939641

research-article2020
JOMXXX10.1177/0149206320939641Journal of ManagementMartins / Short Title

Journal of Management
Vol. 46 No. 7, September 2020 1191­–1204
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320939641
10.1177/0149206320939641
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions

Editorial Commentary

Strategic Diversity Leadership: The Role

of Senior Leaders in Delivering the
Diversity Dividend
Luis L. Martins
University of Texas at Austin

An organization’s senior leaders, given their positions at the apex of power within the organiza-
tion, shape its vision, strategies, organizational design, and culture. Yet the research on diversity
has not sufficiently held them to account for the dynamics of demographic diversity and inclusion
within their organizations and for producing performance benefits from diversity. This paper
proposes that a fuller understanding of diversity and inclusion requires a focus on senior leaders’
roles in diversity leadership. Specifically, drawing on strategic leadership theory, it proposes a
framework for strategic diversity leadership that focuses on the role of senior leaders in shaping
the meaning of diversity in their organizations. It proposes that how senior leaders envision
diversity within their organizations and symbolize its value in their communications and actions
affects the extent and nature of diversity and inclusion, and through them a range of benefits to
organizational performance. It also discusses potential antecedents affecting strategic diversity
leadership and calls for the development of a theory of strategic diversity leadership.

Keywords: diversity; inclusion; strategic leadership; organizational performance

It has long been recognized in both the research and practitioner literatures that demo-
graphic diversity, when managed effectively, can improve several aspects of organizational
performance and is an important source of competitive advantage (Cox & Blake, 1991). For
example, effective diversity management creates an inclusive and fair workplace for all
employees, strengthening the workforce as an organizational resource and making the orga-
nization more competitive in labor markets; enhances an organization’s legitimacy with

Corresponding author: Luis L. Martins, McCombs School of Business, University of Texas at Austin,
2110 Speedway, Stop B6300, Austin, TX 78712-1750, USA.

E-mail: lmartins@utexas.edu

1191
1192   Journal of Management / September 2020

stakeholders and resource providers; and improves organizational creativity and innovation
(Cox & Blake, 1991; Hoobler, Masterson, Nkomo, & Michel, 2018; Mor Barak et al., 2016;
Thomas & Ely, 1996). Whereas it is clear that increasing demographic diversity within an
organization and managing it effectively can produce benefits for both organizations and
their employees, it is less clear if this diversity dividend is actually being realized. Extant
research suggests that in many cases it is not and that it depends on a variety of contingency
factors (see reviews by Nishii, Khattab, Shemla, & Paluch, 2018; Roberson, Holmes, &
Perry, 2017; van Knippenberg & Mell, 2016).
A diversity dividend refers to the enhancement in an organization’s performance that is
attributable to its diversity. As utilized here, organizational performance includes financial out-
comes as well as psychological and sociological outcomes derived from the human and social
capital gains from fostering a diverse and inclusive workforce. As such, the concept of a diver-
sity dividend goes beyond what is typically thought of as “the business case for diversity,” which
has focused on the effects of diversity on financial performance as well as its antecedents, such
as creativity and innovation, to also include affective, social, and structural outcomes that prior
diversity research has pointed out as important dimensions of organizational performance deriv-
ing from diversity (e.g., Cox & Blake, 1991; Hoobler et al., 2018; Thomas & Ely, 1996).
There is a large literature, which has developed along two relatively parallel tracks—one
focused on antidiscrimination and equal opportunity and the other focused on diversity man-
agement using more expansive conceptualizations of diversity (Nkomo, Bell, Roberts, Joshi,
& Thatcher, 2019)—on how the outcomes composing the diversity dividend are affected by
the extent of diversity and how it is managed. The findings of this literature indicate that at
the heart of the challenge in realizing a demographic diversity dividend is that such diversity
is a “double-edged sword” generating both positive (e.g., due to greater cognitive variety)
and negative (e.g., due to social categorization) dynamics that affect individual, group, and
organizational outcomes (Milliken & Martins, 1996: 403). Thus, for example, research finds
that the average effects of racial and gender diversity on group performance are very weak,
with the effects varying from significantly positive to significantly negative depending on the
organizational context (e.g., Joshi & Roh, 2009). Similarly, organizational policies and prac-
tices to foster equal opportunity and inclusion are found to produce positive as well as nega-
tive effects, depending on factors in the organizational context (Leslie, 2019), including the
climate for inclusion (Nishii, 2013).
Over the last two decades, researchers have focused on how organizations can gain the
benefits of the cognitive variety, while mitigating the negative social categorization pro-
cesses, resulting from demographic diversity, and find that producing a diversity dividend
requires a focus on both diversity and inclusion (e.g., Bunderson & Van der Vegt, 2018; Ely
& Thomas, 2001; Mor Barak et al., 2016; Nishii et al., 2018). Whereas diversity addresses
variety, inclusion addresses power. As Shore, Cleveland, and Sanchez (2018: 177) observe,
“while diversity management practices have focused chiefly on bringing women, people of
color, and members of other marginalized groups into the workplace, inclusion practices
have sought to create equal access to decision-making, resources, and upward mobility
opportunities for these individuals.” Research finds that inclusion is much more difficult to
achieve than diversity (e.g., Winters, 2014) and requires active efforts on the part of organi-
zations (e.g., Nishii, 2013) and leaders (e.g., Randel et al., 2018) but is consistently related to
positive outcomes of diversity (Mor Barak et al., 2016; Shore et al., 2018). Similarly, group
diversity research has recognized the importance of inclusion in research that points to the
 Martins / Strategic Diversity Leadership   1193

