20
Managing Diversity, Managing Blackness?
An Intersectional Critique of Diversity Management Practices
COURTNEY L. MCCLUNEY and VERÓNICA CARIDAD RABELO
Over fifty years have passed since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited employment discrimination on the basis of race. Although this formal legislation helped to increase racial diversity in the workplace (Tomaskovic-Devey et al., 2006), particularly for Black people, less progress has been made with respect to inclusion, or the extent to which Black employees gain access to social capital and networks, influence decision making, and feel that they belong (Mor Barak & Cherin, 1998; Roberson, 2006). Furthermore, Black employees face continued struggles to be hired, retained, promoted, and included at work. In efforts to reduce discrimination lawsuits against employers (James & Wooten, 2006), retain Black employees (Allen, Bryant, & Vardaman, 2010), and increase access to diverse markets (Cox & Blake, 1991), many organizations have implemented initiatives to “manage” diversity. Cox (1994) defines managing diversity as “planning and implementing organizational systems and practices to manage people so that the potential advantages of diversity are maximized while its potential disadvantages are minimized” (p. 11). An increasingly prevalent diversity initiative is the appointment of diversity and inclusion (D&I) officers, who are typically tasked with hiring, retaining, and promoting a “diverse workforce.” As of 2012, nearly 20 percent of S&P 500 Index firms had appointed a “chief diversity officer” (Shi, Pathak, Song, & Hoskisson, 2018). D&I officers are increasingly likely to work in academia (Wilson, 2013), as well as government and nonprofit sectors (Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013). Despite the growth of positions centered on D&I over the past few decades, their impact is not readily apparent (Deloitte, 2017). Black employees continue to face sticky floors, glass ceilings, and labyrinthine career paths. Furthermore, their race and gender are often under scrutiny; for example, at the time of this publication, it is legally permissible for employers to rescind a Black woman’s job offer for having dreadlocks (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Catastrophe Management Solutions).
Why have D&I approaches failed to hire, retain, and advance Black employees at work? Furthermore, how have the past few decades of “diversity management” affected Black employees? In this chapter, we argue that the objective of managing diversity in organizations effectively seeks to manage Blackness. We find that D&I officers often adopt an individual approach—whereby they seek to help Black employees “fit” into dominant organizational cultures that reflect and reify the status quo—at the expense of a structural approach, which would seek to eradicate systemic inequality in organizations and communities. Our aim is not to criticize the efforts of individual D&I practitioners; most practitioners are women and/or people of color (Nixon, 2017; Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013) whose leadership skills and strategies are constrained by organizational hierarchies and resources (Leon, 2014). Rather, we call into question the organizational practices that led to the creation and design of D&I roles while also restricting their ability to eradicate inequality.
To move companies beyond “managing” diversity (and, by extension, managing Blackness), we propose that organizations adopt an intersectional (Crenshaw, 1989; Holvino, 2010) approach to justice. Intersectionality is a heuristic that can be used “both as an academic frame and as a practical intervention” (Cho, Crenshaw, & McCall, 2013, p. 807). It helps scholars and practitioners analyze how structures and institutions—including organizations’ histories, routines, processes, and networks—affect Black employees as a whole and at the intersections of other social identities (e.g., Elliott & Smith, 2004). Contextualizing diversity management within an intersectionality framework enables us to center the underlying cause of the problems that D&I roles are intended to solve (e.g., White masculine organizational cultures; Rabelo & Cortina, 2016), rather than focusing on “fixing” people harmed by these problems (i.e., Black people). Thus, an intersectional (vs. individual) perspective is necessary to identify recommendations for cultivating inclusion that are rooted in social justice (e.g., Opie & Roberts, 2017).
The purpose of our chapter is twofold. First, we use intersectionality to analyze the shortcomings of diversity management, focusing on organizational structures (e.g., routines, networks, processes) that affect the work of D&I officers and, by extension, Black employees. Second, we identify alternative perspectives and practices that D&I officers might adopt to shift their work from an individual to a structural focus. We draw these practices from three different leadership contexts: recent corporate initiatives (e.g., Starbucks’ anti-bias training), a phenomenological study of Black clergywomen (McCluney, 2017), and the work of D&I officers in higher education. Collectively, we draw attention to the invisible, embedded aspects of organizations that rely on individualistic approaches to “managing” diversity—at the expense of dismantling underlying power dynamics that privilege particular leaders and groups over others. Doing so is important for ensuring that D&I officers shift away from viewing diversity as a problem to be managed and instead focus on hegemonic Whiteness as the proximal reason for low inclusion among Black employees.
