The Divergent Effects of Diversity Ideologies for Race and Gender Relations

Martin, Ashley E.

doi:10.5465/ambpp.2019.18555abstract

Cited by 6 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 125 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…If this were the case, what we refer to in this paper as a gender penalty would in fact be captured by a broader diversity penalty. At the same time, different forms of diversity, such as race and gender, have been shown to have different effects (Martin 2018), and if the discourse surrounding top management appointments does not make race salient as it does gender, then a penalty is less likely to be incurred (Younkin and Kuppuswamy 2017). We therefore encourage scholars to pursue work on the financial market effects of other forms of board-level diversity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Women Don’t Mean Business? Gender Penalty in Board Composition

Solal

Snellman

2019

Organization Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examine investor responses to board diversity and highlight a previously unexplored mechanism to explain negative market reactions to senior female appointments. Drawing on signaling theory, we propose that an increase in board diversity leads investors to update their beliefs about firm preferences. Specifically, we argue that a gender-diverse board is interpreted as revealing a preference for diversity and a weaker commitment to shareholder value. Consequently, firms with more female directors will be penalized. We test our argument using 14 years of panel data on U.S. public firms. We find that firms that increase board diversity suffer a decrease in market value and that this effect is amplified for firms that have received higher ratings for their diversity practices across the organization. These results suggest that observers respond to the presence of female leaders not simply on their own merit but as broader cues of firm preferences and that firms may counteract any potential signaling effect through careful framing.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Women Don’t Mean Business? Gender Penalty in Board Composition

Solal

Snellman

2019

Organization Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Multiculturalism can also lead to an emphasis of certain, sometimes problematic, differences. For example, multiculturalism has been shown to increase race essentialism (Wilton et al, 2018, but see Martin, 2018) and lead to (positive) stereotyping of the racial minority group (Gutiérrez and Unzueta, 2010), which can lead to negative reactions and perceived prejudice amongst racial minorities (Czopp, 2008). Moreover, although interpreted positively by racial minorities, majority groups perceive the pro-diversity attitudes communicated through multiculturalism as exclusionary (Plaut et al, 2011), subsequently limiting their support for organizational diversity efforts, which can have negative spillover effects on racial minorities' experiences.…”

Section: How Do Racial Minorities Respond To Diversity Ideologies?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One possible reason for this discrepancy is that the differences made salient for race through multiculturalism tend to be those focused on cultural identities and experiences of racial minorities, which are often ignored in a power structure that is frequently dominated by the majority group. For gender, the types of differences made salient through an awareness ideology are those that focus on stereotypical gender roles, including personality, skill, and preference differences (i.e., men as agentic; women as communal; Martin and Phillips, 2017, 2019; Martin, 2018). Since agentic qualities overlap with leadership qualities, gender-blindness may be more appropriate in the work domain, because reducing sexism involves seeing women as capable and competent with regards to their leadership abilities and potential (Martin et al, 2016).…”

Section: How Do Women Respond To Diversity Ideologies?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, in the workplace, where women face sexism-related challenges, blindness is seen as more fitting in the workplace. Further, some work shows that endorsement of gender-blindness is negatively related to biological essentialism (Martin, 2018), while others reported non-significant effects ( r = −0.09, p < 0.10; Hahn et al, 2015). However, the reported negative effects are specific to hierarchy-attenuating forms of gender-blindness ( value-in-individual differences , and value in homogeneity ), as hierarchy-maintaining (assimilationist) forms of gender-blindness are associated with endorsement of essentialist beliefs (Hahn et al, 2015).…”

Section: How Do Women Respond To Diversity Ideologies?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recent research suggests that men who endorse or are exposed to gender-blind messages are less likely to endorse gender-STEM stereotyping, with downstream consequences for evaluation of female scientists, both of which have previously been shown to limit women's opportunities in STEM (Martin and Phillips, 2019). Also, men who were primed with gender-blind ideologies were also more likely to support affirmative action policies, which help women advance in environments where they are underrepresented (Martin, 2018).…”

Section: How Do Women Respond To Diversity Ideologies?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Understanding Diversity Ideologies From the Target's Perspective: A Review and Future Directions

2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present a review of the diversity ideologies literature from the target's perspective. In particular, we focus on how diversity ideologies—beliefs or organizational practices with regards to how to approach diversity—affect racial minorities' and women's self-perceptions and experiences at work. This review suggests that a diversity aware ideology (i.e., multiculturalism) is more beneficial than a diversity blind ideology (i.e., colorblindness) for racial-ethnic minorities (e.g., better performance outcomes; more psychological engagement, inclusion, and workplace satisfaction; more positive leadership self-perceptions; and reduced perceptions of bias and turnover intentions). In contrast, for women, gender-blindness is associated with more positive outcomes than gender awareness (e.g., enhanced self-confidence, pro-active behaviors and leadership emergence). Importantly, multiculturalism and gender-blindness can both produce negative side effects for racial minorities and women, respectively, which highlights the importance of developing approaches to address the shortcomings of these conventional ideologies. We discuss the implications and offer recommendations for future research.

show abstract

The business case for diversity backfires: Detrimental effects of organizations’ instrumental diversity rhetoric for underrepresented group members’ sense of belonging.

Georgeac¹,

Rattan²

2023

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many organizations offer justifications for why diversity matters, that is, organizational diversity cases. We investigated their content, prevalence, and consequences for underrepresented groups. We identified the business case, an instrumental rhetoric claiming that diversity is valuable for organizational performance, and the fairness case, a noninstrumental rhetoric justifying diversity as the right thing to do. Using an algorithmic classification, Study 1 (N = 410) found that the business case is far more prevalent than the fairness case among the Fortune 500. Extending theories of social identity threat, we next predicted that the business case (vs. fairness case, or control) undermines underrepresented groups' anticipated sense of belonging to, and thus interest in joining organizations-an effect driven by social identity threat. Study 2 (N = 151) found that LGBTQ+ professionals randomly assigned to read an organization's business (vs. fairness) case anticipated lower belonging, and in turn, less attraction to said organization. Study 3 (N = 371) conceptually replicated this experiment among female (but not male) Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) job seekers. Study 4 (N = 509) replicated these findings among STEM women, and documented the hypothesized process of social identity threat. Study 5 (N = 480) found that the business (vs. fairness and control) case similarly undermines African American students' belonging. Study 6 (N = 1,019) replicated Study 5 using a minimal manipulation, and tested these effects' generalizability to Whites. Together, these findings suggest that despite its seeming positivity, the most prevalent organizational diversity case functions as a cue of social identity threat that paradoxically undermines belonging across LGBTQ+ individuals, STEM women, and African Americans, thus hindering organizations' diversity goals.

show abstract

The Divergent Effects of Diversity Ideologies for Race and Gender Relations

Cited by 6 publications

References 125 publications

Women Don’t Mean Business? Gender Penalty in Board Composition

Women Don’t Mean Business? Gender Penalty in Board Composition

Understanding Diversity Ideologies From the Target's Perspective: A Review and Future Directions

The business case for diversity backfires: Detrimental effects of organizations’ instrumental diversity rhetoric for underrepresented group members’ sense of belonging.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About