CYRUS

t
os
Christopher I. Rider teaching note W96T44
Eileen Lopez Rider July 14, 2021
rP
Shonita M. Black
Cyrus Mehri and the National Football League’s

Rooney Rule (2021)—Teaching Note
Case Overview
yo
With Johnnie Cochran Jr. and John Wooten, civil rights attorney Cyrus Mehri formed the Fritz Pollard
Alliance to advocate for National Football League coaches of color. Their efforts resulted in the NFL adopting
the Rooney Rule prior to the 2003 NFL season in order to increase representation of coaches of color in the
op
head coaching ranks. Subsequently, Mehri lobbied the NFL to improve the rule (e.g., applying it to additional
coaching positions) while also working with (and against) companies to implement similar policies. The
rule became one of the most prominent diversity initiatives in the United States, with employers such as
Amazon, Facebook, the City of Pittsburgh, and the University of Texas System adopting variations of it.
In 2021, however, nearly two decades after the Rooney Rule’s implementation, the total number of NFL
tC
head coaches of color was three; the same number as in 2003 when the rule took effect. Frustratingly for
Mehri and his colleagues, two top applicants of color—the two offensive coordinators in the most recent
Super Bowl, Eric Bieniemy of Kansas City and Byron Leftwich of Tampa Bay—were passed over for all seven
head coaching vacancies after the 2020 season.
The ongoing debate about the rule’s effectiveness intersected with a pivotal moment in U.S. history.
Corporate America, prompted by the Black Lives Matter movement and protests following the 2020 killing
No
of George Floyd in police custody, had allocated billions of dollars to addressing racial injustice.1 Many more
organizations would be considering personnel policies modeled after the Rooney Rule.
Was the Rooney Rule still a best practice in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DE&I)? Had Mehri, through
his consulting firm Working IDEAL, identified practices that might strengthen or replace the Rooney Rule?
At the time of case, Mehri must evaluate the Rooney Rule’s effectiveness and decide whether he should use
his substantial influence to lobby the NFL to revise or replace the rule.
Do
Published by WDI Publishing, a division of the William Davidson Institute (WDI) at the University of Michigan.
© 2021 Christopher I. Rider, Eileen Lopez Rider, and Shonita M. Black. This teaching note was written by Christopher I. Rider, Professor
of Strategy at the University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business, Eileen Lopez Rider, DEI Consultant at the University of Michigan’s
Organizational Learning Department, and Shonita M. Black, Research Associate at the University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business.
The case was prepared as the basis for class discussion rather than to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of a situation.
The case should not be considered criticism or endorsement and should not be used as a source of primary data. Attorney Cyrus Mehri
reviewed and approved the case before publication.
This Teaching Note is authorized for use only by Dr.S.Anjali Daisy, Bharathidasan University until Aug 2024. Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Permissions@hbsp.harvard.edu
or 617.783.7860.
Cyrus Mehri and the National Football League’s Rooney Rule (2021)—Teaching Note W96T44
Students are provided with historical data on the racial identities of NFL head and assistant coaches
t
as well as timeline trends for head coach of color representation in other pro sports (e.g., Major League
os
Baseball, the National Basketball Association) and college football. The data can be used to construct
counterfactual estimates of how representation might have trended in the absence of the Rooney Rule.
Additional data enable students to simulate the possible gains to interventions focused on addressing two
sources of racial disparity in many organizations: (1) how organizations allocate people to jobs and, (2) how
organizations reward people for job performance.
rP
This teaching note provides instructors with analytical approaches for all analyses. Instructors might
also find it useful to review the related empirical study by Rider, Wade, Swaminathan, and Schwab (2020)
by contacting case author Christopher Rider (riderci@umich.edu) to request a copy.
Learning Objectives
yo
After reading and discussing this case, students should be able to:
• Appreciate the strengths and weaknesses of the most prominent diversity management practice
in the United States today (i.e., the Rooney Rule).
• Identify symbolic and substantive rationales for implementing policies based on the Rooney Rule
in organizations.