role of organizational and group diversity perspectives in incorporating unique perspectives

of women and minorities into group functioning (Ely & Thomas, 2001), the effects of social
categorization processes in enabling diverse views to be expressed and incorporated into
group outputs (van Knippenberg, De Dreu, & Homan, 2004), and the reciprocal effects of
“horizontal member differences (i.e., diversity) and vertical member differences (i.e.,
inequality)” in teams (Bunderson & Van der Vegt, 2018: 47).
How can organizations realize the full potential of diversity by fostering both diversity
and inclusion to produce a diversity dividend? Following Thomas and Ely’s (1996: 80) argu-
ment that enabling an organization to “unleash the powerful benefits of a diverse workforce
.  .  . requires a fundamental change in the attitudes and behaviors of an organization’s leader-
ship,” and similar propositions by numerous other researchers (e.g., Groysberg & Connolly,
2013), in this paper, I put the onus of delivering a diversity dividend on an organization’s
senior leaders. The extant literature on diversity and inclusion provides useful guidance to
leaders on how they can increase diversity and how they could design and manage teams and
organizations to enhance inclusion. Additional guidance on requisite leader attitudes and
behaviors is provided by research that has directly focused on the role of leadership in shap-
ing the dynamics of diversity (Homan, Gündemir, Buengeler, & van Kleef, 2020; Randel
et al., 2018). However, academic research on diversity leadership is relatively silent on a
critical aspect of leadership that exerts powerful influences on individual, team, and organi-
zational outcomes: strategic leadership.
The study of strategic leadership has a long history within organizational studies (e.g.,
Barnard, 1938), with the upper echelons perspective articulated by Hambrick and Mason
(1984) giving it a significant boost and theoretical formalization (Cannella & Monroe,
1997). Strategic leadership theory distinguishes strategic from supervisory leadership
based on the hierarchical position and the content of the leadership role. First, strategic
leadership research is focused on an organization’s top managers rather than on leaders at
other organizational levels, which have been the focus of supervisory leadership research
(Vera & Crossan, 2004). Boal and Hooijberg (2000: 516) note that “supervisory theories of
leadership are about leadership ‘in’ organizations. Strategic theories of leadership are con-
cerned with leadership ‘of’ organizations” as a whole. Strategic leaders are conceptualized
as senior executives with overall responsibility for the organization, such as the CEO, top
management team, and division heads, since “ultimately, they account for what happens to
the organization” (Hambrick, 1989: 5).
Second, while supervisory leadership research “focuses particularly on the relationship
between leaders and followers . . . strategic leadership research focuses on executive work,
not only as a relational activity but also as a strategic activity and a symbolic activity” (Vera
& Crossan, 2004: 223). Supervisory leadership focuses on “task and person-oriented behav-
iors of leaders .  .  . while strategic leadership focuses on the creation of meaning and purpose
for the organization” (Boal & Schultz, 2007: 412). Consistent with this distinction, research-
ers (House & Aditya, 1997; Pfeffer, 1981; Rindova & Srinivas, 2017; Shamir, 2007; Smircich
& Stubbart, 1985) have emphasized that strategic leadership includes at its core the manage-
ment of meaning for internal and external stakeholders. For example, Pfeffer (1981: 1) stated
that strategic leadership involves “the construction and maintenance of belief systems which
assure continued compliance, commitment, and positive affect on the part of participants
. . .” and proposed that this is achieved by building “shared beliefs using political language
and symbolic acts.”
1194   Journal of Management / September 2020

Based on the research on strategic leadership, I define strategic diversity leadership (SDL)
as the shaping of the meaning of diversity within an organization by the organization’s senior
leaders. It is differentiated from supervisory diversity leadership, which has been the focus
of much of the research on diversity leadership (see reviews by Homan et al., 2020; Randel
et al., 2018), by its focus on senior leaders and on shaping the meaning of diversity for the
whole organization. Its focus on meaning-making also differentiates it from diversity man-
agement, defined as “the voluntary organizational actions that are designed to create greater
inclusion of employees from various backgrounds into the formal and informal organiza-
tional structures through deliberate policies and programs” (Mor Barak, 2014: 218). It com-
plements and influences supervisory diversity leadership (e.g., Randel et al., 2018) and
diversity management (e.g., Mor Barak, 2014) in determining the extent and functioning of
diversity in an organization.
In this paper, I argue for a deeper understanding of the role of SDL in intentionally foster-
ing demographic diversity and inclusion and propose an agenda for future research on the
topic. Such an understanding is particularly important given several trends facing organiza-
tions. First, organizations increasingly rely for their competitive advantage on innovation and
creativity, which research has found to be enhanced by diversity (Roberson et al., 2017).
Thus, senior leaders are ultimately accountable for delivering on this aspect of the diversity
dividend through effective SDL. Second, while there are many legal mechanisms focused on
increasing diversity within organizations, the extent to which an organization is inclusive is
largely determined by the organization (Winters, 2014), making senior leaders accountable
for fostering diversity and inclusion. Third, with the growing division and tribalism in soci-
ety driven by social media, political trends, and other factors, organizations face increasing
complexities in managing diversity (Nishii et al., 2018; Nkomo et al., 2019) and addressing
the effects of “mega-threats” or “negative, large-scale, diversity-related episodes that receive
significant media attention” on their employees (Leigh & Melwani, 2019: 564), making SDL
critical to understand.

A Framework for Strategic Diversity Leadership

Whereas strategic leadership is a broad term that has been defined to include a range of
components, including those typically encompassed within strategic management, organiza-
tional scholars agree that a central function of strategic leadership is the management of
meaning (see Rindova & Srinivas, 2017 for a review). For example, Pfeffer (1981: 4-5) noted
that strategic leadership entails providing “explanations, rationalizations, and legitimation
for the activities undertaken in the organization . . . to its constituents both within and out-
side its boundaries.” Similarly, House and Aditya (1997: 444-445) stated that “strategic lead-
ership is directed toward giving purpose, meaning, and guidance to organizations. This is
accomplished by the provision of a vision of the organization which has inspirational appeal
to members of the organization and to external constituencies on which it is dependent.”
Thus, researchers have argued that strategic leadership involves articulating a vision and
engaging internal and external stakeholders with that vision through the use of symbolic
means (Boal & Hooijberg, 2000; House & Aditya, 1997; Pfeffer, 1981; Rindova & Srinivas,
2017; Shamir, 2007; Smircich & Stubbart, 1985).
Using this conceptualization of strategic leadership, in this paper I propose that SDL, as
the shaping of the meaning of diversity within an organization by its senior leaders, involves
 Martins / Strategic Diversity Leadership   1195

Figure 1
A Framework of Strategic Diversity Leadership

framing a vision for diversity and symbolizing the value of diversity in words and actions. I
argue that through these interrelated aspects of SDL, senior leaders manage the meaning of
diversity and shape the extent of diversity and inclusion in their organization, and through
them the realization of a diversity dividend. Within the discussion of each aspect, I also point
to potential avenues for future research. Figure 1 depicts the SDL framework proposed.

Framing a Vision for Diversity

Senior leaders use “vision-setting as a device for creating and justifying action in the
organization” and “in advancing a vision, strategic leaders . . . instill meaning in followers
for the roles they play in fulfilling that vision” (Boal & Schultz, 2007: 412). Thus, the vision
of diversity created by an organization’s senior leaders is critical to the extent to which diver-
sity and inclusion are fostered in the organization to produce a diversity dividend. Indeed,
Thomas and Ely (1996: 90) stated that “one cardinal limitation is at the root of companies’
inability to attain the expected performance benefits of higher levels of diversity: the leader-
ship’s vision of the purpose of a diversified workforce.” Yet while it is common for organiza-
tions to publish their diversity vision, the academic literature provides little in the way of
systematic insights into the antecedents and consequences, as well as the content, of an orga-
nization’s diversity vision.
For strategic leaders, visioning as a meaning-making task involves using cognitive frames
to conceptualize a phenomenon for oneself and others (Rindova & Srinivas, 2017). A cogni-
tive frame is “a mental template that individuals impose on an environment to give it form”
(Walsh, 1995: 281). Discussing the importance of strategists’ cognitive frames, Smith and
Tushman (2005: 526) note that “managerial cognitive frames drive organizational action by
directing attention to particular issues . . . defining the leader’s understanding of the issues
they face . . . and assigning socioemotional information to particular issues.” In the context
of strategic leaders’ framing of a diversity vision, prior research on diversity and inclusion
1196   Journal of Management / September 2020

points to two aspects that are likely to affect performance outcomes: the conceptualization of
diversity (variety) and the significance and valence attached to diversity in the functioning of
the organization (inclusion). Whereas these aspects of diversity have been discussed in the
literature, here it is argued that we need to focus on how senior leaders incorporate them into
their diversity visions, which reflect diversity-related values and priorities (Groysberg &
Connolly, 2013; Olsen & Martins, 2012; Thomas & Ely, 1996), and guide action within the
organization.
The conceptualization of what is meant by diversity is important to a diversity vision, as
it affects the range of characteristics that the vision includes, which delineates the variety or
horizontal dimension of diversity (Bunderson & Van der Vegt, 2018). To the extent that this
variety corresponds to unique knowledge, skills, and perspectives, it translates into a wider
range of cognitive resources available in the organization (Milliken & Martins, 1996).
However, given that within diversity research, with a few exceptions (e.g., Ely & Thomas,
2001), the definition of “diversity” has primarily been researcher-centric, we know little
about how strategic leaders’ definitions-in-practice of diversity affect the extent and nature
of diversity in the organization. As Nkomo and colleagues (2019: 502) observe, “the term
diverse is still often used to connote non-Whites, without naming race or gender overtly.”
Additionally, given that legal frameworks mandate consideration of only a few characteris-
tics (e.g., specific races, sex), senior leaders have considerable latitude in the characteristics
they include in their conceptualization of diversity.
Whereas the conceptualization of diversity in strategic leaders’ diversity visions affects
the range of cognitive resources available in the organization due to demographic variety, the
valence and significance ascribed to diversity in the functioning of the organization affects
the extent to which the visions address beliefs about the benefits of diversity (e.g., Olsen &
Martins, 2012) and inclusion (Mor Barak et al., 2016) in the functioning of the organization
through the distribution of power and status across demographic characteristics (Bunderson
& Van der Vegt, 2018). Leaders vary in the extent to which they believe that diversity is ben-
eficial to teams and organizations (Randel et al., 2018), and the extent to which a diversity
vision incorporates this belief can be expected to establish the perceived value of diversity in
the organization. In addition, groups and organizations hold different diversity perspectives
that reflect “normative beliefs and expectations about cultural diversity and its role” (Ely &
Thomas, 2001: 234). From a strategic leadership perspective, such perspectives are impor-
tant components of the diversity vision of senior leaders as they reflect their values relative
to diversity (Olsen & Martins, 2012). Prior research suggests that strategic leaders’ values
play an important role in shaping strategic action—“values direct strategists’ attention to
specific issues and often unconventional solutions; . . . change the evaluation of relevant
markets and resources; . . . influence the prioritization and integration of activities; and . . .
facilitate audience engagement and mobilization” (Rindova & Martins, 2018a: 323). Thus,
the content of a diversity vision framed by senior leaders reflects their beliefs and values
about diversity and its role in the organization and is expected to shape how their organiza-
tion fosters and leverages diversity into a diversity dividend.
Problematizing strategic leaders’ diversity visions highlights the role that their values and
cognitions play in shaping the extent to which their organizations are able to foster diversity
and inclusion to produce a diversity dividend. For example, given that research consistently
finds that organizations benefit the most from their diversity when they pay attention to both
diversity and inclusion (Bunderson & Van der Vegt, 2018; Mor Barak et al., 2016; Randel
 Martins / Strategic Diversity Leadership   1197

