Resources: Main Page | Research Methods (A) | Major Theories (B) | Issues and Contemporary Topics (C) | Professional Education (D)
Aisle C (Topics and Issues): Agility and Adaptability (CA) | Digital Technologies (CD) | Employee Well-Being (CE) | Diversity, Equity, Inclusion (CI) | 21st Century Leadership (CL) | Resource Management (CR) | Sustainability (CS) | Meaningful Work (CW)
Rack CI (Diversity and Inclusion): Inclusive Leadership and Decision-Making | Gender, Race, and Intersectionality in Organizations | Organizational Culture and Bias | Organizations and inequality | Colonialism in Organizations
Jump to: Importance | Challenges | Research Areas | Foundational Works | TAOP Episodes | References
Why is Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility an Important Contemporary Topic?
Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) and its antecedents (e.g., affirmative action) have represented various efforts to eradicate discrimination in the workplace, promote human dignity and well-being in the workplace, provide fair and reasonable opportunities for all. However, it has simultaneously become a lightning rod with opponents charging that DEIA programs are expensive, counterproductive, and disruptive to workplace performance (e.g., Dreher, 2023). Yet the controversy is not a simple one — some of it surrounds the what that DEIA should accomplish, some on the how, and others on the why. Proponents have also been challenged to clarify and communicate the meanings of the term as they have always been somewhat ambiguous and therefore subject to inconsistent legal interpretation (e.g., Edelman, 1992). This complexity combined with the urgency to address historical inequities and solve contemporary discriminatory or exclusionary practices means that the topic is emotionally charged and will likely persist even if DEIA as a construct falls out of favor.
The ethical and social imperatives are strong. For centuries, many marginalized groups (based on race, gender, ability, sexual orientation, and other factors) have faced systemic discrimination and exclusion. DEIA initiatives support fundamental beliefs in human dignity and equality and aim to address these injustices, rectify imbalances, while fostering a more inclusive society.
However, there is also a functional imperative as increased diversity in organizations can positively benefit organizational performance. Research has shown that diverse teams are better at problem-solving and decision-making than homogeneous ones. When people with different perspectives, backgrounds, and experiences come together, they can generate more creative ideas and innovative solutions. Also, organizations that prioritize DEIA can tap into a broader and more diverse talent pool, enabling them to hire top talent from various backgrounds. Employees also reap benefits from feeling valued, heard, and included; and therefore are more likely to be engaged, motivated, and productive. Top talent also tends to be retained for longer periods of time.
DEIA’s controversial nature, and backlash against some of its programs and initiatives, stems from a combination of ideological, political, and practical factors. Reasons that it has elicited such strong reactions include perceptions that DEIA is being implemented in a heavy-handed fashion — as mandatory programs, policies, or regulations that exercise “social engineering” that undermines individual merit or forces people to adopt certain viewpoints or behaviors. DEIA-related training can sometimes be seen as too prescriptive or “lecturing” employees on how to think and behave, creating resentment from those who feel their autonomy is being compromised. Some implementations has been misguided as well, whereby DEIA activities are merely superficial or symbolic in order to maintain external legitimacy while avoiding any real change. DEIA training, especially, is viewed by some as merely a “box check” affair that accomplishes little.
The ambiguity and vagueness surrounding DEIA is not only a regulatory problem but a practical one. Workers may not comprehend what success in achieving diversity or inclusion means or how progress is measured. The metrics themselves may change too often due to contemporary events rather than for empirical reasons. But above all, DEIA done poorly can put members constantly on the defensive or unwilling to engage, which is the opposite of what DEIA proponents desired.
Relevant Theories or Literature Streams
DEIA and related efforts in organizational studies encompass various perspectives, including social psychology, organizational behavior, and sociological frameworks. Some early literature provides important historical and sociopolitical contexts that describe both overt discrimination but also organizational contexts that unintentionally marginalize or disadvantage minority members, such as Kanter’s tokenism (which we covered in Episode 17). that shaped anti-discriminatory policies. King (2007) articulates how affirmative action has evolved as a response to entrenched inequalities and historical injustices, framing it as a necessary tool for social engineering. Warikoo and Allen (2019) provide a global perspective on the origins of affirmative action in higher education, illustrating how these policies serve as solutions to various organizational and national challenges.
