The Dilution of Diversity: Ironic Effects of Broadening Diversity

Abstract

Diversity is one of the buzzwords of the twenty-first century. But who counts as diverse? We coded diversity statements to examine how organizations typically define diversity and whether oppressed-group members perceive some definitions as diluting diversity, or detracting from the original intention of diversity initiatives. Organizations most commonly opted for a broad definition of diversity (38%) that focused on diversity in perspectives and skills, with no mention of demographic group identities (e.g., race; Study 1). In Studies 2-3, people of color perceived broad statements as diluting diversity more than other diversity statements. They were also less interested in working at those organizations, and broad statements led sexual minorities to be less willing to disclose their sexual identity (Study 4). Thus, broadening the definition of diversity to include individual characteristics and skills may backfire, unless the importance of demographic diversity is also acknowledged.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 35 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.