Rogerian essay

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

Leon Windscheid1 • Lynn Bowes-Sperry2 • Jens Mazei3 • Michèle Morner4,5

Received: 5 April 2015 / Accepted: 21 September 2015 / Published online: 19 October 2015

� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Abstract Women are underrepresented in the upper

echelons of management in most countries. Despite the

effectiveness of identity conscious initiatives for increasing

the proportion of women, many organizations have been

reluctant to implement such initiatives because potential

employees may perceive them negatively. Given the

increasing competition for labor, attracting talent is rele-

vant for the long-term success of organizations. In this

study, we used an experimental design (N = 693) to

examine the effects of identity blind and identity conscious

gender diversity initiatives on people’s pursuit intentions

toward organizations using them. We used counterfactual

thinking, derived from fairness theory, as a guiding

framework for our hypothesis development and investi-

gated the moderating influence of a forthcoming govern-

ment-mandated gender quota as well as individual

characteristics (e.g., gender). Participants reviewed state-

ments regarding workplace diversity initiatives and rated

either the initiatives’ effectiveness or indicated their

intentions to pursue employment with organizations using

them. Of those rating pursuit intentions, half were informed

that the country in which they were conducting their job

search was about to implement gender quotas. Results

indicated a diversity management paradox such that ini-

tiatives perceived as more effective made organizations

using them less attractive as employers. However, these

negative perceptions were mitigated by a government-

mandated quota, and also lower among women. Implica-

tions for the study and practice of diversity are discussed.

Keywords Diversity � Diversity paradox � Gender � Quota � Organizational attractiveness � Pursuit intentions

Introduction

Attracting a gender diverse workforce is a major challenge

in today’s corporate world. Key drivers of this challenge are

the high level of international competition for labor (e.g.,

Blau and Kahn 2005; Krisor et al. 2013; Pries 2010), the

business case for female representation in top management

(e.g., Bear et al. 2010; Francoeur et al. 2008; Torchia et al.

2011), and in many countries, the political pressure to

increase gender diversity in organizations (e.g., European

Directorate-General for Internal Policies 2013). Despite

numerous actions aimed at achieving gender equality,

women are still often underrepresented in upper manage-

ment in many countries around the globe (e.g., Grant

Thornton 2014). In this study, we explore a potential reason

for this circumstance that we refer to as ‘‘the paradox of

diversity management strategies’’—the discrepancy between

that which individuals acknowledge as effective for organi-

zations to achieve gender-balanced upper echelons and that

which individuals perceive as attractive organizational

attributes. Existing evidence indicates that identity conscious

& Leon Windscheid [email protected]

1 Reinhard-Mohn-Institute for Management and Corporate

Governance, Witten/Herdecke University, Alfred-

Herrhausen-Straße 50, 58448 Witten, Germany

2 College of Business, Western New England University,

Springfield, MA, USA

3 Organizational & Business Psychology, University of

Münster, Münster, Germany

4 Reinhard-Mohn-Institute for Management and Corporate

Governance, Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany

5 German University of Administrative Sciences Speyer,

Speyer, Germany

123

J Bus Ethics (2017) 145:33–48

DOI 10.1007/s10551-015-2864-1

initiatives that are either based on opportunity enhancement

for, or preferential treatment of, female employees are in

fact often more effective for increasing the proportion of

women in top management positions than more general and

less binding identity blind initiatives such as training or

diversity evaluations (Kalev et al. 2006). Despite their

effectiveness, however, elements of fairness theory (Folger

and Cropanzano 1998, 2001) and previous empirical

research suggest the existence of a paradox such that identity

conscious initiatives may not always be well received and

lead to ‘backlash’ from non-beneficiaries, such as white men

(Leslie et al. 2014). This proposed diversity paradox is

similar to the diversity-validity dilemma described by

Pyburn et al. (2008), whereby organizations’ attempts to

increase gender diversity are hindered because some selec-

tion procedures that exhibit high validity result in women (as

a group) scoring lower than men (as group).

Today, ‘‘more than half of the countries in the world

have implemented some type of political quota’’ regarding

female representation in public decision-making bodies

(Pande and Ford 2011, p. 8). For example, the first

empirical long-term investigation of the gender quota in

Norway found a positive effect on the number of female

board chairs as well as ‘‘spill-over effects on top leadership

positions’’ (Wang and Kelan 2013, p. 463). The present

study was conducted in Germany, where the parliament

recently passed a government-mandated gender quota that

will be established by 2016 (German Ministry of Family

Affairs 2014b). The German quota is similar to recent

action taken by many other countries within (Austria,

Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Ireland, Italy, Spain,

and the Netherlands) and outside the European Union

(Iceland, Israel, Switzerland, and Norway). In brief, the

German quota regulations recently set forth require both

genders to be represented with at least 30 % on the

supervisory boards 1

of major organizations. In case of non-

compliance, board seats reserved for the underrepresented

gender have to remain empty. The organizations further

have to publicize goals for gender diversity within their

executive boards and also in general upper management

positions. Given the potential impact of this legislation for

today’s workplace, it is important to know whether and

how potential employees react toward quota regulations.

With this work, we therefore seek to contribute to a

better understanding of the following key practical ques-

tions: What happens when organizations employ strategies

aimed at increasing the proportion of women in top man-

agement teams? Are people attracted to organizations that

implement diversity strategies they perceive as effective, or

do they wish to avoid such organizations as potential

employers? What is the role of governmental legislation in

this context? To the best of our knowledge, the current

study is the first to combine various types of organizational

gender diversity initiatives with the effect of a forthcoming

government-mandated gender quota from an employer

attractiveness perspective. If, as we argue, a government-

mandated gender quota helps to increase the perceived

attractiveness of organizations using identity conscious

diversity initiatives, then such governmental legislation

could become an important driver in resolving the pro-

posed paradox of diversity management strategies. In this

respect, one of the most unique features of the current work

is the simultaneous consideration of three perspectives on

the paradox of diversity management: If decisions at the

level of the organization (i.e., implementation of certain

initiatives) are perceived differently by individuals

depending on the regulations set forth at the higher coun-

try-level, our study enables conclusions for individual

employees as well as diversity practitioners in organiza-

tions and beyond.

The German Context

The German context is of high relevance with regard to our

research questions for various reasons. First, the recent

legislative changes described previously have led to sub-

stantial public scrutiny of gender diversity—job seekers

from Germany are thus likely to be attentive to organiza-

tional gender diversity attributes. Second, (also) due to

governmental pressure, many employers publicly promote

their interest and efforts with regard to gender diversity

through various outlets such as their corporate websites

(Singh and Point 2006). Third, the German labor market

shares central gender diversity attributes with other Wes-

tern societies: For example, despite the fact that the female

labor force participation rate is approximately 54 % (Uni-

ted States 56 %, United Kingdom 56 %; Worldbank 2013),

‘‘the executive floors in Germany continue to be predom-

inantly a male monoculture’’(German Ministry of Family

Affairs 2014a, p. 61), comparable to Fortune 500 and FTSE

100 top management teams (Bernardi et al. 2006; Catalyst

2013a; Vinnicombe et al. 2014). Similarly, less than one-

third (31 %) of German senior managers are female

(United States 20 %, United Kingdom 19 %; Catalyst

2013b), and even less than one-fifth of all board seats

(14 %) are occupied by women (United States 17 %,

United Kingdom 21 %; Catalyst 2014). Key drivers of

these gender differences in Germany are issues related to

the division of labor within the household, or, in other

words, family issues (European Commission 2012).

1 The German corporate governance system is two-tiered, composed

of a board of directors and a supervisory board. The supervisory board

makes appointment decisions for and monitors the board of directors,

which is responsible for an organization’s operations (Jansson 2005;

Joecks et al. 2013).

34 L. Windscheid et al.

123

Although parental support in Germany is traditionally more

elaborate than in other countries such as the United States

(e.g., Dustmann and Schönberg 2012), the employment rate

of women with children is approximately 20 % points

lower than the employment rate of childless women

(European Commission 2012).

Perceived Effectiveness of Gender-Related Diversity Initiatives

Past research has identified a variety of human resource

management practices that can be used to improve orga-

nizational diversity (e.g., Kalev et al. 2006; Konrad and

Linnehan 1995). Konrad and Linnehan (1995) distin-

guished identity blind (e.g., management training available

to all qualified employees) from identity conscious (e.g.,

leadership development exclusively for women) initiatives.

Although identity blind initiatives are designed to ensure

that human resource practices ignore demographic group

attributes, stereotypes and biases tend to continue to taint

employment decision-making (e.g., King et al. 2006); thus,

identity blind initiatives often do not sufficiently improve

organizational diversity. By contrast, identity conscious

initiatives are designed to ensure that human resource

practices consider demographic attributes. Identity con-

scious initiatives, in turn, can be further classified as

(a) opportunity enhancement initiatives whereby target

group members are provided with extra resources but their

demographic group memberships are not considered in

ultimate employment decisions, and (b) preferential

treatment initiatives whereby targets are actually given

preference in employment decisions (Kravitz 1995; Leslie

et al. 2014).

