The Shaping of Diversity Management in France: An Institutional Change Analysis

• Author: Anissa Djabi‐Saïdani,Sabrina Pérugien
• Published date: 01 March 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12343
• Date: 01 March 2020

The Shaping of Diversity Management in

France: An Institutional Change Analysis

ANISSA DJABI-SAÏDANI

1

and SABRINA PÉRUGIEN

2

1

ISC Paris Business School, 22 boulevard du Fort de Vaux, 75017 Paris, France

2

Groupe ESC Clermont, CleRMa, 4 boulevard Trudaine, 63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France

This paper addresses the shapingof diversity management in Franceusing a neo-institutional perspective, through

which non-discrimination in the workplace is viewed as an organizational field structured around the problem of

discrimination and the challenge of diversity management. The analysis draws on the process approach, together

with the institutional change model as ananalytical framework. By analysing the conditions in France, the authors

contribute to the understanding of how diversity management has beenmanaged over time. They also show how the

environmental context, the position of institutional entrepreneurs, practices and boundaries affect institutional

dynamics in a given organizationalfield.

Keywords: diversity management;discrimination; inequality;organizational field; institutional change;institutional

entrepreneur

Introduction

Originally an Anglo-Saxon approach, diversity

management

1

traces its roots back to antidiscriminatory

measures and practices implemented in the United States

in the field of employment (Pauwels, 2004; Bereni,

2009). This managerial approach was first developed in

the US in the late 1980s in response to various concerns,

including the needto foster a diverse workforce (Thomas,

1990). It was gradually adopted in some European

countries –firstly in the United Kingdom, then in France

in the early 2000s (Doytcheva, 2010; Tatli,

Vassilopoulou, Al Ariss and Özbilgin, 2012) –where it

has given rise to research in the social sciences (e.g.,

Peretti, 2006; Cornet and Warland, 2008; Klarsfeld,

2009). Although this work is of value in understanding

the phenomenon, theacademic literature does not address

the process thro ugh which diversity manag ement has been

implemented in France. To make good this lacuna, we

propose answering the following research question:

how has diversity management been shaped in France

over time?

We use a neo-institutional perspective drawing on

the concept of organizational field (DiMaggio and

Powell, 1983) and the conceptualization of institutional

change proposed by Greenwood, Suddaby and Hinings

(2002). Througha process analysis of the key institutional

dynamics that have contributed to the implementation of

diversity management in France, we provide a clearer

understanding of this issue and show how environmental

context,position of actors, practices,and boundaries affect

institutional dynamics in a given organizational field.

The paper is organized as follows. First, we review

the literature on organizational fields and institutional

change and outline how diversity management can be

considered as an institutional change in the field of non-

discrimination in the workplace. We then introduce our

analytical framework and methodological approach,

followed by our findings regarding the first five stages

of institutional change. Finally, we present our main

contributions to the literature and discuss our findings in

the light of research on diversity management and

institutional change.

The shaping of diversity management in

France: An institutional change process in

the field of non-discrimination at work

Research highlights the various factors that have helped

shape diversity management in France. First, the growing

Correspondence: Dr. AnissaDjabi-Saïdani, ISCParis Business School,22

boulevard du Fort de Vaux - 75017 Paris, France. E-mail adjabi-

saidani@iscparis.com

1

We define diversity management as all the practices, policies, and measures

implemented by organizations to comply with the principle of non-

discriminationand to ensure equalityof treatment and equalityof opportunities

in the workplace.

DOI: 10.1111/emre.12343

©2019 European Academy of Management

European Management Review, Vol. 17, –, (2020)