The role of individual differences in shaping attitudes toward DEIA is another major theoretical stream. Martins and Parsons explore how gender diversity management affects perceptions of organizational attractiveness, highlighting that individual attitudes and beliefs can significantly influence responses to diversity initiatives (Martins & Parsons, 2007). This aligns with the findings of Truxillo and Bauer (2000), who examine how gender and affirmative action attitudes interact to affect reactions to selection methods in organizations. Understanding these individual differences is vital for organizations seeking to implement effective DEIA strategies that resonate with their workforce.
One of the primary theoretical frameworks is the concept of organizational justice. Fubara et al. (2008) highlight the role of organizational justice and ethical frameworks in shaping attitudes toward affirmative action, emphasizing that organizational support can significantly influence individuals’ perceptions of fairness regarding these policies. This notion aligns with the broader discourse on how perceived fairness affects employee engagement and organizational commitment, as supported by the work of Kalev et al. (2006), who assess the efficacy of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies. Their findings suggest that organizations that actively promote diversity through well-structured policies can enhance their overall effectiveness and employee satisfaction.
Another critical area of literature focuses on the stigma associated with pursuing DEIA and other barriers to implementation. Heilman and Alcott (2001) discuss how women, as beneficiaries of preferential selection, often face negative perceptions that can undermine their competence in the workplace. This stigma is not limited to gender; it extends to race and ethnicity, as demonstrated by Leslie et al. (2014), who explore the stigma of affirmative action and its impact on performance outcomes for targeted groups. This body of research underscores the importance of addressing the social perceptions surrounding affirmative action to mitigate its potential adverse effects on the individuals it aims to support. There are also limits to implementation, such as to aid persons with disabilities (Gupta & Priyadarshi, 2020).
Furthermore, the literature emphasizes the importance of leadership and collaboration in advancing DEIA and related initiatives. Downey et al. (2014) demonstrate that inclusive practices enhance trust and employee engagement, suggesting that leadership commitment to diversity is crucial for fostering an inclusive organizational culture. This perspective is echoed in the work of Gladney (2024) who emphasizes the need for collaborative efforts to overcome historical biases. Effective leadership is thus a cornerstone of successful DEIA initiatives, as it sets the tone for organizational culture and accountability.
Intersectionality is another important stream that studies how the interconnectedness of various social categories, including protected classes such as race and gender, contribute to an individual’s own experiences. Ellemers et al. (2010) examine how different groups experience affirmative action policies, revealing that the emotional responses to these policies can vary significantly based on group identity. This intersectional approach is useful for understanding the complexities of organizational diversity and may lead to tailored strategies that address the specific needs of various demographic groups.
Finally, the literature underscores the importance of continuous evaluation and adaptation of DEIA initiatives. Powers (2009) emphasizes the need for proactive strategies to integrate affirmative action into organizational planning processes, highlighting the challenges that arise when these initiatives are treated as mere compliance measures rather than integral components of organizational culture. This perspective aligns with the findings of Portocarrero and Carter (2022), who advocate for a reconnection of organizational diversity efforts with the aims of equity and social justice.
Some Contemporary Areas of Research
The above challenges have produced a wealth of research on all aspects of DEIA and its overarching goals for improving inclusivity and rooting out discriminatory practices. Here are some active research topics, some of which also speak to examination of broader social movements. Please note that this is not to be considered an exhaustive list. We welcome feedback to ensure currency on contemporary challenges and research efforts. This is also not intended to provide a comprehensive look at ongoing research in any of these areas but just to highlight some of the specific topic areas being pursued as of this writing (Scite, 2024).
