

related to providing quality, actionable, and more constructive feedback to all employees (see 

DIV2181 “Building meaningful business relationships across difference” in the NGA College 

(NGC) course catalog for ideas).

4. Educate all employees on how to receive, accept, and apply constructive feedback.
UNCLASSIFIED

38 UNCLASSIFIED

State of Black Promotions at NGA

Office of Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity

Recommendation Theme Area #3: Enhance Networks and Mentors

Blacks’ access to influential networks and mentors is limited if 

the main, and often-unspoken, criteria for group participation 

are demographic and cultural similarities. Racial minorities 

often lack access to these social networks due to these criteria, 

which influence both the majority and minority’s willingness 

to participate in such networks.42 These challenges have been 

similarly highlighted by CIA and ODNI.43

Investing in professional networks is an important part of 

professional development and advancement. Professional 

networks provide many added benefits to group members, 

such as insights into unwritten requirements, new and emerging 

processes, experience/exposure opportunities that make 

candidates more competitive for promotion, and resources for 

editing and reviewing ITPs. Literature supports focus group 

findings that Blacks may lag behind their White peers in the 

variety, size, and type of professional networks to which they 

have access.44 In focus groups, Blacks reported perceiving that 

they have fewer mentorship opportunities, because there are not 

many people “like me” in leadership and Blacks in leadership 

do not reach back to help other Blacks. Lastly, Blacks reported 

feeling “left out” of important conversations regarding RIP 

requirements and preparation. Without diverse networks and 

mentoring relationships, Blacks may receive fewer opportunities 

and less informal and formal institutional information, essentially 

disadvantaging them on their path to promotion.

The study recommends educating the workforce, both 

supervisors and employees, on the value and importance of 

building and maintaining networks, including the benefits 

of having a diversified and inclusive network. Supervisors 

and managers should equally share knowledge with and 

offer help to all employees; however, employees need to 

understand the value of seeking out dissimilar mentors. Given 

that networking is vital to expanding employees’ institutional 

knowledge, the study also recommends that all employees 

recognize that professional networking is a legitimate work 

activity (e.g., consider building professional networking into 

DCIPS objectives). To mitigate isolation and disproportionate 

opportunity-sharing caused by the “like me” bias, the study 

encourages all employees to build and maintain diverse and 

inclusive networks and mentoring partnerships. Supporting, 

encouraging, and mainstreaming diversity in networks and 

mentoring relationships should help mitigate the disadvantages 

faced by minority group members who tend to receive less 

support from the majority group within organizations.

The intended goal of this recommendation theme area is 

to educate and emphasize the legitimacy of building and 

maintaining diverse networks comprised of knowledgeable 

and influential people and to inspire the workforce to build 

inclusive networks. Encouraging employees to look beyond 

establishing professional relationships with only similar 

employees will help to reduce the chances of any one group 

from being excluded from information or career development 

opportunities. This recommendation theme area will aid and 

encourage Blacks to gain the same robust, strategic, and 

influential professional networks to which the majority group 

has historically been accustomed.

42 Gelfand et al. (2005) 43 CIA (2015); ODNI IC EEOD (2017) 44 Giscombe & Mattis (2002)

Theme Area Recommendation

Enhance Networks 

and Mentors

5. Educate all employees in the value and importance of diverse and inclusive networks. 

6. Ensure all employees recognize that professional networking is a legitimate work activity 

(e.g., consider building professional networking into performance objectives).

7. Encourage all employees to build and maintain diversified and inclusive networks and 

mentoring partnerships.
UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED 39

Office of Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity

Office of Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity

Recommendation Theme Area #4: Evaluate the Promotion Process

NGA implemented the new RIP promotion process in 2014 

starting with Senior Executive promotions and then began 

a cascading rollout to include additional banded promotions 

each year, to Band 5 in 2015 and to Band 4 in 2016. In the 

first round of RIP (2014), no Black Band 5s were promoted to 

Senior Executive. Since then, there have been no consistent 

patterns between Black and White promotion rates to Senior. 

However, this study did find that under the new promotion 

process, Black promotion rates to both Band 4 and Band 5 have 

been numerically lower than Whites’, and these differences are 

statistically significant in all but one of the cycles of RIP (Band 

4-to-5 in 2016).

For a promotion process to be successful and fair, it should be 

assessed via routine program evaluations and be consistently 

implemented throughout the organization. At NGA, the promotion 

process has been evolving each year, with adjustments made 

annually based on after action reviews and process evaluations.

