Diversity management as navigation through organizational paradoxes

• Published date: 12 March 2020
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-12-2018-0236
• Pages: 355-377
• Date: 12 March 2020
• Author: Ronit Nadiv,Shani Kuna
• Subject Matter: HR & organizational behaviour,Employment law,Diversity,equality,inclusion

Diversity management as

navigation through

organizational paradoxes

Ronit Nadiv and Shani Kuna

Department of Human Resource Management Studies, Sapir College,

Hof Ashkelon, Israel

Abstract

Purpose –Accumulated evidence suggests that efforts at diversity management (DM) yield mixed results or

even fail in terms of promoting workforce diversity. Previous scholarly attempts to explain the mixed results of

DM initiatives provided only partial understanding. This study applies a paradox perspective to better

understand the challenges of DM from the vantage point of diversity managers, who play a central role in the

promotion and implementation of diversity initiatives.

Design/methodology/approach –In-depth interviews with diversity managers in large business

organizations in Israel explored practitioners’conceptions of the challenges underlying the implementation

of diversity initiatives. A grounded theory approach was utilized.

Findings –The findings reveal the emergence of paradox: diversity initiatives generate organizational

tensions that undermine their success and hence amplify the need for further diversity interventions. Three

distinct paradoxes are identified: necessary change vs desire for stability; bureaucratic control vs flexible

procedures; and long-term business gains vs short-term losses. Diversity managers utilize two opposing

strategies to contend with these paradoxes.

Research limitations/implications –This study does not represent voices of diverse employees or of top

executives. The data focused on mid-level practitioners’descriptions of DM challenges and their methods of

contending with them.

Practical implications –The findings shed light on an effective strategy of contending with paradox.

Recognizing paradox and navigating it properly may greatly advance the success of costly DM

change interventions. Implications are suggested regarding the academic education and training of DM

practitioners.

Originality/value –Based on the paradox framework, which offers a novel vantage point for understanding

the challenges of implementing DM, the findings contribute to the scholarly understanding of the limited

success of DM interventions.

Keywords Diversity, Diversity management, Diversity managers, Paradox

Paper type Research paper

Introduction

“How wonderful that we have met a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress.”

(Bohr, cited in Moore, 1966, p. 196).

While advancing workforce diversity has become a common objective in globally

competitive economies (Lynch, 2017), there is a lingering controversy regarding the

effectiveness of the wide array of practices used to achieve it (Benschop et al., 2015;Ghorashi

and Sabelis, 2013;Holck, 2016;Janssens and Zanoni, 2014). Despite some evidence of a

positive correlation between diversity interventions and enhanced organizational diversity

(e.g. Dobbin et al., 2015;Janssens and Zanoni, 2014;Kalev et al., 2006), the accumulated

scholarly literature is mixed: most diversity management practices yield an ambiguous

impact on workforce diversity within organizations (Bell and Hartmann, 2007;Benschop

et al., 2015;Ghorashi and Sabelies, 2013;Gotsis and Kortezi, 2014;Hur and Strickland, 2015;

Paradoxes in

organizational

diversity

management

355

The authors’greatest thanks are extended to Prof. Alexandra Kalev and Dr. Tamar Parush for their

constructive remarks on earlier drafts of this paper,

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2040-7149.htm

Received 29 December 2018

Revised 1 June 2019

14 September 2019

8 January 2020

Accepted 12 January 2020

Equality, Diversity and Inclusion:

An International Journal

Vol. 39 No. 4, 2020

pp. 355-377

© Emerald Publishing Limited

2040-7149

DOI 10.1108/EDI-12-2018-0236

Kochan et al., 2003). Consequently, our understanding of why diversity change initiatives

often fail and what can positively affect their success is still rather limited (Ahmed, 2007a;

Benschop et al., 2015;Dobbin et al., 2015;Holck, 2016;Janssens and Zanoni, 2014).

Diversity management (hereinafter DM) policies and practices are aimed at enhancing

organizationaldiversity (Kossek and Lobel, 1996;Mor-Barak, 2016;Ozbilgin and Tatli, 2008).

Diversity initiatives are major organizational change interventions, becausethey aim to affect

and transform core organizational components, including human resource management

policies and practices, organizational culture and structures, as well as social dynamics

(Benschop et al., 2015;Cummings and Worley,2014;Ghorashi and Sabelis, 2013;Holck, 2016;

Lynch, 2017). Thesetransformation processesare typically complex and, therefore, difficultto

implement. Asopposed to former studies, which assumed that DM is a rational-adaptive, well

planned and orderlychange process, which is expected to yield desired results,we delve into

DM by applying a paradox perspective (Lewis, 2000;Smith and Lewis, 2011).

A paradox framework, which offers an alternative vantage point for understanding the

challenges encountered during the implementation of DM change processes, may contribute

to the scholarly debate regarding their mixed results. The paradox framework enables the

identification of organizational tensions, which inhibit and undermine the implementation

process of DM initiatives. Dealing with these tensions, by assuming that DM is a manageable

orderly change, may, therefore, prove futile. Rather, our findings indicate that a strategy,

which acknowledges and embraces paradoxical tensions, might be highly beneficial for

effective DM implementation.

Our study addresses the knowledge gap regarding DM initiatives’limited success in

promoting diversity, by exploring DM practices from the vantage point of designated

practitioners –diversity managers who provide a valuable perspective for deciphering DM

challenges. This study’s two research questions are:

(1) Which organizational challenges do diversity managers face while promoting and

managing diversity within organizations?

(2) Consequently, how do diversity managers contend with the challenges they face in

their efforts to promote organizational diversity?

In the following sections, we first elaborate on the problem –the complexities of DM

interventions which yield ambiguous results and often fail. Following is a presentation of the

paradox perspective that is utilized to analyze our participants’accounts of the challenges

they encounter during their attempts to implement DM initiatives. Next our methodology is

outlined. We then present our findings. The article concludes with a discussion offering

theoretical considerations and practical implications.

The mixed results of diversity management initiatives

DM, as a distinctive management practice and research field, became significant in the late

1980s (Janssensand Zanoni, 2005;Kelly and Dobbin,1998;Mor-Barak, 2016). Enhancedglobal

competition, technological changes, women’s rights movements and demographic shifts,

includingthe entry of women and minoritiesto the labor market as well as immigrationwaves,

have beenmajor catalysts in the developmentof DM discourses, theoriesand practices (Kochan

et al.,2003;Tolbert and Castila, 2017;van Knippenberg and Schippers,2007).

As organizations face external and internal pressures to diversify their workforce (Gallant

and Krone, 2014), diversity interventions and practices have experienced a rapid growth

(Cummings and Worley, 2014;SHRM, 2005). The spectrum of DM practices is thus fairly

broad (Kossek et al., 2005). Many DM practices have become intertwined with human

resource (HR) practices, including recruitment, selection, training, networking and mentoring

(Benschop et al., 2015;Gotsis and Kortezi, 2014;Kossek et al., 2005;Nkomo and Hoobler, 2014),

EDI

39,4

356