Kabelo Gildenhuys
Anita Bosch
Smaranda Boroş- 1University of Stellenbosch Business School, Stellenbosch, South Africa
- 2Ghent University, Ghent, East Flanders, Belgium
- 3Vlerick Business School, Ghent, East Flanders, Belgium
This mini-review explores the framing and portrayal of dominant group members (DGMs) and highlights a significant gap between the stated goals of inclusion in diversity management and how they are represented in research. Drawing on cooperation and paradox theories, this research analyzes the abstracts of 560 journal articles from the USA and South Africa. Both regions predominantly use a potentially adversarial framing—focusing on group differences with only a small fraction employing reflexive reframing, which is needed to promote intergroup cooperation. The study also identifies the portrayal of DGMs in research, which was analyzed based on an in-depth analysis of 26 articles selected to explore the constructs associated with this group. Based on the classification of constructs devised, both countries mostly follow a dilemma portrayal. This review serves as a call to action, urging scholars to reassess their positioning and avoid exacerbating existing divisions. Exploring alternative solutions and fostering collaboration, ensuring that diversity initiatives are effective and inclusive for all groups requires a shift from adversarial to reflexive reframing and from dilemma to paradox portrayals of dominant group members. This involves acknowledging privilege dynamics while emphasizing the benefits of diversity and the synergies it can create. Embracing a paradoxical view of diversity management can help develop strategies that ensure inclusion and cohesion, recognizing the multifaceted reality of DGMs and avoiding restrictive notions about group identities.
Introduction
Research discourse, as a system of shared knowledge, powerfully shapes societal perceptions and practices (Foucault, 1972). Researchers, through repeated use and subsequent popularization in education and media, heavily influence what society deems “truth” (Foucault and Rabinow, 1984). The theories they promote validate certain actions and behaviors of managers while invalidating others, thus shaping the broader intellectual and normative framework (Ghoshal, 2005). This, in turn, limits the range of alternatives deemed plausible (Besley, 2015). Critically challenging the narratives perpetuated within specific disciplines, such as diversity management, becomes crucial to ensuring that research messages are reflected in practice (Ahonen et al., 2014). This requires, first and foremost, a self-reflexive turn–“Medice, cura te ipsum”–among researchers to avoid inadvertently perpetuating discrepancies that could cause harm.
This mini-review addresses a critical gap in the literature by examining how dominant group members (DGMs) are framed within workplace diversity and inclusion research. According to social dominance theory, members of dominant groups benefit from privilege (Sidanius and Pratto, 2012). Privilege refers to an advantage that an individual or group enjoys beyond what is accessible to others (Carrim and Moolman, 2020). However, instead of being viewed as partners in diversity efforts, DGMs—often white men in Western contexts—tend to be seen, at best, as potential allies (Kelan, 2018), or at worst, as those “for which inclusion is far less of a concern” (Van Knippenberg, 2022). Viewed as hindering progressive inclusion interventions in organizations (Nkomo et al., 2019), they are a crucial focus given the backlash against diversity management and frequent failure of diversity initiatives (Boros et al., 2022; Leslie, 2019). This has generated recent calls for new perspectives on framing dominant group members in diversity research (Creary, 2025; Toma et al., 2024).
Our core argument is that there is a disconnect between the stated goals of inclusion in diversity management literature and the predominant research framing of DGMs. We suggest that researchers should move beyond adversarial portrayals (i.e., focused on differences and attributing blame) to embrace reflexive reframing (i.e., accentuating interdependence). This entails portraying both dominant and minority group members in a paradoxical (both/and) rather than a dilemmatic (either/or) manner (Van Lange et al., 2013). We argue that this will foster greater intergroup similarities and build bridges (Toma et al., 2024).
In this paper, we take an ethical stance, emphasizing researchers' awareness of framing, which shapes public discourse and may limit alternative perspectives. Instead of theoretical approaches (such as power, privilege, social justice), we focus on the framing of studies beyond their theories, using a binary position of potential adversarial vs. reflexive reframing to highlight the current research gap. Grounding our analysis in cooperation (Rothman, 2012) and paradox theories (Miron-Spektor et al., 2018), we provide insights into addressing identity-based conflict and promoting more inclusive diversity management literature.