Although field research indicates that identity conscious

initiatives are indeed more effective than identity blind

initiatives for increasing the proportion of women in

management (Kalev et al. 2006), individuals’ perceptions

are not always consistent with reality, especially when the

issue of gender is involved (McCauley et al. 1988; Swim

et al. 1995) and during the early stages of recruitment (for a

review, see Connelly et al. 2011). Thus, they are often

unable to observe themselves the actual effectiveness of

gender diversity initiatives. Given that our proposed para-

dox is based on individuals’ perceptions regarding the

effectiveness of diversity initiatives, and as such percep-

tions may influence their decisions to pursue employment

with an organization, it is important to investigate the

extent to which people’s perceptions reflect reality with

regard to the effectiveness of gender diversity. Given that

identity blind initiatives work only indirectly, individuals

should perceive identity conscious initiatives as more

effective for increasing the proportion of women in

management. Furthermore, preferential treatment initia-

tives should be perceived as more effective than opportu-

nity enhancement initiatives because the former actually

consider group memberships in employment decisions,

whereas the latter do not. In other words, we expect that the

prescriptiveness (i.e., the extent to which decision makers

are constrained by diversity-related policies and procedures

when making employment decisions) of diversity initia-

tives will be related to their perceived effectiveness as

follows:

Hypothesis 1a Individuals perceive identity conscious

initiatives as more effective than identity blind initiatives for

increasing the proportion of women in upper management.

Hypothesis 1b Individuals perceive preferential treat-

ment initiatives as more effective than opportunity

enhancement initiatives for increasing the proportion of

women in upper management.

Impact of Type of Diversity Initiative on Pursuit Intentions

Employers communicate information about their diversity

management initiatives on their websites and in other

organizational publications such as recruitment brochures

and corporate social performance reports (e.g., Singh and

Point 2006). Individuals engaged in a job search often

examine such sources of information for signals regarding

the values of, and working conditions within, organizations

in an attempt to maximize their fit with potential employers

(e.g., Turban and Greening 1997). The dissemination of

diversity-related information through various channels for

the purpose of employee recruitment has been conceptu-

alized as a form of organizational impression management

intended to signal potential employees that the organization

values diversity (Avery and McKay 2006; Goldberg and

Allen 2008; Greening and Turban 2000; Turban and

Greening 1997). Indeed, research has demonstrated that the

inclusion of diversity statements in recruitment materials is

positively related to individuals’ perceptions that the

organization values diversity (Kim and Gelfand 2003; Rau

and Hyland 2003). Notably, however, its impact on the

perceived favorability of organizations using them is less

clear given that diversity statements have been found to

have both negative (e.g., Kim and Gelfand 2003; Martins

and Parsons 2007; Richard and Kirby 1998; Williamson

et al. 2008) and positive (e.g., Avery 2003; Kim and Gel-

fand 2003; Martins and Parsons 2007) effects on organi-

zations using them. This inconsistency may be reconciled

by differentiating between the types of diversity initiatives.

In the ensuing sections, we use the rationale of counter-

factual thinking, derived from fairness theory (Folger and

The Paradox of Diversity Initiatives: When Organizational Needs Differ from Employee… 35

123

Cropanzano 1998, 2001), as an organizing framework to

guide our hypothesis development (see Fig. 1 for an

overview).

According to the overarching principle of counterfac-

tuals, identity conscious initiatives may be viewed less

favorably than identity blind initiatives because the use of

demographic criteria for hiring and promotion (as in

identity conscious initiatives) violates both procedural and

distributive fairness principles (Bobocel and Farrell 1996;

Konrad and Linnehan 1995; Ozawa et al. 1996; Summers

1995). This reasoning is consistent with fairness theory

(Folger and Cropanzano 1998, 2001), which argues that

when individuals view a decision negatively, they engage

in counterfactual thinking about whether another decision

would have been better (the would counterfactual), could

have been made (the could counterfactual), and should

have been made to comply with other ethical or morally

appropriate standards (the should counterfactual).

We propose that different types of initiatives lead to

different interpretations of counterfactuals, which, in turn,

impact people’s pursuit intentions. Since many individuals

believe that using identity blind rather than identity con-

scious initiatives would result in better employment deci-

sions (because they are more directly related to the

established and endorsed principle of merit) and that these

initiatives should be used because they do not violate

ethical or moral standards, they are perceived as more fair

than identity conscious initiatives (Ozawa et al. 1996;

Shaw et al. 2003; Williamson et al. 2008). Thus, organi-

zations using identity conscious initiatives should be less

likely than those using identity blind initiatives to be per-

ceived as attractive (Harrison et al. 2006; Summers 1995).

Furthermore, this negative effect is likely to be more pro-

nounced for preferential treatment than opportunity

enhancement initiatives due to the higher prescriptiveness

of preferential treatment (Harrison et al. 2006). Hence, we

hypothesized the following:

Hypothesis 2a Individuals’ intentions to pursue

employment with organizations using identity conscious

initiatives are lower than their intentions to pursue

employment with those using identity blind initiatives.

Hypothesis 2b Individuals’ intentions to pursue employ-

ment with organizations using preferential treatment initia-

tives are lower than their intentions to pursue employment

with those using opportunity enhancement initiatives.

Moderators of the Relationship between Type of Diversity Initiative and Pursuit Intentions

We expect several factors to moderate the relationship

between the type of diversity initiative and pursuit inten-

tions. Specifically, we hypothesize that information which

influences individuals’ perceptions regarding organiza-

tional accountability for the diversity initiative as well as

individual difference characteristics moderate the influence

of type of diversity initiative on individuals’ intentions to

pursue employment with an organization. Consistent with

this view, previous research investigating the influence of

an organization’s diversity initiatives on individuals’

intentions to pursue the organization as an employer has

considered moderating factors such as justifications for the

initiative (Richard and Kirby 1997; 1998; Williamson et al.

2008) and gender (e.g., Greening and Turban 2000).

Explanation for the Diversity Initiative: Quota

Justifications and excuses are two types of explanations

that can be used by decision makers to reduce negative

Fig. 1 Overview of research model and hypotheses. The

thickness of the lines indicates

the strength of the proposed

effects, with thicker lines

representing stronger effects

36 L. Windscheid et al.

123

reactions to potentially unfavorable decisions, such as the

use of identity conscious initiatives for making employ-

ment decisions (Bobocel and Farrell 1996; Shaw et al.

2003). While individuals using excuses shift responsibility

(and thus blame others) for the decision away from them-

selves, those using justifications accept responsibility while

attempting to legitimize the unfavorable decision (Bies

et al. 1988; Shaw et al. 2003). While research indicates that

providing justifications for the use of identity conscious

initiatives can be integral to successfully managing diver-

sity (Kravitz et al. 2008; Richard and Kirby 1998), altering

perceptions of these initiatives by providing justifications is

a complex process in that it depends on the type of justi-

fication given (Harrison et al. 2006), and a particular jus-

tification may increase organizational attraction for some

individuals while decreasing it for others (Williamson et al.

2008).

In their study, Bobocel and Farrell (1996, p. 26) found

that an explicit excuse, i.e., ‘‘I was not responsible for the

decision…’’ was negatively related to perceptions of interactional fairness. This finding may reflect an attempt at

defensive impression management (Gardner and Martinko

1988) that backfired. It is possible, however, that an excuse

emanating from a source other than the decision maker

him-/herself could improve reactions to identity conscious

initiatives. We hence propose that a government-mandated

quota for the percentage of women in top management

positions may serve as an influential excuse for an orga-

nization’s use of identity conscious initiatives. In accor-

dance with attribution theory (Weiner 1986), as long as

individuals evaluating the initiative are aware of external

causes for it, they may be less likely to hold the organi-

zation accountable for potential negative outcomes—which

in turn may weaken the negative impact of the initiative on

the attractiveness of the organization (see above). This

argument is similar to that put forth by Avery and McKay

(2006) who noted that external attributions for targeted

recruitment programs could lead to the impression that the

programs are motivated by legal concerns rather than

organizational values.

In accordance with our overarching principle of coun-

terfactuals as derived from fairness theory (Folger and

Cropanzano 1998, 2001), given that organizations are

generally assumed to be responsible for their own human

resource initiatives (Avery and McKay 2006), individuals

will believe that organizations using identity conscious

initiatives generally could have decided to do otherwise. A

government-mandated gender quota, however, may

weaken this belief because it implies that organizations

have to engage in the more prescriptive diversity initiatives

in order to achieve the quota—thus mitigating issues of

procedural and distributive unfairness (Bobocel and Farrell

1996). This reasoning leads to the following prediction:

Hypothesis 3 Individuals’ intentions to pursue employ-

ment with (a) organizations using opportunity enhance-

ment initiatives and (b) organizations using preferential

treatment initiatives are higher when there is a government-

mandated gender quota regarding the proportion of women

in top management teams than when there is no such quota.

Gender

A meta-analysis of attitudes toward diversity initiatives

(Harrison et al. 2006) indicates that the gender of the

person evaluating the initiative tends not to matter for

identity blind initiatives but often does matter for identity

conscious initiatives (e.g., Barber and Roehling 1993;

Greening and Turban 2000; Konrad and Linnehan 1995;

Kravitz and Platania 1993; McNab and Johnston 2002;

Summers 1995; Williams and Bauer 1994). More specifi-

cally, men tend to have more negative reactions than

women to identity conscious initiatives—despite the find-

ing that some women are also concerned about negative

personal outcomes such as lower job satisfaction, greater

stress, or being perceived as incompetent (e.g., Harrison

et al. 2006; Heilman et al. 1992; Gilbert and Stead 1999).

The gender effect found in response to identity con-

scious initiatives has been explained using various con-

cepts such as self-interest, prejudice, and perceived fairness

(e.g., Harrison et al. 2006; Konrad and Linnehan 1995). In

accordance with our principle of counterfactuals derived

from fairness theory (Folger and Cropanzano 1998, 2001),

while both men and women may believe that less pre-

scriptive initiatives would lead to more favorable organi-

zational outcomes, men should be more likely than women

to believe that less prescriptive initiatives would lead to

more favorable personal outcomes for themselves—for

example, due to more limited opportunities for promotions.

In the same vein, men may be more inclined to think that

identity conscious initiatives should not be used because

they may expect to profit less from such initiatives than

women. Taken together, because men can plausibly

imagine more counterfactuals than women, men should be

more likely than women to perceive identity conscious

initiatives as unfair, and thus less likely to consider the

organization attractive.

Hypothesis 4 Women’s intentions to pursue employment

with organizations using identity conscious initiatives are

higher than men’s intentions to pursue employment with

organizations using such initiatives.

Attitudes Toward Diversity

De Meuse and Hostager (2001) argued that organizational

diversity can lead to negative, neutral, and positive

The Paradox of Diversity Initiatives: When Organizational Needs Differ from Employee… 37

123

thoughts among different people, which reflect ‘‘the extent

to which individuals believe there is value in diversity’’(see

van Dick et al. 2008, p. 1464). The concept of motivated

social cognition (Jost et al. 2003) suggests that people with

negative attitudes toward diversity are more likely than

those with positive attitudes to believe that organizational

outcomes will suffer when organizations use more pre-

scriptive diversity initiatives, i.e., they are more likely to

believe the negative effects associated with the diversity-

validity dilemma outweigh the positive effects associated

with the business case for diversity.

In accordance with our counterfactual principle from

fairness theory (Folger and Cropanzano 1998, 2001), this

means that people with negative attitudes toward diversity

are more likely to believe that using less prescriptive ini-

tiatives would lead to better organizational outcomes.

Furthermore, we expect that individuals with negative

attitudes toward diversity are more likely to believe that

organizations should use less prescriptive initiatives

because they are more consistent with societal expectations

of fairness and morality than more prescriptive initiatives

(Shaw et al. 2003). Therefore, beliefs that organizations

would be better off using less prescriptive initiatives and

that they should do so is likely to have a negative impact on

intentions to pursue employment with organizations using

more prescriptive initiatives. Thus, we hypothesize the

following:

Hypothesis 5 Individuals’ intentions to pursue employ-

ment with organizations using identity conscious initiatives

are higher, the more positive their attitudes toward diver-

sity are.

Method

Participants

Approximately 9000 subscribers of PsyWeb, a German

online panel for psychological research, received a link to a

survey. Seven hundred and thirty-two completed surveys

were returned, for a response rate of 8 %, which seems

satisfactory given that participation in the panel is com-

pletely voluntary and not rewarded, as was participation in

this study, and also compared to the response rate of other

studies conducted via the same panel (e.g., Kanning et al.

2014). Thirty-nine participants were excluded due to fac-

tors such as missing data. The final sample size was

N = 693. The majority of participants were German

nationals (97 %) of which only 8 % indicated they have an

immigration background (mainly from Poland). The com-

bination of this information with data on the distribution of

different ethnicities among immigrants in Germany

(German Federal Statistical Office 2014) leads to the

conclusion that the large majority of participants in this

study were Caucasian, i.e., the racial majority in Germany.

Measures

We used three 7-point Likert type items (1 = strongly

disagree to 7 = strongly agree) to assess the diversity

statements’ perceived effectiveness with a higher score

indicating higher perceived effectiveness (see Table 1 for

sample items of all measures). Similarly, pursuit intentions

were assessed using the five intentions toward the company

items from Highhouse et al. (2003) organizational attrac-

tion scale, with higher scores indicating higher pursuit

intentions. We measured attitudes toward diversity with an

adapted version of De Meuse and Hostager’s (2001)

Reaction-to-Diversity Inventory, an established and vali-

dated measure (Hostager and De Meuse 2002). Finally, we

used two manipulation checks. First, the manipulation

check concerning the quota manipulation (described in

detail below) was a scale on which participants indicated

how much they agreed with the following statement: ‘‘[…] you were given the information that the country in which

you imagined conducting a job search will be implement-

ing a government-mandated gender quota for all compa-

nies.’’ Second, to ensure that our manipulations resulted in

the intended perception of the initiatives as either identity

blind or identity conscious, we assessed the diversity

statements’ perceived gender consciousness and concrete-

ness (Table 1). All manipulation check items were

answered on 7-point Likert type scales with higher scores

indicating higher agreement with the relevant statements.

Material: Diversity Statements

The independent variable of statement type was manipu-

lated. To test our hypotheses and to ensure external

validity, we developed one identity blind and two identity

conscious (opportunity enhancement and preferential

treatment) diversity statements that were similar to existing

statements included on German employers’ websites. In

accordance with previous research (e.g., Avery et al. 2004;

Casper et al. 2013; Williamson et al. 2008), we reviewed

all recruiting websites of the 30 major companies traded at

the German stock exchange to maximize the realism of

these statements. The length and writing style of all three

statements were consistent.

The identity blind statement focused on equality and the

importance of organizational diversity in general, hence

women should not be perceived as benefitting more than

men from the initiative:

38 L. Windscheid et al.

123

Providing equal opportunities for all our employees is

central to our corporate values and leadership prin-

ciples. That means the skills and personalities of each

employee are valued and supported. All our

employees are given the opportunity to participate in

training on understanding and benefitting from the

added value of diversity. In addition, we support

families and encourage the balance between work

and family life for all our employees.

Both identity conscious statements focused on practices

designed to increase the proportion of women in upper

management positions. The opportunity enhancement

statement was based on the most frequently mentioned

gender initiatives on the employer websites of the German

companies we reviewed aimed at enhancing opportunities

for women:

As a company, we support women through targeted

initiatives. To increase the proportion of women in

upper management positions, we provide a variety of

initiatives for our female employees. Our program, ‘‘a

network for women,’’ provides female managers

exhibiting high development potential with a plat-

form for exchange. Women also receive coaching in

workshops to build essential skills for their career

development and prepare them for leadership

positions.

The preferential treatment statement also contained

specific opportunity enhancement initiatives. However,

here the focus was on a voluntarily established (i.e., by the

organization itself) gender quota for top management

positions:

As a company, we are committed for increasing the

proportion of women in management positions. To

achieve this goal, we have established a range of

initiatives designed to support women (e.g., net-

working programs, workshops, and training). In

addition to these initiatives, we have implemented a

gender quota. 30 % of all upper management posi-

tions will be filled by women. We have established a

company-wide directive requiring special considera-

tion of women, who possess equivalent qualifications

to men, in hiring and promotion decisions.

Procedure

The data were collected online. To test our hypotheses, we

used a scenario design as established approach in diversity

research (e.g., Kidder et al. 2004; Williamson et al. 2008).

All participants initially read a brief general instruction in

which they were asked to imagine that they were looking

for a job abroad (i.e., outside Germany). Participants were

then told that they had visited the websites of potential

employers, which included information on their diversity

initiatives. Participants were also informed that all

employers in which they were interested currently had a

low proportion of women in upper management (approxi-

mately 5 to 10 %), and were then given all three diversity

statements simultaneously. The statements were described

as being derived from the websites of three different

potential employers. Participants were asked to read all

three of them. This kind of within-subject approach

increases external validity as it comes close to the expe-

rience of encountering various potential employers during

job searches (e.g., Martins and Parsons 2007).

At this point, the sample was split. One-third of the

sample participated in a within-subjects experiment to

assess the diversity initiatives of the three potential

Table 1 Overview of the applied measures

Construct Sample items

Perceived effectiveness ‘‘These measures will increase the proportion of women in upper management’’

‘‘These measures will lead to more women getting into the upper management’’

‘‘These measures will not have an impact on more women getting into upper management’’*

Pursuit intentions ‘‘I would accept a job offer from this company’’

Attitudes toward diversity Participants were provided with 70 words, some of which were positive (e.g., unity, fair) and some of which were

negative (e.g., worthless, anger). Negative words (-1) and positive words (?1) that are checked by participants

build a sum score

Manipulation check

Perceived gender

consciousness

‘‘Mainly women profit from these initiatives’’

Perceived concreteness ‘‘These initiatives are very concrete’’

* Items were coded in reverse

The Paradox of Diversity Initiatives: When Organizational Needs Differ from Employee… 39

123

employers for their perceived effectiveness with regard to

increasing the proportion of women in upper management

positions. These participants responded to the manipulation

check regarding our classification of the statements as

either identity blind or identity conscious. The remaining

two-thirds participated in a mixed factorial design experi-

ment to assess their intentions to pursue employment with

the three organizations whose diversity statements they

were provided (within-subjects factor). These participants

were exposed to one of two conditions regarding the

existence of a government-mandated quota (between-sub-

jects factor). Participants in the first condition (Government

Quota condition), read the following information:

Within the next 2 years, the country in which you are

conducting your job search will implement a gov-

ernment-mandated gender quota of 30 % for top

management team positions. This means all organi-

zations will be required to fill thirty percent of top

management team positions with women. Organiza-

tions that do not meet this requirement will face

extensive penalties and economic sanctions from the

government. All organizations in which you are

considering employment will be affected by this

legislation.

The second condition (No-Government Quota condition)

was a control condition in which no information regarding

a government-mandated gender quota was provided. Par-

ticipants in both conditions responded to the government

quota manipulation check item. An overview of the study

design is depicted in Fig. 2.

We chose to assess the dependent variables of perceived

effectiveness and pursuit intentions with different portions

of the sample in order to reduce socially desirable

responding, which has been found to occur in survey

research on issues for which social norms exist (for a

review, see Moorman and Podsakoff 1992). Awareness of

social expectations influences participants’ responses such

that they provide responses that are consistent with (ex-

pected) norms to not appear sexist or racist (Swim et al.

1995). Since diversity in the workplace has become a

social norm (Walt and Ingley 2003), this research suggests

that participants would be reluctant to indicate a preference

for working in organizations with diversity initiatives they

perceived as ineffective.

Results

Means, standard deviations, and inter-correlations of the

main variables employed in this study are presented in

Table 2. Our intended categorization of the three state-

ments as either identity blind or identity conscious was

successful. A repeated measures one-way analysis of

variance (rANOVA) revealed significant differences for

gender consciousness [F(1, 236) = 63.10, p \ 0.001, g2P = 0.73] between the identity blind statement with M = 2.62, SD = 1.00, and the two identity conscious

statements (opportunity enhancement with M = 5.41,

SD = 1.12 and preferential treatment with M = 5.39,

SD = 1.23). Similarly, a rANOVA showed that the identity

blind statement with M = 3.52, and SD = 1.39 was per-

ceived as significantly less concrete [F(1, 236) = 69.45,

p \ 0.001, g2P = 0.23] than the identity conscious state- ments (opportunity enhancement M = 4.13, SD = 1.58;

preferential treatment with, M = 4.94, SD = 1.40).

Fig. 2 Overview of study design

40 L. Windscheid et al.

123

Perceived Effectiveness

Table 3 depicts the mean perceived effectiveness as well as

the mean pursuit intentions regarding the three diversity

initiatives. We conducted a rANOVA to test our hypothe-

ses of effectiveness differences. As predicted, we found an

effect of statement type on perceived effectiveness, F(2,

235) = 88.44, p \ 0.001, g2P = 0.43. As can be seen in the descriptive statistics depicted in Table 3, the identity blind

statement (M = 3.84, SD = 1.25) was perceived as less

effective than the opportunity enhancement statement

(M = 4.10, SD = 1.29) with d = -0.20, and also as less

effective than the preferential treatment statement

(M = 5.26, SD = 1.25) with d = -1.14. To test our

hypotheses, first the two identity conscious statements were

combined and then contrasted against the identity blind

statement. In support of Hypothesis 1a, the comparison

revealed a significantly lower perceived effectiveness of

the identity blind statement, F(1, 236) = 66.11, p \ 0.001, g2P = 0.22. As predicted in Hypothesis 1b, we also found that the preferential treatment statement led to higher

perceived effectiveness ratings than the opportunity

enhancement statement, t(236) = -10.85, p \ 0.001 (one- tailed) with d = 0.91.

Pursuit Intentions

We conducted a rANOVA to test our hypotheses of pursuit

intention differences for the organization with the identity

blind statement as compared to the organizations with the

identity conscious statements. Mauchly’s test indicated a

violation of the assumption of sphericity, v2(2) = 93.72, p \ 0.001, and the degrees of freedom were corrected using Greenhouse-Geisser estimate. As predicted, the rANOVA

revealed a significant main effect of statement type on

pursuit intentions, F(1.69, 766.95) = 195.03, p \ 0.001, g2P = 0.30. In line with expectations, Table 3 shows that pursuit intentions were higher for the organization with the

identity blind statement (M = 5.69, SD = 1.13) as com-

pared to the organization with the opportunity enhancement

statement (M = 4.19, SD = 1.37) with d = 1.19, and also

as compared to the organization with the preferential treat-

ment statement (M = 4.28, SD = 1.51) with d = 1.02. As

predicted in Hypothesis 2a, a comparison revealed that the

identity blind statement led to significantly higher pursuit

intentions as compared to the combined identity conscious

statements, F(1,455) = 276.15, p \ 0.001, g2P = 0.38. Contrary to Hypothesis 2b, however, mean pursuit intentions

were not significantly different between the organization

with the opportunity enhancement statement and the orga-

nization with the preferential treatment statement

[t(456) = -1.46, p = 0.14, d = -0.06].T a b le

2 M

e a n

s, S

D ,

a n

d c o

rr e la

ti o

n s

fo r

m a in

v a ri

a b

le s

M (S

D )

F e m

. A

g e

W o

rk

e x

p .

A tt

it u

d .

to w

a rd

d iv

e r.

P I

id e n

ti ty

b li

n d

P I

id e n

ti ty

c o

n sc

io u

s

(o p

p .

e n

h a .)

P I

id e n

ti ty

c o

n sc

io u

s

(p re

f. tr

e a t.

)

E F

F

id e n

ti ty

b li

n d

E F

F id

e n

ti ty

c o

n sc

io u

s

(o p

p .

e n

h a .)

E F

F id

e n

ti ty

c o

n sc

io u

s

(p re

f. tr

e a t.

)

F e m

a le

0 .6

5 (0

.4 8

) –

A g

e 4

6 .0

1 (1

2 .9

1 )

- 0

.1 5

* *

* –

W o

rk e x

p .

2 7

.7 (1

5 .7

) -

0 .0

3 0

.4 0

* *

* –

A tt

it u

d e s

to w

a rd

d iv

e rs

it y

1 0

.7 8

(1 0

.1 3

) 0

.0 4

- 0

.0 1

- 0

.0 3

–

P I

id e n

ti ty

b li

n d

5 .6

9 (1

.1 3

) 0

.0 3

- 0

.0 8

* 0

.0 0

0 .0

1 (0

.9 4

)

P I

id e n

ti ty

c o

n sc

io u

s (o

p p

. e n

h a .)

4 .1

9 (1

.3 7

) 0

.0 8

* 0

.0 5

- 0

.0 8

* 0

.0 5

- 0

.1 4

* *

* (0

.9 4

)

P I

id e n

ti ty

c o

n sc

io u

s (p

re f.

tr e a t.

) 4

.2 8

(1 .5

1 )

0 .1

7 *

* *

0 .0

6 -

0 .0

1 0

.0 7

- 0

.2 4

* *

* 0

.5 3

* *

* (0

.9 4

)

E F

F id

e n

ti ty

b li

n d

3 .8

4 (1

.2 5

) 0

.0 0

- 0

.0 2

- 0

.0 5

0 .1

0 *

* –

– –

(0 .8

5 )

E F

F id

e n

ti ty

c o

n sc

io u

s (o

p p

. e n

h a .)

4 .1

0 (1

.2 9

) -

0 .1

8 *

* *

0 .0

2 0

.0 8

* 0

.0 2

– –

– 0

.0 3

(0 .8

6 )

E F

F id

e n

ti ty

c o

n sc

io u

s (p

re f.

tr e a t.

) 5

.2 6

(1 .2

5 )

- 0

.0 5

- 0

.2 8

* *

* -

0 .0

1 -

0 .0

8 *

– –

– -

0 .0

5 0

.1 7

* *

* (0

.8 9

)

N ’s

ra n

g e

fr o

m 6

9 3

to 2

3 7

F e m .

F e m

a le

(1 =

fe m

a le

), W o rk

e x p .

y e a rs

o f

w o

rk e x

p e ri

e n

c e , A tt it u d . to w a rd

d iv e r.

a tt

it u

d e s

to w

a rd

d iv

e rs

it y

, P I

p u

rs u

it in

te n

ti o

n s, E F F

p e rc

e iv

e d

e ff

e c ti

v e n

e ss

, Id e n ti ty

c o n .

id e n

ti ty

c o

n sc

io u

s, O p p . e n h a .

o p

p o

rt u

n it

y e n

h a n

c e m

e n

t, P re f. tr e a t.

p re

fe re

n ti

a l

tr e a tm

e n

t

C o

e ffi

c ie

n t

a lp

h a s

a re

p re

se n

te d

o n

th e

d ia

g o

n a l.

S ig

n ifi

c a n

c e

le v

e ls

: * p \

0 .0

5 ,

* * p \

0 .0

1 ,

* *

* p \

0 .0

0 1

The Paradox of Diversity Initiatives: When Organizational Needs Differ from Employee… 41

123

Quota Versus No-Quota

Examination of participants’ responses to the manipulation

check item on quota revealed a significant difference

between the two quota conditions in line with expectations,

t(453) = 14.75, p \ 0.001. Notably, however, only 56 % of participants in the No-Quota condition and 78 % of partic-

ipants in the Quota condition answered the manipulation

check correctly. Recall that participants indicated on a

7-point Likert type scale their agreement with the following

statement: ‘‘[…] you were given the information that the country in which you imagined conducting a job search will

be implementing a mandatory gender quota for all compa-

nies.’’ As the analysis of the effect of a government-man-

dated gender quota on pursuit intentions required a careful

reading and correct understanding of the instructions and

information provided, including participants that failed the

manipulation check would reduce internal validity. In other

words, without having recognized the quota, one would not

expect effects of a quota to emerge. Thus, we decided to test

our hypotheses using only participants who answered the

manipulation check correctly. We, however, also report

results for the full sample, i.e., including participants who

answered the manipulation check incorrectly.

Means and standard deviations can be seen in Table 3.

Inspection of Table 3 shows that participants who were

presented with the quota information indicated higher

pursuit intentions than those in the control condition (i.e.,

No-Quota) for the organization with the preferential treat-

ment statement, t(305) = 1.95, p = 0.03, one-tailed,

d = 0.23. Mean pursuit intentions for the opportunity

enhancement statement did not differ significantly between

participants in the quota condition and the control condi-

tion, t(305) = -0.24, p = 0.82, d = -0.03. There was no

difference between participants in the quota condition and

participants in the control condition, t(305) = -0.35,

p = 0.73, d = -0.04, for the organization with the identity

blind statement (which was expected because an identity

blind statement generally adheres to fairness principles and

thus does not invite counterfactuals).

In the analysis including participants that failed the

manipulation check, we found no differences in mean

pursuit intentions between participants in the quota and

control condition for organizations using (a) the opportu-

nity enhancement statement [t(454) = 1.34, p = 0.18,

d = -0.13], (b) the preferential treatment statement

[t(454) = -0.29, p = 0.77, d = -0.03], or the identity

blind statement [t(454) = 0.14, p = 0.89, d = 0.02].

Gender Effects

A two-way rANOVA with gender and statement type as

independent variables and pursuit intentions as dependent

variable (Greenhouse-Geisser corrected) indicated a sig-

nificant interaction, F(1.69, 765.2) = 3.63, p = 0.03,

g2P = 0.01. Table 3 shows the means of pursuit intentions by gender and statement type. As predicted in Hypothesis

4, analyses of simple main effects (one-tailed) revealed

significantly higher pursuit intentions for women than for

men for the preferential treatment statement,

t(454) = -3.68, p \ 0.001, d = 0.35. Our analysis also revealed a significant effect in that women, as compared to

men, who showed slightly higher pursuit intentions for the

opportunity enhancement statement, t(454) = -1.63,

p = 0.05, d = 0.16. Thus, Hypothesis 4 was largely sup-

ported. As expected, there were no differences in pursuit

intentions between men and women for the identity blind

diversity statement [t(454) = -0.63, p = 0.53, d = 0.06].

Attitudes Toward Diversity

To test the effect of attitudes toward diversity on pursuit

intentions, depending on statement type, we conducted a

rANOVA with statement type as independent variable,

pursuit intentions as dependent variable, and attitudes

toward diversity as covariate. Contrary to our prediction,

the interaction effect (Greenhouse-Geisser corrected) did

not reach statistical significance, F(1,454) = 0.23,

p = 0.63, g2P = 0.001. Thus, Hypothesis 5 (i.e., individuals with more positive attitudes toward diversity have higher

pursuit intentions for organizations using identity con-

scious statements) was not supported. Following De Meuse

and Hostager’s (2001) classification, we ran further

exploratory analyses and dichotomized participants into a

combined category of realists/pessimists (-35 to ?10) and

optimists (?11 to ?35) which was similar to a median-split

(Mdn = 10). Once again, we did not find a significant

effect of attitudes toward diversity. To further explore

whether individuals’ pursuit intentions for the organization

with the identity blind statement would be affected by their

attitudes toward diversity, we conducted a regression

analysis. Attitudes toward diversity were unrelated to

pursuit intentions for the organization with the identity

blind statement, t(305) = 0.13, p = 0.90.

Discussion

Existing theory (Folger and Cropanzano 1998, 2001) and

empirical evidence indicate a major challenge for organi-

zational decision makers. They are under increasing pres-

sure to achieve gender diversity in top management

positions, and hence depend on more prescriptive gender

initiatives (e.g., preferential treatment) to attain these goals.

At the same time, these initiatives might negatively affect

42 L. Windscheid et al.

123

an organization’s attractiveness as an employer (Beechler

and Woodward 2009; Ng and Burke 2005). This study was

designed to investigate the organizational challenge of a

diversity management paradox, whereby organizational

initiatives perceived as effective for achieving gender-

balanced upper echelons are not perceived as attractive

organizational attributes. The key finding of this experi-

mental study, depicted in Fig. 3, supports the existence of

the paradox we proposed. Identity conscious initiatives

were perceived as more effective than identity blind ini-

tiatives; thus, empirically establishing that individuals’

perceptions of the differential effectiveness of the two

types of diversity initiatives (identity blind and identity

conscious) are consistent with actual differences found in

field research (Kalev et al. 2006). Despite being perceived

as more effective, however, identity conscious initiatives

negatively impacted the perceived favorability of organi-

zations that use them.

Notably, however, participants who recognized that a

government-mandated gender quota would be forthcoming

were in fact found to indicate higher pursuit intentions for

organizations using a preferential treatment initiative, as

predicted. This finding suggests a unique interplay between

different theoretical levels of analysis in that governmental

legislation (country-level) impacts pursuit intentions (in-

dividual-level) toward companies using different diversity

strategies (organizational level). This finding highlights

that the study and practice of diversity management is well

advised to consider the intertwined and complex reality of

today’s workplace. In accordance with our hypothesis, we

further found an effect of gender on intentions to pursue

employment with organizations using identity conscious

initiatives, with women indicating higher pursuit

intentions.

An interesting, yet unexpected, finding of the present

study is that both identity conscious statements led to equal

pursuit intentions, even though the preferential treatment

statement received substantially higher effectiveness rat-

ings than the opportunity enhancement statement. The

absence of a difference between opportunity enhancement

and preferential selection initiatives with regard to pursuit

intentions reveals an interesting practical insight: If orga-

nizations that are committed to increasing gender equality

in top management choose opportunity enhancing initia-

tives over preferential selection initiatives only because

they believe such initiatives will be perceived better by

potential and/or existing employees, they are better off

implementing preferential selection because it is more

effective for helping them achieve the goal of increased

female board participation while not additionally decreas-

ing pursuit intentions among potential employees.

