This research tests the hypothesis that the presence (vs. absence) of organizational diversity structures causes high-status group members (Whites, men) to perceive organizations with diversity structures as procedurally fairer environments for underrepresented groups (racial minorities, women), even when it is clear that underrepresented groups have been unfairly disadvantaged within these organizations. Furthermore, this illusory sense of fairness derived from the mere presence of diversity structures causes high-status group members to legitimize the status quo by becoming less sensitive to discrimination targeted at underrepresented groups and reacting more harshly toward underrepresented group members who claim discrimination. Six experiments support these hypotheses in designs using 4 types of diversity structures (diversity policies, diversity training, diversity awards, idiosyncratically generated diversity structures from participants' own organizations) among 2 high-status groups in tests involving several types of discrimination (discriminatory promotion practices, adverse impact in hiring, wage discrimination). Implications of these experiments for organizational diversity and employment discrimination law are discussed.

No abstract

150 wordsText and footnote: 4,996 words

Organizational diversity initiatives-programs and policies intended to increase the fairness of organizations and promote the inclusion, hiring, retention, and promotion of underrepresented groups-are ubiquitous. Despite the widespread implementation of diversity initiatives, several empirical investigations point to challenges associated with these initiatives. We suggest that one of the challenges hindering the effectiveness of diversity management involves the unintended signals that these initiatives send. Specifically, we review social psychological evidence that the mere presence of diversity initiatives can have unintended consequences through the communication of (1) fairness signals, (2) inclusion signals, and (3) competence signals. The presence of organizational diversity initiatives may lead to a presumption of fairness for underrepresented groups, making discrimination harder to identify and litigate. Conversely, these initiatives may lead to a presumption of unfairness for members of overrepresented groups, increasing the likelihood that traditionally advantaged groups will perceive themselves as victims of discrimination. The presence of diversity initiatives may increase the attractiveness of organizations to underrepresented groups who anticipate inclusion, but increase felt exclusion and threat among overrepresented groups. Finally, the presence of diversity initiatives may signal that underrepresented groups need help to succeed and are thus less competent than their advantaged counterparts. Researchers and practitioners should note the potential unintended

Diversity initiatives aim to improve outcomes for low-status groups in organizations. Yet they also may ironically act as legitimizing cues, leading to an assumption of fairness and reducing the detection of discrimination. We explored how group status (high-status majority vs. low-status minority) and beliefs about the fairness of the system influence when the mere presence of a diversity initiative will de-legitimize claims of discrimination against a company. Non-Hispanic Whites and Latino participants (N = 135) read a profile of a company that had or had not received diversity awards, and then read a discrimination claim brought against the company by a Latino employee. Whites in general, and Latinos high in system-justifying beliefs, saw the company with diversity-awards as more respectful and fair to minorities than the company with neutral awards and also derogated the discrimination claimant more. Perceived fairness mediated the effect on claimant derogation. Implications are discussed.