Purpose The purpose of this paper is to argue that diversity management (DM) interventions, underpinned by principles of justice and fairness, create a powerful force that drives sustainable outcomes. Further, the authors argue that justice and fairness should be embedded at the core of DM. Design/methodology/approach A qualitative case study methodology was used to ascertain how four organizations approached critical issues regarding diversity. Justice and fairness principles were used as a framework to evaluate each organization’s DM interventions. Different approaches adopted by the case study organizations were compared using a cross-case analysis. Findings Justice and fairness principles provide a useful framework to evaluate DM interventions. The findings show that justice and fairness principles have an effect across the continuum of DM, including identifying dimensions of diversity, executing DM programs and realizing outcomes of DM. Research limitations/implications The current study is limited to four case studies using qualitative methods. Practical implications The findings demonstrate the importance of integrating justice and fairness benchmarks when implementing DM programs. Originality/value The findings shed light on the link between DM and justice and fairness, an area lacking empirical studies. It also presents a new area for empirical enquiry—the application of social justice principles in evaluating organizational interventions in DM.

Despite the challenges facing small economies, leadership research has given scant attention to leaders’ behaviour in those countries during crises. Using seemingly paradoxical domains of paternalistic leadership theory: authoritarian, benevolent and moral leader behaviour, together with concepts like populism from the political science domain, we analyse how Sri Lanka’s ‘strongman’ President provided a façade of paternalistic leadership during the first phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Through analysis of written and verbal content (public speeches, independent reports and government media output), we show how the power exercised through authoritarian, as opposed to authoritative behaviour, together with espoused morality and benevolence, appears to have been effective in the short term in containing the pandemic. However, sustained success in dealing with the crisis is hampered by the contradictions between this paternalistic façade and the dark realities of authoritarian and populist leadership. Accordingly, we offer theoretical insights into how the darker elements of paternalistic leadership can be better understood and averted.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract