diversity initiative effectiveness: a typological theory

Q Academy of Management Review2019, Vol. 44, No. 3, 538–563.https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2017.0087

DIVERSITY INITIATIVE EFFECTIVENESS: A TYPOLOGICALTHEORY OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

LISA M. LESLIENew York University

The purpose of diversity initiatives is to help groups that face disadvantage in societyachieve better outcomes in organizations, but they do not necessarily work as inten-ded. To advance understanding of the effects of diversity initiatives, I develop a ty-pological theory of their unintended consequences. I propose that diversity initiativesproduce four unintended consequence types: backfire (negative diversity goal prog-ress), negative spillover (undesirable effects on outcomes other than diversity goalprogress), positive spillover (desirable effects on outcomes other than diversity goalprogress), and false progress (improved diversity metrics without true diversitygoal progress). I then adopt a signaling perspective to identify mechanisms un-derlying the four types and the diversity practices most likely to produce them. Theresulting typological theory not only provides an organizing framework for prior workon the unintended consequences of diversity initiatives but also specifies new un-intended consequence types, identifies signals that serve as their root causes, andsuggests that the unintended consequences of diversity initiatives are interrelatedand multidetermined. Collectively, these contributions advance a broader conceptu-alization of diversity initiative effectiveness, in which a wider range of mechanismsand outcomes, as well as the relationships among them, must be considered. Morecomprehensive theory regarding their unintended consequences provides a founda-tion for increasing diversity initiative effectiveness.

Diversity initiatives—defined as the imple-mentation of one or more practices aimed atimproving the workplace experiences and out-comes of groups that face disadvantage in society(e.g., ethnic/racial minorities, women, etc.)—are aprevalent feature of organizations around theglobe (Society for Human Resource Management,2009). Studies have shown that the majority oforganizations have diversity initiatives (Bartels,Nadler, Kufahl, & Pyatt, 2013; Kwoh, 2012), and inthe United States alone, organizations spend bil-lions of dollars on diversity initiatives each year(Jayne&Dipboye, 2004). If diversity initiativesworkas intended, they are likely to have distal benefi-cial impacts. Increaseddiversity and inclusion arepositively related to performance, at least in somecontexts (e.g., McKay, Avery, & Morris, 2009; Richard,Murthi, & Ismail, 2007), and improving theworkplace

outcomes of the groups diversity initiatives targethelps redress societal injustice. The success ofdiversity initiatives is therefore critical from thestandpoint of not only organizations but also thebroader society.Yet whether diversity initiatives are effective

remains an open question. For example, a num-ber of Silicon Valley companies recently imple-mented extensive diversity initiatives that failedto produce the desired impact (Wiener, 2016). Theconclusion that diversity initiatives are not al-ways effective is mirrored in academic research.Some studies have shown that many of thepractices commonly included in diversity initia-tives increase targets’ representation (e.g., Richard,Roh, & Pieper, 2013)—the most commonly studiedindicator of diversity initiative effectiveness—butothers have shown that some of the same practiceshave no impact on or even decrease target repre-sentation (e.g., Kalev, Dobbin, & Kelly, 2006).Evidence that organizations invest heavily in

diversity initiatives, coupled with evidence thatthey do not always work as intended, suggeststhat the science and the practice of diversitymanagementareat a critical juncture. Staying thecoursewith regard to howdiversity initiatives arecurrently implemented is unlikely to result in

I am grateful to Ryan Fehr, Madeline Heilman, AndrewKnight, David Kravitz, Joe Magee, Colleen Manchester, andBatia Wiesenfeld for their feedback on previous drafts. I alsothank the NYU Stern Micro Organizational Behavior Work-in-Progress Group for their comments on a presentation of thiswork. This research was presented at the 2016 Academy ofManagement annual meeting and the 2017 Broadening Per-spectivesonWomenandWork InterdisciplinaryConferenceatthe Johns Hopkins Carey Business School.

538Copyright of theAcademy ofManagement, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmittedwithout the copyright holder’sexpress written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.

https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2017.0087

substantial progress toward diversity goals. Newtheories that deepen our understanding of theeffects of diversity initiatives are needed as a firststep in developing strategies for increasing theireffectiveness.

Abundant theory exists on whether, why, andwhen diversity initiatives work as intended(e.g., Kalev et al., 2006; Konrad&Linnehan, 1995a;Nishii, Khattab, Shemla, & Paluch, 2018). Yet, attimes, diversity initiatives not only fail to pro-duce the intended consequences (e.g., no effecton target representation) but produce unintendedconsequences instead (e.g., decreased target rep-resentation; Dobbin, Schrage, & Kalev, 2015; Kalevet al., 2006). The mechanisms that explain why di-versity initiatives produce intended versus un-intended consequences are likely distinct. Theorybuilding dedicated to understanding the un-intended consequences of diversity initiatives isthereforeneeded to fully understand their impacts.

Scholars have indeed provided some insightinto the unintended consequences of diversityinitiatives. For example, prior theory and evidenceindicate that diversity initiatives increase nega-tive evaluations of targets (e.g., Duguid & Thomas-Hunt, 2015; Heilman, 1994) and negative attitudesamongnontargets (e.g., Lowery,Unzueta,Knowles,& Goff, 2006; Plaut, Garnett, Buffardi, & Sanchez-Burks, 2011), and these reactions to diversity ini-tiatives have been invoked as explanations forwhy diversity initiatives at times decrease targetrepresentation (Dobbin et al., 2015; Kalev et al.,2006). Yet extant work on the unintended conse-quences of diversity initiatives has developed in afragmented and piecemeal fashion, resulting in anumber of unanswered questions.

Specifically, prior studies have often focusedon a single unintended outcome, such as nega-tive evaluations of targets (Duguid & Thomas-Hunt, 2015), negative nontarget attitudes (Loweryet al., 2006), or decreased target representation(Dobbin et al., 2015). Because more comprehen-sive attempts at theory building are lacking, it isunclear whether prior work has uncovered thefull spectrum or only a subset of the unintendedconsequences of diversity initiatives. Moreover,the tendency to study different unintended con-sequences in isolation implicitly suggests thatthey are independent. Scholars have given littleattention to understanding whether differentunintended consequences are indeed distinctor whether they are interrelated such that effortsto prevent one unintended consequence have

implications for the likelihood of others. Similarly,it is not uncommon for studies to investigate theunintended consequences of a single diversitypractice or small subset of diversity practices(e.g., Leslie, Mayer, & Kravitz, 2014; Plaut et al.,2011), which gives the impression that differentpractices have idiosyncratic effects. Limitedtheory has addressed whether diversity prac-tices produce unique unintended consequencesor whether there is a common set of unintendedconsequences produced by different practices (forexceptions see Dobbin et al., 2015, and Kalevet al., 2006). Extant theory does not provide an-swers to these questions, which suggests thatunderstanding of the unintended consequencesof diversity initiatives is underspecified.To advance understanding of the effects of di-

versity initiatives, I develop broader, more com-prehensive theory regarding their unintendedconsequences. The unintended consequences ofany change initiative can only be defined inrelation to its intended consequences (Merton,1936). I therefore begin by defining the intendedconsequences of diversity initiatives as positiveprogress toward one or more of three diversitygoals—increased target representation, reducedgaps in career success between targets andnontargets, and increased target inclusion—andreviewing existing work on whether diversityinitiatives work as intended. Implicit in this def-inition is a key boundary condition of my theo-rizing: I assume that leaders adopt diversityinitiatives because theywant to improve targets’outcomes and implement them substantively. Asa result, situations in which leaders adopt andimplement diversity initiatives as mere windowdressing (i.e., symbolically rather than sub-stantively; Edelman, 1992) fall outside the scopeof my theorizing. When implemented as windowdressing, it is unsurprising that diversity initia-tives do not result in positive progress towarddiversity goals. I focus on the more surprisingsituations in which diversity initiatives are mo-tivated by good intentions but nevertheless failto work as intended.Defining the intended consequence of diversity

initiatives as positive diversity goal progress im-plies that their unintended consequences includeany other effects they produce. Using this defini-tion, I propose a typology of four unintended con-sequences: backfire (i.e., negative diversity goalprogress), negative spillover (i.e., undesirableeffects on outcomes other than diversity goal

2019 539Leslie

progress), positive spillover (i.e., desirable effectson outcomes other than diversity goal progress),and false progress (i.e., improved diversitymetricswithout true diversity goal progress). The typologyincludes unintended consequences documentedin the diversity literature as well as those docu-mented in other literatures but poorly understoodin the context of diversity initiatives. To provideinsight into mechanisms that drive the four un-intended consequence types, I adopt a signalingperspective on the effects of organizational initia-tives (e.g., Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). I propose thatindividuals interpret diversity initiatives as sig-nals regarding what an organization is like andthat these signals are a root cause of unintendedconsequences. Central tomy theorizing is the ideathat individuals often interpret and react to di-versity initiatives in ways that are disconnectedfrom leaders’ intentions.

The signaling effects I identify are general;they capture common interpretations of and re-actions to diversity initiatives. Yet all diversityinitiatives are unlikely to be interpreted in thesame way by all individuals. Rather, there isconsiderable variability in how diversity initia-tives are implemented (e.g., Kulik & Roberson,2008), which may affect individuals’ interpretationsand reactions. There is also considerable variabilityin how individuals interpret and react to thesame initiative (e.g., Lowery et al., 2006). I proposethat the specific practices included in a diversityinitiative—a commonly studied dimension alongwhich diversity initiative implementation varies(e.g., Kalev et al., 2006)—is one factor that affectsthe strength of the signals it sends and, thus, thelikelihood of unintended consequences. I alsodiscuss other situational and individual-differencemoderators as avenues for future work.

The typological theory offers a number of con-tributions. I provide an organizing frameworkfor prior work by categorizing documented un-intended consequences of diversity initiativesinto one of two types (i.e., backfire and negativespillover). I also advance theory regarding twounintended consequences that have been poorlyunderstood to date (i.e., positive spillover andfalse progress). In addition, I build on prior workby identifying signals that serveas root causes ofall four unintended consequence types. Doing sosuggests that the unintended consequences ofdiversity initiatives are both interrelated (i.e., thesame signal leads to different unintended conse-quences) and multidetermined (i.e., different signals

lead to the same unintended consequence) and,thus, operate in more complex ways than priortheory can account for. Collectively, these con-tributions advance a broader conceptualizationof diversity initiative effectiveness, in which awider range of mechanisms and outcomes, aswell as the relationships among them, mustbe considered. I also propose that the specificpractices included in a diversity initiative mod-erate the strength of the signals it sends and thelikelihoodof different unintended consequences.At the same time, the typological theory in-dicates that there are more commonalities in theunintended effects of different diversity prac-tices than prior theorywould suggest. Finally, byadvancing more comprehensive theory regardingtheir unintended consequences, I provide a foun-dation for identifyingnewstrategies for increasingdiversity initiative effectiveness.

INTENDED CONSEQUENCES OFDIVERSITY INITIATIVES

Building theory regarding the unintended con-sequences of diversity initiatives requires firstdefining diversity initiatives and their intendedconsequences. I define diversity initiatives as theimplementation of one or more practices aimed atimproving the workplace experiences and out-comes of groups that face disadvantage in bothorganizations and the broader society (Kalevet al., 2006; Kulik & Roberson, 2008; Nishii et al.,2018). Diversity initiatives tend to target ethnic/racial minorities and women but can targetother disadvantaged groups (e.g., individualswith disabilities, immigrants, low-socioeconomic-status individuals, sexual orientation minorities,etc.; Society for Human Resource Management,2009). Some scholars have suggested that the tar-gets of diversity initiatives have broadened suchthat diversity initiatives include efforts to increasediversity in characteristics not linked to disad-vantage (e.g., diversity in attitudes or communi-cation styles; Edelman, Fuller, & Mara-Drita, 2001).Nevertheless, defining the targets of diversity ini-tiatives as members of disadvantaged groups isconsistent with the original intent of diversity ini-tiativesand thegroups theycontinue to targetmostoften (e.g., Kulik & Roberson, 2008; Society forHuman Resource Management, 2009).Diversity initiatives are intended to improve

targets’ experiences and outcomes on three di-mensions. Targets tend to be underrepresented,

540 JulyAcademy of Management Review

particularly in high-level positions (e.g., Bertrand& Hallock, 2001); to achieve lower levels of careersuccess than nontargets (e.g., lower pay; Joshi,Son, & Roh, 2015); and to be excluded and deval-ued in everyday interactions (e.g., Mor Barak,Cherin, & Berkman, 1998). The intended conse-quences of diversity initiatives therefore includeprogress toward one or more of three diversitygoals: increased representation of targets, re-duced gaps in career success between targetsand nontargets, and increased inclusion of tar-gets (i.e., perceptions that they arewell integratedand valued in an organization; Nishii, 2013; Shoreet al., 2011). Consistent with this definition, priorwork on the intended consequences of diversityinitiatives has focused on increased representa-tion (e.g., Nishii et al., 2018) and, to a lesser extent,reducedcareergaps (e.g.,Huffman,King,&Reichelt,2017) and increased inclusion (e.g., Herdman &McMillan-Capehart, 2010) as the outcomes ofinterest.

Diversity initiatives share the common goal ofdiversity goal progress but vary in aspects of theirimplementation, such as the specific practicesthey include (Kulik & Roberson, 2008). Scholarshave organized common diversity practices—which also have been referred to as diversityprograms, equal employment opportunity (EEO)structures, and affirmative action (AA) structures—into three categories, eachofwhich is intended tofacilitate diversity goal progress through a dif-ferent mechanism (Kalev et al., 2006; Konrad &Linnehan, 1995a; Richard et al., 2013; see Table 1and Figure 1).1

Early work differentiated nondiscrimination di-versity practices and resource diversity practices(Konrad & Linnehan, 1995a). Nondiscriminationpractices, also referred to as identity-blind andEEO practices, are intended to facilitate diversitygoal progress by ensuring that decision making(e.g., hiring, promotions, allocating desirable as-signments) is based on qualifications and abili-ties, not demographics (Konrad& Linnehan, 1995a;Kovach, Kravitz, & Hughes, 2004). Example non-discrimination practices include diversity trainingto avoid implicit biases and name-blinding appli-cations to conceal demographic characteristics.

In contrast, resource practices, also referred toas identity-conscious, opportunity-based, andpreferential treatment practices, are intended tofacilitate diversity goal progress by providingtargets with additional support and opportuni-ties (Konrad & Linnehan, 1995a; Richard et al.,2013). Example resource practices include di-versity mentoring and sponsorship programsthat provide targets with access to social supportand career advice and targeted recruitmentpractices that provide targets with informationabout job opportunities.More recently, scholars have identified account-

ability practices, also referred to as responsibilitypractices, as a third category of diversity practicesthatare intendedto facilitatediversitygoalprogressby increasing responsibility for and monitoring ofdiversity outcomes (Kalev et al., 2006; Richard et al.,2013). Whereas nondiscrimination and resourcepractices focus on the means used to achieve di-versity goal progress, accountability practices focuson the end of diversity goal progress itself. Exampleaccountability practices include appointing a chiefdiversity officer and including diversity as a crite-rion in managers’ performance evaluations.Scholars have investigated whether different

diversity practices work as intended, most oftenfocusing on reduced discrimination as the mech-anism of interest and increased target represen-tation as the outcome of interest (Nishii et al.,2018). Yet findings are contradictory. For example,diversity performance evaluationsareassociatedwith increased racial diversity (Richard et al.,2013) but also decreased representation of Blackmen (Kalev et al., 2006). Likewise, diversity net-working groups are associated with increasedrepresentation of women (Kalev et al., 2006) andracial diversity (Richard et al., 2013) but also de-creased representation of Black men (Kalev et al.,2006). Evenmore puzzling is evidence that diversitytraining is associated with decreased discrimina-tionagainst targets (Bezrukova,Spell, Perry,& Jehn,2016) but also decreased representation of targets(Kalev et al., 2006). Conversely, AA statements areassociated with increased discrimination againsttargets (Heilman, 1994) but also increased repre-sentation of targets (Kalev et al., 2006). Thesefindings contradict extant theory; practices thatdecrease discrimination should increase repre-sentation, and vice versa (see Figure 1).Contradictory findings may stem from statisti-

cal artifacts or use of varying research method-ologies across studies. Yet they are also suggestive

1The practices studied in the EEO/AA literature and in thediversity literature overlap largely, if not entirely (e.g.,Edelman et al., 2001; Kelly & Dobbin, 1998; Kulik & Roberson,2008). I use the term diversity practices as a general term thatencompasses practices studied in both literatures.

2019 541Leslie

TABLE 1Categories of Diversity Practices

Practice Description

Nondiscrimination practicesMerit-based decision making Ensuring that decisionmaking is based on qualifications and abilities, not

demographics. Examples include use of tests or other objective tools inhiring, use of performance evaluations to determine pay and promotions,and name-blinding applications to conceal demographic information.

Diversity training Educating employees about bias and disadvantages faced by targets andproviding strategies for preventing bias from resulting in discrimination.Diversity training is often focused on preventing discrimination and,thus, is best categorized as a nondiscrimination practice. Training thateducates managers on how to provide additional resources to targets isbetter categorized as a resource practice.

Resource practicesPreferential treatment Giving an advantage to targets in decision making. Examples include

hiring/promoting targets over more qualified (i.e., strong preferentialtreatment) or equally qualified (i.e., tiebreak) nontargets. Preferentialtreatment is illegal in the United States, unless mandated by a court as atemporary remedy for past discrimination (Kovach et al., 2004).

Targeted recruitment Increasing access to and the attractiveness of jobs and promotionopportunities among targets. Examples include advertising jobs withtargetgroupassociationsandusing targets in recruitmentmaterialsorasrecruiters.

Diversity statements Increasing the attractiveness of an organization to targets by including astatement that an organization is an AA employer or that diversity isvalued (e.g., in job ads, on a website, etc.).

Targeted training Providing targets with additional training (e.g., managerial skills) toincrease their likelihood of being hired or promoted.

Diversity networking groups Increasing targets’ access to and support from one another. Examplesinclude employee affinity groups (also referred to as employee resourcegroups) and paying for targets to belong to professional associationsdesigned for members of their group.

Diversity mentoring programs Increasing targets’ access to powerful others. Examples include formalmentoring and career sponsorship programs for targets.

Accountability practicesDiversity plans Setting diversity goals (e.g., increasing representation, reducing career

gaps, improving survey-based inclusion scores) andmonitoringprogresstoward those goals. Examples include setting aspirational numbers (e.g.,for target representation) an organization hopes to meet or establishingquotas that are strictly enforced.

Diversity performance evaluations Evaluating managers’ performance in terms of helping the organizationmeet diversity goals. Examples include offering a bonus to managers ifthey hire or promote targets.

Diversity positions Appointing a person or persons within the organization who is responsiblefor overseeing the organization’s diversity efforts, either temporarily orpermanently. Examples include appointing a chief diversity officer or AAofficer and establishing a diversity department, committee, or task force.

Grievance systems Establishing a system through which individuals can report instances ofdiscrimination and other events that inhibit progress toward diversitygoals.

Note: The three categories of diversity practices are consistent with those identified in prior work; although the labels used foreach category vary, large-scale studies tend to categorize diversity practices in ways that are consistent with this taxonomy (e.g.,Kalev et al., 2006; Konrad & Linnehan, 1995a; Richard et al., 2013). Yet scholars at times place the same practice in differentcategories. In particular, Richard and colleagues (2013) categorized diversity performance evaluations as an accountabilitypractice, whereas Kalev and colleagues (2006) categorized this practice as a nondiscrimination (i.e., bias reduction) practice.Diversity performance evaluations hold managers accountable for diversity goal progress, regardless of whether progress isachieved through nondiscrimination or the provision of additional resources. Thus, consistent with Richard and colleagues, Icategorize diversity performance evaluations as an accountability practice.


that existing theory on the intended consequencesofdiversity initiatives cannot fullyaccount for theireffects. Rather, diversity initiatives may operatethrough additional mechanisms that produce un-intended consequences.

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OFDIVERSITY INITIATIVES

Unintended consequences are defined as unfore-seenoutcomesof efforts to createchange incomplexsocial systems (Merton, 1936). The academic studyof unintended consequences began with sociolo-gist Robert Merton (1936), who observed thatchange initiatives rarely occur in a psychologicalor social vacuum. Rather, they take place in com-plex social systems comprising interdependententities, which makes their impacts difficult topredict. As a result, unintended consequences area near inevitability of efforts to create changein organizations and societies, and they have

been documented as a result of any number ofchange initiatives (e.g., Buchanan & Stubblebine,1962; Campbell, 1979; Coase, 1960; Kerr, 1975;Portes, 2000). The notion that diversity initiativesproduce unintended consequences is thereforeunsurprising.

A Typology of Unintended Consequences

The intended consequence of diversity initia-tives is positive diversity goal progress, whichindicates that their unintended consequencesinclude any other effects they produce (Merton,1936). I propose that diversity initiatives producefour unintended consequence types—backfire,negative spillover, positive spillover, and falseprogress—that aredifferentiatedby twodimensions:whether the intended or an unintended outcomeis affected andwhether the effect is undesirable ordesirable in direction (see Figure 2). I derive thistypology by categorizing documented unintended

FIGURE 1Intended Consequences of Diversity Initiatives

Diversity goal progress

• Increased representation of targets• Decreased career gaps between targets

and nontargets• Increased inclusion of targets

Decreased biasand discrimination

against targets

Mec

ha

nis

ms

Inte

nd

edco

nse

qu

ence

s

Increasedsupport and

opportunities fortargets

Increasedresponsibility forand monitoring of

diversity goals

Diversity initiativeImplementation of one or more practices aimed at

improving the workplace experiences and outcomesof groups that face disadvantage in society

Nondiscriminationpractices

Resourcepractices

Accountabilitypractices

2019 543Leslie

consequences of diversity initiatives into one oftwo types, and also including two additional typesthat have been documented in the broader litera-ture on unintended consequences but are poorlyunderstood in the context of diversity initiatives.

Documented unintended effects of diversityinitiatives can be categorized as contributingto one of two undesirable unintended conse-quences, differentiated by whether the intendedor an unintended outcome is affected. Specifi-cally, backfire occurs if a diversity initiativeaffects the intended outcome—diversity goalprogress—in an undesirable direction insteadof the intended desirable direction (i.e., decreasedrepresentation and inclusion of targets, increasedcareer gaps). Prior work has documented mecha-nisms that contribute to backfire. A variety of di-versitypractices (e.g., diversity training,preferentialtreatment, diversity and AA statements) in-crease negative evaluations of targets, amongboth nontargets and targets themselves (Brown,Charnsangavej, Keough, Newman, & Rentfrow,2000; Duguid & Thomas-Hunt, 2015; Heilman,1994; Heilman & Welle, 2006; Leslie et al., 2014).Negative evaluations of targets provide an ex-planation for evidence that diversity practices

(e.g., diversity training,diversitynetworkinggroups,diversity performance evaluations) at times de-crease target representation (Dobbin et al., 2015;Kalev et al., 2006).Alternatively, negative spillover occurs if a

diversity initiative affects an unintended out-come (i.e., any outcome other than diversity goalprogress) in an undesirable direction. Negativespillover encompasses prior evidence that di-versity initiatives, although intended to helptargets, also evoke negative reactions among non-targets;anumberofdiversitypractices (e.g., diversityand AA statements, preferential treatment) in-crease negative attitudes toward and perceptionsof organizations that implement them amongnontargets (Dover, Major, & Kaiser, 2016; Heilman,Battle, Keller, & Lee, 1998; James, Brief, Dietz, &Cohen, 2001; Lowery et al., 2006; Plaut et al., 2011;Shteynberg, Leslie, Knight, & Mayer, 2011).Although documented unintended consequences

of diversity initiatives are uniformly undesirable,change initiatives also produce consequences that,although unintended, are desirable (Merton, 1936).Consistent with this idea, I propose that diversityinitiatives produce two unintended consequencesthat are desirable in direction and differentiated by

FIGURE 2A Typology of the Unintended Consequences of Diversity Initiatives

The intended outcome is affected An unintended outcome is affected

Direction of

the effect is

undesirable

Negative spillover

A diversity initiative affects an outcome other than

the intended outcome (i.e., any outcome other than

diversity goal progress) in an undesirable direction

(e.g., decreased nontarget engagement)

Direction of

the effect is

desirable

Positive spillover

A diversity initiative affects an outcome other than

the intended outcome (i.e., any outcome other than

diversity goal progress) in a desirable direction

(e.g., increased nontarget engagement, increased

ethical behavior not tied to diversity issues)

Backfire

A diversity initiative affects the intended outcome

(i.e., diversity goal progress) but does so in an

undesirable direction instead of in the intended

desirable direction (e.g., decreased target

representation)

False progress

A diversity initiative affects the metrics used to

assess the intended outcome (i.e., diversity goal

progress) in the intended desirable direction,

without creating true change (e.g., improved target

representation in management achieved by

reclassifying existing employees)

Note: The four unintended consequences are defined and differentiated by crossing two dimensions: the direction of the effect(i.e., desirable versus undesirable) and the outcome affected (i.e., intended versus unintended).


whether an unintended or the intended outcomeis affected. Specifically, positive spillover occursif a diversity initiative affects an unintendedoutcome (i.e., any outcome other than diversitygoal progress) in a desirable direction. Althoughwell documented in other literatures (e.g., positiveexternalities in economics; Greenwald & Stiglitz,1986), positive spillover has received little atten-tion in the diversity literature. Nevertheless, thereis suggestive evidence that diversity initiativesmay produce positive spillover, specifically favor-able reactions among nontargets. Diversity initia-tives often evoke negative nontarget reactions (e.g.,Lowery et al., 2006), but a few studies have shownthat diversity practices (e.g., merit-based decisionmaking, diversity training, diversity statements) attimes evoke favorable attitudes and perceptionsamong nontargets (e.g., Bezrukova et al., 2016;Konrad & Linnehan, 1995b; Williams & Bauer, 1994).These findings suggest that diversity initiativesmay produce positive spillover, yet little theoryexists on the mechanisms that produce positivespillover and the ways in which it manifests.

Alternatively, false progress occurs when a di-versity initiativeaffects themetricsusedtomeasurethe intendedoutcomeofdiversity goalprogress inadesirable direction and, thus, appears to producethe intended consequence. However, improved di-versity metrics are achieved through shortcuts, notthrough the intended mechanisms (e.g., reduceddiscrimination), and, thus, do not reflect true im-provements in targets’ experiences and outcomes.2

False progress is well documented in other litera-tures; change initiatives often motivate behaviorsthat improve the metrics used to gauge the effec-tiveness of the initiative, without creating true, un-derlying change (e.g., Campbell, 1979; Magee,Kilduff, & Heath, 2011). In the diversity literaturescholars have speculated regarding actions man-agers might take to give the appearance of di-versity goal progress, such as increasing targetrepresentation in management by reclassifyingjobs dominated by targets asmanagerial (Smith &Welch, 1984). Yet, as with positive spillover, theoryregarding the nature and sources of false progresseffects is lacking in the diversity literature.

