Cited by 310Gender Diversity and InequalityManagement and Organizational StudiesThe Impact of Diversity and Innovation on Society

You Can’t Always Get What You Need: Organizational Determinants of Diversity Programs

Open access
Dobbin, Frank, Kim, Soohan, Kalev, Alexandra·2011·American Sociological Review

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.1177/0003122411409704

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dobbin, F., Kim, S., & Kalev, A.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Tel Aviv University (IL)
Corresponding author
Dobbin, Frank
Venue
American Sociological Review
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
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