Another key finding of this study is the effect of a

government-mandated gender quota for women in top

management positions on individuals’ intentions to pursue

employment with organizations voluntarily using prefer-

ential selection initiatives. After the necessary data

adjustments, we found pursuit intentions toward the orga-

nization using a preferential treatment statement were

higher in the Quota condition compared to the control

condition. This is of special interest as we set out to

determine whether a government-mandated gender quota

could serve as a buffer that protects organizations that are

using effective diversity initiatives from the negative out-

come of decreased employer attractiveness. The presence

or absence of information regarding a government-man-

dated quota, however, had no impact for the identity con-

scious opportunity enhancement statement. Recall that our

government-mandated quota condition stated that

Table 3 Means and SD of perceived effectiveness ratings and pursuit intentions

Diversity statement N Identity blind Identity conscious

(opportunity

enhancement)

Identity conscious

(preferential

treatment)

Perceived Effectiveness 237 3.84 (1.25) 4.10 (1.29) 5.26 (1.25)

Pursuit intentions (overall) 456 5.69 (1.13) 4.19 (1.37) 4.28 (1.51)

Quota manipulation (Excluding participants who failed the manipulation check)

Quota 184 5.72 (1.06) 4.16 (1.35) 4.44 (1.53)

No-Quota 123 5.77 (1.17) 4.20 (1.35) 4.09 (1.51)

Quota manipulation (Including participants who failed the manipulation check)

Quota 236 5.70 (1.11) 4.10 (1.36) 4.26 (1.51)

No-Quota 220 5.68 (1.15) 4.27 (1.37) 4.30 (1.52)

Gender differences

Women 289 5.72 (1.15) 4.27 (1.37) 4.48 (1.44)

Men 167 5.65 (1.17) 4.05 (1.35) 3.94 (1.59)

SD are indicated in parentheses

The Paradox of Diversity Initiatives: When Organizational Needs Differ from Employee… 43

123

organizations failing to achieve 30 % women in top man-

agement teams would face penalties and economic sanc-

tions from the government. Given that opportunity

enhancement initiatives are not perceived to be as effective

as preferential treatment initiatives for increasing the pro-

portion of women in upper management, it may be that

participants believed that an even more prescriptive ini-

tiative was required to ensure compliance with the gov-

ernment mandate and thus to avoid economic penalties.

This interpretation is consistent with our finding that the

perceived effectiveness of opportunity enhancement was

much closer to that of the identity blind initiative than to

that of the preferential treatment initiative (cf. Table 3).

Since we did not expect any effect of a government-man-

dated quota for the identity blind initiative, and as the

opportunity enhancement initiative was only perceived as

slightly more effective, it makes sense that we did not find

an effect for the opportunity enhancement initiative.

Although gender mattered significantly with respect to

the preferential treatment initiative, we only found a weak

moderating effect of gender on opportunity enhancement.

This finding may be explained in terms of the ‘‘would’’

aspect of fairness theory. It is possible that women did not

believe the opportunity enhancement initiative would be

enough for helping them to obtain a position/promotion

(recall that opportunity enhancement was not perceived as

effective as the preferential treatment initiative), thus they

did not find it attractive, whereas men may have believed

that this initiative would be enough for them to lose the

position/promotion to a woman, so they did not find it

attractive. These dynamics would be expected to narrow

the difference between the genders.

We did not find a significant effect of attitudes toward

diversity on pursuit intentions toward organizations using

identity conscious diversity statements even after con-

ducting additional analyses with the variable of attitudes

toward diversity being dichotomized. A potential expla-

nation may concern the scale we used to assess attitudes

toward diversity (Hostager and De Meuse 2002), which is

comprised of seventy words. Due to the way in which the

scale was designed, it was not possible to ensure that

participants read all seventy words thoroughly (e.g.,

mandatory choice) and it may be that due to the length of

the survey in total, participants did not carefully respond to

this scale, which would have been rather time-consuming.

Therefore, limited accuracy of the scale in this study’s

design may be responsible for the absence of an effect.

Future research using alternative measures would thus be

desirable.

Limitations and Avenues for Future Research

This experiment made an important contribution to the

extant knowledge by tapping into the link between diver-

sity initiatives and pursuit intentions—a main dimension of

employer attractiveness (Highhouse et al. 2003). Given

several limitations of our study, however, further research

is necessary. This study was designed to shed light on the

challenge of a diversity management paradox faced by

organizations. We used counterfactual thinking from fair-

ness theory (Folger and Cropanzano 1998, 2001) as a

guiding framework for our hypotheses, but we did not

measure perceived fairness of the initiatives themselves or

the organizations using them. Future research should

investigate fairness perceptions as a potential mediator to

show that the positive effects of being perceived as an

organization that values diversity are offset, at some point,

by the negative effects of being perceived as an organiza-

tion that violates societal expectations of fairness.

The three gender diversity statements used in this study

were developed based on the actual diversity activities of

the thirty major German companies. These companies’

Fig. 3 Illustration of the paradox of diversity

management strategies

44 L. Windscheid et al.

123

typical corporate gender diversity activities like ‘‘a network

for women,‘‘ ‘‘coaching’’ or ‘‘workshops’’ for women

might, however, be unaffordable for smaller companies

with fewer employees and resources. Future research

should investigate the effects of identity blind and identity

conscious corporate gender diversity efforts that are rele-

vant to a broader scope of organizations (i.e., including

small- and medium-sized companies). Another limitation

of this study is that participants’ awareness of the success

(or lack thereof) of quota programs in countries near

Germany may have impacted our results. Thus, future

research that examines individuals’ knowledge about

related quotas in other countries as well as their general

attitude toward quotas could be especially useful.

While the results described above are mainly consistent

with assumptions from the theoretical propositions of

fairness theory (Folger and Cropanzano 1998, 2001), there

may be additional processes contributing to our findings.

For example, with regard to the impact of gender, the lower

pursuit intentions of men relative to women for organiza-

tions using identity conscious initiatives may be influenced

by neo-sexism. Men are higher than women in neo-sexism,

which has been found to be negatively related to support

for affirmative action policies designed to benefit women

(Tougas et al. 1995). Such reactions are likely to decrease

intentions of men to pursue employment with organizations

using identity conscious initiatives. Another potential

explanation for men’s lower pursuit intentions is that (as a

group) they have a stronger preference for inequality

among social groups, i.e., they are more social dominance

oriented than women, and thus more likely to believe that

initiatives designed to reduce gender inequality in man-

agement provide women with unearned advantages (Pratto

et al. 1994). Such reactions are also likely to decrease

intentions of men to pursue employment with organizations

using identity conscious initiatives. The higher levels of

neo-sexism and social dominance orientation in men may

lead them to perceive lower person-organization fit

between themselves and organizations using identity con-

scious initiatives (O’Reilly et al. 1991), as well as increase

their perceptions of unfairness, thus making them less

likely to pursue employment with such organizations.

Taken together, although our work provides the first evi-

dence of the predicted main effects, future research that

looks more closely at the underlying mechanisms is

desirable. In addition to attitudes such as neo-sexism and

social dominance orientation (or lack thereof), being a

member of underrepresented groups on dimensions other

than gender (e.g., race or sexual orientation) or of multiple

groups could also impact the model and are worthy of

examination.

We also encourage researchers to explore the boundaries

conditions of our model. For example, does the paradox of

diversity initiatives apply to dimensions of diversity other

than gender? While we expect that the prescriptiveness of

diversity initiatives focused on race, age, etc., will influ-

ence their perceived effectiveness, the relationship between

prescriptiveness of initiatives and pursuit intentions may be

different, however, when the dimension of interest is

something other than gender. If participants object to

preferential treatment policies only because they believe

such policies violate the merit principle, then the diversity

dimension of interest should have no impact on pursuit

intentions. Alternatively, if participants’ pursuit intentions

are influenced by bias against (or in favor of) women, and

they do not exhibit such bias toward other groups, the

paradox may be mitigated (strengthened).

As described in the results section, the evaluation of our

quota manipulation check revealed that a sizable percent-

age of participants did not answer the single item correctly.

By excluding participants who failed the manipulation

check, we chose a conservative way to ensure the internal

validity of our analyses. Two potential explanations may

account for participants’ failure to recognize the quota

manipulation. First, some individuals might not have read

the instructions thoroughly enough and hence may not have

recognized the presence (or absence) of information on the

government-mandated gender quota. Second, although

there was no mention of a government-mandated quota in

the No-government quota condition, those participants read

about a gender quota that was voluntarily implemented by

the organization in the identity conscious preferential

treatment statement. Despite the fact that the manipulation

check explicitly specifies a ‘‘government-mandated gender

quota,’’ it is likely that this created confusion on the part of

some participants.

We acknowledge that the characteristics of our sample

in terms of gender, age, and education level are important

to address. First, we tested for the effect of gender in our

model and controlled for age (see Table 2). Second, with

regard to the age and education level of the sample, the

larger percentage of well-educated and older individuals

may have influenced the perceived effectiveness of the

initiatives because such individuals may have had a better

understanding of the way in which they actually work, thus

resulting in stronger effects for perceptions of perceived

effectiveness. Thus, the paradox could be stronger for such

individuals.