In 2017, NGA’s Human Development directorate (HD) conducted 

a program evaluation of the RIP process and made a set of 

recommendations to CS heads.45 This HD program evaluation 

included goals to “strengthen consistency across the promotion 

program” and to “increase consistency of measurement when 

procedures are repeated.” This study supports the importance 

of consistency in executing the promotion process. As noted 

earlier, many focus group participants highlighted challenges 

associated with the adjustments made year to year and 

identified perceived inconsistencies in how the promotion 

process was executed across the CSs (e.g., differences in 

feedback or differences in how panels interpret promotion 

criteria). Additionally, focus group participants stated that 

annual changes in the promotion process and perceptions of 

poor communication of those changes made it difficult for them 

to prepare for and understand what would be reviewed from 

cycle to cycle (e.g., supervisor recommendation to manager 

recommendation, three years of DCIPS to two years of DCIPS 

back to three years of DCIPS). In line with the HD program 

evaluation goals related to consistency, the study recommends 

that the promotion process and evaluation criteria are 

implemented consistently across all the CSs.

According to the “Principles for the Validation and Use of 

Personnel Selection Procedures” as set forth by the Society for 

Industrial and Organizational Psychology46 — the professional 

association for industrial and organizational psychology 

academics, researchers, and practitioners — validation of 

selection procedures and associated criteria (e.g., for hiring 

and promotion) is an industry best practice and one the study 

recommends NGA adopt. In accordance with these principles, 

HD’s program evaluation recommended a validation study of 

the job-relatedness of updated promotion profile factors, and 

this study supports that recommendation and reiterates it here. 

Such validation will ensure the selection criteria that are being 

utilized to measure employees’ readiness for promotion are 

predictive of performance at the next level and that the process 

for evaluating the criteria are accurately and consistently 

identifying the most qualified candidates for promotion.

Only fully implemented for two years, RIP will continue to 

be refined as the process matures. This study recommends 

continuing to conduct program evaluations, particularly when 

there are changes to the process. Regular program evaluations 

will assist leadership with staying ahead of any unintended 

consequences that could have a negative impact on a particular 

demographic group before a long-term systemic issue develops.

45 NGA HD (2017) 46 SIOP (2003)

Theme Area Recommendation

Evaluate 

Promotion 

Process

8. Ensure the promotion process is implemented consistently across Career Services.

9. Validate the job-relatedness of current promotion profile factors and related selection criteria.

10. Conduct regular program evaluations, particularly when there are changes to the process, to 

ensure that changes do not have unintended consequences for particular demographic groups.
UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED 41

Office of Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity

Office of Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity

Summary and Conclusion

Since 2014, the promotion rates for Blacks and Whites at NGA 

has been consistently different, and the difference has been 

growing. This study described a number of potential barriers 

related to promotions at NGA, some of which were in existence 

before RIP (e.g., unconscious bias) and some of which are new in 

the RIP process (e.g., promotion readiness ratings).

That said, with education of and active involvement from 

leadership and the workforce and by addressing these trends and 

implementing the 10 recommendations from the study, NGA will 

continue to work towards creating a more equitable and inclusive 

environment for all employees.

Theme Area Recommendation

Focus on 

Micro-Decisions

1. Ensure NGA supervisors and managers understand the cumulative effects of their small, 

everyday decisions on employees’ careers.

a. Teach supervisors and managers the types of decisions that they need to pay attention to 

when distributing work and opportunities.

b. Hold supervisors and managers accountable for the mission-appropriate and equitable 

distribution of opportunities in their work group.

2. Make Unconscious Bias Awareness Training mandatory for all supervisors and Career Service 

board and panel members.

Encourage Better 

Feedback

3. Educate supervisors, managers, and promotion panel members on providing quality, timely, and 

more actionable, useful, and constructive feedback to all employees, and hold them accountable 

for delivering said feedback.

a. Ensure this supervisory education includes components highlighting challenges and strategies 

related to providing quality, actionable, and more constructive feedback to all employees (see 

DIV2181 “Building meaningful business relationships across difference” in the NGA College 

(NGC) course catalog for ideas).

4. Educate all employees on how to receive, accept, and apply constructive feedback.

Enhance Networks 

and Mentors

5. Educate all employees in the value and importance of diverse and inclusive networks. 

6. Ensure all employees recognize that professional networking is a legitimate work activity 

(e.g., consider building professional networking into performance objectives).

7. Encourage all employees to build and maintain diversified and inclusive networks and mentoring 

partnerships.