Theoretical lens
Cooperation theory provides a foundation for understanding intergroup dynamics by advocating for the protection and acknowledgment of all groups' legitimacy, while highlighting the mutual benefits of collaboration (Gray, 2006). This approach is crucial in managing identity-based conflicts between diverse groups, as it fosters resonance and cooperation (Rothman, 2012). However, much research has focused on group differences and privilege, reinforcing intergroup polarization through adversarial framing (Nkomo et al., 2019).
Adversarial framing presents situations as dilemmas, emphasizing opposing choices and potentially oversimplifying the causes of tension (Van Lange et al., 2013). This framing can lead to a lack of exploration of alternative solutions that might satisfy multiple stakeholders (Kollock, 1998). In contrast, reflexive reframing offers a “we are in this together” perspective, transcending intergroup differences by focusing on future needs and promoting intergroup resonance (Rothman, 2012, p. 5). This approach encourages positive strategies and cooperation, reducing adversarial stances (Jordaan, 2022).
Paradox theory is a form of reflexive reframing that emphasizes the interdependencies between seemingly conflicting elements (Schad et al., 2019; Lewis and Smith, 2023). It allows for the exploration of contradictions and conflicts, aiming to manage aspects that are both at odds and interdependent (Schad et al., 2016). Unlike adversarial framing, which aligns with polarization by offering binary choices (Karhu and Ritala, 2018), paradox theory seeks solutions that consider multiple options simultaneously (Gorbatai et al., 2022).
In the context of diversity management, applying paradox theory involves embracing tensions between advocating for previously disadvantaged groups and addressing the concerns of dominant group members (Bosch, 2024; Morton, 2019). This approach ensures the inclusion of all group members by considering competing possibilities and managerial actions (Waldman and Bowen, 2016; Lewis and Smith, 2023). For instance, it might involve balancing identity-conscious and identity-blind perspectives to achieve diversity goals (Konrad et al., 2021). By embracing paradoxes such as the tension between inclusion and meritocracy, paradox theory offers an alternative to the status quo adversarial framing, providing a more nuanced understanding of intergroup dynamics in diversity management.
Methods
This study examined journal articles on diversity management from the USA and South Africa, two countries with histories of racial inequality and white-settler colonization by northwest European Protestants (Fredrickson, 1982). Both nations continue to grapple with the social impacts of past state-sanctioned segregation (Ndlovu-Gatshni and Clawson, 2021). In these contexts, white men are often viewed as the dominant group against which others are judged, due to their disproportionate share of social goods (Sidanius and Pratto, 2012). However, while the dominant group in the USA largely reflects the country's demographics (Craig et al., 2018), in South Africa, white people hold significant power despite being a minority (Goldman, 2016).
To focus the broad scope of diversity management (Farndale et al., 2015), the search concentrated on studies in humanities and social sciences, as recommended by Marfelt (2016). The year 1994 marked South Africa's transition to democracy (Levy, 2022) and the rise of global diversity-management research and serves as the start for this review (Jonsen et al., 2011). The literature review involved a two-part data analysis process, outlined in Figure 1.
Figure 1. PRISMA diagram of the review.
A thematic analysis was conducted, which involves identifying patterns across the data set and creating descriptive themes through coding (Braun and Clarke, 2006; Snilstveit et al., 2012). Themes are recognizable configurations of meanings that co-occur systematically (Willig, 2013). This analysis allowed us to identify the main research trends and attributes, which were further analyzed using the theoretical frameworks of cooperation and paradox theories.
