The business case for diversity backfires: Detrimental effects of organizations’ instrumental diversity rhetoric for underrepresented group members’ sense of belonging.

Abstract

Many organizations offer justifications for why diversity matters, that is, organizational diversity cases. We investigated their content, prevalence, and consequences for underrepresented groups. We identified the business case, an instrumental rhetoric claiming that diversity is valuable for organizational performance, and the fairness case, a noninstrumental rhetoric justifying diversity as the right thing to do. Using an algorithmic classification, Study 1 (N = 410) found that the business case is far more prevalent than the fairness case among the Fortune 500. Extending theories of social identity threat, we next predicted that the business case (vs. fairness case, or control) undermines underrepresented groups' anticipated sense of belonging to, and thus interest in joining organizations-an effect driven by social identity threat. Study 2 (N = 151) found that LGBTQ+ professionals randomly assigned to read an organization's business (vs. fairness) case anticipated lower belonging, and in turn, less attraction to said organization. Study 3 (N = 371) conceptually replicated this experiment among female (but not male) Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) job seekers. Study 4 (N = 509) replicated these findings among STEM women, and documented the hypothesized process of social identity threat. Study 5 (N = 480) found that the business (vs. fairness and control) case similarly undermines African American students' belonging. Study 6 (N = 1,019) replicated Study 5 using a minimal manipulation, and tested these effects' generalizability to Whites. Together, these findings suggest that despite its seeming positivity, the most prevalent organizational diversity case functions as a cue of social identity threat that paradoxically undermines belonging across LGBTQ+ individuals, STEM women, and African Americans, thus hindering organizations' diversity goals.

Taking a “multiple forms” approach to diversity: An introduction, policy implications, and legal recommendations

“…Otherwise, institutions might signal, albeit unintentionally, that they seek to check off as many “diversity boxes” as they can, particularly if they are lacking in one or more forms of diversity. Consistent with this possibility, both people of color and women in STEM feel less included in and are less attracted to organizations that only make an instrumental case for diversity (i.e., the usefulness of diversity in promoting the organization's success) as opposed to a moral case for diversity (i.e., the role of diversity in promoting fairness and equality; Georgeac & Rattan, 2022). In fact, moral (relative to instrumental) motives for diversity heighten organizations’ perceived attractiveness to dominant group members as well (Jansen et al., 2021).…”

Racial equity in social psychological science: A guide for scholars, institutions, and the field

“…For scientists wishing to elevate psychological science's rigor and stand amongst policymakers, organizational stakeholders, and colleagues in mathematical and physical sciences, decontextualized research proliferating ineffective approaches to diversity across society is antithetical to these goals. For example, colorblind or instrumental approaches to diversity (Apfelbaum, et al., 2008; Apfelbaum et al., 2012; Georgeac & Rattan, 2022) remain a significant part of our field's past and present connection with diversity management strategies in organizations. And yet, our field provides very little evidence of such approaches' utility in attenuating hierarchy and, in fact, such strategies may contribute to inequality reproduction (Georgeac & Rattan, 2022; Starck et al., 2021).…”

“…For example, colorblind or instrumental approaches to diversity (Apfelbaum, et al., 2008; Apfelbaum et al., 2012; Georgeac & Rattan, 2022) remain a significant part of our field's past and present connection with diversity management strategies in organizations. And yet, our field provides very little evidence of such approaches' utility in attenuating hierarchy and, in fact, such strategies may contribute to inequality reproduction (Georgeac & Rattan, 2022; Starck et al., 2021).…”

The ethics of diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice in the earth system sciences

“…frontiersin.org and the potential harm to Black, Latinx/e, Indigenous, women, and people from marginalized communities [11,12]. Specifically, the argument that diversifying the workforce will lead to better science and outcomes can inadvertently place heightened and unrealistic expectations on the few marginalized scholars brought onto a team and create an unwelcoming work environment for them where they will experience self-doubt and identity threat [13].…”

“…Concluded that moral arguments for diversity can lead to higher attractiveness of an institution for prospective employers. [12] found that for multiple marginalized groups (including women in STEM and African Americans in higher education) the business case for diversity undermined a sense of belonging to an organization and increased social identity threat, concluding that the business case deters rather than attracts diverse talent. [12] state that "the most prevalent organizational diversity case works against organizations' stated diversity goals, by paradoxically warding off the very groups they need to attract to become more diverse.…”