Diversity Resistance in Organizations

Kecia M. Thomas, Kecia M. Thomas

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781000045963
• Edition: 2
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: History & Theory in Psychology
• Index: Psychology

This new volume revisits diversity resistance ten years later, examining the fluidity of diversity resistance in workplaces. Top-notch contributors provide insight about the motivations to resist diversity and inclusion as well as offer strategies for preventing and derailing diversity resistance and enhancing inclusion in organizations.

The current edition broadens the conversation about diversity resistance by demonstrating methods of counter-resistance and how diversity resistance manifests in everyday lives, as well as how it presents itself and limits the careers and lives of various stigmatized groups. Chapters also consider why, despite the often expressed value for diversity and inclusion, diversity resistance continues to persist. Contributors demonstrate the persistence of diversity resistance across time, context, and for a variety of targets. For example, this volume addresses topics as well as marginalized groups not previously discussed in the first edition such as intersectionality, workers living with mental illness, gender identity, trans workers, and the systemic resistance experienced by gay couples.

This volume will be of interest to scholars and practitioners as well as minoritized workers. It will function as a framework for understanding the continuum of exclusion, harassment and discrimination that occurs within organizational settings and the impact upon individual and organizational performance. Practitioners will find examples and cases for how diversity resistance manifests, but more importantly strategies and recommendations for derailing diversity resistance and enhancing inclusion.

1 Diversity Performance, Social Surveillance and Rescinding Human Rights

Understanding the Health Outcomes of Diversity Resistance

Kecia M. Thomas, Justin A. Lavner, Zoe E. Johnston and Cambrilyn Scofield

Since the first volume of Diversity Resistance in Organizations (2008b) was published, there has been a significant growth in the “mainstreaming” of diversity, seen in advertising, diversity functions in organizations and the increased hiring of diversity executives. In some ways, the growing racial diversity and more visible participation of women, linguistic minorities and sexual minorities in many areas of society signals some steps toward inclusion. Yet, even in those cases where diversity exists in terms of representation, resistance to both diversity and inclusion often persists. That is, as frequently as the topic appears in our schools, workplaces and communities, it often seems as though it is simply performing diversity rather than engaging in it. With an evolving political climate, there is also growing evidence of a return to old-fashioned and overt forms of discrimination, harassment and hate and efforts to remove human rights connected to areas such as voting and marriage. How does one navigate a culture that desires to promote diversity on the surface, yet challenges it at every turn? What are the health-related consequences of being in this context?

This chapter examines several examples of diversity resistance today. We build on Thomas and Plaut (2008), who defined diversity resistance as, “… a range of practices and behaviors within and by organizations that interfere, intentionally or unintentionally, with the use of diversity as an opportunity for learning and effectiveness (p. 5).” These behaviors and practices were described as being perpetuated by both individuals and by organizations in covert and overt ways. Accordingly, we begin by examining diversity performance as evidenced by the growing presence of racial diversity in the advertising and staffing strategies used by many organizations. We then turn to the unexpected ways in which diversity resistance persists in often overt and hostile ways as perpetuated by individuals that at times seem validated and reinforced by broader systems of resistance. Given the mixed message conveyed through greater performance of diversity and persistent resistance to diversity and inclusion, we conclude the chapter by asking what consequences this climate of diversity resistance might present for the mental and physical health of members of minoritized groups.

Performing Diversity as Diversity Resistance

Evidence of diversity performance is rampant in organizational advertising. For example, consider the 2015 continuing education catalog for the University of North Georgia, titled Success: Why Follow When You Can Lead. The cover displayed four young professionals who appear to be at the end of a race on an outdoor track. Running are two White men in suits and ties (clearly winning the race), a White woman wearing a pantsuit and heels (coming in a distant third) and finally a young Black man without a jacket who is pulling up the rear. The university obviously thought about the importance of displaying a racially diverse scene of men and women in their efforts to attract more diverse students to their campus in the future. What the institution obviously did not consider was how the message of White men as winners and a (White) woman and a Black man as losers would be received. Essentially the ad replicated the current reality of power and leadership in many organizations: White men lead and others follow. In fact, rather than decreasing in representation, the proportion of White men seems to be increasing.¹

Other well-meaning examples exemplify insensitivity to the reality and history of marginalized groups. A Chicago television affiliate, WGN-TV, sought to celebrate religious diversity by highlighting the beginning of the Jewish celebration Yom Kippur by including a mention of the holiday in its newscast. Unfortunately, the graphic that was shown behind the news anchor was actually the Star of David badge from a prisoner’s uniform used during Nazi Germany to mark people of Jewish descent during the Holocaust. Again, the station attempted to demonstrate its commitment to religious diversity but did not invest the resources needed to accurately portray Jewish symbols or avoid minimizing the significance of the Holocaust.