The analytical framework consisted of two stages. The first stage classified articles based on research trends from their abstracts, using adversarial framing and reflexive reframing. Adversarial framing focuses on potentially polarizing research that attributes blame or emphasizes intergroup differences. In contrast, reflexive reframing highlights the possibility of an interdependent focus between groups, where the identity needs of all groups are considered (Rothman, 2012). An example of a potential adversarial framing found in this review includes research on competitive victimhood (Sullivan et al., 2012). Research classified as reflexive reframing, for example, highlights the limitations of relying solely on a multicultural perspective or an identity-blind approach to understand intergroup dynamics (Hahn et al., 2015).
This stands in contrast to research, which is classified as an example of reflexive reframing, by emphasizing the limitations of using only a multicultural or identity-blind perspective for understanding intergroup dynamics.
The second stage of analysis was conducted on a selection of articles to examine constructs associated with dominant group members. This included conceptual papers on intergroup relations and/or diversity management with an emphasis on dominant group members (masculinities and/or whiteness). Paradox theory was operationalized by classifying research as either portraying dominant group members in a dilemma (either/or) frame or using a paradox (both/and) perspective. This classification distinguished between research that focused on a critique of and/or only challenges faced by dominant group members (dilemma). Research was classified as a dilemma frame when the focus was only on critique (Jawitz, 2016) and/or identity/ally issues for dominant group members (Siegel and Sawyer, 2020). Research was classified as a paradox when, in addition to critique and/or challenges faced, there was a focus on shared challenges/similarities (Oosthuizen et al., 2019) or alternative solutions (Bohonos, 2020). For more information on the methods please consult the following link.
Findings
Part 1: research trends on theorizing about dominant group members from a cooperation theory perspective
Our analysis, guided by cooperation theory, identified two primary research trends: adversarial framing, which focuses on group differences and blame, and reflexive reframing, which emphasizes interdependence. Among 560 articles (475 from the USA and 66 from South Africa), 153 from the USA (compared with only 3 from South Africa) highlighted group differences, stereotyping, and bias, with a notable increase post-2016, possibly influenced by the presidential election (Carian, 2022). Socio-economic factors and income disparities were prominent in 77 articles, particularly in the 1990s and early 2000s, reflecting class-exploitative capitalism (Feagin and Ducey, 2017). In contrast, South African research focused on workplace diversity management, especially after 2002, driven by legislation like the Employment Equity Act (e.g., Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998, 2025).
The USA literature emphasized convincing researchers of the importance of group differences, while South African research addressed practical workplace interventions, reflecting an acknowledgment of existing inequities. Across both samples, 541 articles adopted a potentially adversarial frame, while only 19 employed reflexive reframing. Reflexive reframing included critical reflections on diversity management and societal changes, such as in South Africa (Booysen, 2007), and the role of dominant group members in creating inclusive organizations in the USA (Ostrove and Brown, 2018; Moser and Branscombe, 2021). Notably, the interdependence between dominant and non-dominant group members remains under-researched, with a lack of theoretical contributions in both countries.
Part 2: attributes of dominant group members in research from a paradox theory perspective
Our in-depth analysis of 26 articles (13 from South Africa and 13 from the USA) examined how dominant group members are portrayed in research, focusing on whether they reflect a dilemma or paradox approach. All USA articles adopted a dilemma perspective, either critiquing dominant group members or highlighting their challenges and benefits in diversity management. These articles often exposed the privileged position of dominant group members and their resistance to change (n = 13 and n = 10, respectively). Additionally, they discussed identity-related challenges such as gender role expectations (n = 6) and the benefits of dominant group members acting as allies (n = 2). Only three articles employed paradox framing, which was limited to understanding the impact of interventions on both dominant and non-dominant group members and exploring alternatives like meritocracy (Konrad et al., 2021).
In South Africa, articles were divided between criticizing and challenging dominant group members. Criticisms included resistance to change (n = 13) and privileges (n = 9), while challenges involved social identity anxiety (n = 10) and the need to engage dominant group members in diversity management (n = 5). Paradoxical portrayals noted similar challenges for all group members (n = 2) and increasing congruence between black and white men's experiences (n = 1).
