The role of the Chief Diversity Officer (CDO) in higher education is a recent phenomenon, having gained prominence only within the last decade. The growth in the role seems to mirror that of corporate America's, which began appointing a senior level executive to focus on diversity and inclusion to achieve economic benefits for the firm (Bishop-Monroe, et al., 2020; Mehta et al., 2021). In the context of higher education, shifting demographics, political unrest, enduring social inequities for marginalized groups, corporation requiring cultural competence in recent graduates and other dynamics have signaled the need for designated leadership to assist academic institutions in leveraging diversity for strategic advantage (Williams & Clowney, 2007; Williams & Wade-Golden, 2007; Wilson, J. 2013). The growth in CDO appointments has not been limited to the institutional level, as many academic units have also chosen to designate a position to champion and drive a diversity agenda within the college. While scholarship on the work of the CDO at the institution level is still at a nascent stage, it is non-existent at the level of the academic unit. This qualitative study sought to address the gap in the literature by examining the role of the CDO at top 50 US business schools. Semi-structured interviews with 23 CDOs explored the rationale for their appointment, the problems they are trying to solve, how they are structured and resourced to solve those problems, and what is enabling and impeding their success. The scholarship of Williams & Wade-Golden was used to understand the role of the CDO and to frame the work within their purview, while Bolman & Deal's four- frame approach was used to examine the contributors and impediments to their success. Findings revealed that the murder of George Floyd in 2020 was a key driver in the appointment or elevation of CDOs in the business schools, moving the diversity agenda beyond student composition and academic success to include priorities of climate, faculty composition and inclusive pedagogy. To successfully execute against this agenda, a number of schools appointed a "faculty" CDO or an administrative CDO with a faculty partner. When considering the span of attention of the CDO in the business school, the study uncovered there is often a misalignment between the CDO's purview and the resources allocated to address that purview, causing frustration, burnout and turn-over in the role. Findings also revealed three critical relationships contributing to the success of the CDO in the business school: the campus CDO, donors and corporate partners and the dean. While the impending Supreme Court's ruling on race consideration in admission may not directly impact the work of the CDO in the academic unit (admission decision are often made by the central campus admission's office), shifts in US politics and legislation to eliminate the use of state and federal funds for diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging (DEIB) work at public institutions will increase the academic CDO's reliance on donors and corporate partners in the foreseeable future. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://bibliotheek.ehb.be:2222/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]