Ranking LGBT inclusion: Diversity ranking systems as institutional archetypes

• Author: Mark Tayar
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/cjas.1433
• Published date: 01 June 2017
• Date: 01 June 2017

Ranking LGBT inclusion: Diversity ranking

systems as institutional archetypes

Mark Tayar*

Macquarie University

Abstract

This article discusses rankings that evaluate diversity and

inclusion programs for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and

transgender (LGBT) employees. Rankings promote LGBT

issues and reward organizations who work towards “best

practice”with a high rating. However, rankings only

legitimize one set of practices and often fail to give small

organizations a clear path towards inclusion. Corporations

are warned against checklist-based diversity where

rankings reward superf‌icial rather than substantive change.

Within new institutional theory, the concept of “distorted

institutional f‌it”is introduced to explain distortions

preventing “optimal institutional f‌it.”This article recom-

mends a reprioritization of diversity program evaluations

to reward only substantive change by evaluating the impact

on the lived experiences of employees. Copyright © 2017

ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords: institutional f‌it, LGBT employees, diversity and

inclusion, diversity rankings

Résumé

L’article examine les classements qui évaluent les

programmes de diversité et d’inclusion pour les employés

lesbiens, gays, bisexuels et transgenres. Les classements

mettent l’accent sur les questions LGBT et récompensent

des organisations qui visent à atteindre “les meilleures pra-

tiques”et qui se positionnent dans le haut du classement.

Cependant, les classements ne légitiment que certaines pra-

tiques et “oublient”souvent de donner aux organisations

plus petites l’accès facile à l’inclusion. En matière de

diversité, les grandes entreprises doivent éviter de se baser

sur une liste de contrôle qui récompense le changement

superf‌iciel plutôt que le changement réel. Dans la nouvelle

théorie institutionnelle, le concept d”“adéquation

institutionnelle faussée”est introduit pour expliquer les

distorsions qui empêchent “l’adéquation institutionnelle

optimale”.L’article recommande la remise en perspective

des priorités en ce qui concerne les évaluations du pro-

gramme de diversité, af‌in de ne récompenser que le

changement réel en évaluant son impact sur les expériences

vécues des employés. Copyright © 2017 ASAC. Published by

John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Mots-clés : l’adéquation institutionnelle optimale, LGBT

employés, programmes de diversité, classements de diversité

Reputational rankings of corporations continue to pro-

liferate (Fombrun, 1998). Reputational rankings are based

on evaluation criteria set by each rankings organization

and are often publically available, emerging as an important

source of institutional isomorphic pressures (Martins, 2005).

These rankings represent aggregate assessments of institu-

tional prestige and are useful in describing the stratif‌ication

of corporations and industries (Shapiro, 1987). Rankings

can also encourage social and environmental responsibility

and are mostly based on subjective criteria that often evalu-

ate using incomplete data (Cochran & Wood, 1984; Vogel,

2006). The risk with some reputational rankings is that

organizations focus less on substance and more on image.

This has occurred with particular rankings of business

schools and law schools (e.g., Gioia & Corley, 2002;

McKee, Mills, & Weatherbee, 2005; Sauder & Espeland,

2009), and with rankings of corporate social responsibility

(e.g., Aguilera, Rupp, Williams, & Ganapathi, 2007;

Morsing & Schultz, 2006).

As well as overall rankings of reputation, new rank-

ings, ratings, and scores evaluating organizations have

emerged including some that aim to evaluate the effective-

ness of diversity management programs (Roberson & Park,

2007). Whereas reputational rankings aim to quantify pres-

tige (Fombrun, 1996), diversity management rankings em-

phasize differences in company policies affecting minority

groups. Most recently, this has included rankings which

*Please address correspondence to: Mark Tayar. Email: mark@tayar.com.au

Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences

Revue canadienne des sciences de l’administration

34: 198–210 (2017)

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/CJAS.1433

Can J Adm Sci

34(2), 198–210 (2017)Copyright © 2017 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 198