Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study examines how federal workplace programs meet employee satisfaction needs, especially for historically marginalized groups, including Black people, female employees, and people with disabilities. It uses the 2022 U.S. federal employee viewpoint survey data and multivariate OLS regressions. Findings indicate that although diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) programs positively affect employee satisfaction, the effects of DEIA programs on employee satisfaction are moderated by the historically marginalized groups examined. The study highlights the importance of policies that safeguard various employee groups against discrimination, biases, and workplace exclusion, thereby fostering desirable outcomes for all. It attests to the need for workplace policies to be fully aligned with the expectations of the various groups, rather than a one-size-fits-all.

Keywords

diversity equity inclusion accessibility employee satisfaction intersectionality federal employees organizational performance

Introduction

Existing research suggests that employee satisfaction is a function of their existence, relatedness, and growth needs (Osemeke & Adegboyega, 2017). The existing scholarship further suggests that satisfaction is informed by employees’ psychological self and work experiences (Aziri, 2011; Jalagat, 2016; Park, 2020). Moreover, employee satisfaction is also linked to an employee’s ability to achieve work goals and be successful in their careers (Jalagat, 2016). Recognizing the link between employee satisfaction and organizational outcomes, employers endeavor to provide a living wage, a favorable work environment, social network opportunities, and competitive benefits, among other factors, to enhance employee satisfaction (Gregory, 2011; Kollmann et al., 2020; Osemeke & Adegboyega, 2017).

While the above needs continue to be relevant, the increasing participation of historically marginalized groups, including Black people, female employees, and people with disability, calls attention to the need for more inclusive and equitable approaches to employee satisfaction. This shift presents new opportunities and challenges related to organizational responsiveness in addressing structural barriers, equitable access to career advancement, and implicit biases (Pandey et al., 2022, 2023; Scognamiglio et al., 2022). For example, Civil Rights protections have contributed to the increased presence of African Americans, Hispanics, and Asians in public service in the U.S.; women are now seeking employment opportunities at a higher rate, rather than staying at home to raise a family (Shen et al., 2022). The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 has empowered people with disabilities in the workforce and given them a voice (U.S. Department of Justice & Civil Rights Division, 2024). Therefore, organizations face a greater demand to provide policies that generate the greatest employee satisfaction to enhance organizational outcomes (Bataineh, 2019).

Workplace policies, such as Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) policies—policies that cover a broad range of communities and identities, including historically marginalized groups, in their fair and just treatment, designs and development of facilities that are inclusive, and enhances integration for all—contribute to a diverse workforce that addresses social justice concerns (Emidy et al., 2024; Kiradoo, 2022; McCandless & Guy, 2024), recognizes different perspectives, and promotes high productivity (von Schrader et al., 2024). Recognizing the demands on public employers, President Biden signed the Executive Order on Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) in the Federal Workforce (Executive Order 14035) in June 2021, believing that DEIA policies strengthen the federal workforce by making it representative of American society (The White House, 2021b).

However, concerns have been raised about DEIA programs, prompting President Trump to sign an executive order rescinding federal DEIA policies (PBS News, 2025; The White House, 2025). Opponents of DEIA policies argue that they are a façade, lead to reverse discrimination, and increase representation but lack accountability (Portocarrero & Carter, 2022). Furthermore, concerns persist about public administrators who fail to remain neutral during administration changes and discriminate against male employees in favor of their female counterparts (Hankinson, 2024). The concerns of possible reverse discrimination, personalization, and politicization of the bureaucracy in the name of representation likely affect the tenets of ideal bureaucracy. Examining the association between DEIA and desirable organizational outcomes, such as employee satisfaction, could illuminate the debates about their benefits.

The present research draws from the literature on DEIA and the intersectionality scholarship (Primecz & Mahadevan, 2025) to assert that although DEIA policies benefit all employees, racial, gender, and disability status differences exist, making these variables moderate the effect of DEIA on employee satisfaction. This study addresses the following research questions:

1. What are the effects of DEIA policies on employee satisfaction?

2. What are the moderating roles of race, gender, and disability on DEIA’s effect on employee satisfaction?

The study uses data from the 2022 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) to investigate these questions. This follows the implementation of Executive Order 14035 by the Biden Administration, calling for a fair, inclusive, and accessible federal government for previously underrepresented groups (The White House, 2021b). The findings suggest that employees perceive diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility policies as increasing employee satisfaction. However, it shows that race, gender, and disability moderate the effects of employee scores of DEIA programs on employee satisfaction. For example, Black employees perceive DEIA policies more favorably in terms of their satisfaction than their White colleagues, which validates the protections accorded to historically marginalized groups. Moreover, female employees and people with disabilities report lower scores of DEIA programs in federal workplaces and, hence, lower employee satisfaction than their male and non-disabled colleagues, raising questions about whether these policies are meeting their desired goals and the expectations of these groups.

This study is scholarly and professionally relevant as it investigates ways to enhance employee satisfaction, with implications for employee performance. It recommends that the perceptions of various demographics regarding existing policies be considered in ensuring that all employee needs are met. Lastly, it calls for continuous education through the professional development of various groups to enhance their sense of inclusion and belonging.

Employee Satisfaction

Employee satisfaction, as a function of fulfilled needs, influences morale, productivity, absenteeism, and commitment (Gao, 2020; Gregory, 2011; Park, 2020). Existing scholarship has shown that intrinsic and extrinsic needs are essential for existence, relatedness, and growth (Rani & Singh, 2017). Morris et al. (2022) asserted that needs depend on an individual’s life experiences and that achievements, power, and autonomy increase self-esteem by allowing individuals to develop and master skills necessary for self-actualization.

Recognizing the motivational basis of employee satisfaction, employers provide value-added benefits, expecting to increase employee commitment, and organizational performance. Increased pay, breaks, meals, reduced work hours, and improved work environment motivate employees (Morris et al., 2022). Likewise, fulfilling the most basic needs, including shelter, health insurance, and retirement, ensuring occupational safety, gathering for happy hour, building self-confidence, and realizing one’s potential fulfill needs traditionally desired by individuals (Rani & Singh, 2017). However, as society changes and embodies various values, so must the needs of the workplace. Employee perceptions of the organization, leadership, supervision, and work unit could be proxies for the extent to which employees’ needs are met. Effective human resource management contributes to organizational success (Paais & Pattiruhu, 2020).

DEIA Policies in the U.S

Historical Perspective of DEIA Policies

In 19th-century America, men were the primary earners while women were homemakers (Cheng & Macapagal, 2016; Le et al., 2020; Pandey et al., 2023). Men engaged in politics while women handled the administrative aspects of work (Cheng & Macapagal, 2016, p. 19). Over the past several decades several legislations and key DEIA policies, including Executive Order 10925 of 1961, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Civil Rights Act of 1968, have been enacted, granting historically marginalized groups access to public service employment. These policies contributed to a more diverse public sector with equal treatment that allows historically marginalized racial groups and women greater access to federal bureaucracies.

Over the years, legislation has expanded protections to other historically marginalized groups, including people with disabilities and people with different sexual orientations (U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, 2023; Rep. Cicilline, 2019). Employers were required to provide equal opportunities for recruitment, promotions, social interactions, hiring, and employment-related opportunities, and promote a positive culture for all employees, thereby benefiting the organization and enhancing performance (Rep. Cicilline, 2019). Appendix 1 shows selected legislation of interest to historically marginalized groups in the U.S., offering a historical context to the study.

DEIA Policies in the U.S. Federal Bureaucracy

DEIA is not implicit in any one policy or definition. In this study, the term refers to a set of policies that emphasize public administration principles for a broad range of communities and identities, promoting their fair and just treatment, inclusiveness, and integration in the workplace (Guy & McCandless, 2020; McCandless & Guy, 2024). DEIA policies are often implemented through strategic plans, training programs, and initiatives to foster a culture of inclusivity and respect (Guy & McCandless, 2020). DEIA policies ensure that federal employees serve as representatives of the people and articulate the legitimacy and authority of the federal government (Jakobsen et al., 2023). The existing literature shows that prioritizing DEIA policies contributes to promoting, enhancing, improving, and increasing service delivery, responsiveness, and policy effectiveness in the public sector workplace (Borry et al., 2021; Byrd & Scott, 2024; Cepiku & Mastrodascio, 2021; Chordiya, 2022; von Schrader et al., 2024).

DEIA policies call on public organizations to “prioritize hiring of underrepresented groups of the society” (Jakobsen et al., 2023, p. 1636) as a strategy to promote broader policy initiatives. While some argue that policy initiatives favor certain groups over others, others contend that DEIA policies are intended to ensure that the federal government prioritizes the needs of all people, rather than merely addressing exclusion (Hamidullah et al., 2024; Sweeting, 2023). DEIA policies ensure that employees of the same qualifications are included in the policy process and that the political process is not permanently stacked against any one person or group, because “government has a responsibility to lead the way in addressing. . .inequalities. . .and diversifying the government workforce” (Hamidullah et al., 2024, p. 129).

