“Medice, cura te ipsum!” a (mini) review of how white men are portrayed in diversity management research

Abstract

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

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).

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.

References

• 1

  AhonenP.TienariJ.MeriläinenS.PullenA. (2014). Hidden contexts and invisible power relations: a Foucauldian reading of diversity research. Hum. Relat.67, 263–286. 10.1177/0018726713491772

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 2

  BesleyA. C. (2015). “Finding foucault”: orders of discourse and cultures of the self. Educ. Philos. Theory47, 1435–1451. 10.1080/00131857.2014.945510

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 3

  BohonosJ. W. (2020). Critical race theory and working-class white men: exploring race privilege and lower-class work-life. Gend. Work Organ.28, 54–66. 10.1111/gwao.12512

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 4

  BooysenL. (2007). Societal power shifts and changing social identities in South Africa: workplace implications. S. Afr. J. Econ. Manag. Sci.10, 1–20. 10.4102/sajems.v10i1.533

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 5

  BorosS.GorbataiA.UllmanK. (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).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 6

  BoschA. (2024). Organizational and social justice paradoxes in EDI. Front. Psychol.15:1320993. 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1320993

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 7

  BrannonT. N.CarterE. R.Murdock-PerrieraL. A.HigginbothamG. D. (2018). From backlash to inclusion for all: instituting diversity efforts to maximize benefits across group lines. Soc. Issues Policy Rev. 12, 57–90. 10.1111/sipr.12040

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 8

  BraunV.ClarkeV. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 3, 77–101. 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 9

  CarianE. (2022). “No seat at the party”: mobilizing white masculinity in the men's rights movement. Sociol. Focus55, 27–47. 10.1080/00380237.2021.2009075

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 10

  CarrimN.MoolmanL. eds. (2020). Managing Diversity in the South African Workplace. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 11

  CilliersF.SmitB. (2006). A systems psychodynamic interpretation of South African diversity dynamics : a comparative study. S. Afr. J. Labour Relat.30, 5–18.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 12

  CraigM. A.RuckerJ. M.RichesonJ. A. (2018). Racial and political dynamics of an approaching “majority-minority” United States. Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci.677, 204–214. 10.1177/0002716218766269

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 13

  CrearyS. J. (2025). Transforming how ambivalence about DEI work is managed in organizations. J. Manag. Stud.10.1111/joms.13206

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 14

  DoverT. L.KaiserC. R.MajorB. (2020). Mixed signals: the unintended effects of diversity initiatives. Soc. Issues Policy Rev.14, 152–181. 10.1111/sipr.12059

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 15

  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).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 16

  FarndaleE.BironM.BriscoeD. R.RaghuramS. (2015). A global perspective on diversity and inclusion in work organisations. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag.26, 677–687. 10.1080/09585192.2014.991511

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 17

  FeaginJ.DuceyK. (2017). Elite White Men Ruling: Who, What, When, Where and How. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315640280

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 18

  FoucaultM. (1972). Archaeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language. New York: Pantheon Books.

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 19

  Foucault M. Rabinow P. eds. (1984) The Foucault Reader. 1st edn. New York: Pantheon Books.

  • View reference in article

• 20

  FredricksonG. M. (1982). White Supremacy: A Comparative Study of American and South African History. New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 21

  GallegosP. V.WassermanI. C.FerdmanB. 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. 10.4324/9781003026907-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 22

  GhoshalS. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ.4, 75–91. 10.5465/amle.2005.16132558

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 23

  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.

  • View reference in article

• 24

  GorbataiA.BorosS.UllmanK. (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

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 25

  GrayB. (2006). “Mediation as framing and framing within mediation,” in The Blackwell Handbook of Mediation, ed. M. S. Hermann (Malden: Blackwell Publishing), 193–216. 10.1111/b.9781405127424.2006.00009.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 26

  HahnA.BanchefskyS.ParkB.JuddC. M. (2015). Measuring intergroup ideologies. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull.41, 1646–1664. 10.1177/0146167215607351

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 27

  HarrisonD. A.KleinK. J. (2007). What's the difference? diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Acad. Manag. Rev.32, 1199–1228. 10.5465/amr.2007.26586096

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 28

  HearnJ.CollinsonD. (2006). “Men, masculinities and workplace diversity/diversion: power, intersections and contradictions,” in Handbook of Workplace Diversity (London: SAGE publications), 299–322. 10.4135/9781848608092.n13

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 29

  HoggM. A.AbramsD.BrewerM. B. (2017). Social identity: the role of self in group processes and intergroup relations. Group Process. Intergroup Relat.20, 570–581. 10.1177/1368430217690909

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 30

  JawitzJ. (2016). Unearthing white academics' experience of teaching in higher education in South Africa. Teach. High. Educ.21, 948–961. 10.1080/13562517.2016.1198760

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 31

  JessonJ. K.MathesonL.LaceyF. M. (2011). Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques. London: Sage.

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 32

  JonsenK.MaznevskiM. L.SchneiderS. C. (2011). Diversity and its not so diverse literature: an international perspective. Int. J. Cross Cult. Manag.11, 35–62. 10.1177/1470595811398798

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 33

  JordaanB. (2022). Helping organizations and individuals develop conflict wisdom. Conflict Resol. Q.39, 379–382. 10.1002/crq.21337

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 34

  KarhuP.RitalaP. (2018). Dilemmas and paradoxes: how managers make the toughest decisions. J. Bus. Strateg.39, 24–31. 10.1108/JBS-11-2016-0140

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 35

  KelanE. K. (2018). Men doing and undoing gender at work: a review and research agenda. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 20, 544–558. 10.1111/ijmr.12146

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 36

  KleinK. J.HarrisonD. A. (2007). On the diversity of diversity: tidy logic, messier realities. Acad. Manage. Perspect.21, 26–33. 10.5465/AMP.2007.27895337

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 37

  KollockP. (1998). Social dilemmas: the anatomy of cooperation. Annu. Rev. Sociol.24, 183–214. 10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.183

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 38

  KonradA. M.RichardO. C.YangY. (2021). Both diversity and meritocracy: Managing the diversity - meritocracy paradox with organizational ambidexterity. J. Manag. Stud.58, 2180–2206. 10.1111/joms.12752

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 39

  Lasch-QuinnE. (2001). Race Experts: How Racial Etiquette, Sensitivity Training, and New Age Therapy Hijacked the Civil Rights Revolution. New York: Norton.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 40

  LeaseS. H.HamptonA. B.FlemingK. M.BaggettL. R.MontesS. H.SawyerR. J. (2010). Masculinity and interpersonal competencies: contrasting white and African American men. Psychol. Men Masc.11, 195–207. 10.1037/a0018092

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 41

  LeslieL. M. (2019). Diversity initiative effectiveness: a typological theory of unintended consequences. Acad. Manag. Rev.44, 538–563. 10.5465/amr.2017.0087

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 42

  LevyB. (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).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 43

  LewisM. W.SmithW. K. (2023). Today's most critical leadershipskill: navigating paradoxes. Leader to Leader2023, 12–18. 10.1002/ltl.20686

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 44

  MarfeltM. M. (2016). Grounded intersectionality: key tensions, a methodological framework, and implications for diversity research. Equal. Divers. Incl.35, 31–47. 10.1108/EDI-05-2014-0034

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  Miron-SpektorE.IngramA.KellerJ.SmithW. K.LewisM. W. (2018). Microfoundations of organizational paradox: the problem is how we think about the problem. Acad. Manag. J.61, 26–45. 10.5465/amj.2016.0594

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46

  MortonJ. (2019). Diversity's Dark Side: Dominant Group Blowback to Organizational Diversity Policies. Irvine, CA: University of California. 10.5465/AMBPP.2018.15521abstract

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47

  MoserC. E.BranscombeN. R. (2021). Male allies at work: gender equality supportive men reduce negative underrepresentation effects among women. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci.10, 1–10. 10.1177/19485506211033748

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48

  Ndlovu-GatshniS. L.ClawsonR. A. (2021). The Contested Idea of South Africa. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780429340857

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49

  NkomoS. M.BellM. P.RobertsL. M.JoshiA.ThatcherS. M. (2019). Diversity at a critical juncture: new theories for a complex phenomenon. Acad. Manag. Rev.44, 498–517. 10.5465/amr.2019.0103

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 50

  OosthuizenR. M.TonelliL.MayerC.-H. (2019). Subjective experiences of employment equity in South African organisations. S. Afr. J. Hum. Resour. Manag.17, 1–12. 10.4102/sajhrm.v17i0.1074

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51

  OstroveJ. M.BrownK. T. (2018). Are allies who we think they are?: a comparative analysis. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol.48, 195–204. 10.1111/jasp.12502

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52

  RothmanJ. (2012). From Identity-Based Conflict to Identity-Based Cooperation: The ARIA Approach in Theory and Practice. New York: Springer Science + Business Media. 10.1007/978-1-4614-3679-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  SchadJ.LewisM. W.RaischS.SmithW. K. (2016). Paradox research in management science: looking back to move forward. Acad. Manag. Ann.10, 5–64. 10.5465/19416520.2016.1162422

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 54

  SchadJ.LewisM. W.SmithW. K. (2019). Quo vadis, paradox? Centripetal and centrifugal forces in theory development. Strateg. Organ.17, 107–119. 10.1177/1476127018786218

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55

  ShmueliD.ElliottM.KaufmanS. (2006). Frame changes and the management of intractable conflicts. Conflict Resol. Q.24, 207–218. 10.1002/crq.169

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 56

  SidaniusJ.PrattoF. (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. 10.4135/9781446249222.n47

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 57

  SiegelJ. A.SawyerK. 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. 10.1037/men0000253

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58

  SnilstveitB.OliverS.VojtkovaM. (2012). Narrative approaches to systematic review and synthesis of evidence for international development policy and practice. J. Dev. Effect.4, 409–429. 10.1080/19439342.2012.710641

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59

  SullivanD.LandauM. J.BranscombeN. R.RothschildZ. K. (2012). Competitive victimhood as a response to accusations of ingroup harm doing. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.102, 778–795. 10.1037/a0026573

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 60

  ThatcherS. M. B.PatelP. C. (2012). Group faultlines: a review, integration, and guide to future research. J. Manag.38, 969–1009. 10.1177/0149206311426187

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61

  TomaC.BorosS.Popa-RochM. (2024). Paradoxes of diversity, equity and inclusion practices: from the lab to the field. Front. Psychol.15:1511223. 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1511223

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 62

  Van KnippenbergD. (2022). You may need to change how you manage diversity, equity, and inclusion. Calif. Manag. Rev. Insights61, 19–33. Available online at: https://cmr.berkeley.edu/2022/10/you-may-need-to-change-how-you-manage-diversity-equity-and-inclusion/

  • Google Scholar

• 63

  Van LangeP. A. M.JoiremanJ.ParksC. D.Van DijkE. (2013). The psychology of social dilemmas: a review. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process.120, 125–141. 10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.11.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64

  WaldmanD. A.BowenD. E. (2016). Learning to be a paradox-savvy leader. Acad. Manag. Perspect.30, 316–327. 10.5465/amp.2015.0070

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65

  WilligC. (2013). Introducing Qualitative Research in Psychology. 3rd edn. Buckingham: Open University Press.

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • Google Scholar