{"title":"FOOLED BY DIVERSITY? WHEN DIVERSITY INITIATIVES EXACERBATE RATHER THAN MITIGATE INEQUALITY","authors":"Karin Hellerstedt, Timur Uman, Karl Wennberg","doi":"10.5465/amp.2021.0206","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"To advance the discussion on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, we analyze the management literature and examples of advocacy practices inspired by the three DEI logics of moral justice, business case, and power activism. By emerging litigation, self-interest and coercion as the mechanisms driving change within these logics, we show how the concept of diversity is approached differently in the three logics. Based on this discussion we explain why diversity has taken precedence over equity and inclusion in both research and practice. We further show how the tensions between DEI logics inform diversity initiatives and exacerbate rather than mitigate bias and inequality. To rejuvenate scholarly and managerial debates around DEI initiatives and address managerial biases to focus on the wrong things, we discuss what could be learned from the rationales of such initiatives, including how one can be fooled into focusing on diversity at the expense of equity and inclusion.","PeriodicalId":48215,"journal":{"name":"Academy of Management Perspectives","volume":"67 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":7.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academy of Management Perspectives","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2021.0206","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4
Abstract
To advance the discussion on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, we analyze the management literature and examples of advocacy practices inspired by the three DEI logics of moral justice, business case, and power activism. By emerging litigation, self-interest and coercion as the mechanisms driving change within these logics, we show how the concept of diversity is approached differently in the three logics. Based on this discussion we explain why diversity has taken precedence over equity and inclusion in both research and practice. We further show how the tensions between DEI logics inform diversity initiatives and exacerbate rather than mitigate bias and inequality. To rejuvenate scholarly and managerial debates around DEI initiatives and address managerial biases to focus on the wrong things, we discuss what could be learned from the rationales of such initiatives, including how one can be fooled into focusing on diversity at the expense of equity and inclusion.
期刊介绍:
Academy of Management Perspectives (AMP) aims to provide valuable insights to current and future thought leaders, including educators, business writers, consultants, executives, policy makers, and other professionals involved in management practice and policy. The publication seeks to bridge the gap between scholarly research and practical applications by presenting evidence-based approaches to address crucial management issues.
AMP publishes research papers that employ quantitative or qualitative evidence, either from a single study or a compilation of studies within a specific field of research. The journal does not accept opinion pieces but encourages articles that focus on the implications of findings for policy and practice rather than theoretical implications.
Examples of suitable articles for publication in AMP include practitioner or policy-oriented reviews of empirical studies, descriptive articles that contribute to our comprehension of management practices and strategic approaches, and articles highlighting the practical and policy implications of evidence-based work.