You Can’t Always Get What You Need: Organizational Determinants of Diversity Programs
Open accessAbstract
While some U.S. corporations have adopted a host of diversity management programs, many have done little or nothing. We explore the forces promoting six diversity programs in a national sample of 816 firms over 23 years. Institutional theory suggests that external pressure for innovation reinforces internal advocacy. We argue that external pressure and internal advocacy serve as alternatives, such that when external pressure is already high, increases in internal advocacy will not alter the likelihood of program adoption. Moreover, institutional theory points to functional need as a driver of innovation. We argue that in the case of innovations designed to achieve new societal goals, functional need, as defined in this case by the absence of workforce diversity or the presence of regulatory oversight, is less important than corporate culture. Our findings help explain the spotty coverage of diversity programs. Firms that lack workforce diversity are no more likely than others to adopt programs, but firms with large contingents of women managers are more likely to do so. Pro-diversity industry and corporate cultures promote diversity programs. The findings carry implications for public policy.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The lower discrimination by larger employers may be because larger employers more often follow formalized hiring procedures including diversity management efforts.
“This may be because larger employers more often follow formalized hiring procedures including diversity management efforts (e.g., Dobbin et al. 2011).”
From Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments (2021) · cites this paper as Dobbin et al. 2011
Cites
Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. (2006) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/000312240607100404 · Cited by 2,052 · see citing works
Self-citationEly, R. J. (1994) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393234 · Cited by 631 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
From smoke and mirrors to walking the talk: Decoupling in the contemporary world
Bromley, P., & Powell, W. W. (2012) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520.2012.684462 · Cited by 1,656 · see citing works
A Multi-Level Process Model for Understanding Diversity Practice Effectiveness
Nishii, L. H., Khattab, J., Shemla, M., & Paluch, R. M. (2018) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/annals.2016.0044 · Cited by 233 · see citing works
Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments
Quillian, L., & Midtbøen, A. H. (2021) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-090420-035144 · Cited by 180 · see citing works
Are Diversity Programs Merely Ceremonial? Evidence-Free Institutionalization
Dobbin, F., & Kalev, A. (2017) · The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism · doi:10.4135/9781446280669.n32 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Dobbin, F., Kim, S., & Kalev, A.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- Tel Aviv University (IL)
- Corresponding author
- Dobbin, Frank
- ORCID
- Kalev, Alexandra
- Venue
- American Sociological Review
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2011-05-26
- Volume
- 76
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 386-411
- ISSN
- 0003-1224 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-8271
- OpenAlex
- W2098780468
- Cited by
- 310
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 18 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 16.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- nrs.harvard.edu
- Locations
- American Sociological Review (publishedVersion)
- Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation
- Russell Sage Foundation
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Diversity and Inequality
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › The Impact of Diversity and Innovation on Society
- Keywords
- program adoption, institutional theory, external pressure, organizational culture, workplace diversity, women in management, regulatory oversight, industry effects, corporate innovation, public policy
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review