Diversity Management: A Critical Review and Agenda for the Future PDF 2021

868025 research-article2019 JMIXXX10.1177/1056492619868025Journal of Management InquiryKöllen Essay...

868025 research-article2019 JMIXXX10.1177/1056492619868025Journal 260 still predominant (the latter mainly in U.S. American con- texts; e.g., Herring, 2009). That said, other dimensions, such as age, ethnicity, disability status, and religion, have gained more and more visibility in the last decade. Furthermore, dimensions such as sexual orientation and gender identity are no longer treated as gingerly as they once were, although the latter, especially, is only barely visible within the diver- sity discourse (Barak, 1999; Qin et al., 2014; Sabharwal et al., 2018). Diversity management can be seen as a kind—or a facet— of human resource management (Mathews, 1998; Shen et al., 2009); and its global diffusion has many things in common with the global diffusion of human resource management in general (Reichel, 2015, p. 2; Schuler & Jackson, 2005). Having emerged in the United States, diversity management first spread to the industrialized countries of the Anglosphere. It then arrived in Continental Europe around the turn of the millennium (Klarsfeld et al., 2012; Süß, 2008) through sub- sidiaries of bigger American (or British) companies (such as Ford, British Petroleum [BP], and Shell; e.g., Egan & Bendick, 2003; Ferner et al., 2005), or through European companies with big subsidiaries in the United States (such as Deutsche Bank; Wolff, 2006). A mere couple of years later, the first Latin America companies began to implement diver- sity management approaches of some kind, with most of these companies being multinational ones (Chiappetta Jabbour et al., 2011; Raineri, 2018). The same holds true for many Asian countries (Mackie et al., 2014; Thomson et al., 2019; Wang & McLean, 2016), and some African countries (Akobo & Damisah, 2018). At the outset—especially in the Western industrialized countries—there were only a handful of sizable and profit- oriented companies that implemented a diversity manage- ment approach (Point & Singh, 2003); today, however, the practice has been adopted by an increasing number of organizations, such as trade unions, public authorities (including territorial authorities), associations, and so forth (e.g., Klarsfeld et al., 2016; Rice, 2010; Stringfellow, 2012). Varying macro-contextual determinants—such as legal framework, demography, sociopolitical factors, and specific history—shape the diversity-related issues of hierarchization and marginalization within given work- forces in each country in different ways (Syed & Özbilgin, 2009). However, the designs of the diversity management practices enacted in various national settings, as well as their underlying legitimizing rationales, are often quite similar. The Shape of Diversity Management Practices Diversity management practices deal with two distinct but interrelated challenges or questions. On one hand, where Köllen Clutterbuck & Ragins, 2002). The same rationale is behind the diversity management practice of establishing employee network affinity groups. These voluntary networks are mostly open to specific minority employees or women, such as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) networks, or networks for certain ethnic groups or religions. One goal of these networks is to provide their members with a “safe haven,” and with the same resources that mentoring pro- grams do. However, these networks also help to make minor- ities and women visible within the organization, and to give them a voice. Sometimes, such networks may also help orga- nizations in reaching a diverse customer base, or diverse job candidates, or they may take on other diversity-related responsibilities within the organizations. Indicative of this role and its assumed economic value for the organization is the labeling of such networks as “employee resource groups” (Douglas, 2008; McFadden & Crowley-Henry, 2018; Welbourne et al., 2015). Although not necessarily related to diversity issues, organizations will frequently integrate ini- tiatives into their diversity approaches that aim at supporting their employees in managing their work/life interface more effectively. These work/life balance-related initiatives often attempt to facilitate the reconciling of caring responsibili with work. As these responsibilities are, in general, more often taken on by women than by men, this can become a gender issue, and, therefore, a diversity issue. The most com- mon practices of this kind are flexible working hours, job- sharing, and childcare provisions (Chung & van 2020; Doherty, 2004). Although most research on diversity management prac- tices reflects the American context, or the context of other countries in the Anglosphere (Konrad et al., 2016), globally, the shape of these practices does not diverge significantly (Klarsfeld, et al., 2014). Gitzi and Köllen (2006) classified seven categories of diversity management practices that are most important in the Austrian and German context, and that reflect this similarity. These are as follows: (a) work/life bal- ance measures; (b) employee networks around certain diver- sity categories; (c) the empowerment of individual members of disadvantaged groups (e.g., through mentoring or train- ing); (d) corporate guidelines and behavior policies (e.g., non- discrimination policies); (e) awareness building (e.g., training or information campaigns); (f) reintegration after (e.g., paren- tal) leave or sabbaticals, (g) sponsoring and target group mar- keting (e.g., for lesbians and gays, or for certain nationalities/ ethnicities; Gitzi & Köllen, 2006). Klarsfeld (2009) confirms the resemblance of the shape of organizations’ diversity pro- grams for the French context, and Chiappetta Jabbour et al. (2011) do so for the Brazilian context. However, even though the practices may be of a similar type, there are differences in how diversity is dimensionalized in different national con- texts. Different legal frameworks in different countries may result in specific dimensions of workforce diversity in 262 organizations cover a much broader range of dimensions, the dimensions most frequently considered are those of race/ color and gender/sex (e.g., Herring, 2009; Pitts, 2009). As a further example, German companies, too, perceive gender as being the most relevant category within their diversity pro- grams, followed by language, disability status, and age. Here, race is the second least important dimension, just before sex- ual orientation. In the future, it is supposed that “age” will be the most relevant diversity category (Süß, 2008). This seems to be in line, more or less, with the status quo in other European countries (Point & Singh, 2003). The focus of diversity management practices in Brazil, however, is primar- ily on race, followed by disability. Some organizations also consider gender (Chiappetta Jabbour et al., 2011, p. 72). Other Latin American countries seem to have similar foci (Raineri, 2018). Chinese diversity management practices put an emphasis on gender and residential status, followed by racial and ethnic differences (Thomson et al., 2019). Gender is also the focus of Japanese diversity management practices (Kemper et al., 2016). Diversity management is some way from being a well- defined and unambiguous management approach, and it is questionable as to whether this can change in the future (Risberg & Just, 2015). The next section identifies and dis- cusses two crucial areas of dissent or ambivalence within the diversity discourse: first, the dimensionality of diversity and related prioritization, as well as different assumptions as to what manifestations dimensions comprise in concrete terms, and how they are interrelated; second, the legitimacy of diver- sity management, and within this, the identification mate starting points, operating ranges, and desired outcomes. Crucial Areas of Dissent and Ambivalence in Diversity Management The Dimensionality of Diversity Management When talking about diversity, it is important to mention that, at least conceptually, there are an infinite number of dimen- sions of diversity (e.g., Prasad & Mills, 1997). Diversity can include any dimension (or category) whereby people share a specific manifestation of that dimension with one another, or, conversely, whereby people differ from one another in terms of a specific manifestation of the dimension. This is impor- tant, as in different settings (or contexts), different dimen- sions might be crucial for processes of inclusion, exclusion, and related hierarchization (Shore et al., 2011). However, within both the academic and the practical discourse on diversity and diversity management, the potentially infinite number of dimensions is usually reduced to a few. One rea- son for this narrowing of the focus can be found in the vary- ing power and strengths of the various social movements that promoted and still do promote the inclusion of specific dimensions in specific national contexts. These movements Köllen gender initiatives often aim at supporting biological women, or redistributing resources between two biological sexes. The danger of weakening the starting point for these prac- tices of redistribution, that is, the clear distinction between men and women (or femininity and masculinity), can be seen as one reason for the still-prevalent marginalization of two phenomena within the discourse on diversity management: intersexuality and transgenderism (Köllen, 2016). Trans persons perceive a mismatch between their biologi- cal sex and their gender identity, and different ways and degrees exist of adjusting their gender presentation gender identity. Intersex persons possess sex characteristics that do not correspond with the ones of the dichotomous approach of clearly distinguishing between being male or female. Therefore, both phenomena belong to the diversity dimension of “gender/sex.” However, in