Multiple Marginality

• Date: 01 September 2013
• DOI: 10.1177/0095399712445872
• Published date: 01 September 2013
• Author: G. L. A. Harris
• Subject Matter: Articles

Administration & Society

45(7) 775 –808

© 2012 SAGE Publications

DOI: 10.1177/0095399712445872

aas.sagepub.com

445872AAS45710.1177/009539971

2445872HarrisAdministration & Society

© 2012 SAGE Publications

1Portland State University, OR, USA

Corresponding Author:

G. L. A. Harris, Mark O. Hatfield School of Government, College of Urban and Public Affairs,

Portland State University, 670 S Urban Center Portland, OR 97207-0751, USA.

Email: Glah@pdx.edu

Multiple Marginality:

How the Disproportionate

Assignment of Women

and Minorities to Manage

Diversity Programs

Reinforces and Multiplies

Their Marginality

G. L. A. Harris1

Abstract

Achieving diversity in the workplace has become the antidote for what ails

many organizations. Specifically for public organizations, although many genu-

inely pursue diversity to achieve public good, some use diversity for more

questionable means. An exploratory study on local governments revealed that

women and minorities, relative to White men, are disproportionately assigned

to manage diversity programs. Using the research on groups, a theory of

multiple marginality was developed to explicate the rationale(s) for these pro-

grams’ overrepresentation of women and minorities that further marginalizes

these already marginalized groups. The adverse effects, the policy implica-

tions, and future research are discussed.

Keywords

multiple marginality, women, minorities, diversity programs, local government

Article

776 Administration & Society 45(7)

Managing diversity, or similarly named initiatives, has become common-

place in some organizations today without a sufficiently clear definition of

diversity or a clear justification for such practices. Some organizations have

awkwardly joined the diversity bandwagon without any apparent direction as

to how to go about achieving diversity or what doing so will mean for them.

For this purpose, diversity connotes an instrument for achieving equity and

social justice for the public good. Yet, many private sector organizations have

deftly made the business case for implementing diversity programs as a way

of remaining competitive (Cox, 1993; Loden & Rosener, 1991). It is the eco-

nomic goals and the importance of meeting the bottom line that serve as the

prime motive for private sector organizations’ pursuit of diversity. For these

organizations, diversity has become an imperative for their very survival

(Mathews, 1998).

However, some public sector organizations have yet to unearth this sure

footing. Although research abounds about the importance of diversity (Cox,

1993, 2001; Duggett & Bertucci, 2001; Golembiewski, 1995; Kalev, Dobbin,

& Kelly, 2006; Naff & Kellough, 2001; Thomas, 1991), others have shown

that when not well managed, how such programs can fall short of the potential

for success (Hall & Stevenson, 2007; Naff & Kellough, 2001; Reskin,

McBrier, & Kmec, 1999; Riccucci, 1997; Soni, 2000). They lack adequate

articulation about why diversity matters and how it can contribute to their

bottom line. Public sector organizations also remain uncertain about what

defines their bottom line. Although keenly aware of the obligation for social

justice and equity in the delivery of public services (Duggett & Bertucci,

2001), public sector organizations must be equally mindful of the need to

remain legitimate by supporting initiatives like diversity (Golembiewski,

1995) especially in light of the demographic shifts in their constituencies.

Some believe that the reasons for public sector organizations’ support for such

initiatives are political because of the perceived and actual obligations to do so

and the possible public outcry if they do not (Reskin et al., 1999).

But, an important distinction must be made between achieving diversity

and adhering to the goals of affirmative action, a controversial yet still impor-

tant tool for achieving diversity. Public sector and government contractor

private sector organizations are legally bound to comply with the mandates of

affirmative action (Appel, Gray, & Loy, 2005; Pynes, 2009). But there is no

such legal mandate for diversity. Affirmative action refers to a composite of

federal, state, local, and administrative edicts (Holzer & Neumark, 2000;

Pynes, 2009; Riccucci, 1997) to bridge, in this case, the gap in employment

between the majority (White males) and women and minorities; diversity,

however, represents an alternative to affirmative action (Anderson, 2004)

Harris 777

that is not only less controversial in nature, it is also unbounded by legal and

enforcement requirements. One positive outgrowth of affirmative action

though has been to bring about diversity (American Psychological Association

[APA], 2003; Badgett, 1999; Konrad & Linnehan, 1999). Yet, despite the

institution of affirmative action, discriminatory practices persist in such forms

as the glass ceiling (Mani, 1997; Pynes, 2009; U.S. General Accountability

Office, 2003), job segregation (Guy & Newman, 2005; Holzer & Neumark,

2000), and wage disparities (Crosby, 2004; Holzer & Neumark, 2000; Meier

& Wilkins, 2002; West & Curtis, 2006). This is a paradox when it becomes

necessary to utilize legislation to bring about positive effects through affirma-

tive action, yet doing so means avoiding the ill effects of the policy because of

the undue attention that it brings to women and minorities (Harris, 2010;

Schneider & Northcraft, 1999).

Many well-meaning public sector organizations do genuinely seek to

diversify their workforces. But others, as this article will demonstrate, appear

to be merely interested in projecting the socially desirable facade of diversity

by strategically assigning women and minorities to manage diversity pro-

grams. According to Riccucci (1997), this action not only serves as a scheme

for organizations to evade the mandates of affirmative action but also obfus-

cates the real intent of such a policy, that is, to eradicate discrimination in

employment (Nkomo, 1992; Wise, 2005). Thus, implementing diversity pro-

grams and concentrating women and minorities for their administration are

how some organizations address the pressures they encounter to achieve

broader workplace diversity. The appeal for diversity has become a conve-

nient and systematic means for violating affirmative action.

Using the findings of an exploratory study on why local governments

(county and municipalities) craft diversity initiatives, this article also exam-

ines why a disproportionate number of women and minorities are assigned to

manage them. The evidence suggests that the disproportionate assignment of

women and minorities to manage organizations’ diversity programs serves

only to further marginalize these already marginalized groups. First, there is

relatively little research on this subject in public administration, although

there is a wealth of research in the education literature, for example, regard-

ing faculty of color (Callahan & Tomaszewski, 2007; Smith & Calasanti,

2005; Viernes Turner, 2002). Scholars like Wise (2005), Nkomo (1992), and

Riccucci (1997) also note the clever disguises that organizations use to cir-

cumvent dealing with the real issue of discrimination by creating diversity

programs. Second, based on the research on groups, a theoretical framework

has been developed to demonstrate how majority groups engage in marginal-

ization when they are forced to share valuable resources with perceived