User:Makotanaka/sandbox

Resistance to diversity efforts in organizations (also referred to as backlash) is a well-established and ubiquitous phenomenon  that may be characterized by thoughts, feelings, or behavior which undermines the success of diversity-related organizational change initiatives. Some scholars trace this resistance to social change in the 1960s, when dominant group members faced workplace concerns over displacement by minorities.

In the workforce, resistance to diversity is often studied as the resistance to organizational change. While this resistance can be construed as hostile and intentional, resistance can also be thought of as a subtler occurrence. Some scholars have deemed the “resistance perspective” as reactive, highlighting psychological and behavioral consequences such as denial, avoidance, defiance or manipulation that ultimately serve to maintain the status quo. Other scholars define resistance to diversity with respect to how the behavior of both individuals and organizations may undermine diversity-driven opportunities for “learning and effectiveness”, whether intentional or not.

Research on Resistors
Generally speaking, research on resistance to diversity has revealed insight into who is resisting and under what circumstances. Focusing on resistance from the dominant/nonminority group, some have tied diversity resistance to White male backlash  or straight, white, American male (SWAM) backlash, although the research, as outlined below, may focus on the study of resistance from Whites or men, given the context of the research question.

Research has documented that certain Whites may be resisting the organizational diversity messages of two common ideological options for managing diversity in the workforce: multiculturalism-based ideologies that embrace ethnic differences between groups or colorblind-based ideologies that ignore the ethnic differences between groups. For example, research suggests that White Americans who strongly identify with their ethnic group are more likely to respond to multiculturalism with increased social dominance orientation and prejudice. However, among those Whites who did not strongly identify with their ethnic group, colorblindness was associated with increased intergroup-bias.

Another line of research found that members of high-status groups (i.e. Whites) reacted adversely to pro-diversity organizational messages when compared to non-Whites. This research found that White individuals experience heightened threat in response to pro-diversity messages, and that this threat manifested in physiological (cardiovascular reactions), psychological (self-disclosed concerns), and behavioral (making poorer impressions) domains.

Regarding resistance to gender diversity, researchers have observed that some men will resist gender diversity under certain conditions; specifically, the researchers presented men in STEM with information that diversity initiatives will effectively increase female representation, and this led to resistance among men high in prototypicality legitimacy (i.e. those who believed that there is legitimacy to men best representing STEM) who also experienced prototypicality threat (i.e. concerns about losing the ability to best represent STEM).

Popular Examples
Recently, attention has been given to the technology industry in light of James Damore’s 2017 document, “Google's Ideological Echo Chamber,” which has gone viral as a prominent example of perceived “anti-diversity” attitudes. This infamous memo alleges that Google’s current diversity initiatives discriminate against dominant group members (i.e. Whites and males) and foster tension within the organization. Other technology industry examples of resistance to diversity occurred in 2016; it was reported that Intel’s CEO was threatened in response to his diversity efforts, and Facebook’s CEO faced challenges with what he considered to be the malicious behavior of his employees replacing a “black lives matter” message with an “all lives matter” message.

Scholars and other commentators have also highlighted media-covered examples of resistance to diversity outside of technology, including the famous Texaco racial discrimination suit in which top-level executives were accused of creating a hostile climate for their diverse employees and were caught on tape using racial slurs, and the Southern Company racial discrimination lawsuit that included popularized reports of nooses displayed in the facilities.

Possible Explanations
This section will highlight a number of circumstances and explanations for resistance to diversity and its affiliated programs.

Identity threats
As companies attempt to grow diverse workforces and train their diverse employees to work harmoniously, research suggests that minority group progress may induce a threat response from those of the majority group. Researchers Major and Kaiser argue that these types of diversity initiatives jeopardize status hierarchies, and that this status instability produces threat, even within well-meaning, “prodiveristy” progressives.

In a racial context, racial progress has been shown to negatively impact White’s self-worth, and Whites may buffer this impact by perceiving anti-white bias. Similarly, in a gender context, researchers have observed increases in social identity threat among males who discuss changing gender-status relations with females.

Another possible threat-related mechanism that could underlie resistance to diversity is prototypicality threat, or the threat that one’s sub-group will no longer best represent the broader, superordinate group. This line of research, mentioned above in the “research on resistors” section, suggests that effective diversity efforts in the STEM domain can actually fuel resistance in certain men, leading to a lower level of support for diversity efforts and increased reports of exclusionary behavioral intentions directed at women.

Feelings of Exclusion
Although multicultural ideology is commonly used workplaces, research suggests that White individuals may associate multiculturalism with exclusion and may not readily associate multiculturalism with conceptions of the self. Additionally, this program of research found that the relative degree of feelings of inclusion can help explain White vs minority differences in diversity endorsement, and Whites higher in need to belong will view multiculturalism less favorably. These researchers suggest that socially contextualized cues to inclusion or exclusion can meaningfully impact resistance to diversity.

In response to the association between multiculturalism and feelings of exclusion among dominant group members, scholars have called for the use of All-Inclusive Multiculturalism (AIM), or multiculturalism that explicitly includes the dominant group. These researchers noted that whether nonminorites are included or excluded in an article about multiculturalism can implicitly influence their inclusionary associations with the ideology.

Problems with Diversity Efforts
Commentators and scholars have speculated that diversity training itself may be creating backlash because employees of organizations may feel uncomfortable in training environments or resent being told what to do. When examining the sources of resistance to diversity efforts, researchers have pointed out that organizations often use negative, legal focused deterrents within bias training, designate diversity training as mandatory, and associated the training with corrective action for “problem groups.”

Consistent with this thinking, researchers documented evidence of a “counterresponse” (i.e. rebeillion/defiance) when administering brochures or priming participants with controlling conceptualizations of prejudice-reduction (vs. autonomy-supporting conceptualizations); thus, they asserted that common organizational efforts to reduce prejudice may be, unintentionally, growing resistance.

Addressing the Resistance
Research on resistance to diversity has revealed implications and suggestions for those hoping to address potential, current, or possible resistance:
 * If a multicultural-based ideology is in use, scholars have recommended emphasizing the benefits for all groups, making the ideology inclusive to both majority and minority group members
 * In the context of prejudice reduction, it may be helpful to avoid putting pressure on individuals that limits their autonomy, and it may be better to highlight the value and benefits of nonprejudice
 * Whites have been shown to report increased positive attitudes towards hypothetical diversity programs when the programs are framed diversity management (i.e. for business reasons), rather than affirmative action.
 * Encouraging managers to engage in pro-diversity activities may be more effective, and result is less resistance, than efforts that limit their discretion
 * Some research recommends framing diversity training content broadly, whereas other research suggests this may not be enough
 * To address prototypicality threat, researchers have proposed that reframing a superordinate category (e.g. STEM) as more complex (e.g. defined by diversity) may help reduce “susceptibility” to prototypicality threat
 * There is evidence that White Americans who identify strongly with their racial/ethnic group may respond more positively to multiculturalism if it is framed as a learning opportunity rather than a set of policies
 * To avoid unintentionally alienating key stakeholders in gender diversity, leaders in the study of gender initiatives have recommended cultivating allied male support for organizational change