In all, existing work on diversity initiatives,in combination with the broader literature on

unintended consequences, suggests that diversityinitiatives produce four unintended consequencetypes. This typology provides a starting pointfor expanding theory on the unintended conse-quences of diversity initiatives. Yet a typologyis a useful theoretical device only to the extentthat it goes beyond classification by also providingexplanation and prediction (Doty & Glick, 1994;Snow & Ketchen, 2014). To this end, I adopt a sig-naling perspective on the effects of organizationalinitiatives and build theory regarding why andwhen diversity initiatives produce each of the fourunintended consequence types.

Signals As a Source ofUnintended Consequences

Signaling provides a useful framework foradvancing theory regarding mechanisms thatdrive the unintended consequences of diversityinitiatives. Theory and research in the field ofhuman resource management (HRM) supportthe notion that individuals interpret organiza-tional initiatives and practices—which areeasily observable—as signals of what an orga-nization is like, including its values, priorities,culture, and climate—which are harder to observe(Bowen & Ostroff, 2004; Guzzo & Noonan, 1994;Jones, Willness, & Madey, 2014; Nishii, Lepak, &Schneider, 2008; Nishii & Wright, 2008; Rousseau,1995; Rynes, 1991).3 The signaling effects of orga-nizational initiatives are often functional; by com-municating values and priorities, organizationalinitiatives motivate individuals to engage in be-haviors that facilitate organizational goals (Bowen&Ostroff, 2004; Ostroff & Bowen, 2000). At the sametime, “all HRM practices communicate messagesconstantly and in unintended ways” (Bowen &Ostroff, 2004: 206); individuals’ interpretations ofand reactions to organizational initiatives arefrequently disconnected from the intent of theleaderswho implement them,which explainswhy

2Although the intended outcome is affected in a desirabledirection, false progress is a detrimental unintended conse-quence because it results in only the appearance of theintended effect.

3HRM theory on the signaling effects of organizational ini-tiatives shares some commonalities with Spence’s (1973) in-fluential economic theory of signaling. Central to bothperspectives is the idea that individuals use easily observablebehaviors to make inferences about characteristics that areharder to observe. Yet the two perspectives also differ. Forexample, Spence’s original work focuses on the costs associ-atedwithsignalsand the idea that costlysignalsoftenproducethe intended effect of reducing information asymmetry. Incontrast, the HRM literature focuses less on costs and more onthe unintended effects of signals.

2019 545Leslie

organizational initiatives do not always work asintended (Guzzo & Noonan, 1994; Nishii et al., 2008;Nishii & Wright, 2008).

Consistent with these ideas, I propose that in-dividuals interpret the presence of a diversity ini-tiative as providing signals regarding what theorganization is like, and that the signaling effectsof diversity initiatives are often disconnected fromleaders’ intentions in terms of either the content ofthe signals themselves or individuals’ psycholog-ical and behavioral reactions to those signals.Thus, the signals that diversity initiatives send,together with individuals’ reactions to thosesignals, are mechanisms that drive unintendedconsequences (see Figure 3). Although diversityinitiativesmay sendanynumber of signals, I focuson identifying those signals that are likely rootcauses of the four unintended consequence types.For previously studied unintended consequences(i.e., backfire and negative spillover), I identifysignals that are both core to the definition of di-versity initiativesand likelydrivers of documentedunintended effects. For unintended consequencesthat are poorly understood (i.e., positive spilloverand falseprogress), I similarly identify signals thatare core to the definition of diversity initiatives, but

then build more novel theory regarding their sub-sequent unintended effects.

Signal 1: Targets Need Help

I propose that individuals interpret the pres-ence of a diversity initiative as a signal thattargets need help to succeed in the organization,which is a root cause of backfire. The signal thattargets need help may not be the primary mes-sage leaders intend to convey by implementing adiversity initiative, but it is nevertheless core tothe definition of diversity initiatives and, thus, al-most axiomatic. Given that the purpose of diver-sity initiatives is to improve targets’ outcomes,individuals likely interpret thepresence of suchaninitiative as evidence that targets are unlikely toachieve high levels of career success on their ownand need additional help to succeed in the orga-nization. If targets had the same odds of successas nontargets, a diversity initiative would not beneeded.The signal that targets need help is likely to

increase discrimination against targets and de-crease targets’ performance, both of which resultin backfire (i.e., negative diversity goal progress).

FIGURE 3Unintended Consequences of Diversity Initiatives

False progressImproved diversity

metrics without true change

(Proposition 4)

BackfireNegative

diversity goal progress

(Propositions 1, 2b, & 3b)

Perceived unfairness

Signal 1:Targets

need help

Ethical climate perceptions

Signal 3:Morality is valued

Extrinsic diversity motivation

Signal 4:Diversity goal

progress is valuedSig

na

lsP

sych

olog

y &

beh

avi

orU

nin

ten

ded

co

nse

qu

ence

s

Nondiscrimination practices

Accountabilitypractices

Decreased targetperformance

Signal 2:Targets are

likely to succeed

nontarget

Negative spilloverDecreased

engagement(Proposition 2a)

Positive spilloverIncreased nontarget

engagement & ethicalbehavior

(Proposition 3a)

Resourcepractices+ + + +

(Propositions 5a,b) (Proposition 6) (Proposition 7)

Increased discriminationagainst targets

Diversity initiative


The signal that targets need help is likelyto prompt individuals to make attributions re-garding why targets tend to experience compar-atively poor outcomes, both in organizations andin the broader society, and therefore need addi-tional help to succeed (cf. Jones & Davis, 1965;Kelley & Michela, 1980). Targets’ inferior out-comes are driven by situational factors, includ-ing pervasive discrimination (e.g., Bertrand &Mullainathan, 2004; Joshi et al., 2015). Yet in-dividuals tend to underestimate situational fac-tors and overestimate dispositional factors informing casual attributions (Ross, 1977, but seealso Morris & Peng, 1994); therefore, individualsare likely to infer that targets need help to suc-ceed because they lack competence. Individualsare alsomotivated to believe that theworld is justand that disadvantaged groups’ inferior out-comes are deserved (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2008;Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002), which similarlysuggests that the signal that targets need helpincreases stereotypes that targets lack compe-tence. Stereotypes of low competence, in turn,increase discrimination—for example, by re-ducing targets’ chances of being hired, beingpromoted, and receiving informal rewards(Cuddy, Glick, & Beninger, 2011).

The signal that targets need help also likelydecreases targets’ job performance. Research onstereotype threat demonstrates that individualsare aware of negative stereotypes others holdabout their group and that this awareness reducescognitive capacity and increases anxiety, both ofwhich impede performance (Schmader, Johns, &Forbes, 2008; Shapiro & Neuberg, 2007). To the ex-tent that targetsareaware thatdiversity initiativessignal they need help and increase stereotypesthat they lack competence, diversity initiatives arelikely to negatively affect targets’ performance.

Increased discrimination against targets anddecreased target performance, in turn, are likelyto result in negative diversity goal progress. In-creased discrimination against targets in formal(e.g., hiring, pay, promotion) and informal(e.g., allocation of desirable assignments) de-cision making is likely to reduce their repre-sentation, increase gaps in career success, andcontribute to perceived exclusion. Similarly,poor target performance is likely to increase tar-gets’ chances of being fired, thereby reducing theirrepresentation, and it is also likely to reduce theirchances of receiving pay raises and promotions,thereby exacerbating career gaps. The stereotype

threat processes through which diversity initia-tives decrease targets’ performance (i.e., beliefsthat they are negatively stereotyped) are alsolikely to increase perceived exclusion among tar-gets. In all, diversity initiativesare likely to producebackfire (i.e., negative diversity goal progress) bysignaling that targets need help, which, in turn,increases discrimination against targets and de-creases targets’ performance.

Proposition 1: The presence of a di-versity initiative signals that targetsneed help to succeed in the organiza-tion, which increases discriminationagainst targets and decreases targets’performance, both of which result innegative diversity goal progress (i.e.,backfire).

Proposition 1 encompasses prior theory and ev-idence on the negative effects of diversity initiativeson targets. Studies have documented that di-versity practices, including diversity statements(e.g., Heilman & Welle, 2006), diversity training(e.g., Duguid & Thomas-Hunt, 2015), and AA state-mentsandpreferential treatment (e.g., Brownetal.,2000; Heilman, 1994; Leslie et al., 2014), increasestereotypes that targets lack competence, increasediscrimination against targets, and also decreasetargets’ performance. Moreover, although nottested directly, scholars have invoked negativeperceptions and treatment of targets as explana-tions for why diversity practices decrease targetrepresentation (Kalev et al., 2006). Proposition 1also builds on prior work by identifying the signalthat targets need help as a root cause of theseeffects.

Signal 2: Targets Are Likely to Succeed

I propose that individuals interpret the pres-ence of a diversity initiative as a signal that tar-gets aremore likely to succeed in the organizationthan theywould bewithout the initiative, which isa root cause of both negative spillover and back-fire. Like the signal that targets need help, thesignal that targets are likely to succeed is core tothe definition of diversity initiatives and, thus,almost axiomatic. Given that the purpose of di-versity initiatives is to improve targets’ outcomes,individuals are likely to interpret diversity ini-tiatives as evidence that targets have improvedodds of success. Moreover, the signal that targetsare likely to succeed is a message that leaders

2019 547Leslie

likely intend to send, since it may help attract andretain targets (cf. Avery, 2003).

Yet the signal that targets are likely to succeedis nevertheless likely to produce unintendedconsequences, specifically negative spillover(i.e., undesirable effects on outcomes other thandiversity goal progress), by increasing percep-tions that organizational practices are unfairand, in turn, reducing engagement among non-targets. Intergroup relations tend to be viewedas a zero-sum game such that majority groupmembers interpret evidence that bias againstminority groups is declining and minoritygroups’ success in society is rising as evidencethat bias against majority groups is rising andmajority groups’ success in society is declining(Norton & Sommers, 2011;Wilkins & Kaiser, 2014).It follows that perceptions that targets’ odds ofsuccess in an organization are increasing leadnontargets to assume that their odds of successin the same organization are decreasing. Suchperceptions threaten nontargets self-interestand are therefore likely to lead to perceptionsthat the organization’s practices are unfair (cf.Tyler, Boeckmann, Smith, & Huo, 1997). Likewise,because the targets of diversity initiatives aredefined based on the experiences of their groupin society, not their personal skills and abilities,perceptions that targets’ increased odds of suc-cess come at the expense of nontargets may leadindividuals to construe diversity initiatives asviolating the meritocracy principle and, thus, asunfair (e.g., Bobocel, Son Hing, Davey, Stanley, &Zanna, 1998).

Perceived unfairness, in turn, decreases orga-nizational engagement, which scholars define aspositive organizational attitudes (e.g., applicantattraction, organizational commitment) and ben-eficial discretionary behaviors (e.g., citizenship,role expansion; Harrison, Newman, & Roth, 2006;Macey & Schneider, 2008). The core tenet of socialexchange theory is that individuals reciprocatethe treatment they receive from other individualsand entities (Blau, 1964; Cropanzano & Mitchell,2005; Gouldner, 1960). If nontargets believe orga-nizational practices are unfair, they are likely toreciprocate the unfair treatment they receive fromtheorganizationby formingnegativeorganizationalattitudes and refraining from discretionary behav-iors that benefit theorganization (e.g.,Colquitt et al.,2013). It follows that diversity initiatives producenegative spillover, which manifests as low non-target engagement, by signaling that targets

are likely to succeed and increasing perceivedunfairness.

Proposition 2a: The presence of a di-versity initiative signals that targetsare likely to succeed in the organiza-tion, which increases nontargets’ per-ceptions that organizational practicesare unfair and, in turn, decreases non-targets’ engagement in the organization(i.e., negative spillover).

Proposition 2a encompasses prior theory andevidence on the negative effects of diversity ini-tiatives on nontargets. Studies have documentedthat a variety of diversity practices, includingdiversity statements (e.g., Dover et al., 2016; Plautet al., 2011), preferential treatment (e.g., Heilmanet al., 1998; Lowery et al., 2006), and AA statements(e.g., Harrison, Newman, & Roth, 2006; James et al.,2001; Shteynberg et al., 2011), increase perceivedunfairness, disadvantage, and threat among non-targets, and also decrease their organizationalengagement. Proposition 2a also extends priorwork by identifying the signal that targets arelikely to succeed as a root cause of these effects.In addition to producing negative spillover, the

signal that targets are likely to succeed is likelyto result in backfire (i.e., negative diversity goalprogress) by increasing discrimination againsttargets. Individuals interpret evidence that anoutgroup takes resources and opportunities awayfrom their own group as an indication that thecompeting group has negative intent and there-fore lacks interpersonal warmth (e.g., friendliness,sincerity, etc.; Cuddy et al., 2008; Fiske et al., 2002).Thus, the signal that targetsare likely to succeed—and the associated assumption that this occursat the expense of nontargets—is likely to increasethe extent to which nontargets stereotype tar-gets as low in warmth. Like stereotypes of lowcompetence, stereotypes of low warmth increasediscrimination—for example, by decreasing tar-gets’ likelihood of being hired, promoted, or givendesirable assignments (e.g., Cuddy et al., 2011;Dipboye, 1985)—which, in turn, contributes to neg-ative diversity goal progress.

