It is not a coincidence that organizational efforts to support diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) are in the eye of the neofascist storm that is currently devastating US-based institutions and has already begun to reverberate globally. The hostility toward DEI results from the fact that such initiatives not only seek to broaden participation, but also unsettle entrenched hierarchies and cultural privileges. This makes them an obvious target for movements aiming to restore exclusionary orders under the guise of tradition, merit, or freedom of speech. Yet, despite their centrality to current political contestations, organizational approaches to DEI remain ill-prepared to address the growing intensity of diversity-hostile communication.
In the article “Parrying Diversity-Hostility and Ethical Dilemmas of Organizing Inclusion” co-authored by my sister Laura Dobusch, Milena Leybold and me, we explore ‘parrying’ diversity hostility as an increasingly necessary DEI practice (in addition to traditional orientations of promoting inclusion and preventing discrimination). The case we are looking at is that of the controversy around the so-called ‘Google Diversity Memo’ by James Damore, which eventually led to the author’s dismissal. Check out the abstract below:
Many countries of the Global North are currently facing a strong rise in anti-diversity movements fueled by conservative, right-wing parties and authoritarian, probably fascist regimes, which also affects the workplace. However, organizations are insufficiently equipped to deal with increasing diversity-hostility since most policy approaches to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) focus on promotion- and/or prevention-oriented measures. What is missing is a parrying orientation: methodically responding to—sanctioning—diversity-hostile communication, which can even imply the dismissal of employees. At the same time, aiming to promote inclusivity through exclusion decisions makes parrying ethically dilemmatic, and, therefore, contestable. By analyzing the case of the ‘Google Diversity Memo,’ we shed light on how an organization addressed the ethical dilemmas connected to an act of parrying—the decision to dismiss the memo’s author, who criticized Google’s DEI approach for going ‘too far.’ Drawing on a processual understanding of decision communication, we investigate public communicative acts challenging and justifying the dismissal and Google’s respective policy approach more generally. We show that organizational authoritative texts such as a code of conduct represent particularly effective decision premises to challenge or justify acts of parrying. We argue that addressing the ethical dilemmas connected to parrying requires establishing overarching rule-based procedures on how to respond to diversity-hostile communication which contributes to the overall ethical infrastructure of an organization.
The article has been accepted for publication by Journal of Business Ethics and is available open access. Finally, check out the obligatory #1paper1meme below:
ConJunction 