💾 Archived View for gmi.noulin.net › mobileNews › 5774.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 05:08:47. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-12-03)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
1970-01-01 02:00:00
rlp
Tessa L. DoverCheryl R. KaiserBrenda Major
January 04, 2016
U.S. companies spend millions annually on diversity programs and policies.
Mission statements and recruitment materials touting companies commitment to
diversity are ubiquitous. And many managers are tasked with the complex goal of
managing diversity which can mean anything from ensuring equal employment
opportunity compliance, to instituting cultural sensitivity training programs,
to focusing on the recruitment and retention of minorities and women.
Are all of these efforts working? In terms of increasing demographic diversity,
the answer appears to be not really. The most commonly used diversity programs
do little to increase representation of minorities and women. A longitudinal
study of over 700 U.S. companies found that implementing diversity training
programs has little positive effect and may even decrease representation of
black women.
Most people assume that diversity policies make companies fairer for women and
minorities, though the data suggest otherwise. Even when there is clear
evidence of discrimination at a company, the presence of a diversity policy
leads people to discount claims of unfair treatment. In previous research, we
ve found that this is especially true for members of dominant groups and those
who tend to believe that the system is generally fair.
All this has a real effect in court. In a 2011 Supreme Court class action case,
Walmart successfully used the mere presence of its anti-discrimination policy
to defend itself against allegations of gender discrimination. And Walmart isn
t alone: the diversity defense often succeeds, making organizations less
accountable for discriminatory practices.
There s another way the rhetoric of diversity can result in inaccurate and
counterproductive beliefs. In a recent experiment, we found evidence that it
not only makes white men believe that women and minorities are being treated
fairly whether that s true or not it also makes them more likely to believe
that they themselves are being treated unfairly.
We put young white men through a hiring simulation for an entry-level job at a
fictional technology firm. For half of the applicants, the firm s recruitment
materials briefly mentioned its pro-diversity values. For the other half, the
materials did not mention diversity. In all other ways, the firm was described
identically. All of the applicants then underwent a standardized job interview
while we videotaped their performance and measured their cardiovascular stress
responses.
Compared to white men interviewing at the company that did not mention
diversity, white men interviewing for the pro-diversity company expected more
unfair treatment and discrimination against whites. They also performed more
poorly in the job interview, as judged by independent raters. And their
cardiovascular responses during the interview revealed that they were more
stressed.
Thus, pro-diversity messages signaled to these white men that they might be
undervalued and discriminated against. These concerns interfered with their
interview performance and caused their bodies to respond as if they were under
threat. Importantly, diversity messages led to these effects regardless of
these men s political ideology, attitudes toward minority groups, beliefs about
the prevalence of discrimination against whites, or beliefs about the fairness
of the world. This suggests just how widespread negative responses to diversity
may be among white men: the responses exist even among those who endorse the
tenets of diversity and inclusion.
In another set of experiments, we found that diversity initiatives also seem to
do little to convince minorities that companies will treat them more fairly.
Participants from ethnic minorities viewed a pro-diversity company as no more
inclusive, no better to work for, and no less likely to discriminate against
minorities than a company without a pro-diversity stance. (Other researchers
have seen more promising results of pro-diversity rhetoric and images, but it s
clear they re no panacea.)
The implications of this study are troubling for the ways we currently attempt
to manage diversity and foster inclusion in our organizations. Groups that
typically occupy positions of power may feel alienated and vulnerable when
their company claims to value diversity. This may be one explanation for the
lackluster success of most diversity management attempts: when people feel
threatened, they may resist efforts to make the workplace more inclusive.
So what can managers do? First, they must appreciate the potential effect of
diversity messages on groups that have traditionally been favored in
organizations. Of course, this isn t to say that managers should avoid
discussions about or efforts to increase diversity in order to spare the
feelings of their white male employees. However, managers committed to
fostering a diverse workplace may need to spend a bit more time crafting
messages and designing programs that are more effective because they come
across as more inclusive.
Second, managers should know the limits of diversity initiatives for minorities
and women. Currently, diversity initiatives strongest accomplishment may
actually be protecting the organization from litigation not protecting the
interests of underrepresented groups. Women and minorities thrive in
environments that support diversity. But extolling the values of diversity and
trying to train employees to value it may not convince minorities and women
that they will be treated well, and may not increase their representation in
the workforce. In order to foster fair, inclusive workplaces, diversity
initiatives must incorporate accountability. They must be more than colorful
window dressing that unintentionally angers a substantial portion of the
workforce. Diversity policies must be researched, assessed for effectiveness,
and implemented with care so that everyone in the workplace can feel valued and
supported.
Tessa L. Dover is a Ph.D. candidate in Social Psychology at the University of
California, Santa Barbara. Her research examines the experiences of high-status
and low-status groups in an increasingly diverse world.
Cheryl R. Kaiser is an Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of
Washington, where she teaches and conducts research addressing the psychology
of diversity.
Brenda Major is a Distinguished Professor in the Department of Psychological
and Brain Sciences at the University of California, Santa Barbara. She studies
the psychology of prejudice, diversity, and resilience.