The employment of historically marginalized racial groups, including Black, Hispanic, and other racial groups, in U.S. federal departments has undergone significant changes since 1960 (Oxford Bibliographies, 2025). With Affirmative Action policies, the representation of historically marginalized racial groups in federal departments has grown from 9.4% in 1976 to 18.2% for Black employees in 2024 and from 4.2% to 9.5% for Hispanic employees over the same period (USAFacts, 2024). However, these groups are still underrepresented in higher-level positions and overrepresented in lower-paying roles.

The Civil Rights Movement also opened doors for women in federal employment. With laws prohibiting gender discrimination and promoting equal opportunities (OPM, 2014; Paxton et al., 2007), women now constitute about 44% of the federal workforce (USAFacts, 2024). Although significant progress has been made with equity and inclusion of women (Allen et al., 2023), they are often underrepresented in higher-level positions and face barriers to advancement (Pandey et al., 2023), calling for scholars and practitioners to advocate DEIA initiatives for women in leadership development, recruitment and retention, pay equity, and workplace culture (Guy & McCandless, 2020; McCandless & Guy, 2024; Pandey et al., 2022; Yeo & Jeon, 2023), as well as supporting policies that promote gender equality, such as paid parental leave, affordable childcare, and healthcare benefits (Abramovsky & Selwaness, 2023).

The employment of people with disabilities in U.S. federal departments has undergone significant changes since 1960, thanks to DEIA policies (Chordiya, 2022). Executive Order 13548, signed in 2010, aimed to increase the hiring of people with disabilities in the federal workforce. Although people with disabilities comprise about 21% of the federal workforce (Partnership for Public Service, 2025), they continue to face barriers to employment and advancement (Kim, 2010).

DEIA and Employee Satisfaction

Diversity and Employee Satisfaction

Diversity incorporates individuals with different perspectives, values, skills, inherent traits, and needs (Borry et al., 2021; Kiradoo, 2022). Diversity is associated with reduced stereotyping, prejudice, and deliberate efforts of leadership to promote diversity (Choi, 2009; Kiradoo, 2022; Pitts, 2009). When used purposefully, it also promotes higher employee productivity (Sarla, 2020). Public organizations have historically focused on managing diversity as a political strategy; however, it is now considered a tool to enhance efficiency and effectiveness (Choi, 2009).

The U.S. public sector is increasingly employing workers from diverse populations and focusing on retaining aging workers and workers representing various demographic groupings (Borry et al., 2021; Choi, 2009; Pitts, 2009). As organizations enhance their diversity programs, they improve employee cooperation (Kiradoo, 2022), which likely improves employee satisfaction and performance. Organizations draw on diverse talent to gain a competitive edge by managing differences in job functions and demographics (Pitts, 2009).

Cultural competency—an appreciation of others’ backgrounds and managing behavior effectively with cultural considerations (Rice, 2010; Sabharwal et al., 2014) and social equity—a concept that begins with race by examining the fair treatment of historically marginalized communities to ensure that access to opportunities are afforded to everyone, regardless of their backgrounds or the groups they identify with (Lopez-Littleton & Blessett, 2015), are essential elements of diversity. In heterogeneous organizations, managerial diversity is critical to management effectiveness (Choi, 2013). Diversity within an organization encourages interactions between people with different backgrounds to work as a group and improve organizational processes.

Hypothesis 1: An increase in diversity score is associated with an increase in federal employee satisfaction.

Equity and Employee Satisfaction

Equity refers to what is fair and normative for all (Eriksson, 2022). In the workplace, fairness is perceived by employees in terms advancement opportunities, participation, and recognition (Lopez-Littleton & Blessett, 2015). Employees compare their outcomes to someone else’s as a measure of fairness, and may be satisfied with what they receive from the organization in exchange for work until they realize someone else may receive more (Park, 2020). The need for equity arises as organizations seek to produce desired employee results and organizational outcomes. Public administration scholarship challenges organizations to draft fair policies that provide equal opportunities to all their members, including historically marginalized groups (Rivera & Knox, 2023). Given the increasing attention to equity, its relevance in the workplace could be assessed, and it is expected to have a positive influence on employee satisfaction.

Hypothesis 2: An increase in equity score is associated with an increase in federal employee satisfaction.

Inclusion and Employee Satisfaction

Inclusion is the sense of belongingness while maintaining one’s uniqueness (Shore et al., 2011). Sweeting (2023, p. 590) revealed that “inclusion is a subjective endeavor that can result in multiple realities as different employees can experience/observe the same event differently, sometimes infinitely so.” Inclusion stems from social engagement, a basic need for acceptance, and it contributes to supportive relationships (Dweck, 2017) that equip employees to pursue the mutual goals of the employee and the organization. How an employer feels about its employees influences employees’ sense of belongingness and satisfaction (Sarla, 2020). Inclusion is inherently tied to the need for acceptance (Sarla, 2020).

Additionally, inclusion is important for public organizations desiring new ideas, skills, and knowledge, and it is a prerequisite for enriching decision-making and increasing employer performance and employee satisfaction (Ashikali et al., 2021). Moreover, inclusion is especially important when considering historically marginalized groups regarding policies, employee jobs, and job training to meet their unique needs (Guy & McCandless, 2020). Furthermore, inclusion contributes to employee recognition in the organization (Guy & McCandless, 2020). Although not everyone can be included in the decision-making process (Eriksson, 2022), when known issues affect specific groups, their representation and perspective are warranted and should be sought (Dweck, 2017; Elias, 2013). Their experiences and knowledge could benefit the work unit, department, and overall organization (Pitts, 2009).

Excluding historically marginalized groups underutilizes organizational resources (Eriksson, 2022). However, organizations must not only integrate historically marginalized groups into the organization, but also appreciate individual differences and collaborate to form new, better, and innovative ideas to increase employee satisfaction (Ashikali et al., 2021). Recognizing that inclusion and social interactions are fundamental human needs, meeting these needs within the organization should foster job attachment and increased employee satisfaction (Dweck, 2017).

Hypothesis 3: An increase in inclusion is associated with an increase in federal employee satisfaction.

Accessibility and Employee Satisfaction

Accessibility is the ability to access without hindrance (The White House, 2021b). It is a social construct that addresses the need for esteem, which could be permitted and constrained by the work environment (Yeo & Jeon, 2023). Work accommodations are provided to meet various employee needs, including job modification and working conditions (Kollmann et al., 2020), social skills, communication, and improved workplace outcomes (Emidy et al., 2024). Accessibility is particularly relevant for some historically marginalized groups, such as people with disabilities, who need specific accommodations to complete their tasks (Yeo & Jeon, 2023), including wheelchair accessibility, workspace modification, and access to appropriate technologies to enable them to accomplish their tasks. Because of resource and other constraints, some organizations fail to meet the accessibility needs of their employees, leading to discrimination complaints (Emidy et al., 2024). Given accessibility benefits, employee satisfaction is expected to be higher when employees work in an organization that is receptive to their accessibility/accommodation requests.

Hypothesis 4: An increase in accessibility score is associated with an increase in federal employee satisfaction.

Intersectionality of Historically Marginalized Groups and DEIA

Intersectionality is a theoretical framework that examines how various social identities, such as race, gender, and disability intersect and interact to create unique experiences of privilege and discrimination by highlighting the complexity of social identities and how they influence individuals’ lives and societal power structures, and understanding the nuanced ways in which different social identities overlap and affect each other, and encourages recognition of the differences within groups, rather than just between groups (Pandey et al., 2023; Primecz & Mahadevan, 2025; Sabharwal et al., 2024). In using the intersectionality theoretical framework to examine how historically marginalized groups moderate the effects of DEIA policies on employee satisfaction, this article highlights the complexity of social identities and how they influence individuals’ lives and societal power structures (Crenshaw, 1989; Hamidullah & Riccucci, 2017; Sabharwal et al., 2024).

DEIA policies are not one-size-fits-all, even in public sectors where one government makes decisions for several different agencies. The workplace groups are impacted differently by the decisions of workplace policies, particularly for historically marginalized groups, who may experience an overlap or intersectionality of policies due to the experience of employees from different backgrounds. Intersectionality recognizes that different racial and gender groups understand policies differently, stemming from their experience and upbringing (Hamidullah et al., 2024). According to Hamidullah et al. (2024), intersectionality is erected because employees from various backgrounds, experiences, upbringing, identities, and social roles can have the same work, however, workplace policies may affect them differently. Intersectionality allows groups of different races to have experiences “that are both similar to and different from those experiences by” the opposite gender and race (Crenshaw, 1989, p. 149). In the context of DEIA workplace policies, intersectionality gives employers and governments insight to pinpoint organizational issues by considering the overlap of physical differences, privileges, and disadvantages of the groups (Primecz & Mahadevan, 2025).

