Exploring the paper Kaiser, C.R., Major, B., Jurcevic, I., Dover, T.L., Brady, L.M. and Shapiro, J.R., 2013. Presumed fair: ironic effects of organizational diversity structures. Journal of personality and social psychology, 104(3), p.504.
Blog four of five, in a series by Dr Chrissi McCarthy.
Welcome to blog four in the series, where we consider Kaiser et al.’s paper that set out with a very simple premise to test: that when organisational EDI policies exist, employees believe their organisations are fair, and are less likely to believe employees when they tell them they are facing discrimination. We have considered why this matters and how they conducted their research. Now let’s have a look at what they found.
Remember, there were five experiments examining whether diversity policies were created.
- An illusion of fairness for minority groups
- Justification for sex discrimination in recruitment,
- Justification for sex discrimination in salaries
- Justification for sexism
- Animosity toward Discrimination Claimants
So let’s look at the results of each experiment. Please note that we are only undertaking a light-touch review. We encourage you to review the full paper for more details.
- Experiment one found that organisations with diversity structures were viewed as more procedurally fair for minority groups, even where the promotion records showed otherwise.
- Experiment two found that the presence of mandatory diversity training led to participants believing women were treated fairly, even when they were presented with evidence that showed they were not.
- Experiment three found that a company statement around EDI led participants to believe that sex discrimination was less likely, despite being shown evidence of salary discrepancy.
- Experiment four found that diversity work led participants to see discrimination claims by women as less valid.
- Experiment five found that diversity work led participants to see discrimination claims led by a minority individual as less valid and caused them to dislike and derogate that individual.
Why this matters
The findings here are stark and incredibly important to how we approach EDI in our organisations. They show that the presence of a policy, statement or training can cause more problems than we started with.
This is not a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
It’s a call for us to take note of what is really happening in our organisations, not just what we want to happen. We need more emphasis on understanding what works, in which circumstances and at what times, taking a context-driven approach to EDI rather than hanging statements and performing platitudes.
What to do next
So, what should organisations do instead? Looking at how understanding initial perceptions of fairness can influence employee approaches to inequality, we will also be looking further into the researcher in our upcoming blogs to see how change might be affected.
However, I won’t leave you hanging. A key point of the work of Kaiser is around what was communicated to employees, and how a policy can create the illusion of a perfect state. This highlights the importance of effective communication and leadership in the design of equality work. So, make sure you are
– Giving leaders in your organisation key talking points that outline how the presence of EDI work does not mean the absence of discrimination.
– Front the reason why the policy exists within the opening statements, acknowledge that there is work to do and that you are committed to doing it. Still, you know there is a long road to be travelled.
– Have a dedicated and trained person or team available to support those who have concerns about discrimination, and give them somewhere trusted to go.
People who are being discriminated against usually want to be believed and for the discrimination to stop.
If the very work we are doing means fewer people are believed and less discrimination is prevented, then we have an absolute imperative to question how we can do better.
Failure to do so is as good as admitting we simply don’t care.