Proposition 2b: The presence of a di-versity initiative signals that targets arelikely to succeed in the organization,which increases discrimination againsttargets and, in turn, results in negativediversity goal progress (i.e., backfire).


Proposition 2b has some basis in prior theoryand research. Stereotypes of low competence arethe most common explanation for why diversityinitiatives increase discrimination against tar-gets (e.g., Heilman, 1994). However, studies havedocumented that stereotypes of low warmth arealso a mechanism through which diversity prac-tices, including AA statements and preferentialtreatment, increase discrimination against targets(e.g., Aquino, Stewart, & Reed, 2005; Leslie et al.,2014). Proposition 2b builds on prior work by iden-tifying the signal that targets are likely to succeedas a root cause of these effects.

Signal 3: Morality Is Valued

I propose that individuals interpret the presenceof a diversity initiative as a signal that morality isvalued in the organization, which is a root causeof both positive spillover and backfire. In con-sidering why diversity initiatives may pro-duce positive spillover, their relevance to socialjustice is noteworthy. Unlike many other organiza-tional initiatives, which often address organization-specific problems (e.g., restructuring to increaseefficiency), diversity initiatives are intended tocounteract the unfair disadvantages targets facein society. Combating injustice is widely con-strued as morally virtuous (e.g., Cropanzano,Byrne, Bobocel, & Rupp, 2001; Folger, 1998). It istherefore not surprising that promoting racialequality and diversity is viewed both as a sacredmoral value that should not be compromised(Ruttan & Nordgren, 2018; Tetlock, Kristel, Elson,Green, & Lerner, 2000) and as an indicator ofwhether an organization fulfills its moral obli-gation to society (Greening&Turban, 2000). Thus,although different leaders emphasize the moralcase for diversity to varying degrees (e.g., Mayer,McCluney, Sonday, & Cameron, 2015), the ten-dency to view promoting diversity as a moral actsuggests that individuals commonly interpretdiversity initiatives as a signal that morality isvalued.

The signal that morality is valued likely leadsto positive spillover (i.e., desirable effects onoutcomes other than diversity goal progress) byincreasing ethical climate perceptions and, inturn, nontarget engagement and ethical behav-ior. The dominant cultural values in an organi-zation shape climate perceptions regardingthe behaviors that are expected, supported, andrewarded (Schein, 2010; Schneider, 1987; Schneider,

Ehrhart, & Macey, 2013). Thus, the signal that mo-rality is valued is likely to result in ethical climateperceptions—or beliefs that moral behavior is ex-pected, supported, and rewarded (Kish-Gephart,Harrison, & Treviño, 2010; Mayer, Kuenzi, &Greenbaum, 2010; Victor & Cullen, 1988). Con-sistent with this idea, evidence indicates that theextent to which organizational leaders empha-size moral values is positively related to ethicalclimate perceptions (Bedi, Alpaslan, & Green,2016; Mayer et al., 2010).4

Ethical climate perceptions, in turn, increasenontarget engagement. Social exchange theoryposits that individuals reciprocate positive treat-ment from other individuals and entities (Blau,1964; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Gouldner,1960). Ethical climate perceptions indicate thatmoral behavior is normative and that othersin the organization act with good intentions. Or-ganizational members are likely to reciprocatethese good intentions via increased engage-ment. Evidence indeed shows that ethical cli-mate perceptions are positively related toindicators of engagement, including job satis-faction, organizational commitment, and citi-zenship behavior (Martin & Cullen, 2006; Mayer,2014). Importantly, increased engagement amongtargets can be considered an intended conse-quence of diversity initiatives, given that highlevels of engagement are likely to facilitate in-creased retention and, thus, representation oftarget group members. By comparison, increasednontarget engagement meets the definition ofpositive spillover; diversity initiatives are notintended to benefit nontargets directly (Kulik &Roberson, 2008).Ethical climate perceptions also increase eth-

ical behavior. Social information processingtheory posits that information in the environ-ments individuals are embedded in guides their

4The relationships among diversity initiatives, the signalthatmorality is valued,andethical climateperceptionsmaybecharacterizedbyadditional complexity. Ifmorality is valued inan organization, this may lead to both ethical climate per-ceptions and the implementation of a diversity initiative.Nevertheless, prior work indicates that organizational initia-tives shape individuals’ perceptions of what is valued in anorganizationand, in turn, the climateperceptions theydevelop(e.g., Bowen & Ostroff, 2004; Ostroff & Bowen, 2000). Thus, al-though other causal patterns are possible, prior work providestheoretical justification for the idea that the implementation ofa diversity initiative signals that morality is valued and, inturn, increases ethical climate perceptions.

2019 549Leslie

behavior (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). Thus, per-ceptions that an organization has an ethical cli-mate, where moral acts are supported, expected,and rewarded, increase ethical behavior (Kish-Gephart et al., 2010; Martin &Cullen, 2006; Mayeret al., 2010). Notably, decreased discrimination isboth an ethical act and a mechanism throughwhich diversity initiatives are intended to facil-itate diversity goal progress (see Figure 1) and,thus, does not qualify as an unintended conse-quence. Yet ethical climateperceptionsalso leadto ethical behaviors unrelated to diversity issues(e.g., reduced theft, reporting of fraud, etc.; Kish-Gephart et al., 2010), which meet the definition ofpositive spillover. In all, diversity initiatives arelikely to produce positive spillover, in the form ofboth increased nontarget engagement and ethi-cal behavior not tied to diversity, by signalingthat morality is valued and increasing ethicalclimate perceptions.

Proposition 3a: The presence of a di-versity initiative signals that moralityis valued in the organization, whichincreases ethical climate perceptionsand, in turn, nontarget engagementand ethical behavior not tied to di-versity (i.e., positive spillover).

The notion that diversity initiatives producepositive spillover has received little attention,but there is nevertheless some suggestive evi-dence in support of Proposition 3a. A number ofstudies have shown that diversity initiativesevoke negative nontarget reactions (e.g., Plautet al., 2011; Shteynberg et al., 2011), but a fewhaveshown that diversity initiatives evoke positivenontarget reactions instead. For example, non-targets are supportive of nondiscrimination di-versity practices (Konrad & Linnehan, 1995b),diversity training evokes positive nontarget at-titudes (Bezrukova et al., 2016), and diversitystatements increase organizational attractionamong nontargets (Williams & Bauer, 1994). Yetlittle theory exists to explain these findings.Proposition 3a provides insight into the mecha-nisms through which diversity initiatives pro-duce positive spillover (i.e., the signal thatmorality is valued, ethical climate perceptions)and the dimensions on which positive spilloveroccurs (i.e., nontarget engagement, ethical be-havior). The notion that diversity initiatives cre-ate both positive and negative spillover alsoprovides insight into mixed findings regarding

the effects of diversity initiatives on nontargetengagement. Diversity initiatives likely have anegative (positive) net effect on nontarget en-gagement in organizations where negative (posi-tive) spillover outweighs positive (negative)spillover.The signal that morality is valued also likely

produces backfire (i.e., negative diversity goalprogress) by increasing discrimination againsttargets. Individuals aremotivated to avoid beingperceived as biased and, thus, monitor theirbehavior to prevent discrimination (Crandall& Eshelman, 2003; Plant & Devine, 1998). Yet re-search on moral credentialing has documentedthat when individuals engage in acts that can beconstrued as nondiscriminatory, such as hiring ahighly qualified woman, this establishes theircredentials as unbiased. Moral credentialing re-duces the tendency tomonitor the self and therebyincreases discrimination, particularly subtle actsof discrimination for which alternative explana-tions exist (e.g., hiring a nontarget over a targetwhen their qualifications are roughly equivalent;Effron, Cameron, & Monin, 2009; Merritt, Effron, &Monin, 2010; Monin & Miller, 2001).The presence of a diversity initiative signals

thatmorality is valued, specificallywith regard tothe treatment of targets, and, thus, is likely inter-preted as evidence that the organization is biasfree. Perceptions that an organization is bias freeare likely to credential individuals in the organi-zation as unbiased, thereby increasing subtleacts of discrimination. Relative to overt discrim-ination, subtle discrimination has an equallystrong negative impact on targets’ work out-comes (Jones, Peddie, Gilrane, King, & Gray,2016) and, thus, is likely to result in negative di-versity goal progress.

Proposition 3b: The presence of a di-versity initiative signals thatmorality isvalued in the organization, which in-creases subtle discrimination againsttargets and, in turn, results in negativediversity goal progress (i.e., backfire).

Proposition 3b has not received empirical at-tention. Prior work has documented that di-versity initiatives increase discrimination buthas focused on stereotypes of low competence(e.g., Heilman, 1994) and, to a lesser extent, lowwarmth (e.g., Leslie et al., 2014) as themechanismof interest. Nevertheless, there is some supportfor these ideas. Diversity practices, including


diversity training and diversity statements, in-creaseperceptions thatanorganization isbias free(i.e., targets are treated fairly) and, in turn, de-crease awareness of discrimination (e.g., Brady,Kaiser,Major,&Kirby, 2015;Dover,Major,&Kaiser,2014; Kaiser et al., 2013; Kirby, Kaiser, & Major,2015), which is consistent with the idea that di-versity initiatives reduce monitoring of discrimi-nation via moral credentialing. Similarly, althoughnot a study of diversity initiatives, a related studyhasshownthatculturesofmeritocracy (i.e.,bias-freedecision making) have a moral credentialing effectby increasing pay discrimination against women(Castilla & Benard, 2010).

Signal 4: Diversity Goal Progress Is Valued

I propose that individuals interpret the pres-ence of a diversity initiative as a signal that di-versity goal progress is valued in the organization,which is a root cause of false progress. Organiza-tional initiatives provide information regardingthevaluesandpriorities inanorganization (Bowen&Ostroff, 2004;Ostroff& Bowen, 2000). Thepurposeof diversity initiatives is to improve targets’ out-comes,which suggests that individuals commonlyinterpret these initiatives as evidence that prog-ress toward diversity goals is valued. The signalthat diversity goal progress is valued is likely asignal that organizational leaders intend to sendin implementing diversity initiatives, since itmaymotivate individuals to engage in behaviorsthat facilitate the achievement of diversity goals(cf. Leslie, Manchester, & Dahm, 2017).

Nevertheless, the signal that diversity goalprogress is valued is likely to result in falseprogress (i.e., improved diversitymetricswithouttrue change) by increasing extrinsic diversitymotivation. Because diversity initiatives areimplemented by organizational leaders, theysignal that diversity goal progress is valued bythose leaders. As a result, the motivation thatdiversity initiatives provide for making progresstoward diversity goals is extrinsic in nature(i.e., driven by external forces). As a result, in-dividuals face pressure to facilitate diversitygoal progress, regardless of their intrinsic di-versity motivation (i.e., belief that diversity isinherently important). Moreover, extrinsic in-centives for abehavior signal that thebehavior isnot inherently rewarding, with the result that ex-trinsic motivators can reduce intrinsic motivation(Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999; Wrzesniewski et al.,

2014). Thus, the signal that diversity goal progressis valued not onlymay increase extrinsic diversitymotivation but also may decrease intrinsic di-versity motivation.Extrinsic diversity motivation, in turn, is likely

to result in false progress. When motivated byextrinsic more than intrinsic factors, individualsoften engage in behaviors that give only the ap-pearance of improved performance (cf. Blau,1963; Campbell, 1979). The appearance of im-proved performance satisfies external pressuresand is viewed as sufficient by the individual iftrue performance improvements are not in-trinsically rewarding. Extrinsic diversity moti-vation may therefore result in shortcuts that givethe appearance of diversity goal progress byimproving diversity metrics, without creatingtrue diversity goal progress. For example, to im-prove metrics capturing targets’ representationin management, managers might recategorizejobs dominated by targets as managerial ormight expand the definition of diversity to in-clude groups that are not disadvantaged in so-ciety (Edelman et al., 2001; Smith & Welch, 1984).To reduce career gaps, managers might promotetargets to high-level positions, regardless oftheir fit and qualifications, which is unlikely tocreate lasting change since these individualsare likely to turnover. Alternatively, managersmight strategically allocate pay raises to a fewtargets to reduce the pay gap in the aggregate,while the majority of targets remain underpaid(Anderson, Bjarnadottir, Dezs}o, & Ross, in press).Finally, managersmight report overall inclusionscores froman employee survey to hide evidencethat although nontargets feel included, targetsdo not.Notably, extrinsic motivation does not always

result in false progress (cf. Vroom, 1964). Rather,such effects occur when true performance im-provements are difficult to achieve, regardlessof effort (Campbell, 1979; Kerr, 1975; Ordoñez,Schweitzer, Galinsky, & Bazerman, 2009; Pfeffer& Sutton, 2006). Target groups face pervasivedisadvantages in society that begin early in lifeand are hard to counteract in organizations, anddiscrimination also operates through subtleprocesses that are hard to prevent (e.g., Deitch,Barsky, Butz, Chan, & Brief, 2003; Devine, Forscher,Austin, & Cox, 2012; Greenwald, Poehlman,Uhlmann, & Banaji, 2009). Because of the diffi-culty of achieving true diversity goal progress, re-gardless of effort, extrinsic diversity motivation

2019 551Leslie

likely leads to behaviors that improve diversitymetrics without creating true change.

