Homogeneity in Diversity Management: Ironies, Neocolonialism, and a Call for Localism

Managing differences is a perennial challenge of social life. Although such tensions appear across time, space, and cultures, their manifestations vary widely – who is in conflict and why, who is marginalized, and whether diversity is best addressed at the level of collectives, sub–groups, or individuals. Yet despite profound differences in social histories, demographic compositions, and local challenges, diversity scholarship and practice have converged on a remarkably similar, United States–based approach to managing difference under the banner of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. The effectiveness of many such programs remains uncertain even within the United States, raising doubts about their suitability for global export. We suggest that this convergence reflects a form of soft, epistemic neocolonialism, in which the same diversity categories and proposed solutions spread across the world through institutional influences rather than local needs or demonstrated effectiveness. While identity–based approaches may advance marginalized groups in some settings, their application elsewhere risks misalignment and the diversion of limited scholarly resources from locally salient concerns. We conclude by calling for decolonialisation and greater pluralism in how societies define and manage diversity.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Management Inquiry
Published
2026-02-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/10564926251408690
Primary Topic
Gender Diversity and Inequality
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Homogeneity in Diversity Management: Ironies, Neocolonialism, and a Call for Localism

Maja Graso, Cory Clark
Journal of Management Inquiry
Gender Diversity and Inequality
article

Homogeneity in Diversity Management: Ironies, Neocolonialism, and a Call for Localism

Maja Graso, Cory Clark
article en

Abstract

Managing differences is a perennial challenge of social life. Although such tensions appear across time, space, and cultures, their manifestations vary widely – who is in conflict and why, who is marginalized, and whether diversity is best addressed at the level of collectives, sub–groups, or individuals. Yet despite profound differences in social histories, demographic compositions, and local challenges, diversity scholarship and practice have converged on a remarkably similar, United States–based approach to managing difference under the banner of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. The effectiveness of many such programs remains uncertain even within the United States, raising doubts about their suitability for global export. We suggest that this convergence reflects a form of soft, epistemic neocolonialism, in which the same diversity categories and proposed solutions spread across the world through institutional influences rather than local needs or demonstrated effectiveness. While identity–based approaches may advance marginalized groups in some settings, their application elsewhere risks misalignment and the diversion of limited scholarly resources from locally salient concerns. We conclude by calling for decolonialisation and greater pluralism in how societies define and manage diversity.

Journal of Management InquiryVol. 35(2)
University of Groningen (NL), University of the Arts (US), New College of Florida (US)
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 65%
Gender Diversity and Inequality
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.