The present work reveals a major challenge for organi-

zations that will be increasingly under pressure to achieve

gender diversity at all organizational levels. It is crucial for

researchers to provide a better understanding of how to

overcome this challenge, thus we recommend follow-up

studies to build on the growing body of knowledge

regarding the impact of justifications and excuses (e.g.,

Bobocel and Farrell 1996; Kidder et al. 2004, Richard and

The Paradox of Diversity Initiatives: When Organizational Needs Differ from Employee… 45

123

Kirby 1998, Williamson et al. 2008). Furthermore, since

legislative regulations regarding gender equality are likely

to gain momentum around the globe, we call for research on

their effects on the link between organizational diversity

efforts and reactions of external stakeholders such as

potential employees. It would be especially interesting to

examine the effects of different types of penalties and

incentives stemming from (non-)compliance with govern-

ment-mandated gender quotas. For example, more sub-

stantial penalties and incentives for (non) compliance might

strengthen the effect of quotas on intentions to pursue

employment with organizations voluntarily using identity

conscious initiatives. On the other hand, such penalties and

incentives may have a negative impact for organizations

using identity blind initiatives because these organizations

may be perceived as more likely to violate government

regulations, thus receiving substantial fines and negative

publicity. This idea is consistent with research finding that

individuals like to feel good about the organization for

which they work (e.g., Greening and Turban 2000).

It would also be interesting to delve deeper into the

mechanisms underlying men’s and women’s reactions to

identity conscious initiatives. The impact of factors like

self-interest, belief in discrimination, and sexism has been

investigated in the past research (see Harrison et al. 2006

for a meta-analysis). The desire to maintain social harmony

(Jepsen and Rodwell 2009) is one factor that has not yet

been explored but may contribute to negative reactions to

identity conscious initiatives, especially for women. Since

women tend to be concerned with maintaining social har-

mony (Gilligan 1982), and identity conscious initiatives are

controversial, this may contribute to women’s negative

reactions to such initiatives.

Conclusion

The goal of achieving gender equality in organizations’

upper echelons makes sense from both a moral and a

business perspective, which when taken together, explain the

interest of many organizations in getting more women to the

top of the management hierarchy. Identity conscious initia-

tives have the potential to achieve this goal (e.g., Kalev et al.

2006). However, this study shows that identity conscious

initiatives also have the potential to decrease individuals’

intentions to pursue employment with an organization. Our

finding that identity conscious initiatives are perceived as

not only most effective but also as least appealing could lead

to the conclusion that organizations should be cautious with

their implementation of such initiatives. In accordance with

Shore et al. (2009), however, it may be wise to take a more

proactive and positive approach toward identity conscious

initiatives. Using an experimental design, we showed that

individuals who are told about a forthcoming government-

mandated gender quota exhibited less resistance to organi-

zations using gender diversity initiatives perceived and

empirically shown to be effective. We believe that such

legislation, in countries where it has been implemented,

should be understood only as a vehicle for overcoming the

systematic bias that has worked against the ascendance of

women into top management positions. It is our hope that

instead of being driven to achieve gender equality in the

upper echelons of management by external factors such as

government quotas, organizations ultimately will be driven

by internal factors such as improved corporate governance

and business performance. As more women attain top

management positions, diversity statements espousing an

organizational culture that values gender diversity will no

longer be merely window-dressing; this should lead to

positive stakeholder perceptions, and hence be most effec-

tive for overcoming the paradox of diversity management.

Acknowledgments We wish to thank David Kravitz, Meinald Thielsch, and Daniel Kluger for their helpful comments and advice on

this research project.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Research involving human participants All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the

ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research com-

mittee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amend-

ments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent Informed consent was obtained from all indi- vidual participants included in the study.

Conflictof Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

Avery, D. R. (2003). Reactions to diversity in recruitment advertis-

ing—are differences black and white? Journal of Applied

Psychology, 88, 672–679.

Avery, D. R., Hernandez, M., & Hebl, M. R. (2004). Who’s watching

the race? Racial sali-ence in recruitment advertising. Journal of

Applied Social Psychology, 34, 146–161.

Avery, D. R., & McKay, P. F. (2006). Target practice: An

organizational impression management approach to attracting

minority and female job applicants. Personnel Psychology, 59,

157–187.

Barber, A. E., & Roehling, M. V. (1993). Job postings and the

decision to interview: A verbal protocol analysis. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 78, 845–856.

Bear, S., Rahman, N., & Post, C. (2010). The impact of board

diversity and gender composition on corporate social responsi-

bility and firm reputation. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(2),

207–221.

Beechler, S., & Woodward, I. C. (2009). The global ‘‘war for talent’’.

Journal of International Management, 15, 273–285.

46 L. Windscheid et al.

123

Bernardi, R. A., Bosco, S. M., & Vassill, K. M. (2006). Does female

representation on boards of directors associate with fortune’s

‘‘100 Best Companies To Work For’’ list? Business and Society,

45, 235–248.

Bies, R. J., Shapiro, D. L., & Cummings, L. L. (1988). Causal

accounts and managing organizational conflict is it enough to say

it’s not my fault? Communication Research, 15, 381–399.

Blau, F. D., & Kahn, L. M. (2005). Changes in the labor supply

behavior of married women: 1980–2000. Journal of Labor

Economics, 25, 393–438.

Bobocel, D. R., & Farrell, A. C. (1996). Sex-based promotion

decisions and interactional fairness: Investigating the influence

of managerial accounts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81,

22–35.

Casper, W. J., Wayne, J. H., & Manegold, J. G. (2013). Who will we

recruit? Targeting deep-and surface-level diversity with human

resource policy advertising. Human Resource Management, 52,

311–332.

Catalyst. (2013a). The 2013 Catalyst Census: Fortune 500 Women

Board Directors. Retrieved from http://www.catalyst.org/knowl

edge/2013-catalyst-census-fortune-500-women-board-directors.

Catalyst. (2013b). Women in Management, Global Comparison.

Retrieved from http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-man

agement-global-comparison.

Catalyst. (2014). Women on Boards. Retrieved from http://www.

catalyst.org/knowledge/women-boards.

Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel, C. R. (2011).

Signaling theory: A review and assessment. Journal of Man-

agement, 37(1), 39–67.

De Meuse, K. P., & Hostager, T. J. (2001). Developing an instrument

for measuring attitudes toward and perceptions of workplace

diversity: An initial report. Human Resource Development

Quarterly, 12(1), 33–51.

Dustmann, C., & Schönberg, U. (2012). Expansions in maternity

leave coverage and children’s long-term outcomes. American

Economic Journal, 4, 190–224.

European Commission. (2012).The current situation of gender

equality in Germany country profile.Retrieved fromhttp://ec.

europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/files/epo_campaign/country-

profile_germany_en.pdf.

European Directorate-General for Internal Policies. (2013). Legal

instruments for gender quotas in management boards. Retrieved

from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/workshop/

join/2013/474410/IPOL-FEMM_AT%282013%29474410_EN.

pdf.

Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational justice and

human resource management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (2001). Fairness theory: Justice as

accountability. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.),

Advances in organizational justice (pp. 1–55). Stanford, CA:

Stanford Univ. Press.

Francoeur, C., Labelle, R., & Sinclair-Desgagne, B. (2008). Gender

diversity in corporate governance and top management. Journal

of Business Ethics, 81(1), 83–95.

Gardner, W. L., & Martinko, M. J. (1988). Impression management in

organizations. Journal of Management, 14, 321–338.

German Federal Statistical Office. (2014). Zahl der Aus-länder in

Deutsch-land zum Jahres-ende 2014 bei 8,2 Millionen. Retrieved

from https://www.destatis.de/DE/PresseService/Presse/Presse

mitteilungen/2015/03/PD15_097_12521.html.

German Ministry of Family Affairs. (2014a). Kabinett beschließt

Gesetzentwurf zur Quote. Retrieved from http://www.bmfsfj.de/

BMFSFJ/gleichstellung,did=212316.html.

German Ministry of Family Affairs. (2014b). Response of the

Government to the UNECE Questionnaire on the Implementa-

tion of the Beijing Declaration (1995) and the Outcome of the

23rd Special Session of the General Assembly (2000). Retrieved

from http://www.bmfsfj.de/RedaktionBMFSFJ/Abteilung4/Pdf-

Anlagen/ueberpruefung-der-umsetzung-vonpekingenglisch,prop

erty=pdf,bereich=bmfsfj,sprache=de,rwb=true.pdf.

Gilbert, J. A., & Stead, B. A. (1999). Stigmatization revisited: Does

diversity management make a difference in applicant success?

Group and Organization Management, 24, 239–256.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and

women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.

Goldberg, C. B., & Allen, D. G. (2008). Black and white and read all

over: Race differences in reactions to recruitment websites.

Human Resource Management, 47, 217–236.

Grant Thornton. (2014). International Business Report. Women in

business: From classroom to boardroom. Retrieved from http://

www.grantthornton.global/globalassets/insights/article-pdfs/

2014/ibr2014_wib_report_final.pdf.

Greening, D. W., & Turban, D. B. (2000). Corporate social

performance as a competitive advantage in attracting a quality

workforce. Business and Society, 39, 254–280.

Harrison, D. A., Kravitz, D. A., Mayer, D. M., Leslie, L. M., & Lev-

Arey, D. (2006). Under-standing attitudes toward affirmative

action programs in employment: summary and me- ta-analysis of

35 years of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91,

1013–1036.

Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., & Lucas, J. A. (1992). Presumed

incompetent? Stigmatization and affirmative action efforts.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 536–544.

Highhouse, S., Lievens, F., & Sinar, E. F. (2003). Measuring

attraction to organizations. Educational and Psychological

Measurement, 63, 986–1001.

Hostager, T. J., & De Meuse, K. P. (2002). Assessing the complexity

of diversity perceptions: Breadth, depth, and balance. Journal of

Business and Psychology, 17, 189–206.

Jansson, E. (2005). The stakeholder model: The influence of the

ownership and governance structures. Journal of Business

Ethics, 56(1), 1–13.

Jepsen, D. M., & Rodwell, J. J. (2009). Justice in the workplace: the

centrality of social versus judgmental predictors of performance

varies by gender. The International Journal of Human Resource

Management, 20, 2066–2083.

Joecks, J., Pull, K., & Vetter, K. (2013). Gender diversity in

the boardroom and firm performance: What exactly constitutes

a ‘‘critical mass?’’. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(1), 61–

72.

Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. (2003).

Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psycho-

logical Bulletin, 129, 339–375.

Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. (2006). Best practices or best

guesses? Assessing the efficacy of corporate affirmative action

and diversity policies. American Sociological Review, 71,

589–617.

Kanning, U. P., Rist, F., Schmukle, S., Ehring, T., & Thielsch, M. T.

(2014). Mythen der Alltagspsychologie II—Aus welchen Quel-

len speisen Menschen ihr Wissen über vermeintliche

Forschungsergebnisse und wie gut sind diese Quellen? Skep-

tiker: Zeitschrift für Wissenschaft und kritisches Denken, 28 (1),

4–12.

Kidder, D. L., Lankau, M. J., Chrobot-Mason, D., Mollica, K. A., &

Friedman, R. A. (2004). Backlash toward diversity initiatives:

Examining the impact of diversity program justification, per-

sonal and group outcomes. International Journal of Conflict

Management, 15, 77–102.

Kim, S. S., & Gelfand, M. J. (2003). The influence of ethnic identity

on perceptions of organizational recruitment. Journal of Voca-

tional Behavior, 63, 396–416.

The Paradox of Diversity Initiatives: When Organizational Needs Differ from Employee… 47

123

King, E. B., Madera, J. M., Hebl, M. R., Knight, J. L., & Mendoza, S.

A. (2006). What’s in a name? A multiracial investigation of the

role of occupational stereotypes in selection decisions. Journal

of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 1145–1159.

Konrad, A. M., & Linnehan, F. (1995). Race and sex differences in

line managers’reactions to equal employment opportunity and

affirmative action interventions. Group and Organization Man-

agement, 20, 409–439.

Kravitz, D. A. (1995). Attitudes toward affirmative action plans

directed at Blacks: Effects of plan and individual differences.

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 2192–2220.

Kravitz, D. A., Bludau, T., & Klineberg, S. L. (2008). The impact of

anticipated consequences, respondent group, and strength of

affirmative action plan on affirmative action attitudes. Group and

Organization Management, 33, 361–391.

Kravitz, D. A., & Platania, J. (1993). Attitudes and beliefs about

affirmative action: Effects of target and of respondent sex and

ethnicity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 928–938.

Krisor, S. M., Flasche, S., & Antonik, T. (2013). Aktuelle HR-trends:

Managing diversity, demographischer Wandel und Wissensman-

agement. In J. Rowold (Ed.), Human resource management (pp.

231–244). Heidelberg: Springer.

Leslie, L. M., Mayer, D. M., & Kravitz, D. A. (2014). The stigma of

affirmative action: A stereotyping based theory and meta-

analytic test of the consequences for performance. Academy of

Management Journal, 57, 964–989.

Martins, L. L., & Parsons, C. K. (2007). Effects of gender diversity

management on perceptions of organizational attractiveness: The

role of individual differences in attitudes and beliefs. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 92, 865–875.

McCauley, C., Thangavelu, K., & Rozin, P. (1988). Sex stereotyping

of occupations in relation to television representations and

census facts. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 9, 197–212.

McNab, S. M., & Johnston, L. (2002). The impact of equal

employment opportunity statements in job advertisements on

applicants’ perceptions of organisations. Australian Journal of

Psychology, 54, 105–109.

Moorman, R. H., & Podsakoff, P. M. (1992). A meta-analytic review

and empirical test of the potential confounding effects of social

desirability response sets in organizational behaviour research.

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65(2),

131–149.

Ng, E. S., & Burke, R. J. (2005). Person-organization fit and the war

for talent: Does diversity management make a difference? The

International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16,

1195–1210.

O’Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J. A., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and

organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to

assessing person-organization fit. Academy of Management

Journal, 34, 487–516.

Ozawa, K., Crosby, M., & Crosby, F. (1996). Individualism and

resistance to affirmative action: A comparison of Japanese and

American samples. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26,

1138–1152.

Pande, R., & Ford, D. (2011). Gender quotas and female leadership: A

review. Background paper for the World Development Report.

Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994).

Social dominance orientation: a personality variable predicting

social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 67, 741–763.

Pries, L. (2010). Arbeitsmarkt und Beschäftigung: International-

isierung von Arbeitsmobilität durch Arbeitsmigration. In F. Böhle,

G. G. Voß, & G. Wachtler (Eds.), Handbuch Arbeitssoziologie (pp.

729–747). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Pyburn, K. M., Ployhart, R. E., & Kravitz, D. A. (2008). The

diversity-validity dilemma: Overview and legal context. Per-

sonnel Psychology, 61, 143–151.

Rau, B. L., & Hyland, M. M. (2003). Corporate teamwork and diversity statements in college recruitment brochures: Effects on

attraction. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 2465–2492.

Richard, O. C., & Kirby, S. L. (1997). African-Americans’reactions to

diversity programs: Does procedural justice matter? Journal of

Black Psychology, 23, 388–397.

Richard, O. C., & Kirby, S. L. (1998). Women recruits’ perceptions of

workforce diversity program selection decisions: A procedural

justice examination. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28,

183–188.

Shaw, J. C., Wild, E., & Colquitt, J. A. (2003). To justify or excuse?:

A meta-analytic review of the effects of explanations. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 88, 444–458.

Shore, L. M., Chung-Herrera, B. G., Dean, M. A., Ehrhart, K. H.,

Jung, D. I., Randel, A. E., & Singh, G. (2009). Diversity in

organizations: Where are we now and where are we going?

Human Resource Management Review, 19, 117–133.

Singh, V., & Point, S. (2006). (Re)presentations of gender and

ethnicity in diversity statements on European company websites.

Journal of Business Ethics, 68(4), 363–379.

Summers, R. J. (1995). Attitudes toward different measures of

affirmative action. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25,

1090–1104.

Swim, J. K., Aikin, K. J., Hall, W. S., & Hunter, B. A. (1995). Sexism

and racism: Old-fashioned and modern prejudices. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 68(2), 199–214.

Torchia, M., Calabro, A., & Huse, M. (2011). Women directors on

corporate boards: From tokenism to critical mass. Journal of

Business Ethics, 102(2), 299–317.

Tougas, F., Brown, R., Beaton, A. M., & Joly, S. (1995). Neo Sexism:

Plus ça change, plus c’est pareil. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 21, 842–849.

Turban, D. B., & Greening, D. W. (1997). Corporate social

performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective

employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 658–672.

Van Dick, R., Van Knippenberg, D., Hägele, S., Guillaume, Y. R., &

Brodbeck, F. C. (2008). Group diversity and group identification:

The moderating role of diversity beliefs. Human Relations, 61,

1463–1492.

Vinnicombe, S., Doldor, E., & Turner, C. (2014). The Female FTSE

board Report 2014: Crossing the finish line. Cranfield, Bedford,

England: Cranfield School of Management. Retrieved from

http://www.raeng.org.uk/publications/other/the-female-ftse-

board-report-2014.

Walt, N., & Ingley, C. (2003). Board dynamics and the influence of

professional background, gender and ethnic diversity of direc-

tors. Corporate Governance, 11(3), 218–234.

Wang, M., & Kelan, E. (2013). The gender quota and female

leadership: Effects of the Norwegian gender quota on board

chairs and CEOs. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(3), 449–466.

Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion.

New York: Springer-Verlag.

Williams, M. L., & Bauer, T. N. (1994). The effect of a managing

diversity policy on organizational attractiveness. Group and

Organization Management, 19, 295–308.

Williamson, I. O., Slay, H. S., Shapiro, D. L., & Shivers-Blackwell, S.

L. (2008). The effect of explanations on prospective applicants

reactions to firm diversity practices. Human resource manage-

ment, 47, 311–330.

World Bank. (2013). Labor force participation. Retrieved from http://

data.worldbank.org/-indicator/SL.TLF.CACT.FE.ZS.

48 L. Windscheid et al.

123

Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.