et al., 2018; Shore et al., 2018), researchers could examine how the extent to which diversity
visions incorporate both diversity and inclusion affect the extent, distribution, and dynamics
of diversity within an organization, as well as the mediating effects of the vision on individ-
ual perceptions, behavior, and interactions within the organization. Another aspect of diver-
sity visions that requires further research is the breadth of the conceptualization of diversity.
For example, are diversity visions with broader rather than narrower definitions of diversity
more effective in increasing diversity because they include a wider range of characteristics,
or are they less effective because they make the notion of diversity too broad, and thereby fail
to account for “societal systems of domination (i.e., racism, sexism, patriarchy, heteronorma-
tivity, and classism) [that] are particularly relevant to understanding diversity in the work-
place” (Nkomo et al., 2019: 502)?
Beyond these aspects of diversity visions, there is an opportunity to understand more
novel elements, such as abstract versus concrete conceptualizations, which Construal Level
Theory finds to affect behavior (Liberman & Trope, 2008), and would be interesting to exam-
ine in future research on diversity visions. Also, the extent to which the framing of a diversity
vision demonstrates empathic concern and other characteristics that show regard for others
may influence its effects on the functioning of diversity within the organization. Additionally,
researchers could examine how the fit between strategic leaders’ diversity visions and diver-
sity-related trends within the broader environment in which their organizations operate affect
their ability to produce a diversity dividend. Such an examination would also help address
identified research gaps in relating the broader national discourse on diversity to organiza-
tional diversity practices (Nkomo et al., 2019). Research on the content of diversity visions
would be relatively feasible, particularly with manual or machine-based content coding tools
and secondary data.
In addition to the content of diversity visions, the processes through which they are
developed could be examined to examine sources of their effectiveness. For example, the
extent to which senior leaders are personally engaged in the process rather than delegating
it to the head of diversity and inclusion or the HR department may affect the extent to
which the vision informs important aspects of organizational functioning. Additionally,
given that the extent to which senior leaders use imagination affects the degree to which
their visions and strategies incorporate considerations of the future (Rindova & Martins,
2018b), there is a need for research on how senior leaders may use imagination and other
projective processes for developing diversity visions that present an attractive future that
breaks free from the cognitive constraints imposed on the cognitive framing of diversity by
prior practice (Walsh, 1995).

Symbolizing the Value of Diversity in Words and Actions

As Hatch (1993: 673) notes, symbolization involves “culturally contextualized meaning
creation via the prospective use of objects, words, and actions.” Given their roles within the
organization, the words and actions of senior leaders powerfully influence meaning-making
by internal and external stakeholders of an organization (Pfeffer, 1981; Rindova & Srinivas,
2017; Shamir, 2007; Smircich & Stubbart, 1985). Thus, an important component of strategic
leadership is the use of symbolic means to create a meaning system that undergirds the func-
tioning of the organization, i.e., to create “the symbolic foundations that support the everyday
prosaic realities of management information systems, hierarchy, incentive systems, and so
1198   Journal of Management / September 2020