Proposition 4: The presence of a di-versity initiative signals that diversitygoal progress is valued in the organi-zation, which increases extrinsic di-versity motivation and, in turn, resultsin improved diversity metrics not ac-companied by true diversity goal prog-ress (i.e., false progress).

Proposition 4 has received little attention, yetthere is some suggestive evidence in support ofthese ideas. Studies have documented that al-though intrinsic motivation to control prejudice re-duces discrimination, extrinsic motivation doesnot (e.g., Devine, Plant, Amodio, Harmon-Jones, &Vance, 2002; Legault, Green-Demers, Grant, &Chung, 2007). This evidence is consistent with theidea thatextrinsicdiversitymotivation isunlikely tomotivate behaviors that result in true diversity goalprogress (e.g., reduceddiscrimination; see Figure 1)and may instead motivate false progress. Proposi-tion 4 also sheds new light on prior speculation thatdiversity initiatives may breed false progress ef-fects (e.g., Smith & Welch, 1984). Scholars havesuggested that leaders at times adopt diversityinitiatives as window dressing and implementthem symbolically (e.g., Edelman, 1992), whichexplains why diversity initiatives may producefalse progress. Proposition 4 suggests that be-cause diversity initiatives increase extrinsic di-versity motivation among other individuals in theorganization, theycan result in falseprogressevenwhen leaders adopt them with good intentions.

Corollaries

Propositions 1 through 4 build on prior work byidentifying signals that serve as root causes of bothdocumented unintended consequences of diversityinitiatives and those that have been poorly under-stood in the diversity literature to date. A signalingperspective on the unintended consequences of di-versity initiatives also suggests two corollaries,which stem from Propositions 1 through 4 withoutrequiring additional logic. These corollaries sug-gest that the unintended consequences of diversityinitiatives operate inmore complexways thanpriortheory can account for.

First, Propositions 1 through 4 collectively sug-gest that different unintended consequences attimes stem from the same signal. Specifically, the

signal that targets are likely to succeed is a rootcause of both negative spillover (Proposition 2a)and backfire (Proposition 2b). Likewise, the signalthat morality is valued is a root cause of bothpositive spillover (Proposition 3a) and backfire(Proposition 3b). To the extent that they havecommon root causes, different unintended con-sequence types are not entirely independent ofone another and are instead interrelated.

Corollary 1: The unintended conse-quences of diversity initiatives are in-terrelated such that different unintendedconsequences (i.e.,negativespilloverandbackfire, positive spillover and backfire)stem from the same signal.

Corollary 1 has implications for prior work.Because different unintended consequences areoften studied in isolation, extant research onstrategies for preventing detrimental unintendedeffects provides a narrow view of their likely im-pacts. For example, scholars have identified dif-ferent justifications for why diversity initiativesareneeded (e.g., Ely& Thomas, 2001), including themoral case (e.g., to remedy past discrimination)and the business case (e.g., to facilitate innovationandmatch the customer base). Both justificationsmitigate negative nontarget reactions to diversityinitiatives (i.e., negative spillover;Harrison,Kravitz,Mayer, Leslie, & Lev-Arey, 2006; Mayer et al., 2015),presumably because they highlight the benefitsof diversity for everyone and, thus, prevent non-targets from interpreting the signal that targetsare likely to succeed in a zero-sum manner. Ifmoral and business justifications prevent non-targets from interpreting the signal that targetsare likely to succeed in a zero-sum manner, theyare also likely to prevent stereotypes that tar-gets lack warmth and increased discriminationagainst targets, thereby reducing backfire.Similarly, although positive spillover has re-

ceived less attention, Corollary 1 suggests thatattempts to increase positive spillover by ampli-fying the signal that morality is valued cannot bestudied in isolation. Strengthening the signal thatmorality is valued is likely to increase not onlypositive spillover but also backfire.Second, in addition to suggesting that differ-

ent unintended consequences stem from the samesignal, Propositions 1 through 4 collectively sug-gest that the same unintended consequence—and backfire in particular—stems from differentsignals. The signals that targets need help


(Proposition 1), that targets are likely to succeed(Proposition 2b), and that morality is valued (Prop-osition3b)areall root causes of negativediversitygoal progress (i.e., backfire). As a result, ratherthanhavinga single cause, the sameunintendedconsequence is driven by multiple signals.

Corollary 2: The unintended conse-quences of diversity initiatives aremultidetermined such that the sameunintended consequence (i.e., backfire)stems from different signals.

Corollary 2 has implications for prior workon preventing backfire. For example, one docu-mented strategy for reducing backfire is pro-viding evidence that targets have high ability(e.g., Heilman, Block, & Stathatos, 1997). Thisstrategy is likely to prevent the signal that targetsneed help from increasing stereotypes that tar-gets lack competence and discrimination againsttargets, but it is unlikely to prevent the backfireeffects that stem from the signals that targets arelikely to succeed and that morality is valued.Preventing backfire therefore requires counter-acting all signals that it stems from.

Diversity Practices and Signal Strength

The proposed signaling effects of diversity ini-tiatives (i.e., Propositions 1–4) likely capture com-mon interpretations of and reactions to diversityinitiatives. Yet any number of situational factorsand individual differences are also likely to shapehow individuals interpret and react to diversityinitiatives and, thus, moderate the likelihood ofdifferent unintended consequence types. For ex-ample, there is considerable variability in howanyorganizational initiative is implemented, and thisvariability affects signal strength, or the extent towhich an initiative sends clear and unambiguousmessages regarding what an organization is like(Bowen & Ostroff, 2004; Ostroff & Bowen, 2000). Acommonly studied dimension along which theimplementation of diversity initiatives varies is thespecific practices included (Kalev et al., 2006;Konrad& Linnehan, 1995a; Kulik & Roberson, 2008),whichmayhave implications for the strengthof thesignals they send. I therefore identify the signal(s)that each category of diversity practices (i.e.,nondiscrimination, resource, and accountability)sends most strongly as an example of one factorthat moderates the likelihood of different un-intended consequences.

Resource practices. Resource practices likelysend the strongest signals that targets need help(i.e., signal 1) and are likely to succeed (i.e., signal2). All diversity practices are intended to help tar-gets and to increase their odds of success—regardless of whether this is achieved by reducingbias (i.e., nondiscrimination practices), providingsupport and opportunities (i.e., resource prac-tices), or increasing monitoring (i.e., accountabilitypractices)—and are therefore likely to be inter-preted as signals that targets need help and arelikely to succeed. Yet resource practices providetargets with concrete, direct forms of help that arelikely to have a significant impact on their careersuccess (Kovach et al., 2004; Richard et al., 2013). Bycomparison, nondiscrimination and accountabilitypractices are more limited in the help they provideand their likely impact on career success. Thus, re-source practices likely send stronger signals thattargets need help and are likely to succeed than donondiscrimination and accountability practices.Notably, diversity initiatives tend to include

many practices (Kalev et al., 2006; Kulik &Roberson, 2008) and, thus, vary in the numberof resource practices included. Resources practicesalso vary in prescriptiveness, or the extent to whichthey constrain behavior (Harrison, Kravitz, Mayer,Leslie, & Lev-Arey, 2006; Kravitz, 1995). For exam-ple, preferential treatment constrains managers’decision making more than targeted recruitment.The signals associated with resource practices arelikely stronger (i.e., clearer and less ambiguous)when initiatives include both a larger number ofandmore prescriptive resource practices. It followsthat diversity initiatives send stronger signals thattargets need help and are likely to succeed—andtherefore are more likely to produce the associatedbackfire (i.e., Propositions 1 and 2b) and negativespillover (Proposition 2a) effects—if they includeextensive resource practices (i.e., many highly pre-scriptive resource practices) than if they includelimited resource practices (i.e., no or less pre-scriptive resource practices).

Proposition 5: Diversity initiatives sendstronger signals that targets (a) needhelp and (b) are likely to succeed—andtherefore are more likely to result innegative diversity goal progress (i.e.,backfire) and to decrease nontargetengagement (i.e., negative spillover)—ifthey include more extensive resourcepractices.

2019 553Leslie

Consistent with Propositions 5a and b, evidenceindicates that resource practices, especially highlyprescriptive resource practices (e.g., preferentialtreatment), are particularly likely to result in nega-tive evaluations of targets (mechanisms that pro-duces backfire; e.g., Evans, 2003; Heilman et al.,1998) and negative reactions among nontargets(mechanisms that produces negative spillover;e.g., Harrison, Kravitz, Mayer, Leslie, & Lev-Arey,2006; Lowery et al., 2006). Propositions 5a and 5balso add to priorwork by highlighting that resourcepractices increase the likelihood of detrimentalunintended consequences by strengthening twodistinct signals.

Nondiscrimination practices. In contrast, non-discrimination practices likely send the strongestsignal that morality is valued (i.e., signal 3). Alldiversity practices are intended to combat theunfair disadvantages targets face—regardlessof whether this is achieved by reducing bias(i.e., nondiscrimination practices), providing sup-port and opportunities (i.e., resource practices),or increasing monitoring (i.e., accountabilitypractices)—and are therefore likely to be inter-preted as a signal that morality is valued. At thesame time, ensuring just treatment through non-discrimination is a near-universal moral principle(e.g., Folger, 1998). By comparison, resource prac-tices provide additional support and opportunitieson the basis of group membership, which is attimes construed as violating the meritocracy prin-ciple and thus unfair (e.g., Bobocel et al., 1998).Likewise, accountability practices do not dictatewhether diversity goals are achieved throughnondiscrimination or resource access, resulting inmore variable perceptions regarding whetherthey facilitate justice and are moral. Hence, non-discrimination practices likely send a strongersignal thatmorality isvalued thando resourceandaccountability practices.

Likeresourcepractices,diversity initiatives likelyvary in the number of nondiscrimination practicesthey include. Moreover, although the subject of lessattention,nondiscriminationpractices likelyvary inprescriptiveness. For example, requiring the use ofnondiscriminatory tests in hiring constrains man-agers’ behavior more than does diversity trainingon strategies for reducing bias (cf. Dobbin et al.,2015). It follows that diversity initiatives send astronger signal that morality is valued—and aretherefore more likely to produce the associatedpositive spillover (i.e., Proposition 3a) and back-fire (i.e., Propositions 3b) effects—if they include

extensive nondiscrimination practices (i.e., manyhighly prescriptive nondiscrimination practices)than if they include limitednondiscriminationprac-tices (i.e., no or less prescriptive nondiscriminationpractices).

Proposition 6: Diversity initiatives senda stronger signal that morality is valued—and are therefore more likely to in-crease nontarget engagement andethical behavior (i.e., positive spillover)and to result in negative diversitygoal progress (i.e., backfire)—if theyincludemore extensive nondiscriminationpractices.

Although positive spillover has received littleattention, Proposition 6 has implications for priorevidence that nontargets respond more nega-tively (e.g., perceived unfairness, decreased en-gagement) to resource practices (e.g., preferentialtreatment) than to nondiscrimination practices(e.g.,merit-baseddecisionmaking;Heilmanetal.,1998). Scholars previously assumed that non-targets’ differential reactions are driven by anegative effect of resource practices on nontargetengagement (i.e., negative spillover). The notionthat nondiscrimination practices are also partic-ularly likely to increase nontarget engagement(i.e., positive spillover) suggests that comparisonsof the effect of resource versus nondiscriminationpractices on nontargets’ engagement may reflectboth negative and positive spillover.Prior work also indicates that resource practices

are more likely than nondiscrimination practicesto result in negative evaluations of targets(e.g., Aquino et al., 2005; Evans, 2003), which is amechanism that produces backfire. Yet somestudies have shown that nondiscrimination prac-tices also result in backfire (e.g., bias-reductiontraining, use of nondiscriminatory tests; Dobbinetal., 2015;Kalevetal., 2006). Proposition6explainswhy backfire effects are not limited to resourcepractices and identifies distinct mechanismsthrough which resource practices (i.e., the signalsthat targets need help and are likely to succeed)and nondiscrimination practices (i.e., the signalthat morality is valued) increase the likelihood ofbackfire. As a result, Proposition 6 brings intoquestion prior conclusions that avoiding highlyprescriptive resource practices is sufficient toeliminate backfire (e.g., Evans, 2003).Finally, accountability practices likely send

the strongest signal that diversity goal progress


is valued (i.e., signal 4). All diversity practices areintended to facilitate diversity goal progress—regardless of whether progress is achieved byreducing bias (i.e., nondiscrimination practices),providing support and opportunities (i.e., resourcepractices), or increasing monitoring (i.e., account-ability practices)—and are therefore likely tosignal that diversity goal progress is valued.At the same time, accountability practices pro-vide direct monitoring of and oversight for theend of diversity goal progress itself (Kalev et al.,2006; Richard et al., 2013). By comparison, non-discrimination and resource practices focus ondifferent means for achieving diversity goalprogress and place less emphasis on whetherdiversity goal progress is indeed achieved.Thus, accountability practices likely send astronger signal that diversity goal progress isvalued than do nondiscrimination and resourcepractices.

