被多样性愚弄了?当多元化倡议加剧而不是缓解不平等时

IF 7.2 2区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS Academy of Management Perspectives Pub Date : 2023-03-22 DOI:10.5465/amp.2021.0206
Karin Hellerstedt, Timur Uman, Karl Wennberg
{"title":"被多样性愚弄了?当多元化倡议加剧而不是缓解不平等时","authors":"Karin Hellerstedt, Timur Uman, Karl Wennberg","doi":"10.5465/amp.2021.0206","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"To advance the discussion on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, we analyze the management literature and examples of advocacy practices inspired by the three DEI logics of moral justice, business case, and power activism. By emerging litigation, self-interest and coercion as the mechanisms driving change within these logics, we show how the concept of diversity is approached differently in the three logics. Based on this discussion we explain why diversity has taken precedence over equity and inclusion in both research and practice. We further show how the tensions between DEI logics inform diversity initiatives and exacerbate rather than mitigate bias and inequality. To rejuvenate scholarly and managerial debates around DEI initiatives and address managerial biases to focus on the wrong things, we discuss what could be learned from the rationales of such initiatives, including how one can be fooled into focusing on diversity at the expense of equity and inclusion.","PeriodicalId":48215,"journal":{"name":"Academy of Management Perspectives","volume":"67 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":7.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"FOOLED BY DIVERSITY? WHEN DIVERSITY INITIATIVES EXACERBATE RATHER THAN MITIGATE INEQUALITY\",\"authors\":\"Karin Hellerstedt, Timur Uman, Karl Wennberg\",\"doi\":\"10.5465/amp.2021.0206\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"To advance the discussion on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, we analyze the management literature and examples of advocacy practices inspired by the three DEI logics of moral justice, business case, and power activism. By emerging litigation, self-interest and coercion as the mechanisms driving change within these logics, we show how the concept of diversity is approached differently in the three logics. Based on this discussion we explain why diversity has taken precedence over equity and inclusion in both research and practice. We further show how the tensions between DEI logics inform diversity initiatives and exacerbate rather than mitigate bias and inequality. To rejuvenate scholarly and managerial debates around DEI initiatives and address managerial biases to focus on the wrong things, we discuss what could be learned from the rationales of such initiatives, including how one can be fooled into focusing on diversity at the expense of equity and inclusion.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48215,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Academy of Management Perspectives\",\"volume\":\"67 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Academy of Management Perspectives\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2021.0206\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academy of Management Perspectives","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2021.0206","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

为了推进对多样性、公平和包容(DEI)倡议的讨论,我们分析了管理文献和倡导实践的例子,这些倡导实践受到道德正义、商业案例和权力行动主义这三种DEI逻辑的启发。通过在这些逻辑中出现的诉讼、自利和强制作为驱动变化的机制,我们展示了在这三种逻辑中如何以不同的方式处理多样性的概念。基于这一讨论,我们解释了为什么在研究和实践中,多样性优先于公平和包容。我们进一步展示了DEI逻辑之间的紧张关系如何为多样性倡议提供信息,并加剧而不是减轻偏见和不平等。为了重振围绕DEI倡议的学术和管理辩论,并解决关注错误事物的管理偏见,我们讨论了可以从这些倡议的基本原理中学到什么,包括人们如何被愚弄,以牺牲公平和包容性为代价关注多样性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
FOOLED BY DIVERSITY? WHEN DIVERSITY INITIATIVES EXACERBATE RATHER THAN MITIGATE INEQUALITY
To advance the discussion on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, we analyze the management literature and examples of advocacy practices inspired by the three DEI logics of moral justice, business case, and power activism. By emerging litigation, self-interest and coercion as the mechanisms driving change within these logics, we show how the concept of diversity is approached differently in the three logics. Based on this discussion we explain why diversity has taken precedence over equity and inclusion in both research and practice. We further show how the tensions between DEI logics inform diversity initiatives and exacerbate rather than mitigate bias and inequality. To rejuvenate scholarly and managerial debates around DEI initiatives and address managerial biases to focus on the wrong things, we discuss what could be learned from the rationales of such initiatives, including how one can be fooled into focusing on diversity at the expense of equity and inclusion.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
18.20
自引率
2.20%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: Academy of Management Perspectives (AMP) aims to provide valuable insights to current and future thought leaders, including educators, business writers, consultants, executives, policy makers, and other professionals involved in management practice and policy. The publication seeks to bridge the gap between scholarly research and practical applications by presenting evidence-based approaches to address crucial management issues. AMP publishes research papers that employ quantitative or qualitative evidence, either from a single study or a compilation of studies within a specific field of research. The journal does not accept opinion pieces but encourages articles that focus on the implications of findings for policy and practice rather than theoretical implications. Examples of suitable articles for publication in AMP include practitioner or policy-oriented reviews of empirical studies, descriptive articles that contribute to our comprehension of management practices and strategic approaches, and articles highlighting the practical and policy implications of evidence-based work.
期刊最新文献
The End of Jobs? Paradoxes of Job Deconstruction in Organizations Dealing with Organizational Legacies of Irresponsibility A Puzzle of Knowledge Spillovers during Patent Litigation Rethinking “Woke” and “Integrative” Diversity Strategies: Diversity, Equity, Inclusion—and Inequality Creating Value through Supply Chain Orchestration as a Business Model
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1