{"id":2528,"date":"2016-10-20T12:26:05","date_gmt":"2016-10-20T11:26:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blog.iese.edu\/expatriatus\/?p=2528"},"modified":"2016-10-21T09:26:28","modified_gmt":"2016-10-21T08:26:28","slug":"diversity-are-we-talking-about-it-again","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.iese.edu\/expatriatus\/2016\/10\/20\/diversity-are-we-talking-about-it-again\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2018Diversity\u2019: Are We Talking About it AGAIN?!"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"www.thebluediamondgallery.com\/CC
www.thebluediamondgallery.com\/CC BY-SA 3.0 NY<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Diversity<\/em><\/strong> is a decent word, isn\u2019t it? It implies the notion of valuing differences, inclusiveness and equality<\/strong>. It stands against prejudices, discrimination and unfair treatment. We talk about Diversity<\/em><\/strong> in our effort to make all racial and cultural backgrounds equally matter<\/strong>, to provide women with fair opportunities, and to allow any other minorities feel safe and included<\/strong>. Yes, diversity<\/strong> brings up the notion of differences, suggesting celebrating and utilizing our differences, as opposed to being diversity-blind<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Yet, in spite of all the \u2018goodness\u2019 and \u2018rightness\u2019 implied in our rhetoric about diversity<\/strong>, it doesn\u2019t really seem to work. Instead, it has become a buzzword that people get tired of<\/a>. A relevant HBR<\/em> article<\/a> by Dover, Major and Kaiser (2016) cites several studies, which show that diversity programs and initiatives do very little in terms of actually increasing demographic diversity and promoting fair treatment of everyone<\/strong>. What these pro-diversity messages do though, is that they seem to succeed in creating a comfortable \u2018defense\u2019 against discrimination claims and inaccurate beliefs in fair treatment. As one recent study<\/a> shows, pro-diversity messages make the traditionally favored majorities (e.g. white men of a dominant culture) believe that minorities<\/strong> are being treated fairly, irrespective of whether this is actually the case or not. In other words, in a company with anti-discrimination policies, the dominant majority tends to believe it is working<\/strong> (especially for women and minorities<\/strong>), which oftentimes may lead to discounting any claims of unfair treatment<\/strong>. \u2018We do have diversity<\/strong> and anti-discrimination policies after all!\u2019- seems to be the \u2018winning\u2019 argument here. Interestingly, the very same argument may actually defend companies against real allegations of discrimination (e.g. the 2011 Walmart case<\/a>), hence making organizations less accountable for discriminatory practices.<\/p>\n

Moreover, Dover et al. (2016) show that pro-diversity messages may not only \u2018sound good, but do little\u2019, but also do not convince minorities<\/strong> and, last but not least, make the majority<\/strong> feel threatened. The authors\u2019 experiment showed that when being interviewed for the job, white men performed more poorly and were more stressed in the condition of a pro-diversity company, as opposed to a company that did not mention diversity<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Maybe we could attribute the threat response to the word diversity<\/em><\/strong> itself, as it shares the same Latin root with the word \u2018different\u2019, and we should be very well aware of our evolution-based automatic response to \u2018different\u2019. We could also turn to the SCARF model, which was discussed in one of my previous blog posts<\/a>, and assume that when a company engages in \u2018we give fair opportunity to everyone, and we need to promote women and minorities<\/strong>\u2019 rhetoric, the dominant population may react to the threat of their status.<\/p>\n

Whatever the underlying mechanisms however, what global leaders<\/strong> need to take into consideration are the influences of diversity<\/strong> on the dominant majority<\/strong>, as well as its current ineffectiveness for the targeted minorities<\/strong>. What next?<\/p>\n

Practical implications <\/strong><\/p>\n