Efficacy of Methods. Clearly, measuring effectiveness is challenging due to both the potentially polarizing nature of the topic and the wide varieties of tools and approaches in use. The following is a short, and not fully comprehensive, list. Some organizations establish dedicated DEIA committees to oversee and implement initiatives, set goals, and ensure accountability (Bethea, 2024). Training programs and workshops such as on unconscious bias, cultural competency, and inclusive leadership are also common in workplaces (Ferer, 2023). Engaging with external communities is another approach, where organizations firm partnerships with community organizations to promote inclusivity and support underrepresented groups (Castro, 2024). Finally, some organizations are adopting inclusive recruitment practices to attract diverse talent, including outreach to underrepresented groups and the use of diverse hiring panels (Assamagan et al., 2022). Which of these work best, and how that can be shown (and under what conditions) is an area ripe for continued research.
Assessment and Benchmarking Tools. Following on the above, there is a broader strategic question regarding the extent that DEIA efforts meet their goals or where leaders can identify and act upon shortcomings. Ajinkya et al. (2023) highlight the importance of embedding DEIA initiatives into strategic goals and using assessment frameworks to track progress and foster data-driven decisions.
Evolving Barriers. Resistance and ambivalence toward DEIA initiatives evolves with the ever-changing environment. As the situation changes or the organization faces different or emerging competitive pressures, the arguments against DEIA may shift in kind. Among active areas of research are signs of lacking organizational commitment. Crable et al. (2020) highlight that limited staffing resources and insufficient financial investment often lead to the failure of new DEIA initiatives. The persistence of implicit biases and stereotypes affecting decision-making processes within organizations is also a point of interest. For example, Anderson (2023) discusses how implicit social cognition can lead to unproductive behaviors and inefficiencies, ultimately obstructing the goals of DEIA initiatives while Kraus et al. (2022) argues that narratives of racial progress can create a false sense of achievement, leading organizations to overlook persistent inequities.
Leadership. Finally, there is the question of leadership and leader actions in setting conditions for DEIA programs. For example, McNamara (2024) points out that failure to communicate goals and benefits of DEIA initiatives can result in skepticism and resistance from staff members, which ultimately undermines the effectiveness of these programs. Leaders who lack awareness or understanding of DEIA issues may inadvertently perpetuate existing barriers, such as highlighted in Trkulja (2024). Therefore, to what extent do leaders both advocate for DEIA and also model inclusive behaviors and practices?
Foundational Works
These are books or articles that could (by some) be considered foundational in the areas of diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility, but there are many different views on the subject. This is not intended to be a conclusive, absolute list.
It is probably beneficial to examine the existing legal frameworks in one’s own nation relevant to DEIA and like programs. The below three examples come from the United States:
- Brown v. Board of Education (1954) – Established the legal foundation for desegregation, which later influenced affirmative action policies.
- Executive Order 10925 (1961) – Signed by President Kennedy, this order established the “Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity” and required federal contractors to take “affirmative action” to ensure fair hiring practices.
- Civil Rights Act of 1964 – While not specifically about affirmative action, this landmark legislation prohibited discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, creating the legal framework for later affirmative action policies.
In addition, these early works can help build a foundational understanding of the historical inequities that programs like affirmative action and DEIA seek to address.
Charles Mills, “The Racial Contract” (1997, but rooted in earlier thought)
This book critiques the way social contracts in Western philosophy have historically excluded non-white groups from the benefits of social and political rights. The concept of the racial contract helps understand the structural racism that is argued to underpin organizational practices, and why programs (like affirmative action at the time) were necessary to disrupt the systemic exclusion of marginalized groups.
Herbert Hill, “The Negro and the American Labor Movement” (1968)
Hill, a key figure in the labor movement, explored the systemic exclusion of Black workers from unions and fair labor practices in the U.S. He emphasized the dual forces of racial discrimination and labor exploitation and advocated for affirmative action and fair hiring practices in unionized settings. Therefore, the book provides a direct link between labor organizing, racial discrimination, and the importance of equitable hiring practices, making it essential reading for understanding the historical roots of affirmative action in the U.S. workplace.