Race as a Moderator of DEIA and Employee Satisfaction

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 recognized racial diversity in the U.S., paving the way for historically marginalized racial groups to seek employment with the federal government (Yeo & Jeon, 2023). Existing research suggests recognition of historically marginalized racial groups contributes to employee satisfaction (Kim et al., 2023). Historically marginalized racial groups face more challenges in federal bureaucracies. For instance, historically marginalized racial groups tend to have incongruent goals with their organizations, suffer exclusion from advancement opportunities, receive informal pay quotas, and receive hires that serve as representation rather than promotion by merit (Selden, 2015). Therefore, we assert that organizational policies to address unique challenges that historically marginalized racial groups experience would contribute to higher employee satisfaction than that reported for their White peers.

Hypothesis 5a: The effect of the DEIA programs on federal employee satisfaction are moderated by race.

Gender as a Moderator of DEIA and Employee Satisfaction

The 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution granted women access to the political system; paired with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, women have enhanced access to employment (Jones, 2009; Van Delinder, 2009) and prompted policies for equal pay for similar job duties regardless of gender differences (DOL, n.d.). However, access to employment does not eliminate their family obligations or the persistent salary inequalities (Seidemann & Weißmüller, 2024). Female workers have greater conflicts due to the traditional expectations of women in the home and carrying out elderly and childcare tasks (Bae et al., 2019; Ko et al., 2013) and often experience the invisible “glass ceiling”―an opportunity for entry into the workplace, but limited access for growth into higher-level positions (Seidemann & Weißmüller, 2024).

Societal expectations of female workers are that they are ingrained with compassion and a nurturing spirit and do not have the same competitive nature as their male counterparts, as male employees have always participated in the “competitive nature of politics” (Parola et al., 2019, p. 1401); the female employee satisfaction comes from serving the public and personal interests. Although men now have more involvement in caregiving, women are more likely to request accommodations that permit them to modify their work schedules (Ko et al., 2013) and are more likely to report increased employee satisfaction when the organization accommodates their unique needs.

Hypothesis 5b: The effect of the DEIA programs on federal employee satisfaction are moderated by gender.

Disability as a Moderator of DEIA and Employee Satisfaction

The federal government enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act to protect people with disabilities only a quintricennial ago (U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, 2023). People with disabilities “enhance their ability to learn and to work toward the development of job skills” and increase socialization skills when organizations meet their accessibility needs (Clouse et al., 2020, p. 227). People with disabilities have unique challenges that make their satisfaction and, hence, performance lag those of their colleagues (Emidy et al., 2024). Meeting their disability needs and integrating them into the workforce contributes to their satisfaction, productivity, creativity, and morale. Accessibility is the biggest challenge for people with disabilities and a key factor in employee perception, which impacts their motivation (Chordiya, 2022; Emidy et al., 2024).

Hypothesis 5c: The effects of the DEIA programs on federal employee satisfaction are moderated by disability.

Data and Methods

Sources of Data

The study uses data from the 2022 version of the Office of Personnel Management Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (OPM FEVS). The objective of OPM FEVS is to measure the perceptions of U.S. federal employees and the effectiveness of organizations and their policies (OPM, n.d.). It surveys how well the government manages its human resources and informs senior leaders of areas the agency needs to improve. For the first time, the 2022 survey includes questions on Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) in response to President Biden’s initiative to foster a government that embraces these attributes (The White House, 2021b). The survey items for the DEIA align with the priorities outlined in Executive Order 14035.

Dependent Variable

The dependent variable is Employee Satisfaction. It is measured with a global satisfaction Index of four survey items from the 2022 FEVS. The loaded items (Q65, Q66, Q67, and Q70) measure employee satisfaction by assessing employee perception of their involvement in organizational decisions, communication with management regarding organizational decisions, recognition for increased performance, and satisfaction with the organization overall. These four items capture the overall employee satisfaction. The reliability of the Index was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha, which reports a statistic of .9039. A Cronbach alpha statistic of .7 or higher supports the test of reliability, indicating that the items measure similar constructs and could be Indexed into a scale (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955).

Independent Variables

The main independent variables are (1) Diversity, (2) Equity, (3) Inclusion, and (4) Accessibility. Each variable is an index of several items. Like the dependent variable, each variable reports a Cronbach’s alpha statistic of .7 or higher, supporting the reliability test (See Appendix 2). An employee’s perception of the quality of diversity in their agency is the Diversity Score, which is measured using two survey items that assess the organization’s management practices promoting diversity and commitment to workforce diversity. Similarly, employee’s perception of the quality of equity in their agency is the Equity Score, which is measured using three survey items: asking respondents about “advancement opportunities (e.g., promotion, career development, training),” whether the supervisor is fair in providing opportunities within the unit, and whether recognition is distributed fairly within the work unit. Also, employee perception of inclusion is measured with the Inclusion Score, which is measured by the perception of belongingness within a work unit, whether the work unit cares for the employee as a person, whether the employee is comfortable expressing differing opinions, whether individual differences are respected, and whether employees can promote being themselves. Lastly, employee’s perception of the quality of accessibility to services is the Accessibility Score, which is measured by the perception of the ease of requesting the organization to meet accessibility needs, whether the responses to accessibility needs are timely, and whether the organization is meeting the employees’ accessibility needs.

Control Variables

In line with existing studies, the study controls for work unit quality. Work unit quality is an index of twenty survey items (Q14, Q15_2, Q16–Q33). These survey items assess federal employees’ perception of their work unit, including employee cooperation, knowledge sharing, skills within the unit to perform the job duties, group performance and quality, ability to adapt to organizational changes, and an employee’s ability to influence the work unit. Using Cronbach’s alpha, the reliability of Index reports a statistic of .9388, suggesting that these items can be Indexed. The study also controlled for demographic factors namely race, gender, age, experience, veterans, and disability. Respondents to the survey identify with White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, and other races. Consequently, four dummy variables are created for each of the racial categories, with White serving as the reference group. Regarding the other demographic groups, employees who identify with/ as female, aged 40 years and older, 10 years or more of experience, veteran, supervisor, a disability, are coded 1 and 0 otherwise.

Interaction Terms

Interaction terms are created to test whether race, gender, and disability moderate the effect of an employee’s Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility scores on employee satisfaction. Each of the racial categories (Black, Hispanic, Asian, other race) is interacted separately with each of the Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility scores. For example, Black * Diversity is a product of the Black race and the diversity score, and Black * Equity is a product of the Black race variable and the equity score. Black * Inclusion is a product of the Black race and the inclusion score. Lastly, Black * Access is a product of the Black and the accessibility score. This is repeated for each of the racial categories, gender, and disability. The race interaction term compares the score for Black, Hispanic, Asian, or other race on Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility scores with the White scores (the reference group). The results present the full interactions and their levels of significance.

Method of Data Analysis

The dependent variable, independent variables, and organizational controls are continuous variables. The demographic variables are dummies. For a dummy variable, the mean represents the proportion of respondents coded as 1 rather than 0. For example, 26.40% of the sample identify as Black. Likewise, 18.79% identify as Hispanic, 18.10% as Asian, 19.08% as other race, 48.17% identify as female, and 78.37% are 40 years and older. Table 1 reports the descriptive statistics. Given that the dependent variable is continuous, Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression is utilized to estimate the coefficients of the regression (Gujarati & Porter, 2010). The Breusch-Pagan/Cook-Weisberg test for heteroskedasticity (Breusch & Pagan, 1979; Cook & Weisberg, 1983) found it to be present (p < .01), hence the robust standard error was used to estimate the coefficients of the regressions (Gujarati & Porter, 2010). Regarding multicollinearity, Table 2 details the correlation matrix, suggesting the plausibility of multicollinearity prompting the use of multiple models. The variance inflation factor (VIF) for each model exceeds the 4.0 threshold due to the interaction terms in the models and does not bias the coefficient (Gujarati & Porter, 2010). To address any concern with common source bias that is sometimes associated with survey data, Harman’s one-factor test was performed (Harman, 1954). The test reveals that the total variance extracted by one factor was 29.82%, which is less than 50%, indicating that common source bias is not a concern in this study.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics

No.	Variables	Mean	Std. Dev.	Min	Max
1	Employee satisfaction	72.29	20.43	20	100
2	Work unit quality	77.63	14.24	20	100
3	Diversity score	79.30	19.61	20	100
4	Equity score	75.56	21.45	20	100
5	Inclusion score	80.46	18.00	20	100
6	Accessibility score	77.71	19.93	20	100
7	Black	0.2640	0.4408	0	1
8	Hispanic	0.1879	0.3907	0	1
9	Asian	0.1810	0.3850	0	1
10	Other race	0.1908	0.3930	0	1
11	Female	0.4817	0.4997	0	1
12	Age (40 years+ = 1)	0.7837	0.4117	0	1
13	Veteran = 1	0.3288	0.4698	0	1
14	Work experience (10 years + = 1)	0.6227	0.4847	0	1
15	Disability = 1	0.2536	0.4351	0	1
16	Supervisor	0.2892	0.4534	0	1

Table 2.

