Creating and Designing Inclusive Teams in Higher Education

Despite the efforts behind mission statements and strategic goals in offering institutional grounding, higher education is an epicenter of perpetual change. Whether it is a commitment to trustees and/or prominent alumni or an organizational shift spurred by newer generations of enrollees, establishing and maintaining consistency is a challenge. To stay in rhythm with a changing academic landscape, it is important to mobilize teams that reflect institutional missions while also providing dexterity through authentic representation of a culturally rich workforce.

To create and design an inclusive team in higher education, it is important to establish a clear departmental culture that aligns with the mission and values of the institution. Next, job descriptions for specific roles should be scaffolded based on departmental goals. This structure directly informs organizations how to conduct interviews for prospective candidates and what key characteristics to seek during these conversations. Finally, continuous training and professional development must support the customized growth of individual team members and the department while ensuring best practices to maintain or evolve foundational values.

When determining the focus of a specific department, it is essential to approach it through the lens of cultural wealth. This concept comes from Tara J. Yosso’s (2005) article “Whose Culture Has Capital? A Critical Race Theory Discussion of Community Cultural Wealth”, in which she challenges Pierre Bourdieu’s traditional notion of cultural capital. Yosso argues that marginalized communities, particularly Communities of Color, possess distinct forms of cultural wealth that are often overlooked by dominant societal structures. Yosso (2005) defines community cultural wealth as an array of knowledge, skills, abilities, and networks that communities of color utilize to survive and resist oppression. She identifies six forms of capital that comprise this wealth:

• Aspirational Capital – The ability to maintain hope and dreams for the future, even in the face of adversity.
• Linguistic Capital – The intellectual and social skills developed through communication in multiple languages, dialects, or storytelling traditions.
• Familial Capital – The cultural knowledge and social support gained from extended family and kinship networks.
• Social Capital – The networks of people and community resources that provide support and facilitate navigation through social institutions.
• Navigational Capital – The ability to maneuver through institutions not designed for Communities of Color.
• Resistant Capital – The knowledge and skills that empower communities to challenge inequality and advocate for social justice.

Considering Yosso’s definition, several questions need to be addressed specific to each department:

• What type of capital will your work area emphasize? How will that cultural capital establish departmental values and align with the institution?
• How does the desired culture compare or contrast with the institutional mission and goals? Should it align directly or build upon what has been previously established?

Two key considerations must be kept in mind: ensuring that any deviation from the overarching institutional mission does not undermine the workplace and understanding that regardless of the cultural focus, a clear connection to institutional priorities such as persistence, retention, and graduation rates must be maintained.

Once a department has identified the cultural capital it will emphasize, constructing job descriptions becomes more strategic. Instead of merely fulfilling specific tasks, roles are created to contribute intentionally to the department’s cultural capital. It is safe to assume that most, if not all, inclusive teams in higher education will reflect aspects of these six forms of capital, though the extent will vary based on the service area (e.g., academic advising vs. student conduct, campus recreation and athletics vs. student activities). For example, if a role involves intrusive advising and building relationships with community-based organizations, the ideal candidate must demonstrate strong linguistic, navigational, and social capital. Ultimately, defining the cultural capital focus of a department helps align job descriptions with relevant competencies, ensuring inclusive teams leverage skills effectively.

With the cultural wealth framework and job components established, the next step is to identify candidates who best represent the work area based on both cultural and employment competencies. Developing interview questions that incorporate cultural capital elements allows for a structured evaluation, where a rubric assesses how well a candidate aligns with foundational knowledge, skills, and abilities outlined in the job description. As Yosso (2005) states, “When interviewing and hiring culturally competent job candidates, it is essential to recognize the intersecting components of community cultural wealth, as candidates may bring aspirational, linguistic, social, and navigational capital that enhances institutional diversity and effectiveness.” By valuing these forms of capital, hiring processes can move beyond traditional meritocratic frameworks and acknowledge the unique strengths and lived experiences that diverse candidates contribute. Designing interview questions that highlight expertise in these six areas, combined with role-specific qualifications, enables departments to build an inclusive team effectively. Additionally, this approach can guide key characteristics sought in candidates, such as emotional intelligence and transferable skills. For instance, a department may prioritize hiring a candidate with community organizing and curriculum development experience in a nonprofit over one with extensive advising experience in homogeneous settings. Integrating this framework into hiring practices allows institutions to develop structured evaluations that assess candidates’ cultural and professional competencies, ensuring the selection of individuals who contribute meaningfully to an inclusive team.

Finally, constructing an inclusive team is futile if professional development opportunities do not align with team members’ goals and fail to balance institutional values with adaptation to a rapidly changing educational landscape. Kezar and Holcombe (2017) emphasize that “Creating an inclusive team is only the first step; without sustained professional development that aligns with team members’ goals and institutional values while also adapting to the evolving educational landscape, inclusion efforts risk becoming performative rather than transformative.” Institutions must offer meaningful opportunities for growth that empower professionals to thrive and contribute in ways that reflect both their expertise and the changing demands of higher education. This can take the form of webinars, workshops, conferences, or leveraging the previous experiences of team members in “train-the-trainer” sessions. By incorporating peer contributions into continuous development efforts, institutions ensure that inclusivity remains central to the discussion.

Higher education operates within a landscape of constant change, requiring institutions to balance consistency with adaptability. To build inclusive teams that align with institutional missions while reflecting cultural diversity, departments must establish clear values grounded in community cultural wealth. Identifying which forms of cultural capital best serve a department helps shape job descriptions, interview processes, and hiring criteria, ensuring candidates possess the necessary competencies to contribute meaningfully. However, an inclusive team is only sustainable if professional development opportunities align with team members’ goals and institutional values while adapting to the evolving educational landscape. By embedding continuous learning through workshops, peer-led training, and other development initiatives, institutions can cultivate a workforce that is both diverse and resilient, reinforcing long-term success in higher education.

References:

• Bourdieu, Pierre. The Forms of Capital. Edited by J. Richardson, Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, Greenwood Press, 1986, pp. 241–258.
• Chun, Edna, and Alvin Evans. Leading a Diversity Culture Shift in Higher Education: Comprehensive Organizational Learning Strategies. Routledge, 2018.
• Kezar, Adrianna, and Elizabeth Holcombe. Creating a Diverse and Inclusive Leadership Pipeline in Higher Education: A Guide for Colleges and Universities. American Council on Education, 2017.
• Yosso, Tara J. “Whose Culture Has Capital? A Critical Race Theory Discussion of Community Cultural Wealth.”Race Ethnicity and Education, vol. 8, no. 1, 2005, pp. 69–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/1361332052000341006.