practice, if, indeed, they are mentioned at all, they are usually shunted into a dimension where they are grouped together with sexual ori- entation. This happens, for example, through utilizing the initialisms LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) or LGBTI (I = intersex; e.g., Chuang et al., 2018). As inter- sexuality and transgenderism are not sexual orientations, this mostly cements their marginalized and neglected status (Sawyer et al., 2016). Nevertheless, many countries have a legal protection against sexual orientation and gender iden- tity discrimination in the workplace (Lau, 2018), for exam- ple, in the case of the United States, through the nascent extension of the meaning of “sex” protected by Title VII, toward these dimensions (Muñoz & Kalteux, 2016). Furthermore, there are some prominent examples of compa- nies that have integrated gender identity into their diversity programs, for example, SAP (Martins et al., 2016). In the United States particularly—in the wake of what CNN News Editor Brandon Griggs called “America’s transgender moment” (Griggs, 2015)—many companies have openly taken action to support and protect their transgender employ- ees (R. T. Anderson, 2018). However, globally, the consider- ation of “gender identity” in organizational diversity programs is still the exception rather than the rule (Köllen, 2016). The discussion as to within which dimension of diversity transgenderism should be placed (given that it is one kind of gender identity, alongside cisgenderism), and within which dimension intersexuality should be placed (given that this is a broad spectrum of manifestations of the individual’s bio- logical sex), is merely one approach to these phenomena. Conversely, another approach is to label both phenomena as dimensions in and of themselves, without perforce having to discuss with which other phenomena they should be grouped, and which priorities are set within these groups. Questioning why there are so few organizations that inte- grate these issues into their diversity approaches would then lead to the issues of priorities that are set. For example, not perceiving the dimension of “gender identity” as being a 264 distinguishing between the concepts of ethnicity and race (Brubaker, 2009). Due to the way the concept of “race” was utilized politically during the Second World War, and, indeed, in the years prior to it, it was largely supplanted concept in Europe by the term ethnicity (or sometimes, cul- ture). Globally, this trend was supported by statements and recommendations made by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in the early 1950s (Lentin, 2008). In the negotiations about European Commission (EC) Directive 2000/43, the controversy about the appropriate terminology to be used—with, for example, Belgium and Sweden in favor of deleting this term in anti- discrimination legislation, and the United Kingdom being the advocate of its retention—reflects the resistance parts of Europe to the concept of race (Bell, 2008). As an attempt to respond to the constructivist concerns of many continental European countries, it was stated, in the non- binding preamble of the directive, that “The European Union rejects theories which attempt to determine the exis- tence of separate human races. The use of the term ‘racial origin’ in this Directive does not imply an acceptance of such theories” (EC, 2000). The line of distinction between the concept of ethnicity and the political concept of nationality is also quite (Woodwell, 2007). Ethnicities often also have a kin (or nation) state, or a “kin region” within a nation-state, they represent the majority of the population (Brubaker, 2009). However, a counterexample to this would be the Roma people (Messing & Bereményi, 2017). Globally, and especially in recent times, it is the emerging nationalism many countries that brings with it a return to national identi- ties, which shapes, in large part, the discourse on the origins and “belonging” of individuals (Fossum et al., 2018; Kingston, 2016; López-Alves & Johnson, 2018). This con- trasts with the fact that diversity research mostly ignores that, for many people, national identities still “shape dominant ways in which people make sense of themselves and others” (Antonsich, 2009, p. 281). As these processes of sense-making can establish nationalist mechanisms of hier- archization within workplaces, it is important to address the dimension of nationality in diversity research and practice more explicitly. Although, in many countries, antidiscrimination legisla- tion covers all of these facets of an employee’s origin, heri- tage, or ancestry, this legislation does not force organizations to proactively integrate them into their diversity manage- ment programs in a differentiated way. Globally, of all these facets, “race” receives, by far, the highest attention in organi- zational diversity initiatives (Klarsfeld et al., 2014). However, depending on where the lines of distinction are drawn between these facets, an individual always represents spe- cific manifestations of each of these facets, for example, as a Black person with a Chinese passport. This points to another Köllen of discomfort and stress in the workplace, and the coping strategies of individuals for dealing with this stress, in terms of one dimension, can only be understood and interpreted within the interplay of that dimension with the other dimen- sions (Köllen, 2014; Prasad et al., 2007). Representing sev- eral underprivileged statuses can limit coping resources in a way that narrows down the number of coping opportunities, which can have acutely negative consequences for the indi- vidual’s well-being, their career development, and their job performance (e.g., Dispenza et al., 2019). For organizational diversity management approaches, this indicates the neces- sity of addressing a broad spectrum of diversity dimensions. An equal consideration of the different dimensions of diversity is the exception rather than the rule in both research and diversity management practice. Most research focuses on a single, or, at most, a few dimensions of diversity (inter- sectionally or not), and the same holds true for the design of most diversity management programs. This is closely related to the underlying reasons why organizations (aside from compliance with the law) decide to implement diversity management practices and, therefore, points to another cru- cial area of dissent or ambivalence of diversity management: its legitimacy. The Legitimacy of Diversity Management Without claiming that diversity management is a well- defined management concept, the queries over its legitimacy can be condensed into one question: Why should anyone implement diversity management? As already outlined before, a crucial reason to do so is compliance with the rele- vant laws. However, the various antidiscrimination laws or equal opportunities legislations leave organizations wide scope, in terms of how to comply with them. The law usually defines which dimensions of diversity have to be addressed, but, in most cases, it does not define the nature of the organi- zation’s commitment to this management approach, nor does it define the shape or the intensity of the organization’s diver- sity management programs. Organizations, therefore, have considerable leeway in terms of decision-making about the integration of more dimensions of diversity, and, in general, about the breadth and scope of these programs. Essentially, there are two different ways to legitimize a broad and com- prehensive approach to diversity management. The first per- spective assumes that there is a certain economic value inherent in diversity management, and that diversity man- agement will pay off in a monetary fashion for those who follow this management approach (e.g., Robinson & Dechant, 1997). The second perspective indirectly or directly claims that diversity management, or the goals of diversity management, is morally praiseworthy, which, therefore, makes it a legitimate management approach. This moral legitimacy is often closely related to the concept, or idea, of individuals or organizations having some kind of 266 backgrounds and experiences, demographically diverse peo- ple bring with them diverse perspectives. Woolley and Malone’s (2011) study on gender diversity in teams points in a similar direction. Drawing on an overview from several studies on gender diversity, a review from Nielsen et al. (2017) confirms this assumption for the academic sector. Although the positive impact may, indeed, outweigh the negative one, recent review articles show that group diver- sity or group heterogeneity have both negative and positive effects on team performance and organizational perfor- mance (Horwitz & Horwitz, 2007; Shemla, Meyer et al., 2016). However, several studies show that diversity man- agement programs can directly contribute to raising the per- formance of organizations, partially by activating the positive impacts of diversity, and partially by overcompen- sating for its negative effects (Armstrong et al., 2010; Choi & Rainey, 2010). Furthermore, diversity mindsets (i.e., the belief in its positive impact) can contribute to unlocking the potential inherent in workforce diversity. However, it is also shown that diversity is more beneficial for creative-type tasks, as opposed to process-outcome tasks (see reviews from Guillaume et al., 2017; E. S. Ng & Stephenson, 2015). While there is profound evidence that diversity management can have a positive impact on “softer” categories, such as loyalty, turnover intention, job satisfaction, climate, and so forth, in terms of their monetizability (e.g., Sabharwal et al., 2018), it is still difficult to quantify its economic value on a monetary basis (Herring, 2017; Manoharan & Singal, 2017; Singal & Gerde, 2015). In summation, it is not so much diversity per se that unam- biguously contributes to higher organizational performance, but, rather, properly