Our findings indicate that researchers predominantly take a dilemma view of dominant group members, perpetuating an either-or mindset. This framing can exacerbate communication difficulties and polarize parties (Shmueli et al., 2006). By focusing mostly on past wrongs, research may hinder cooperation efforts (Hogg et al., 2017). Identity-based characterization frames perpetuate simplistic labeling and preclude shared understanding (Shmueli et al., 2006). The attributes identified portray dominant group members as having privilege and positional power, with few discussions also focused on the challenges they face (Oosthuizen et al., 2019) and/ or combined with a paradoxical view of diversity management (Lease et al., 2010; Dover et al., 2020). Overall, these trends highlight a trade-off between focusing on privilege and exploring interdependence or cooperation (Table 1).
Table 1. Articles included for attribute analysis.a
Discussion
Our findings indicate that current diversity management research predominantly employs a likely adversarial framing of dominant group members, emphasizing differences and conflicts as intractable dilemmas. This framing is evident in both the United States and South Africa, where interdependence is often neglected. The attributes associated with dominant group members are also predominantly framed as dilemmas, highlighting their privileged positions and resistance to change (Klein and Harrison, 2007). This approach overlooks the importance of intergroup cooperation and the need to balance addressing non-dominant group concerns with collaboration among all groups (Carian, 2022).
Research on diversity initiatives shows that neglecting cooperation can lead to unintended outcomes, such as reduced engagement from non-targeted groups due to perceived unfairness and increased discrimination against intended beneficiaries when initiatives fail (Leslie, 2019; Bosch, 2024). The status quo approach to diversity management has proven ineffective, as evidenced by continued workplace exclusion and resistance (Gallegos et al., 2020). The predominant use of adversarial and dilemma framings in diversity management research forecloses the search for alternative solutions and entrenches separation between groups (Creary, 2025).
Most studies in our review focused on the grievances of and resistance to change among dominant-group members, further entrenching separation and opposition between groups (Klein and Harrison, 2007). This approach neglects the importance of intergroup cooperation (Creary, 2025) and the need to balance addressing the concerns of non-dominant-group members together with collaboration among all groups (Carian, 2022). Without collaboration, dominant-group members may become excluded, undermining the ethos and values of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Adversarial dilemma-based framing fails to recognize the potential of dominant-group members as allies and champions of inclusion, and it does not show how to facilitate collaboration between different identity groups.
To foster collaborative interdependence, researchers need to explore framing that balances making diversity initiatives appealing to dominant groups while emphasizing inclusion for the disadvantaged (Morton, 2019). By incorporating both marginalized and advantaged groups in theorizing diversity, researchers can better address workplace inequality and achieve cooperative diversity (Van Knippenberg, 2022). This requires shifting from an adversarial/polarizing to a collaborative/reflexive theoretical framing, and moving past dilemma (either-or) portrayals of groups to paradoxical ones (and-and). We must both acknowledge privilege dynamics and reveal social inequalities, as well as focus on the benefits of diversity as variety (Harrison and Klein, 2007) and the synergies it can create (Van Knippenberg, 2022). We should give voices to minorities beyond portraying them as oppressed, and also portray majority members in a nuanced way, beyond their privilege and resistance to change (Brannon et al., 2018).
Our in-depth analysis of 26 articles showed that while most used a dilemma view, some included paradoxical portrayals, noting similar challenges for all group members and increasing congruence between black and white men's experiences (Cilliers and Smit, 2006). This indicates a missed opportunity, as cross-categorization theory has shown that shared attributes between groups can bridge intergroup differences (Lease et al., 2010; Thatcher and Patel, 2012). Gray (2006) emphasizes the importance of framing for managing identity conflict, stating that focusing on similarities can foster a sense of compatriots rather than aliens.
Embracing a paradox view of diversity management can contribute to developing strategies for inclusion and cohesion by recognizing the multifaceted reality of being a dominant group member and avoiding restrictive notions about group identities (Lasch-Quinn, 2001). This approach combines historical complexity and interdependence in addressing power relation changes. Framing dominant groups and diversity management as a paradox could greatly contribute to ensuring both inclusion and cohesion in organizations (Konrad et al., 2021).
