HRM 7620 Module 6 Final Project: An Inclusive Human Capital Plan for a Public University Example

Fair Access, Real Advancement: A Three-Year Inclusive Human Capital Plan for Hudson State University

Student Name

MBA in Human Resource Management, Thomas Edison State University

HRM-7620: Human Capital Management in Multicultural Organizations

Mentor Name

Month Day, Year

Fair Access, Real Advancement: A Three-Year Inclusive Human Capital Plan for Hudson State University

Executive Summary

Hudson State University, a composite New Jersey public university with 3,200 employees, has a staff workforce less diverse than its students and a persistent gap in advancement confidence and retention between groups of employees. This plan integrates diversity competencies into the university's talent management through eight tools selected for its climate. It aims to give every qualified person fair access to jobs and every employee a real path to advancement, using practices that apply the same rules to everyone. The plan costs about $310,000 a year and sets measurable targets over three years.

Organizational Context and Climate

Chun and Evans (2014) stress that no single set of tools suits every organization; the right selection depends on industry and climate. Hudson State's context has four features that shape the plan. As a public institution, it is subject to state law, public scrutiny and budget constraints, and its decisions are visible. Its workforce is unionized in several staff categories, so changes to hiring and promotion must respect collective agreements and involve unions. Its culture values shared governance, so changes imposed without consultation would meet resistance. The legal climate for diversity programs also became stricter in 2025, so counsel must review each practice and each must be open to everyone.

The university's data show the problem. Staff hiring relies heavily on referrals, interview panels are unstructured, half of staff promotions are made without posting, and climate surveys show lower confidence in advancement among staff from underrepresented groups and among first-generation college graduates. First-year staff retention is 84 percent overall but lower for these groups.

These features also create opportunities. Public visibility means progress can strengthen the university's reputation with students and the state. Union involvement, handled well, can give changes legitimacy with staff. Shared governance offers established forums for consultation, such as the staff council, through which the plan can be developed with employees rather than imposed on them.

Goals

The plan has three goals. First, fair access: every staff opening is posted and filled through a consistent, job-related process. Second, real advancement: every employee has access to development and a transparent route to promotion. Third, accountable leadership: managers have the competencies to lead diverse teams, and leaders are accountable for process results.

Each goal is defined so that it can be measured. Fair access will be judged by the share of openings posted and filled through structured processes and by the size and breadth of applicant pools. Real advancement will be judged by internal promotion rates, participation in development and the gap in advancement confidence in the climate survey. Accountable leadership will be judged by the share of managers evaluated on the competency behaviors and by divisions' reporting on process measures. Defining the goals this way keeps the plan focused on processes the university controls.

Selected Tools and Why They Fit

These tools were chosen over others in the text because they change processes rather than awareness, they apply to all employees and they fit a public, unionized, shared-governance institution. Tools that would have been less suitable include large awareness campaigns, which research suggests have limited lasting effect, and programs limited by eligibility, which carry legal risk in the current environment.

Diversity Competencies in the Plan

The plan builds diversity competencies into talent management through five behaviors expected of every manager: interviewing every candidate the same structured way, giving each team member specific feedback, sharing visible assignments fairly, drawing out views from everyone in meetings and stepping in quickly when someone is excluded. These behaviors will appear in manager evaluations, supported by practice-based development. Bezrukova et al. (2016) found that training effects on behavior fade unless training is integrated with other initiatives and builds skills, so development will combine short sessions, practice with coaching and follow-up reviews.

Accountability

Kalev et al. (2006) found that structures assigning responsibility were followed by larger gains than training alone. The inclusion council, chaired by the provost, will have authority to approve changes to talent processes. Each division will report twice a year on posting compliance, applicant pools, pass-through rates, promotions and retention. Division leaders' goals will include process improvements, and the council will report to the president annually.

Legal Review

University counsel will review each tool before implementation. Every tool applies one set of rules to all employees, and none holds positions for, prefers or restricts any group defined by a protected characteristic. Demographic data will be collected voluntarily, stored securely and used only in aggregate to evaluate processes. Unions will be consulted on posting rules, interview procedures and career paths, consistent with collective agreements.

The plan also anticipates how its practices will be explained to employees. Some staff may worry that inclusion work means preferences for particular groups; others may fear that recent legal changes mean the university is abandoning its commitments. A clear statement from the president, repeated in staff meetings and on the HR website, will explain that the plan improves fairness for every employee by changing how hiring, development and promotion work, and that progress will be reported openly each year.

Measures and Targets

Budget and Timeline

In the first year, the university will introduce mandatory posting, configure the applicant tracking system, train panels and launch mentoring. In the second year, it will publish career paths, add competency behaviors to manager evaluations and run the first pay equity review. In the third year, it will extend the plan to faculty searches in consultation with faculty governance and review all measures for the next plan.

The budget is modest relative to the cost of turnover. With first-year staff retention at 84 percent, the university replaces roughly 60 new staff members a year who leave in their first year. If each replacement costs about $8,000 in recruiting, training and lost productivity, raising first-year retention to 88 percent would save about $120,000 a year, before counting the benefits of better hiring decisions and a stronger reputation as an employer.

Conclusion

Hudson State's plan integrates diversity competencies into the talent processes that determine who is hired, developed and promoted. The tools were selected for the university's public, unionized and shared-governance climate and for the legal environment of 2025. With accountability, legal review and clear measures, the plan offers a realistic path to fair access and real advancement for every employee.

References

Bezrukova, K., Spell, C. S., Perry, J. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2016). A meta-analytical integration of over 40 years of research on diversity training evaluation. Psychological Bulletin, 142(11), 1227-1274. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000067

Chun, E., & Evans, A. (2014). The new talent acquisition frontier: Integrating HR and diversity strategy in the private and public sectors and higher education. Stylus Publishing.

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(4), 589-617. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240607100404