managed diversity. This alone would already constitute an economic motivation for organizations to follow some kind of diversity management approach. However, there is also an ethical motivation for doing so. The moral value of diversity management. Most diversity scholars and practitioners share the view that diversity man- agement is a “socially just and morally desirable” (Lorbiecki & Jack, 2000, p. 21) management approach. The moral value of this approach is based on the same considerations that formed the basis of the moral value of (former) affirma- tive action and equal opportunity approaches, that is, their contribution to achieving a state of relative equality. The present state of inequality is primarily expressed in unequal representations of members of the specific manifestations of the various dimensions of diversity in the different organiza- tional hierarchy levels. Top management positions in West- ern countries, for example, are still predominantly staffed with heterosexual, male, White managers without disabili- ties. A crucial reason for this is that they can more easily obtain access to the resources and capabilities necessary for achieving more prestigious positions, and they often also benefit from stereotypical pre-assumptions about their Köllen choose their membership of these groups, such arguments can be labeled as “innocent beneficiary argument[s] for affir- mative action” (Lippert-Rasmussen, 2017, p. 2). Advocates of this view derive the “putative obligations of the innocent beneficiaries of past injustice to benefit the involuntary vic- tims of those past injustices” (Lippert-Rasmussen, 2017, p. 1). However, because not every individual is a beneficiary or victim of historic injustice, the justice in question is per- force merely a justice of group-averages. “Radical” diversity management practices and the redistribution of resources and power from advantaged groups to disadvantaged ones are, therefore, rather justified on group levels, but this does not impose a moral duty on the level of the specific individ- ual (Lippert-Rasmussen, 2017). However, career develop- ment always happens on the individual level, and this might, therefore, make dissatisfaction on the part of those individu- als who do not benefit from diversity management practices somewhat understandable. The issue of “reverse discrimina- tion,” therefore, remains a sore point in diversity manage- ment, and there remains, too, a degree of resistance against these practices, which cannot, and should not, simply be argued away. Future Challenges and Possible Future Developments of Diversity Management The striving of organizations toward raising their profitabil- ity, or maximizing value for shareholders, in combination with the estimated economic value of diversity management, already deliver sufficient legitimization for said diversity management. However, the moral value inherent in diversity management broadens and stabilizes the basis of this legiti- macy. Organizations as such, and the advocates of diversity management within these organizations, can, therefore, rely on the stable narrative of doing something, which is simulta- neously morally good and profitable at the same time. This can be taken as one reason for the fact that there is no indica- tion that the ongoing diffusion of diversity management in industrial Western countries (and, increasingly, in the newly industrialized countries of Latin America and Asia) will slow down or stop in the medium term. In fact, quite the opposite would appear to be the case. Practically every single one of the industrialized countries, including the emergent ones, has a fertility rate below the level that would be needed to maintain its number of inhabit- ants (with all the other influencing factors remaining con- stant; World Bank, 2019). Given the continuously rising level of mechanization, and, as a consequence, productivity, a declining and/or aging population and workforce might not be alarming per se (Coleman & Rowthorn, 2011). However, there are nevertheless many responses that seek to address, if not counteract, this phenomenon of the shrinking workforce, resulting from the declining birth rate and the aging 268 the limits of what can be said, and what can be done. Political correctness, in the language of many populist poli- ticians and their supporters, is increasingly presented as a weakness, and drawing lines between “us” and “them” is being done in a way that is more confrontational and less respectful. From a diversity perspective, this is an alarming development, as these lines are almost always drawn between different manifestations of diversity categories. The most common target dimensions of these polarizations are those related to origin, heritage, and ancestry. However, polarizing rhetoric is also widespread in terms of religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, and other dimensions of diversity. When the political climate in a national context has changed in this way, it can be assumed that these changes also infiltrate the workplace and the overall cli- mate for inclusion. Future research should examine these very recent developments more closely, as organizations operating in such environments face the huge challenge of offering adequate diversity policies as a response to these starkly shifting attitudes. Against this background, future research should focus more closely on the dimension of employees’ origin, heri- tage, and ancestry, and the related disentangling of the cate- gories “ethnicity,” “race,” “national origin,” The category of “nationality,” as well as the processes of negotiating national identities in the workplace, and the related stereotype-based nationalist mechanisms of inclu- sion, exclusion, and hierarchization have, until now, been especially neglected in diversity research. Most research on the global diffusion of diversity man- agement practices applies an institutional focus when explaining why specific initiatives so closely resemble each other. Against this background, it is important to note that the first diversity management approaches appeared in the United States and have, therefore, been embedded in the macro-national context of the United States. Thus, the vari- ous national adaptations of diversity management that took those U.S. approaches as some kind of template or paradigm also adopted—at least to some degree—the American macro- national context, albeit that the histories, legal frameworks, and social contexts of those nations might differ substantially from those of the United States. Taken together with the fact that, in the past, diversity research was largely inspired by U.S. perspectives (Jonsen et al., 2011, p. 35), both future diversity management research and practice could benefit from a stronger focus on specific national conditions and backgrounds, in other national settings. Broadening our understanding of intergroup relations in given national con- texts and deepening our knowledge about how to handle them can provide diversity management practitioners in these contexts with a more nuanced knowledge about local and national peculiarities and, with more nuanced manage- ment practices, to overcome segregation and inequality in the workplace. Köllen Bendl, R., Fleischmann, A., & Hofmann, R. (2009). Queer theory and diversity management: Reading codes of conduct from a queer perspective. Journal of Management & Organization, 15, 625-638. Bonilla-Silva, E. (2004). From bi-racial to tri-racial: Towards a new system of racial stratification in the USA. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 27, 931-950. Boxill, B. R. (1972). The morality of reparation. Social Theory and Practice, 2, 113-123. Brubaker, R. (2009). Ethnicity, race, and nationalism. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 21-42. Chiappetta Jabbour, C. J., de Oliveira, J. H. C., Battistelle, R. A. G., Martinez, J. C., & Gordono, F. S. (2011). Diversity man- agement: Challenges, benefits, and the role of human resource management in Brazilian organizations. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 30(1), 58-74. Choi, S., & Rainey, H. G. (2010). Managing diversity in U.S. fed- eral agencies: Effects of diversity and diversity management on employee perceptions of organizational performance. Public Administration Review, 70, 109-121. Chrobot-Mason, D., & Aramovich, N. P. (2013). The psychological benefits of creating an affirming climate for workplace diver- sity. Group & Organization Management, 38, 659-689. Chuang, Y.-T., Church, R., & Hu, C. (2018). Effects of move- ments and opportunities on the adoption of same-sex partner health benefits by corporations. Journal of Management, 44, 2766-2800. Chung, H., & van der Lippe, T. (2020). Flexible working, work–life balance, and gender equality: Introduction. Social Indicators Research, 151, 365–381. doi:10.1007/s11205-018-2025-x Clayton, S. D., & Crosby, F. J. (1992). Justice, tive action. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Clutterbuck, D., Poulsen, K. M., & Kochan, F. (2012). Developing successful diversity mentoring programmes: An international casebook. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Clutterbuck, D., & Ragins, B. R. (2002). Mentoring and diversity: An international perspective. London, England: Routledge. Coleman, D., & Rowthorn, R. (2011). Who’s afraid of population decline? A critical examination of its consequences. Population and Development Review, 37, 217-248. Cox, T. (1994). Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory, research and practice. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. da Silva Martins, S., Medeiros, C. A., & Nascimento, E. L. (2004). Paving paradise: The road from “racial democracy” to affirma- tive action in Brazil. Journal of Black Studies, 34, 787-816. Dispenza, F., Brennaman, C., Harper, L. S., Harrigan, M. A., Chastain, T. E., & Procter, J. E. (2019). Career development of sexual and gender minority persons living with disabilities. The Counseling Psychologist, 47, 98-128. Doane, A. W., & Bonilla-Silva, E. (Eds.). (2003). White out: The continuing significance of racism. New York, NY: Routledge. Doherty, L. (2004). Work-life balance initiatives: Implications for women. Employee Relations, 26, 433-452. Douglas, P. H. (2008). Affinity groups: Catalyst for inclusive orga- nizations. Employment Relations Today, 34(4), 11-18. EC. (2000). Council Directive 2000/43/EC. Retrieved from https:// eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32 000L0043:en:HTML 270 Guillaume, Y. R. F., Dawson, J. F., Otaye-Ebede, L., Woods, S. A., & West, M. A. (2017). Harnessing demographic differences in organizations: What moderates the effects of workplace diver- sity? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38, 276-303. Hanchard, M. (Ed.). (1999). Racial politics in contemporary Brazil. Durham: Duke University Press. Hastings, A. (1997). The construction of nationhood: Ethnicity, reli- gion and nationalism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Herring, C. (2009). Does diversity pay? Race, gender, and the busi- ness case for diversity. American Sociological Review, 74, 208-224. Herring, C. (2017). Is diversity still a good thing? American Sociological Review, 82, 868-877. Hong, L., & Page, S. E. (2004). Groups of diverse problem solv- ers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101, 16385-16389. Horwitz, S. K., & Horwitz, I. B. (2007). The effects of team diver- sity on team outcomes: A meta-analytic review of team demog- raphy. Journal of Management, 33, 987-1015. Jarvis Thomson, J. (2013). Preferential hiring. In S. M. Cahn (Ed.), The affirmative action debate (pp. 35-50). New York, NY: Routledge. Jonsen, K., Maznevski, M. L., & Schneider, S. C. (2011). Diversity and its not so diverse literature: An interna- tional perspective. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 11, 35-62. Kelly, E., & Dobbin, F. (1998). How affirmative action became diversity management: Employer response to antidiscrimina- tion law, 1961 to 1996. American Behavioral Scientist, 41, 960-984. Kemper, L. E., Bader, A. K., & Froese, F. J. (2016). Diversity man- agement in ageing societies: A comparative study of Germany and Japan. Management Revue, 27(1/2), 29-49. Kingston, J. (2016). Nationalism in Asia: A history since 1945. London, England: John Wiley. Klarsfeld, A. (2009). The diffusion of diversity management: The case of France. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 25, 363- 373. Klarsfeld, A., Booysen, L. A. E., Ng, E., Roper, I., & Tatli, A. (Eds.). (2014). International handbook on diversity manage- ment at work: Country perspectives on diversity and equal treatment (2nd ed.). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Klarsfeld, A., Ng, E., & Tatli, A. (2012). Social regulation and diversity management: A comparative study of France, Canada and the UK. European Journal of Industrial Relations, 18, 309-327. Klarsfeld, A., Ng, E. S. W., Booysen, L., Christiansen, L. C., & Kuvaas, B. (2016). Comparative equality and diversity: Main findings and research gaps. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 23, 394-412. Köllen, T. (2014). A review of minority stress related to employ- ees’ demographics and the development of an intersectional framework for their coping strategies in the workplace. In P. L. Perrewé, C. C. Rosen, & J. R. B. Halbesleben (Eds.), The role of demographics in occupational stress and well being (pp. 41- 82). Bingley, UK: Emerald. Köllen Mathews, A. (1998). Diversity: A principle of human resource management. Public Personnel Management, 27, 175-185. McCarthy, T. (2002). Vergangenheitsbewältigung in the USA: On the politics of the memory of slavery. Political Theory, 30, 623-648. McFadden, C., & Crowley-Henry, M. (2018). “My people”: The potential of LGBT employee networks in reducing stigmatiza- tion and providing voice. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 29, 1056-1081. McKay, P. F., & Avery, D. R. (2005). Warning! Diversity recruit- ment could backfire. Journal of Management Inquiry, 14, 330-336. Messing, V., & Bereményi, B. Á. (2017). Is ethnicity a meaning- ful category of employment policies for Roma? A comparative case study of Hungary and Spain. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 40, 1623-1642. Milliken, F. J., & Martins, L. L. (1996). Searching for common threads: Understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 21, 402-433. Muñoz, S. T., & Kalteux, D. M. (2016). LGBT, the EEOC, and the meaning of sex. Labor and Employment Law, 90, 43-50. Myers, V. L., & Dreachslin, J. L. (2007). Recruitment and retention of a diverse workforce: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Healthcare Management, 52, 290-298. Neville, F., Forrester, J. K., O’Toole, J., & even bother trying?” Examining discouragement among racial- minority entrepreneurs. Journal of Management Studies, 55, 424-456. Ng, E. S., & Stephenson, J. (2015). Individuals, teams, and orga- nizational benefits of managing diversity. In R. Bendl, I. Bleijenbergh, E. Henttonen, & A. J. Mills (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of diversity in organizations (pp. 235-254). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Ng, E. S. W., & Burke, R. J. (2005). Person–organization war for talent: Does diversity management make a difference? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16, 1195-1210. Nielsen, M. W., Alegria, S., Börjeson, L., Etzkowitz, H., Falk- Krzesinski, H. J., Joshi, A.,...Schiebinger, L. (2017). Opinion: Gender diversity leads to better science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114, 1740-1742. Nkomo, S. M., du Plessis, Y., Haq, R., & du Plessis, F. (2015). Diversity, employment equity policy and practice in emerg- ing markets. In F. Horwitz & P. Budhwar (Eds.), Handbook of human resource management in emerging markets (pp. 195- 225). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Oakley, A. (1972). Sex, gender and society. London, England: Temple Smith. Oppenheimer, D. B. (2016). The disappearance of voluntary affir- mative action from the US workplace. Journal of Poverty and Social Justice, 24, 37-50. Pendry, L. F., Driscoll, D. M., & Field, S. C. T. (2007). Diversity training: Putting theory into practice. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 27-50. Pitts, D. (2009). Diversity management, job satisfaction, and performance: Evidence from U.S. federal agencies. Public Administration Review, 69, 328-338. 272 tance of the international perspective. Management Revue, 16, 11-35. Shemla, M., Meyer, B., Greer, L., & Jehn, K. A. (2016). A review of perceived diversity in teams: Does how members perceive their team’s composition affect team processes and outcomes? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(S1), S89-S106. Shen, J., Chanda, A., D’Netto, B., & Monga, M. (2009). Managing diversity through human resource management: An interna- tional perspective and conceptual framework. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20, 235-251. Sher, G. (1975). Justifying reverse discrimination in employment. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 4, 159-170. Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., Holcombe Ehrhart, K., & Singh, G. (2011). Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future research. Journal of Management, 37, 1262-1289. Singal, M., & Gerde, V. W. (2015). Is diversity management related to financial performance in family firms? Family Business Review, 28, 243-259. Singh, V., Vinnicombe, S., & James, K. (2006). Constructing a pro- of Management InquiryKöllen Essay Journal of Management Inquiry Diversity Management: A Critical Review 2021, Vol. 30(3) 259–272 © The Author(s) 2019 Reprintsreuse Article and permissions: guidelines: and Agenda for the Future sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/1056492619868025 https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492619868025 jmi.sagepub.com journals.sagepub.com/home/jmi Thomas Köllen1 Abstract Although a widespread management approach, diversity management is far from being a well-defined and unambiguous one. This article outlines how this management practice emerged, and how it is enacted, and it identifies and critically discusses the two crucial areas of dissent or ambivalence within the diversity management discourse: first, the dimensionality of diversity management, and second, its legitimacy. The first issue addresses the prioritization of certain dimensions, the difficulty of clearly demarcating one dimension from another, and the unequal consideration of specific manifestations of each dimension. Taking into account the fact that everyone embodies at least one manifestation of every dimension of diversity, the aspect of intersectionality also belongs to the dimensionality of diversity. The legitimacy issue includes legitimate starting points, operating ranges, and desired outcomes of diversity management practices. The article concludes by looking toward possible future directions in diversity management research and diversity management practice. Keywords diversity/gender, legitimacy, ethics Introduction: How Did Diversity Combating discrimination through fostering equal treatment Management Emerge? or affording equal opportunities, and striving for equality, was seen as an end in itself, and a seemingly morally praise- Today, the concept of diversity management is a widespread worthy one at that (T. H. Anderson, 2004). Diversity man- management approach in most industrialized countries of the agement did not completely distance itself from the professed West (Syed & Özbilgin, 2009), as well as in many emerging morality of striving for equality, but equality in this context economies (Nkomo et al., 2015). Historically, this concept had more the status of a desirable, unquestioned, and wel- emerged in the United States as a kind of replacement for, come side