• Implement policies modeled after the Rooney Rule for effectiveness within organizations.
op
• Develop alternative approaches to achieving diversity, equity and inclusion objectives.
Pedagogy
The case is appropriate for executive, graduate, and undergraduate students. At the University of
Michigan’s Ross School of Business, the case has been used across all student populations for both in-
tC
person and virtual delivery. The learning objectives are not dependent on advanced statistical knowledge
or analytical skills.
This case requires students to use basic arithmetic that can be performed in an Excel spreadsheet.
Analytical techniques like multivariate regression are not necessary but could be used by instructors
and/or advanced students (e.g., in a Master’s in Business Analytics course). If students are familiar with
econometrics, then instructors can also use this case to teach synthetic counterfactual techniques. In short,
No
the case is suitable for students with a wide range of analytical skills.
The case was written specifically for an MBA and BBA elective course called Equity Analytics, which
prepares students to address greater sensitivity to societal inequality and an increasingly diverse workforce.
Specifically, students in the course learn analytical frameworks for identifying “differential treatment” and
“disparate impact,” enabling them to analyze equity using real-world data from various contexts. As such,
the case is suitable for courses about DE&I, people analytics, human resource management, leadership,
organizational behavior, and many other topics. Any course session focused on addressing racial disparity
Do
through personnel policies would be appropriate for this case.
The case references a variety of news articles, academic papers, and books that instructors might
incorporate into the classroom. In particular, the case authors recommend the following resources:
or 617.783.7860.
• “NFL’s Coaching Diversity Problem.” All Things Considered. National Public Radio, 12 Jan. 2020.
t
https://www.npr.org/2020/01/12/795742675/nfls-coaching-diversity-problem
os
−− This audio interview with Jeremi Duru lasts six minutes and highlights some of the challenges
with the Rooney Rule and possible modifications.
• Duru, Jeremi. Advancing the Ball: Race, Reformation, and the Quest for Equal Opportunity in the
NFL. Oxford University Press, 2011.
−− This book documents the efforts of Johnnie Cochran Jr., Cyrus Mehri, and John Wooten to
rP
advocate on behalf of NFL coaches of color and, in particular, their success in persuading the
NFL to adopt the Rooney Rule.
• Rider, Christopher I., James B. Wade, Anand Swaminathan, and Andreas Schwab. “Racial disparity
in leadership: Evidence of valuative bias in the promotions of National Football League coaches.”
University of Michigan, 2020. Working Paper.
−− This paper conducts extensive analyses of racial disparity in the promotions of NFL coaches,
yo
including a detailed discussion of the basic simulation included in this teaching note. The
empirical study also considers racial disparities in initial coaching positions versus current
positions.
• Working IDEAL (https://www.workingideal.com/) is the consulting firm founded by Pamela
Coukos and Cyrus Mehri to provide “…trusted, effective and innovative advice on inclusive
workplaces, diverse talent and fair pay to large and small companies, universities, non-profits,
unions and other organizations across the nation.” The website details their efforts to address
op
various disparities (e.g., gender, race) with a “customized, evidence-based and research-informed
approach.”
Potential case adopters should feel free to contact case author Christopher Rider (riderci@umich.edu)
for the latest version of the Rider et al. (2020) study, teaching tips, and additional class materials, as he
intends to update the data and content, including videos, as the Rooney Rule evolves.
tC
Teaching Plan
Assignment Questions
1. What must Cyrus Mehri (or his equity analyst) assume to estimate the representation of NFL head
coaches of color in the absence of the Rooney Rule (i.e., What if the Rooney Rule had not been
implemented in 2003?).
No
2. Based on your analyses, did the Rooney Rule increase the representation of NFL head coaches of
color? Why or why not?
3. Should the Rooney Rule be abandoned, revised or replaced? If replaced, then with what? If
revised, then how?
4. Imagine that you can implement only one change to NFL personnel practices. Would you choose
to address racial disparity in the allocation of coaches to positions? Or, alternatively, would you
choose to address racial disparity in the rewards for job performance? Or another change? Why?
Do
What would you expect to achieve?