Correlation of Matrix

No.	Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16
1	Employee satisfaction	1.00
2	Work unit quality	0.76	1.00
3	Diversity score	0.66	0.64	1.00
4	Equity score	0.77	0.73	0.73	1.00
5	Inclusion score	0.71	0.75	0.66	0.75	1.00
6	Accessibility score	0.68	0.63	0.62	0.66	0.67	1.00
7	Black	0.01	0.02	−0.06	−0.03	−0.03	−0.02	1.00
8	Hispanic	−0.04	−0.05	−0.05	−0.05	−0.05	−0.05	0.28	1.00
9	Asian	−0.01	−0.01	−0.03	−0.02	−0.03	−0.02	0.43	0.39	1.00
10	Other race	−0.06	−0.06	−0.08	−0.07	−0.08	−0.07	0.41	0.45	0.57	1.00
11	Gender (female = 1)	−0.04	−0.03	−0.06	−0.06	−0.05	−0.06	0.21	0.12	0.15	0.17	1.00
12	Age (40 years+ = 1)	0.04	0.03	0.00	−0.02	−0.02	0.01	0.08	0.02	0.05	0.05	−0.02	1.00
13	Veteran = 1	0.01	−0.01	−0.01	−0.01	−0.02	0.02	0.12	0.11	0.06	0.12	−0.26	0.19	1.00
14	Work experience (10 years + = 1)	−0.02	−0.00	−0.02	−0.04	−0.03	−0.02	0.06	0.03	0.04	0.05	0.03	0.42	0.01	1.00
15	Disability = 1	−0.08	−0.06	−0.07	−0.09	−0.10	−0.08	0.23	0.22	0.22	0.27	0.04	0.12	0.35	0.01	1.00
16	Supervisor	0.08	0.08	0.09	0.10	0.07	0.09	0.09	0.11	0.12	0.12	−0.03	0.17	0.09	0.24	0.05	1.00

Results and Discussion

The results of the regressions are reported in five models to address any multicollinearity concerns (Table 3). The base model is represented in Model 1. Diversity, equity, inclusion, and access are in models 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively. Each DEIA model also includes demographic and interaction term variables. All the models are significant (p < .01). The results show that diversity, equity, inclusion, and access, as well as work unit quality, influence employee satisfaction. For every 1% increase in work unit quality, employee satisfaction increases 1.065% (p < .001). Work unit quality is concerned with the environment and work behaviors of the team, which can impede or disrupt organizational performance (Carpenter et al., 2021). Moreover, diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility are norms that should be encouraged in work units as they enhance employee satisfaction. Furthermore, being Black, a veteran, a supervisor, and older than 40 years is associated with significantly higher federal employee satisfaction. On the other hand, employees with more than 10 years in the federal bureaucracy report lower employee satisfaction, while the other variables reported inconsistent findings across the models.

Table 3.

Effects of DEIA on U.S. Federal Employee Satisfaction

Variables	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5
Work unit quality	1.0647*** (0.0016)
Diversity score		0.6644*** (0.0019)
Equity score			0.7292*** (0.0014)
Inclusion score				0.7933*** (0.0018)
Accessibility score					0.6979*** (0.0023)
Black	0.2959*** (0.0670)	3.3617*** (0.2409)	1.5276*** (0.2005)	1.1091*** (0.2578)	0.1310 (0.2917)
Hispanic	0.0724 (0.773)	−1.5881*** (0.2685)	−0.7271*** (0.2133)	−1.0827*** (0.2744)	−1.3347*** (0.3128)
Asian	0.8266*** (0.0823)	−0.1194 (0.3255)	−0.6279** (0.2679)	−1.8068*** (0.3314)	−0.4404 (0.3812)
Other race	−1.3961*** (0.0886)	1.0793*** (0.3049)	0.6579*** (0.2425)	2.5984*** (0.3134)	0.2197 (0.3510)
Female	−0.1863*** (0.0524)	2.8105*** (0.2014)	3.7254*** (0.1514)	4.9128*** (0.1966)	3.6807*** (0.2361)
Disable	−1.7519*** (0.0692)	−3.2368*** (0.2284)	−1.2054*** (0.1726)	0.0721 (0.2214)	0.6217** (0.2482)
Age_40 = 1(b)	1.8332*** (0.0664)	2.4665*** (0.0637)	3.5851*** (0.0549)	3.5141*** (0.0597)	2.4155*** (0.0781)
Exper_10 = 1(e)	−1.4758*** (0.0559)	−1.4671*** (0.0529)	−0.9009*** (0.0453)	−1.6059*** (0.0492)	−1.5206*** (0.0637)
Veteran = 1(d)	0.9793*** (0.0596)	0.6276*** (0.0573)	0.6372*** (0.0482)	0.9047*** (0.0525)	0.1187* (0.0676)
Supervisor	1.1757*** (0.0560)	0.9474*** (0.0547)	0.1676*** (0.0464)	1.4626*** (0.0499)	1.0780*** (0.0676)
Black*Diversity		−0.0034 (0.0029)
Hispanic*Diversity		0.0144*** (0.0034)
Asian*Diversity		0.0082** (0.0040)
Other race*Diversity		−0.0457*** (0.0040)
Female*Diversity		−0.0284*** (0.0025)
Disable*Diversity		0.0139*** (0.0029)
Black*Equity			0.0074*** (0.0025)
Hispanic*Equity			0.0072*** (0.0028)
Asian*Equity			0.0110*** (0.0034)
Other race*Equity			−0.0331*** (0.0032)
Female*Equity			−0.0405*** (0.0019)
Disable*Equity			0.0021 (0.1222)
Black*Inclusion				0.0092*** (0.0031)
Hispanic*Inclusion				0.0063* (0.0035)
Asian*Inclusion				0.0337*** (0.0041)
Other race*Inclusion				−0.0571*** (0.0040)
Female*Inclusion				−0.0569*** (0.0024)
Disable*Inclusion				−0.0168*** (0.0028)
Black*Access					0.0191*** (0.0036)
Hispanic*Access					0.0139*** (0.0039)
Asian*Access					0.0205*** (0.0047)
Other race*Access					−0.0280*** (0.0045)
Female*Access					−0.0455*** (0.0029)
Disable*Access					−0.0319*** (0.0031)
Constant	−12.0973*** (0.1406)	16.7835*** (0.1659)	12.9233*** (0.1222)	4.4393*** (0.1565)	16.4148*** (0.1986)
Observation	316,132	467,826	472,690	490,221	296,213
F Stats.	40346.54	18445.97	36283.90	26434.22	14062.29
p-value	0.0000	0.0000	0.0000	0.0000	0.0000
R-squared	0.5617	0.4014	0.5660	0.4636	0.4560
Root MSE	13.569	15.636	13.412	14.833	15.074

Note. Robust Standard Errors (RSE) are in parentheses.

p < .1; **p < .05; ***p < .01.

DEIA and Employee Satisfaction

The U.S. federal government aims to increase diversity, strengthen its workforce, and better reflect the American people (The White House, 2021b). The regression results in Model 2 indicate that controlling for other variables, as the employee’s perception of diversity score increases by 1%, employee satisfaction increases by 0.664% (p < .001). Existing studies suggest that when diversity needs are met, employees perceive the organization as valuing their differences, which in turn contributes to innovative work methods that enhance performance (Choi, 2009; Pitts, 2009). Efforts at diversifying the federal workplace have resulted in the inclusion of historically marginalized groups (Choi, 2009; Henderson & Williams, 2013) and the provision of an avenue for employees to voice their opinions and improve the work unit (Henderson & Williams, 2013). The findings are in line with previous studies suggesting that workplace diversity enhances employee satisfaction by fostering an inclusive environment where individuals feel valued and respected (Choi, 2009). This is because when employees from varied backgrounds collaborate, it leads to a richer exchange of ideas and perspectives, promoting creativity and innovation (Pitts, 2009). The collaborative culture that diversity brings helps reduce instances of discrimination and bias, making employees feel more secure and appreciated (Choi, 2009; Henderson & Williams, 2013). Additionally, diverse teams are better equipped to understand and meet the needs of a multicultural society like the U.S., boosting morale and satisfaction (Mousa, 2021). Thus, the findings in this research confirm existing literature about the role of diversity.