effect of its anticipated economic impact (Agócs and reframing of, the earlier affirmative action programs & Burr, 1996). The main focus of diversity management (Kelly & Dobbin, 1998; Oppenheimer, 2016), which, until was, and continues to be, the economic benefit that is the 1980s, aimed primarily at promoting the employment assumed to be inherent in a diverse workforce being and career development of Black (and later, female) employ- “unharmed” by the practice of segregating hierarchies within ees within the United States. Introduced as a way of combat- the different dimensions of workforce diversity (Gilbert ing racial and gender discrimination within government et al., 1999). Furthermore, diversity management, at least agencies and, later on, in certain private companies, it started conceptually, does not restrict itself to the dimensions of sex to lose political support in the 1980s (Beckwith & Jones, (or gender) and race, but is open to any category or trait that 1997; Clayton & Crosby, 1992; Garrison & Modigliani, people share with certain other individuals, which makes 1994). This paved the way for diversity management to start them, as a group, differ from other individuals (Gardenswartz taking its place, although with a change of perspective & Rowe, 1998; Klarsfeld et al., 2016). However, in diversity (Edelman et al., 2001; Kelly & Dobbin, 1998). Affirmative practice and research, the categories of gender and race are action aimed at remedying the tendency toward horizontal and vertical segregation within workplaces (and with it, in 1 University of Bern, Switzerland the U.S. labor force as a whole). This segregation was largely Corresponding Author: based on the skin color and sex of employees, and affirma- Thomas Köllen, Institute of Organization and Human Resource tive action identified the underlying mechanisms of inclu- Management (IOP), University of Bern, Engehaldenstrasse 4, 3012 Bern, sion and exclusion in this context as being discriminatory Switzerland. against female and Black employees (Reskin, 1993, 1998). Email: [email protected] Journal of Management Inquiry 30(3) diversity is seen as a desirable state per se, diversity manage- ment has to implement measures that will make the work- force of an organization more diverse. On the other hand, if the diverse structure of the workforce is seen as a given point of departure (no matter whether this is a result of previously enacted initiatives or not), diversity management has to address the question of how to make the workplace as inclu- sive as possible for this already extant diversity. The issue of maintaining an organization’s diversity combines both ques- tions. However, the perspectives of organizations on these issues can vary. A given organization might attach more importance to attracting more diversity over ameliorating its working conditions, or vice versa. Furthermore, specific diversity initiatives can have an impact on both issues. Diversity management practices that are primarily related to the degree of diversity within the workforce are those related to the recruiting process. These practices can include targeted diversity recruiting, initiatives to reach potential candidates from the desired recruitment pool (Avery & McKay, 2006; McKay & Avery, 2005), or the creation of incentives for the recruiter, to encourage the recruitment of diverse employees (Tipper, 2004). Diversity recruiting is of particular importance for organizations that operate in national contexts, where quotas are legally prescribed (see, for example, da Silva Martins et al., 2004; Thomas, 2002). As the diversity image of a potential employer—or its repu- tation for inclusiveness—can be an important decision-mak- ing criterion for many minority candidates who consider applying for a given job (Avery & McKay, 2006; E. S. W. Ng & Burke, 2005), diversity-related employer branding is also part of those activities that seek to attract and retain a diverse workforce (Edwards & Kelan, 2011). If, however, this image is not merely the result of a communication strat- egy, but also a result of a positive and supportive diversity climate within the organization, employer-branding strate- gies are closely related to those practices that seek to make the organization inclusive for the diversity that already exists within it. Another widespread practice of this second group of diversity management initiatives is diversity training. This training, which may take a number of forms, aims at raising the awareness of managers or employees in terms of what stereotype-based diversity-related biases might exist and, thus, at facilitating intergroup relations within the workforce (Alhejji et al., 2016; Pendry et al., 2007). Globally, many organizations have established mentoring programs for women, minority employees, or other potentially disadvan- taged groups, as one pillar of their diversity management approaches. These programs aim at providing these groups with resources for their career progress; the same resources to which it is assumed that members of more privileged groups can more easily gain assess, such as specific internal knowledge and networks (Clutterbuck et al., 2012; 261 organizational diversity management programs being empha- sized, and others being neglected. Tatli (2011) demonstrates that most organizations in the United Kingdom have already implemented diversity prac- tices, or intend to do so imminently, to ensure legal compli- ance. Every European Union (EU) member state, including the United Kingdom, was obliged to enact laws in response to EU Directives 2000/43 and 2000/78, which, with refer- ence to article 13 of the Amsterdam Treaty, prohibited dis- crimination in employment and occupation on the grounds of race and ethnicity (2000/43), and religion or belief, disabil- ity, age, or sexual orientation (2000/78; Bell, 2008). Gender had already been protected in this context by previous European legislation, and initiatives from the 1970s onward (Rubery, 2002); adding this to the list of protected grounds of discrimination above determines the dimensions of diversity that must be addressed by organizations, to ensure legal com- pliance in the European context. In the United States, Executive Order 10925, from 1961, set, at least partially, the agenda for today’s diversity man- agement programs among U.S. organizations. This directive required government contractors to: ties not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or der Lippe, national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to, the following: employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. (EO_10925, 1961) Only 3 years later, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 broadened the dimensional focus by explicitly prohibiting employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. As the legal pressure—and with it the pres- sure for compliance—decreased in the 1980s, most companies nevertheless continued to formally implement these proce- dures. Very simply, they merely added a business perspective to the antidiscriminatory one already in place, and began to refer to these practices as “diversity management” (Kelly & Dobbin, 1998). Nevertheless, the dimensionality of most diversity ini- tiatives was determined through antidiscrimination and equal opportunities legislation. This was not only the case in the EU or the United States, but globally (Klarsfeld et al., 2014). Legislation, however, only sets a minimum standard (Ross & Schneider, 1992, p. 3), although it undoubtedly plays an important part in determining which dimensions of diversity are considered in a given legal context. There remains ample scope for organizations to set priorities within this frame- work, and these priorities differ from country to country. In the United States, although the diversity programs of many Journal of Management Inquiry 30(3) are often also the driving force behind the change of legisla- tion. Plummer (2003, pp. 25-29) coined the term “Big 8,” which means that, in a U.S. American context, diversity management more or less exclusively focuses on eight dimensions: age, ethnicity/nationality, gender, mental/physi- cal ability, organizational role/function, race, religion, and sexual orientation. However, out of these dimensions, gender and race are still the two that receive the most focus in the United States. In terms of gender, the same holds true for most other parts of the world (Krell, 2014; Mahapatro, 2014). However, the understanding of the concept of “race” differs between countries, as does the understanding of how this cat- egory is related to other concepts that reflect the origin, heri- tage, or ancestry of employees. With a focus on these two dimensions of gender and race, the ambiguities of diversity management in terms of its dimensionality will be critically discussed in the next section, through the aspects of selectiv- ity and prioritization and intersectionality. Selectivity and prioritization. The prioritization of the diversity dimension of gender in international diversity management practice and research points to a crucial facet of complexity that is related to the dimensionality of diversity manage- ment: the issue of prioritizing certain dimensions, and the difficulty of clearly demarcating one dimension from another. Related to the latter point are the definitions of those mani- festations of each dimension that are accepted as being rele- vant or legitimate. Both issues combine in the dimension of “gender.” of legiti- Gender, sex, gender identity, and diversity management. Nowadays, it is common practice in social science to dis- tinguish between gender and sex, when speaking about men and women. This makes it possible to differentiate between the cultural, socially constructed aspect of being either a man or a woman (i.e., gender), and its bodily, biological aspect (i.e., sex; Gatens, 1983; Oakley, 1972). Compared with other dimensions of workforce diversity, this terminological