Journal of Management Studies 58:8 December 2021

doi:10.1111/joms.12690

Why Difference Makes a Difference: Diversity,

Inequality, and Institutionalization

Nancy DiTomaso
Rutgers Business School

ABSTRACT  The purpose of this paper is to explain why differences make such a difference by
drawing on an historical, institutional, and structural account of intergroup relations and to
show the relevance in the present of what has in the past shaped the differences that we take
for granted as essential, enduring, and consequential. I make five fundamental points about
the meaning of diversity and why difference makes a difference. First, I argue that diversity is
always associated with hierarchical inequality, most prominently a racial hierarchy. Second, I
emphasize the historical embeddedness of diversity through processes of institutionalization.
Third, I emphasize that the structure of intergroup relations is also always subject to contentious
politics and to social change. Fourth, I argue that understanding the consequences of diversity
over time requires a multi-­levelled analysis at the structural, cultural, and social psychological
levels in their interrelationships and mutual causality. Fifth, I call attention to the epistemological
ignorance that overlays inequality and the history of diversity. I conclude with a discussion of
theoretical contributions and outline the need for anti-­racist responses at multiple levels to break
the link between diversity and inequality.
Keywords: categorization, culture, contentious politics, diversity, epistemological ignorance,
hierarchy, inequality, institutionalization

INTRODUCTION
Perhaps the most fundamental question in the study of diversity, equity, and inclusion
is the one that was asked by Rodney King following his near-­death beating by the Los
Angeles Police in 1991. The beating was caught on camera and led to major riots in
which 63 people were killed and over 2000 injured. King later asked, ‘Can’t we all just
get along?’. His was not the first, and certainly not the last time that incidents of police
brutality toward unarmed Black men and women in the USA led to public protest, riots,

Address for reprints: Nancy DiTomaso, Rutgers Business School –­Newark and New Brunswick, 143 South
Martine Avenue, Fanwood, New Jersey 07023, USA ([email protected]).

© 2021 Society for the Advancement of Management Studies and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
 Why Difference Makes a Difference 2025

and violence by both the police and the public. King’s question, though, calls our atten-
tion to the need to explore both the promises and limitations of the research on diversity,
equity, and inclusion. The incident with Rodney King occurred not long after the publi-
cation of a landmark article in the field by Roosevelt Thomas, entitled, ‘From Affirmative
Action to Affirming Diversity’ (1990), which was considered by many to be the initiation
of the concern with ‘diversity’ in management and organizations. In the three decades
since, research on diversity, equity, and inclusion has become an established area of study.
Most large US-­based companies have adopted policies and programs associated with
increasing diversity, equity, and inclusion, and many have hired Chief Diversity Officers.
At the same time, however, the concept of diversity, as well as equity and inclusion, have
become the subjects of political controversy in the USA and in other developed coun-
tries, with growing multicultural populations invoking nativist movements and right-­wing
politics to counter the growing celebration by companies and governments alike of diver-
sity, equity, and inclusion. Importantly, even after three decades of extensive research and
policy making with regard to diversity, equity, and inclusion, the USA has experienced
one of its most volatile periods of unrest with growing demands for social justice in the
midst of a global pandemic because of new and more egregious incidents between the
police and unarmed Black men and women, such as the killing by the police in broad
daylight of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Such incidents, which have been
far too frequent, suggest that we are far from being able to get along.
In the juxtaposition of the growing research and practice on diversity and the growing
opposition from organized social movements, we need to ask why more progress has not
been made toward getting along, and indeed, why there seems to be heightened tensions
and contradictions in intergroup relations. Researchers believe that their work has moved
the field toward greater understanding, companies believe that their programs and prac-
tices are maturing, and there are offerings from both scholars and practitioners about
‘what works’ (O’Mara and Richter, 2017; Padulla, 2020). The steps forward, though,
seem unfortunately to be followed by steps back.
Although multiculturalism has grown in many countries (Alba and Foner, 2014, 2016;
Koopmans, 2013), it has been accompanied by paradoxical trends of increasingly blurred
boundaries between groups combined with an intensification of conflict about group
rights and responsibilities. The same challenges are evident across many countries with
native born populations declining in proportion while population growth is being made
up primarily of migrants from different cultures and lands. At the same time that diver-
sity is being highlighted by both companies and countries as both positive and necessary,
political movements to the contrary are contributing to both unrest and uncertainty.
While organizations are emphasizing the need for inclusion across group differences, at
the societal level, there are growing concerns about whether inclusion is possible, and if
so, what it would mean.
I argue in this paper that we cannot find solutions to inclusion or equity, nor can we
understand why difference makes such a difference, if we do not examine more closely
the historical, structural and institutional origins of group differences (Massey, 2007;
Sidanius and Pratto, 1999). Providing a broader context to the study of diversity, eq-
uity, and inclusion requires showing the relevance in the present of what has in the past
shaped the differences that we take for granted as essential, enduring, and consequential.
© 2021 Society for the Advancement of Management Studies and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
2026 N. DiTomaso

In developing my argument, I make five fundamental points about why difference makes
a difference. First, I argue that diversity is always associated with hierarchical inequality.
Most prominently for explaining incidents like those with Rodney King or George Floyd,
there is a racial hierarchy that contributes to ongoing racial inequality (Bell et al., 2014;
Mills, 1997). While the link between diversity and inequality has been noted previously
(DiTomaso et al., 2007), I do not think that the implications have been given sufficient
attention. Second, I emphasize the historical embeddedness of diversity and inequality
through processes of institutionalization (Amis et al., 2017; Bapuji and Chrispal, 2020;
Chrispal et al., 2020; Cooke, 2003; Crane, 2013; Haack and Sieweke, 2018; Hamann
and Bertels, 2018; Pierce and Synder, 2020; Reece, 2020). Third, I emphasize that the
structure of intergroup relations is also always subject to contentious politics and to social
change and hence, to deinstitutionalization as well (Fligstein and McAdam, 2012; Oliver,
1992; Tilly and Tarrow, 2015). Fourth, I argue that understanding the consequences of
diversity over time requires a multi-­levelled analysis at the structural, cultural, and social
psychological levels in their interrelationships and mutual causality (DiTomaso et al.,
2007; Markus and Moya, 2010). Fifth, I call attention to the epistemological ignorance
that overlays the linking of diversity and inequality (Mills, 1997). I conclude with a dis-
cussion of the theoretical and management lessons that these insights about diversity
and inequality suggest and outline the need for anti-­racist responses at multiple levels to
break the link between diversity and inequality (Kendi, 2019; Markus and Moya, 2010).

DIVERSITY, INEQUALITY, AND (RACIAL) HIERARCHY

Despite the arguments of 17th and 18th century Enlightenment philosophers that from a
state of nature ‘all men’ entered into a social contract by which they voluntarily gave up
their equal and inalienable rights to form a state and a set of moral principles to protect
themselves from each other, from the earliest period of human history, inequality has
prevailed and has been associated with distinctions that assigned a ‘place’ to people in
different categories (Hobbes, 1651 [1994]; Locke, 1689 [1988]; Rousseau, 1968). Social
contract philosophy further argued that ‘all men’ would give up some of their rights to
a state and to each other only as long as the state did not act tyrannically toward them.
If their rights were violated by the state to which they had voluntarily submitted, then
they had both a right and an obligation to rebel and overthrow the state. These were the
sentiments and the justification drawn from Enlightenment thinking when written by
Thomas Jefferson into the U.S. Declaration of Independence and later into the French
Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, which were used to justify the
American Revolution and then, the French Revolution. The promise of these sacred
documents was not at the time they were written, and neither before nor after, an accu-
rate representation of what happened among people, nor how they have lived their lives
through most of human history.
Scholars agree that early tribal societies formed primitive authority structures to over-
see behaviour within tribes, but as soon as differentiated roles were created, so was a
hierarchy that gave more rights and privileges to rulers over ruled (Malinowski, 1941;
Massey, 2005; Piketty, 2020; Sidanius and Pratto, 1999). As Bendix notes (1978, p. 16),

© 2021 Society for the Advancement of Management Studies and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
 Why Difference Makes a Difference 2027

‘where authority is present, inequality between rulers and ruled will occur’. In response
to a letter from Einstein, Freud called the transition from a state of nature where the
strong could prevail to a tribal authority structure as going ‘from might to right’, mean-
ing the embodiment of the rules of behaviour in law and custom (Einstein, 1931; Freud,
1932). In this stage of human history several ‘differences’ began to make a difference in
ways that have endured. Sidanius and Pratto (1999) argue that every society has been
differentiated by gender and age, as well as by a third dimension which they call an
‘arbitrary set system’ which may be based on clan, caste, ethnicity, estate, class, religion,
or some other basis. Gender differences are thought of as universal because they grow
out of family relationships, for both evolutionary and cultural reasons (Betzig, 1993;
Buss et al., 1992; Eagly and Wood, 2013), so in most every society, especially as societies
have become more complex, men have been dominant over women. Sidanius and Pratto
(1999) argue that in its origins a hierarchy based on gender (i.e., patriarchy) was interac-
tive with a hierarchy based on age, where male elders had greater control and authority
to oversee community norms and resources (Walby, 1990). Gender dynamics in tribal
societies led more powerful males to try to dominate not only women but also less pow-
erful males (Massey, 2007; Sidanius and Pratto, 1999), contributing some have argued
to males being more aggressive and competitive than females (Ertac and Gurdal, 2012;
Estes and Felker, 2012; Pratto et al., 1997). Sidanius and Pratto (1999) also argue that the
interaction of gender and patriarchy have contributed even now to what they call ‘the
subordinate male target hypothesis’ in which discrimination against subordinate males
(e.g., males from ethnic minority groups) by dominant males will be especially severe such
as in the incidents toward Rodney King and George Floyd.
Differentiation on the basis of gender and age, or even with regard to the ‘arbitrary
set system’ which varies across locations and time periods have to do with the types of
people who are recognized as different from each other. But even from the very early
periods of human history, there was also a differentiation in the types of positions that
people from different categories might hold. Piketty (2020, p. 5) argues that a ternary or
‘tri-­functional’ structure existed in most pre-­modern societies in which there were three
major social positions: a noble or warrior class, a clerical and religious class, and then the
common people, further adding that ‘the two dominant classes are both ruling classes’.
In some societies, the religious and political roles overlapped or the political leader was
viewed as a religious figure (Bendix, 1978), but the key issue with regard to hierarchy is
that the recognition of difference contributed to ranking of groups thought of as differ-
ent from each other, resulting in some groups being dominant over others.
Especially in the transition from nomadic, hunter-­gatherer societies to those with set-
tled agriculture and cities, those given political authority to adjudicate the application of
community norms and those given the role of upholding religious beliefs and values were
set apart from the common people and treated as having special wisdom and thereby
entitled to special privileges (Bourdieu, 1984; Durkheim, 1995; Weber, 1968). Durkheim
argued that the ‘right’ had to become sacred, such that people created their own gods in
order to restrain potential challenges to community beliefs and practices. Weber argued
that especially in periods of transition, leaders had to be thought of as charismatic, that
is, as having a ‘gift of grace’. Each tribal group was defined by the beliefs and prac-
tices adopted by the community and overseen by political and religious leaders. In other
© 2021 Society for the Advancement of Management Studies and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
2028 N. DiTomaso

