Prelims

Volume 6: Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Management: Origins, Trends, and Future Directions

Management researchers play a critical role in not only seeking to answer important unresolved questions about organizations, but we also seek to answer those questions about our society. This is perhaps most evident within the DEI literature, which has universal relevance and ties to every academic discipline. Because of the interdisciplinary nature and expansive topical areas that encompass DEI, it is impossible to provide a concise, yet exhaustive summary of the origins, trends, and future directions of the DEI literature. As such, we will only focus on DEI management, which is mainly grounded in the organizational behavior and psychology disciplines.

As individual terms, diversity, equity, and inclusion have long been a part of the English lexicon, each one having numerous definitions. However, the term diversity management was born out of the 1960s US Civil Rights Movement which focused on gaining societal equal rights and economic and educational opportunities for racioethnic minorities mainly advocating for tolerance (Beavers, 2018). As a result of this movement organizing, Affirmative Action laws and guidelines were enacted and became one of the most successful interventions to disrupt the government-sanctioned discrimination and oppression in employment and the educational system that persisted for hundreds of years in the United States (Avery et al., 2018; Kendi, 2017; Ray, 2023). Notwithstanding the gains from Affirmative Action, scholars and activists began to recognize the limitations of the tolerance framing, which was sometimes paired with colorblindness ideology that argued racial identities should not matter, and thus be muted (e.g., I do not see color) (Norton et al., 2006; Offermann et al., 2014). In contrast, supporters began advocating for multiculturalism, which argued that racioethnic minorities should not just be tolerated, but rather everyone's culture and identities should be respected, celebrated, honored, and normalized and that people's social identities do matter (Cox, 1991; Plaut et al., 2009; Richeson & Nussbaum, 2004; Todd & Galinsky, 2012). Indeed, research has found that colorblindness ideology is negatively related to important outcomes like well-being, intergroup interactions, and job and educational performance for racial minorities, whereas multiculturalism ideology is positively related to those outcomes concluding that colorblindness should be abandoned (Apfelbaum et al., 2012; Norton et al., 2006; Plaut et al., 2009).

Harrison and Klein (2007) significantly advanced diversity management research with their conceptualization of the three facets of diversity (variety, separation, and disparity) and explanation of how they should be properly measured (e.g., standard deviation, Blau's index, Gini coefficient, etc.). Variety diversity defines differences in type, kind, or category (e.g., race, sex, religion, etc.). Separation diversity defines differences in values, attitudes, or beliefs (e.g., prejudices, ideologies, etc.). Disparity diversity defines differences in valued resources (e.g., prestige, status, wealth, etc.). They argued that researchers should appropriately align theory, diversity facet, and measurement explaining that separation diversity should be measured with interval scales (e.g., standard deviation), variety diversity should be measured with categorical scales (e.g., Blau's index), and disparity diversity should be measured with ratio scales (e.g., Gini coefficient) (Harrison & Klein, 2007). Prior to this conceptualization, at times, the DEI literature suffered from a misalignment of theory, diversity definitions, and measurement that made it difficult to synthesize the literature and draw accurate inferences from DEI findings (Harrison & Klein, 2007; Roberson, Holmes, et al., 2017).

As businesses often focus on returns to stakeholders, it is unsurprising that the business case for diversity management proliferated in the 1990s and to this day still remains the most dominant frame scholars and practitioners use to advocate for DEI. The business case for diversity argues that organizations should care about and invest in DEI because it can increase the organization's competitiveness, performance, longevity, innovation, or some other valued organizational outcome (Cox, 1991; Cox & Blake, 1991). The Interactional Model of Cultural Diversity was the first comprehensive theoretical framework to explain why and how DEI, specifically the diversity climate within organizations, realize these positive outcomes (Cox, 1994, 2001; Holmes et al., 2021). Though research findings have certainly provided support for the positive relationship between DEI and organizational outcomes, it is important to note that research findings have also found neutral or negative effects of DEI with some organizational outcomes (Roberson, Holmes, et al., 2017; Sacco & Schmitt, 2005; Webber & Donahue, 2001; Williams & O'Reilly, 1998). For example, Sacco and Schmitt found that racial demography and community demography alignment was not related to profitability, and demographic dissimilarity on the basis of age, race, and sex of the workgroup was positively related to employee turnover in the restaurants in their sample.

Notwithstanding the mixed results in the literature, there has always been a contingent of scholars and practitioners who have criticized the business case framing in favor of the moral case for diversity framing (Ely & Thomas, 2020; Holmes, 2019; Roberts, 2020). The moral case for diversity argues that organizations should care about and invest in DEI because it is the right and fair thing to do, not simply to obtain positive returns on investments. The moral case does not deny the positive, neutral, or negative DEI research findings but rather insists that organizations should focus instead on the role they have played and currently play in maintaining systemic discrimination and oppression, their historical and operational context, and how they can be good societal and organization citizens to disrupt the inequitable status quo (Ely & Thomas, 2020; Holmes, 2020; Roberts, 2020).