Additionally, the related concept of equity is defined as “the consistent and systematic fair, just, and impartial treatment of all individuals, including individuals who belong to underrepresented communities that have been denied such treatment” (The White House, 2021b, para. 5). Prioritizing equity addresses social justice concerns for many employees (Heidelberg, 2019). The results in Model 3 show that as the employee’s perception of equity score increases by 1%, employee satisfaction increases by 0.729% (p < .001), which supports Hypothesis 2.

The findings are consistent with existing studies, indicating that when employees perceive their organizations as having fair and just policies that address social equity issues, employee satisfaction increases, with implications for increased performance (Frederickson, 1990; Kiradoo, 2022; McCandless et al., 2022). This study examines equity as manifesting in fair treatment, equal opportunities, and available resources for all employees. This line of reasoning is consistent with existing literature, which indicates that when employees perceive fairness in recognition, leadership, and workload distribution, their engagement and job satisfaction increase (Lopez-Littleton & Blessett, 2015). Moreover, equitable workplace policies impact employee outcomes, foster a sense of justice and belonging, and drive employee engagement and productivity (Frederickson, 1990; Kiradoo, 2022; McCandless et al., 2022).

Furthermore, inclusion entails recognizing and appreciating diverse employees’ talents and skills, making them feel valued, and creating a sense of belonging (The White House, 2021b). Model 4, which tests hypothesis 3, finds that inclusion is positively significant, indicating that for every 1% increase in employee perception of inclusion, employee satisfaction increases by 0.793% (p < .001). The findings support existing studies, indicating that workplace experiences that empower employees to feel these emotions enhance their sense of inclusion (Shore et al., 2011). Studies also point to inclusion practices contributing to job attachment and higher employee satisfaction (Dweck, 2017). Moreover, inclusion programs provide organizations with new ideas, skills, and knowledge, enriching decision-making practices and increasing employer expectations and employee satisfaction (Ashikali et al., 2021).

Moreover, the U.S. federal government identifies access to workplace facilities, ICTs, maintenance needs, programs, policies, and services for employees, including those with disabilities, as a way to meet the accessibility requirements of employees (The White House, 2021b). Model 5 tests hypothesis 4 and found that controlling for other variables, a 1% increase in an employee’s perception of accessibility score is associated with a 0.698% increase in employee satisfaction (p < .001). Employees value accessibility opportunities when they use them daily and when they have options to use them; thus, it is imperative that organizations understand “that more accessibility is valuable and desirable” (Pritchard et al., 2021, p. 996). Enhancing accessibility not only fosters greater employee satisfaction, but also drives improved performance among individuals and overall life satisfaction (Pritchard et al., 2021).

The positive relationship between accessibility and employee satisfaction reported in this study is consistent with existing research showing that when organizations implement policies that promote fair access to training, career advancement, and benefits, employees feel more valued and motivated, enhancing their commitment and engagement as a result (Choi, 2009; Emidy et al., 2024; Oh & Lewis, 2013). This study contends that this translates into higher employee satisfaction. The study further asserts that this is especially the case for historically marginalized groups, such as people with disability (Emidy et al., 2024), which the findings validate. This is not surprising as evidence suggests that access to well-being programs and flexible work arrangements contributes to higher outcomes for employees (Nukpezah & Arterberry, 2023).

Race, Gender, and Disability as Moderators of DEIA

Historically marginalized groups have been excluded from employment, economic, political, and social opportunities because of their race (The Library of Congress, 2022; Van Delinder, 2009). Race has differing effects on employee satisfaction. This can be explained by examining the historical aspect of federal employment. “[F]ederal employment, which has historically been the preserve of the majority race, is increasingly becoming more diverse” (Nukpezah et al., 2022, pp. 117–118), but may still be stereotyped with tokenism and cultural differences. For example, in Model 1, the results for the effect of race on employee satisfaction revealed that federal employees who identify as Black and Asian have 0.30% and 0.83% higher employee satisfaction scores, respectively, compared to their White colleagues (p < .01). On the other hand, employees who identify as other race report 1.40% lower employee satisfaction scores than their White colleagues (p < .01). Previous studies confirm that minority groups, such as Black employees, tend to report higher levels of employee satisfaction (Nukpezah et al., 2022).

The interactions between diversity and the race variables, as tested in hypothesis 5a, show that the interaction between diversity and race (specifically, Black employees) is not significant. However, Black employees’ perceptions of equity, inclusion, and accessibility are associated with 0.007%, 0.009%, and 0.019% higher employee satisfaction scores, respectively, compared to White employees (p < .01). The findings for Hispanics and Asians are significant, with a positive coefficient across all models. The findings suggest and affirm scholarship that historically marginalized racial groups, such as Black, Hispanic, and Asian, tend to perceive DEIA initiatives favorably (Meier & O’Toole, 2006). However, employees who identify with other race report lower employee satisfaction scores because of the lower perception of diversity (0.048%), equity (0.033%), inclusion (0.057%), and accessibility (0.280%).

Diversity is a broad term that cannot be treated consistently among all racial groups, and inconsistent use of the term leaves many dimensions of diversity unexplored and underutilized to influence employee satisfaction (Yeo & Jeon, 2023). For the interaction with equity, Black, Hispanic, and Asian employees report higher scores for equity policies in their agencies compared to White employees. On the other hand, employees who identify with other race score the equity programs lower than their White colleagues. This is also the case with inclusion and access. Black, Hispanic, and Asian employees report higher employee satisfaction as a result of these policies that ensure that they are treated justly and included in policies that affect their jobs than their White colleagues, while employees who identify as other races do not feel they have the same equity, and inclusion as their White counterparts. While historically marginalized groups might have unique challenges, the findings suggest that efforts at extending rights to them and accommodating their concerns are mixed (Kiradoo, 2022; McCandless et al., 2022; Yeo & Jeon, 2023).

The study also expected that female employees would lag behind their male counterparts regarding satisfaction and DEIA scores because of their exclusion from policymaking and inequities that they have historically experienced (The Library of Congress, 2022; US EEOC, n.d.), which is tested by hypothesis 5b. In Model 1, the results indicate that female employees report 1.86% lower employee satisfaction scores than their male counterparts (p < .01). Women perceive mentorship as a valuable part of their career growth, but often do not receive it and encounter barriers when seeking promotional opportunities (Shen et al., 2022). Because their employee satisfaction needs are not fulfilled, retention and satisfaction are lower for female employees (Shen et al., 2022). Furthermore, the interaction of each DEIA variable and gender (female) shows that being a female employee moderates the effect of each DEIA variable on employee satisfaction.

Across the models, female employees’ perception of diversity accounts for 0.028% lower employee satisfaction scores compared to their male counterparts (p < .01). Female employees’ perception of equity accounts for 0.040% lower employee satisfaction scores (p < .01), while their perception of inclusion accounts for 0.056% lower employee satisfaction scores (p < .01) and their perception of accessibility accounts for 0.040% lower employee satisfaction scores (p < .01). The lower scores could be because male employees have always been represented in the U.S. federal government. It is also possible that, although the employment of women in the federal government has increased, they still maintain traditional household and childcare responsibilities and may require more accommodations than their bureaucracies can provide (Ko et al., 2013).

Regarding the interaction of DEIA variables and disability on employee satisfaction, which hypothesis 5c tests, the results indicate multiple effects. For example, in Model 1, the results show that people with disability report 1.76% lower employee satisfaction than their non-disabled colleagues. Across the models, the results indicate that people with disabilities perceive DEIA programs differently. People with disabilities employed in the federal bureaucracy’s perception of diversity account for 0.014% higher employee satisfaction scores than their non-disabled counterparts (p < .01). Their perception of equity is not significant. However, their perceptions of inclusion and accessibility account for 0.168% and 0.032% lower employee satisfaction scores, respectively, compared with non-disabled peers (p < .01). The findings suggest that although DEIA policies in federal organizations facilitate entry for diverse groups and cultivate a workplace that reflects the population, they may not fully meet the needs of people with disabilities (Yeo & Jeon, 2023). This is indicated by the non-significance of equity and the negative sign on inclusion and accessibility.

A few of the control variables warrant attention, as they validate previous studies (Kavanaugh et al., 2006; Stringer, 2006; Wisco et al., 2014). Across the models, supervisors consistently reported employee satisfaction scores that were 0.95% to 1.4% higher than those of non-supervisors (p < .01). Veterans reported 0.1% and 0.98% higher employee satisfaction scores than non-veterans (p < .01). Older employees, aged 40 years and older, reported employee satisfaction scores that were 1.83% to 3.59% higher than those of younger employees (p < .01). Lastly, employees with fewer than 10 years of federal employment scored between 0.9% and 1.6% lower in employee satisfaction scores than those with more years (p < .01). These findings align with previous research indicating that supervisory roles can be fulfilling, empowering, and motivating, hence contributing to higher employee job satisfaction (Stringer, 2006). Moreover, it validates research that veterans tend to be more resilient and find fulfilment in their work (Wisco et al., 2014). Additionally, it confirms the assertion that the stability and knowledge associated with being older can be satisfying (Beng Ang et al., 1993). Lastly, it reveals that experience is associated with professionalism, which contributes to job fulfillment and employee satisfaction (Kavanaugh et al., 2006).