Based on our synthesis of D&I literature and interpretive analysis of the case studies, we identify three mechanisms that contribute to the failure of common diversity management practices and its unintended consequences for Black employees’ work experiences: (1) promoting the business case for diversity, (2) holding narrow imaginations of Blackness, and (3) applying a “blanket” perspective of diversity. We discuss how these common diversity practices fail and draw on our examples to illustrate the effectiveness of alternative, intersectional, justice-based approaches to managing diversity.
Mechanism #1: The Business Case for Diversity
Corporate diversity initiatives, including the appointment of D&I officers, have not resulted in substantial improvements with respect to the selection, retention, and promotion of Black employees. One reason for this mismatch between effort and outcomes could be a widespread focus on the “business case” for diversity, which refers to value placed on diversity due to the strategic advantages associated with gaining greater access to, and legitimacy among, diverse markets (Cox & Blake, 1991; Ely & Thomas, 2001). The business case is at odds with social justice praxis (Edgley, Sharma, & Anderson-Gough, 2016), as it values diversity for its profitability. We argue that the business case commodifies Blackness and objectifies Black people, rendering them valuable only to the extent that they can improve organizational performance. When diversity initiatives are rooted in the business case for diversity, then their success is measured by increased revenue, market share, and customer base (Herring, 2009), rather than by their impact on Black employees (e.g., satisfaction, well-being). The commodification and objectification produced by the business case for diversity can make it difficult for Black employees who already struggle with feeling authentic (Roberts, Cha, Hewlin, & Settles, 2009) and that they belong at work (Ely & Thomas, 2001).
Organizational rhetoric and policies that rely on the “business case” for diversity rarely achieve significant progress with respect to equity and justice, within organizations and their surrounding communities alike. For example, in the wake of civil protests following the murder of Michael Brown by police in Ferguson, Missouri, then-CEO of Starbucks Howard Schultz launched the #RaceTogether initiative (Logan, 2016; McCluney, Roberts, & Wooten, 2017). This strategic campaign included several components, such as dialogues with local police chiefs, opportunities for jobless young people of color, and printing “#RaceTogether” on over one hundred million Starbucks cups. Skeptics wondered whether #RaceTogether would provide material benefits for Starbucks employees, customers, and community members. Critics raised concerns about the increased emotional labor that #RaceTogether would place on baristas (most of whom are people of color), as well as general doubt given the overwhelmingly White and male composition of company executives (Logan, 2019; McCluney, Roberts, & Wooten, 2017). #RaceTogether did achieve success in one realm: fulfilling the promise of the business case, bringing Starbucks increased revenue during the campaign. This is consistent with Schultz’s focus on “brand sparks,” or marketing rooted in “cultural or humanitarian issues” (Schultz, 2011). Similar rhetoric promoting the business case for diversity permeates the Starbucks website. For example, the Supplier Diversity Program frames diversity as “a smart business decision and business imperative in today’s business climate … [that can drive] value and economic development in the communities we serve” (Starbucks, n.d.b), with no attention given to the experience of people who live and work in those communities.
Three years and one month after Starbucks initiated #RaceTogether, a Philadelphia branch manager had two Black men arrested for trespassing on April 12, 2018. Starbucks declared the arrests “reprehensible” and responded by closing approximately eight thousand stores in the United States for a daylong anti-bias training for employees (Starbucks, 2018a). Although nearly half of Starbucks baristas in the United States are people of color (Starbucks, n.d.a) and the company generates profits and market share through a global supply chain, its focus on justice was lacking, which both reflected and heightened perceptions of prejudice within the company. Previous efforts by Starbucks to address racial bias were discredited due to the lack of racial representation among senior leaders and reliance on prison labor (NPR, 2018). In light of the arrests, Starbucks leaders demonstrated a desire to address past and present discrimination by forming a new unit titled the Third Place1 (Starbucks, 2018b). What remains unknown is the extent to which initiatives such as daylong trainings and programming from the Third Place will initiate, and sustain, cultural and structural change.
