A historical perspective on diversity ideologies in the United States: Reflections on human resource management research and practice

Abstract

What is the future of diversity research and practice in HRM? In this paper, we examine diversity ideologies in the United States across four distinct eras: white supremacy and sanctioned exclusion of racioethnic minorities before the 1960s, the equal opportunityCivil Rights era of the 1960s, the diversity management/multiculturalism era of the 1980s and 90s, and today's inclusion/post-race era. We argue diversity practices and scholarship can be viewed as enactments of the underlying diversity ideology that dominated in a particular era. Our examination provides insight into how changes in societal beliefs and attitudes about non-dominant racioethnic groups and their status and incorporation into

Diversity Networks: Networking for Equality?

“…When networks bring their members together so that they can connect (Friedman, 1996(Friedman, , 1999, share experiences and build social support and cohesion between them without having to conform to the majority culture (Colgan and McKearney, 2012), we see the contribution to equality at the group level. Opening up membership implies a more legitimate position for these networks in the organization and serves to de-emphasize the relevance of difference, toning it down to something more palatable to the wider organization (Nkomo and Hoobler, 2014). Yet, we observe that network leaders fear isolation when they are perceived as exclusive communities for ethnic minority, LGBT or disabled employees only.…”

“…Despite the increasing attention paid to diversity management in organizations, our current knowledge about which practices are most effective in which organizational settings and contexts remains limited (Bendl et al, 2015;Nkomo and Hoobler, 2014). Despite the increasing attention paid to diversity management in organizations, our current knowledge about which practices are most effective in which organizational settings and contexts remains limited (Bendl et al, 2015;Nkomo and Hoobler, 2014).…”

The role of imprinting on the adoption of diversity management in German universities

“…The concept of diversity management developed in the 1980s in the US (Süß and Kleiner ; Nkomo and Hoobler ; Schwabenland and Tomlinson ) and revolutionized the understanding of difference in organizations, which became portrayed as a strategic management asset that could provide a competitive advantage if well managed (Robinson and Dechant ; Kelly and Dobbin ; Zanoni et al ). Diversity management is thus characterized by the ‘inherent focus on the value‐in‐diversity proposition’ (Kelly and Dobbin ; Nkomo and Hoobler , p. 251). This ‘business case’ for diversity challenged the predominantly legal and moral motivation for inclusion and equality with the idea that diversity management also includes an appeal to rationality (Edelman et al ; Nkomo and Hoobler ).…”

“…Diversity management is thus characterized by the ‘inherent focus on the value‐in‐diversity proposition’ (Kelly and Dobbin ; Nkomo and Hoobler , p. 251). This ‘business case’ for diversity challenged the predominantly legal and moral motivation for inclusion and equality with the idea that diversity management also includes an appeal to rationality (Edelman et al ; Nkomo and Hoobler ). While diversity as a scientific construct remains rather underdeveloped, and comprehensive definitions of what is included in diversity management largely differ (Nkomo and Cox ), managing diversity has become a rational response to changing demographic factors and the rational goal with regard to profit orientation (Robinson and Dechant ).…”

“…Diversity management thereby includes the attracting, hiring, and retaining of a multitude of cultural groups with respect to multiculturalism, gender, sexual orientation, disability status, religious affiliation, and age (Nkomo and Hoobler ). The diffusion of a logic of inclusion and equality is confirmed in multiple settings.…”