Erecting Walls Versus Tearing Them Down: Inclusion and the (False) Paradox of Diversity in Times of Economic Upheaval

• Date: 01 December 2019
• Published date: 01 December 2019
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12302

Erecting Walls Versus Tearing Them Down:

Inclusion and the (False) Paradox of Diversity

in Times of Economic Upheaval

MICHÀLLE E. MOR BARAK

University of Southern California, USC Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work and USC Marshall School of Business,

Los Angeles, CA, USA

Media images of walls being erected or dismantled symbolize the global dilemma at the heart of the

approach toward diversity during economically challenging times. Will communities, organizations, and

nations become more isolated, exclusionary, and protective of scarce resources? Or will they embrace diversity

for humanistic reasons and its potential to drive economic growth? This paper first critically examines the

paradox of diversity and deems it false because it omits the important role of inclusion climate. It then

presents a systematic review of the research. Findings indicate that people are more likely to blame ‘the

other’for their economic hardships, and as a result are more likely to express racism, prejudice, and

xenophobia, giving rise to intergroup conflicts and strife. Yet research also links diversity with innovation

and its potential to uplift and energize economies, a quality that is particularly important during times of

economic hardship. Finally, the paper presents a theory-based conceptual model, highlighting the central role

of inclusion, and proposes directions for future research.

Keywords: diversity;inclusion; economic upheaval; multiculturalism; organizational climate; austerity; diversity paradox

Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall. (Ronald

Reaganm, U.S. president in a speech delivered at the

Berlin Wall, June 12, 1987)

I will build a great, great wall on our southern

border. (Donald J. Trump, announcing his candidacy

for president of the United States, New York,

June 16, 2015)

Introduction

Contrasting the above statements can provide insights,

both metaphorically and practically, to diversity and

inclusion during different global economic contexts. The

first, by US President Ronald Reagan during his famous

1987 speech in front of the Berlin wall, presented a

demand to the leader of the Soviet Union, General

Secretary of the Communist Party Mikhail Gorbachev,

to tear down the wall. It was a demand to allow the

reunification of not only the city but of the Eastern and

Western global regions. The second statement, by US

President-Elect Donald J. Trump in his June 2015

announcement of his candidacy, presented a promise that

was one of the cornerstones of his presidential bid. In

addition to derogative statements related to groups such

as Muslims, women, peoplewith disability, and veterans,

Trump promisedto build a wall between the UnitedStates

and Mexico to block the path of immigrants and to keep

jobs for the citizenry of the United States.

The media images following Reagan’s1987speech

depicted thedismantling of the Berlin wall,brick by brick,

in the hands ofthe people on both sides. In contrast,media

images from2016 featured fences, walls, and watchtowers

being erected to block the paths of refugees and

immigrants. Similar perspectives toward building or

destroying walls (physical or virtual) have been common

in othernations, such as the United Kingdom’sref erendum

on separation from the European Union (Brexit) and

political campaigns in other countries (e.g., Italy,

Austria). At the heart of these disputes were arguments

related to human rights, equity, and the humanistic drive

to alleviate the suffering of refugees and asylum seekers

contrasted with advocating for preservingscarce jobs and

resources for thecitizenry of each specific country.

Pictures of walls being erected or dismantled

symbolize the central global dilemma at the heart of

Correspondence: Michàlle E. Mor Barak, USC Suzanne Dworak-Peck

School of SocialWork and USC Marshall Schoolof Business, University

of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0411, USA. E-mail

morbarak@usc.edu

DOI: 10.1111/emre.12302

©2018 European Academy of Management

European Management Review, Vol. 16, 937–, (20 19)

955

the approach toward diversity during economically

challenging times: will communities, nations, and

societies become more isolated, exclusionary, and

protective of scarce resources? Alternatively, will they

embrace diversity for humanistic reasons and for its

potential to drive economic growth?

In this paper,I set out to examine diversity duringtimes

of global economicupheaval with a particular focuson the

paradox of diversity, which I contend is false, and the

critical role of inclusion. The paper: (1) examines the

paradox of diversity and presents theories of diversity

and inclusion that inform our thinking regarding causal

relationships; (2) presents a systematic review of the

research evidence related to the consequences for

diversity during times of economic upheaval; and (3)

proposes a conceptual model for future research and

scholarly work. A unique aspect of this paper’sanalysis

is that it covers the organizational and the national levels

of analysis because both are relevant for a deeper

understandingof the challenges of diversity inthe context

of difficult economic times.

