In the United States, the original model for diversity was situated around affirmative action drawing from equal employment opportunity initiatives implemented in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
This type of organization seeks to empower those from a marginalized standpoint to encourage opportunities for promotion and positions of leadership.
[9] Diversity is believed by some to bring substantial benefits such as better decision making and improved problem solving,[10] greater creativity and innovation, which leads to enhanced product development, and more successful marketing to different types of customers.
The interplay between power, ideology, and discursive acts which reinforce the hegemonic structure of organizations is the subject of much study.
[24] Everything from organizational symbols, rituals, and stories serve to maintain the position of power held by the dominant group.
[24] When organizations hire or promote individuals that are not part of this dominant group into management positions, a tension develops between the socially constructed organizational norm and acceptance of cultural diversity.
[citation needed] Often these individuals are mentored and coached to adopt the necessary traits for inclusion into the privileged group as opposed to being embraced for their differences.
[11][25] According to the journal article "Cultural Diversity in the Workplace: The State of the Field", Marlene G. Fine explains that "those who assimilate are denied the ability to express their genuine selves in the workplace; they are forced to repress significant parts of their lives within a social context that frames a large part of their daily encounters with other people".
[26] A number of organizational theorists have suggested that work-teams which are highly diverse can be difficult to motivate and manage for a variety of reasons.
Fine reported a study of "work groups that were culturally diverse and found that cross-cultural differences led to miscommunication".
[29] Maintaining a culture which supports the idea of employee voice (especially for marginalized group members) is another challenge for diverse organisation.
When the organizational environment is not supportive of dissenting viewpoints, employees may choose to remain silent for fear of repercussions,[30] or they may seek alternative safe avenues to express their concerns and frustrations such as on-line forums and affinity group meetings.
The aim of the liberal change model is to have a fair labor market from which the best person is chosen for a job based solely on performance.
[33][34] In contrast to the liberal approach, radical change seeks to intervene directly in the workplace practices in order to achieve workforces with less White people.
[34] One major tool of radical change is quotas which are set by companies or national institutions with the aim to decrease the number of White people employed.
Through application of the transformational concept an immediate intervention provides needed relief while a longer-term culture shift occurs.
In 2017, PwC's U.S. chairman, Tim Ryan, amassed more than 175 c-suite executives (some belonging to the Fortune 500) to sign their CEO Action for Diversity & Inclusion™ pledge.
The pledge is a business commitment to advance diversity in the workplace and is made by executives from notable companies such as Walmart, Staples, Dow Chemical, Cisco and Morgan Stanley.
The scaling back of DEI initiatives has aligned with a rise in legal challenges and political opposition to systematic endeavors aimed at enhancing racial equity.
[45] Intentional "diversity programs" can assist organizations facing rapid demographic changes in their local consumer market and labor pool by helping people work and understand one another better.