Like resource and nondiscrimination prac-tices, diversity initiatives likely vary not only inthe number of accountability practices includedbut also in their prescriptiveness. For example,strict diversity quotas constrain managers’ be-havior more than do aspirational diversitygoals. It follows that diversity initiatives send thestrongest signal that diversity goal progress isvalued—andare thereforemore likely to producefalse progress (i.e., Proposition 4)—if they includeextensive accountability practices (i.e., manyhighly prescriptive accountability practices)than if they include limited accountability prac-tices (i.e., no or less prescriptive accountabilitypractices).

Proposition 7: Diversity initiatives senda stronger signal that diversity goalprogress is valued—and are thereforemore likely to result in improved di-versity metrics not accompanied bytrue diversity goal progress (i.e., falseprogress)—if they include more exten-sive accountability practices.

False progress effects have received little at-tention. Nevertheless, Proposition 7 has impli-cations for prior work, which indicates thataccountability practices are particularly likely toresult in positive diversity goal progress (Kalevet al., 2006; Nishii et al., 2018). The notion thataccountability practices are also particularlylikely to produce false progress suggests thatthey are not a panacea; accountability practices

do not necessarily facilitate true diversity goalprogress and may motivate behaviors that giveonly the appearance of diversity goal progress.

DISCUSSION

Scholarshaveadvancedbroad theory regardingwhether, why, and when diversity initiatives pro-duce their intended consequence (e.g., Nishii et al.,2018). In contrast, research on the unintendedconsequences of diversity initiatives has de-veloped in a fragmented and piecemeal fashion,often focusing on a single unintended conse-quence (e.g., Dobbin et al., 2015) or a small subsetof diversity practices (e.g., Leslie et al., 2014). Bydeveloping more comprehensive theory re-garding the unintended consequences of di-versity initiatives, I advance understanding inseveral ways.First, I propose that diversity initiatives produce

a wider array of unintended consequences thanprior work suggests. Documented unintended ef-fects of diversity initiatives include negativeevaluations of targets (e.g., Heilman, 1994), nega-tive nontarget reactions (e.g., Harrison, Kravitz,Mayer, Leslie, & Lev-Arey, 2006), and decreasedtarget representation (e.g., Dobbin et al., 2015;Kalev et al., 2006). I categorize documented un-intended effects as contributing to either backfire(i.e., negative target evaluations, decreased targetrepresentation) or negative spillover (i.e., nega-tive nontarget reactions). I also propose two un-intended consequences—positive spillover andfalse progress—that have been poorly understoodin the context of diversity initiatives to date.Second, I build on prior work by identifying

signals that serve as root causes of the four un-intended consequence types and, in doing so,suggest that the unintended consequences ofdiversity initiatives operate in more complexways than prior theory can account for. Scholarshave often investigated different unintended ef-fects in isolation (e.g., Harrison, Kravitz, Mayer,Leslie, & Lev-Arey, 2006; Kalev et al., 2006; Leslieet al., 2014), which gives the impression that theyare independent. My signaling perspective sug-gests that different unintended consequencesstem from the same signal (i.e., negative spilloverand backfire both stem from the signal that tar-gets are likely to succeed; positive spillover andbackfire both stem from the signal thatmorality isvalued) and, thus, are interrelated. As a result,interventions aimed at preventing or facilitating

2019 555Leslie

one unintended consequence may have implica-tions for others.My theorizingalso suggests that thesame unintended consequence—and backfire inparticular—stems from multiple signals (i.e., thesignals that targets need help, targets are likely tosucceed, and morality is valued) and is thereforemultidetermined. Thus, preventing backfire re-quires addressing all signals from which it stems.

Collectively, these contributions advance abroader conceptualization of diversity initiativeeffectiveness. Prior work suggests that diversityinitiatives are effective if they result in positivediversity goal progress (e.g., Kalev et al., 2006),without evoking negative evaluations of targets(e.g., Leslie et al., 2014) or negative nontarget re-actions (e.g., Harrison, Kravitz, Mayer, Leslie, &Lev-Arey, 2006). My framework suggests that di-versity initiative effectiveness is a function ofadditional mechanisms (e.g., the signals theysend, ethical climate perceptions, extrinsic di-versity motivation) and outcomes (e.g., ethicalbehavior, improved diversity metrics without truechange). Moreover, because they are interrelatedand multidetermined, different signals and un-intended consequences cannot be considered inisolation. Understanding diversity initiative ef-fectiveness therefore requires accounting for afuller range ofmechanisms and outcomes, aswellas the interrelationships among them. Failure todo so will lead to premature and underspecifiedconclusions regarding whether a diversity initia-tive is effective.

The typological theory also indicates that therearemore commonalities in the unintended effectsof different diversity practices than prior worksuggests. Scholars have often investigated theunintended effects of a single practice or a smallsubset of practices (e.g., Leslie et al., 2014; Plautet al., 2011), which implicitly suggests that differ-ent practices have idiosyncratic effects. Moreover,studies in which scholars have investigated abroad array of practices similarly focus on their di-vergent effects (e.g., Dobbin et al., 2015; Kalev et al.,2006). Yet, across studies, different practices oftenhave the same effect. For example, different stud-ieshaveshown thatdiversity training, preferentialtreatment, and diversity statements all increasestereotypes of targets (Duguid & Thomas-Hunt,2015; Heilman, 1994; Heilman & Welle, 2006). Con-versely, the same practice often has different ef-fects. For example, different studies have shownthat both diversity performance evaluations anddiversity networking groups either increase or

decrease target representation (Kalev et al., 2006;Richard et al., 2013). Thus, the idea that differ-ent practices produceuniqueunintendedeffects ina strict one-to-one fashion is likely overly simplis-tic. I identify four general signals that diversityinitiatives send—not tied to specific diversitypractices—as root causes of their unintended ef-fects. As a result, any number of practices mayproduce one or more of four common unintendedconsequence types.At the same time, I identify the category of di-

versity practices that sends each signal moststrongly and is therefore most likely to produce theassociated unintended effects. Yet the resultingpropositions further underscore that different prac-tices do not necessarily produce unique effects.Because the unintended consequences of diversityinitiatives are multidetermined, different practicesincrease the likelihood of the same unintended ef-fect (e.g., resource and nondiscrimination practicesboth increase backfire). Moreover, because the un-intended consequences of diversity initiatives areinterrelated, the same practice increases the like-lihood of multiple unintended effects (e.g., non-discrimination practices increase both positivespillover and backfire).

Future Theory and Research

A first step is to test aspects of the typologicaltheory that have not received empirical attention,including whether diversity initiatives createpositive spillover and false progress through theproposed mechanisms, whether the signals Iidentify serve as root causes of the four unintendedconsequence types, and whether different cate-gories of diversity practices affect signal strength.Moreover, because the unintended consequencesof diversity initiatives are interrelated and multi-determined, it is important to investigate differentsignals and unintended consequence types simul-taneously, not independently.Beyond testing the specific propositions it in-

cludes, the typological theory also provides aframework for guiding future work. I identify di-versity practices as one aspect of diversity initia-tive implementation that affects the likelihood ofdifferent unintended consequences. Yet my theo-rizing is also a foundation fromwhich scholars canidentify any number of additional moderators thataffect the likelihood of unintended consequencesand, thus, have implications for diversity initiativeeffectiveness.


Forexample, intentionalmessagingby leaders,such as providing a moral or business justifica-tion, is another aspect of diversity initiativeimplementation that may affect the likelihood ofunintended consequences. Evidence indicatesthat moral and business justifications reducenegative spillover (e.g., Harrison, Kravitz, Mayer,Leslie, & Lev-Arey, 2006; Mayer et al., 2015). Thislikely occurs because they prevent the signalthat targets are likely to succeed from beinginterpreted in a zero-sum manner. As a result,these justifications are also likely to reduce thebackfire effects that stem from the same signal.Yet providing economic justifications for sacredmoral values, such as nondiscrimination anddiversity, decreases perceptions of those valuesas moral (Ruttan & Nordgren, 2018). Thus, a busi-ness justification for a diversity initiative mayalso weaken the signal that morality is valued,thereby decreasing positive spillover and alsofurther decreasingbackfire.Alternatively, amoraljustification likely strengthens the signal thatmorality is valued, thereby increasing both posi-tive spillover and backfire. Finally, both businessand moral justifications may decrease falseprogress. Highlighting that diversity has moral orbusiness benefits may prevent the signal that di-versity goal progress is valued from resulting inpurely extrinsic diversity motivation and leadingto actions that give only the appearance of di-versity goal progress.

The likelihood of different unintended conse-quences also depends on the characteristics ofindividuals in an organization. For example, evi-dence indicates that nontargets’ awareness of thedisadvantages targets face in society decreasesnontargets’ negative reactions to diversity initia-tives (i.e., negative spillover; Harrison, Kravitz,Mayer, Leslie, & Lev-Arey, 2006), likely by weak-ening interpretations of the signal that targets arelikely to succeed as an indicator of perceivedunfairness. Individuals’ awareness of disadvan-tage may also weaken interpretations of the sig-nal that targets are likely to succeed as evidencethat targets lack warmth, as well as interpreta-tions of the signal that targets need help as evi-dence that targets lack competence, therebypreventing increased discrimination and back-fire. In addition, individuals’ awareness of dis-advantage may strengthen interpretations ofdiversity initiatives as a signal that morality isvalued, thereby increasing positive spillover butalso increasing backfire. Finally, individuals’

awareness of disadvantage may decrease falseprogress by preventing the signal that diversitygoal progress is valued from resulting in purelyextrinsic diversity motivation. In contrast, evi-dence indicates that individuals’ level of preju-dice toward targets increases negative spillover(Harrison, Kravitz,Mayer, Leslie, & Lev-Arey, 2006)and may also moderate other unintended conse-quences of diversity initiatives in the oppositedirection, as compared to individuals’ awarenessof disadvantage.The above arguments suggest that the detri-

mental unintended consequences of diversity ini-tiatives may be less likely—and beneficial onesmay be more likely—in organizations with manyindividuals who are aware of the disadvantagestargets face, with the exception that this individualdifference likely increases the backfire effects as-sociated with the signal that morality is valued. Apersonal commitment to diversity may have thesame benefits as individuals’ awareness of targetdisadvantage, without increasing backfire. Moralcredentialing is less likely when the credentialingevent, in thiscasebelonging toanorganizationwitha diversity initiative, reflects one’s personal values(Mullen & Monin, 2016). Thus, although a personalcommitment to diversity likely strengthens inter-pretations of diversity initiatives as a signal thatmorality is valued, it may also prevent the moralcredentialing processes through which this signalleads to backfire.Future work should also explore interactions

among the mechanisms that contribute to the dif-ferent unintended consequences of diversity ini-tiatives. For example, if a diversity initiativestrongly signals that morality is valued (e.g., in-cludes extensive nondiscrimination practices), theassociated ethical climate perceptions may pre-vent the signal that targets are likely to succeedfrom resulting in perceived unfairness and nega-tive spillover. Ethical climate perceptions maysimilarly prevent the signal that diversity goalprogress is valued from resulting in false progress;behaviors that improve diversity metrics withoutcreating true change violate expectations in anorganization with a strong ethical climate.Diversity practices may also interact with one

another. For example, because accountabilitypractices provide oversight and monitoring, thesignals most strongly associated with resourceand nondiscrimination practices may be furtherintensified if a diversity initiative also includesaccountability practices. In contrast, achieving

2019 557Leslie

diversity goal progress via nondiscrimination issomewhat antithetical to doing so via providingtargets, but not nontargets, with additional re-sources. Thus, including nondiscrimination andresource practices in the same diversity initia-tive may weaken the signals most strongly as-sociated with both sets of practices.

My theorizing also has implications for moredistal outcomes. For example, some evidence in-dicates that diversity initiatives are positivelyrelated to organizational performance (e.g.,Armstrong et al., 2010), presumably becausethey increase diversity, which, in turn, facilitatesperformance. I theorize that diversity initiativesincrease ethical behavior and engagement (i.e.,positive spillover), which are both positivelyrelated to organizational performance (Detert,Treviño, Burris, & Andiappan, 2007; Podsakoff,Whiting, Podsakoff, & Blume, 2009). Future workcould explore if any positive effects of diversityinitiatives on performance are driven by positivespillover, in addition to or instead of increased di-versity. Another distal intended outcome of di-versity initiatives is fewerdiscrimination lawsuits.Yet to the extent that they create negative spillover(i.e., perceived unfairness and low nontarget en-gagement), diversity initiatives may increase dis-crimination lawsuits from nontargets.

Finally, the typological theory of the unintendedconsequences of diversity initiatives has implica-tions for future research on the unintended con-sequences of other change initiatives. Unintendedconsequences are commonly studied in the socialsciences (e.g., Buchanan & Stubblebine, 1962;Campbell, 1979), yet Merton’s (1936) seminal paperremains one of the few general treatments of thetopic. Although the signals and othermechanisms Iidentify as drivers of unintended consequences arespecific to the goals and content of diversity initia-tives, the typology of unintended consequences Idevelop is more general; any number of changeinitiatives may produce one or more of the four un-intended consequence types. Thus, my theorizingmay prompt scholars to build theory regarding themechanisms through which other change initia-tives produce a wider array of unintended effects.