5. In class action settlements with employers, should Mehri require employers to implement the
Rooney Rule in specific ways that produce credible evidence of the rule’s effectiveness (i.e.,
produce counterfactual estimates by design)?
or 617.783.7860.
Introduction
t
Case discussion can begin by presenting case Figure 2, the time trend in representation of NFL coaches
os
of color from 1985 to 2020. This figure, along with case Figure 4, serves as the backdrop for assignment
questions #1 and #2 above.
These figures highlight the key points of the case:
1. One must analytically assess the Rooney Rule’s effectiveness to date to inform choices about its
rP
future.
2. Counterfactual estimates require specific assumptions.
3. Mehri must specify a target based on what he believes representation should be given the
coaching pipeline.
4. Mehri must identify the best approach for achieving that target.
yo
5. The best approach is likely a multi-pronged, holistic one that addresses both allocative and
valuative sources of racial disparity.
Discussion
Instructors can start the discussion by polling students on Mehri’s three primary options for the Rooney Rule:
1. Replace: If Mehri does not believe that the Rooney Rule is effective at increasing the
op
representation of NFL head coaches of color, then he should lobby the NFL to implement a
different policy (or bundle of policies).
2. Revise: If Mehri believes that the Rooney Rule requires modifications to meet its objectives, then
he should lobby the NFL to alter the rule in specific ways.
3. Abandon: If Mehri believes that the Rooney Rule is no longer effective or otherwise unnecessary,
then he should lobby the NFL to discontinue requiring franchises to comply with the rule.
tC
It is not anticipated that many students will support choice #3 (“Abandon”) but it is worth noting as an
option. Some students may wish to advocate for abandonment. For example, instructors should be prepared
for students to voice concerns about “reverse racism” or “affirmative action.” One effective response to
such concerns is to note that the Rooney Rule imposes no hiring requirements; the only requirement is to
interview candidates of color for open positions.
No
More broadly, instructors should be prepared for discussions of “equity versus equality,” implicit bias,
and racial disparity in leadership. Other students can be effective at arguing these points in a classroom
where students feel empowered to speak their minds respectfully. So long as the NFL consists of its 32
franchises with fairly standardized staff positions and hierarchies, numerically the gains of one racial group
will come at the expense of others.
Instructors should be prepared to address this zero-sum nature in light of widespread (and growing)
concerns about racial inequity in employment opportunity. It can be common for racial majority groups
Do
(e.g., white people in the United States) to be more receptive to the framing of diminishing one’s advantage
than the alternative of diminishing the disadvantages of others.
The abandonment choice is worth discussing, too, in order to highlight that the NFL can choose to
abandon the Rooney Rule at any point without any input whatsoever from Cyrus Mehri. This possibility
or 617.783.7860.
increases the urgency for Mehri. Instructors might note that Mehri characterized the abandonment option
t
as ‘inconceivable’ in light of the strong support for the Rooney Rule mentioned in the case.2 He often hears
os
the argument that the Rooney Rule is no longer needed, especially since President Barack Obama’s election.
Instructors might refer students to the arguments of Ibram X. Kendi, who asserts that the rhetoric of a ‘post-
racial’ society obscures enduring racism.3,4
Most students will advocate for options #1 or #2 (“Replace” or “Revise”). Instructors should prompt
students to address two points in their explanations.
rP
• First, students should have a clear position on whether or not the Rooney Rule has been effective
since 2003 at increasing the representation of head coaches of color. Students should be
prompted to make their analytical assumptions explicit (e.g., “Why do you believe the Rooney
Rule has/has not been effective?”; “What would have happened if there had been no Rooney
Rule?”). Such prompts will inevitably lead to a discussion of the possible paths depicted in case
Figure 4.
yo
• Second, students should have a clear position on what is an appropriate level of representation
for NFL head coaches of color. In other words, students should articulate a target representation
level for the Rooney Rule (or an alternative). Instructors can note that when the Rooney Rule
was implemented, no target was set. The rule was implemented only to “increase” representation.
Instructors can note that implementing any change without an explicit objective is likely to lead
to future disagreements about the change’s effectiveness based solely on different aspirations at
op
implementation.
Students are likely to raise some common objections to revising the Rooney Rule:
• Costs - Students might voice concerns about additional compliance costs (e.g., more interviews).
Instructors might point out that interviews must be conducted anyway. All the modifications
tC
require is that candidates of color be interviewed.

