This rigorous study published in Academy of Management Discoveries in 2024 by Akinola, Opie, Ho and colleagues explored whether the meaning of “diversity” has changed over time, and if that change is associated with who organisations actually hire. Analysing over 600 diversity statements from 105 US law firms between 2010 and 2019, the researchers found a striking pattern: as the number of nonlegal diversity categories (like personality traits or work styles) in a company’s statement increased, the representation of racial minority employees declined.
In other words, the broader the definition of diversity, the fewer racial minorities were present.
From legal focus to wide-net inclusion
Historically, diversity efforts were rooted in civil rights law, focusing on legally protected categories such as race and gender. Over time, however, the term has expanded to include attributes like background, perspectives, and communication style. While this broader view may feel more inclusive, the research suggests that it can have unintended consequences, especially for racial inclusion.
Using lagged panel data modelling, the authors showed that the number of nonlegal categories in a firm’s diversity statement one year predicted significantly lower racial minority representation the next year. No such relationship was found for women.
Why might this be? One possibility is that broad definitions dilute focus and resources, leading to hidden spots, where attention is spread so widely that race becomes invisible in practice. Another is moral licensing which is the idea that espousing broad inclusivity gives organisations a psychological ‘pass’ to overlook deep-rooted inequities.
What this means for inclusion leaders
The study’s implications are clear: how organisations define diversity matters. Broadening definitions might feel progressive, but without deliberate attention to racial equity, it risks making underrepresentation harder to see and harder to fix. For organisations committed to inclusion, this is a reminder to be precise and purposeful. When statements say everything, they can end up standing for nothing.
One practical takeaway: if your diversity statement doesn’t explicitly mention race, ask yourself why not. And if it does, ensure your actions reflect that commitment.
This research reinforces the importance of evidence-based practice in shaping EDI strategy. Not just saying the right things, but measuring whether those things actually work.
Organisations committed to inclusive cultures must support leaders in building greater behavioural self-awareness, not just awareness of bias in general. Encouraging honest reflection and creating psychologically safe conditions for dissent are key steps towards bridging the gap between intention and impact.
You can read the original article here.