Limitations of the Study

Although the findings in this study followed appropriate methods, it has limitations. First, the study used cross-sectional data, although panel data would have allowed for analyzing the time dimensions of these policies on employee satisfaction. Second, in accessing the DEIA policies, subjective data, based on respondent opinion, was used rather than objectively determining the quality of federal DEIA policies. Third, survey data tend to have concerns with common source bias that could limit confidence in the study’s findings. However, Harman’s one-factor test reported a statistic of 29.82, indicating that the total variance extracted by one factor did not exceed 50%, suggesting it is not a concern. Fourth, an independent assessment of the various DEIA policies might offer a better understanding of these programs, which future research should consider to augment the survey results. Fifth, the data does not lend itself to investigating whether employees perceive discrimination in DEIA policies. Nonetheless, the study contributes to the goal of public administration for a “more diverse, equitable, and inclusive public institutions, and to create [a] more accessible public service for everyone” (McCandless et al., 2022; Yeo & Jeon, 2023, p. 2).

Conclusion

Stemming from the needs theory of motivation, employers have provided conditions of service, such as a living wage, favorable work environment, social network opportunities (e.g., happy hour), employee housing, transportation, health insurance, and retirement benefits to increase employee satisfaction (Osemeke & Adegboyega, 2017). Existing research has confirmed that satisfied employees contribute to higher productivity and organizational outcomes (Park, 2020). However, the workplace is significantly more diverse. Social justice concerns and a sense of belongingness are among the most critical needs of today’s employees, with race, gender, and disability at the core.

This study argues that DEIA’s effects on employee satisfaction are moderated by historically marginalized groups, including race, gender, and disability status. The findings affirm existing literature that organizational and demographic factors influence employee satisfaction. They also reveal that diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility programs are associated with higher employee satisfaction, which contributes to lower employee turnover (Chordiya, 2022), increased engagement (Riyanto et al., 2021), and increased employee productivity and organizational performance (Ko et al., 2013; Pitts, 2009; Riyanto et al., 2021).

Furthermore, the study reveals that the effects of DEIA programs on employee satisfaction are moderated by race, gender, and disability, with nuanced differences. This could be explained by the historical inequalities these groups have experienced and the unconscious biases that may still exist in federal government employment. The interaction effects indicate that historically marginalized groups hold different perceptions about DEIA programs, implying that the higher satisfaction some historically marginalized groups experienced was due to their agency meeting their DEIA needs, but there are unfulfilled needs for other racial groups. Female employees and people with disability report lower scores for DEIA, which affects their satisfaction, suggesting that advances in DEIA programs at the federal level are yet to bridge the gap among these groups.

The findings have several policy implications for public management and policy. First, higher scores for DEIA policies are favorably associated with higher employee satisfaction. While the present study did not assess DEIA’s impact on performance, the existing scholarship shows that satisfaction leads to higher performance (Aziri, 2011; Gregory, 2011; Park, 2020). Thus, any need that satisfies employees, such as DEIA, benefits the organization. More recently, there have been debates about the efficacy of DEIA programs, with some public organizations closing their DEIA offices (Friedman, 2024; Noel, 2024; Yang, 2023). Nonetheless, employees perceive these policies favorably as contributing to their satisfaction.

Second, the higher satisfaction reported by some historically marginalized groups, such as Black and Asian employees, and older employees, validates the legal protections extended to these groups. Historically marginalized racial groups enjoy protection from the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Asians enjoy protections from the 2021 Executive Order 14031 and the Minority Rights Groups that aim to stall biases toward Asians and prevent discrimination of this group, respectively (Minority Rights Group, 2023; The White House, 2021a). Older employees above 40 are protected from discrimination because of age by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, while veterans are recognized by their military service in employment and accommodated accordingly (OFCCP et al., n.d.).

Third, the lower employee satisfaction scores reported by female employees and people with disabilities could partly be attributed to DEIA policies not fully aligning with their expectations. Although female employees and people with disabilities have access to federal employment, challenges persist (Chordiya, 2022; Emidy et al., 2024). This highlights the need for ongoing evaluation and adaptation of these policies to ensure they are inclusive and meet the diverse needs of all employees.

Given these policy implications, the following recommendations are offered. First, creating policies that extend opportunities for the various groups, including the historically marginalized ones strengthen the U.S. federal government workforce and fosters a culture of belongingness that benefits the organization and employees. Second, recognizing that federal employees perceive workplace policies differently given their race, gender, and disability status should prompt federal policymakers to address any concerns the various groups might have with such policies and ensure that the needs of all employees are met. In other words, one size does not fit all federal employees—racial, gender, and disability status groups have different priorities. Finally, future studies should examine other avenues in which DEIA policies improve employee outcomes.

Footnotes

Appendix

Appendix 2.

Continuous Variable Scale and their Cronbach Alpha

Variables	No. of items	Cronbach alpha
Employee satisfaction	4	.9039
Diversity score	2	.8535
Equity score	3	.8918
Inclusion score	5	.9231
Accessibility score	3	.9669
Work unit quality	20	.9388

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Latara M. Arterberry

Julius A. Nukpezah

References

Abramovsky

Selwaness

(2023). Fiscal policy and gender income inequality: The role of taxes and social spending. The IFS.

Allen

K. A.

Grové

Butler-Henderson

Reupert

Longmuir

Finefter-Rosenbluh

Berger

Heffernan

Freeman

N. C.

Kewalramani

Shiri Krebs, D’Souza

Mackie

Chapman

Fleer

(2023). Inclusion begins at home: Gender Equity as an imperative first step towards a truly inclusive academy. In Boyle

Allen

K. A.

(Eds.), Research for Inclusive Quality Education: Leveraging belonging, Inclusion, and Equity (pp. 289–306). Springer Nature.

Ashikali

Groeneveld

Kuipers

(2021). The role of inclusive leadership in supporting an inclusive climate in diverse public sector teams. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 41(3), 497–519. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371x19899722

Aziri

(2011). Job satisfaction: A literature review. Management Research and Practice, 3(3), 10.

Bae

K. B.

Lee

Sohn

(2019). How to increase participation in telework programs in U.S. Federal agencies: Examining the effects of being a female supervisor, supportive leadership, and Diversity Management. Public Personnel Management, 48(4), 565–583. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026019832920

Bataineh

K. A.

(2019). Impact of work-life balance, happiness at work, on employee performance. International Business Research, 12(2), 99–112.

Beng Ang

Tee Goh

Chye Koh

. (1993). Research notes, the impact of age on job satisfaction of accountants. Personnel Review, 22(1), 31–39.

Borry

Getha-Taylor

Holmes

(2021). Promoting diversity and inclusion in the Federal Workforce: Executive Order 13583 and Demographic Trends. Korean Public Administration Quarterly, 45(4), 392–417. https://doi.org/10.37808/paq/45/4/3

Breusch

T. S.

Pagan

A. R.

(1979). A simple test for heteroscedasticity and random coefficient variation. Econometrica, 47, 1287–1294.

10.

Byrd

M. Y.

Scott

C. L.

(2024). Diversity in the workforce: Current issues and emerging trends. Taylor & Francis.

11.

Carpenter

N. C.

Whitman

D. S.

Amrhein

(2021). Unit-level counterproductive work behavior (CWB): A conceptual review and quantitative summary. Journal of Management, 47(6), 1498–1527. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320978812

12.

Cepiku

Mastrodascio

(2021). Equity in public services: A systematic literature review. Public Administration Review, 81(6), 1019–1032. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13402

13.

Cheng

Macapagal

(2016). A historical review of administrative thoughts from a cultural perspective. International Journal of Business, Economics and Law, 3, 19–26.

14.

Choi

(2009). Diversity in the US Federal Government: Diversity management and employee turnover in federal agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(3), 603–630. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mun010

15.

Choi

(2013). Demographic diversity of managers and employee job satisfaction: Empirical Analysis of the Federal Case. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 33(3), 275–298. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371x12453054

16.

Chordiya

(2022). Organizational Inclusion and turnover intentions of federal employees with disabilities. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 42(1), 60–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371x20942305

17.

Clouse

J. R.

Wood-Nartker

Rice

F. A.

(2020). Designing beyond the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Creating an autism-friendly vocational center. HERD Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 13(3), 215–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/1937586719888502

18.

Cook

R. D.

Weisberg

(1983). Diagnostics for heteroscedasticity in regression. Biometrika, 70(1), 1–10.