dis- tinction is unique, and has enabled the weakening of biology- based explanatory models for male or female behavior, or sex-specific role expectations. Having eschewed this essen- tialist and biologist “ballast,” as it were, gender research can focus on processes that socially produce women and men, or masculinity and femininity (Lips, 2001; Lorber & Far- rell, 1991). However, diversity research and diversity man- agement practice tend to adhere to a binary model of both two genders, and two sexes. Although the concept of gen- der leaves open the possibility of questioning the dichotomy of male versus female, this very rarely happens in diversity management research (see, for example, Bendl et al., 2009), and even less frequently in diversity management practice. This dichotomy regarding gender is, in fact, often reinforced by the fact that the terms gender and sex are very often used interchangeably and, especially in management practice, 263 relevant issue in the workplace might, for example, be rooted in the fact that there are “only” a handful of employ- ees who do not have a cisgender identity (as the privileged manifestation), whereas (as an example) there are, in con- trast, a large number of employees who have a migratory background (as one nonprivileged manifestation, in terms of origin). This leads to another complex and ambiguous field within the diversity management discourse: the question of how to deal with, and how to conceptually address, the ori- gin and heritage of employees. to their Origin, heritage, ancestry. Within the discourse on diversity management, the category of the origin, heritage, or ancestry of employees is addressed by the dimensions of race, eth- nicity, national origin, and nationality. Moreover, it is often closely related to the dimension of religion, as a specific origin may often go hand in hand with a specific religion (see, for example, Baumann, 1999; Hastings, 1997). How- ever, most research on origin-based marginalization or hier- archization in the workplace refers to the concept of racism, and its related terminology (e.g., Neville et al., 2018; Tren- erry & Paradies, 2012). The reason that race has an enormous significance in the U.S. discourse on diversity management is the country’s colonial past, with the displacement of its remaining Indigenous inhabitants, its colonization by settlers from Europe, and the Atlantic slave trade, which brought mil- lions of enslaved Africans (mainly West Africans) to North America (Forbes, 2009; McCarthy, 2002). As a consequence, the United States nowadays has a racially more diverse popu- lation than most European countries. Given the fact that U.S. society is partially still hierarchically structured, in terms of the different races (Martin, 1991), the predominance of race among the origin-related dimensions of diversity becomes understandable in this context. The situation in Brazil, in terms of its colonial past and present racial diversity, is com- parable with that of the United States. However, unlike the United States (or, indeed, South Africa), Brazil tends to apply more phenotypical distinctions between “races,” rather than ones related to heritage or ancestry. This includes regional and situational differences, and the rather fluid drawing of lines of demarcation between “races,” such as Black (preto), Brown (pardo), or White (branco) (Hanchard, 1999). This fluid demarcation, thus, comprises many nuances of skin color, and, therefore, gives rise to complex nuances of color- related privileges (da Silva Martins et al., 2004). The demarcation lines between the concepts of race and ethnicity are, however, somewhat blurred. In the U.S. con- text, this can be illustrated through the different classifica- tions of being “Latino/Latina” (or “Hispanic”), or of having certain Asian heritage. While being Latino/Latina or Hispanic is mostly classified in terms of race (Bonilla-Silva, 2004), Asian heritage is almost always classified in terms of ethnicity (Koshy, 2001). Criteria such as differences of phe- notype or self-identification often fall short of clearly Journal of Management Inquiry 30(3) issue that is related to the dimensionality of diversity and its management. as a Intersectionality. The concept of intersectionality takes into account the fact that everyone embodies at least one manifes- tation of every dimension of diversity, and that, most of the time, “they are simultaneously expressed” (Talwar, 2010, p. 15). Thus, a man is never only a man, and a woman is never only a woman; he or she also has a certain age, skin color, origin, mother tongue, sexual orientation, gender iden- tity, and so on. Although there are differences between these dimensions in terms of their direct visibility or perceptibility, this does not change the prevalence of their manifestations, in many and, with it, their potential to have an impact on governing the position of the individual in, for example, an organiza- tional hierarchy (Tatli & Özbilgin, 2012). In terms of each specific dimension of diversity, an individual holds a specific position in the hierarchy, which is determined through the manifestation of that dimension he or she represents, and through the specific setting or context. Therefore, within spe- cific organizations, employees often simultaneously hold positions of subordination or dominance at the same time (Talwar, 2010; Weber, 2001). Understanding an individual’s blurred positioning within an organization’s hierarchy, at least the diversity-influenced part of it, is only possible by consider- where ing the interplay of all contextually relevant dimensions of diversity: their intersections. On the societal level, Yuval- Davis (2006) calls this in interlinking grids of differential positionings in terms of class, race and ethnicity, gender and sexuality, ability, stage in the life cycle and other social divisions, [that tend] to create, in specific historical situations, hierarchies of differential access to a variety of resources—economic, political and cultural. (Yuval-Davis, 2006, p. 199) the pre- In both society as a whole and organizations, the individ- ual’s hierarchical positioning in terms of certain dimensions of diversity, such as sexual orientation, gender identity, reli- gion, or nationality, is often related to their minority and majority status, with the minority status being stigmatized (Goffman, 1986) and positioned at the lower end of the hier- archy. However, the diversity-related processes of hierar- chization are always context-sensitive, and in specific contexts, it may be that a minority status is accorded to the privileged status. For example, in many African and Asian countries that have a postcolonial legacy, being White is mostly linked to a privileged position, despite being White being a minority status (Doane & Bonilla-Silva, 2003). In terms of gender, it is, more or less, a global tendency for being male to be accorded a higher status than being female (Ellemers, 2018). In terms of the well-being of employees, the experience of marginalization can cause different types 265 “responsibility” toward society, humanity, or other individu- als (cf. Gilbert et al., 1999). Both ways of responding to the question of legitimacy of diversity management are, in no way, mutually exclusive (see, for example, Risberg & Søderberg, 2008). One can, therefore, act in a fashion that is simultaneously “good” and profitable. However, the differ- ent voices within the discourse of diversity management mostly tend to give more weight to one response over the other, to argue either in favor of, or against, its legitimacy. Starting with the first response, this article addresses both ways of (de)legitimizing diversity management, the potential “business case,” and the moral perspective. The economic value of diversity management. There are two main lines of argumentation about how diversity manage- ment can have a positive impact on organizations in eco- nomic terms. The first one addresses diversity itself, and argues that certain positive economic consequences can be derived from an organizational workforce that is diverse in its composition (e.g., Ellis & Keys, 2015; Myers & Dreachs- lin, 2007). Diversity management, then, would be seen as a tool to achieve a diverse, heterogeneous workforce, and to overcome homogeneity. One element of this is, for example, an employer striving to become the employer of choice for the largest possible number of applicants, including minority applicants and women (E. S. W. Ng & Burke, 2005). The second line of argumentation builds on the diversity already in place within a workforce. Diversity management, then, has to assure that this diversity can be utilized in the way that is most profitable, in terms of the organization’s goals, and that this diversity, as a whole, can unfold and realize its full potential (Chrobot-Mason & Aramovich, 2013; E. S. Ng & Stephenson, 2015). Both approaches can go hand in hand, as the attraction and retention of a diverse workforce still raises the question of how to “use” or manage it in the way that will yield the most profit. Studies on work group diversity reveal that diversity can be a double-edged sword. While on one hand, many studies show that group diversity can lead to an increased perfor- mance and innovation capacity, on the other hand, it can also make work groups more vulnerable to conflicts and reduce their cohesion (Milliken & Martins, 1996). A literature review from Webber and Donahue (2001) confirms the dou- ble-edged nature of both job-related and nonjob-related diversity (Webber & Donahue, 2001). Organizational diver- sity management practices almost exclusively focus on the less job-related diversity of demographic characteristics (in contrast to more job-related diversity, such as relevant expe- riences or knowledge for specific tasks). Hong and Page (2004) show that groups of problem solvers with diverse per- spectives and diverse heuristics can outperform homoge- neous groups