While there are merits and limitations to both the business and moral case for diversity, research has found that historically excluded group members typically respond more favorably to the moral case, whereas historically included group members typically respond more favorably to the business case for diversity (Georgeac & Rattan, 2022). Moving past the binary business case versus moral case framing, Ely and Thomas (2001) found that organizations can adopt three different diversity perspectives (integration-and-learning, access-and-legitimacy, and discrimination-and-fairness) with some integrating aspects from all three perspectives. Briefly, the integration-and-learning perspective recognizes DEI as valuable resources that organizations can learn from to redefine how they operate. The access-and-legitimacy perspective recognizes that demographic diversity can facilitate entry, trust, and success in different markets. The discrimination-and-fairness perspective recognizes that it is important for organizations to enact justice, equity, and eliminate bias and discrimination within organizations (Ely & Thomas, 2001). Ely and Thomas found that the integration-and-learning perspective was most beneficial to organizations.

Not only has DEI research in management progressed substantially, more scholars and practitioners are calling for more attention to be paid to DEI in our research, practice, and organizations (Avery et al., 2021; Holmes et al., 2022; Roberson, Ryan, et al., 2017). Despite this progress, there are numerous areas for future research. First, the DEI literature would advance significantly if scholars take intersectionality into account within their research questions and designs. The MOSAIC model of stereotyping provides an important theoretical framework to assist in this respect (Hall et al., 2018). Second, our understanding of modern prejudice would meaningfully advance if scholars create better modern prejudice measures that do not suffer from the limitations of the implicit association tests (Avery et al., 2018). Third, there are still understudied areas within DEI research that scholars should address in future research such as research on disability and accessibility, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people, DEI and technology (e.g., artificial intelligence, etc.), non-Western focus management theory and research findings, and the experiences of people in vulnerable populations and precarious work arrangements (e.g., immigrants, undocumented people, gig workers, child laborers, etc.) to name a few. Finally, scholars should evaluate and create more evidence-based DEI interventions to mitigate or eliminate bias and discrimination. Certainly, there are some real challenges to conducting some of this research (e.g., access to large enough sample sizes, high research costs, research design challenges, etc.); however, the advancement of DEI management is dependent upon answering these important questions.

Contributions to Volume 6

Our volume on diversity, equity, and inclusion is organized around four main themes within this important area of research. The first two chapters focus on gender issues at work regarding inequality for women. The second section includes two chapters on discrimination in the workplace. The next section is comprised of four chapters examining diversity issues in business and society. The final section examines inclusivity in teaching and practice. This volume provides contributions that complement each other nicely to offer a broad overview of DEI issues and research.

Chapter 1, “EDI and Women's Inequality at Work: A Scoping Review” by Maureen Kilgour, proffers a valuable overview of gender inequality at work. Starting with the purpose of understanding the lack of progress on gender equality, Dr Kilgour positions the emergence of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) against the lack of progress across regions of the world. She provides critiques to explain the phenomenon and describes the actual harm that is done to women around the world who suffer from discrimination and violation of their rights. After this analysis, the chapter highlights possible EDI processes and practices that should be considered to alleviate the problem as well as offers forward-looking research avenues to determine the best paths for the future.

Patricia Guerrero, David Arena Jr., and Kristen Jones coauthor the second chapter entitled, “An Exploration of the Stereotypes at the Intersection of Motherhood Status and Race.” This chapter addresses bias against maternal women and racial minority employees in organizations. The authors explore how identity characteristics affect work experiences across these two groups. Using stigma theory, the chapter's purpose is to show the possible interaction of maternity stereotypes and racial stereotypes for understanding working women's experiences. Particular biases of maternal women could be made worse against certain racial biases. In an effort to mitigate these negative experiences, the authors explain the resulting work and health outcomes emanating from these stigmatic interactions. Future research is suggested to identify the identity characteristics that contribute to these experiences.

Section 2 on Discrimination begins with Mingang Geiger and Lily Morse's work, “When English is not Your Mother Tongue: Navigating Language-Based Stigma at Work.” Integrating research across disciplines, three main themes associated with language-based stigmas at work are identified. Gaps across these research streams are also identified as a means for encouraging future work on the topic. When employees' first language is not English, certain stigma are empirically found to result. This chapter calls for more research in the area to address the harms that manifest against nonnative English speakers. This form of discrimination is underresearched, and this chapter takes grand steps toward mitigating the experience.

Chapter 4, “The Choice to Confront: The Antecedents, Outcomes, and Moderators of Confronting Discrimination in the Workplace” by Kristen Jaramillo, Isaac Sabat, and Kelly Dray, examines when confronting discrimination is appropriate for avoiding negative outcomes of discrimination. The authors demonstrate the necessary factors for making the decision to confront discrimination and the steps that need to be taken to reach such a decision. Personal and situational factors are also identified for understanding confrontation decisions. Once these are all outlined, the chapter discusses the likely outcomes of a confrontation decision. Their article offers the antecedents, moderators, and outcomes related to confrontation. Finally, future work is suggested for advancing the area.