• More changes - Some will note that the 2020 modifications to the Rooney Rule (e.g.,
interviewing multiple head coach candidates of color) have already substantially revised the
Rooney Rule. These revisions reflect empirical evidence on the efficacy of diverse candidate
pools.5 So, students might not see a need for additional revisions.
• Draft picks - In November 2020, the NFL owners approved the awarding of draft picks to
franchises that develop coaches and executives of color (e.g., the focal franchise employs
No
the individual before another team hires them). In the 2021 NFL hiring cycle, multiple teams
received draft picks for such hires (e.g., 49ers, Rams, Ravens, Saints) and there were few
complaints from football fans about competitive implications.6 Mehri views this approach as better
than awarding picks to teams that hire a candidate of color because such policies send mixed
signals about the hiring motivation. He also views this approach in the same spirit of the Fair
Competition Resolution that he and Cochran proposed in 2002 (see case Exhibit 1).
• Accountability - Mehri often points out the need for greater and more consistent accountability.
For example, he viewed the NFL’s response to the Lions hiring Steve Mariucci and the Raiders
Do
hiring Jon Gruden as inconsistent (i.e., the Lions were penalized but the Raiders were not). In
his view, consistent accountability of owners, front office personnel, and coaches is necessary
to change the cultural norms that govern hiring. He points to research by Frank Dobbin and
Sandra Kalev as evidence that diversity policies work best when there is consistent accountability
pressure on decision-makers.7
or 617.783.7860.
• DE&I action plans ‑ Some students might propose that recent franchise requirements to develop
t
action plans might address any shortcomings of the current situation. Again, Mehri views
os
consistent accountability for performance relative to objectives as critical for making such plans
effective. Similar concerns may be raised about the clarity and transparency of “inclusion riders”
popularized in Hollywood but the NFL’s application of the Rooney Rule has been much more clear
and transparent. Any proposals for plans or policies should specify clear objectives, as well as
reporting and enforcement mechanisms.
rP
As students articulate their positions (and engage each other), it should become clear that any decision
Mehri makes must be informed by equity analytics. Specifically, the discussion lays the groundwork for two
types of analysis: (1) counterfactual estimation of head coach of color representation and, (2) estimation
of potential equity gains to any changes. The next section details these analyses.
Case Analytics
yo
Students should be encouraged to be creative and as sophisticated as they would like to be in
conducting the case analyses. The nature of the analysis is such that there are no inherently “right” ways
to conduct it. There are, however, more or less persuasive analyses and the key to a persuasive analysis
is defensible assumptions. So, instructors should plan to push students more on their assumptions than
their analytical conclusions about counterfactual estimates or simulated effects. Most reasonable analyses
will eventually arrive at the conclusion that the Rooney Rule would be strengthened by modifications that
address allocative and valuative sources of racial disparity in hiring and promotion.
op
There are two types of analyses that students can be instructed to perform.
1. Counterfactual Representation Estimates