Mechanism #2: Narrow Imaginations of Blackness
To the extent that the business case commodifies Blackness and values Black people for their adherence to the status quo, it follows that companies seek to hire and retain the “right” kind of Black employees. As members of an oppressed, marginalized social identity group, Black people are perceived to lack individuality and are instead rendered as “representatives of a social group distinguished by a common socio-demographic trait, the repository of a ‘true,’ essential identity” (Zanoni, Janssens, Benschop, & Nkomo, 2010, p. 13). To appease the hegemonic ideals of organizations, D&I officers are tasked with monitoring and constraining the behaviors and appearance of Black employees. Managers, human resource personnel, and D&I officers often are complicit in “identity regulation” (Zanoni & Janssens, 2007, p. 1375), whereby they impose “desirable,” and often White, norms and behavioral expectations. By extension, Blackness is regarded as inherently unprofessional and, therefore, subject to “management” in the workplace. White, Eurocentric organizational cultures regulate Blackness and, in the process, coerce Black employees into monitoring or modifying their identity and appearance (Roberts & Roberts, 2007; Rosette & Dumas, 2007). For example, when Black women chemically straighten their hair (vs. wearing it naturally in an afro or dreadlocks), White people perceive them as more professional and as “fitting in” more with US corporate culture (Johnson, Godsil, MacFarlane, Tropp, & Goff, 2017; Opie & Phillips, 2015). Black employees are keenly aware of the ways they must monitor and possibly modify their bodies to belong and succeed at work. For instance, interviews with prospective job applicants showed that one-third of Black job seekers felt pressured to conceal their race to get a “foot in the door,” and over three-quarters felt they needed to assimilate and avoid “sticking out” (Kang, DeCelles, Tilcsik, & Jun, 2016). Maintaining organizational cultures that are rooted in Whiteness and maleness (Liu & Baker, 2014) will further marginalize Black employees as organizational outsiders.
Churches are one organizational context where narrow understandings of Blackness have shaped how D&I practices affect Black employees. Traditionally, churches in Black communities have served as sites of political action and social change (Barnes, 2012), and they thus serve as a valuable field site for informing the social justice praxis needed in organizations. We use an example of one clergywoman within a qualitative study of Black clergywomen to illustrate how Black leaders are often tasked to manage Blackness within organizations, even if it is beyond their purview (McCluney, 2017). Associate Minister Jazmine (a pseudonym) is the first Black clergywoman Episcopal priest of a church with a majority-White congregation and one of the largest endowments of all churches in her state (annual operating budget of approximately $2.5 million). She received her degree from a prestigious divinity school within her denomination that is primarily attended by White men. In her current role as the “downtown missioner” for her church, Jazmine experiences pressure to monitor and modify Blackness to maintain her church’s organizational identity. Jazmine is responsible for attracting more “urban” members to the congregation, thereby continuing the church’s legacy of “radicals” devoted to the urban poor:2 “They hired me because … my boss wants more young people who live in the city to come to this church.” Yet she felt pressure to pursue a specific “type” of city dweller based on the reaction from the other (White) church leaders. She shares, “I could say, ‘What about this person over there,’ and [the church leaders] are like [gasps], ‘Oh no, that’s a poor Black person,’ even though they would never admit that because they’re very good liberals. But when they say ‘young … urban,’ [they] meant people like me … educated.” Jazmine is subtly directed to diversify the church in ways that accommodate Whiteness by narrowly defining what is acceptable for Black people (in this instance, educational attainment and status) while also using coded language (“urban”) to describe Black people. Although not formally a D&I practitioner, Jazmine is expected to assume responsibilities that D&I practitioners often perform. Yet, her ability to authentically engage her community and enact meaningful change is constrained by the more powerful leaders’ narrow understanding of Blackness and Black people.
Mechanism #3: Blanket Application of Diversity
An additional mechanism inhibiting D&I is the frequent blanket application of diversity. Many have illustrated how diversity is an ambiguous and “fuzzy term” (Edgley et al., 2016, p. 4) that can encompass all aspects of identities and experiences (e.g., personality traits, eye color) rather than just those that are rooted in historical patterns of exclusion, marginality, and disadvantage. One risk of an overly broad understanding of diversity is the embedding of color-blind ideologies within D&I initiatives, such as diversity statements (Apfelbaum, Stephens, & Reagans, 2016). When organizations do not clearly define diversity, it becomes difficult to acknowledge and address institutional norms and practices that disproportionately exclude, marginalize, or discriminate against Black employees. Moreover, a broad and vague understanding of diversity may not benefit Black students and employees experiencing compounded marginality, including those who are LGBTQ+, undocumented, living with disabilities, or otherwise “nontraditional” (e.g., veterans, caregivers).
