Search results

This study drew on person-organization fit and ideological psychological contract theories to test whether inclusiveness, operationalized as sense of belonging, could be explained by congruence/discrepancy between employees' personal value of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives and employees' views of perceived organizational commitment to these initiatives. The study also examined whether sense of belonging, and perspectives of DEI initiatives, differed between majority [New Zealand European (NZE)] and minority [Māori/Pasifika (MP)] workers.

A total of 771 employees from a New Zealand healthcare organization completed an online survey. Further to mean difference tests to contrast majority and minority group experiences, polynomial regressions with response surface methodology were conducted to examine congruence effects on sense of belonging.

While MP workers attributed greater personal value to DEI initiatives and viewed the organization as prioritizing these initiatives compared to NZ European (NZE) workers, MP workers experienced a lower sense of belonging. Further, the authors' results show that congruence at higher levels of personal and organizational importance ascribed to DEI initiatives was associated with greater sense of belonging. Contrary to the deficiency-based discrepancy effect proposed, the lowest levels of belonging were experienced at low levels of organizational commitment to DEI, regardless of personal diversity value. Additionally, MP were more susceptible to ideological psychological contract breach than NZE workers.

The authors' study highlights that while positive diversity climate perceptions are closely linked to perceptions of inclusion, organizations will discern the factors that contribute to or undermine inclusiveness by also gaging personal value DEI initiatives and the unique experiences of minority and majority groups.

This study is the first to examine the effect of diversity-related value congruence on employees' sense of belonging, and to uncover racioethnic differences in these effects.

The purpose of this study is to extend the findings from a very limited number of studies that have focused on the potential antecedents of firm diversity. Specifically, the authors examined the extent to which a set of firm-level diversity management initiatives, which included diversity, equity and inclusion (DE&I) policies and oversight structures, senior leader values and utility perceptions about DE&I and DE&I dissemination strategies, may be related to firm-level reported diversity – overall, and that which is specific to gender, ethnicity, race and disability.

The data for this study were gathered from a national sample of 200 US restaurant and foodservice companies during the third quarter of 2021 by an independent data collection firm.

After controlling for firm size, age, ownership structure and chain affiliation, the results from a series of regression analyses showed that formal diversity management policies and procedures (e.g. policies beyond those legally mandated), structural oversight of diversity management initiatives (e.g. designated diversity leader) and beliefs among senior leaders regarding the utility of diversity management initiatives, were positively related to firm-level diversity. There were also several notable differences in the significance of the findings across the four diversity groups, indicating support for a contingency explanation.

There are two unique contributions to this study. First, by considering a more support-based (vs compliance and control) approach to managing DE&I that is authenticated by senior leadership’s beliefs about the utility of DE&I, the findings advance the understanding of the nature and scope of diversity management initiatives that may influence firm-level diversity – in general, as well as that which may be specific to restaurant and foodservice settings. Additionally, the findings offer industry-specific insights regarding the extent and relevance of DE&I policies and practices that have been adopted by restaurants and foodservice organizations and prescriptive guidance for future inquiry on this topic.

Although there is growing acknowledgment of the business case for diversity, efforts to recognize diversity as a strategic issue and to implement diversity initiatives have often been thwarted. We note that diversity is a “hot” issue not only because of the increasing attention being paid by both academics and practitioners, but also because of its potential to evoke strong emotions. We argue that “diversity” makes salient different identities (organizational, group, and individual) leading to different interpretations that can evoke specific emotional and behavioral reactions. This may help to explain whether top management teams identify and invest in diversity as a strategic issue, and whether diversity initiatives are supported or resisted by different groups and individuals throughout the organization. Thus it is important for global leaders to understand the role of identities in how diversity as a strategic issue may be interpreted and responded to by key decision-makers as well as those concerned with the implementation of diversity initiatives.

