Study of ­diversity management in ­organization

Sensemaking, coupling, and decoupling in diversity training: 
The study investigates the meanings participants attach to mandatory standardized (MS) diversity training (DT) in workplaces. We identify distinct response types. Many focus less on purpose than on requirements to follow procedures. Most hold inconsistent views, claiming that they did not learn from the DT but still thought it was good, indicating their being knowledgeable and sophisticated, but believed that the training was valuable for (unknown) others.

As workplaces became more diverse, more diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives and pressures to work with diversity policies, diversity management have been implemented. It seems almost a matter of course that organizations offer diversity training (DT), whichis often implemented in a standardized format. One particularly common way to ensure high participation rates is by making DT mandatory. The research project addresses a mandatory and standardized format of DT. An appeal of the mandatory nature is ensuring a tight coupling between policy – that is, everyone should participate – and practice, that is, all employees are doing so. The question is whether this is successful in achieving desired outcomes. It is interesting, then, that the ideal of diversity is pursued by uniformity because everybody, irrespective of their background, prior knowledge, or needs, takes the same standardized training.

The primary goal of these trainings – at least the espoused one – is often to increase awareness toward diversity and build the foundation for an inclusive work climate. Specifically, such practices are aimed at improving the workplace experiences and outcomes of groups that face disadvantage at work, which also highlights the link between diversity and inequality. Thereby, diversity issues often inherently encompass moral considerations, and DT becomes a morally sensitive topic that implies consequences on the individual and organizational level. For organizations, but also for individuals, it demonstrates a commitment to inclusivity, understanding, and respect for diverse backgrounds and perspectives, which is supposed to help shaping a positive and progressive reputation.

In this research, we explore how individuals experience and make sense of MS-DT, using qualitative, semi-structured interviews. We studied a sample of professionals from a insurance company and a consultancy firm.

We identify four response types, each characterized by a central theme: (1) strict proceduralism or “just do it,” (2) ambiguous proceduralism or “who cares,” (3) idealistic substantivism or “learning that matters,” and (4) contextualized substantivism or “useless, but good,” the latter further divided into inattentive signaling and detached advocating. These types reflect different patterns of institutional (de)coupling, and importantly, individuals often shift between them. To account for this fluidity, we distinguish between fixed and flexible positioning. Based on these findings, our discussion follows a three-step reasoning: 1) identifying the paradox in participants’ meaning-making, 2) outlining how it stems from wanting to appear smart and moral, to 3) showing how the responses reflect participants’ identity work.

One pattern shows a particularly interesting variation within people, comprised of two views. The first view is that mandatory standardized DT is good for communicating the value of diversity and its significance to all employees and external interest groups. “As diversity is a good thing, the training must also be” seems to be the logic. The second view is that participants personally don’t learn anything. “I have already understood all this myself” is a common claim. This is, in most cases, implied to also be valid for people in their own work environment – hardly anyone points at specific groups who have benefited from the DT, and some explicitly point at people in their organization having diverse experience and being well-informed. “We are also used to diversity and don’t benefit from the training,” most people say. In the majority of cases, there are no signs of learning or behavioral benefits from the training. All this would imply a rejection of DT and an interest in decoupling and seeing it as only about external signaling and legitimation. However, few draw the consequences from their non-learning experience in the training. It is interesting that many of our participants express both views: DT is good but not for me/us (people I know) – that is, DT is both valuable and useless. This forms an interesting paradox. It points out how people can decouple their own orientations, arguably important for smooth decoupling also at the organizational level.

The paradox of these opposing views in the perception of DT may be a matter of navigating in a specific cognitive-moral terrain, driving people in different directions. On the one hand, self-views of being cognitively and morally up to standards suggest seeing value in DT, and on the­ other hand, being forced to participate in something that one does not learn from could motivate resistance. People may also reject hints of being targeted by DT as potentially prejudiced people who hold stereotypes or discriminate against others. Identity concerns are easily invoked – for example, as an educated, enlightened, moral person standing above the DT. All statements about non-learning, such as that the training is too basic or simplistic, explicitly express that participants feel cognitively or morally superior to what the course demands. In their comments, people indicate their sophistication and moral standing. But at the same time, they embrace the initiative, presumably because of wanting to appear to themselves and others as good people, not clouded by referring to DT as a practice that is not working. It is in this way that the course is seen as useless but good – without explicitly invoking this statement, which would bring the paradox to the open. Instead, it is backgrounded and not made explicit. The lack of learning or enthusiasm seems to invite a (self)suspicion of not being of the right moral grit and not fully understanding the situation – people seem to feel that they should be supportive. An emphasis on “others” needing this is the solution. Through this, informants show their superiority, as well as social responsibility, avoiding the two identity traps involved (being ignorant, needing to learn or improve, respectively, not being of the right moral caliber). More fully, participants uphold having a combination of a) their own cognitive understanding of the subject matter, b) higher standing compared to others (needing this), c) broader recognition of the potential problems of lack of diversity and thus being socially responsible, and d) loyalty to the company (despite it forcing people participating in, for them, a useless course). Here, we find a “discourse complex” facilitating the tactical navigation across different ideals and contradictions.

In close collaboration with Dr. Martin Fladerer (TUM, postdoctoral researcher), Prof. Thomas Fischer (University of Geneva), and Ass. Prof. Eleni Georganta (University of Amsterdam).