19.

Crenshaw

(1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), 139–167.

20.

Cronbach

L. J.

Meehl

P. E.

(1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040957

21.

DOL. (n.d.). Equal Pay for Equal Work. DOL. Retrieved May 25, 2024, from https://www.dol.gov/agencies/oasam/centers-offices/civil-rights-center/internal/policies/equal-pay-for-equal-work

22.

Dweck

C. S.

(2017). From needs to goals and representations: Foundations for a unified theory of motivation, personality, and development. Psychological Review, 124(6), 689–719. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000082

23.

Elias

N. M. R.

(2013). Shifting Diversity Perspectives and new avenues for representative bureaucracy. Korean Public Administration Quarterly, 37(3), 331–372.

24.

Emidy

M. B.

Lewis

G. B.

Pizarro-Bore

(2024). U.S. federal employees with disabilities: How perceptions of diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility affect differences in job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and job involvement. Public Personnel Management, 53(4), 649–679. https://doi.org/10.1177/00910260241253577

25.

Eriksson

(2022). Coproduction and inclusion: A public administrator perspective. International Public Management Journal, 25(2), 217–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2021.1969486

26.

Frederickson

H. G.

(1990). Public administration and social equity. Public Administration Review, 50(2), 228–237.

27.

Friedman

(2024, January 25). The government’s top role for workforce diversity will soon be vacant. What happens next? https://federalnewsnetwork.com/workforce/2024/01/the-governments-top-role-for-workforce-diversity-will-soon-be-vacant-what-happens-next/

28.

Gao

(2020). Measuring public-sector performance and effectiveness. In Chan

K. W.

Ngok

(Eds.), Handbook of Public Policy and Public Administration in China (pp. 59–79). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://www.elgaronline.com/edcollchap/edcoll/9781789909944/9781789909944.00012.xml

29.

Gregory

(2011). The importance of employee satisfaction. The Journal of the Division of Business and Information Management, 5, 29–37.

30.

Gujarati

D. N.

Porter

D. C.

(Eds.). (2010). Essentials of Econometrics, 2010 (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill Irwin.

31.

Guy

M. E.

McCandless

(2020). Achieving social equity: From problems to solutions. Melvin & Leigh.

32.

Hamidullah

M. F.

Piatak

J. S.

Chen

(2024). Chapter 8: DEI and human resources management. https://www.elgaronline.com/edcollchap/book/9781802206173/book-part-9781802206173-20.xml

33.

Hamidullah

M. F.

Riccucci

N. M.

(2017). Intersectionality and family-friendly policies in the federal government: Perceptions of women of Color. Administration & Society, 49(1), 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399715623314

34.

Hankinson

(2024). How the State Department’s Discriminatory DEI Programs Undermine U.S. Diplomacy and Betray American Values (Special Report 283; pp. 1–40). The Heritage Foundation.

35.

Harman

H. H.

(1954). The square root method and multiple group methods of factor analysis. Psychometrika, 19(1), 39–55.

36.

Heidelberg

B. M.

(2019). Evaluating equity: Assessing diversity efforts through a social justice lens. Cultural Trends, 28(5), 391–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/09548963.2019.1680002

37.

Henderson

G. R.

Williams

J. D.

(2013). From exclusion to inclusion: An Introduction to the special issue on Marketplace Diversity and Inclusion. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 32(1_suppl), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.32.s.1

38.

Jakobsen

Løkke

A. K.

Keppeler

(2023). Facing the human capital crisis: A systematic review and research agenda on recruitment and selection in the public sector. Public Administration Review, 83(6), 1635–1648. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13733

39.

Jalagat

(2016). Job performance, job satisfaction, and motivation: A critical review of their relationship. International Journal of Advances in Management and Economics, 5(6), 36–42.

40.

Jones

(2009). Labor of Love, Labor of Sorrow: Black Women, work, and the family, from slavery to the present. Basic Books.

41.

Kavanaugh

Duffy

J. A.

Lilly

(2006). The relationship between job satisfaction and demographic variables for healthcare professionals. Management Research News, 29(6), 304–325.

42.

Kim

C.-K.

(2010). Comparative perspectives on disability employment policy. International Review of Public Administration, 15(3), 27–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/12294659.2011.10805177

43.

Kim

M. H.

Van Ryzin

Hamidullah

M. F

. (2023). Yes We Can: Obama’s Election and the Sense of Inclusion and Job Satisfaction among Minority Federal Workers. International Journal of Public Administration, 46(14), 983–993. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2022.2061991

44.

Kiradoo

(2022). Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in the Workplace: Strategies for Achieving and Sustaining a Diverse Workforce (SSRN Scholarly Paper 4392136). https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=4392136

45.

Hur

Smith-Walter

(2013). Family-friendly work practices and job satisfaction and organizational performance: Moderating effects of managerial support and performance-oriented management. Public Personnel Management, 42(4), 545–565. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026013505503

46.

Kollmann

Stöckmann

Kensbock

J. M.

Peschl

(2020). What satisfies younger versus older employees, and why? An aging perspective on equity theory to explain interactive effects of employee age, monetary rewards, and task contributions on job satisfaction. Human Resource Management, 59(1), 101–115. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21981

47.

Newman

Menzies

Zheng

Fermelis

. (2020). Work-life balance in Asia: A systematic review. Human Resources Management Review, 30(4), 100766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2020.100766

48.

Lopez-Littleton

Blessett

(2015). A framework for integrating cultural competency into the curriculum of Public Administration programs. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 21(4), 557–574. https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803.2015.12002220

49.

McCandless

Bishu

S. G.

Gómez Hernández

Paredes Eraso

Sabharwal, M

Santis

E. L

Yates

(2022). A long road: Patterns and prospects for social equity, diversity, and inclusion in public administration. Public Administration, 100(1), 129–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12830

50.

McCandless

Guy

M. E.

(2024). How to teach diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility. In W. Hatcher, B. M. Rauhaus, & B. D. McDonald III (Eds.), The craft of Teaching in Public Affairs: Instructors reflecting on the tools and tips of their trade (pp. 89–107). Routledge.

51.

Meier

K. J.

O’Toole

L. J

. (2006). Bureaucracy in a democratic state: A governance perspective. JHU Press.

52.

Minority Rights Group. (2023). Home. Minority Rights Group. https://minorityrights.org/

53.

Morris

L. S.

Grehl

M. M.

Rutter

S. B.

Mehta

Westwater

M. L.

(2022). On what motivates us: A detailed review of intrinsic v. extrinsic motivation. Psychological Medicine, 52(10), 1801–1816. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291722001611

54.

Mousa

(2021). Does gender diversity affect workplace happiness for academics? The role of Diversity Management and Organizational Inclusion. Public Organization Review, 21(1), 119–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-020-00479-0

55.

Noel

(2024, March 25). The US Office of Diversity and Inclusion Is Shutting Down. Here’s Why. Essence. https://www.essence.com/news/us-office-of-diversity-and-inclusion-shut-down/

56.

Nukpezah

J. A.

Arterberry

L. M.

(2023). Policy Entrepreneurs and the Advocacy for Vaccination During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal of Public Management & Social Policy, 30(1), 50–71.

57.

Nukpezah

J. A.

French

P. E.

Dimitrijevska-Markoski

Flomo

V. O.

(2022). The moderating effects of organizational publicness on determinants of the U.S. Federal employee’s Job Satisfaction. Public Organization Review, 22, 883–901. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-021-00555-z

58.

OFCCP

VETS

CRT EEOC . (n.d.). Protections Against Employment Discrimination for Service Members and Veterans. US EEOC. Retrieved June 15, 2024, from https://www.eeoc.gov/protections-against-employment-discrimination-service-members-and-veterans

59.

S. S.

Lewis

G. B.

(2013). Performance Ratings and career advancement in the US Federal Civil Service. Public Management Review, 15(5), 740–761. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2012.725756

60.

OPM. (2014). Women in Federal Service. https://www.opm.gov/fevs/reports/special-reports/women-in-the-federal-service-a-seat-at-every-table-2014.pdf

61.

OPM. (n.d.). Public Data File. U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Retrieved June 16, 2023, from https://www.opm.gov/fevs/public-data-file/

62.

Osemeke

Adegboyega

(2017). Critical review and comparison between Maslow, Herzberg and McClelland’s theory of needs. Funai Journal of Accounting, Business and Finance, 1(1), 161–173.

63.

Oxford Bibliographies. (2025). Segregation in Federal Government. Obo. https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780190280024/obo-9780190280024-0022.xml

64.

Paais

Pattiruhu

J. R.

(2020). Effect of motivation, leadership, and organizational culture on satisfaction and employee performance. Journal of Asian Finance Economics and Business, 7(8), 577–588. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no8.577

65.