Our review serves as a call to action, urging scholars to reassess their positioning and avoid exacerbating existing divisions. A shift is needed to explore alternative solutions and foster collaboration, ensuring that diversity initiatives are effective and inclusive for all groups. This requires researchers to critically reflect on their practices to prevent harm and promote meaningful change in diversity management research. By adopting a more nuanced and collaborative approach, researchers can help organizations move beyond current limitations and foster a more inclusive work environment. This shift toward a paradoxical perspective can facilitate a deeper understanding of diversity management complexities, ultimately leading to more effective and sustainable solutions.
Limitations
This review aimed to uncover research discourse trends related to dominant group members using a binary proposition, but several limitations are acknowledged. The binary approach inherently overlooks nuances that cannot be captured by categorizing articles as one or the other. Additionally, our timeframe might not include recent literature postdating the Black Lives Matter movement, though trends identified over nearly three decades are unlikely to be significantly offset by recent changes. We made an explicit effort to exclude gray literature and non-peer-reviewed articles (Jesson et al., 2011), which could be explored in future research to provide a more comprehensive view.
Future studies could extend the search to include media analysis from both countries to uncover how dominant group members are portrayed in the public sphere. Furthermore, treating all white men as a homogeneous group overlooks nuances such as men in less privileged positions or those with subordinated identities (Hearn and Collinson, 2006). Future research should consider these differences and whether similar trends prevail accounting for these nuances. Despite these limitations, our findings highlight the need for further investigation into these dynamics to provide a more nuanced understanding of dominant group members.
Conclusion: toward a more inclusive research agenda
Our findings highlight a significant gap between the stated goals of inclusion in diversity management and the way dominant group members are represented in research. The over-reliance on adversarial framing not only limits our understanding of their experiences but also risks alienating a critical constituency in diversity efforts. To move forward, we propose a research agenda that prioritizes cooperation, mutual understanding, and the exploration of common ground. This involves investigating the challenges faced by dominant group members, their ambivalence regarding diversity management, recognizing their potential as allies, and developing interventions that address their concerns alongside those of minority groups. Furthermore, future research should focus on developing theoretical frameworks that embrace paradox and complexity, moving beyond binary oppositions to foster a more nuanced and holistic understanding of diversity dynamics. Ultimately, a more inclusive research framing fosters bridge-building and leads to diversity management practices that are not only more equitable but also more effective.
Author contributions
KG: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft. AB: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Supervision, Writing – review & editing. SB: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. This work was funded by a benefactor of the Research Chair: Women at Work at Stellenbosch Business School and Stellenbosch University, South Africa.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/forgp.2025.1525043/full#supplementary-material
References
Ahonen, P., Tienari, J., Meriläinen, S., and Pullen, A. (2014). Hidden contexts and invisible power relations: a Foucauldian reading of diversity research. Hum. Relat. 67, 263–286. doi: 10.1177/0018726713491772
Besley, A. C. (2015). “Finding foucault”: orders of discourse and cultures of the self. Educ. Philos. Theory 47, 1435–1451. doi: 10.1080/00131857.2014.945510
Bohonos, J. W. (2020). Critical race theory and working-class white men: exploring race privilege and lower-class work-life. Gend. Work Organ. 28, 54–66. doi: 10.1111/gwao.12512
Booysen, L. (2007). Societal power shifts and changing social identities in South Africa: workplace implications. S. Afr. J. Econ. Manag. Sci. 10, 1–20. doi: 10.4102/sajems.v10i1.533
Boros, S., Gorbatai, A., and Ullman, K. (2022). Why Middle Managers Struggle to Implement DEI Strategies, Harvard Business Review. Available online at: https://hbr.org/2022/10/why-middle-managers-struggle-to-implement-dei-strategies (Accessed December 22, 2022).
