Colorado College has been pursuing a mission to become more diverse by introducing many new policies, but recent studies suggest that there may be significant problems with improperly implemented diversity policies. Specifically, a recent Harvard Business Review article came to the unfortunate conclusion that diversity initiatives in corporate environments often do not effectively serve minorities or women, and can even cultivate a counterproductive reaction in white men.
An interesting dynamic was exposed by a study conducted at University of Santa Barbara back in 2012. The study described how the more “pro-diversity” a company seemed to be, the more likely the actions of the company would be perceived as fair in cases of discrimination, and the more likely the workplace would be perceived as diverse and safe regardless of whether or not that was close to the truth.
This creates a dangerous environment in which minorities and women become unduly judged and stigmatized if they raise concerns about their working environment, as the company has created an image, not necessarily an actual culture, of diversity. Women and minorities end up being viewed as ungrateful or labeled as agitators if they try to do anything about their status at a company with very visible “pro-diversity” initiatives, as people will assume that the environment is just and inclusive.
It’s obvious that the presence of diversity policies is not necessarily an indication, and definitely not a guarantee, that a company will be diverse. Scarily, a large study published in the American Sociological Review in 2006 utilized 30 years worth (1971-2002) of data from 708 companies and found that the implementation of different kinds of diversity training programs did not have significant effects on diversity at all.
Diversity training and evaluations aimed at reducing managerial bias had barely any effect on the levels of white women, black men, and black women in management. Diversity initiatives aimed at the social isolation that minorities and women tend to experience in the workplace had meager effects as well. Granted, more recent data would offer more pertinent insights, as social attitudes may have changed some degree since then. Regardless, this study still illuminates the lamentable reality that even if a company proclaims that they possess diversity policies, it is no indication that they will actually foster an inclusive and diverse workplace culture.
Here comes the fun part. The mere presence of diversity policies brings out some very concerning reactions in everybody’s favorite demographic: white males. We’ve already covered how the presence of diversity policies leads people to assume that women and minorities are being treated fairly regardless of the reality, but a study published in 2016 in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology revealed something even more concerning. When white males interviewed at a “pro-diversity” company that appeared to value diversity highly, they were more stressed (as measured by cardiovascular readings) and they performed poorly in the actual interview (as judged by independent raters). When a company made no mention of diversity, white males were less stressed and performed significantly better in their interviews. This result was consistent even when accounting for political ideology, attitudes towards minority groups, and how they felt about diversity and inclusiveness. In other words, this defensive reaction of stress occurred regardless of how much of an ally someone thought they were, hinting at a deep psychological reaction to diversity that is not easily counteracted.
These studies suggest that diversity initiatives often do not help women or minorities, and make white men believe they are threatened on some level. Real accountability and responsibility is needed in these policies, as far too often “pro-diversity” policies are hollow in their effects and serve only to make a corporation appear progressive. Without proper incentives, structure, and accountability for implementing a diverse workplace, diversity initiatives often end up as wishful thinking that generates a perception in higher status individuals that their workplace environment is fair and diverse while the initiatives themselves don’t actually aid the disadvantaged groups.
The conclusion that implied that white men feel threatened and resentful in the face of diversity initiatives presents a complication to implementing accountability, as the people who tend to have the power to demand accountability and make these structural changes in the corporate environment are white men. Obviously, this dynamic would hamper the implementation of meaningful diversity policies. That’s not to say that all white guys are inherently oppressive, but rather that, on some level, high status groups have a tendency to react negatively to threats to their status.
Diversity initiatives that lack tools to make the entity accountable often don’t serve those that the initiatives are trying to help, and can even hurt them. The actual function of the policy is paramount. A policy might be particularly well written and it might sound all sunshine and multicultural rainbows on the surface, but unless they are crafted to be substantial, they merely parade the illusion of progress, and run the risk of growing complacent with progress that is simply surface level.