Pandey

S. K.

Newcomer

DeHart-Davis

McGinnis Johnson

Riccucci

N. M.

(2022). Reckoning with race and Gender in Public Administration and Public Policy: A substantive social equity turn. Public Administration Review, 82(3), 386–395. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13501

66.

Pandey

S. K.

Smith

A. E.

Pandey

Ojelabi

O. A.

(2023). Reimagining race and gender in public administration and public policy: Insights from an interdisciplinary systematic review. Public Administration Review, 83(1), 14–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13570

67.

Park

(2020). Determinants of the job satisfaction of Public Officials: Testing the mediation effect of Organizational Commitment. Public Organization Review, 20(4), 665–684. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-020-00465-6

68.

Parola

H. R.

Harari

M. B.

Herst

D. E. L.

Prysmakova

(2019). Demographic determinants of public service motivation: A meta-analysis of PSM-age and -gender relationships. Public Management Review, 21(10), 1397–1419. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2018.1550108

69.

Partnership for Public Service. (2025). A Profile of the 2023 Federal Workforce. Partnership for Public Service. https://ourpublicservice.org/fed-figures/a-profile-of-the-2023-federal-workforce/

70.

Paxton

Kunovich

Hughes

M. M.

(2007). Gender in Politics. Annual Review of Sociology, 33(1), 263–284. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.33.040406.131651

71.

PBS News. (2025, February 21). Judge blocks Trump’s order to withdraw federal funding for DEI programs as lawsuit plays out. PBS News. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/judge-blocks-trumps-order-to-withdraw-federal-funding-for-dei-programs-as-lawsuit-plays-out

72.

Pitts

(2009). Diversity Management, job satisfaction, and performance: Evidence from U.S. Federal Agencies. Public Administration Review, 69(2), 328–338. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2008.01977.x

73.

Portocarrero

Carter

J. T.

(2022). Diversity initiatives in the US workplace: A brief history, their intended and unintended consequences. Sociology Compass, 16(7), e13001. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.13001

74.

Primecz

Mahadevan

(2025). Intersectionality as a conceptual lens for advancing diversity, equity and inclusion in international business studies: Newer developments from critical cross-cultural management studies and their insights for the business case. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 21(1), 59–75. https://doi.org/10.1108/cpoib-04-2022-0034

75.

Pritchard

J. P.

Geurs

Tomasiello

D. B.

Slovic

Nardocci

Kumar

Giannotti

Hagen-Zanker

(2021). Satisfaction with travel, ideal commuting, and accessibility to employment. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 14(1), 995–1017.

76.

Rani

Singh

(2017). The role of human resource management in employee motivation and performance- An overview. International Journal of Information Management, I(XI), 75–81.

77.

Rep. Cicilline D. N. [D-R.-1. (2019, May 20). H.R.5—116th Congress (2019-2020): Equality Act (2019-03-13) [Legislation]. Congress.Gov. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/5/text

78.

Rice

M. F.

(Ed.). (2010). Cultural competency, Public Administration, and public service delivery in an era of diversity. In Diversity and Public Administration (2nd ed.). Routledge.

79.

Rivera

J. D.

Knox

C. C.

(2023). Bureaucratic discretion, social equity, and the administrative legitimacy dilemma: Complications of New Public Service. Public Administration Review, 83(1), 65–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13550

80.

Riyanto

Endri

Herlisha

(2021). Effect of work motivation and job satisfaction on employee performance: Mediating role of employee engagement. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 19(3), 162–174. https://doi.org/10.21511/ppm.19(3).2021.14

81.

Sabharwal

Hijal-Moghrabi

Royster

(2014). Preparing Future Public Servants: Role of Diversity in Public Administration. Korean Public Administration Quarterly, 38(2), 206–245.

82.

Sabharwal

McCandless

S. A.

Viswanath

(2024). Chapter 4: Gender in public administration. https://www.elgaronline.com/edcollchap/book/9781802206173/book-part-9781802206173-15.xml

83.

Sarla

(2020). Motivation Manifesto. 12–17.

84.

Scognamiglio

Sancino

Caló

Jacklin-Jarvis

Rees

(2022). The public sector and co-creation in turbulent times: A systematic literature review on robust governance in the COVID-19 emergency. Public Administration, 101(1), 53–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12875

85.

Seidemann

Weißmüller

K. S.

(2024). Conceptual foundations of workforce homogeneity in the public sector. Insights from a systematic review on causes, consequences, and blind spots. Public Management Review, 26, 334–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2022.2084770

86.

Selden

S. C.

(2015). The promise of Representative Bureaucracy: Diversity and responsiveness in a government agency: Diversity and responsiveness in a government agency. Routledge.

87.

Shen

M. R.

Tzioumis

Andersen

Wouk

McCall

Girdler

Malloy

(2022). Impact of mentoring on academic career success for Women in Medicine: A Systematic Review. Academic Medicine, 97(3), 444–458. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000004563

88.

Shore

L. M.

Randel

A. E.

Chung

B. G.

Dean

M. A.

Holcombe Ehrhart

Singh

(2011). Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A Review and model for Future Research. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1262–1289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310385943

89.

Stringer

(2006). The link between the quality of the supervisor–employee relationship and the level of the employee’s job satisfaction. Public Organization Review, 6, 125–142. 2006.

90.

Sweeting

K. D.

(2023). Executive orders: Mandating inclusion in the Federal Workplace: Insights from Federal Executive Departments’ Strategic Plans. Public Personnel Management, 52(4), 590–623. https://doi.org/10.1177/00910260231187542

91.

The Library of Congress. (2022). Voting Rights for African Americans [Web page]. Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. 20540 USA. https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/elections/right-to-vote/voting-rights-for-african-americans/

92.

The White House. (2021a, May 28). Executive Order on Advancing Equity, Justice, and Opportunity for Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders. The White House. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/05/28/executive-order-on-advancing-equity-justice-and-opportunity-for-asian-americans-native-hawaiians-and-pacific-islanders/

93.

The White House. (2021b, June 25). Executive Order on Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Federal Workforce. The White House. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/06/25/executive-order-on-diversity-equity-inclusion-and-accessibility-in-the-federal-workforce/

94.

The White House. (2025, January 21). Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing. The White House. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/ending-radical-and-wasteful-government-dei-programs-and-preferencing/

95.

USAFacts. (2024). Three charts on diversity in the federal government’s workforce. USAFacts. https://usafacts.org/articles/three-charts-on-diversity-in-the-federal-governments-workforce/

96.

U.S. Department of Justice & Civil Rights Division. (2024, May 22). Introduction to the Americans with Disabilities Act. ADA.Gov. https://www.ada.gov/topics/intro-to-ada/

97.

U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. (2023). The Americans with Disabilities Act. ADA.Gov. https://www.ada.gov/

98.

US EEOC. (n.d.). Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. US EEOC. Retrieved July 10, 2022, from https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/title-vii-civil-rights-act-1964

99.

Van Delinder

. (2009). Gender and the Civil Rights Movement. Sociology Compass, 3, 986–999. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2009.00239.x

100.

von Schrader

Shaw

Colella

. (2024). Perceptions of federal workplace attributes: Interactions among disability, Sex, and Military Experience. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 34, 239–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/10442073221128917

101.

Wisco

B. E.

Marx

B. P.

Wolf

E. J.

Miller

M. W.

Southwick

S. M.

Pietrzak

R. H.

(2014). Posttraumatic stress disorder in the US veteran population: Results from the National Health and Resilience in Veterans Study. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 75(12), 1338–1346.

102.

Yang

(2023, June 14). Greg Abbott signs law banning diversity offices in Texas higher education. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/14/new-texas-bans-law-diversity-offices-state-higher-education

103.

Yeo

Jeon

S. H.

(2023). Diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility in recent Public Administration Research: A systematic review of the literature since George Floyd. Policy Studies Journal, 38(2), 33–54.

Meeting the Employee Satisfaction Needs of Historically Marginalized Groups

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Employee Satisfaction

DEIA Policies in the U.S

Historical Perspective of DEIA Policies

DEIA Policies in the U.S. Federal Bureaucracy

DEIA and Employee Satisfaction

Diversity and Employee Satisfaction

Equity and Employee Satisfaction

Inclusion and Employee Satisfaction

Accessibility and Employee Satisfaction

Intersectionality of Historically Marginalized Groups and DEIA

Race as a Moderator of DEIA and Employee Satisfaction

Gender as a Moderator of DEIA and Employee Satisfaction

Disability as a Moderator of DEIA and Employee Satisfaction

Data and Methods

Sources of Data

Dependent Variable

Independent Variables

Control Variables

Interaction Terms

Method of Data Analysis

Results and Discussion

DEIA and Employee Satisfaction

Race, Gender, and Disability as Moderators of DEIA

Limitations of the Study

Conclusion

Footnotes

Appendix

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iDs

References