Students should try to estimate how the representation of NFL head coaches of color would have
evolved in the absence of the Rooney Rule’s implementation. This can be as simple as drawing
tC
lines from 2003 to 2020 (as in case Figure 4). This is what we term a “rhetorical counterfactual”
because it relies on rhetoric, not analytics, to describe the trend in the absence of the Rooney Rule.
Instructors should engage students with these positions but also caution them that such rhetoric
has been popularized by journalists and sports enthusiasts without much effect. In other words,
rhetoric is useful for informing analyses but it lacks the credibility necessary to inform and
implement meaningful change. If this were not the case, then NFL observers probably would not
No
hotly debate the Rooney Rule’s efficacy every year. This is, nevertheless, a good starting point for
discussion, but students should be encouraged to articulate the basis for their intuitions.
More sophisticated analyses might use regression methods to extrapolate values from the time
trend. Even more sophisticated analyses might use synthetic counterfactual estimates based on
the representation figures. The analyses below provide instructors with guidance and visuals for
doing so.
Incline?
Do
One approach to estimating a statistical counterfactual assumes that in the absence of the Rooney
Rule, NFL head coach of color representation would have continued to increase at the same rate
(e.g., percentage per year) as it increased prior to the rule’s implementation. In other words, this
approach assumes the “Incline” scenario discussed in the case and depicted in case Figure 4.
or 617.783.7860.
This possibility is most reasonable if one believes increasing representation is simply a matter
t
of time needed to change norms, alleviate bias, or otherwise address the underlying cause of the
os
racial disparity in head coach representation. In essence, this approach fits a line based on the
1985 to 2002 values for the solid red line in case Figure 2 and then linearly projects that fitted
line out to 2020 at a constant slope. The resulting graph is depicted in TN-Exhibit 1.
Note that although Stata was used to produce the accompanying figures, students can produce
similar graphs (without the confidence intervals) through linear interpolation in an Excel worksheet.
rP
In TN-Exhibit 1, the majority of observed values between 2003 and 2020 are within the 95%
confidence interval obtained from the regression analysis. This analysis implies that the observed
representation of NFL head coaches of color after 2002 was approximately what we might have
expected given the time trend from 1985 to 2002. Based on this analysis, we cannot infer that the
Rooney Rule caused an increase in representation of head coaches of color in the NFL.
yo
Another approach to estimating a statistical counterfactual assumes that in the absence of the
Rooney Rule, NFL head coach of color representation would have increased proportionately with
coach of color representation among the candidates for head coaching positions. This is a slight
variation on the “Incline” scenario discussed in the case.
This possibility is most reasonable if one believes that increasing diversity is simply a matter of
the pipeline of qualified coaching candidates diversifying. In other words, one might expect head
op
coaches to be as racially diverse as coordinators and assistant coaches. In essence, this approach
fits a line based on the count-weighted 1985 to 2002 values for the solid red and black dashed
lines in case Figure 2 and then linearly projects that fitted line out to 2020 at a constant slope.
The resulting graph is depicted in TN-Exhibit 2.
In TN-Exhibit 2, only one of the post-implementation figures is below the predicted time trend
tC
represented by the solid line. The majority of observed values between 2003 and 2020 are above
the 95% confidence interval obtained from the regression analysis. This analysis indicates that the
observed representation of NFL head coaches of color after 2002 was greater than we might have
expected, given the composition of the assistant coach pipeline. Based on this analysis, we can infer
that the Rooney Rule caused an increase in representation of head coaches of color in the NFL.
What can we make of the conflicting results depicted in TN-Exhibits 1 and 2? Our effort to
No
estimate the causal effect of the Rooney Rule on head coach of color representation highlights the
difficulty of evaluating diversity interventions based on estimated counterfactuals. The inference
is highly sensitive to assumptions of “What if…?” that can vary across reasonable observers.
Instructors should highlight the difficulty of evaluating the Rooney Rule absent (a) explicitly-
stated goals at implementation or, (b) an implementation designed to produce statistically valid
counterfactual estimates.
Note that instructors who wish to further push the analytics might also estimate similar
Do
counterfactuals but change small details like the sample definition (e.g., starting the analysis in
1991). These seemingly arbitrary choices can impact the analytical inference substantially, given
the small number of years and coaches of color in the sample. For longer or more analytical classes,
it is worth allocating time to demonstrate the importance of assumptions for equity analysts.
or 617.783.7860.
Plateau or Cliff?
t
Note there are no projections associated with the “Plateau” or “Cliff” scenarios introduced in the
os
case. If one believes that these are reasonable counterfactuals, then the evaluation of the Rooney
Rule is fairly straightforward; the rule can be deemed effective, given that the pre-post test
mentioned in the case is statistically significant.
Students who endorse these scenarios, however, must address whether or not the current count
rP
of only three head coaches of color (as of the 2021 season) represents a statistical anomaly or
a fundamental change in the rule’s effectiveness. It is not anticipated that many students will
continue to endorse these positions once the analytics below are discussed.
Alternative Counterfactuals?
Students might alternatively use other leagues’ representation figures to estimate counterfactuals.
For example, econometricians might be familiar with synthetic counterfactual methods that could
yo
match the NFL’s time trend to a weighted average of other league’s time trends in the pre period
and then compare the observed to estimated trend in the post period. Because students are not
expected to be familiar with this approach, instructors might wish to instead introduce the idea of
constructing a counterfactual from “similar” contexts not subject to the Rooney Rule.
In this spirit, TN-Exhibit 3 plots the actual NFL representation time trend for head coaches of color
against an equal-weighted average estimate of the comparison leagues depicted in case Figure 3
op
and case Table 3. This is easily constructed in an Excel worksheet.
This figure suggests that the NFL lagged the comparison leagues but “caught up” in representation
after the implementation of the Rooney Rule. Of course, this inference is also sensitive to assumptions
like which leagues to include or exclude, how to weight the leagues, etc. Instructors are advised
not to dwell on the actual estimates but, rather, the difficulty of constructing counterfactual
tC
estimates based on debatable assumptions.
It is also advisable to discuss the sensitivity of representation figures to small numbers bias. There
were 32 NFL franchises as of 2021 (and fewer in earlier years). The difference between a representation
figure of 9.4% and 15.6% is, therefore, the hiring or firing of two coaches of color. Students should
be advised not to draw overly strong inferences from the ups and downs of the graphs.
No
2. Simulated Intervention Estimates