Margaret Mead, “Male and female: A study of sexes in a changing world” (1949)
This work by the renowned anthropologist examines the social roles assigned to women across different cultures, emphasizing that gender roles are not biologically determined but are socially constructed. Mead’s work lays the foundation for understanding how gendered expectations in different cultural contexts shape organizational practices, leadership structures, and career opportunities for women. It suggests that gender equality in organizations can be achieved by challenging these social constructions and changing organizational norms. This work underpinned some of our later episodes covered more contemporary works of feminist scholars.
Related TAOP Episodes, Events, and Notes
113: Sports & Gender – “A League of Their Own”
99: Gendering in Organizations — Joan Acker
81: Diversity and Inclusion — EGOS 2021 Special LIVE
71: Managerial Behavior — Melville Dalton
17: Tokenism – Rosabeth Moss Kanter
Available Resource Pages
Aisle C – Management Topics
Rack BH – Human Dimension – Culture, Climate, Identity
Rack CA – Organizational Agility & Adaptability
Rack CD – Digital Transformation and Future of Work
Rack CE – Employee Well-Being & Mental Health
Rack CI – Inequality and Justice
Rack CL – Leadership in the 21st Century
Rack CR — Resource Management
Rack CS – Sustainability and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
Rack CW – Meaningful Work
References
Ajinkya, A., Graham, K., Meadows, A., Mehmani, B., Mukhopadhyay, R., & Stanton, M. (2023). Implementing a diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility strategy: lessons learned at five scholarly communications organizations. Learned Publishing, 36(1), 119-123. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1534
Anderson, J. (2023). Implicit social cognition: the hidden element affecting equity, inclusion, and belonging on diverse collaborative teams. Journal of Leadership Studies, 17(1), 30-37. https://doi.org/10.1002/jls.21839
Assamagan, K., Bitter, O., Chen, M., Choi, A., Esquivel, J., Jepsen, K., … & Zhang, Y. (2022). Building a culture of equitable access and success for marginalized members in today’s particle physics community.. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2206.01849
Bethea, M. (2024). A guide to establishing, implementing, and optimizing diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (deia) committees. Ajp Heart and Circulatory Physiology, 326(3), H786-H796. https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpheart.00583.2023
Castro, I. (2024). Acknowledging the intersectionality of geoscientists with disabilities to enhance diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility. Earth Science Systems and Society, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/esss.2024.10081
Crable, E., Biancarelli, D., Walkey, A., & Drainoni, M. (2020). Barriers and facilitators to implementing priority inpatient initiatives in the safety net setting. Implementation Science Communications, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-020-00024-6
Downey, S., Werff, L., Thomas, K., & Plaut, V. (2014). The role of diversity practices and inclusion in promoting trust and employee engagement. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 45(1), 35-44. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12273
Dreher, R. (2023, January 17). DEI Training: Harmful, phony, and expensive. The American Conservative. https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dei-training-harmful-phony-and-expensive/
Edelman, L. B. (1992). Legal ambiguity and symbolic structures: Organizational mediation of civil rights law. American journal of Sociology, 97(6), 1531-1576.
Ellemers, N., Scheepers, D., & Popa, A. (2010). Something to gain or something to lose? affirmative action and regulatory focus emotions. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13(2), 201-213. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430209343296
Ferer, E. (2023). Putting deia into practice: incorporating diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility into student employee training. Reference Services Review. https://doi.org/10.1108/rsr-09-2022-0053
Fubara, E., McMillan-Capehart, A., & Richard, O. (2008). The role of organizational justice and ethical frameworks on attitudes toward affirmative action: the moderating role of organizational support. Journal of Diversity Management (Jdm), 3(3), 29-40. https://doi.org/10.19030/jdm.v3i3.4994
Gladney, L. (2024). Leadership, equity, inclusion, diversity, and accessibility in particle physics research. Epj Web of Conferences, 295, 13001. https://doi.org/10.1051/epjconf/202429513001
Gupta, A. and Priyadarshi, P. (2020). When affirmative action is not enough: challenges in career development of persons with disability. Equality Diversity and Inclusion an International Journal, 39(6), 617-639. https://doi.org/10.1108/edi-05-2019-0146
Heilman, M. and Alcott, V. (2001). What i think you think of me: women’s reactions to being viewed as beneficiaries of preferential selection.. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 574-582. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.4.574
Hill, H. (1968). The Negro and the American Labor Movement. Anchor Books.
Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. (2006). Best practices or best guesses? assessing the efficacy of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies. American Sociological Review, 71(4), 589-617. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240607100404
King, D. (2007). The american state and social engineering: policy instruments in affirmative action. Governance, 20(1), 109-126. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2007.00346.x
Kraus, M., Torrez, B., & Hollie, L. (2022). How narratives of racial progress create barriers to diversity, equity, and inclusion in organizations. Current Opinion in Psychology, 43, 108-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.06.022
Leslie, L., Mayer, D., & Kravitz, D. (2014). The stigma of affirmative action: a stereotyping-based theory and meta-analytic test of the consequences for performance. Academy of Management Journal, 57(4), 964-989. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0940
Martins, E. and Meyer, H. (2012). Organizational and behavioral factors that influence knowledge retention. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(1), 77-96. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271211198954
McNamara, V. (2024). 104 perceived barriers to the recruitment and retention of underrepresented racial and ethnic groups (urgs) in clinical research. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science, 8(s1), 29-29. https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2024.102
Mead, M. (1949). Male and female: a study of the sexes in a changing world.
Mills, C. W. (2019). The racial contract. Cornell University Press.
Portocarrero, S. and Carter, J. (2022). Diversity initiatives in the us workplace: a brief history, their intended and unintended consequences. Sociology Compass, 16(7). https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.13001
OpenAI. (2024). Why is Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility an Important Contemporary Topic; Why has DEIA become such a toxic term; what books or articles from before 1970 should organization scholars read to gain a basic understanding about the relevance of DEIA and affirmative action for organization studies. ChatGPT (November 2022 version) [Large Language Model].
Powers, E. (2009). The anatomy of EEOs level playing field. Journal of Diversity Management (Jdm), 4(2), 49-58. https://doi.org/10.19030/jdm.v4i2.4958
Scite. (2024). What is the relationship among diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility in organizations; Where are the foundational Theories or Literature Streams in organization studies underpinning DEIA, affirmative action, and related efforts; What are the major contemporary research topics regarding DEIA in organizations; What are worries contemporary organizational leaders most regarding DEIA and DEIA-related initiatives in organizations; Current research into the evolving barriers against DEIA initiatives in organizations; What are the most common contemporary tools or approaches used to improve DEIA in organizations? What are the most common methods of organizational or member resistance against DEIA; What are the foundational theoretical streams or texts from before 1980 that organization researchers are using to study DEIA in organizations. Scite (April 2024 version) [Large Language Model].
Truxillo, D. and Bauer, T. (2000). The roles of gender and affirmative action attitude in reactions to test score use methods1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(9), 1812-1828. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02469.x
Trkulja, Ž. (2024). Exploring the role of socially responsible marketing in promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion in organizational settings. Administrative Sciences, 14(4), 66. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14040066
Warikoo, N. and Allen, U. (2019). A solution to multiple problems: the origins of affirmative action in higher education around the world. Studies in Higher Education, 45(12), 2398-2412. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1612352
Jump to: Importance | Challenges | Research Areas | Foundational Works | TAOP Episodes | References
Rack CI (Diversity and Inclusion): Inclusive Leadership and Decision-Making | Gender, Race, and Intersectionality in Organizations | Organizational Culture and Bias | Organizations and inequality | Colonialism in Organizations
Aisle C (Topics and Issues): Agility and Adaptability (CA) | Digital Technologies (CD) | Employee Well-Being (CE) | Diversity, Equity, Inclusion (CI) | 21st Century Leadership (CL) | Resource Management (CR) | Sustainability (CS) | Meaningful Work (CW)
Resources: Main Page | Research Methods (A) | Major Theories (B) | Issues and Contemporary Topics (C) | Professional Education (D)