An additional consequence of relying on a broad view of diversity is that it contributes to the notion that social groups are homogenous—for example, that all Black people share the same values, beliefs, and career goals. Such a broad, yet simplified, notion of race/ethnicity can contribute to cultural taxation and occupational segregation of Black employees. Organizational discourse often relies on stereotypical and essentialized notions of race (Litvin, 1997; Zanoni & Janssens, 2007). Presuming that Black employees have similar aspirations, competencies, and specialized knowledge may inhibit their career opportunities and development.
Evidence of broad, fuzzy, and blanket understandings of diversity permeate academia. Nixon (2017) characterizes US higher education as a site “of White supremacy, patriarchy, classism, heteronormativity, and other forms of exclusion” (p. 314). Some of the oldest and most prestigious US universities were built by enslaved Black people who were denied admission for several generations to come. Only in the past thirty years have leaders of many higher education institutions begun to think (and act) more intentionally about issues of race, access, and equity (Smith, 2015). Often, students demand institutional change for themselves, with the support of “tempered radical” (Meyerson & Scully, 1995) allies. In response, many higher education institutions have established diversity “initiatives” and appointed diversity “officers” (Nixon, 2017). One study found that 80 percent of postsecondary institutions included “diversity statements” or referenced “diversity” in mission statements and publicity campaigns; however, such rhetoric and initiatives were not correlated with fair and inclusive learning and working environments for students, staff, and faculty (Rowley, Hurtado, & Panjuan, 2002). In this way, diversity often functions “as myth and ceremony rather than having a substantive impact on organizational work or outcomes” (Rowley et al., 2002, p. 16).
We contend that loose understandings of diversity are one reason for these discrepancies between institutional rhetoric and practices. When diversity is conceptualized as every possible axis of difference among humans, then less attention is given to the ways power affects identity, access, and equity. Indeed, the broadening of definitions of diversity enables dominant groups to monopolize power, contributing to underrepresented groups’ early departure from postsecondary education institutions (Minefee, Rabelo, Stewart, & Young, 2018). As a result, diversity becomes a project that ought to benefit all institutional members, as opposed to those who have been most severely harmed by historical and institutional injustice. This helps explain why the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action have been White women (Hartmann, 1996).
Essentialist understandings of diversity can also explain why most of the highest-ranking Black employees in universities and corporate settings are D&I officers. On the one hand, these positions may offer pathways to leadership previously unavailable to Black employees. On the other hand, funneling Black employees into D&I may signal that their knowledge is valuable only within specific aspects of the organization. Furthermore, D&I work may exacerbate the “cultural taxation” that many marginalized personnel endure at work, particularly if their efforts are not changing the status quo. Finally, appointing Black employees to dedicated D&I roles may alleviate responsibility and accountability for deeper institutional change, “as if being ‘just there’ is enough” (Ahmed, 2012, p. 23).
Call to Action: From Managing Blackness to Managing Injustice
Black employees, like most people, desire workplace belongingness and opportunities for challenging work, as well as the ability to remain (and advance) within their organizations (Travis, Thorpe-Moscon, & McCluney, 2016). Yet they face disproportionate challenges to securing employment and, once hired, job security, inclusion, and opportunities for advancement. In an effort to address some of these issues, many organizations have created dedicated D&I roles. Given the range of tasks that D&I officers may perform, it is challenging to assess the impact of diversity management. That said, centering Black employees in analyses of D&I discourse and practices illustrates how diversity management often reinforces the status quo by adopting an individual perspective, regulating cultural expression, and enforcing assimilation. We present several recommended strategies for D&I officers to evolve from managing Blackness to managing injustice.
First, an alternative approach to the business case for diversity would ensure that D&I practitioners’ work climates are oriented around fairness, equity, and justice, rather than profit maximization at the expense of Black employees’ dignity and well-being. D&I leaders drew from Starbucks’ mission to take actions focused on encouraging the treatment of everyone with dignity and respect (Starbucks, 2018b). Additionally, Starbucks has implemented hiring programs targeting refugees and youths of color in efforts to mitigate inequality. Its actions emulate a restorative justice approach. Such an approach shifts the attention of D&I officers away from monitoring and managing Blackness and toward eradicating racism (and its denial) in organizations (Opie & Roberts, 2017). Adopting a social justice perspective would include recognizing organizational and societal harm against Black people, including their continuous exposure to racial trauma and violence in society through interactions with police (McCluney, Bryant, King, & Ali, 2017). D&I officers may engage in efforts to redress these harms faced by Black employees by contributing their resources and knowledge to company and community initiatives (e.g., Ruggs et al., 2016).
