Search results

Even more than 50 years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination toward a number of groups in employment settings in the United States, workplace discrimination remains a persistent problem in organizations. This chapter provides a comprehensive review and analysis of contemporary theory and evidence on the nature, causes, and consequences of discrimination before synthesizing potential methods for its reduction. We note the strengths and weaknesses of this scholarship and highlight meaningful future directions. In so doing, we hope to both inform and inspire organizational and scholarly efforts to understand and eliminate workplace discrimination.

Diversity education and training have been a standard in higher education for decades now. While it is widely accepted that they can have significant value and impact, there is much uncertainty in how to build programs that deliver in positive ways for increasingly diverse college campuses. The need for contextual application of diversity education makes it difficult to develop a general framework for building such a program. Still, research shows essential theoretical components of diversity education programs that can be critical to the success of these initiatives. How do we take these larger theoretical concepts and ground them within unique higher education environments in ways that meet specific campus needs – needs that exist in the context of the campus, as well as within the larger social, cultural, and political landscape? The model has to be agile enough to respond to both the internal and external factors that shape the campus climate while being true to its theoretical roots. This chapter presents a programmatic framework for building a diversity education certificate program to enhance progress toward achieving institutional change goals, as well as a case study snapshot that demonstrates the practical implications of implementing the framework. The program can drive campus change supporting diversity and inclusion – change that may have been dormant, not supported, or not articulated in ways that result in effective outcomes.

Scholarship on workplace diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) is voluminous. Nevertheless, there is relatively little work that examines DEI from an organization development and change (ODC) or systems perspective. As a result, there is no unified framework ODC practitioners can use for DEI diagnosis and intervention. The purpose of this chapter is to review the ODC literature with respect to DEI and propose a diagnostic Context-Levels-Culture (CLC) framework for understanding and addressing diversity-related challenges in organizations. We also present a case example of how this framework can be used in DEI consulting, including implications for future research and practice.

Organizational initiatives to address diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging (DEIB) have multiplied with many different courses and training programs in the last three decades. Despite these efforts, some recent studies have pointed out that disadvantages among minoritized social groups continue to persist, and thus far, organizations have failed to address them. University graduate leadership programs are, at least theoretically, able to respond in a way that better prepares future formal and informal organizational leaders with the knowledge, skills, and dispositions needed to be inclusive individuals in the 21st century committed to social change and social justice. This study aimed to understand how some graduate programs were currently teaching DEIB issues; more specifically, to understand if universities implementing DEIB programs were using a critical lens in their program design and to assess if these programs were indeed intended to be transformative. The review of 40 graduate programs in the United States indicated that the majority of them view diversity training and the work of DEIB leadership as “managing diversity” to keep the status quo and for economic profit contributing to the commoditization and tokenism of people; there was no mention of power in terms of asymmetries but rather a legitimizing of the accumulation of power with the leader at the top; and, finally, except for five programs, there was little attention given to DEIB as a transformative project committed to social justice.

The cruise sector's workforce is highly diverse in terms of nationalities, age, and gender. However, diversity in the workforce does not guarantee business success.

Decades of research on the effects of diversity indicate that it can negatively or positively affect an organization's performance. A more diverse workforce does not automatically perform better financially, feels more committed to their companies, nor experiences higher levels of satisfaction. Indeed, data suggest diversity may produce more conflict, employee turnover, but if well managed can lead to greater creativity and innovation.

This chapter explores the cruise industry's diversity and inclusion challenges and management practices. To examine what cruise companies are doing in this field, we reviewed the public data of the four largest cruise companies. We analyzed how these companies define diversity, their commitment to inclusion, their practices, their metrics, and their primary objectives.

Firstly, there is no theoretical model that includes all variables that affect the management of diversity in the cruise sector. Secondly, companies communicate a commitment to inclusion in their corporate social responsibility (CSR) reports and refer to similar policies implemented by the hospitality industry. Thirdly, the main challenges are the multicultural environment and the limited female representation.

The major limitation of this study is the data source. We recommend further studies supported by nonpublic company data. We encourage cruise industry leaders to support the research to develop an empirically tested model that captures the specific variables that affect diversity management in the industry.

Diversity management is now a well-established field of research in organisation and management studies. Yet, the majority of the managing diversity studies are based on quantitative research, whereas some others use qualitative data or case studies in order to explore issues related to diversity management. This chapter is a rare example, which offers an analysis of empirical data by incorporating both qualitative and quantitative methods. As the mainstream diversity management literature engenders a tendency to de-contextualise the diversity management process by isolating it from its socio-economic and organisational settings, overlooking the issues of power which are embedded in organisational processes of diversity management is particularly relevant. But the agency of diversity managers, who are the most visible actors in the process of managing diversity, still continues to be an under-researched area. This chapter acknowledges that diversity managers, whose agency is relational and multi-layered, are important actors in diversity management process, using a Bourdieuan approach in order to understand diversity managers as a professional group through the combined explanatory power of individual, organisational and societal influences.

International evidence of corporate demand for ‘aesthetic labour’ has stimulated a growing and important literature on the strategic, commercial, legal, gendered and ethical aspects of this labour process (see Spiess & Waring, 2005; Warhurst & Nickson, 2009; Warhurst et al., 2000; Waring, 2011; Witz et al., 2003). There is some evidence to suggest that the growth in ‘Diversity and Inclusion’ strategies and practices by larger firms provides a level of recognition of the need to avoid discriminatory practices based on the physical characteristics of employees whether these be overt, structural or as a result of unconscious bias. It is argued that the emergence of ‘Diversity and Inclusion’ strategies are not just in response to regulatory demands or an enlightened ‘character over characteristics’ approach to hiring, but stems from a desire to meet contemporary Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) expectations. In turn this corporate motivation is frequently driven by commercial concerns such as the need to attract and retain capital and talent.

In this chapter, the intersection of aesthetic labour, appearance-based discrimination, corporate Diversity and Inclusion strategies and CSR is explored. Through the examination of Fortune 500 ‘Diversity and Inclusion’ strategies and approaches to CSR, the intent behind the resourcing of ‘Diversity and Inclusion’ and its relationship to CSR is critically assessed. This critical assessment discloses both genuine efforts to reject unethical forms of ‘lookism’ or ‘appearance-based discrimination’ but also several contradictions. These include contradictions between the rhetoric of diversity and CSR and the continuation of aesthetic labour strategies for commercial advantage. Further, the research finds that the physical representation of ‘Diversity and Inclusion’ efforts are sometimes themselves exploited for commercial gain.