Whether students believe the Rooney Rule was effective or not, they will likely wish to make
changes to it. Such discussions can also be informed by equity analytics and specifically by using
case Table 1.
Case Table 1 is based on a recent study of racial disparity in NFL coach promotion rates that
delineates two bases of disparity in promotions (Rider, et al., 2020, working paper described in the
Pedagogy section of this teaching note). First, coaches might be allocated differentially, by race,
Do
to coaching positions that vary in their propensity to prepare a coach for promotion to higher-level
positions. Racial disparities in leadership, therefore, can result purely from differential allocations
to position.
or 617.783.7860.
Second, coaches allocated to the same position might perform equivalently in that position but
t
their performance might be valued differently by race. Racial disparities in leadership, therefore,
os
can also result purely from differential rewards for performance (i.e., equal contributions are valued
differently).
To design an effective equity intervention, it is necessary to delineate the relative influences of

these allocative and valuative factors. For example, reallocating coaches to different positions
only to be disadvantaged in performance evaluations is unlikely to close the gap in leadership.
rP
Instructors are encouraged to introduce students to allocative and valuative mechanisms because
these can be leveraged for change, as demonstrated in a simple exercise.
Allocative vs. Valuative Disadvantages

As TN-Exhibit 4 demonstrates, coaches of color are disadvantaged in their chances of attaining
a head coach position in two ways. First, coaches of color are more likely than white coaches to
yo
work in positions with lower conditional probabilities of becoming a head coach. This is visually
evident in the exhibit in the generally rightward skew of the black columns and the downward
sloping trend of the conditional probability markers (i.e., red spheres and aqua diamonds). This
constitutes evidence of an “allocative” disadvantage (i.e., white coaches are allocated to “better”
positions than coaches of color).
Second, coaches of color are also less likely to attain a head coach position, conditional on their
op
current position, than white coaches. This is visually evident in TN-Exhibit 4, where the white
coach conditional probability (the red sphere) is generally above the coach of color conditional
probability (the aqua diamond). This constitutes evidence of a “valuative” disadvantage (i.e.,
white coaches accrue greater rewards when occupying a position than coaches of color). Again,
instructors may wish to read the Rider et al. study for a more complete understanding of these
mechanisms and the analyses.
tC
Beyond the data visualization, instructors can show students how to use the data in case Table 1 to
estimate bases of advantage and to simulate interventions. In TN-Exhibit 5, we sum the product,
by race, of (a) the percentage of at-risk years and, (b) the conditional probability reported in Panel
A to yield a race-specific, allocation-weighted probability of becoming a head coach conditional
on one’s current position.
No
Panel A summarizes that white coaches have an allocation-weighted conditional probability of

0.015 and coaches of color have a probability of 0.006, implying that, given one’s current position,
white coaches are 2.60 times more likely to become a head coach than coaches of color, given their
current position (i.e., 00.015/0.006). In other words, white coaches are allocated to positions
with greater advancement prospects than coaches of color.
Allocative vs. Valuative Interventions