229 246

importance of pro-diversity rhetoric was paralleled by the

different uses of the term diversity. For instance, the term

diversity arose withthe economic rationale for companies

(e.g., Barth, 2007; Bereni, 2011) and the prevention of

legal risks (e.g., Cornet and Warland, 2008; Doytcheva,

2010). Several actors have played a role in the spread

of diversity management, including business leaders

(e.g., Bereni, 2009; Bruna, 2011) and the public

authorities (e.g., Calvès, 2005; Sénac, 2012). Research

also suggests that institutional initiatives in favour of

diversity contributed to its dissemination, in particular

the Diversity Charter and the Diversity Label (e.g.,Djabi,

2014; Pérugienand Barth, 2016). Other researchidentifies

contextual factors in the emergence of diversity

managementin France, including the impetusof European

Union norms (e.g., Bereni and Jaunait, 2009; Lanquetin,

2009) and the rise of intercultural management (e.g.,

Cornet and Warland, 2008; Chanlat, Dameron, Dupuis,

de Freitas and Özbilgin, 2013). Various techniques have

also played a role in the dissemination of diversity

management, such as diagnostic tools and the review of

HR processes (Bereni, 2009; Djabi, 2014). Overall, our

literature review reveals which factors (i.e., actors,

institutional initiatives, discourses, contextual factors,

and techniques) have contributed to the emergence of

diversity management in France. Although it helps

comprehend the phenomenon, the academic literature

does not show how diversity management in France has

been shaped over time.

Accordingly,we mobilize neo-institutional theories that

are particularly appropriate for studyingthe emergence of

a new phenomenon such as diversity management, at a

meso/macro level and over time (Klarsfeld, 2009; Djabi,

2014). Along similar lines, we approach the shaping of

diversity management in France using a neo-institutional

perspective through the concept of organizational field.

Originating in Bourdieu’s work (1980a, 1980b), the

concept of field was first applied to the study of the

organizationof social activity amongagents (e.g., cultural,

economic, and political fields). Extended to the study of

companies and organizations, field has progressively

become a core concept in neo-institutional theories. An

organizational field may be defined as an intermediate

level between organizations and society (DiMaggio

and Powell, 1983), where expectations and socially-built

practices are disseminated and reproduced across

organizations (Scott, 1994). The study of organizational

fields focuses on the actors structuring a system within a

unique operating logic. This mode of operation between

organizations is viewed from several perspectives in the

academic literature, through the distinct elements that

form the foundations for the field itself (see Table 1).

In this paper, we argue that non-discrimination in

the workplace constitutes an organizational field, first

structured around the problem of workplace

discrimination,and then around the challenge of diversity

management.To support our hypothesis, we suggestthat a

field may be structured around a shared problem (Leca

and Demil, 2001) and a shared challenge (Oakes,

Townley and Cooper, 1998; Hoffman, 1999) between

organizations.

To better understand how diversity management has

gradually become a shared challenge for companies

in the field, we use an institutional change perspective.

Since the late 1980s, neo-institutionalist theorists have

emphasized the role played by organizations and/or

individuals in institutional change, with reference to the

notion of institutional entrepreneurship. Institutional

entrepreneurs are actors who create or modify practices,

models and beliefs,such that other actors conformto them

and consider these new or transformed institutions as

norms (Leca and Naccache, 2006). To be regarded as

institutional entrepreneurs, these actors must actively take

part in the implementation of changes that break with the

dominant logic(s) and thereby promote alternative

practices (Battilana, 2006). Some scholars have addressed

the conditions that foster institutional change in an

organizational field. A first series of studies focused

on the environmental context in which institutional

entrepreneurs are embedded, showing that institutional

change depends on the influence of institutions such

as legal obligations, shared meanings, and social

expectations regarding actors’behaviour (e.g., Caronna,

2004; Zilber, 2007). A second series addressed the

characteristics of the organizational field by examining

how they influence institutional change or examined the

degree of institutionalization of the organizational field

(e.g., Greenwood et al., 2002; Maguire, Hardy and

Lawrence, 2004), its degree of heterogeneity (e.g., Clemens

and Cook, 1999; Seo and Creed, 2002), and the effects of its

boundaries and practices on institutional change (e.g.,

Swidler, 2001; Zietsma and Lawrence, 2010). A third group

of studies explored the impact of the position of actors in an

organization field, emphasizing that institutional

entrepreneurs are often new entrants (e.g., Hensmans,

Tab le 1 The determinants of the structuringof an organizational field

A system of operations

between organizationsbased on …

Authors

social activity Bourdieu,1980a, 1980b

new technology Garud and Kumaraswamy, 1993;

Garud et al., 2002

industry,profession or

national society

Hirsch, 1972; Scott and Meyer,

1991

ideas of legitimateaction Fligstein,1990

way of thinking Scott, 1994

challenge Oakes et al., 1998; Hoffman, 199 9

problem Leca and Demil,2001

geographicalarea Scott et al., 2000

professionalcommunity Greenwoodet al., 2002

(Source: Djabi,2014, p. 50)

A. Djabi-Saïdani and S. Pérugien

©2019 European Academy of Management

230