The multifarious projects that corporations develop to promote diversity and inclusion speak to the importance they attribute to embracing differences so as to abide by current legislation, understand and appeal to consumers, and attract and recruit top talent (Baker & Kelan, 2018; Knights & OmanoviÄ, 2016; Kulik, 2014; Maiorescu & Wrigley, 2016; Singh & Point, 2004; Swanson, 2002; Trittin & Schoeneborn, 2017; Wondrak & Segert, 2015). Despite these efforts, the recent discrimination lawsuits faced by corporations such as Ford (Associated Press, 2018), Lockheed Martin (Campbell, 2018), and IBM (Bloomberg, 2018) raise concerns about the effectiveness of diversity programs. The 13.6% surge in the number of sexual harassment charges that the US Equal Opportunity Commission addressed in 2018 (US Equal Opportunity Commission, 2019) and the recent research that evinces the reticence of job seekers to apply for jobs that stress commitment to diversity (Windscheid et al., 2017), showcase that the present approaches to diversity are in need of serious revamping. Internally, companies are facing employee fatigue and reluctance toward diversity trainings, programs, and recruitment strategies (Dobbin & Kalev, 2016; Kidder et al., 2004; Maiorescu & Wrigley, 2016) and such corporate initiatives were shown to lead to anxiety, fear (Schwabenland & Tomlinson, 2015), misunderstanding, suspicion, and conflict (Bassett-Jones, 2005; Theodorakopoulos & Budhwar, 2015). Finally, studies showed that diversity recruitment and training may reinforce stereotypes and lead to employee backlash (Dobbin & Kalev, 2016; Kidder et al., 2004). These results indicate that, in order to trigger significant societal changes and contribute to the well-being of the communities in which they operate, companies should take a different approach to diversity.
In addition, given the changes that took place and are underway at a societal and global level, revisiting corporate diversity practices represents a desideratum for business success. It is expected that by 2060 no ethnicity will represent a majority in the US (Colby & Ortman, 2015; Madera, 2013; Maiorescu & Wrigley, 2016; Vespa, Armstrong, & Medina, 2018). Further, the typical generation Z employee values collaborative projects to an even greater degree than their millennial predecessor and appreciates the varied expertise, opinions, skills, along with the creativity and innovation that stem from collaborating with diverse colleagues (Forbes Couching Council, 2018). Finally, corporate approaches to diversity should be revisited as a result of the ongoing globalization of the market and the omnipresence of information and communications technologies (ICTs) that require companies to be culturally competent in order to survive and thrive in the marketplace (Den Hond, & de Bakker, 2016; Maiorescu & Wrigley, 2016; Roberge et al., 2011; Sriramesh & VerÄiÄ, 2019; Theodorakopoulos & Budhwar, 2015).
By analysis of the diversity communication employed by Americaās 2017 most profitable companies (Wieczner, 2017), this book led to the development of a theoretical framework with practical applications, which has the potential to address the aforementioned corporate challenges. Past research in business sciences and communication studies determined that the decreased interest in diversity programs, manifest by both employees and consumers, constitutes a consequence of the companiesā implementation of a business approach to inclusion, which revolves predominantly around gaining competitive advantage (Egan & Bendick, 2003; Maiorescu & Wrigley, 2016; Mazzei & Ravazzani, 2008; Uysal, 2013; Wrench, 2005) and leaves little to no room for stakeholder feedback. While several researchers pointed to the need for companies to address diversity by engaging their stakeholders in dialogue (Ciszek, 2019; Mazzei & Ravazzani, 2008; Maiorescu & Wrigley, 2016; Uysal, 2013), to date, few studies have attempted to explore how dialogue should be construed (Ciszek, 2019; Mundy, 2015, 2016) and what its impact may be on a companyās stakeholder groups. For example, Ciszek (2019) determined trust to be a precursor to dialogic communication with LGBTQ publics and Mundy (2015, 2016) stressed the importance of an ongoing internal and external dialogue that organizations should foster in order to effectively embrace diversity. These studies have forged a new direction for research on communication and diversity that the current book is taking in order to contribute to the understanding of how dialogue should be construed. Further, the book contributes to the field by analyzing dialogue in online settings. The author was intrigued by the potential of the internet to foster conversations on diversity, particularly as offline settings were shown to be less conducive to doing so in general and with respect to dialogue during corporate trainings in particular (Dobbin & Kalev, 2016; Maiorescu & Wrigley, 2016).
The current chapter first discusses the literature review that led to the research questions investigated throughout this book. The literature review consists of recent and relevant research studies from social psychology, business, and communication studies. The interdisciplinary approach was necessary given the fact that the fields of social psychology and business have a longer tradition in diversity research than communication studies. However, the communication field in general and public relations in particular have the potential to make a significant contribution to creating effective dialogue on diversity. Further, this section will define the key concepts assessed in the book and explain the rationale behind their use. Next, the chapter will detail the research methodology employed for the purpose of this study and shed light on the data collection and analysis. The final section will provide a preview of the chapters.
Literature Review
The business studies literature has a long tradition in investigating diversity and researchers focused predominantly on (1) the potential impact of diversity on the bottom line (Christian et al., 2006; Knights & OmanoviÄ, 2016; Shoobridge, 2006; Theodorakopoulos & Budhwar, 2015); (2) inclusive organizational cultures (Fairfield, 2018; Ferdman, 2018; Hayashi, 2016; Mor Barak, 2015); (3) leadership and diversity (Ashikali & Groeneveld, 2015; Randel et al., 2018; Trittin & Schoeneborn, 2017); (4) the critique of corporate approaches to diversity (Lee et al., 2017; Ozturk & Tatli, 2016; Poulis & Poulis, 2016; Rachele, 2017; Wrench, 2005); and finally (5) diversity and corporate citizenship (Downey, van der Werff, & Plaut, 2015; Maiorescu & Wrigley, 2016; Trittin & Schoeneborn, 2017). The critique of corporate approaches to diversity revolved around the diversity management paradigm with the help of which corporations proactively reach out to diverse groups so long as these represent primary stakeholder groups, who have the potential to impact the bottom line (Knights & OmanoviÄ, 2016; Rachele, 2017). It is within this context that the ethical dimension of embracing differences emerged and raised concerns with respect to societal issues faced by ethnic and minority groups that lack buying power and, therefore, fail to garner the attention of corporate conglomerates (Maiorescu & Wrigley, 2016; Wrench, 2005). Researchers argued that by dedicating resources to certain causes over others, corporations define diversity in accord with their business interests, intruding into a domain reserved for governments and elected officials (Wrench, 2005). The utmost power that corporations exert over the society is manifest at various levels (Alcadipani, & de Oliveira Medeiros, 2019; Deetz, 2004; McKee, Steele, & Stuckler, 2019) and, currently, a business focus on diversity enables them to āmanage people with diverse characteristicsā (Singh & Point, 2004, p. 296).
Given the external pressure to engage in corporate social responsibility (CSR) and to take an ethical approach to diversity, companies have started to address societal concerns raised by minority and ethnic groups that do not represent primary stakeholder groups. Research studies showed that companies have recently commenced to embrace differences by blending a business approach with a socially responsible one. Yet, the former prevails over programs directed at diverse groups that do not display buying potential (Maiorescu & Wrigley, 2016; Uysal, 2013).
Given their tremendous amount of resources, where could corporations make the most contribution to the cause of diversity and what arguments could be made with respect to a return on investment that would mobilize them to take action? Our diverse neighborhoods are characterized by few interactions, leading to concerns about building social capital (Putnam, 2007). Interactions increase among diverse residents as a consequence of identification with a neighborhood and a perceived sense of belonging, yet do not surge between Anglo groups and minorities (Liu, 2018). Addressing the concern of offline interactions and social capital, Bouchillon (2018) ascertained the potential of the internet to lead to increased interactions and the display of trust among individuals who live in racial and ethnic diverse neighborhoods and had been shown to display a high level of distrust offline (Bouchillon, 2014; Putnam, 2007). It is within this context that corporations can make a significant contribution to the cause of diversity. Namely, companies foster the development of brand communities (Carlson et al., 2019; Clark, Black, & Judson, 2017; Herhausen et al., 2019) or online communities that form around a firmās official social media accounts, as users bond through the identification with the company. While brand communities have been studied in relation to their potential to shed light on consumer behavior (Liu et al., 2019; Snyder & Newman, 2019) and with regard to the relationship building process amon...