Implications for Practice

Broader theory on the unintended consequencesof diversity initiatives has practical value. Forexample, my theorizing suggests that the metricmost commonly used to gauge diversity initiative

effectiveness—increased target representation(Kulik & Roberson, 2008)—is insufficient. If targetrepresentation alone is assessed, a leader mightdeem a diversity initiative effective, without re-alizing that improved representation metrics re-flect false progress and that the initiative iscreating negative spillover. As a result, a full un-derstanding of diversity initiative effectivenessrequires measuring not only diversity goal prog-ress but also other mechanisms and outcomes(e.g., ethical climate perceptions, engagement,ethical behavior, extrinsic diversity motivation,etc.) and also assessing diversity goal progress inways that are immune to false progress effects.My theorizing also has implications for in-

creasing diversity initiative effectiveness; leaderscan use various aspects of diversity initiativeimplementation (e.g., practices included, justi-fications provided) to decrease the likelihoodof detrimental—and increase the likelihood ofbeneficial—unintended consequences. At thesame time, any one strategy is unlikely to be apanacea that increases diversity initiative ef-fectiveness across all criteria. For example, us-ing extensive nondiscrimination practices whileavoiding resource and accountability practicesis likely to increase positive spillover and to de-crease negative spillover, false progress, andsome pathways that lead to backfire. At the sametime, nondiscrimination practices are likely toincrease backfire via moral credentialing andare also less likely than resource and account-ability practices to result in positive diversitygoal progress (e.g., Kalev et al., 2006; Konrad &Linnehan, 1995a). Thus, strategies for improvingdiversity initiative effectiveness should be con-sidered holistically, and the best strategy likelydepends on the most pressing needs in an organi-zation (e.g., is a lack of diversity goal progress ornegative nontarget reactions a bigger concern?).

Limitations and Boundary Conditions

The typological theory offers a first step inbroadening theory regarding the unintended ef-fects of diversity initiatives, yet diversity initiativesmay nevertheless produce additional unintendedconsequences. Moreover, there may be additionalmechanismsandoutcomesassociatedwith the fourunintended consequences. For example, any of thefour unintended consequence types may be drivenby additional factors, other than the signals andassociated psychological and behavioral reactions


I focuson.Moreover,negativeandpositivespillovermayoccur ondimensions other than those I identify(i.e., nontarget engagement and ethical behavior).Likewise, although I rely on priorwork to categorizediversity practices (e.g., Konrad & Linnehan, 1995a;Richard et al., 2013), there may be alternative waysto categorize diversity practices, which, in turn,have consequences for the strength of the signalsdiversity initiatives send.

A boundary condition of my theorizing is theassumption that leaders adopt diversity initia-tives with good intentions and implement themsubstantively. This assumption likely holds truein many organizations. Senior leaders are fre-quently the initiators of andprimaryadvocates fordiversity initiatives (Society for Human ResourceManagement, 2009). Moreover, even when moti-vated by external factors (e.g., government leg-islation), organizational leaders often havediscretion in implementing diversity initiativesand choose todo so substantively (Kelly&Dobbin,1998; Kovach et al., 2004). Nevertheless, govern-ments at times force organizations to implementdiversity initiatives in ways that afford little dis-cretion (e.g., corporate board gender quotas inNorway; Huse, 2012). These situations fall outsidethe scope ofmy theorizing, given that governmentmandates may cause leaders to implement di-versity initiatives as window dressing, or evenengage in purposeful sabotage, with the resultthat the detrimental consequences I classify asunintended (i.e., backfire, negative spillover,false progress) are intended by organizationalleaders. Yet my theorizing also generalizes tothese situations if the intended consequencesof diversity initiatives are defined from thestandpoint of governmental, rather than orga-nizational, leaders. Just as the consequences ofdiversity initiatives implemented by organiza-tional leaders depend on the reactions of in-dividuals in the organization, the consequencesof diversity initiatives implemented by govern-mental leaders depend on the reactions of or-ganizational leaders.

CONCLUSION

The success of diversity initiatives is criticalfrom the standpoint of benefiting not only orga-nizations but also the broader society. Yet di-versity initiatives do not necessarily work asintended. To advance understanding of their ef-fects, I developed broader theory regarding the

types of unintended consequences diversity ini-tiatives produce, the signals that serve as theirroot causes, and the categories of diversity prac-tices most likely to result in different unintendedconsequence types. Broader theory regarding theunintendedconsequencesofdiversity initiatives islikely to generate new insight into strategies forincreasing their effectiveness.

REFERENCES

Anderson, D., Bjarnadottir, M. V., Dezs}o, C. L., & Ross, D. G. Inpress. On a firm’s optimal response to pressure for genderequity. Organization Science.

Aquino, K., Stewart, M. M., & Reed, A. 2005. How social domi-nance orientation and job status influence perceptions ofAfrican-American affirmative action beneficiaries. Per-sonnel Psychology, 58: 703–744.

Armstrong, C., Flood, P. C., Guthrie, J. P., Lui, W., MacCurtain,S., & Mkamwa, T. 2010. The impact of diversity andequality management of firm performance beyond highperformance work systems. Human Resource Manage-ment, 49: 977–998.

Avery, D. R. 2003. Reactions to diversity in recruitmentadvertising—Are differences Black and White? Journal ofApplied Psychology, 88: 672–679.

Bartels, L. K., Nadler, J. T., Kufahl, K., & Pyatt, J. 2013. Fifty yearsafter the Civil Rights Act: Diversity-management prac-tices in the field. Industrial Organizational Psychology:Perspectives on Science and Practice, 6: 450–457.

Bedi, A., Alpaslan, C. M., & Green, S. 2016. A meta-analyticreview of ethical leadership outcomes and moderators.Journal of Business Ethics, 139: 517–536.

Bertrand, M., & Hallock, K. 2001. The gender gap in top corporatejobs. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 55: 3–21.

Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. 2004. Are Emily and Gregmore employable than Lakisha and Jama? A field ex-periment on labor market discrimination. American Eco-nomic Review, 94: 991–1013.

Bezrukova, K., Spell, C. S., Perry, J. L., & Jehn, K. A. 2016. Ameta-analytical integration of over 40 years of researchon diversity training evaluation. Psychological Bulletin,142: 1227–1274.

Blau, P. M. 1963. The dynamics of bureaucracy. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Blau, P. M. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New York:Wiley.

Bobocel, D. R., Son Hing, L. S., Davey, L. M., Stanley, D. J., &Zanna, M. P. 1998. Justice-based opposition to social pol-icies: Is it genuine? Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 75: 653–669.

Bowen, D. E., & Ostroff, C. 2004. Understanding HRM-firmperformance linkages: The role of “strength” of the HRMsystem. Academy of Management Review, 29: 203–221.

Brady, L. M., Kaiser, C. R., Major, B., & Kirby, T. A. 2015. It’s fairfor us: Diversity structures cause women to legitimize

2019 559Leslie

discrimination. Journal of Experimental Social Psychol-ogy, 57: 100–110.

Brown, R. P., Charnsangavej, T., Keough, K. A., Newman, M. L.,& Rentfrow, P. J. 2000. Putting the “affirm” into affirmativeaction: Preferential selection and academic performance.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79: 736–747.

Buchanan, J. M., & Stubblebine, W. M. 1962. Externality. Eco-nomica, 29: 371–384.

Campbell, D. T. 1979. Assessing the impact of planned socialchange. Evaluation and Program Planning, 2: 67–90.

Castilla, E. J., & Benard, S. 2010. The paradox of meritocracy inorganizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55:543–576.

Coase, R. H. 1960. The problem of social cost. Journal of Lawand Economics, 3: 1–44.

Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Rodell, J. B., Long, D. M., Zapata,C. P., Conlon, D. E., & Wesson, M. J. 2013. Justice at themillennium, a decade later: A meta-analytic test of socialexchange and affect-based perspectives. Journal of Ap-plied Psychology, 98: 199–236.

Crandall, C. S., & Eshelman, A. 2003. A justification-suppression model of the expression and experience ofprejudice. Psychological Bulletin, 129: 414–446.

Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z. S., Bobocel, D. R., & Rupp, D. E. 2001.Moral virtues, fairness heuristics, social entities, andother denizens of organizational justice. Journal of Voca-tional Behavior, 58: 164–209.

Cropanzano, R., &Mitchell, M. S. 2005. Social exchange theory:An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31:874–900.

Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. 2008. Warmth andcompetence as universal dimensions of social percep-tion: The stereotype content model and BIAS map. Ad-vances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40: 61–149.

Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Beninger, A. 2011. The dynamics ofwarmth and competence judgments and their outcomesin organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior,31: 73–98.

Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. 1999. A meta-analyticreview of experiments examining the effects of extrinsicrewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin,125: 627–668.

Deitch, E. A., Barsky, A., Butz, R. M., Chan, S., & Brief, A. P. 2003.Subtle yet significant: The existence and impact of ev-eryday racial discrimination in the workplace. HumanRelations, 56: 1299–1324.

Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., Burris, E. R., & Andiappan, M. 2007.Managerial models of influence and counter productivityin organizations: A longitudinal business-unit-level in-vestigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 993–1005.

Devine, P. G., Forscher, P. S., Austin, A. J., & Cox, W. T. 2012.Long-term reduction in implicit race bias: A prejudicehabit-breaking intervention. Journal of Experimental So-cial Psychology, 48: 1267–1278.

Devine, P. G., Plant, E. A., Amodio, D. M., Harmon-Jones, E., &Vance, S. L. 2002. The regulation of explicit and implicitrace bias: The role of motivations to respond without

prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,82: 835–848.

Dipboye, R. L. 1985. Some neglected variables in research ondiscrimination in appraisals. Academy of ManagementReview, 24: 592–602.

Dobbin, F., Schrage, D., & Kalev, A. 2015. Rage against the ironcage: The varied effects of bureaucratic personnel re-forms on diversity. American Sociological Review, 80:1014–1044.

Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. 1994. Typologies as a unique form oftheory building: Toward improved understanding andmodeling. Academy of Management Review, 19: 230–251.

Dover, T. L., Major, B. M., & Kaiser, C. R. 2014. Diversity ini-tiatives, status, and system-justifying beliefs: Whenand how diversity efforts de-legitimize discriminationclaims. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17:485–493.

Dover, T. L., Major, B., & Kaiser, C. R. 2016. Members of high-status groups are threatened by pro-diversity organizationalmessages. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 62:58–67.

Duguid, M. M., & Thomas-Hunt, M. C. 2015. Condoning ster-eotyping? How awareness of stereotyping prevalenceimpacts expression of stereotypes. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 100: 343–359.

Edelman, L. B. 1992. Legal ambiguity and symbolic structure:Organizational mediation of civil rights law. AmericanJournal of Sociology, 97: 1531–1576.

Edelman, L. B., Fuller, S. R., & Mara-Drita, I. 2001. Diversityrhetoric and the managerialization of law. AmericanJournal of Sociology, 106: 1589–1641.

Effron, D. A., Cameron, J. S., & Monin, B. 2009. EndorsingObama licenses favoringWhites. Journal of ExperimentalSocial Psychology, 45: 590–593.

Ely, R. J., & Thomas, D. A. 2001. Cultural diversity at work: Theeffects of diversity perspectives on work group processesand outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42:229–273.

Evans, D. C. 2003. A comparison of the other-directed stigmati-zation produced by legal and illegal forms of affirmativeaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 121–130.

Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. 2002. A modelof (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence andwarmth respectively follow from perceived status andcompetition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 82: 878–902.

Folger, R. 1998. Fairness as a moral virtue. In M. Schminke(Ed.), Managerial ethics: Moral management of peopleand processes: 13–34. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

Gouldner, A. W. 1960. The psychology of behavioral exchange.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Greening, D. W., & Turban, D. B. 2000. Corporate social per-formance as a competitive advantage in attracting aquality workforce. Business & Society, 39: 254–280.

Greenwald, A. G., Poehlman, T. A., Uhlmann, E. L., & Banaji,M. R. 2009. Understanding and using the implicit


association test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97: 17–41.

Greenwald, B. C., & Stiglitz, J. E. 1986. Externalities in econo-mies with imperfect information and incomplete markets.Quarterly Journal of Economics, 101: 229–264.

Guzzo, R. A., & Noonan, K. A. 1994. Human resource practicesas communications and the psychological contract. Hu-man Resource Management, 33: 447–462.

Harrison, D. A., Kravitz, D. A., Mayer, D. M., Leslie, L. M., & Lev-Arey, D. 2006. Understanding attitudes toward affirmativeaction programs in employment: Summary and meta-analysis of 35 years of research. Journal of Applied Psy-chology, 91: 1013–1036.

Harrison, D. A., Newman, D. A., & Roth, P. L. 2006. How im-portant are job attitudes? Meta-analytic comparisons ofintegrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences.Academy of Management Journal, 49: 305–325.

Heilman, M. E. 1994. Affirmative action: Some unintendedconsequences for working women. Research in Organi-zational Behavior, 19: 125–169.

Heilman, M. E., Battle, W. S., Keller, C. E., & Lee, R. A. 1998.Type of affirmative action policy: A determinant of re-actions to sex-based preferential selection. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 83: 190–205.

Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., & Stathatos, P. 1997. The affirma-tive action stigma of incompetence: Effects of perfor-mance information ambiguity. Academy of ManagementJournal, 40: 603–625.

Heilman, M. E., & Welle, B. 2006. Disadvantaged by diversity?The effects of diversity goals on competence perceptions.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36: 1291–1319.

Herdman, A. O., & McMillan-Capehart, A. 2010. Establishing adiversity program is not enough: Exploring the de-terminants of diversity climate. Journal of Business andPsychology, 25: 39–53.

Huffman, M. L., King, J., & Reichelt, M. 2017. Equality forwhom? Organizational policies and the gender gapacross the German earnings distribution. Industrial andLabor Relations Review, 70: 16–41.