in solving complex problems. They do not directly relate their findings to demographic diversity, but it can be assumed that, due to their potentially diverse Journal of Management Inquiry 30(3) aptitude for these jobs. Although “a major motive for invest- ing in managing-diversity initiatives is that it is morally and ethically the right thing to do” (Cox, 1994, p. 10), there is still some dissent about the leverage point and the immedi- acy of these interventions. Although the centrality of fair- ness in the morality of individuals might differ (Graham et al., 2009), implementing diversity management practices that aim at removing stereotype-based biases from recruit- ment, promotion-, and selection-decisions is less of a con- troversial issue. Providing members of underprivileged groups with the same capabilities and resources that, by and large, the members of the privileged groups already possess is the focus and the core of “liberal” approaches to diversity management (e.g., Gagnon & Cornelius, 2000). From this perspective, diversity practices aim at enabling members of (socially) disadvantaged groups to compete with the advan- taged ones for higher positions. The basis of this competi- tion is a merit-based comparison of the potential of the individual to contribute toward achieving organizational goals. Diversity management, then, focuses on the provision of equal opportunities, to do so for given organizational goals. “Radical” approaches to diversity management often argue that these goals are already biased, and they allow practices that have a more immediate impact on “represen- tativeness” in terms of hierarchical and functional areas within organizations—in addition to the “liberal” practices (Lorbiecki & Jack, 2000). These approaches may include quota systems. One justification for radical approaches, in ethical terms, is that they more rapidly provide other mem- bers of underprivileged groups with role models. This might enable them to see that their demographic per se does not exclude them from higher positions or specific working areas, and it could motivate them to follow these role mod- els (Singh et al., 2006). This might work as an accelerator, in terms of achieving representativeness. Overcoming unrep- resentativeness and segregation can also have a societal and political dimension as “integration of racial, ethnic, and other groups that mark significant lines of social inequality is a vital ideal for a democratic society, necessary for its basic institutions to function successfully” (E. Anderson, 2010, p. x). Jarvis Thomson’s (2013) justification for affirmative action programs builds on the fact that they have granted Black employees in the United States privileges that can be seen to be commensurate with the privileges reserved largely for White males in previous decades. In practice, in the actual job market, however, White persons continue to benefit from a higher level of confidence, which they were able to develop through their higher status throughout these decades (Jarvis Thomson, 2013). Others share the view that reverse discrim- ination in terms of formerly privileged groups is justifiable as compensation for the disadvantaging that was experienced in the past (Boxill, 1972; Sher, 1975). As the members of these groups, such as Whites, men, or heterosexuals, did not 267 population. One of the responses, which many agents have found to be adequate, is diversity management. These agents, in this context, include companies, as well as cities, regions, or, indeed, any kind of organization. A shrinking pool of potential domestic manpower motivates many organizations to develop and exploit the existing pool in the best possible way, and/or to open up new sources of qualified manpower. This perceived need already legitimizes diversity manage- ment economically. It motivates taking into consideration every potential dimension of workforce diversity, as within every dimension, there might be manifestations, which are represented by certain groups of (potential) employees, whose utilization for organizational goals could be “improved.” The multilayered nature of this diversity man- agement will also, in future, keep its level of complexity high, a trend that is becoming ever more intensified through continuing developments on the societal level, such as ongo- ing migratory movements and related needs of adequate inclusion—including the issues that arise from the influx of refugees. Due to the aging societies of most industrialized coun- tries, the diversity dimension of age can be expected to receive much more focus, in terms of organizational atten- tion, than it does today. In terms of the dimensionality of diversity management, intersectional perspectives might gain in importance. Diversity management research that applies an intersectional framework would benefit from overcoming the hierarchization of diversity categories, and, with it, the underlying implicit hierarchization of inequali- ties. Instead of reproducing a supposed centrality or cross- cutting position of specific dimensions of diversity, any intersection should be appreciated as being worthy of being understood more deeply. For diversity management prac- tice, a more intersectional approach could encourage orga- nizations to broaden their approaches by considering more dimensions of workforce diversity. Understanding the mul- tiplicity of mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion that can simultaneously work within organizations reveals the value of striving for an inclusive working climate, in terms of more dimensions of workforce diversity than just those defined by the law. However, in management practice and in applied diversity management research, a sound argu- ment can be put forward that the dimensional focus should be maintained, as it makes it easier to conceptualize single practices and to monitor their impact. This also makes it easier to take into account the fact that different groups might respond more or less favorably to different organiza- tional diversity models and messages (Apfelbaum et al., 2016). That said, management could try to emphasize that inclusion, equality, and antidiscrimination are seen as val- ues in and of themselves by setting examples of these attitudes. In recent times, it would appear that, in many countries, the political atmosphere has shifted, in terms of softening Journal of Management Inquiry 30(3) Author’s Note This article is a shorter version of the synopsis of my postdoctoral thesis (habilitation), which I have completed in 2017 at WU (Vienna University of Economics and Business). 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, author- ship, and/or publication of this article. ORCID iD Thomas Köllen https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3198-057X References Agócs, C., & Burr, C. (1996). Employment equity, affirmative action and managing diversity: Assessing the differences. International Journal of Manpower, 17(4/5), 30-45. Akobo, L., & Damisah, O. (2018). Diversity management dis- course: An African perspective. African Journal of Business and “nationality.” Management, 12(13), 396-405. Alhejji, H., Garavan, T., Carbery, R., O’Brien, F., & McGuire, D. (2016). Diversity training programme outcomes: A systematic review. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 27, 95-149. Anderson, E. (2010). The imperative of integration. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Anderson, R. T. (2018). When Harry became Sally: Responding to the transgender moment. New York, NY: Encounter Books. Anderson, T. H. (2004). The pursuit of fairness: A history of affir- mative action. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Antonsich, M. (2009). National identities in the age of globalisation: The case of Western Europe. National Identities, 11, 281-299. Apfelbaum, E. P., Stephens, N. M., & Reagans, R. E. (2016). Beyond one-size-fits-all: Tailoring diversity approaches to the representation of social groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111, 547-566. Armstrong, C., Flood, P. C., Guthrie, J. P., Liu, W., MacCurtain, S., & Mkamwa, T. (2010). The impact of diversity and equality management on firm performance: Beyond high performance work systems. Human Resource Management, 49, 977-998. Avery, D. R., & McKay, P. F. (2006). Target practice: An organiza- tional impression management approach to attracting minority and female job applicants. Personnel Psychology, 59, 157-187. Barak, M. E. M. (1999). Beyond affirmative action: Toward a model of diversity and organizational inclusion. Administration in Social Work, 23(3-4), 47-68. Baumann, G. (1999). The multicultural riddle: Rethinking national, ethnic, and religious identities. New York, NY: Routledge. Beckwith, F., & Jones, T. E. (Eds.). (1997). Affirmative action: Social justice or reverse discrimination? Amherst, MA: Prometheus Books. Bell, M. (2008). The implementation of European anti-discrimi- nation directives: Converging towards a common model? The Political Quarterly, 79, 36-44. 269 Edelman, L. B., Riggs Fuller, S., Mara-Drita, I. (2001). Diversity rhetoric and the managerialization of law. American Journal of Sociology, 106, 1589-1641. Edwards, M. R., & Kelan, E. K. (2011). Employer branding and diversity: Foes or friends? In M. J. Brannan, E. Parsons, & V. Priola (Eds.), Branded lives (pp. 168-184). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Egan, M. L., & Bendick, M. (2003). Workforce diversity initiatives of U.S. multinational corporations in Europe. Thunderbird International Business Review, 45, 701-727. Ellemers, N. (2018). Gender stereotypes. Annual Review of Psychology, 69, 275-298. Ellis, K. M., & Keys, P. Y. (2015). Workforce diversity and share- holder value: A multi-level perspective. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 44, 191-212. EO_10925. (1961). Executive Order 10925. Ferner, A., Almond, P., & Colling, T. (2005). Institutional theory and the cross-national transfer of employment policy: The case of “workforce diversity” in US multinationals. Journal of International Business Studies, 36, 304-321. Forbes, R. P. (2009). The Missouri compromise and its aftermath: Slavery and the meaning of America. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press. Fossum, J. E., Kastoryano, R., & Siim, B. (Eds.). (2018). Diversity and contestations over nationalism in Europe and Canada. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer. Gagnon, S., & Cornelius, N. (2000). Re-examining workplace equal- ity: The capabilities approach. Human Resource Management Journal, 10(4), 68-87. Gardenswartz, L., & Rowe, A. (1998). Managing diversity: A gender, and affirma- complete desk reference and planning guide. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Garrison, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1994). The changing culture of affirmative action. In P. Burstein (Ed.), Equal employment opportunity: Labor market discrimination and public policy (pp. 373-394). New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter. Gatens, M. (1983). A critique of the sex/gender distinction. In J. Allen & P. Patton (Eds.), Beyond Marxism? Interventions after Marx (pp. 143-160). Leichhardt, Australia: Intervention Publication. Gilbert, J., Stead, B., & Ivancevich, J. (1999). Diversity manage- ment: A new organizational paradigm. Journal of Business Ethics, 21, 61-76. Gitzi, A., & Köllen, T. (2006). Die Rolle von Partizipation im Diversity Management: Eine Praxisanalyse [The role of participation in diversity management: An analysis of cur- rent corporate practices]. In R. Bendl, E. Hanappi-Egger, & R. Hofmann (Eds.), Agenda Diversität: Gender- und Diversitätsmanagement in Wissenschaft und Praxis [Agenda diversity: Gender and diversity management in science and practice] (pp. 25-43). München, Germany: Hampp. Goffman, E. (1986). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conser- vatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1029-1046. Griggs, B. (2015, June 1). America’s transgender moment. CNN. Retrieved from https://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/23/living/ transgender-moment-jenner-feat/ Journal of Management Inquiry 30(3) Köllen, T. (2016). Intersexuality and trans-identities within the diversity management discourse. In T. Köllen (Ed.), Sexual orientation and transgender issues in organizations: Global perspectives on LGBT workforce diversity (pp. 1-20). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Konrad, A. M., Yang, Y., & Maurer, C. C. (2016). Antecedents and outcomes of diversity and equality management systems: An integrated institutional agency and strategic human resource management approach. Human Resource Management, 55, 83-107. Koshy, S. (2001). Morphing race into ethnicity: Asian Americans and critical transformations of whiteness. Boundary 2, 28, 153- 194. Krell, G. (2014). Gender und Diversity: Eine Diskursgeschichte [Gender and diversity: A discursive history]. In M. Funder (Ed.), Gender Cage - Revisited: Handbuch zur Organisations- und Geschlechterforschung [Gender cage - Revisited: Handbook on organisational and gender research] (1st ed., pp. 317-342). Baden-Baden, Germany: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft. Lau, H. (2018). Sexual orientation and gender identity discrimina- tion. Comparative Discrimination Law, 2(2), 1-52. Lentin, A. (2008). Europe and the silence about race. European Journal of Social Theory, 11, 487-503. Lippert-Rasmussen, K. (2017). Affirmative action, historical injus- tice, and the concept of beneficiaries. Journal of Political Philosophy, 25, 72-90. Lips, H. M. (2001). Sex & gender: An introduction (4th ed.). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing. López-Alves, F., & Johnson, D. E. (Eds.). (2018). Populist national- ism in Europe and the Americas. London, England: Routledge. Lorber, J., & Farrell, S. A. (Eds.). (1991). The social construction of gender. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Lorbiecki, A., & Jack, G. (2000). Critical turns in the evolution of diversity management. British Journal of Management, 11, S17-S31. Mackie, V., Okano, K., & Rawstron, K. (2014). Japan: Progress towards diversity and equality in employment. In A. Klarsfeld, L. A. E. Booysen, E. Ng, I. Roper, & A. Tatli (Eds.), International handbook on diversity management at work: Country perspectives on diversity and equal treatment (pp. 137-161). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Mahapatro, M. (2014). Mainstreaming gender: Shift from advo- cacy to policy. Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective, 18, 309-315. Manoharan, A., & Singal, M. (2017). A systematic literature review of research on diversity and diversity management in the hospitality literature. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 66, 77-91. Martin, B. L. (1991). From Negro to Black to African American: The power of names and naming. Political Science Quarterly, 106, 83-107. Martins, J., Pombo, N., Tomiyoshi, M., Trein, M., Watson, M., Castro, M.,...Bohn, H. (2016). Implementing LGBT- diversity management in a global company: The case of SAP. In T. Köllen (Ed.), Sexual orientation and transgender issues in organizations: Global perspectives on LGBT workforce diver- sity (pp. 553-560). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. 271 Plummer, D. L. (Ed.). (2003). Handbook of diversity management: Beyond awareness to competency based learning. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Point, S., & Singh, V. (2003). Defining and dimensionalising diversity: Evidence from corporate websites across Europe. European Management Journal, 21, 750-761. Prasad, P., D’Abate, C., & Prasad, A. (2007). Organizational chal- lenges at the periphery: Career issues for the socially marginal- ized. In H. P. Gunz & M. Peiperl (Eds.), Handbook of career studies (pp. 169-187). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Prasad, P., & Mills, A. J. (1997). Understanding the dilemmas of managing workplace diversity. In P. Prasad, A. J. Mills, M. Elmes, & A. Prasad (Eds.), Managing the organizational melt- ing pot: Dilemmas of workplace diversity (pp. 3-27). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Qin, J., Muenjohn, N., & Chhetri, P. (2014). A review of diversity conceptualizations: Variety, trends, and a framework. Human Resource Development Review, 13, 133-157. Raineri, A. (2018). Diversity management in three Latin American countries: An institutional theory perspective. Academia Revista Latinoamericana de Administración, 31, 426-447. Reichel, A. (2015). Human Resource Management mit Fokus auf kontextbezogene und strategische Fragestellungen [Human resource management: Focus on context-related and strategic issues]. Vienna, Austria: WU Vienna. Riding, A. (2018). “Why Reskin, B. (1993). Sex segregation in the workplace. Annual Review of Sociology, 19, 241-270. Reskin, B. (1998). Realities of affirmative action in employment. Washington, DC: American Sociological Association. Rice, M. F. (Ed.). (2010). Diversity and public administration: Theory, issues, and perspectives. New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Risberg, A., & Just, S. N. (2015). Ambiguous diversities. In R. Bendl, I. Bleijenbergh, E. Henttonen, & A. J. Mills (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of diversity in organizations (pp. 218-234). fit and the Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Risberg, A., & Søderberg, A. M. (2008). Translating a manage- ment concept: Diversity management in Denmark. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 23, 426-441. Robinson, G., & Dechant, K. (1997). Building a business case for diversity. The Academy of Management Executive, 11(3), 21-31. Ross, R., & Schneider, R. (1992). From equality to diversity: A business case for equal opportunities. London, England: Pitman Publishing. Rubery, J. (2002). Gender mainstreaming and gender equality in the EU: The impact of the EU employment strategy. Industrial Relations Journal, 33, 500-522. Sabharwal, M., Levine, H., & D’Agostino, M. (2018). A concep- tual content analysis of 75 years of diversity research in public administration. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 38, 248-267. Sawyer, K., Thoroughgood, C., & Webster, J. (2016). Queering the gender binary: Understanding transgender workplace experi- ences. In T. Köllen (Ed.), Sexual orientation and transgen- der issues in organizations: Global perspectives on LGBT workforce diversity (pp. 21-42). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Schuler, R. S., & Jackson, S. E. (2005). A quarter-century review of human resource management in the U.S.: The growth in impor- Journal of Management Inquiry 30(3) Tatli, A., & Özbilgin, M. F. (2012). An emic approach to inter- sectional study of diversity at work: A Bourdieuan framing. International Journal of Management Reviews, 14, 180-200. Thomas, A. (2002). Employment equity in South Africa: Lessons from the global school. International Journal of Manpower, 23, 237-255. Thomson, S. B., Wei, W. X., & Swallow, P. (2019). Equality and harmony: Diversity management in China. Chinese Management Studies. 13, 113-127. Tipper, J. (2004). How to increase diversity through your recruitment practices. Industrial and Commercial Training, 36, 158-161. Trenerry, B., & Paradies, Y. (2012). Organizational assessment: An overlooked approach to managing diversity and addressing racism in the workplace. Journal of Diversity Management, 7(1), 11-26. Wang, J., & McLean, G. N. (2016). Promoting diversity in India: Where do we go from here? Advances in Developing Human Resources, 18, 102-113. Webber, S. S., & Donahue, L. M. (2001). Impact of highly and less job-related diversity on work group cohesion and performance: A meta

Diversity Management: A Critical Review and Agenda for the Future PDF 2021

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript

Upgrade to continue