Second, D&I practitioners must ensure that their work does not result in the control of Blackness (e.g., monitoring and modifying Black people’s identities and expressions) but instead focuses on undoing practices that undermine Black employees’ satisfaction, inclusion, and performance. Opie and Freeman (2017) posit that assessing employee fit does little to ensure that employers find the right person for their job and instead judges how well individuals fit the current White male–centric organization. Thus, practitioners ought to ensure that their assumptions about appropriate and professional workplace norms and behaviors are not culturally biased (Opie & Freeman, 2017). Further, they must ensure that they are valuing Black employees for their unique ideas, perspectives, and contributions, and not for their representativeness of (or interchangeability with) all Black people, access to certain markets, or adherence to White norms. Taken together, attempts to define “acceptable” behavior and bodies in organizations often narrow and monitor Blackness and pressure Black employees to change, rather than questioning practices that value Black employees to the extent that they “conform to the majority culture” (Opie & Freeman, 2017, p. 4). Further, when bias is acknowledged in the workplace, it is often “disembedded from the greater context of historically determined, structurally unequal access to and distribution of resources between socio-demographic groups” (Zanoni et al., 2010, p. 14).
Third, D&I officers must engage in tangible actions to remove the broad-brush application of diversity to avoid succumbing to managing Blackness. This includes facilitating space for employees to hold difficult conversations. In particular, sharing experiences of inclusion as well as ostracism or undermining can help employees understand how cultural and individual differences shape experiences at work. Research by Catalyst (2016) emphasizes the importance for organizational leaders to engage in dialogue on issues of race and difference. Creating space for honest conversations around areas of difference can begin to address tensions among employees. Also, by adopting an intersectional approach to D&I, practitioners can demonstrate how companies’ historical context shapes different groups’ access to resources and opportunities. As an example, Georgetown University sought to address historical oppression by offering preferential admission to descendants of the enslaved Black Americans who were sold to subsidize the university’s expenses in the nineteenth century (NPR, 2017). Thus, a historical, contextualized, and justice-oriented perspective is necessary if organizations seek to promote inclusion of Black employees. We agree with Opie and Roberts’s (2017) assertion “that true diversity and inclusion may be elusive until scholars and practitioners explore the racist history that undergirds contemporary workplace discrimination and subsequently addresses it in ways that encourage actual change” (p. 708). It’s challenging, but organizations need to contend with their racist pasts head on and figure out how to move forward.
Conclusion
In this chapter, we have argued that diversity management, while well intentioned, often accomplishes the exact opposite of its goal. We have theorized three mechanisms to explain how, in seeking to manage diversity, practitioners instead manage Blackness by adopting a (1) business case for diversity, (2) narrow imagination of Black people, and (3) blanket (decontextualized) application of “diversity.” As an alternative to this traditional approach to diversity management, we instead propose an intersectional justice perspective, which focuses on valuing Black employees, accounting for history and social structures, addressing the root cause of inequality, and empowering—rather than commodifying or exploiting—Black communities. We thus problematize current D&I practice by investigating how managing and interrogating Whiteness will enable organizations to increase representation and inclusion of Black people and their experiences in the workplace. Put simply, we advise that practitioners shift away from managing diversity and instead toward managing injustice.
NOTES
1. The Third Place (between work and home) policy, implemented through training developed for partners, reflects Starbucks’ new commitment to creating “a warm and welcoming environment where customers can gather and connect … and use Starbucks spaces … regardless of whether they make a purchase” (Starbucks, 2018b).
2. This description of the church is used in secondary documents (e.g., website, brochure) about the church.
REFERENCES
Ahmed, S. (2012). On being included. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Allen, D. G., Bryant, P. C., & Vardaman, J. M. (2010). Retaining talent: Replacing misconceptions with evidence-based strategies. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(2), 48–64.
Apfelbaum, E. P., Stephens, N. M., & Reagans, R. E. (2016). Beyond one-size-fits-all: Tailoring diversity approaches to the representation of social groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(4), 547–566.