words, those who shared sacred traditions, spoke the same language, and lived in similar
ways were thought of as the same people, that is, an ethnic group that defined its bound-
aries in terms of these ways of living.
Despite the sharing of traditions, differences made a difference within tribal groups by
the hierarchical structure of the dominant groups of political and religious leaders over
the subordinate group of common people by status, class, or sometimes caste distinc-
tions, and by the differences recognized by gender and age. Even from this early period
of human history, there were patterns of inequality in which some types of people were
more likely to hold dominant positions while other types of people were assigned to sub-
ordinate positions. That is, diversity or difference was overlaid on control over resources
and privileges (Ridgeway, 2011, 2014, 2019), which then as now created cognitive asso-
ciations as well as social structures that shaped assumptions about who deserved what
and who was capable of what. Although initially these kinds of differences were relevant
within tribal groups, as tribes began to engage with other tribes, differences became more
complicated, but retained the link of diversity to hierarchical inequality.
According to Malinowski (1941), tribal groups did not fight with each other as long as
they were able to produce only enough to sustain the community, but once the transition
to settled agriculture and to cities enabled the production of more than was needed
for subsistence, it became possible for tribes to fight with each other in order to take
resources, control land, and take captives. Massey (2005, pp. 20–­1) argues that the devel-
opment of cities created differentiation of non-­food producing social roles such as ‘rul-
ing, worshipping, soldiering, and manufacturing’. The ability to fight wars of conquest
depended both on the technology of war and the availability of those to serve as soldiers.
Fighting among tribal groups often created complex relationships between ruling groups
and the common people, especially as intergroup conflict brought people who thought
of themselves as different from each other into contact.
Intertribal conflict initially took place among tribes that were in contiguous geograph-
ical areas, so they were likely similar to each other in physical features and lifestyles
(Bendix, 1978; Malinowski, 1941; Patterson, 1982, 1991). Those from other tribes were
identified primarily as foreigners. The goals for engaging in conflict with other tribes
were to take resources and land more than people. Because of the limits to the ability
to produce food, the male losers in intertribal wars were frequently killed, while female
captives might be taken as slaves for household labour or sexual services. As a tribe be-
came more successful in taking over the land of other groups with the development of
settled agriculture, there was a need for labour to make the conquered land productive,
so the enslavement of male captives became more prevalent. Soldiers who participated
in intertribal conflict were entitled to take plunder as part of their rewards, but if they
lost the war, they could be killed or themselves enslaved (Bendix, 1978; Patterson, 1991).
Through these dynamics, slavery existed all over the world, but it was based on language
and ethnic groups, not on skin colour.
According to Patterson (1982), slaves were dishonoured people who were ‘socially
dead’, meaning that once enslaved, they had no past and no future. They were those
who should have died but were allowed to live. As socially dead, non-­persons, slaves had
no incentive to work hard, so according to Patterson (1982, 1991), in Ancient Greece and
later in Ancient Rome, slaves were offered manumission after a fixed term of service of
© 2021 Society for the Advancement of Management Studies and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
 Why Difference Makes a Difference 2029

perhaps 25 years. The increasing use of slaves to solve the labour problems of large land-
holders, however, contributed to instability in the political systems of the conquerors and
to administrative problems with managing an ever-­growing system of domination and
subordination across an increasingly broader geographical area. Small landowners could
not compete with slave labour and at times rebelled as they became more vulnerable. As
land holdings grew, large landowners often had to hire overseers to manage their pro-
duction, which contributed to alternative bases of power. Both in order to quell potential
unrest and to manage negotiations with local overseers, large landowners sometimes had
to delegate or give up power, contributing to more decentralized power systems (Bendix,
1978; Morgan, 1975; Patterson, 1991).
Maintaining control over conquered territory became increasingly problematic as geo-
graphical entities took over larger areas. In the ancient world and even into the Middle
Ages, there were often city states that functioned as a sovereign entity over a city without
being part of a larger government. As sovereign entities, city states often went to war
with other city states in their region. A nation-­state is created through the consolidation
of separate political entities, such as city states and other political jurisdictions, into a
single political unit. Either a city state or a nation-­state often sought to create cultural
homogeneity within their territory to reduce intergroup friction and possible rebellion.
An empire, however, is a political entity that conquers other lands and people, without
necessarily endeavouring to incorporate or integrate the people into a single political
unit, nor necessarily trying to impose a homogeneous culture.
Empire building was prevalent across the globe from ancient times through most of
human history, contributing to complex intergroup relations and conflict that was al-
ways a threat to political stability. Malinowski (1941) argues that in the progression of
intergroup conflict from tribal societies to the modern world that whenever there were
inconsistencies in the territorial coverage of what he called the tribe-­nation (defined by
an ethnic or language group) and the tribe-­state (defined by the political entity), that
there would likely be ongoing intergroup conflict. The people at the centre of the empire
treated themselves as superior to and more entitled than those they had conquered, and
this was especially the case when conquered people were enslaved. Empires extracted
taxes, tribute, and plunder from the people that they conquered, which almost always
invoked resistance and threats to the power of the empire. Empires generally grew along
trade routes, taking over contiguous territory, but often crossing into areas with people
whose way of life in terms of religious beliefs and customs were quite different than those
of the conquerors. The military success of empire builders was always accompanied by
ideological adherence to ethnocentrism, that is, beliefs in a hierarchy of value in which
the conquerors believed themselves to be superior people while they believed that the
conquered were inferior people deserving of their fate.
Although we often associate empire building with the colonization of the world by
European nation-­states, empires of significant size and duration existed in many parts
of the world throughout human history before the European age of conquest. Empires
often spread across thousands of miles and in some cases lasted hundreds if not thou-
sands of years, including among others the Egyptian Empire (3100 to 30 BC), the Indus
Valley Empires (2550–­1550 BC), Persian Empires (550 BC to 637 BCE), Roman Empire
(264 BC to 476 BCE), Byzantine Empire (i.e., the Eastern Roman Empire, 330–­1453
© 2021 Society for the Advancement of Management Studies and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
2030 N. DiTomaso

BCE), and the Ottoman Empire which conquered the Byzantine Empire (1453–­1923).
An important change in empire building occurred, however, in the 15th and 16th centu-
ries that changed the nature of the hierarchies that justified domination, even though it
did not change the dynamics of empire building.
The new technologies of navigation and shipbuilding made it possible for explorers, in
the name of the kings or queens of their home countries, to conquer lands that were far
from the home countries. Finding lands that needed extensive labour to make them pro-
ductive but with indigenous people who were often decimated by diseases brought to the
new lands, the new empire building contributed to the development and expansion of
the African slave trade and an ideology based not only on ethnocentrism, but explicitly
on race. Mills (1997) argues that it was not a Social Contract that guided the development
of nation-­building and democracy in the 17th and 18th centuries, but rather a Racial
Contract that contributed to a racial hierarchy and a legacy of racial inequality that
persists to the present. A racial hierarchy was made official policy, with White, Christian
Europeans considered superior people and enslaved Africans treated as less than human,
while indigenous people called Indians as somewhere in between, in the late 17th century
in Colonial Virginia, with the adoption of the Slave Codes and an explicit differentia-
tion in terms of rights determined by racial classification (Mills, 1997; Morgan, 1972;
Smedley, 2007). Research documents that the term ‘White’ rather than Christian or
country of origin was first used in 1691 (Smedley, 2007). As Mills (1997) argued, the free-
dom that White Europeans claimed for themselves on the basis of Social Contract phi-
losophy was built on the exploitation, enslavement, and expropriation of resources from
most of the rest of the world, that is, the non-­White and non-­Christian world (Morgan,
1972; Patterson, 1991). What is essential for the purposes of this paper is to note that the
vast majority of the literature on diversity, equity, and inclusion has ignored the contin-
ued legacy of the racial hierarchy that was created in Colonial Virginia and during the
period of European colonization of as much as 85 per cent of the world. The Racial
Contract that Mills describes (1997) was not just an ideology that took White superiority
for granted, but it was also written into laws, embedded in culture, and institutionalized.
There has been, of course, substantial attention to issues of racial, ethnic, gender, and
other forms of inequality in the social sciences more broadly, but much less in manage-
ment and organizational research aside from the attention to what has been called the
‘base of the pyramid’ about making profits by selling products to the world’s poor (Hart,
2005; Prahalad and Hammond, 2002; Prahalad and Hart, 2002; Rangan et al., 2007).
Only recently has there been more focused attention to inequality and poverty (much
less to wealth) in the management and organizations literature (Amis et al., 2020; Amis
et al., 2018; Amis et al., 2017; Bapuji et al., 2020a, 2020b; Clegg, 2010; Davis, 2017;
Haack and Sieweke, 2018; Magee and Galinsky, 2008; Newbert, 2018; Suddaby et al.,
2018; Wadhwani, 2018). Most of this research, however, has not been part of what oth-
erwise would be thought of as the diversity literature. Some recent research has called
attention to the role of management theory and practice with regard to slavery, including
its current legacies (Cooke, 2003; Crane, 2013; Pierce and Synder, 2020; Reece, 2020),
and recent work as well has argued that management scholars have been inattentive to
the implications of caste (Bapuji and Chrispal, 2020; Chrispal et al., 2020). As some-
what of an exception, Bell et al. (2014) offer documentation specifically for the existence
© 2021 Society for the Advancement of Management Studies and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
 Why Difference Makes a Difference 2031

of a racial hierarchy that continues to benefit Whites and to disadvantage Blacks, with
other racial groups in positions in between. They provide a brief review of some of the
evidence that a racial hierarchy still governs intergroup relations in the present. Theirs,
however, is just one effort in this direction. There has clearly not been sufficient recog-
nition that a racial hierarchy has continued to have significant influence on intergroup
relations, despite social movements for civil rights and despite decades of research on
diversity, equity, and inclusion.

THE INSTITUTIONAL EMBEDDEDNESS OF DIVERSITY, INEQUALITY,

AND RACIAL HIERARCHY
When I argue that the link between diversity and hierarchical inequality, and for at least
the last three centuries, a racial hierarchy have been embedded in institutions, I mean
that those who were in positions to make decisions, to have influence, and to mobilize
resources, as well as understanding how to use them, endeavoured to maintain their
positions of power and privilege by trying to arrange for outcomes to continue to favour
them. This does not mean that they were necessarily successful, that they were capable
of understanding and carrying out plans of action that matched their ambitions, that
they did not meet resistance, and that they did not confront a myriad of unanticipated
factors that shifted things in a different direction and sometimes undermined them and
their efforts. Institutions are patterns of action, belief systems, and rules of behaviour
that are built in with the expectation that they will constrain actions in a particular direc-
tion, shape future outcomes, and restrain efforts to serve alternative interests. Institutions
may be codified in sacred texts, in traditions handed down and interpreted by designated
leaders, in laws, in decrees from those invested with authority, in sunk costs, in the dis-
tribution of resources, and in ceremonies, celebrations, and the enactment of rituals.
Institutions are ways to try to lock in the distribution of power and resources so that
they do not have to be negotiated every day. Institutions come about through processes
of institutionalization that are carried out by people doing things at particular historical
times and in varied historical contexts, but they do not always ‘work’ (i.e., institutional
work may fail) and they do not always last. Bendix (1978, p. 219), for example, describes
well the limitations on the authority of rulers:

One is tempted to say that what a king really needs to carry out his rule is force by
which he can back up his commands and secure his needed resources. But force, while
always needed, is not sufficient, for there is never enough of it to make the king’s will
prevail in the long run. Nevertheless, kings have resorted to violence so often because
the other means of rule are also ineffective or counterproductive.

This conception of the limits of authority and of the inability of even powerful rulers
to create systems that protect and further their interests raises questions about how the
past comes into the present and the future. An important part of understanding the
history of intergroup relations and the creation of a racial hierarchy that continues to
generate racial inequality is to examine how the legacies of this past continue to affect us.

© 2021 Society for the Advancement of Management Studies and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
2032 N. DiTomaso

The link between diversity and hierarchical inequality, especially in the form of a racial
hierarchy, has been insufficiently addressed in the growing literature on diversity, equity,
and inclusion. In fact, if anything, the emphasis that the field has given to inclusion has
tended to weaken the attention to the past and to the ongoing ways that racial hierarchy
shapes our present (DiTomaso, 2021). In a sense, there has been so much emphasis on
inclusion that each type of difference has tended to be treated similarly rather than ac-
knowledging that some differences make much more of a difference to life chances and
to well-­being.
Knowing how difficult it is for even powerful actors to get what they want and to get
others to do their bidding also suggests the need for caution with regard to the mas-
sive literature that has been developing within management and organization theory
about institutions, institutionalization, institutional logics, institutional entrepreneurship,
institutional ‘work’ and the many other concepts that have been associated with under-
standing institutions (Alvesson and Spicer, 2010; Clegg, 2010; Dacin et al., 2002; David
et al., 2019; DiMaggio and Powell, 1991; Fligstein and McAdam, 2012; Garud et al.,
2007; Hinings and Tolbert, 2008; Hirsch, 2008; Hirsch and Lounsbury, 1997; Lawrence
and Phillips, 2019; Ocasio and Gai, 2020; Powell and Colyvas, 2008; Suddaby, 2010;
Thorton et al., 2012). Not only are actors with ostensible power not necessarily able
to get others to do what they want, they are also not necessarily able to put in place
structures or systems to constrain the actions of others. But social life is patterned, and
there is inequality in the relationships among groups that often invokes contention or
recalcitrance. Such actions may be routine or intentional or inadvertent. While people
are always taking actions, however, their actions are not always theoretically meaningful,
and they are not necessarily consequential.
Social life is social, meaning that people do not exist as individuals, but they are always
parts of groups, communities, and histories. The institutional theorists of ‘old institu-
tional theory’, including Parsons (1938, 1978) and Althusser (1971, 1976), challenged
atomistic conceptions of methodological individualism (Tilly, 1998, 2000) to argue that
individuals are only ‘bearers’ of the system (Althusser, 1976, p. 99) which ‘has been lying
in wait for each infant born since before his birth, and seizes him before his first cry,
assigning to him his place and role’ (1971, p. 211). Mills (1940, p. 906) offered a similar
analysis when he argued that motives do not originate from ‘within’, but rather arise from
the situation, within institutions, in patterns that he defined as ‘vocabularies of motive’.
According to Mills (1940), social practices are like language, learned before it is possible
to make choices or to think about, let alone express, preferences. That is, the social em-
beddedness of actors shapes what it is possible for them to know and understand, as well
as to express or to choose. Each of these conceptions allows that people may wilfully and
intentionally take actions that have various outcomes, but these theorists do not consider
such wilful actions as theoretically meaningful unless they change systems of meaning
and structures of intergroup relations (DiTomaso, 1982). Hence, while there may be
ongoing institutional ‘work’ (Lawrence and Phillips, 2019; Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006)
and institutional entrepreneurs (Dacin et al., 2002; DiMaggio, 1988; Garud et al., 2007;
Powell and Colyvas, 2008), such agency still takes place within a system that provides
meanings, ties people to relations with others, shapes access to resources, and only occa-
sionally provides opportunities to make a difference.
© 2021 Society for the Advancement of Management Studies and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
 Why Difference Makes a Difference 2033

While theorists like Parsons (1938) and Althusser (1971, 1976), as well as more con-
temporary institutional theorists, want to avoid formulations of methodological individ-
ualism (Tilly, 1998), they also want to avoid the kind of sociological reductionism that
suggests that structures or institutions determine everything without the possibility of
meaningful social change (Alvesson and Spicer, 2010; DiTomaso, 1982; Fligstein and
McAdam, 2012; Ocasio and Gai, 2020). Although neo-­institutional theory supplanted
what was conceived of as ‘old’ institutional theory that in essence did not give sufficient
place to institutions, neo-­institutional theory itself has been accused of treating people
as ‘cultural dopes’ without agency or will (Clegg, 2010; Powell and Colyvas, 2008). The
efforts to create new versions of institutional theory with a greater role for intentional
actions and change, however, have been criticized as constructing ‘cultural heroes’ who
can change systems by setting their minds to it (Lawrence and Phillips, 2019; Powell and
Colyvas, 2008; Suddaby, 2010), which is clearly counter to what we experience with re-
gard to social change.
There have been various efforts within new forms of institutional theory to resolve
the seeming conflict in the conceptions of action and structure. The institutional logics
perspective (Thorton et al., 2012) draws from the work of Friedland and Alford (1991)
to suggest that because of gaps or contradictions across different institutional logics, new
ideas or patterns can emerge (Karpik, 1978; Touraine, 1977). This framing is similar to
Parsons’ (1961; Parsons and Smelser, 1956) conceptualization of a system with subsys-
tems that can experience ‘strain’ and to Althusser’s (1976) conception of levels that get
out of synchronization. For both Parsons and Althusser, these subsystems or levels have
individual identity and yet are held together in a complex relation within a larger system,
which Althusser called ‘relative autonomy’ (1976, p. 138) and Parsons argued are ‘open
systems … which are never fully integrated’ (1961, pp. 36, 74). The institutional logics
perspective similarly uses the language of ‘partial autonomy between social structure and
action’ (Thorton et al., 2012, p. 16) and suggests that change emerges from a dynamic
system at each level and in the interconnection among levels.
According to Fligstein and McAdam (2012), whose book was over 30 years in the
making but ultimately came out the same year as that of Thorton et al. (2012), there are
many efforts across disciplines to find ways to explain how social change is possible within
what appear to be relatively stable systems controlled by dominant elites. Fligstein and
McAdam (2012), in this regard, note the influence on their framework by Bourdieu’s the-
ory of fields (1984); Giddens’ theory of structuration (1976, 1984); the new institutional
theory of DiMaggio and Powell (1983, 1991) and others who do research on social net-
works (Burt, 1992; Granovetter, 1973; Uzzi, 1997); social movement theory and theories
of contentious politics (McAdam and Boudet, 2012; McCarthy and Zald, 1977; Tilly
and Tarrow, 2015); as well as by research in political science concerned with challenges to
political systems (Mahoney and Thelen, 2009). Fligstein and McAdam (2012) endeavour
to create a theory of strategic action fields that link the micro interactions of individuals
with macro processes that are largely beyond the control of the individuals within them,
and yet which undergo changes because of the collective action of skilled social actors
(i.e., institutional entrepreneurs) at the meso level who engage in competition with or
enlist the cooperation of others to challenge dominant groups (whom they call incum-
bents). From time to time, skilled social actors (the challengers) are able to change the
© 2021 Society for the Advancement of Management Studies and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
2034 N. DiTomaso

dynamics within the strategic action field which can contribute to changes as well in the
larger social system. Fligstein and McAdam (2012, p. 8) argue that their framework helps
solve the problem of order versus change or agency versus structure because they incor-
porate an understanding of the role of collective action, the dynamics within strategic
action fields in which skilled social actors can organize others to either gain advantage or
change the rules, and they recognize the importance of meaning, identity, and commu-
nity rather than only material self-­interest.
While these conceptualizations of institutions, action, and social change provide some
insights about the functioning of social systems, in my mind, they are insufficiently his-
torical and cannot explain, for example, kings that have to resort to violence because
nothing else works even when violence fails to serve their interests. The various forms
of institutional theory are also insufficient in my judgment to explain the succession
of empires, the sustainability of gender inequality despite social movements for change
(Ridgeway, 2011), and the continued legacy of a racial hierarchy that persists despite
decades of struggle for civil rights and decades of research and writing about diversity,
equity, and inclusion. In my view, much of the literature on various forms of institutional
theory may provide insight for the specific types of problems the authors are addressing,
but for understanding the legacy of intergroup inequality, Hirsch (2008) encapsulates the
gap between the tools of theory that we have had available from the past and where we
seem to be at present, especially with regard to understanding diversity, equity, and in-
clusion. We know that institutions matter for holding things in place and keeping people
in their place, but we also know that they are open systems with gaps and contradictions
that are not necessarily understood even by those who created them and that they are
unevenly constraining for many for whom they were intended.
As Bendix notes (1978, p. 219), force is not sufficient to maintain domination; it is too
costly and does not work when out of sight and mind. Ideology helps, but it only goes so
far. Building institutions are not failsafe, but they are far more consequential than other
strategies for maintaining domination. Those in dominant positions will have a far easier
time holding on to their power by controlling the courts, making the laws, using religion
and educational systems, adopting rules about commerce, and holding or determining
control over political movements. It is through these kinds of strategies that dominant
groups endeavour to maintain their positions. But rulers and leaders of all types through-
out history faced frequent threats and palace intrigues, did not always get what they
wanted, and did not always know what would serve their interests. In other words, even
for the ruling class or leaders from dominant groups, institutional ‘work’ does not always
work and may not be done competently with a sufficient understanding of how the levers
of power cause outcomes.
The institutionalization of white supremacy, of white privilege, contributed to remak-
ing most of the world over several centuries and affected most people in the world to
the present. White Europeans from various countries colonized or otherwise dominated
most of the world because they believed that they were more civilized, that the lands that
they encountered were unoccupied, that their kings or queens could give away the land
at will to those who conquered it in their names, that the people they encountered could
be enslaved, subordinated, or exterminated if they resisted, that the resources that they
found were theirs for the taking and would be better used by the Europeans, that taking
© 2021 Society for the Advancement of Management Studies and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
 Why Difference Makes a Difference 2035

over the world improved the lives of the people they encountered, and that their way of
life, their religions, and their systems of laws were all superior to those of the people they
found elsewhere in the world (Davis, 1984; Jordan, 1969; Mills, 1997; Piketty, 2020). Not
only did White Europeans believe themselves to be justified and even to be praised for
helping ‘civilize’ the rest of the world, but they believed that their success in doing so was
because of their superior morality and ways of life, and not because they had plundered
the rest of the world and stole their land, people, and resources (Mills, 1997, 2017).
If one wants to understand the legacy of the Racial Contract (Mills, 1997) and of
the racial hierarchy that was created in participation with the African Slave Trade, one
need only consider that even after the slave trade was outlawed, for example in England,
that British investors continued to fund the slave trade (Desmond, 2019), that following
emancipation and the end of slavery that slave owners were paid for their property but
slaves did not receive any payments for their labor (Piketty, 2020), and even when slavery
was repealed that slave-­like conditions continued whenever there were needs for low
cost labour (Blackmon, 2008; Davis, 1984). Slavery ended, abolitionist and civil rights
movements arose, discrimination was outlawed, and diversity programs were adopted,
and yet Whites still get preference in jobs, in housing, in interactions with the police, in
access to resources, to opportunity, and to the benefit of the doubt (Devos and Banaji,
2005; DiTomaso, 2013, 2015; Lipsitz, 1998; Pager et al., 2009). The racial hierarchy
that exists both in belief systems and in structures and institutions still has a legacy in the
present, and failing to acknowledge this helps explain why diversity, equity, and inclusion
programs have not made as much of a difference as they should have after decades of
effort. A racial hierarchy in which Whites are normatively dominant has been remark-
ably durable and continues to be embedded in institutions in ways that make it difficult to
achieve relative equality across groups. Each dimension of diversity has its own hierarchy
and history, but given the limitations of a single paper, I am giving more attention in this
paper to racial hierarchy and its links to ongoing racial inequality.

CONTENTIOUS POLITICS AND SOCIAL CHANGE

Diversity is always associated with hierarchical inequality that is embedded at multiple
levels, but inequality also invokes contention and challenge. No single individual either
understands or has the capacity to change the direction of history, but actions taken in
collaboration with others, whether through skilled efforts to enlist the cooperation of
others or through inadvertent ones, often do change history and can change the logics
of action and meanings within institutions that shape social life. While society may pro-
duce itself, it does not do so as pure reproduction (Touraine, 1977) but rather is subject
to many efforts at various levels to change and redirect the pathways of history. In more
complex systems, there are both more levers of constraint, but also more openings for
transformation both in and of the system. In any social system, there are many oppor-
tunities for both random and planned action, for organizing and collaborating, and for
using levers of change, especially through collective action and social movements that
endeavour to break with the patterns of the past. Fligstein and McAdam (2012, pp.

© 2021 Society for the Advancement of Management Studies and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
2036 N. DiTomaso

12–­3) argue that their concept of ‘strategic action fields’ are always in flux and subject to
contention, even in settled times but especially in unsettled times (Swidler, 1986).
Contentious politics have been long standing, with threats to those in positions of
authority always a preoccupation (Tilly and Tarrow, 2015). While contention has taken
different forms from resistance, rebellion, and sabotage to organized social movements
and political action, there are always threats to those in positions of authority, especially
when inequality is durable and patterned by social groups (Tilly and Tarrow, 2015; Tilly
and Wood, 2013). Thus, despite the consecration of the authority of kings and emperors
around the globe, the authority of the ruler was always divided, uncertain, and often
challenged. Although some empires existed for long periods of time, only a few emper-
ors held power for a significant time before being replaced by a rival, usually violently
(Bendix, 1978). The effort to consolidate power over people from different cultural back-
grounds frequently met with resistance, requiring the constant use of brutal subjugation,
but the limits of force also led to negotiation, especially with local elites who were then
incorporated into an administrative system that was necessary but always suspect (Tilly,
1975). The authority of kings or emperors was counterbalanced by that of an aristo-
cratic or oligarchic class, religious authorities, and through the Middle Ages, a growing
commercial class in urban areas (Piketty, 2020). Most conflict between the king or em-
peror and other power holders within a given political entity was about the need for re-
sources to support military adventures to further expand the empire or to defend it from
outsiders. Thus, because force was impractical in many circumstances and ideologies
supporting legitimacy were often challenged, kings were often forced into negotiations
with members of the nobility who demanded rights in return for support. Prominently
in England, but in other parts of the world as well, these negotiations and the decision-­
making bodies that were part of them became incipient parliaments (Bendix, 1978).
When democracy was the result of such negotiations, it often created the conditions for
broader forms of public participation, but it was not a necessary outcome, and indeed,
authoritarian systems have continued through means of systematic terror, subjugation of
dissent, and internal divisions often based on religious, ethnic, and racial inequality (Tilly
and Wood, 2013).
Importantly, empire-­building, state-­making, and efforts to subjugate or consolidate
new territories required not just military prowess, but also administrative structures that
forced the delegation of authority and sharing of power. Patterson (1991) describes sim-
ilar processes in Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome, where the expansion of territory
led to a dramatic expansion in the use of slave labour, which then created disruptions
in the intergroup relations especially between large and small landowners. Eventually
the political leaders had to offer accommodation by extending rights to quell the un-
rest, but over time, these dynamics also contributed to the unwieldiness of maintaining
the empire. Tilly (1975) describes a similar pattern of contentious politics through the
period of state-­making in Western Europe, where widespread resistance was prevalent.
Morgan (1975) describes the need for the ruling body in Colonial Virginia, the House of
Burgesses, to respond to the rebellion of indentured servants who had enlisted the help
of slaves. The Colonial rulers substituted slave labour for indenture, while at the same
time extending greater rights to indentured servants at the expense of slaves in order to
drive the two groups apart. Across all of these contexts, the inability of rulers to manage
© 2021 Society for the Advancement of Management Studies and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
 Why Difference Makes a Difference 2037

the territories that they had conquered forced them to delegate authority, for example, to
a landed elite or to local power brokers, that had the potential to create competing cen-
tres of power. Doing so usually necessitated further negotiation and often the extension
of formal citizenship rights, albeit sometimes differentiated and only gradually expanded
to a broader range of groups.
Kings and emperors were always afraid, and rightly so, of potential rivals, often lead-
ing to fratricide, as well as to efforts to secure alliances through marriage or to form
coalitions for the purposes of mutual defence. The creation of nation-­states in Western
Europe was preceded by conscription riots, food riots, tax riots, and sometimes revolution
(Bendix, 1978; Piketty, 2020; Tilly, 1975). Even with the establishment of democracy, the
preservation of hierarchical inequality and privileges for landowning, Christian, White
men were written into constitutions that often protected the rights of property as much
as the rights of citizens. The expansion of the franchise to other groups required new
social movements, and even so, occurred only gradually and begrudgingly. Importantly,
as Mills (1997, pp. 36–­7) describes it, the racial hierarchy was preserved as well despite
the declarations about ‘all men’ being equal and free:

Economic structures have been set in place, causal processes established, whose out-
come is to pump wealth from one side of the globe to another, and which will continue
to work largely independently of the ill will/good will, racist/antiracist feelings of
particular individuals. This globally color-­coded distribution of wealth and poverty
has been produced by the Racial Contract…
Moreover, it is not merely that Europe and the former white settler states are globally
dominant but that within them, where there is a significant nonwhite presence (in-
digenous peoples, descendants of imported slaves, voluntary nonwhite immigration),
whites continue to be privileged vis-­à-­vis nonwhites… opportunities for nonwhites,
though they have expanded, remain below those for whites… as a statistical general-
ization, the objective life chances of whites are significantly better.

Despite the endurance of a racial hierarchy in the institutions that declare rights to
all and promise democracy, the very existence of sacred documents and traditions that
promise freedom also make social movements for expanding freedom and democracy
more likely (Myrdal, 1944; Tilly and Wood, 2013). In addition to the resistance to sub-
jugation that has existed in most places in the world, the promise of freedom in the West
especially has invoked abolitionist movements, workers’ movements, and poor people’s
movements, as well as social movements for civil rights, human rights, and labour rights.
Social movements are only possible when there is enough support from democratic sys-
tems to make it feasible for people to organize and express their interests, and they are
not always successful. Furthermore, social movements are sometimes organized to pro-
tect the status quo rather than to bring about change, and they are not always oriented
toward freedom for all (Tilly and Wood, 2013). But the very fact that the legitimating
myths of democracy (Sidanius and Pratto, 1999), especially in the West, are built on
claims about inalienable rights and freedom, provides a foundation for organizing for
those groups that endeavour to bring about change toward greater equality. After all,

© 2021 Society for the Advancement of Management Studies and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
2038 N. DiTomaso

these ideological claims were the basis for supporting revolutions, so they are likely to
provide a foundation for movements for transformation as well.

STRUCTURE, CULTURE, AND THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF

DIVERSITY AND INEQUALITY
In the literature on diversity, equity, and inclusion, there has been an overwhelming
­emphasis on bias as a key source of inequality, with anti-­bias training or workshops
a prominent strategy for more equitable outcomes (Brief et al., 2000; Correll, 2017;
Dobbin and Kalev, 2017; Paluck and Green, 2009). Not only has reducing or eliminat-
ing bias been the major theme in research on diversity, equity, and inclusion, but the
research has generally focused almost exclusively on eliminating bias against minori-
ties and women, with little if any attention to the bias that works for Whites and men
(DiTomaso, 2015; Fiske et al., 2002). There has been as well research that reflects the
traditional themes in human resource management on hiring, evaluation, and leadership
development, but much of this research too has had a theme about eliminating bias in
decision-­making more so than changing the structure of intergroup relations and redis-
tributing power and resources (Burks et al., 2015; Dixon et al., 2012; Elliott, 2001; Ely
et al., 2011; Eriksson and Lagerstrom, 2012; Quillian et al., 2017; Rivera, 2012).
While understanding cognitive and motivational sources of difference are important,
they are not enough to help us understand why diversity is so closely related to inequal-
ity. Categorical differences that make a difference have an historical context, and they
are both unequal and long term, that is, what Tilly (1998) calls ‘durable’. Categorical
inequality emerged out of intergroup dynamics that are structurally and institutionally
embedded, as well as cognitively reinforced (Fligstein and McAdam, 2012; Massey, 2007;
Sidanius and Pratto, 1999; Tilly, 1998; Touraine, 2000). Questions about these issues are
long-­standing across the social sciences but underdeveloped in the management litera-
ture on diversity, equity, and inclusion, which has focused on interpersonal interaction,
often in teams, or on organizational policies and practices (Dobbin and Kalev, 2016,
2017). Relatively little attention has been given in the field to the historical origins of
intergroup relations and to the structural, institutional, and social psychological dimen-
sions that together have shaped and reproduced existing inequality.
There have been a few notable exceptions in the predominantly micro-­focused re-
search on diversity, equity, and inclusion that have raised issues about the larger social
context (Brief et al., 1997; Brief et al., 2005; DiTomaso et al., 2007). Furthermore, re-
cent work on inequality and poverty (Amis et al., 2017, 2018, 2020; Bapuji et al., 2020a;
Suddaby et al., 2018) has given more attention to inequality as an outcome of institution-
alization, but this research has not had much engagement with the literature on diversity
and inclusion as such. Recent research has also called for more attention to intergroup
categorizations such as by caste (Bapuji and Chrispal, 2020; Chrispal et al., 2020), and
some have tried to show the link between management practices and the history of slav-
ery (Cooke, 2003; Crane, 2013; Desmond, 2019; Pierce and Synder, 2020; Reece, 2020).
Most such work has been influenced by sociological work on racial inequality in explicitly
calling attention to the existence and implications of a racial hierarchy (Bell et al., 2014)

© 2021 Society for the Advancement of Management Studies and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
 Why Difference Makes a Difference 2039

and perhaps by the recent call to attend more to history in organizational and manage-
ment research (Suddaby and Foster, 2017).
Without this more recent work, one would hardly know that racial and other forms
of inequality are not just about prejudice and discrimination, but rather are the legacies
of durable inequality (Tilly, 1998, 2005) that are embedded in institutions, reproduced
through every day and often routine interaction (Essed, 1991; Markus and Moya, 2010),
and renewed through cumulative advantage that perpetuates the cycle of hierarchical
inequality (DiPrete and Eirich, 2006; DiTomaso, 2013; DiTomaso et al., 2007). Research
on inclusion has been emphasizing the concept of belonging (Ferdman, 2017; Ferdman
and Deane, 2014), but there has not been an acknowledgment of the link between di-
versity and inequality, that is, that who you are affects what you can achieve out of life
(Alba and Nee, 1997; DiTomaso, 2021; Jasso, 2001). To understand why we just can’t
get along, why Black men and women are treated especially harshly by the police, why
decades of legislation and research have not changed the dynamics of racial inequality,
and why inequality can get reproduced without explicit ill will and intention, we have to
consider the historical, the structural, the institutional, and the social psychological di-
mensions of intergroup relations and especially understand that the legacies of the past
continue into the present.

EPISTEMOLOGICAL IGNORANCE
Mills (1997, pp. 9–­19) argues that there are three components to both the Social Contract
and the Racial Contract. There is a political component about the relationship between
people and government, a moral component about right behaviour among people, and
an epistemological component that constitutes what he calls ‘epistemological ignorance’,
that is, an agreement not to know about the domination of Whites over Non-­whites.
According to Mills (1997, pp. 9, 11), the Racial Contract is an ‘exploitation contract’ by
which Whites have exploited the bodies, land, and resources of Non-­whites. Mills notes
(1997, p. 11) that ‘All whites are beneficiaries of the [Racial] Contract, though, some
whites are not signatories to it’ (i.e., while all Whites benefit, not all understand and
would consent to the contract if they understood it). The Racial Contract establishes a
racial polity and a racial hierarchy. As described by Mills (1997, pp. 12–­7), Non-­whites
are not a party to the Racial Contract but rather are the ‘subject races’ who are subor-
dinated. Mills (1997, pp. 18–­9) further argues that the epistemological ignorance that
is part of the Racial Contract is an agreement by Whites to ‘misinterpret the world’
such that ‘whites will in general be unable to understand the world they themselves have
made’. White ignorance about the racial hierarchy and their place within it constitutes
‘misunderstanding, misrepresentation, evasion, and self-­deception on matters related to
race… [that constitute] a cognitive and moral economy psychically required for con-
quest, colonization, and enslavement’.
Mills’ (1997) argument about the epistemological ignorance of Whites regarding the
benefits that they receive from the existence of a racial polity that they created through
a history of enslavement, colonialism, and imperialism, and which they then under-
took to institutionalize through the use of power, status, and often their majority status

© 2021 Society for the Advancement of Management Studies and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
2040 N. DiTomaso

(DiTomaso et al., 2007), is consistent with other analyses as well. For example, Myrdal
(1944, pp. 4, 17, 30, 37) argued that Americans struggled for their soul with regard to race,
that despite libraries with thousands of books about race that they failed to understand
it, that White Americans kept understanding of racial problems below their conscious-
ness, and when asked, they attributed racial problems to others but never to themselves.
DiTomaso (2013) similarly found 70 years after Myrdal wrote about it that although
Whites may express a concern about the extent of racial inequality, that if they believe
there is a problem, they attribute it to ‘those racists’, who are never them. Mills (1997)
argues that the Social Contract is about a mythical past, whereas the Racial Contract
describes the actual history of the last several hundred years that includes the African
slave trade, the colonization by Western European nations of almost all of the world, and
the continued impact of a racial hierarchy in which Whites are treated as a normative
ingroup, while all Non-­whites are subordinated in most social, political, and economic
domains (Bell et al., 2014; Fiske, 2002; Fiske et al., 2002; Mills, 1997; Reskin, 2012). Even
after emancipation, racial subordination continued (Bell et al., 2014; Blackmon, 2008;
Davis, 1984; Piketty, 2020). Even after a civil rights movement that changed laws and be-
lief systems, White privileges have continued (DiTomaso, 2013; Fligstein and McAdam,
2012; McIntosh, 1989; Stainback and Tomaskovic-­Devey, 2012). And even after decades
of research on diversity, equity, and inclusion, we are still seeing significant disconnection
between theory and practice, especially at the level of politics and public policy. There
certainly seems to be widespread epistemological ignorance about what is going on and
what the sources are of the continued link between diversity and inequality.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

We cannot answer the question about whether it is possible to just get along unless we
have a better grasp of the sources of the problems created by difference. To the extent
that the research and writing on diversity, equity, and inclusion treat diversity primarily
as a matter of understanding each other and reducing or eliminating bias, then we will
not be able to understand, let alone change, the dynamics of intergroup relations. If we
do not address the inherent inequality that is always a consequence of the categorization
of people into groups that are thought of as different and recognize that inequality is
embedded in structure, institutions, and cultures in ways that determine who gets what
out of life and how we think about it, then we will not be able to identify the levers of
change and the means for reshaping the future. This is not just about who currently has
more money or holds positions of authority, but rather why the patterns of inequality
are reproduced and are mutually reinforced at the level of structure, culture, and social
psychology. We cannot just get along as long as there are oppression, exploitation, and
subordination built into the way we live our lives, as well as resistance, opposition, and
challenge that those in dominant positions treat as threats. In some ways, our celebration
of diversity, equity, and inclusion is one more expression of the wish by dominant groups
to promote the idea that we are getting along despite expanding inequality, limited op-
portunities for subordinate group members to change their life situations, a growing lack

© 2021 Society for the Advancement of Management Studies and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
 Why Difference Makes a Difference 2041

of trust in the institutions that govern our social lives, and the occasional murder in the
streets.
In this paper I have tried to briefly review the historical context to explain the link
between diversity and inequality. My discussion is intended to raise questions about how
we have thought about the meaning of diversity, equity, and inclusion, and importantly,
about how the legacies of the past come into the present and affect our ability to un-
derstand each other and get along. In trying to understand why some differences make
such a difference in terms of who gets what, who believes what, and who is appreciated
or denigrated, I have tried to suggest that we need to broaden our perspectives, become
more interdisciplinary, take historical context into account, and be open to the potential
for change and transformation. One of the things that is perhaps most surprising when
considering the historical accounts of diversity is the ambiguity at times of who belonged
to which groups, of where group boundaries lay, how quickly major players came and
went, and how often leaders with enormous power were unprepared for both threats and
opportunities. When it comes to intergroup differences, we should take note. There is a
lot of ambiguity in our own experiences of the salience of group differences, of the com-
bination of durability and elasticity that seem to overlay differences, and of the constant
surprises that lead to unexpected new directions. We know from history that diversity,
culture, and inequality are interrelated, but we also know that the parts are movable and
the connections complex. By considering the historical record, we can look for leverage
points that might suggest ways to create the outcomes that we value (Reskin, 2012).
Given the foundational work in the study of diversity, equity, and inclusion, it is some-
what surprising that there has not been more attention to the inherent link between
diversity and inequality. We know from social identity and social categorization theories
(Dovidio et al., 2009; Tajfel, 1981; Tajfel and Turner, 1986; Turner et al., 1987) that
the categorization of people into groups leads to stereotypes about them and to ranking
them, which then leads to decisions in which ingroup members are allocated more and
given the benefit of the doubt. Most of the research on diversity, equity, and inclusion,
however, has tended to apply social identity and social categorization theories to small
groups and has not extended the theory to historical groups at the societal level, even
though Tajfel (1981, pp. 1–­2) developed the theory in his reflections on the Holocaust
in World War II. Bell et al. (2014) represent one of the few exceptions in the manage-
ment literature by making the link between diversity and a racial hierarchy. There has
been growing attention within institutional theory to inequality (Amis et al., 2017, 2018,
2020; Bapuji et al., 2020a; Haack and Sieweke, 2018), but aside from the recent work
on slavery, caste, and poverty (Cooke, 2003; Crane, 2013; Desmond, 2019; Reece, 2020;
Suddaby et al., 2018), this work has not been incorporated into the diversity, equity,
and inclusion literature, which still focuses so much on implicit and unconscious bias.
Although there has been some limited effort within institutional theory to apply an anal-
ysis of institutional work to diversity (Lawrence and Phillips, 2019), the continuity and
durability of racial hierarchy and other forms of intergroup inequality have not been
a major theme of this research. In contrast, research on contentious politics has been
very much focused on civil rights and challenges to embedded institutions (Fligstein and
McAdam, 2012; Tilly and Tarrow, 2015), but this has been discussed primarily in the
institutional literature and not in the literature on diversity, equity, and inclusion. That is,
© 2021 Society for the Advancement of Management Studies and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
2042 N. DiTomaso

there has been a tie between institutional theory and theories of social movements and
contentious politics, but neither has been incorporated to much extent into the literature
on diversity, equity, and inclusion.
With all of the attention over the last several decades to the link between structure
and agency in the growing literature on institutions and institutionalization, there is cer-
tainly a broad base from which to draw to create a more multi-­levelled and integrative
approach to the study of diversity, equity, and inclusion. Bridging the micro, meso, and
macro levels has received some attention (DiTomaso et al., 2007; Fligstein and McAdam,
2012; Ridgeway, 2001, 2011), but more needs to be done in this direction in order to an-
swer the key questions about the persistence of intergroup inequality and ways to make
a difference. It goes without saying that as long as there is either a denial or a wish not to
know about the realities of intergroup inequality and the durability of a racial hierarchy,
then real change will be more difficult to accomplish.

THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS
This paper has tried to provide an historical, structural, and institutional account of
intergroup relations as a means to complement the overwhelmingly micro focus on di-
versity, equity, and inclusion that dominates the literature in management and organiza-
tions. In doing so, the paper makes theoretical contributions to the research on diversity,
equity, and inclusion, to the study of inequality, and to the literature on institutions and
institutionalization. Of the contributions to the literature on diversity, equity, and inclu-
sion, perhaps the most important is to remind ourselves that diversity is always linked
to inequality. This is something we know at the micro level (Dovidio et al., 2009; Tajfel,
1982), but for some reason, it has not been incorporated in the same way at the macro
level. We know categorization leads to ranking which leads to the unequal distribution
of resources, and yet that insight has not been a major framing for explaining why we
cannot just get along by reducing bias and fostering understanding. Without addressing
issues of inequality in terms of power, status, and numbers (DiTomaso et al., 2007) and
even more importantly, confronting the continued effects of a racial hierarchy (Bell et al.,
2014; Mills, 1997), we cannot explain either why difference makes such a difference, nor
how difference affects our ability to get along. Furthermore, the history of diversity and
inequality remains salient because the past has shaped the present and will likely affect
the future of intergroup relations as well. The embeddedness of diversity in a structure
of inequality, in cultural assumptions, and in everyday interactions reproduce the past as
Clegg (2010, p. 9) suggests as a ‘sign of power at work’. The categorizations that we use
to group people have histories that link intergroup structures to mechanisms, such as ex-
ploitation or opportunity hoarding (Tilly, 1998) that give durability to group differences
and help to reproduce the hierarchical inequality associated with them.
We also know at the micro level but have not carried it forward to the macro level,
that diversity within groups can contribute to greater conflict (Post et al., 2009; Williams
and O’Reilly, 1998), even if there are benefits associated with diversity. Conflict between
groups that are perceived as different is evident in organizations, in communities, and
certainly in societies as well (Brief et al., 2005; Putnam, 2007). From looking at the

© 2021 Society for the Advancement of Management Studies and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
 Why Difference Makes a Difference 2043

history of intergroup relations over time we can see that there tends to be conflict when-
ever the system of identity and the system of governance are not coincident. Malinowski
(1941) discussed this discrepancy in terms of what he called the tribe-­nation (ethnic
identification) and the tribe-­state (the political entity), and he argued that whenever
they are not coincident, then there tends to be political instability and ongoing conflict.
Although there has often been reliance on repression, the preferred solutions historically
have been to try to homogenize culture within political units (such as nation-­states) or to
use ­legitimating myths such as claims about meritocracy or belief in equal opportunity to
mitigate a sense of grievance among disadvantaged groups (Sidanius and Pratto, 1999;
Tilly, 1975). In efforts to resolve such difference, we also know that dominant groups
prefer to minimize recognition of difference (such as a focus on ‘colorblindness’), while
subordinate groups want to be able to embrace their identities while calling attention to
inequality and making claims for remedies (Dovidio et al., 2009). The typical response
within management and organization theory is that we need more inclusive organiza-
tions and that diversity can bring benefits if it is just ‘managed well’, but our analysis
suggests that unless we address the inequality of resources, rights, and representation in
intergroup relations, that getting along will continue to be problematic (DiTomaso, 2021;
Ferdman, 2017).
Although there has been more recent attention to issues of inequality within manage-
ment and organization theory (Amis et al., 2020; Bapuji et al., 2020a; DiTomaso et al.,
2007; Suddaby et al., 2018), most of this research addresses inequality specifically but
only tangentially addresses categorical differences among groups. The recent work on
caste (Bapuji and Chrispal, 2020; Chrispal et al., 2020) is explicit with regard to the need
to consider categorical inequality, but the mention of race, ethnic, or gender inequality,
for example, in this research focuses more on the organizational policies and procedures
that contribute to unequal outcomes, while leaving unaddressed why these patterns affect
groups in this way. For example, there is discussion in much of this literature about racial
inequality in the sense, for example, that Whites earn more than Blacks on average, but
not about how a racial hierarchy overlays intergroup relations, culture, and everyday
interactions. The kind of interrelatedness across domains that Reskin (2012) describes
suggests that racial inequality, for example, is not just about decisions made about em-
ployment, but also about housing, about education, about the criminal justice system,
and beyond. Although she does not use the language of a racial hierarchy, her analysis
suggests that racial discrimination (or multiculturalism) pervades everything about the
lives that we live together. Similarly, understanding diversity and inequality requires a
broader frame, a deeper analysis, and an historical lens, as suggested as well by Bell et
al. (2014). We also need to understand why inequality invokes resistance and contentious
politics. It is not just that organizations have policies and practices that lead to unequal
outcomes, but rather that those policies exist because dominant groups have greater
power, status, and often constitute a majority, and from these positions, they have access
to resources that allow them to gain and grow their advantages cumulatively (DiTomaso
et al., 2007).
Understanding the system of inequality and how it is maintained over time also sug-
gests some additional insights about how institutions are created and how they change,
obviously a central question in the literature on institutional theory over the last several
© 2021 Society for the Advancement of Management Studies and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
2044 N. DiTomaso

decades (Clegg, 2010; Dacin et al., 2002; Fligstein and McAdam, 2012; Garud et al.,
2007; Lawrence and Phillips, 2019). By providing an historical view of intergroup rela-
tions, it makes clear that unlike the image either of ‘cultural dopes’ or ‘hypermuscular
supermen’ (Powell and Colyvas, 2008; Suddaby, 2010), powerful people try but do not
always get what they want. They endeavour to protect their interests by attempting to
control others by force or by law, and they attempt to put into place structures and insti-
tutions that will keep themselves in power. In doing so, however, we find that they are not
omniscient, inviolable, nor necessarily successful. Administering systems of exploitation
and oppression requires delegating authority, trusting others, and creating incentive sys-
tems to buy off or co-­opt others, but none of these strategies are failsafe. In this regard,
to some extent the institutional literature, especially recently, has been somewhat too
much in the present. There has been so much emphasis on trying to show the processes
of institutional work, institutional entrepreneurship, and especially of intentional and
purposeful engagement in institution-­building, that there is not, in my view, enough rec-
ognition of the multi-­levels at which social systems are structured but also dynamic. The
field has become almost a caricature of itself, as some have suggested, when everything is
an institution and every action is institutional work (Alvesson and Spicer, 2010; Hinings
and Tolbert, 2008; Hirsch, 2008; Hirsch and Lounsbury, 1997; Ocasio and Gai, 2020;
Powell and Colyvas, 2008; Suddaby, 2010). Adding more of an historical perspective,
especially about intergroup relations, should mitigate some of that misdirection.
A final theoretical challenge is also raised by viewing intergroup relations in historical,
structural, and institutional framing. Too often in the management and organization
literature, group differences have been treated as essentialist rather than contingent. The
relationship between diversity and inequality and the ambiguity of how group differ-
ences are manifest at different historical times suggest a need to raise questions about
how we have presented and understood what differences make a difference and when
difference is consequential. There are many important questions about diversity and in-
clusion that go beyond the interpersonal, the team, and even the organization. Diversity
has a history. It is institutionally anchored. And it is connected to a structure of inequality
that affects economic, political, social, and cultural domains. Diversity is overlaid with
resources, with a system of honour, with cultural norms and expectations, and with a
distribution of people in time and space. We should not treat diversity as if it were purely
cognitive or affective, although those frames are important in our understanding as well.
Going forward, it remains to be seen how the political landscape in countries and or-
ganizations may change as diversity becomes more intersectional, blurred, hybrid, and
complex (Lewis and Cantor, 2016).

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
Taking a more macro and interdisciplinary approach to the study of diversity, equity, and
inclusion and paying attention to historical context should broaden the way that we think
about practice as well. Rather than concentrating only on prejudice reduction and elimi-
nating bias, we should also pay attention, for example, to how the structure of intergroup
relations privileges some and disadvantages others, how success for some is facilitated,
while others are set up to fail or perhaps are treated with indifference, and to how those
© 2021 Society for the Advancement of Management Studies and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
 Why Difference Makes a Difference 2045

in decision-­making positions distribute authority and opportunity. Importantly, we need

to investigate more explicitly the relationships between the inside and outside of orga-
nizations. It is not just identifying stakeholders or promoting corporate social responsi-
bility, but instead, we need to understand how organizations contribute to or mitigate
inequality, whether organizational leaders help shape public policy in positive ways, and
whether they hold themselves and their employees accountable for the outcomes that
they generate. We need to think of organizations as civic entities with both rights and
responsibilities. As such, we also need to consider whether a sense of entitlement puts
more emphasis on rights than on responsibilities and how these issues are manifested in
the efforts of organizations to become more inclusive.
Given the new movements for social justice in the USA and elsewhere in the world,
there is a recognition of the need to address issues at a more systemic level. With regard to
diversity, equity, and inclusion, that means, among other things, to adopt a framework of
anti-­racism (or anti-­sexism, anti-­colonialism, etc.) rather than focusing only on reducing
bias. According to Kendi (2019), being anti-­racist means taking actions to reduce inter-
group inequality. Key to his argument is that it is not enough to be ‘not racist’, because this
means supporting the status quo, and of course, he argues that being a ‘racist’ means sup-
porting hierarchical inequality. As Markus and Moya (2010, p. xi) note, ‘Since difference-­
constructing and meaning-­making are human projects, we should be able to do them
differently. Certainly, we ought to be able to approach human difference such that racial
and ethnic identity can be positive sources of belongingness, motivation, and meaning’.
Supporting anti-­racism and doing difference differently in organizations and in society
require inclusive leaders who understand their roles at the interpersonal, organizational,
and societal levels. It requires inclusive leaders who are oriented toward breaking the link
between diversity and inequality (DiTomaso, 2021). It means creating organizations and
societies where who you are does not determine what you can achieve out of life.

FUTURE RESEARCH
Not everyone can do everything in every study. It is obviously the case that research ques-
tions have to be manageable and both theory and methods need to match. But too much
of the research in the study of diversity, equity, and inclusion has eschewed the broader
context of intergroup inequality, its durability and persistence over time, its growing
salience in our time, and the many ways that it has become manifest across institutional
domains and in the everyday lives of people. When the field is considering grand chal-
lenges and difficult problems, the link between diversity and inequality should be one of
them. The problem of inequality has become more visible in recent years because it has
been growing (Piketty, 2020). We need to be able to get along, both for our own sakes and
for those of the people with whom we share the planet.

REFERENCES
Alba, R. and Foner, N. (2014). ‘Comparing immigrant integration in North America and Western Europe:
How much do the grand narratives tell us?’. International Migration Review, 48, S263–­91.
Alba, R. and Foner, N. (2016). ‘Integration’s challenges and opportunities in the wealthy west’. Journal of
Ethnic and Migration Studies, 42, 3–­22.

© 2021 Society for the Advancement of Management Studies and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
2046 N. DiTomaso
Alba, R. and Nee, V. (1997). ‘Rethinking assimilation theory for a new era of immigration’. International
Migration Review, 31, 826–­74.
Althusser, L. (1971). Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays. London: New Left Books.
Althusser, L. (1976). Essays in Self Criticism. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press. ISBN-­ 13:
978-­0391006188.
Alvesson, M. and Spicer, A. (2010). ‘Neo-­institutional theory and organization studies: A mid-­life crisis?’.
Organization Studies, 40, 199–­218.
Amis, J. M., Mair, J. and Munir, K. A. (2020). ‘The organizational reproduction of inequality’. Academy of
Management Annals, 14, 195–­230.
Amis, J. M., Munir, K. A., Lawrence, T. B., Hirsch, P. M. and McGahan, A. (2018). ‘Inequality, institutions,
and organizations’. Organization Studies, 39, 1131–­52.
Amis, J. M., Munir, K. A. and Mair, J. (2017). ‘Institutions and economic inequality’. In Greenwood, R.,
Oliver, C., Lawrence, T. B. and Meyer, R. E. (Eds), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism,
2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 705–­36. ISBN: 9781529712117.
Bapuji, H. and Chrispal, S. (2020). ‘Understanding economic inequality through the lens of caste’. Journal
of Business Ethics, 162, 533–­51.
Bapuji, H., Ertug, G. and Shaw, J. D. (2020a). ‘Organizations and societal economic inequality: A review and
way forward’. Academy of Management Annals, 14, 60–­91.
Bapuji, H., Patel, C., Ertug, G. and Allen, D. G. (2020b). ‘Corona crisis and inequality: Why management
research needs a societal turn’. Journal of Management, 46, 1205–­22.
Bell, M. P., Marquardt, D. and Berry, D. P. (2014). ‘“Diversity,” immigration, and the new American multi-­
racial hierarchy’. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29, 285–­303.
Bendix, R. (1978). Kings or People: Power and the Mandate to Rule. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
ISBN: 9780520023024.
Betzig, L. (1993). ‘Sex, succession, and stratification in the first six civilizations’. In Ellis, L. (Ed.), Social
Stratification and Socioeconomic Inequality: A Comparative Biosocial Analysis. New York: Praeger.
Blackmon, D. A. (2008). Slavery by Another Name: The Re-­enslavement of Black Americans from the Civil War to World
War II. New York: Anchor Books. ISBN: 9780385506250.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Brief, A. P., Buttram, R. T., Reizenstein, R. M., Pugh, S. D., Callahan, J. D., McCline, R. L. and Vaslow, J. B.
(1997). ‘Beyond good intentions: The next steps toward racial equality in the American workplace’. The
Academy of Management Executive, 11, 59–­72.
Brief, A. P., Dietz, J., Cohen, R. R., Pugh, S. D. and Vaslow, J. B. (2000). ‘Just doing business: Modern racism
and obedience to authority as explanations for employment discrimination’. Organization Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 81, 72–­97.
Brief, A. P., Umphress, E. E., Dietz, J., Butz, R. M., Burrows, J. and Scholten, L. (2005). ‘Community matters:
Realistic group conflict theory and the impact of diversity’. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 830–­44.
Burks, S. V., Cowgill, B., Hoffman, M. and Housman, M. (2015). ‘The value of hiring through employee
referrals’. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 130, 805–­39.
Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press. ISBN: 9780674843721.
Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J. and Western, D. (1992). ‘Sex differences in jealousy: Evolution, physiology, and
psychology’. Psychological Science, 3, 251–­5.
Chrispal, S., Bapuji, H. and Zietsma, C. (2020). ‘Caste and organization studies: Our silence makes us com-
plicit’. Organization Studies. Online first. https://doi.org/10.1177/01708​40620​964038
Clegg, S. R. (2010). ‘The state, power, and agency: Missing in action in institutional theory?’. Journal of
Management Inquiry, 19, 4–­13.
Cooke, B. (2003). ‘The denial of slavery in management studies’. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1895–­918.
Correll, S. J. (2017). ‘Reducing gender biases in modern workplaces: A small wins approach to organizational
change’. Gender & Society, 31, 735–­50.
Crane, A. (2013). ‘Modern slavery as a management practice: Exploring the conditions and capabilities for
human exploitation’. Academy of Management Review, 38, 49–­69.
Dacin, M. T., Goodstein, J. and Scott, W. R. (2002). ‘Institutional theory and institutional change:
Introduction to the special research forum’. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 45–­57.
David, R. J., Tolbert, P. S. and Boghossian, J. (2019). ‘Institutional theory in organization studies’. In Oxford
Research Encyclopedia of Business and Management. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acref​
ore/97801​90224​851.013.158
Davis, D. B. (1984). Slavery and Human Progress. New York: Oxford University Press.

© 2021 Society for the Advancement of Management Studies and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
 Why Difference Makes a Difference 2047
Davis, G. F. (2017). ‘How institutions create income inequality’. In Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Lawrence,
T. B. and Meyer, R. E. (Eds), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, 2nd edition. London:
Sage, 722–­37.
Desmond, M. (2019). ‘In order to understand the brutality of American capitalism, you have to start on the
plantation’. New York Times Magazine, the 1619 Project. Available at: https://www.nytim​es.com/inter​
activ​e/2019/08/14/magaz​ine/slave​ry-­capit​alism.html (accessed 16 February 2021).
Devos, T. and Banaji, M. R. (2005). ‘American = white?’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 447–­66.
DiMaggio, P. (1988). ‘Interest and agency in institutional theory’. In Zucker, L. G. (Ed.), Institutional Patterns
and Organizations: Culture and Environment. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 3–­22. ISBN-­13: 978-­0887301827.
DiMaggio, P. and Powell, W. W. (1983). ‘The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective
rationality in organizational fields’. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–­60.
DiMaggio, P. J. and Powell, W. W. (1991). ‘Introduction’. In Powell, W. W. and DiMaggio, P. J. (Eds), The
New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1–­38. ISBN:
0-­226-­67709-­5.
DiPrete, T. A. and Eirich, G. M. (2006). ‘Cumulative advantage as a mechanism for inequality: A review of
theoretical and empirical developments’. Annual Review of Sociology, 32, 271–­97.
DiTomaso, N. (1982). ‘“Sociological reductionism” from Parsons to Althusser: Linking action and structure
in social theory’. American Sociological Review, 47, 14–­28.
DiTomaso, N. (2013). The American Non-­dilemma: Racial Inequality without Racism. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation. ISBN: 9780871540805.
DiTomaso, N. (2015). ‘Racism and discrimination versus advantage and favoritism: Bias for versus bias
against’. Research Organizational Behavior, 35, 57–­77.
DiTomaso, N. (2021). ‘Inclusion in a multicultural society’. In Ferdman, B. M., Prime, J. and Riggio, R. E.
(Eds), Inclusive Leadership: Transforming Diverse Lives, Workplaces, and Societies. New York: Routledge, 279–­88.
ISBN: 978-­1-­138-­32675-­0.
DiTomaso, N., Post, C. and Parks-­Yancy, R. (2007). ‘Workforce diversity and inequality: Power, status, and
numbers’. Annual Review of Sociology, 33, 473–­501.
Dixon, J., Levine, M., Reicher, S. and Durrheim, K. (2012). ‘Beyond prejudice: Are negative evaluations the
problem and is getting us to like one another more the solution?’ Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35, 411–­66.
Dobbin, F. and Kalev, A. (2016). ‘Why diversity programs fail and what works better’. Harvard Business Review,
94, 52–­60.
Dobbin, F. and Kalev, A. (2017). ‘Are diversity programs merely ceremonial? Evidence-­free institutional-
ization’. In Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Lawrence, T. B. and Meyer, R. E. (Eds), The Sage Handbook of
Organizational Institutionalism, 2nd edition. London: Sage, 808–­28. ISBN: 9781529712117.
Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L. and Saguy, T. (2009). ‘Commonality and the complexity of “we”: Social atti-
tudes and social change’. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 3–­20.
Durkheim, E. (1995 [1912]). The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. (K. E. Fields, Trans. Vol.) New York: The
Free Press. ISBN: 9780029079362.
Eagly, A. H. and Wood, W. (2013). ‘The nature-­nurture debates: 25 years of challenges in understanding the
psychology of gender’. Perspectives in Psychological Science, 8, 340–­57.
Einstein, A. (1931). Why war? Letter to Sigmund Freud. Available at: https://www.public.asu.edu/~jmlyn​
ch/273/docum​ents/Freud​Einst​ein.pdf (accessed 16 February 2021).
Elliott, J. R. (2001). ‘Referral hiring and ethnically homogeneous jobs: How prevalent is the connection and
for whom?’. Social Science Research, 30, 401–­25.
Ely, R. J., Ibarra, H. and Kolb, D. M. (2011). ‘Taking gender into account: Theory and design for women’s
leadership programs’. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10, 474–­93.
Eriksson, S. and Lagerstrom, J. (2012). ‘Detecting discrimination in the hiring process: Evidence from an
internet-­based search channel’. Empirical Economics, 43, 537–­63.
Ertac, S. and Gurdal, M. Y. (2012). ‘Deciding to decide: Gender, leadership and risk-­taking in groups’.
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 83, 24–­30.
Essed, P. (1991). Understanding Everyday Racism: An Interdisciplinary Theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. ISBN:
9780803942554.
Estes, Z. and Felker, S. (2012). ‘Confidence mediates the sex differences in mental rotation performance’.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 557–­70.
Ferdman, B. M. (2017). ‘Paradoxes of inclusion: Understanding and managing the tensions of diversity and
multiculturalism’. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 53, 235–­63.
Ferdman, B. M. and Deane, B. R. (Eds) (2014). Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-­Bass.

© 2021 Society for the Advancement of Management Studies and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
2048 N. DiTomaso
Fiske, S. T. (2002). ‘What we know now about bias and intergroup conflict, the problem of the century’.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 123–­8.
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P. and Xu, J. (2002). ‘A model of (often mixed) stereotype content:
Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition’. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878–­902.
Fligstein, N. and McAdam, D. (2012). A Theory of Fields. New York: Oxford University Press.
Freud, S. (1932). Why war? Letter to Albert Einstein. Available at: https://www.public.asu.edu/~jmlyn​
ch/273/docum​ents/Freud​Einst​ein.pdf (accessed 16 February 2021).
Friedland, R. and Alford, R. (1991). ‘Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional con-
tradictions’. In Powell, W. W. and DiMaggio, P. (Eds), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 232–­66. ISBN: 0226677095.
Garud, R., Hardy, C. and Maguire, S. (2007). ‘Institutional entrepreneurship as embedded agency: An in-
troduction to the special issue’. Organization Studies, 28, 957–­69.
Giddens, A. (1976). New Rules of Sociological Methods: A Positive Critique of Interpretive Sociologies. New York: Basic
Books. ISBN-­13: 9781446270493.
Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press. ISBN: 9780520052925.
Granovetter, M. (1973). ‘The strength of weak ties’. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–­80.
Haack, P. and Sieweke, J. (2018). ‘The legitimacy of inequality: Integrating the perspectives of system justi-
fication and social judgment’. Journal of Management Studies, 55, 486–­516.
Hamann, R. and Bertels, S. (2018). ‘The institutional work of exploitation: Employers’ work to create and
perpetuate inequality’. Journal of Management Studies, 55, 394–­423.
Hart, S. L. (2005). Capitalism at the Crossroads: The Unlimited Business Opportunities in Solving the World’s Most
Difficult Problems. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. ISBN: 9780520052925.
Hinings, C. R. and Tolbert, P. S. (2008). ‘Organizational institutionaism and sociology: A reflection’. In
Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Sahlin, K. and Suddaby, R. (Eds), The Sage Handbook of Organizational
Institutionalism. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 473–­90. ISBN-­13: 9781446270493.
Hirsch, P. M. (2008). ‘Been there, done that, moving on: Reflections on institutional theory’s continuing
evolution’. In Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Sahlin, K. and Suddaby, R. (Eds), The Sage Handbook of
Organizational Institutionalism. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 783–­9. ISBN-­13: 9781446270493.
Hirsch, P. M. and Lounsbury, M. (1997). ‘Ending the family quarrel: Toward a reconciliation of “old” and
“new” institutionalisms’. American Behavioral Scientist, 40, 406–­18.
Hobbes, T. (1651 [1994]). Leviathan, with Selected Variants from the Latin Edition of 1668. (E. Curley, Trans. Vol.)
Indianapolis, IN: Hackett. ISBN: 9780872201781.
Jasso, G. (2001). ‘Studying status: An integrated framework’. American Sociological Review, 66, 96–­124.
Jordan, W. D. (1969). White over Black: American Attitudes toward the Negro, 1550–­1812. Baltimore, MD: Penguin
Books. ISBN: 9789050057585.
Karpik, L. (1978). Organization and Environment: Theory, Issues, and Reality. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. ISBN:
9780803999817.
Kendi, I. X. (2019). How to be an Antiracist. New York: One World.
Koopmans, R. (2013). ‘Multiculturalism and immigration: A contested field in cross-­national comparison’.
Annual Review of Sociology, 39, 147–­69.
Lawrence, T. B. and Phillips, N. (2019). Constructing Organizational Life: How Social-­symbolic Work Shapes Selves,
Organizations, and Institutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN: 9780198840022.
Lawrence, T. B. and Suddaby, R. (2006). ‘Institutions and institutional work’. In Clegg, S. R., Hardy, C.,
Lawrence, T. B. and Nord, W. R. (Eds), The Sage Handbook of Organization Studies, 2nd edition. London:
Sage, 215–­54. ISBN: 9781446270462.
Lewis, E. and Cantor, N. (Eds) (2016). Our Compelling Interests: The Value of Diversity for Democracy and a Prosperous
Society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ISBN: 9780691170480.
Lipsitz, G. (1998). The Possessive Investment in Whiteness: How White People Profit from Identity Politics. Philadelphia,
PA: Temple University Press. ISBN: 9781566396349.
Locke, J. (1689 [1988]). Two Treatises of Government. (P. Laslett, Trans. Vol.) Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. ISBN: 9780521069038.
Magee, J. C. and Galinsky, A. D. (2008). ‘Social hierarchy: The self-­reinforcing nature of power and status’.
Academy of Management Annals, 2, 351–­98.
Mahoney, J. and Thelen, K. (Eds) (2009). Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency, and Power. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 9780521118835.
Malinowski, B. (1941). ‘An anthropological analysis of war’. American Journal of Sociology, 46, 521–­50.

© 2021 Society for the Advancement of Management Studies and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
 Why Difference Makes a Difference 2049
Markus, H. R. and Moya, P. M. L. (Eds) (2010). Doing Race: 21 Essays for the 21st Century. New York: W.W.
Norton & Co., Inc. ISBN: 9780393930702.
Massey, D. S. (2005). Strangers in a Strange Land: Humans in an Urbanizing World. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.
ISBN: 9780393927276.
Massey, D. S. (2007). Categorically Unequal: The American Stratification System. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
ISBN: 9780871545855.
McAdam, D. and Boudet, H. (2012). Putting Movements in Their Place: Explaining Variation in Community Response
to Siting of Energy Projects. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 9781107020665.
McCarthy, J. D. and Zald, M. (1977). ‘Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory’.
American Journal of Sociology, 82, 1212–­41.
McIntosh, P. (1989). ‘White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack’. Peace and Freedom Magazine, 49,
10–­12.
Mills, C. W. (1940). ‘Situated actions and vocabularies of motive’. American Sociological Review, 5, 904–­13.
Mills, C. W. (1997). The Racial Contract. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. ISBN: 9780801434549.
Mills, C. W. (2017). Black Rights/White Wrongs: The Critique of Racial Liberalism. New York: Oxford University
Press. ISBN: 9780190245412.
Morgan, E. S. (1972). ‘Slavery and freedom: The American paradox’. The Journal of American History, 59,
5–­29.
Morgan, E. S. (1975). American Slavery, American Freedom. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN:
9780393055542.
Myrdal, G. (1944). An American Dilemma. New York: Harper & Row. ISBN: 1560008563 1560008571.
Newbert, S. L. (2018). ‘Achieving social and economic equality by unifying business and ethics: Adam Smith
as the cause of and cure for the separation thesis’. Journal of Management Studies, 55, 517–­44.
Ocasio, W. and Gai, S. L. (2020). ‘Institutions: Everywhere but not everything’. Journal of Management Inquiry,
29, 262–­71.
Oliver, C. (1992). ‘The antecedents of deinstitutionalization’. Organization Studies, 13, 563–­88.
O’Mara, J. and Richter, A. (2017). Global Diversity & Inclusion Benchmarks. Centre for Global Inclusion.
Available at: https://centr​eforg​lobal​inclu​sion.org/ (accessed 16 February 2021).
Padulla, D. (Ed.) (2020). What Works? Evidence-­based Ideas to Increase Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in the Workplace.
Amherst, MA: Center for Employment Equity.
Pager, D., Bonikowski, B. and Western, B. (2009). ‘Discrimination in a low-­wage labor market: A field exper-
iment’. American Sociological Review, 74, 777–­99.
Paluck, E. L. and Green, D. P. (2009). ‘Prejudice reduction: What works? A review and assessment of re-
search and practice’. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 339–­67.
Parsons, T. (1938 [1967]). The Structure of Social Action. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press. ISBN-­13: 978-­0029242506.
Parsons, T. (1961). ‘An outline to the social system’. In Parsons, T., Shils, E., Naegele, K. D. and Pitts, J. R.
(Eds), Theories of Society. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 30–­79. ISBN-­13 : 978-­0029244500.
Parsons, T. (1978). Action Theory and the Human Condition. New York: The Free Press. ISBN: 9780029239902.
Parsons, T. and Smelser, N. J. (1956). Economy and Society: A Study in the Integration of Economic and Social Theory.
Glencoe, IL: Free Press. ISBN: 9780415605151.
Patterson, O. (1982). Slavery and Social Death: A Comparative Study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
ISBN: 9780674810822.
Patterson, O. (1991). Freedom: Volume 1: Freedom in the Making of Western Culture. New York: Basic Books. ISBN:
9780465025350.
Pierce, L. and Synder, J. A. (2020). ‘Historical origins of firm ownership structure: The persistent effects of
the African slave trade’. Academy of Management Journal, 63, 1687–­713.
Piketty, T. (2020). Capital and Ideology. (A. Goldhammer, Trans. Vol.) Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of
Harvard University Press.
Post, C., De Lia, E., DiTomaso, N., Tirpak, T. M. and Borwankar, R. (2009). ‘Capitalizing on thought diver-
sity for innovation’. Research-­Technology Management, 52, 14–­25.
Powell, W. W. and Colyvas, J. A. (2008). ‘Microfoundations of institutional theory’. In Greenwood, R., Oliver,
C., Sahlin, K. and Suddaby, R. (Eds), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage, 276–­98. ISBN-­13: 9781446270493.
Prahalad, C. K. and Hammond, A. (2002). ‘Serving the world’s poor, profitably’. Harvard Business Review,
80, 4–­11.
Prahalad, C. K. and Hart, S. L. (2002). ‘The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid’. Strategy+Business, 26,
54–­67.

© 2021 Society for the Advancement of Management Studies and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
2050 N. DiTomaso
Pratto, F., Stallworth, L. M. and Sidanius, J. (1997). ‘The gender gap: Differences in political attitudes and
social dominance orientation’. British Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 49–­68.
Putnam, R. D. (2007). ‘E pluribus unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-­first century’. Scandinavian
Political Studies, 30, 137–­74.
Quillian, L., Pager, D., Hexel, O. and Midtoen, A. H. (2017). ‘‘Meta-­analysis of field experiments shows no
change in racial discrimination in hiring over time’. PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
114, 10870–­75.
Rangan, V. K., Quelch, J. A., Herrero, G. and Barton, B. (Eds) (2007). Business Solutions for the Global Poor:
Creating Social and Economic Value. Edison, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN: 9780787982164.
Reece, R. L. (2020). ‘Whitewashing slavery: Legacy of slavery and white social outcomes’. Social Problems,
67, 304–­23.
Reskin, B. (2012). ‘The race discrimination system’. Annual Review of Sociology, 38, 17–­35.
Ridgeway, C. L. (2001). ‘The emergence of status beliefs: From structural inequality to legitimizing ideol-
ogy’. In Jost, J. T. and Major, B. (Eds), The Psychology of Legitimacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 257–­277. ISBN: 0521786991.
Ridgeway, C. L. (2011). Framed by Gender: How Gender Inequality Persists in the Modern World. New York: Oxford
University Press. ISBN: 9780199755783.
Ridgeway, C. L. (2014). ‘Why status matters for inequality’. American Sociological Review, 70, 1–­16.
Ridgeway, C. L. (2019). Status: Why Is It Everywhere? Why Does It Matter?. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
ISBN: 9780871547842.
Rivera, L. A. (2012). ‘Diversity within reach: Recruitment versus hiring in elite firms’. The Annals of the
American Academy (AAPSS), 639, 71–­90.
Rousseau, J.-­J. (1968). The Social Contract. (M. Cranston, Trans. Vol.) London: Penguin. ISBN: 9780140442014.
Sidanius, J. and Pratto, F. (1999). Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 9780140442014.
Smedley, A. (2007). The History of the Idea of Race … And Why it Matters. Warrenton, Virgina: American
Anthropological Association Conference on Race, Human Variation, and Disease: Consensus and
Frontiers. Available at: https://www.under​stand​ingra​ce.org/resou​rces/pdf/disea​se/smedl​ey.pdf (ac-
cessed 19 February 2021).
Stainback, K. and Tomaskovic-­Devey, D. (2012). Documenting Desegregation: Racial and Gender Segregation in Private-­
sector Employment Since the Civil Rights Act. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. ISBN: 9780871548344.
Suddaby, R. (2010). ‘Challenges for institutional theory’. Journal of Management Inquiry, 19, 14–­20.
Suddaby, R., Bruton, G. D. and Walsh, J. P. (2018). ‘What we talk about when we talk about inequality: An
introduction to the Journal of Management Studies special issue’. Journal of Management Studies, 55, 381–­93.
Suddaby, R. and Foster, W. M. (2017). ‘History and organizational change’. Journal of Management, 43, 19–­38.
Swidler, A. (1986). ‘Culture in action: Symbols and strategies’. American Sociological Review, 51, 273–­86.
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human Groups and Social Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN:
9780521228398.
Tajfel, H. (Ed.) (1982). Social Identity and Intergroup Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN:
9780521246163.
Tajfel, H. and Turner, J. C. (1986). ‘The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour’. In Worchel, S. and
Austin, W. G. (Eds), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Chicago, IL: Nelson Hall, 7–­24. ISBN:
9780830410750.
Thomas, R. R. Jr. (1990). ‘From affirmative action to affirming diversity’. Harvard Business Review, 90, 107–­17.
Thorton, P. H., Ocasio, W. and Lounsbury, M. (2012). The Institutional Logics Perspective: A New Approach to
Culture, Structure, and Processes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN: 9780199601936.
Tilly, C. (Ed.) (1975). The Formation of Nation States in Western Europe. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
ISBN: 9780691052199.
Tilly, C. (1998). Durable Inequality. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Tilly, C. (2000). ‘How do relations store histories?’. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 721–­3.
Tilly, C. (2005). Identities, Boundaries, and Social Ties. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers. ISBN: 9781594511318.
Tilly, C. and Tarrow, S. (2015). Contentious Politics, 2nd edition. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN:
9780190255053.
Tilly, C. and Wood, L. J. (2013). Social Movements, 1768–­2012, 3rd edition. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.
ISBN: 9781612052373.
Touraine, A. (1977). The Self-­ production of Society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. ISBN:
9780226808581.

© 2021 Society for the Advancement of Management Studies and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
 Why Difference Makes a Difference 2051
Touraine, A. (2000). Can We Live Together? Equality and Difference. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
ISBN: 9780804740425.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D. and Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the Social
Group: A Self-­categorization Theory. Hardcover edition. New York: Basil Blackwell. ISBN: 9780631148067.
Uzzi, B. (1997). ‘Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness’.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 35–­67.
Wadhwani, D. R. (2018). ‘Poverty’s monument: Social problems and organizational field emergence in his-
torical perspective’. Journal of Management Studies, 55, 545–­77.
Walby, S. (1990). Theorizing Patriarchy. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell. ISBN: 9780631147688.
Weber, M. (1968). Economy and Society. (G. Roth and C. Wittich, Trans. Vol.) New York: Bedminister Press.
ASIN: B0006BVVMO.
Williams, K. and O’Reilly, C. A. (1998). ‘Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years
of research’. In Staw, B. M. and Cummings, L. L. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press, 20, 77–­140.

© 2021 Society for the Advancement of Management Studies and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.