Evaluate 

Promotion 

Process

8. Ensure the promotion process is implemented consistently across Career Services.

9. Validate the job-relatedness of current promotion profile factors and related selection criteria.

10. Conduct regular program evaluations, particularly when there are changes to the process, to 

ensure that changes do not have unintended consequences for particular demographic groups.
UNCLASSIFIED

42 UNCLASSIFIED

State of Black Promotions at NGA

Office of Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity

Substantial change, especially organizational and cultural 

change, does not occur overnight, and the recommendations 

proposed in this study will take time to fully impact the 

workforce. This requires both persistence and patience, 

allowing time for the recommendations to take effect and 

for behaviors, attitudes, and culture to shift. This also 

requires leadership commitment and accountability to ensure 

implementation efforts are comprehensive in nature and 

widespread across the agency. To successfully implement the 

10 recommendations in the spirit in which they were originally 

created, the study suggests standing up a Senior-led team that 

will: oversee implementation activities, communicate progress 

and keep the workforce informed, assess implementation 

efforts to ensure results and return on investment, and hold 

leadership and the workforce accountable for implementation.

NGA is faced with complex, global, and evolving threats 

in an ever-changing environment, and in order to confront 

these multi-faceted threats and achieve its mission, NGA 

must tap into the full extent of its workforce and capabilities. 

NGA’s mission set is diverse in nature and so too must be 

the workforce. Furthermore, the organization must provide 

an environment that is inclusive, promoting a culture that is 

respectful, and fostering a climate that is supportive, allowing 

all of its employees to thrive.

Change is never easy, but it is necessary to address the areas 

identified in this report, enabling NGA to fully face the threats 

of tomorrow and accomplish NGA’s dynamic mission.
UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED

44 UNCLASSIFIED

State of Black Promotions at NGA

Office of Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity

References and Additional Reading

Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2013). Blindspot: Hidden biases of good people. New York: Bantam Books.

Central Intelligence Agency (2105). Director’s Diversity in Leadership Study: Overcoming Barriers to Advancement.

Brief, A. P., Butz, R. M., & Deitch, E. A. (2005). Organizations as reflections of their environments: The case of race composition. 

In R. L. Dipboye & A. Colella (Eds.), Discrimination at work: The psychological and organizational bases (pp. 119–148). Mahwah, 

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Deitch, E. A., Barsky, A., Butz, R. M., Chan, S., Brief, A. P., & Bradley, J. C. (2003). Subtle yet significant: The existence and impact of 

everyday racial discrimination in the workplace. Human Relations, 56, 1299–1324.

Diversity Best Practices (2008). Proven strategies for addressing unconscious bias in the workplace. Last retrieved on January 5, 2018, 

from http://www.cookross.com/docs/unconciousBias.pdf.

Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2000). Aversive racism and selection decisions: 1989 and 1999. Psychological Science, 11, 315–319.

Dovidio, J. R., Kawakami, K., & Gaertner, S. L. (2000). Reducing contemporary prejudice: Combating explicit and implicit bias at the 

individual and intergroup level. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 37–163). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence 

Erlbaum Associates.

Dovidio, J. F., & Hebl, M. R. (2005). Discrimination at the level of the individual: Cognitive and affective factors. In R. L. Dipboye 

& A. Colella (Eds.), Discrimination at work: The psychological and organizational bases (pp. 11–35). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence 

Erlbaum Associates.

Fleras, A. (2016). Theorizing micro-aggressions as racism 3.0: Shifting the discource. Canadian Ethnic Studies, 48, 1–19.

Gelfand, M. J., Nishii, L. H., Raver, J. L., & Schneider, B. (2005). Discrimination in organizations: An organizational-level systems 

perspective. In R. L. Dipboye & A. Colella (Eds.), Discrimination at work: The psychological and organizational bases (pp. 89–114). 

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Giscombe, K., & Mattis, M. C. (2002). Leveling the playing field for women of color in corporate management: Is the business case 

enough? Journal of Business Ethics, 37, 103–119.

Glover, D., Pallais, A., & Pariente, W. (2017). Discrimination as a self-fulfilling prophecy evidence from French grocery stores. 

Quarterly Journal of Economics, 132, 1219–1260.

Griffin, R. W., Phillips, J. M., & Gully, S. M. (2017). Organizational behavior: Managing people and organizations. Boston: 

Cenage Learning.

Harris, C., & Valentine, G. (2016). Encountering difference in the workplace: Superficial contact, underlying tensions, and group rights. 

Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie (Journal of Economic and Social Geography), 107, 582–595.

Hebl, M., Ruggs, E., Martinez, L. Trump-Steele, R., & Nittrouer, C. (2016). Understanding and reducing interpersonal discrimination 

in the workplace. In T. D. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 387–407). New York: 

Psychology Press.

Heilman, M. E., & Haynes, M. C. (2005). No credit where credit is due: Attributional rationalization of women’s success in male-female 

teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 905–916.

James, E. H. (2000). Race-related differences in promotions and support: Underlying effects of human and social capital. 

Organization Science, 11, 493–508.

