The Paradox of Diversity Initiatives: When Organizational Needs Differ from Employee Preferences

  • Leon Windscheid
  • Lynn Bowes-Sperry
  • Jens Mazei
  • Michèle Morner
Article

DOI: 10.1007/s10551-015-2864-1

Cite this article as:
Windscheid, L., Bowes-Sperry, L., Mazei, J. et al. J Bus Ethics (2015). doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2864-1

Abstract

Women are underrepresented in the upper echelons of management in most countries. Despite the effectiveness of identity conscious initiatives for increasing the proportion of women, many organizations have been reluctant to implement such initiatives because potential employees may perceive them negatively. Given the increasing competition for labor, attracting talent is relevant for the long-term success of organizations. In this study, we used an experimental design (N = 693) to examine the effects of identity blind and identity conscious gender diversity initiatives on people’s pursuit intentions toward organizations using them. We used counterfactual thinking, derived from fairness theory, as a guiding framework for our hypothesis development and investigated the moderating influence of a forthcoming government-mandated gender quota as well as individual characteristics (e.g., gender). Participants reviewed statements regarding workplace diversity initiatives and rated either the initiatives’ effectiveness or indicated their intentions to pursue employment with organizations using them. Of those rating pursuit intentions, half were informed that the country in which they were conducting their job search was about to implement gender quotas. Results indicated a diversity management paradox such that initiatives perceived as more effective made organizations using them less attractive as employers. However, these negative perceptions were mitigated by a government-mandated quota, and also lower among women. Implications for the study and practice of diversity are discussed.

Keywords

Diversity Diversity paradox Gender Quota Organizational attractiveness Pursuit intentions 

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leon Windscheid
    • 1
  • Lynn Bowes-Sperry
    • 2
  • Jens Mazei
    • 3
  • Michèle Morner
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Reinhard-Mohn-Institute for Management and Corporate GovernanceWitten/Herdecke UniversityWittenGermany
  2. 2.College of BusinessWestern New England UniversitySpringfield, MAUSA
  3. 3.Organizational & Business PsychologyUniversity of MünsterMünsterGermany
  4. 4.Reinhard-Mohn-Institute for Management and Corporate GovernanceWitten/Herdecke UniversityWittenGermany
  5. 5.German University of Administrative Sciences SpeyerSpeyerGermany

Personalised recommendations