Bosch, A. (2024). Organizational and social justice paradoxes in EDI. Front. Psychol. 15:1320993. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1320993
Brannon, T. N., Carter, E. R., Murdock-Perriera, L. A., and Higginbotham, G. D. (2018). From backlash to inclusion for all: instituting diversity efforts to maximize benefits across group lines. Soc. Issues Policy Rev. 12, 57–90. doi: 10.1111/sipr.12040
Braun, V., and Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 3, 77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Carian, E. (2022). “No seat at the party”: mobilizing white masculinity in the men's rights movement. Sociol. Focus 55, 27–47. doi: 10.1080/00380237.2021.2009075
Carrim, N., and Moolman, L. eds. (2020). Managing Diversity in the South African Workplace. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.
Cilliers, F., and Smit, B. (2006). A systems psychodynamic interpretation of South African diversity dynamics : a comparative study. S. Afr. J. Labour Relat. 30, 5–18.
Craig, M. A., Rucker, J. M., and Richeson, J. A. (2018). Racial and political dynamics of an approaching “majority-minority” United States. Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci. 677, 204–214. doi: 10.1177/0002716218766269
Creary, S. J. (2025). Transforming how ambivalence about DEI work is managed in organizations. J. Manag. Stud. doi: 10.1111/joms.13206
Dover, T. L., Kaiser, C. R., and Major, B. (2020). Mixed signals: the unintended effects of diversity initiatives. Soc. Issues Policy Rev. 14, 152–181. doi: 10.1111/sipr.12059
Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998 (Amended by Employment Equity Act 47 of 2013 and Act 4 of 2022) (2025). Republic of South Africa. Available online at: https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201409/a55-98ocr.pdf (Accessed October 1, 2025).
Farndale, E., Biron, M., Briscoe, D. R., and Raghuram, S. (2015). A global perspective on diversity and inclusion in work organisations. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 26, 677–687. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2014.991511
Feagin, J., and Ducey, K. (2017). Elite White Men Ruling: Who, What, When, Where and How. New York: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781315640280
Foucault, M. (1972). Archaeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language. New York: Pantheon Books.
Fredrickson, G. M. (1982). White Supremacy: A Comparative Study of American and South African History. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gallegos, P. V., Wasserman, I. C., and Ferdman, B. M. (2020). “The dance of inclusion: new ways of moving with resistance,” in Diversity Resistance in Organizations, eds. K. M. Thomas (New York: Routledge), 165–177. doi: 10.4324/9781003026907-9
Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 4, 75–91. doi: 10.5465/amle.2005.16132558
Goldman G. ed. (2016) Critical Management Studies in the South African Context, Critical Management Studies in the South African Context. Durbanville: AOSIS Publishing. 10.4102/aosis.2016.cmssac08.
Gorbatai, A., Boros, S., and Ullman, K. (2022, October 13). Why middle managers struggle to implement DEI strategies. Harvard Business Review. Available online at: https://hbr.org/2022/10/why-middle-managers-struggle-to-implement-dei-strategies
Gray, B. (2006). “Mediation as framing and framing within mediation,” in The Blackwell Handbook of Mediation, ed. M. S. Hermann (Malden: Blackwell Publishing), 193–216. doi: 10.1111/b.9781405127424.2006.00009.x
Hahn, A., Banchefsky, S., Park, B., and Judd, C. M. (2015). Measuring intergroup ideologies. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 41, 1646–1664. doi: 10.1177/0146167215607351
Harrison, D. A., and Klein, K. J. (2007). What's the difference? diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Acad. Manag. Rev. 32, 1199–1228. doi: 10.5465/amr.2007.26586096
Hearn, J., and Collinson, D. (2006). “Men, masculinities and workplace diversity/diversion: power, intersections and contradictions,” in Handbook of Workplace Diversity (London: SAGE publications), 299–322. doi: 10.4135/9781848608092.n13
Hogg, M. A., Abrams, D., and Brewer, M. B. (2017). Social identity: the role of self in group processes and intergroup relations. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 20, 570–581. doi: 10.1177/1368430217690909
Jawitz, J. (2016). Unearthing white academics' experience of teaching in higher education in South Africa. Teach. High. Educ. 21, 948–961. doi: 10.1080/13562517.2016.1198760
Jesson, J. K., Matheson, L., and Lacey, F. M. (2011). Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques. London: Sage.
Jonsen, K., Maznevski, M. L., and Schneider, S. C. (2011). Diversity and its not so diverse literature: an international perspective. Int. J. Cross Cult. Manag. 11, 35–62. doi: 10.1177/1470595811398798
Jordaan, B. (2022). Helping organizations and individuals develop conflict wisdom. Conflict Resol. Q. 39, 379–382. doi: 10.1002/crq.21337
Karhu, P., and Ritala, P. (2018). Dilemmas and paradoxes: how managers make the toughest decisions. J. Bus. Strateg. 39, 24–31. doi: 10.1108/JBS-11-2016-0140
Kelan, E. K. (2018). Men doing and undoing gender at work: a review and research agenda. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 20, 544–558. doi: 10.1111/ijmr.12146
Klein, K. J., and Harrison, D. A. (2007). On the diversity of diversity: tidy logic, messier realities. Acad. Manage. Perspect. 21, 26–33. doi: 10.5465/AMP.2007.27895337
Kollock, P. (1998). Social dilemmas: the anatomy of cooperation. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 24, 183–214. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.183
Konrad, A. M., Richard, O. C., and Yang, Y. (2021). Both diversity and meritocracy: Managing the diversity - meritocracy paradox with organizational ambidexterity. J. Manag. Stud. 58, 2180–2206. doi: 10.1111/joms.12752
Lasch-Quinn, E. (2001). Race Experts: How Racial Etiquette, Sensitivity Training, and New Age Therapy Hijacked the Civil Rights Revolution. New York: Norton.
Lease, S. H., Hampton, A. B., Fleming, K. M., Baggett, L. R., Montes, S. H., and Sawyer, R. J. (2010). Masculinity and interpersonal competencies: contrasting white and African American men. Psychol. Men Masc. 11, 195–207. doi: 10.1037/a0018092
Leslie, L. M. (2019). Diversity initiative effectiveness: a typological theory of unintended consequences. Acad. Manag. Rev. 44, 538–563. doi: 10.5465/amr.2017.0087
Levy, B. (2022). How Inequality and Polarization Interact: America's Challenges Through a South African Lens. Washington DC. Available online at: https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/04/27/how-inequality-and-polarization-interact-america-s-challenges-through-south-african-lens-pub-86935 (Accessed December 2, 2022).
Lewis, M. W., and Smith, W. K. (2023). Today's most critical leadershipskill: navigating paradoxes. Leader to Leader 2023, 12–18. doi: 10.1002/ltl.20686
Marfelt, M. M. (2016). Grounded intersectionality: key tensions, a methodological framework, and implications for diversity research. Equal. Divers. Incl. 35, 31–47. doi: 10.1108/EDI-05-2014-0034
Miron-Spektor, E., Ingram, A., Keller, J., Smith, W. K., and Lewis, M. W. (2018). Microfoundations of organizational paradox: the problem is how we think about the problem. Acad. Manag. J. 61, 26–45. doi: 10.5465/amj.2016.0594
Morton, J. (2019). Diversity's Dark Side: Dominant Group Blowback to Organizational Diversity Policies. Irvine, CA: University of California. doi: 10.5465/AMBPP.2018.15521abstract
Moser, C. E., and Branscombe, N. R. (2021). Male allies at work: gender equality supportive men reduce negative underrepresentation effects among women. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 10, 1–10. doi: 10.1177/19485506211033748
Ndlovu-Gatshni, S. L., and Clawson, R. A. (2021). The Contested Idea of South Africa. London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780429340857
Nkomo, S. M., Bell, M. P., Roberts, L. M., Joshi, A., and Thatcher, S. M. (2019). Diversity at a critical juncture: new theories for a complex phenomenon. Acad. Manag. Rev. 44, 498–517. doi: 10.5465/amr.2019.0103
Oosthuizen, R. M., Tonelli, L., and Mayer, C.-H. (2019). Subjective experiences of employment equity in South African organisations. S. Afr. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 17, 1–12. doi: 10.4102/sajhrm.v17i0.1074
Ostrove, J. M., and Brown, K. T. (2018). Are allies who we think they are?: a comparative analysis. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 48, 195–204. doi: 10.1111/jasp.12502
Rothman, J. (2012). From Identity-Based Conflict to Identity-Based Cooperation: The ARIA Approach in Theory and Practice. New York: Springer Science + Business Media. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-3679-9
Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S., and Smith, W. K. (2016). Paradox research in management science: looking back to move forward. Acad. Manag. Ann. 10, 5–64. doi: 10.5465/19416520.2016.1162422
Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., and Smith, W. K. (2019). Quo vadis, paradox? Centripetal and centrifugal forces in theory development. Strateg. Organ. 17, 107–119. doi: 10.1177/1476127018786218
Shmueli, D., Elliott, M., and Kaufman, S. (2006). Frame changes and the management of intractable conflicts. Conflict Resol. Q. 24, 207–218. doi: 10.1002/crq.169
Sidanius, J., and Pratto, F. (2012). “Social dominance theory,” in Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology Vol. 2, eds. P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, and E. T. Higgins (London: Sage Publications), 418–438. doi: 10.4135/9781446249222.n47
Siegel, J. A., and Sawyer, K. B. (2020). “We don't talk about feelings or struggles like that”: white men's experiences of eating disorders in the workplace. Psychol. Men Masc. 21, 533–544. doi: 10.1037/men0000253
Snilstveit, B., Oliver, S., and Vojtkova, M. (2012). Narrative approaches to systematic review and synthesis of evidence for international development policy and practice. J. Dev. Effect. 4, 409–429. doi: 10.1080/19439342.2012.710641
Sullivan, D., Landau, M. J., Branscombe, N. R., and Rothschild, Z. K. (2012). Competitive victimhood as a response to accusations of ingroup harm doing. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 102, 778–795. doi: 10.1037/a0026573
Thatcher, S. M. B., and Patel, P. C. (2012). Group faultlines: a review, integration, and guide to future research. J. Manag. 38, 969–1009. doi: 10.1177/0149206311426187
Toma, C., Boros, S., and Popa-Roch, M. (2024). Paradoxes of diversity, equity and inclusion practices: from the lab to the field. Front. Psychol. 15:1511223. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1511223
Van Knippenberg, D. (2022). You may need to change how you manage diversity, equity, and inclusion. Calif. Manag. Rev. Insights 61, 19–33. Available online at: https://cmr.berkeley.edu/2022/10/you-may-need-to-change-how-you-manage-diversity-equity-and-inclusion/
Van Lange, P. A. M., Joireman, J., Parks, C. D., and Van Dijk, E. (2013). The psychology of social dilemmas: a review. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 120, 125–141. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.11.003
Waldman, D. A., and Bowen, D. E. (2016). Learning to be a paradox-savvy leader. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 30, 316–327. doi: 10.5465/amp.2015.0070
Keywords: diversity management, dominant group members, intergroup cooperation, paradox theory, research discourse
Citation: Gildenhuys K, Bosch A and Boroş S (2025) “Medice, cura te ipsum!” a (mini) review of how white men are portrayed in diversity management research. Front. Organ. Psychol. 3:1525043. doi: 10.3389/forgp.2025.1525043
Received: 08 November 2024; Accepted: 25 September 2025;
Published: 15 October 2025.
Edited by:
Charles A. Pierce, Oakland University, United StatesReviewed by:
Sabina Trif, Babeş-Bolyai University, RomaniaCopyright © 2025 Gildenhuys, Bosch and Boroş. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Kabelo Gildenhuys, MTY0ODcyMDZAc3VuLmFjLnph
†ORCID: Kabelo Gildenhuys orcid.org/0000-0003-0010-3272
Anita Bosch orcid.org/0000-0002-6865-5439
Smaranda Boroş orcid.org/0000-0001-8821-2566