Popular brands – even those known for racial diversity in advertising – have experienced similar missteps. For example, The Gap (a popular clothing store and brand) aired a commercial nationally in which three of four young women were shown as strong and active, with several of them engaging in gymnastic type exercises. The lone inactive girl was also the only Black actress in the ad. In fact, she was positioned more as a prop such that her head was used by the eldest and tallest White girl to rest her arm upon. Again, this commercial reinforced socialized stereotypes of Black women as servers and White women as being served (hooks, 2001).

The health and beauty organization Dove is known for taking great strives to celebrate size diversity by using racially diverse actresses with a variety of weights in their print and televised ads. However, Dove has likewise conveyed problematic messages around skin color and race. One print ad showed a Black woman literally removing her brown skin after using Dove soap, like she was removing a sweater in order to display her improved and now White skin. Another Dove ad for lotion included the text, “… for normal to dark skin,” thus normalizing White skin and marking all other shades as somehow abnormal. Another health and beauty company, Nivea, had a print ad in which a heavily bearded Black man with a large afro was transformed by Nivea products into a smooth-shaven Black man with a low haircut. This ad was accompanied with the text, “Re-civilize yourself.” This too reinforced Whiteness and standards of presentation as privileged and civilized, while the unique characteristics of Black men were presented as uncivilized.

Finally, a pool safety poster distributed by the American Red Cross highlighted a racially diverse group of swimmers by representing the participation of White, Black and Brown kids at what looks like a neighborhood pool. The title of the poster was, “Be Cool, Follow the Rules.” Unfortunately, a closer look at the many examples of “cool” and “not cool” behaviors reflected in the poster indicates that all of the “cool” behaviors were demonstrated by White kids, while Black and Brown kids were responsible for every “not cool” behavior displayed. This unfortunate poster demonstrated the persistent stereotype of Black, and specifically Black kids, as unruly, difficult, and likely to be violent.

What is striking about these examples is that in each example provided, the organization went to great lengths to demonstrate its value for diversity – by casting racially diverse actors and actresses, acknowledging a Jewish holiday and creating racially integrated materials. Despite these good intentions, however, in each case history was ignored and negative messages about minorities were displayed, reinforced and highlighted. These cases may seem minor, but they reflect a type of diversity resistance in their marginalization of the important work of celebrating diversity and creating an inclusive society.

Another frequent way in which diversity is performed is through the recruitment and hiring of Chief Diversity Officers (CDO) in corporate offices and college campuses. Like the prior examples presented, the presence of CDOs and diversity functions in organizations signal the message that diversity and inclusion is important. However, the circumstances under which many CDOs ascend to these roles and the circumstances under which they work can also suggest a climate of diversity resistance.

There is not a simple nor linear career path nor set of competencies to define who would be an effective CDO. In fact, at the time when many of these positions were launched, there was not a common job description or set of expectations for this role (Williams & Wade-Golden, 2007; Wilson, 2013). Certainly, the role of many CDOs is to support and project an organization’s image as one that is proactive and motivated to at least be diverse in its racial and gender representation (Wilson, 2013). However, a recent research report by consulting firm Russell Reynolds² (2019) suggests that most CDOs feel and are often set up to fail. Specifically, they report lacking the resources needed to be effective, including access to demographic data about their own organization, analytics staff, financial resources, decision-making authority and exposure to top decision makers, while also often working in climates that still question or negate the value of diversity. CDOs who are also members of minority groups themselves may not only find themselves ineffective in their work role but given their dual status may also find themselves overextended and burned out, in what is sometimes referred to as representation burnout.³ Hiring CDOs who lack resources to be effective reflects how organizations simultaneously engage in diversity performance and diversity resistance.

Reemergence of Overt and Hostile Diversity Resistance

In addition to the subtle (and not so subtle) diversity resistance seen in diversity performance, recent years have also seen a reemergence of overt and hostile diversity resistance. The resistance to racial minorities, especially Blacks, is demonstrated in overt and hostile ways such as hangmen’s nooses in the workplace (Thomas, 2008a). Although nooses are typically tied to lynchings, they reemerged in the 1990s in several large organizations where anti-Black racism was rampant. Black employees have been targeted by nooses at their desks or near their lockers or work-spaces in every state in the U.S. and across industries. Nooses have been found on a number of college campuses as well, most recently Stanford University⁴ and the University of Maryland⁵ among others. In fact, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission began the Eradicating Racism and Colorism from Employment Initiative (E-RACE)⁶ to address racial harassment in order to address the growing noose incidents and other forms of racial harassment. Thomas and Plaut (2008) suggested that noose cases are often vehicles for racial resistance when Black employee(s) have made an official complaint alleging discrimination and/or harassment; the noose is a form of retaliation and is a further threat for the target. Nooses are also used in cases where Blacks are promoted, often to positions of influence or leadership over their non-Black peers. Nooses are also used as threats outside of workplaces and universities. In one recent example, three (White) middle school teachers in New York who served almost exclusively Black and Latino children placed nooses on their bulletin boards as “back to school” necklaces.⁷ When confronted by parents, they claimed it was a joke.