Barnes, S. L. (2012). Live long and prosper: How Black megachurches address HIV/AIDS and poverty in the age of prosperity theology. New York, NY: Fordham University Press.
Catalyst. (2016). Engaging in conversations about gender, race, and ethnicity in the workplace. Practitioner’s Tool, Catalyst, New York, NY.
Cho, S., Crenshaw, K., & McCall, L. (2013). Toward a field of intersectionality studies: Theory, applications, and praxis. Signs, 38(4), 785–810.
Cox, T. (1994). Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory, research and practice. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Cox, T., & Blake, S. (1991). Managing cultural diversity: Implications for organizational competitiveness. Academy of Management Executive, 5(3), 45–56.
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989, 139–167.
Deloitte. (2017). Missing pieces report: The 2016 board diversity census of women and minorities on Fortune 500 boards. Retrieved from http://
Edgley, C., Sharma, N., & Anderson-Gough, F. (2016). Diversity and professionalism in the Big Four firms: Expectation, celebration and weapon in the battle for talent. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 35, 13–34.
Elliott, J. R., & Smith, R. A. (2004). Race, gender, and workplace power. American Sociological Review, 69(3), 365–386.
Ely, R. J., & Thomas, D. A. (2001). Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity perspectives on work group processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2), 229–273.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Catastrophe Management Solutions, No. 1:13-cv-00476-CB-M (11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals 2016).
Hartmann, H. (1996). Who has benefited from affirmative action in employment? In G. E. Curry (Ed.), The affirmative action debate (pp. 77–96). Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.
Herring, C. (2009). Does diversity pay? Race, gender, and the business case for diversity. American Sociological Review, 74(2), 208–224.
Holvino, E. (2010). Intersections: The simultaneity of race, gender and class in organization studies. Gender, Work & Organization, 17(3), 248–277.
James, E. H., & Wooten, L. P. (2006). Diversity crises: How firms manage discrimination lawsuits. Academy of Management Journal, 49(6), 1103–1118.
Johnson, A. M., Godsil, R. D., MacFarlane, J., Tropp, L. R., & Goff, P. A. (2017). The “good hair” study: Explicit and implicit attitudes towards Black women’s hair (Report). Retrieved from https://
Kang, S. K., DeCelles, K. A., Tilcsik, A., & Jun, S. (2016). Whitened résumés: Race and self-presentation in the labor market. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61(3), 469–502.
Leon, R. A. (2014). The chief diversity officer: An examination of CDO models and strategies. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 7(2), 77–91.
Litvin, D. R. (1997). The discourse of diversity: From biology to management. Organization, 4(2), 187–209.
Liu, H., & Baker, C. (2014). White knights: Leadership as the heroicisation of whiteness. Leadership, 12(4), 420–448.
Logan, N. (2016). The Starbucks Race Together Initiative: Analyzing a public relations campaign with critical race theory. Public Relations Inquiry, 5(1), 93–113.
Logan, N. (2019). Corporate personhood and the corporate responsibility to race. Journal of Business Ethics, 154(4), 977–988.
McCluney, C. L. (2017). Blooming where I’m planted: A phenomenological investigation of Black clergywomen’s marginality and leadership (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
McCluney, C. L., Bryant, C. M., King, D. D., & Ali, A. A. (2017). Calling in Black: A dynamic model of racially traumatic events, resourcing, and safety. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, 36(8), 767–786.
McCluney, C. L., Roberts, L. M., & Wooten, L. P. (2017). It takes courage: Lessons learned from Starbucks’ #RaceTogether campaign case study. In R. Koonce, P. Robinson, & B. Vogel (Eds.), Developing leaders for positive organizing (pp. 95–108). Bingley, UK: Emerald.
Meyerson, D. E., & Scully, M. A. (1995). Crossroads tempered radicalism and the politics of ambivalence and change. Organization Science, 6(5), 585–600.
Minefee, I., Rabelo, V. C., Stewart, O. J. C., & Young, N. C. J. (2018). Repairing leaks in the pipeline: A social closure perspective on underrepresented racial/ethnic minority recruitment and retention in business schools. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 17(1), 79–95.
Mor Barak, M. E., & Cherin, D. A. (1998). A tool to expand organizational understanding of workforce diversity. Administration in Social Work, 22(1), 47–64.