Then, two possible interventions are simulated for reducing (or eliminating) the racial disparity.
The first is purely allocative; coaches of color are allocated to positions in equal proportion to
Do
white coaches. For example, in Panel B the “% Initial Years | CoC” figure is set to be equivalent to
the “% Initial Years | W” figure in Panel A. But the racial disparity in the conditional probability of
being promoted to head coach is retained.
or 617.783.7860.
One can visualize this allocative intervention as setting the black columns in TN-Exhibit 4 equal
t
to the grey columns so that any remaining disparity in promotion rates is solely attributable to
os
valuative factors, as indexed by the racial differences in the conditional probabilities (i.e., the
red spheres and aqua diamonds in these figures). This allocative intervention on current position
reduces the white coach advantage by 50.8% (0.492 = 1.28/2.60). The key takeaway here is that
completely eliminating allocative advantages will reduce the racial disparity in promotion changes
but not entirely (i.e., equity is achieved when at a parity figure of 1.0).
rP
In contrast with this allocative intervention is a purely valuative one that eliminates racial
disparity in the conditional probabilities of promotion to head coach, while preserving the racially
disparate allocations of coaches to positions. For example, Panel B sets the “CP (HC Promo | CoC)”
figure to be equivalent to the “CP (HC Promo | W)” figure in Panel A. But the racial disparity in the
percentage of initial years by position is retained.
One can visualize this valuative intervention as setting the red spheres and aqua diamonds
yo
equivalent in TN-Exhibit 4 so that any remaining disparity in promotion rates is attributable to
allocative actors, as represented by the racial differences in the grey and black columns in these
figures. This valuative intervention on current position reduces the advantage by 36.7% (0.633 =
1.65/2.60). The key takeaway here is that completely eliminating valuative advantages will also
reduce the racial disparity in promotion changes but not entirely (i.e., equity is achieved when at
a parity figure of 1.0).
op
Simulation Takeaways
These simulated interventions suggest that disparate representation of NFL head coaches of color
will not be eliminated by any one intervention. So, it is unreasonable to expect that the Rooney
Rule could do so if neither purely effective allocative or valuative interventions can. As a result,
racial disparity will likely be eliminated only through a combination of allocative and valuative
tC
interventions that change how coaches are allocated to positions and also rewarded for their
performance in position.
As students grapple with Mehri’s dilemma, it is useful to highlight that many of their proposed
solutions are viable but that no one solution will close the racial gap. Rather, a bundle of solutions
is necessary. And, if anyone possesses knowledge of multiple, effective practices, then surely
Cyrus Mehri and his many collaborators do. The Rooney Rule may, therefore, be part of a holistic
No
approach, so discussion should turn to “What else?” must be added to the Rooney Rule to enhance
its effectiveness.
At this point, instructors should turn the classroom discussion to the whiteboard to categorize
students’ proposed modifications into “allocative” and “valuative” interventions. The simulated
analyses imply that a holistic approach must change both the allocation of people to jobs and the
provision of career rewards. Delineating student proposals by these intended effects helps structure
a holistic approach to a new-and-improved Rooney Rule.
Do
Design
Regardless of what solution results from the classroom decision, instructors might take the opportunity
to introduce students to the merits of randomized, controlled trial (RCT) design that generates counterfactual
estimates by design. Having spent an hour or two crunching numbers and making questionable assumptions,
10
or 617.783.7860.
the students should be open to the idea of implementing in a way that avoids those exercises entirely—a
t
potentially nice teaching moment.
os
There are many resources for teaching RCT designs for field experiments (e.g., Khan Academy, Harvard
Business Review). Instructors can direct students to their preferred readings, but it is suggested that a
graphic similar to TN-Exhibit 6 be presented during class.
rP
Conclusion
This case puts students in Cyrus Mehri’s position and asks them to debate the merits of abandoning,
replacing, or revising the Rooney Rule. The equity analytics enables students to go beyond the rhetoric of
sports fans and journalists and into a rigorous evaluation of not only the Rooney Rule’s history, but also
its future. After completing this case, students should be able to appreciate the strengths and weaknesses
of the most prominent diversity management practice in the United States today and design policies
yo
modeled after the Rooney Rule for greater effectiveness within their organizations. In doing so, students
can practice developing alternative approaches to achieving DE&I objectives.
op
tC
No
Do
11
or 617.783.7860.
Exhibits
t
os
TN-Exhibit 1
Counterfactual Estimates Based on a Linear Time Trend, as of 2002
rP
yo
op
Source: Created by the case author.
tC
No
Do
12
or 617.783.7860.
Exhibits (cont.)
t
os
TN-Exhibit 2
Counterfactual Estimates Based on a Diversifying Pipeline, as of 2002
rP
yo
op
tC
No
Do
13
or 617.783.7860.
Exhibits (cont.)
t
os
TN-Exhibit 3
Synthetic Counterfactual Estimates Based on Other Leagues
rP
yo
op
tC
No
Do
14
or 617.783.7860.
Exhibits (cont.)
t
os
TN-Exhibit 4
2021 NFL Coaching Positions, White Coaches (WC) vs. Coaches of Color (CoC)
rP
yo
op
Notes
This exhibit summarizes the current (2021) positions of 1,353 coaches who began their NFL coaching careers at a
position other than head coach. HC is omitted from the exhibit because these coach-years are excluded from the
tC
analyses (i.e., head coaches are not at-risk of promotion to HC). In the data, 9.03% of white coach years are in the HC
position, as well as 3.35% of at-risk years for coaches of color. The “Other” assistant position includes those in a Level
4 position of general assistant, defensive assistant, or offensive assistant.
The left Y-axis, in bold black, indexes the percentage of coaches, by race, who coach each position in the focal year
(e.g., 7.88% of all white coach-years are in quarterback coach position, while 1.70% of coaches of color coach-years
are). For all positions, the racial differences in current position allocation are statistically significant (p<0.05 or
p<0.01) except for assistant head coaches and quality control coaches.
No
Positions are ordered left to right on the X-axis by level and, within level, by the aggregate conditional probability
(independent of race) of being promoted to head coach conditional on coaching that position in the focal year. The
probability for white coaches is indexed on the graph by the red spheres while coaches of color are indexed by the
aqua diamonds. Their values correspond to the right Y-axis in italicized numbers. For example, conditional on coaching
defensive backs & secondary a white coach has a 1.00% chance of being promoted to head coach while a coach of
color has only a 0.42% chance of doing so.
Source: Rider, Christopher I., James B. Wade, Anand Swaminathan, and Andreas Schwab. “Racial disparity in leadership: Evidence of valuative bias in the promotions of National
Football League coaches.” University of Michigan, 2020. Working Paper.
Do
15
or 617.783.7860.
Exhibits (cont.)
t
os
TN-Exhibit 5
2021 NFL Coaching Positions, White Coaches (WC) vs. Coaches of Color (CoC)
rP
yo
op
tC
No
Do
Source: Rider, Christopher I., James B. Wade, Anand Swaminathan, and Andreas Schwab. “Racial disparity in leadership: Evidence of valuative bias in the promotions of National
Football League coaches.” University of Michigan, 2020. Working Paper.
16
or 617.783.7860.
Exhibits (cont.)
t
os
TN-Exhibit 6
Randomized Controlled Trial Design for Implementing DE&I Policies
rP
yo
op
tC
No
Do
17
or 617.783.7860.
Endnotes
t
Hadero, Haleyula. “Corporations Become Unlikely Financiers of Racial Equity.” ABC News, 17 Mar. 2021. www.abcnews.go.com/
os
1
Business/wireStory/corporations-financiers-racial-equity-76510434. Accessed 23 Mar. 2021.

