Diversity management and organizational change. What can institutional theory contribute to our understanding of the lack of radical change?

• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-09-2013-0072
• Published date: 12 August 2014
• Pages: 482-493
• Date: 12 August 2014
• Author: Christina Evans
• Subject Matter: HR & organizational behaviour,Employment law,Diversity, equality, inclusion

Diversity management and

organizational change

What can institutional theory contribute to our

understanding of the lack of radical change?

Christina Evans

Business School, University of Roehampton London, London, UK

Abstract

Purpose – Set against a backg round of numerous institutionally funded programmes with a focus on

gender mainstreaming, the purpose of this pap er is to draw on institutional theory as an alternative

lens to explain why such programmes often fail to achieve the desired outcomes.

Design/methodology/approach – The paper is based on a case of a European Social Fund EQUAL

Programme aimed at enhancing employment opportunities for women in Infor mation Technology,

Electronics and Communication and related sectors. The paper focuses on the partnership working

aspect, which is a fundamental mobilizing structure of Eu ropean Commission programmes. Insights

into the experiences of partnership working were gathered from interviews with 18, out of the 24

participating partners, on this specific programme.

Findings – Tensions with partnership working are exposed and discussed: frustration with intra-

organizational collaborative working and structures and outputs that promote a mimetic approach to

change, legitimized through the symbolic use of “best practice”; findings more consistent with

“institutional isomorphism”, as opposed to “institutional innovation”.

Social implications – Given that partnership working remains a key mobilizing str ucture of gender

mainstreaming programmes, both within Europe and in other contexts, the paper concludes with

recommendations aimed at those responsible for commissioning and overseeing such programmes.

Originality/value – This paper draws on institutional theory as an alternative lens to examine and

explain why gender mainstreaming prog rammes do not always achieve the intended outcomes.

To date, as others acknowledge, there has been limited work that has applied organizational theory to

this problem.

Keywords Institutional theory,Organizational change , Partnership working, Diversity management

Paper type Research paper

Introduction: the wider context for gender diversity change programmes

Faced with talent shortages in the expanding knowledge economy there has been a

continuing discourse about the business benefits of building a diverse workforce, with

a particular focus on gender diversity (DTI, 2005; European Commission, 2006a; Evans,

2012; Jonsen et al., 2013). This discourse has been accompanied by a plethora of

institutionally funded initiatives aimed at addressing gender inequalities and promoting

gender mainstreaming in science and technology workplaces. Within Europe, the

European Commission (EC) set abudget of 50 billion for the latest and final Framework

Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP7); many of these funded

projects align with the European Unions’s commitment to gender mainstreaming

(European Commission, 2010). Yet despite this significant and continuing investment,

“[y] this situation is not self-rectifying [y] talents are poorly utilized due to continued

career development constraints and bias” (European Commission, 2012, p. 9).

Against this context, this paper draws on institutional theor y (DiMaggio and

Powell, 1983; Zucker, 1987; Greenwood and Hinings, 1996) as an alternative analytical

lens to explain why institutionally funded diversity mana gement programmes, aimed

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-7149.htm

Received 29 September 2013

Revised 21 March 2014

Accepted 26 June 2014

Equality, Diversityand Inc lusion:

An International Journal

Vol. 33 No. 6, 2014

pp. 482-493

rEmeraldGroup PublishingLimited

2040-7149

DOI 10.1108/EDI -09-2013-0072

482

EDI

33,6