Nicholas Salter, Jenna-Lyn Roman, and Ngoc Duong coauthor Chapter 5, “Diversity at Work: Different Groups, Similar but Unique Experiences.” As a start to our third section on Diversity, these authors examine shared minority workplace experiences. They discuss the impact of social identities on individuals' work life in different ways. The overall experiences of minorities are identified in the workplace, and the separate research silos in the field are identified and critically examined. The authors provide a thorough review of the topics of discrimination, identity management, and strength through adversity to showcase the common experiences across groups of people. As a forward-looking measure, this chapter calls for intra-minority solidarity as a goal for these groups to have more positive experiences at work.

The sixth chapter entitled, “Categorical and Informational Diversity and Diversity of Thought” by Marina McCarthy, Nancy DiTomaso, and Corinne Post, looks at an underexamined area of work in the diversity literature. The authors explore variety in demographic characteristics and how that affects broader ways of thinking and perspectives on diversity. Their empirical study uses data across 11 industries that value variation in thinking. Diversity of thought varies across cognitive and learning styles as well as cultural orientations and preferences for types of communication. Culture and communication are found to be related to large differences in ways of thinking which has implications for individuals and practice.

Lourdes Susaeta, Esperanza Suarez, and Frank Babinger coauthor Chapter 7, “Managing Diversity in the Cruise Industry: Exploring Practices and Metrics.” This specialized chapter focusing only on the cruise industry looks at the best practices and metrics for success in this sector. This chapter reviews the cruise industry's DEI challenges and approaches. In their review of this subset of the hospitality sector, the authors identify main common themes surrounding diversity across cruise companies. This exploratory study reveals that there are no theoretical models specific to the cruise industry, opening the door for possible paths forward. Despite a seemingly deep commitment to diversity and inclusion within this industry, cruise businesses are challenged by a highly multicultural environment and a dearth of women represented in senior management positions. Future directions are offered based on their analysis.

The final chapter in this Diversity section is written by Ozlem Araci. Her work, “Ethical Values in the Shade of Business Case Approach to Diversity Management: A Review and Insights for Further Research,” explains the pushing effect of ethics on diversity and inclusion issues and shows how it is not as strong as the business pushing effect. Dr Araci argues that managing diversity falls short in its ability to address DEI challenges in the workforce. This unique position to DEI calls for a more ethical approach to diversity management. She offers an approach crossing law, ethics, and free choice to help us understand the paucity of ethical approaches to diversity in organizations. The chapter presents the business case approach to DEI as well as an ethical approach before explaining how the pushing effect of ethics can be strengthened in the future. Justifications of intersecting law, ethics, and business for managing diversity are proffered.

The next section on “Learning to Include” starts with “Come Walk with Me: Facilitating a Learning Journey in DEIJ” by Donna Maria Blancero and Erin Kelley. Focusing on business school curricula and how topics of diversity, equity, inclusion, and social justice are integrated in business education, the authors start with a call to action by AACSB to embrace diversity. They present a call to action for business schools to encourage inspirational learning environments that promote and respect DEISJ. The chapter addresses how to establish best practices for teaching diversity in business curricula. After their review of how curricular changes are facilitated, they offer nine recommendations on how a foundational course in DEISJ can be developed and implemented in accordance with accreditation requirements.

Chapter 10, “Toward the Creation of Shared Value in an Inclusive Business: An Empirical Investigation” by Yanina Rashkova, Maryia Zaitsava, and Ludovica Moi, provides a strategy for building inclusive businesses that generate shared value. With the goal of promoting principles of DEI in society, the authors focus on creating shared value among inclusive businesses. Through a qualitative research method, their case study examines a company, IntendMe, and how they create shared value for DEI. Their chapter recommends three phases companies should implement in order to create shared value in inclusive businesses. Recognizing that business and society values are perceived differently, they suggest aligning the environment with inclusion and that business enacts inclusive operations in their strategic vision. These first two phases then facilitate value construction. The authors show that inclusive practices can serve society but also lead to a greater value for business. The two are not mutually exclusive but rather are quite compatible.

Our final submission to this volume offers a very forward-looking, broad vision of DEI's role in social sustainability. Audrey J. Murrell, Ray Jones, Logan Kauffman, Joseph Bute, and John C. Welch present, “Addressing Food Insecurity as Social Sustainability: Co-Creating the Built Environment Within the Pittsburgh Larimer Community.” Given that social sustainability relates to systems and structures that affect the overall well-being of individuals and societies, it becomes an appropriate lens through which to examine how DEI can be addressed. These two lines of research are expertly integrated in this chapter, and it is argued that DEI research should be part and parcel of discussions surrounding social sustainability. The two are intimately linked. Their concept of the built environment provides a forum for future research and implications for practice to accomplish social sustainability and DEI simultaneously.

In the spirit of this book series, this ensemble of chapters captures the essence of some of the most important and cutting-edge research in DEI. Our distinguished group of authors gives a critical examination of the work done in this area, identifies gaps in the extant literature, elucidates pathways for future research, and offers practical and theoretical implications for the field.