The purpose of this paper is to describe survey findings on diversity and inclusion initiatives at the Carnegie Doctoral Research Institutions of Higher Education libraries. The findings would be helpful to libraries that are at the beginning of their own diversity and inclusion initiatives or that wish to compare ongoing efforts.

The authors conducted a survey of Carnegie Doctoral Research Institutions of Higher Education libraries using Qualtrics, an online survey software. Link to the survey with a short explanation was e-mailed to the 324 identified contacts and 151 responses were received at the end of the survey.

Survey responses revealed that the most prevalent types of diversity and inclusion initiatives fall into one of three categories. These are the creation/enhancement of library collections, recruitment and collaboration with other campus units. Not surprisingly, lack of money and other resources are identified as challenges faced by those who engage in these initiatives.

No other research currently exists for those interested in assessing diversity and inclusion initiatives at the Carnegie Doctoral Research Institutions of Higher Education libraries.

Accumulated evidence suggests that efforts at diversity management (DM) yield mixed results or even fail in terms of promoting workforce diversity. Previous scholarly attempts to explain the mixed results of DM initiatives provided only partial understanding. This study applies a paradox perspective to better understand the challenges of DM from the vantage point of diversity managers, who play a central role in the promotion and implementation of diversity initiatives.

In-depth interviews with diversity managers in large business organizations in Israel explored practitioners' conceptions of the challenges underlying the implementation of diversity initiatives. A grounded theory approach was utilized.

The findings reveal the emergence of paradox: diversity initiatives generate organizational tensions that undermine their success and hence amplify the need for further diversity interventions. Three distinct paradoxes are identified: necessary change vs desire for stability; bureaucratic control vs flexible procedures; and long-term business gains vs short-term losses. Diversity managers utilize two opposing strategies to contend with these paradoxes.

This study does not represent voices of diverse employees or of top executives. The data focused on mid-level practitioners' descriptions of DM challenges and their methods of contending with them.

The findings shed light on an effective strategy of contending with paradox. Recognizing paradox and navigating it properly may greatly advance the success of costly DM change interventions. Implications are suggested regarding the academic education and training of DM practitioners.

Based on the paradox framework, which offers a novel vantage point for understanding the challenges of implementing DM, the findings contribute to the scholarly understanding of the limited success of DM interventions.

This study used a scenario design to examine whether there are different reactions among whites based on how a diversity program is justified by an organization. A reactive justification (affirmative action) was proposed to result in greater backlash than a competitive advantage justification (diversity management). In addition, this study examined the effects of personal and group outcomes on backlash and explored two individual difference variables, gender and orientation toward other ethnic groups, as potential moderators of the proposed relationships. Backlash was operationalized in four ways: an affect‐based measure (negative emotions), two cognitive‐based measures (attitude toward the diversity program, perceptions of unfairness of promotion procedures), and a behavioral‐intentions‐based measure (organizational commitment). Results indicated that the diversity management justification was associated with more favorable support of the diversity initiative, and that unfavorable personal and group outcomes adversely affected backlash reactions. There was no empirical support for the influence of the moderator variables on the proposed relationships, however, a main effect for gender was found. Implications of the study's findings and future research directions are discussed.

The Diversity Fellows Program (DFP) was an initiative created within a Division for Diversity (DD) in response to imperatives for campus diversity leadership. In the author’s reflection/perceptions, it brought forward a new paradigm for, Bistro University (BU) (pseudonym), as well as expansions in university–community and statewide relations. The DFP employed a multifaceted approach to climate transformation and was a joint development with the highest level of administration and utilized full, tenured, underrepresented, and women faculty to lead initiatives that engaged faculty in research relationships with students, STEM communities, mentoring, and unit accountability for hiring and retention. The result was the creation of several best-practice initiatives, which showcased unsung and/or underutilized student and faculty research as catalysts for recruitment, retention, and promotion, and improved unit accountability for diversification and campus/community relations. The authors assert that the DFP ultimately represented a multipoint approach to climate transformation rooted in relationship building, measurable accountability, and partnership development. This chapter will expound on the creation and impact the DFP had on BU’s diversity agenda and the DD mission. It will also illuminate the author’s perspectives of successes as well as struggles to be expected while setting standards for excellence in academic diversity innovation. Finally, this chapter challenges senior administrators and academics to increase support and reward innovation associated with cultural competence training, multicultural engagement, and best practices for diversity administration.