Huse, M. 2012. The “golden skirts”: Lessons from Norwayabout women on corporate boards of directors. In S.Groschul & J. Takagi (Eds.), Diversity quotas, diverseperspective: The case of gender: 11–23. Aldershot, UK:Gower.

James, E., Brief, A., Dietz, J., & Cohen, R. 2001. Prejudice mat-ters: Understanding the reactions of Whites to affirmativeaction programs targeted to benefit Blacks. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 86: 1120–1128.

Jayne, M., & Dipboye, R. 2004. Leveraging diversity to im-prove business performance: Research findings and rec-ommendations for organizations. Human ResourceManagement, 43: 409–424.

Jones, D. A., Willness, C. R., & Madey, S. 2014. Why are jobseekers attracted by corporate social performance? Ex-perimental and field tests of three signal-based mecha-nisms. Academy of Management Journal, 57: 383–404.

Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. 1965. From acts to dispositions: Theattribution process in person perception. Advances inExperimental Social Psychology, 2: 219–266.

Jones, K. P., Peddie, C. I., Gilrane, V. L., King, E. B., & Gray, A. L.2016. Not so subtle: A meta-analytic investigation of thecorrelates of subtle and overt discrimination. Journal ofManagement, 42: 1588–1613.

Joshi, A., Son, J., & Roh, H. 2015. When can women close thegap? A meta-analytic test of sex differences in perfor-mance and rewards. Academy of Management Journal,58: 1516–1545.

Kaiser, C. R., Major, B., Jurcevic, I., Dover, T. L., Brady, L. M., &Shapiro, J. R. 2013. Presumed fair: Effects of organizationaldiversity structures. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 3: 504–519.

Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. 2006. Best practices or bestguesses? Assessing the efficacy of corporate affirmativeaction and diversity policies. American Sociological Re-view, 71: 589–617.

Kelley, H. H., & Michela, J. L. 1980. Attribution theory and re-search. Annual Review of Psychology, 31: 457–501.

Kelly, E. L., & Dobbin, F. 1998. How affirmative action becamediversity management: Employer response to anti-discrimination law, 1961–1996. American Behavioral Sci-entist, 41: 960–984.

Kerr, S. 1975. On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B.Academy of Management Journal, 18: 769–783.

Kirby, T. A., Kaiser, C. R., & Major, B. 2015. Insidious pro-cedures: Diversity awards legitimize unfair organiza-tional practices. Social Justice Research, 28: 169–186.

Kish-Gephart, J. J., Harrison, D. A., & Treviño, L. K. 2010. Badapples, bad cases, and bad barrels: Meta-analytic evi-dence about sources of unethical decisions at work.Journal of Applied Psychology, 95: 1–31.

Konrad, A. M., & Linnehan, F. 1995a. Formalized HRM struc-tures: Coordinating equal employment opportunity orconcealing organizational practices? Academy of Man-agement Journal, 38: 787–820.

Konrad, A. M., & Linnehan, F. 1995b. Race and sex differencein line managers’ reactions to equal employment oppor-tunity and affirmative action interventions. Group &Organization Management, 20: 409–439.

Kovach, K. A., Kravitz, D. A., & Hughes, A. A. 2004. Affirmativeaction: How can we be so lost when we don’t even knowwhere we are going? Labor Law Journal, 55: 53–61.

Kravitz, D. A. 1995. Attitudes toward affirmative action plansdirected at Blacks: Effects of plan and individual differ-ences. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25: 2192–2220.

Kulik, C. T., & Roberson, L. 2008. Diversity initiative effective-ness: What organizations can and cannot expect fromdiversity recruitment, diversity training, and formal men-toring programs. In A. P. Brief (Ed.), Diversity at work:265–317. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kwoh, L. 2012. Firms hail new chiefs (of diversity). WallStreet Journal, January 5: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203899504577129261732884578.

2019 561Leslie

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203899504577129261732884578

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203899504577129261732884578

Legault, L., Green-Demers, I., Grant, P., & Chung, J. 2007. Onthe self-regulation of implicit and explicit prejudice: Aself-determination perspective. Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin, 33: 732–749.

Leslie, L. M., Manchester, C. F., & Dahm, P. C. 2017. Why andwhen does the gender gap reverse? Diversity goals andthe pay premium for high potential women. Academy ofManagement Journal, 60: 402–422.

Leslie, L. M., Mayer, D. M., & Kravitz, D. A. 2014. The stigmaof affirmative action: A stereotyping-based theory andmeta-analytic test of the consequences for performance.Academy of Management Journal, 57: 964–989.

Lowery, B. S., Unzueta, M. M., Knowles, E. D., & Goff, P. A. 2006.Concern for the ingroup and opposition to affirmativeaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90:961–974.

Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. 2008. The meaning of employeeengagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology:Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1: 3–30.

Magee, J. C., Kilduff, G. J., & Heath, C. 2011. On the folly ofprincipal’s power: Managerial psychology as a cause ofbad incentives. Research in Organizational Behavior, 31:25–41.

Martin, K. D., & Cullen, J. B. 2006. Continuities and extensionsof ethical climate theory: A meta-analytic review. Journalof Business Ethics, 69: 175–194.

Mayer, D. M. 2014. A review of the literature on ethical climateand culture. In B. Schneider & K. M. Barbera (Eds.), TheOxford handbook of organizational climate and culture:415–440. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., & Greenbaum, R. L. 2010. Examiningthe link between ethical leadership and employee mis-conduct: The mediating role of ethical climate. Journal ofBusiness Ethics, 95: 7–16.

Mayer, D. M., McCluney, C., Sonday, L., & Cameron, L. 2015.Giving managers the business: The effectiveness of busi-ness and moral case arguments for increasing organiza-tional diversity. Paper presented at the annual meetingof the Academy of Management, Vancouver, BritishColumbia.

McKay, P. F., Avery, D. R., & Morris, M. A. 2009. A tale of twoclimates: Diversity climate from subordinates’ and man-agers’ perspectives and their role in store unit sales per-formance. Personnel Psychology, 62: 767–791.

Merritt, A. C., Effron, D. A., & Monin, B. 2010. Moral self-licensing: When being good frees us to be bad. Social andPersonality Psychology Compass, 4/5: 344–357.

Merton, R. K. 1936. The unanticipated consequences of pur-posive social action. American Sociological Review, 1:894–904.

Monin, B., & Miller, D. T. 2001. Moral credentials and the ex-pression of prejudice. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 81: 33–43.

Mor Barak, M. E., Cherin, D. A., & Berkman, S. 1998. Organi-zational and personal dimensions in diversity climate:Ethnic and gender differences in employee perceptions.Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 34: 82–104.

Morris, M. W., & Peng, K. 1994. Culture and cause: Americanand Chinese attributions for social and physical events.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67: 949–971.

Mullen, E., & Monin, B. 2016. Consistency versus licensingeffects of past moral behavior. Annual Review of Psy-chology, 67: 363–385.

Nishii, L. H. 2013. The benefits of climate for inclusion forgender-diverse groups. Academy of Management Jour-nal, 56: 1754–1774.

Nishii, L. H., Khattab, J., Shemla, M., & Paluch, R. 2018. A multi-level process model for understanding diversity practiceeffectiveness.Academy of Management Annals, 12: 37–82.

Nishii, L. H., Lepak, D. P., & Schneider, B. 2008. Employee at-tributions of the “why” of HR practices: Their effects onemployee attitudes and behavior and customer satisfac-tion. Personnel Psychology, 61: 503–545.

Nishii, L. H., & Wright, P. 2008. Variability within organizations:Implications for strategic human resource management. InD. B. Smith (Ed.), The people make the place: 225–248.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Norton, M. I., & Sommers, S. R. 2011. Whites see racism as azero-sum game that they are now losing. Perspectives onPsychological Science, 6: 215–218.

Ordoñez, L. D., Schweitzer, M. E., Galinsky, A. D., & Bazerman,M. H. 2009. Goals gonewild: The systematic side effects ofoverprescribing goal setting. Academy of ManagementPerspectives, 23(1): 6–16.

Ostroff, C., & Bowen, D. E. 2000. Moving HR to a higher level:HR practices and organizational effectiveness. In K. J.Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, re-search, and methods in organizations: 211–266. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. 2006.Hard facts, dangerous half-truths,and total nonsense: Profiting from evidence-based man-agement. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Plant, E. A., & Devine, P. G. 1998. Internal and external moti-vation to respond without prejudice. Journal of Personal-ity and Social Psychology, 75: 811–832.

Plaut, V. C., Garnett, F. G., Buffardi, L. E., & Sanchez-Burks, J.2011. “What about me?” Perceptions of exclusion andWhites’ reactions to multiculturalism. Journal of Person-ality and Social Psychology, 101: 337–353.

Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S.W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D.2009. Individual- and organizational-level consequencesof organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis.Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 122–141.

Portes, A. 2000. The hidden abode: Sociology as an analysis ofthe unexpected. American Sociological Review, 65: 1–18.

Richard, O. C., Murthi, B. P. S., & Ismail, K. 2007. The impactof racial diversity on intermediate and long-term perfor-mance: The moderating effect of environmental context.Strategic Management Journal, 28: 1213–1233.

Richard, O. C., Roh, H., & Pieper, J. R. 2013. The link betweendiversity and equality management practice bundles andracial diversity in the managerial ranks: Does firm sizematter? Human Resource Management, 52: 215–242.


Ross, L. 1977. The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings:Distortions in the attribution process. Advances in Ex-perimental Social Psychology, 10: 173–220.

Rousseau, D. M. 1995. Psychological contracts in organiza-tions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ruttan, R. L., & Nordgren, L. F. 2018. Instrumental use erodessacred values. Working paper, University of Toronto,Ontario.

Rynes, S. L. 1991. Recruitment, job choice, and post-hire con-sequences: A call for new research directions. In M. D.Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.),Handbook of industrial andorganizational psychology: 399–444. Palo Alto, CA: Con-sulting Psychology Press.

Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. 1978. A social information pro-cessing approach to job attitudes and task design. Ad-ministrative Science Quarterly, 23: 224–253.

Schein, E. H. 2010. Organizational culture and leadership (4thed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schmader, T., Johns, M., & Forbes, C. 2008. An integratedprocess model of stereotype threat effects on perfor-mance. Psychological Review, 115: 336–356.

Schneider, B. 1987. The people make the place. PersonnelPsychology, 40: 437–453.

Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., & Macey, W. H. 2013. Organiza-tional climate and culture. Annual Review of Psychology,64: 361–388.

Shapiro, J. R., & Neuberg, S. L. 2007. From stereotype threat tostereotype threats: Implications of a multi-threat frame-work for causes, moderators, mediators, consequences,and interventions. Personality and social Psychology Re-view, 11: 107–130.

Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., Ehrhart,K. H., & Singh, G. 2011. Inclusion and diversity in workgroups: A review andmodel for future research. Journal ofManagement, 37: 1262–1289.

Shteynberg, G., Leslie, L. M., Knight, A. P., & Mayer, D. M. 2011.But affirmative action hurts us! Race-related beliefsshape perceptions of White disadvantage and policy

unfairness. Organizational Behavior and Human De-cision Processes, 115: 1–12.

Smith, J. P., & Welch, F. 1984. Affirmative action and the labormarkets. Journal of Labor Economics, 2: 269–301.

Snow, C. C., & Ketchen, D. J. 2014. Typology-driven theorizing:A response to Delbridge and Fiss. Academy of Manage-ment Review, 39: 231–233.

Society for Human Resource Management. 2009. Global di-versity and inclusion: Perceptions, practices and attitudes.Alexandria, VA: Society for Human Resource Management.

Spence, A. M. 1973. Job market signaling. Quarterly Journal ofEconomics, 87: 355–374.

Tetlock, P. E., Kristel, O. V., Elson, S. B., Green, M. C., & Lerner,J. S. 2000. The psychology of the unthinkable: Taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical counterfactuals.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78: 853–870.

Tyler, T. R., Boeckmann, R. J., Smith, H. J., & Huo, Y. J. 1997.Social justice in a diverse society. Boulder, CO: WestviewPress.

Victor, B., & Cullen, J. B. 1988. The organizational bases ofethical work climates. Administrative Science Quarterly,33: 101–124.

Vroom, V. H. 1964. Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.

Wiener, A. 2016. Why can’t Silicon Valley solve its diversityproblem?NewYorker,November 26: https://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/why-cant-silicon-valley-solve-its-diversity-problem.

Wilkins, C. L., & Kaiser, C. R. 2014. Racial progress as threat tothe status hierarchy implications for perceptions of anti-White bias. Psychological Science, 25: 439–446.

Williams, M. L., & Bauer, T. N. 1994. The effect of a managingdiversity policy on organizational attractiveness. Group& Organization Management, 3: 295–308.

Wrzesniewski, A., Schwartz, B., Cong, X., Kane, M., Omar, A., &Kolditz, T. 2014. Multiple types of motives don’t multiplythe motivation of West Point cadets. Proceedings of theNational Academy of Sciences, 111: 10990–10995.

Lisa M. Leslie ([email protected]) is an associate professor in the Management andOrganizations Department at the Stern School of Business, New York University. Shereceived her Ph.D. in organizational psychology from the University of Maryland. Herresearch focuses on diversity in organizations, cross-cultural organizational behavior,and conflict management.

2019 563Leslie

https://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/why-cant-silicon-valley-solve-its-diversity-problem



mailto:[email protected]

diversity initiative effectiveness: a typological theory

Documents