In many of these cases the organizational response was shock and then denial. The middle school teachers in fact claimed not to have known the historical significance of nooses. Likewise, in a very large case in which Georgia Power (owned by Southern Company) admitted to the presence of nooses for decades, the CEO admitted throughout his deposition that he had “no idea” a noose was a racist symbol and that he felt both Blacks and White would find the nooses humorous.⁸

Diversity resistance is also demonstrated in state-sanctioned discrimination connected to hair – a form of diversity resistance uniquely directed toward African-Americans. Hair has long been a civil rights issue for Blacks (Garrin, 2016). In many ways, natural hair for Blacks, especially Black women, is seen as signaling a lack of professionalism. Opie and Phillips (2015) conducted three experiments in which they demonstrated that Black women with Afrocentric hair were evaluated as more dominant and less professional than Black women who wore their hair in more Eurocentric (straightened) styles. As more and more Black women reject chemical hair relaxers in favor of styling their natural hair, there has been growing evidence of racial discrimination focused on hair. In 2010, Chastity Jones, a Black woman with dreadlocks, was offered a job as a customer service representative for which she would work over the phone. However, that job offer came with a stipulation that Ms. Jones would need to cut her dreads in order to be employed by the company. The courts sided with the employer. Currently, the judicial system only protects against hair discrimination in cases involving afros, since it is an immutable characteristic given that is its natural state. The law does not protect against forms of discrimination in cases where the hair has been altered, such as through braids or dreadlocks, even if these styles have a deep history for Black culture. The armed forces only recently allowed (Black) women to wear dreadlocks and braids (despite their neatness and convenience) without fear of being reprimanded. Here, too, we see state-sanctioned resistance to diversity, co-occurring alongside efforts to expand the diversity of the armed forces. There has, however, been some recent progress: in 2019, both the State of California and the City of New York outlawed employment discrimination based upon hair.

Surveillance as Diversity Resistance

We also see diversity resistance reflected in the heightened surveillance of minority group members. Increasingly there is evidence that racial minorities are policed by average White citizens. Cell phone video and social media posts have highlighted the many ways in which the mere presence of marginalized group members, especially Blacks, is policed. The most visible case of this was the untimely death of a Black teenager, Trayvon Martin, at the hands of a man who claimed to be on neighborhood watch. In February 2012, 28-year-old George Zimmerman was on community watch when he shot and killed Martin, a 17-year-old, unarmed Black boy. Zimmerman had dialed 9-1-1 to report his suspicions of Martin and the operator instructed him not to pursue him. Zimmerman disregarded the operator’s advice, however, and instead followed Martin, and after a physical altercation with him, ended up shooting him in what he claimed was self-defense. The case went to court and Zimmerman was found not guilty, sparking protest and outcry among the African-American community and others. It seemed apparent that Zimmerman had profiled Martin and only thought he was suspicious because of the color of his skin. While Martin presented no clear threat, Zimmerman still followed him and used deadly force when Martin had no means of threatening Zimmerman’s life (“T...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Endorsements
• Half Title
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of Contributors
• Foreword
• Preface: Revisiting Diversity Resistance
• 1. Diversity Performance, Social Surveillance and Rescinding Human Rights: Understanding the Health Outcomes of Diversity Resistance
• 2. Unapologetic Authentic Early Career Black Women: Challenging the Dominant Narrative
• 3. Sexuality Blindness: A New Frontier of Diversity Resistance
• 4. Diversity Resistance and Gender Identity: How Far Have We Come and Where Do We Still Need to Go?
• 5. Stigma as Diversity Resistance to Employees with Mental Illness
• 6. Diversity Resistance Redux: The Nature and Implications of Dominant Group Threat for Diversity And Inclusion
• 7. The Response to Social Justice Issues in Organizations as a Form of Diversity Resistance
• 8. Artful Avoidance: Initial Considerations for Measuring Diversity Resistance in Cultural Organizations
• 9. The Dance of Inclusion: New Ways of Moving With Resistance
• 10. African-American Professionals in Public Relations and the Greater Impacts
• Index