Beyond backlash: How feeling threatened by diversity can trigger positive change

In recent years, employers across North America, Europe, Australia and elsewhere have introduced or boosted equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) programs in hopes of creating a more diverse and inclusive workplace culture.

But studies have shown that fostering diversity can come with a steep cost, as employees from dominant groups often felt threatened, leading to a backlash against the very groups the employers are seeking to support.

But could those feelings of threat also lead to learning and change, and eventually allyship? A new study says they can — as long as employers keep communication channels open.

For the study researchers reviewed years of threat literature, examining how individuals and groups manage threat. They also reviewed literature on things like post-traumatic growth, where something that’s threatening can eventually lead to a positive outcome. At the same time, they examined the growing number of studies on allyship, and specifically looked at which EDI strategies were most effective, and which amounted to little more than performance.

They found that when companies are putting forward EDI initiatives, it’s important to create the opportunity for honest dialogue. That way when the dominant group feels uncertain or threatened, they can be given information and strategies that lead to understanding rather than resistance.

What the researchers say: “Especially when companies are introducing EDI initiatives, or when there’s backlash, it’s really important to create spaces for dialogue where they can learn,” The lead author said.

Failing to do so can lead to what’s known as “closing”, where workers from dominant groups double down on their pushback against the new initiatives, which they see as a challenge to their identity and position.

The author points to James Damore, the former Google worker who famously released a memo criticizing the company’s EDI practices and calling the company culture an “ideological echo chamber.” He also accused the company of discrimination against conservatives, whites, Asians and men.

“He obviously felt threatened by what happened at Google, so he was engaging in closing,” the researchers explained. “He continued to read about it and educate himself, but he said, ‘I still don’t get it.’”

The people most likely to resist change, they add, tend to be those who support existing hierarchies and systems and feel threatened when they’re challenged. Workers who are more accepting of the shift often have first-hand experience with some form of disadvantage — so they might be white and cisgender but living with a disability.

Leaders can’t expect all employees to overcome their feelings of threat and arrive at a place of understanding, however. Those who continue to double down against diversity, and who believe their group is superior, are less likely to reverse course, the lead author said. “If that’s been going on for years, it’s going to be a really tough learning curve to undo something like that.”

While previous studies have outlined the perils of identity threat from EDI measures, the new study reveals a silver lining: how dominant groups can learn and become allies, which can spur growth in organizations. As a result, employers should encourage dialogue through everything from meetings to anonymous surveys to help allay fears and generate new allies.

“When people from dominant groups feel threatened by diversity, it’s not necessarily the terrible thing that’s been described in the business literature,” the researchers concluded. “We’re not suggesting that employers should make their employees feel threatened by diversity, but when they are feeling threatened, you can use that to generate learning — especially if you do it early on.”

So, what? So much research has shown that the only way to tackle the problems of diversity is to create a situation in which the various groups or individuals feel that they have enough in common to happily collaborate with each other.

Trying to force people to accept—or “celebrate”—differences is doomed to failure. Even worse is making people feel guilty regarding their biases (most of which are genetically based) and prejudices. That reinforces separation and creates mutually antagonistic cultures within the organization (or society).