Jones, K. P., Arena, F. D., Nittrouer, N. M., & Lindsey, P. A. (2017). Subtle discrimination in the workplace: A vicious cycle. 

Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 10, 51–76.
UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED 45

Office of Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity

Office of Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity

Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. (2006). Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy of corporate affirmative action 

and diversity policies. American Sociological Review, 71, 589–617.

Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (1990). Progress in small group research. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 585–634.

Lowe, F. (2013). Keeping leadership white: Invisible blocks to black leadership and its denial in white organizations. 

Journal of Social Work Practice, 27, 149–162.

Martell, R. F., Lane, D. M., & Emrich, C. (1996). Male-female differences: A computer simulation. American Psychologist, 51, 157–158.

McCormick, H. (2016). The real effects of unconscious bias in the workplace. Executive Development, 2-10. Last retrieved on January 

5, 2018, from https://ww.kenan-flagler.unc.edu/~/media/Files/documents/executive-development/unc-white-paper-the-realeffects-of-unconscious-bias-in-the-workplace-Final.

Military Leadership Diversity Commission (2011). From representation to inclusion: Diversity leadership for the 21st-century military. 

Arlington, VA: Author.

Morris, S. B. & Dunleavy, E. M. (Eds). (2017). Adverse impact analysis. New York, NY: Routledge.

National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (2014). Policy U-2014-2634, Policy Statement on Diversity, October 21, 2014. 

National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (2016). Women’s Representation Within and Across the 

National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency.

National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (2017). Employee eNGAgement dashboard.

National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, Human Development Directorate (2017). NGA Promotions: FY17 Program 

Evaluation Recommendations.

Office of the Director of National Intelligence (2014). ODNI’s IC Principles of Professional Ethics. Last retrieved January 5, 2018, 

from https://www.dni.gov/files/documents.CLPO/Principles of Professional Ethics for the IC.pdf.

Office of the Director of National Intelligence (2017). DNI letter to IC leadership on promoting diversity and inclusion within the U.S. 

Intelligence Community. Last retrieved on January 5, 2018, from https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/reports-publications/

item/1740-dni-letter-to-ic-leadership-on-promoting-diversity-and-inclusion-within-the-u-s-intelligence-community.

Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Office of Intelligence Community Equal Employment Opportunity and Diversity (2017). 

Diversity and inclusion: Examining workforce concerns within the United States Intelligence Community.

Pallais, A. (2017). Evidence that minorities perform worse under biased managers. Harvard Business Review, January, 1–5.

Pettigrew, T. F. & Tropp, L. R. (2000). Does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Recent meta-analytic findings. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), 

Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 93–114). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ramasubramanian, S. (2015). Using celebrity news stories to effectively reduce racial/ethnic prejudice. 

Journal of Social Issues, 71, 123–138.

Rand Corporation (2014). Improving demographic diversity in the U.S. Air Force officer corps. Santa Monica, CA: Author.

Society for Human Resource Management (2008). SHRM’s Diversity and Inclusion Initiative. Last retrieved on January 5, 2018, 

from https://community.shrm.org/HigherLogic/System/DownloadDocumentFile.ashx.

Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Inc. (2003). Principles for the Validation and Use of Personnel Selection 

Procedures. Bowling Green, Ohio: Author.

Sosik, J. J. & Godshalk, V. M. (2000). The role of gender in mentoring: Implications of diversified and homogeneous mentoring 

relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57, 102–122.
UNCLASSIFIED

46 UNCLASSIFIED

State of Black Promotions at NGA

Office of Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity

Thackwell, N., Swartz, L., Dlamini, S., Phahladira, L., Muloiwa, R., & Chiliza, B. (2016). Race trouble: Experiences of Black medical 

specialist trainees in South Africa. BMC International Health and Human Rights, 16, 31.

Thomas, D. A. (1993). Racial dynamics in cross-race developmental relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 169–194.

Thomas, D. A. (2001). The truth about mentoring minorities: Race matters. Harvard Business Review, April, 98–107.

Tsui, A. S., O’Reilly III, C. A. (1989). Beyond simple demographic effects: The importance of relational demography in 

superior-subordinate dyads. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 402–423.

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (1978). Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures. 

Federal Register, 44, 38290–38315.

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2013). EEOC African American Workgroup Report. Last retrieved on January 5, 2018, 

from http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/reports/aawg.cfm.

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2015). Basic Management Directive 715 Training Manual. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (2009). Fair and equitable treatment: Progress made and challenges remaining. 

Washington, DC: Author.

Wanguri, D. M. (1996). Diversity, perceptions of equity, and communicative openness in the workplace. 

The Journal of Business Communication, 33, 443–457.
UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED