Backlash Toward Diversity Initiatives: Examining the Impact of Diversity Program Justification, Personal and Group Outcomes

Abstract

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.

Reviewing Diversity Training: Where We Have Been and Where We Should Go

“…When training is embedded and complemented by other diversityrelated initiatives, genuine organizational commitment and support for diversity is communicated and this should be more effective in changing attitudes, cognitions, and behaviors toward its acceptance (Curtis et al, 2007). Diversity training has thus been quickly turning into a line of work distinct from general job training programs in its em-phasis on building the "business case" (e.g., competitive advantage in terms of better problem solving, more organizational flexibility, attraction and retention of best talent, enhanced marketing efforts; Kellough & Naff, 2004;Kidder, Lankau, Chrobot-Mason, Mollica, & Friedman, 2004). Under this umbrella, diversity training has been often linked to much broader terms such as "diversity management" that emphasizes the importance of training being embedded in a corporate and managerially initiated strategy (Ivancevich & Gilbert, 2000;Thomas, 1991).…”

Diversity training: Analysis of the impact of self‐efficacy

“…• Organizational policies and procedures that facilitate a more diverse workforce continue to generate opposition among traditional employees (Kidder, Lankau, Chrobot-Mason, Mollica, & Friedman, 2005;Plantena, 2004). …”

“…Organizations that foster a positive diversity climate are those that select, develop, and promote talent regardless of origin; ensure that pluralistic perspectives are welcomed and heard; demonstrate improved understanding of diverse markets and clients; foster participation in organizational decision making by diverse groups; emphasize the creation of an organizational culture that shuns stereotypes, biases, and prejudices that hinder the individual development and the achievement of organizational goals; and formulate strategic organizational goals that link to successfully managing diversity (Bell, 2006;Cox, 2000;Cox & Beale, 1997;Kidder et al, 2005;Wiethoff, 2004;Wentling & Palma-Rivas, 1998.…”

“…Throughout the HRD and training literatures, diversity training has been examined in terms of content and design (Davidson, 1999;Holladay et al, 2003), organizational context factors (Hanover & Cellar, 1998), planned behavior and behavioral control (Wiethoff, 2004), organizational justification (Kidder et al, 2005), and attitudes toward training and diversity initiatives (De Meuse & Hostager, 2001). While these arguments sometimes address issues of diversity training content, they almost always ignore ways to assess the cognitive and self-regulatory attributes of trainees (for example, their selfefficacy and confidence) as a measure of diversity training effectiveness (Roberson et al, 2003).…”

“…Most declarations of the ineffectiveness of diversity training emanate from the perceived lack of improved work environments and continued employee involvement in non-diversity-friendly behaviors following diversity training. The common backlash to diversity training may be mainly the result of transfer climate issues (Kidder et al, 2005). The training literature in general establishes that both environmental (Ford & Weissbein, 1997;Tracey, Tannenbum, & Kavanagh, 1995) and trainee personal characteristics (Colquitt et al, 2000) are critical transfer factors.…”