The (false) paradox of diversity in the context of

economic upheaval

The impact of the 2008 global economic crisis is still

reverberating around the world, with many nations

experiencing economic upheaval and some being

compelled to enforce austerity conditions (Addabbo

et al., 2015; Arechavala et al., 2015). Research has

provided evidence for the paradox related to inclusion of

people from diverse background during periods of

economic difficulties. On one hand,research has indicated

that during periodsof economic hardship, individuals and

nations are less hospitable and more exclusionary toward

people who are different than the mainstream on various

levels of diversity, such as gender, race and ethnicity,

physical and mental abilities, LGBTQ, immigrant status,

refugee status, and even nationality (e.g., Lesińska,

2014; Askanius and Mylonas, 2015; Tamamović,2015;

Van Vossole, 2016). On the other hand, there is evidence

that workforcediversity can provide economic advantages

such as creativity and innovation (e.g., Roberge and van

Dick, 2010; Hoever et al., 2012; Homan et al., 2015),

which can stimulate the economic engine needed to

survive and thriveduring periods of economic challenges.

In the years since the global financial crisis, we have

witnessed a significant contrast between the positive

perspective expressed by business leaders toward

diversity policies in their organizations and the

disappointment with multiculturalism policies stated by

politicians and heads of state. Consider, for example,

the following statements by business leaders: ‘Our

diversity expertise …directly contributes to our long-

term business success’(George Chavel, president and

CEO of French-based Sodexo, 2010); ‘Achieving the full

potential of [our workforce] diversity is a business

priority that is fundamental to our competitive success’

(Sam Palmisano, IBM’s CEO, 2013).

1

Now contrast

them with the following statements by heads of state:

‘The doctrine of state multiculturalism has failed and will

no longer be state policy’(David Cameron, the United

Kingdom’s prime minister, 2011); ‘It has utterly failed’

(Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel characterizing

her country’s efforts toward multiculturalism; Weaver,

2010), claims she repeated later by saying that

multiculturalism ‘is a sham’(Noack, 2015); ‘My answer

is clearly yes, it is a failure’(Nicolas Sarkozy, France’s

president, responding to a question regarding the

effectiveness of multiculturalism in French society; Daily

Mail, 2011). Both diversity management efforts at the

organization level and multiculturalism policies at the

state level stemfrom similar humanistic principles, rooted

in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, and

share similar economic goals. They espouse respect for

unique individual and group characteristics and

encompass efforts to capitalize economically on people’s

divergent talents. Yet their outcomes have been judged,

by business leaders on one hand and political leaders on

the other,

2

to be disparate.

During times of economic downturn, there is often a

keener perception of competition for actual, or perceived,

scarce jobs and resources and the result is often hostility

toward people who are different than the mainstream

(Kahanec et al., 2013; Triandafyllidou and Kouki,

2013). Austerity

3

is similarly associated with a scarcity

of domestic resources that in turn is blamed for the rise

in xenophobia and racism (Carastathis, 2015). On the

other hand,there is research evidence to supportthe power

of diversity to uplift and energize economies (Pelle and

Laczi, 2015; Sunet al., 2015), a quality that is particularly

important during times of economic hardship. For

example, studies have indicated that workforce diversity

can give companies a competitive advantage through

increased creativity and innovation that is more likely to

occur in diverse teams than nondiverse teams (e.g.,

Roberge and van Dick, 2010; Hoever et al ., 2012).

1

Granted, some of the statements by business leaders are aimed at public

relationsor improving theircorporate image and maybe judged by some as less

than sincere. However, the seriousnessof their intentionscan be measured by

the resources that many organizations put behind their diversity initiatives,

which in many casesare substantial.

2

Article 1 in the UnitedNations Universal Declaration of Human Rights that

was adopted by the UN General Assembly in its resolution 217 A (III) of

December10, 1948, states:‘All human beings are born free and equalin dignity

and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act

towardsone another in a spirit of brotherhood.’Thisemphasizes thephilosophy

on which the declaration is based: first, the right to liberty and equality is the

birthright of every human being and cannot be alienated; and second, human

beings, as distinguished from other creatures,are rational and moral. For this

reason, human beings are entitled to certain rights and freedoms that other

creaturesmay or may not enjoy.

3

Austerity is def ined as ‘difficult economic conditionscreated by government

measures to reduce public expenditure’(Oxford dictionary: https://en.

oxforddictionaries.com/definition/austerity).

M.E. Mor Barak

©2018 European Academy of Management

938