It's fair for us: Diversity structures cause women to legitimize discrimination

Abstract

Three experiments tested the hypothesis that the mere presence (vs. absence) of diversity structures makes it more difficult for women to detect sexism. In Experiment 1, even when a company's hiring decisions disadvantaged women, women perceived the company as more procedurally just for women and were less supportive of sexism litigation when the company offered diversity training, compared to when it did not. In Experiment 2, women perceived a company as more procedurally just for women and as less likely to have engaged in sexism when the company offered diversity training, compared to when it did not. This effect was not moderated by women's endorsement of status legitimizing beliefs. In Experiment 3, women perceived a company as more procedurally just and less discriminatory when the company had been recognized for positive gender diversity practices compared to when it had not.Additionally, these effects were most pronounced among women who endorsed benevolent sexist beliefs and mitigated among those who rejected benevolent sexist beliefs. Together, these experiments demonstrate that diversity structures can make it difficult for women to detect and remedy discrimination, especially women who hold benevolent sexist beliefs.Keywords: sexism, diversity, discrimination, legitimacy, procedural justice, benevolent sexism A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT3It's Fair for Us: Diversity Structures Cause Women to Legitimize DiscriminationAs concerns about the treatment of legally protected groups (e.g., women, older employees, and minorities) remain prominent in American workplaces, many corporations have responded by implementing diversity structures (Dobbin, 2009;Kelly & Dobbin, 1998;Paluck, 2006). These structures take various forms such as diversity policies, diversity training programs, and affirmative action initiatives, but all profess to create equal opportunities and treatment for all employees (Edelman, Fuller, & Mara-Drita, 2001;Paluck, 2006). Empirical research, however, suggests that diversity structures often fail to achieve these egalitarian objectives, and many commonly employed diversity structures have little to no impact on increasing diversity (Kalev, Dobbin, & Kelly, 2006). Despite the limited efficacy of many diversity structures, recent research shows that high status group members, such as White men, believe that the presence of diversity structures-even demonstrably ineffective diversity structures-signifies that organizations are indeed fair for underrepresented groups (Kaiser, Major, et al., 2013). That is, diversity structures create an illusion of fairness. Diversity Structures Create an Illusion of Fairness Among High Status GroupsIn a series of studies, Kaiser, Major, and their colleagues (2013) examined whether members of high status groups perceive companies with diversity structures as fairer for members of legally protected groups than companies without such structures, and whether they do so even when there is objective evidence that the companies' proc...

Diversity Initiative Effectiveness: A Typological Theory of Unintended Consequences

“…Nevertheless, there is some support for these ideas. Diversity practices, including diversity training and diversity statements, increase perceptions that an organization is bias free (i.e., targets are treated fairly) and, in turn, decrease awareness of discrimination (e.g., Brady, Kaiser, Major, & Kirby, 2015;Dover, Major, & Kaiser, 2014;Kaiser et al, 2013;, which is consistent with the idea that diversity initiatives reduce monitoring of discrimination via moral credentialing. Similarly, although not a study of diversity initiatives, a related study has shown that cultures of meritocracy (i.e., bias-free decision making) have a moral credentialing effect by increasing pay discrimination against women (Castilla & Benard, 2010).…”

Mixed Signals: The Unintended Effects of Diversity Initiatives

“…Most diversity initiatives intend to communicate that members of underrepresented groups will be treated fairly and hence will be able to succeed within the organization. Research indicates that organizations with diversity initiatives are perceived as more procedurally fair for traditionally underrepresented groups than comparable organizations without diversity initiatives (Brady, Kaiser, Major, & Kirby, ; Chaney, Sanchez, & Remedios, ; Dover, Major, & Kaiser, ; Kaiser et al., ). From the perspective of an organizational leader, this fairness signal could be considered an important and positive outcome.…”

The Janus of Diversity: May the Ideology of Individual Diversity Rationalize Social Inequalities?

“…Diversity policies may at times function as an alibi. Major, Kaiser, and colleagues found that both majority and minority group members perceive less discrimination against underrepresented groups in organizational contexts allegedly applying diversity policies (Brady, Kaiser, Major, & Kirby, ; Kaiser et al, ). Most relevant for the scope of this article, color‐blindness beliefs may obscure the identification of discrimination.…”