2 Mehri, Cyrus. Personal interview. 2 July 2021.
3 Kendi, Ibram X. “Racial Progress Is Real. But So Is Racist Progress.” New York Times, 21 Jan. 2017. https://www.nytimes.
com/2017/01/21/opinion/sunday/racial-progress-is-real-but-so-is-racist-progress.html. Accessed 6 July 2021.
4 Kendi, Ibram X. How To Be An Antiracist. Random House, 2019.
rP
5 Johnson, Stefanie K., David R. Hekman, and Elsa T. Chan. “If There’s Only One Woman in Your Candidate Pool, There’s Statistically
No Chance She’ll Be Hired.” Harvard Business Review, 26 Apr. 2016. https://hbr.org/2016/04/if-theres-only-one-woman-in-your-
candidate-pool-theres-statistically-no-chance-shell-be-hired. Accessed 6 July 2021.
6 Florio, Mike. “Hiring cycle creates four extra third-round picks for 2021.” Pro Football Talk, NBC Sports, 28 Jan. 2021. https://
profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/01/28/hiring-cycle-creates-four-extra-third-round-picks-for-2021/. Accessed 6 July 2021.
7 Dobbin, Frank, and Alexandra Kalev. “Are Diversity Programs Merely Ceremonial? Evidence-Free Institutionalization”. The Sage
Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, edited by Royston Greenwood, Christine Oliver, Thomas B. Lawrence, and Renate E.
Meyer, SAGE Publications, 2017, pp. 808-828.
yo
op
tC
No
Do
18
or 617.783.7860.
Notes
t
os
rP
yo
op
tC
No
Do
19
or 617.783.7860.
t
os
rP
yo
op
Established at the University of Michigan in 1992, the William Davidson Institute
(WDI) is an independent, non-profit research and educational organization focused on
providing private-sector solutions in emerging markets. Through a unique structure
that integrates research, field-based collaborations, education/training, publishing,
tC
and University of Michigan student opportunities, WDI creates long-term value for
academic institutions, partner organizations, and donor agencies active in emerging
markets. WDI also provides a forum for academics, policy makers, business leaders, and
development experts to enhance their understanding of these economies. WDI is one
of the few institutions of higher learning in the United States that is fully dedicated to
understanding, testing, and implementing actionable, private-sector business models
addressing the challenges and opportunities in emerging markets.
No
Do
or 617.783.7860.

CYRUS

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CYRUS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

t

Cyrus Mehri and the National Football League’s

through personnel policies would be appropriate for this case.

What would you expect to achieve?

These figures highlight the key points of the case:

require is that candidates of color be interviewed.

1. Counterfactual Representation Estimates

estimates based on debatable assumptions.

2. Simulated Intervention Estimates

To design an effective equity intervention, it is necessary to delineate the relative influences of

Allocative vs. Valuative Disadvantages

Panel A summarizes that white coaches have an allocation-weighted conditional probability of

Allocative vs. Valuative Interventions

Business/wireStory/corporations-financiers-racial-equity-76510434. Accessed 23 Mar. 2021.

You might also like