Academic interest in managing diversity is now developing from conceptual analyses to practical examples. However, the conceptual relationship between managing diversity and equal opportunities remains rather blurred. Perhaps investigation of managing diversity in practice may help bring greater focus to the relationship. This article seeks to bring further insight into the debate on managing diversity in terms of its link with equal opportunities and key dimensions in practice. On the basis of consideration of theoretical perspectives and dimensions of managing diversity, a practical development of managing diversity is discussed in a longitudinal case study of a proactive diversity initiative in BBC Scotland.

There seems to exist a widespread, unquestioned and unquestionable consent, both in research and practice, that there is a moral value inherent in equality and related initiatives toward diversity and inclusion. However, this consent is primarily based on political convictions and emotional reasons, and is without any strong ethical grounding. Whilst a considerable volume of research has been carried out into different facets of the economic value of initiatives toward equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI), comparatively little research has been undertaken into its moral value. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to structure the moral perspectives on EDI more precisely and more critically.

After discussing the interrelation of the three concepts equality, diversity and inclusion, the authors discuss the way in which initiatives toward diversity and inclusion are justified morally in literature. The authors point out the crucial position of equality, and then, subsequently, outline how different approaches to equality try to achieve moral legitimacy. Being an important group of initiatives in this debate, the authors subsequently reflect upon the moral (il)legitimacy of affirmative action (AA). The concluding section of this paper provides a brief summary of the findings.

The moral evaluation of equality, diversity and inclusion remains an under-theorized field. Within the discourse on equality, diversity and inclusion, the term “justice” is largely used in an intuitive way, rather than being rooted in a specific moral philosophy. As there are several conceivable, differing moral perspectives on EDI, one cannot expect an indisputable answer to the question as to whether a given approach toward equality, diversity and inclusion is morally praiseworthy or just. However, the widespread assumption that equality is morally praiseworthy per se, and that striving for equality morally justifies any initiative toward diversity and inclusion, is untenable.

This paper addresses the lack of theorizing on the moral value of initiatives toward equality, diversity, and inclusion, such as diversity management, AA or various equal opportunity approaches. Future research could enrich the discourse on the moral evaluation of diversity management, inclusion programs and organizational equality approaches with new philosophical facets and perspectives, perspectives that might differ from those taken in the predominantly American discourse.

In the US, a growing number of organizations and industries are seeking to affirm their commitment to and efforts around diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) as recent events have increased attention to social inequities. As health care organizations are considering new ways to incorporate DEI initiatives within their workforce, the anticipated result of these efforts is a reduction in health inequities that have plagued our country for centuries. Unfortunately, there are few frameworks to guide these efforts because few successfully link organizational DEI initiatives with health equity outcomes. The purpose of this chapter is to review existing scholarship and evidence using an organizational lens to examine how health care organizations can advance DEI initiatives in the pursuit of reducing or eliminating health inequities. First, this chapter defines important terms of DEI and health equity in health care. Next, we describe the methods for our narrative review. We propose a model for understanding health care organizational activity and its impact on health inequities based in organizational learning that includes four interrelated parts: intention, action, outcomes, and learning. We summarize the existing scholarship in each of these areas and provide recommendations for enhancing future research. Across the body of knowledge in these areas, disciplinary and other silos may be the biggest barrier to knowledge creation and knowledge transfer. Moving forward, scholars and practitioners should seek to collaborate further in their respective efforts to achieve health equity by creating formalized initiatives with linkages between practice and research communities.