Nixon, M. L. (2017). Experiences of women of color university chief diversity officers. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 10(4), 301–317.
NPR. (2017, April 28). Georgetown University to offer slave descendants preferential admissions. Retrieved from https://
NPR. (2018, August 21). U.S. prison inmates to strike over poor living conditions. Retrieved from https://
Opie, T. R., & Freeman, R. E. (2017, July). Our biases undermine our colleagues’ attempts to be authentic. Harvard Business Review, pp. 2–5. Retrieved from https://
Opie, T. R., & Phillips, K. W. (2015). Hair penalties: The negative influence of Afrocentric hair on ratings of Black women’s dominance and professionalism. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–14.
Opie, T. R., & Roberts, L. M. (2017). Do Black lives really matter in the workplace? Restorative justice as a means to reclaim humanity. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, 36(8), 707–719.
Rabelo, V. C., & Cortina, L. M. (2016). Intersectionality: Infusing I-O psychology with feminist thought. In T.-A. Roberts, N. Curtin, L. M. Cortina, & L. E. Duncan (Eds.), Feminist perspectives on building a better psychological science of gender (pp. 179–197). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Roberson, Q. M. (2006). Disentangling the meanings of diversity and inclusion in organizations. Group & Organization Management, 31(2), 212–236.
Roberts, L. M., Cha, S. E., Hewlin, P. F., & Settles, I. H. (2009). Bringing the inside out: Enhancing authenticity and positive identity in organizations. In L. M. Roberts & J. Dutton (Eds.), Exploring positive identities and organizations: Building a theoretical and research foundation (pp. 149–169). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Roberts, L. M., & Roberts, D. D. (2007). Testing the limits of antidiscrimination law: The business, legal, and ethical ramifications of cultural profiling at work. Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy, 14, 369–405.
Rosette, A. S., & Dumas, T. L. (2007). The hair dilemma: Conform to mainstream expectations or emphasize racial identity. Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy, 14(1), 407–421.
Rowley, L. L., Hurtado, S., & Panjuan, L. (2002). Organizational rhetoric or reality? The disparities between avowed commitment to diversity and formal programs and initiatives in higher education institutions. Paper presented at the 83rd Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Retrieved from https://
Ruggs, E. N., Hebl, M. R., Rabelo, V. C., Weaver, K. B., Kovacs, J., & Kemp, A. S. (2016). Baltimore is burning: Can I-O psychologists help extinguish the flames? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 9(3), 525–547.
Schultz, H. (2011). Onward: How Starbucks fought for its life without losing its soul. New York, NY: Rodale.
Shi, W., Pathak, S., Song, L. J., & Hoskisson, R. E. (2018). The adoption of chief diversity officers among S&P 500 firms: Institutional, resource dependence, and upper echelons accounts. Human Resource Management, 57(1), 83–96.
Smith, D. G. (2015). Diversity’s promise for higher education: Making it work (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Starbucks. (n.d.a). Inclusion at Starbucks. Retrieved from https://
Starbucks. (n.d.b). Supplier Diversity Program. Retrieved from https://
Starbucks. (2018a, April 17). Starbucks to close all stores nationwide for racial-bias education on May 29. Retrieved from https://
Starbucks. (2018b, May 29). The Third Place: Our commitment, renewed. Retrieved from https://
Tomaskovic-Devey, D., Stainback, K., Taylor, T., Zimmer, C., Robinson, C., & Mctague, T. (2006). Documenting desegregation: Segregation in American workplaces by race, ethnicity, and sex, 1966–2003. American Sociological Review, 71(4), 565–588.
Travis, D. J., Thorpe-Moscon, J., & McCluney, C. L. (2016). Emotional tax: How Black women and men pay more at work and how leaders can take action (Report). Retrieved from http://
Williams, D. A., & Wade-Golden, K. C. (2013). The chief diversity officer: Strategy, structure, and change management. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Wilson, J. L. (2013). Emerging trend: The chief diversity officer phenomenon within higher education. Journal of Negro Education, 82(4), 433–445.
Zanoni, P., & Janssens, M. (2007). Minority employees engaging with (diversity) management: An analysis of control, agency, and micro-emancipation. Journal of Management Studies, 44(8), 1371–1397.
Zanoni, P., Janssens, M., Benschop, Y., & Nkomo, S. (2010). Unpacking diversity, grasping inequality: Rethinking difference through critical perspectives. Organization, 17(1), 9–29.