on—the surface architecture of organizations” (Smircich & Stubbart, 1985: 730-731). Prior
diversity research has found that diversity management practices (e.g., Bowen & Ostroff,
2004) and the presence of diversity in top management ranks (e.g., Ely, 1994) convey signals
of the value of diversity and are used as such by organizations in stakeholder communica-
tions (e.g., Martins & Parsons, 2007; Olsen & Martins, 2012). However, given that senior
leaders’ words and actions communicate important signals to employees about what is val-
ued by the organization (Pfeffer, 1981; Rindova & Srinivas, 2017), there is a need to move
beyond the symbolic effects of diversity programs and top management diversity to focus on
how the symbolization of the value of diversity in the words and actions of senior leaders
signal the value of diversity in the organization.
Pfeffer (1981: 5) pointed out that strategic leadership involves providing “rationalizations
or reasons that make sense of and thereby explain the organization’s activities.” As such,
strategy scholars have pointed to the central role of strategic leaders’ communications in
signaling the organization’s priorities (Boal & Schultz, 2007; Rindova & Srinivas, 2017).
Thus, via various forms of diversity communication, senior leaders can articulate for employ-
ees and stakeholders the meaning of diversity and inclusion within the organization. For
instance, strategy research on performativity suggests that the power of senior leaders can
make their pronouncements a social fact (Kornberger & Clegg, 2011). Thus, the mere state-
ment or “performative utterance” (Austin, 1962: 6) by senior leaders that diversity and inclu-
sion are strategic priorities for their organization can make them so; conversely, statements
that devalue diversity and inclusion can result in inattention or negative attributions to diver-
sity and inclusion, and propagation of systemic racism and sexism in the organization. In
addition, given that formal and informal communications with various audiences are an inte-
gral part of a strategic leader’s role (Boal & Schultz, 2007), leaders can use speeches and
other public statements that articulate the value of diversity and the vision for diversity within
the organization. It should be noted that, heeding Pfeffer’s (1981: 6) warning that “the link-
age between justifications and rationalizations and organizational action can be loose,” the
extent of correspondence between strategic leaders’ rhetoric and the reality of diversity in the
organization will likely influence the effectiveness of their diversity communications.
Additionally, based on prior diversity research (e.g., Mor Barak et al., 2016), it is likely that
communicating the value of both diversity and inclusion will lead to a higher diversity divi-
dend than communicating the value of diversity alone.
Senior leaders can also communicate strategic priorities, especially those that are
fraught with complexities, through sensegiving, whereby “some abstract ‘vision’ of the
changed organization is disseminated to stakeholders and constituents” (Gioia &
Chittipeddi, 1991: 434). Effective sensegiving requires a strategic leader to engage with
stakeholders in a process of simultaneously understanding and persuading, to get stake-
holders to see that the current state is unacceptable, as well as “articulate and advocate his
or her vision or preferred interpretive scheme for the stakeholders” (Gioia & Chittipeddi,
1991: 434). This research suggests that understanding how senior leaders can articulate an
attractive future based on creating a diversity dividend through greater diversity and inclu-
sion would benefit from theories of sensegiving and related research on prospective sense-
making, wherein the strategic leader uses an envisioned future state to guide current action
(Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005).
In addition to their communications, the actions of senior leaders, including rituals and
ceremonies, symbolize the values and priorities of the organization for internal and external
 Martins / Strategic Diversity Leadership   1199

stakeholders (Hatch, 1993; Rindova & Srinivas, 2017; Smircich & Stubbart, 1985). Thus, the
diversity-related actions of senior leaders can be expected to signal the value of diversity and
inclusion in the organization. Whereas a few of the actions discussed below have been exam-
ined in prior research, most of the conjectures about the symbolic effects of strategic leaders’
diversity-related actions require empirical testing in future research.
Among the obvious actions that symbolize the value of diversity are senior leaders’ extent of
participation in organizational activities and programs designed to promote diversity and inclu-
sion (Mor Barak, 2014) as well as their public support for women and racial minorities through
their own participation, and their support for employee participation, in diversity-related events
such as marches, protests, and celebrations. Importantly, silence and inaction or tepid action
(e.g., having the diversity officer lead the charge) when senior leaders’ vocal and public support
is called for, such as in response to identity mega-threats (Leigh & Melwani, 2019), can signal a
lack of concern for employees belonging to the identity group concerned. Furthermore, tolerance
of, or a failure to prevent, diminishing conduct by others within the organization (e.g., racially
insensitive holiday decorations) on the part of senior leaders can signal a devaluing of diversity
and a reinforcement of systemic discrimination within the organization.
An important symbolic role of the actions of senior leaders is to role-model the values and
priorities of the organization for employees (e.g., Smircich & Stubbart, 1985). Thus, senior
leaders’ actions in the course of regular organizational operations signal to employees the
value of diversity within the organization. For example, demonstrating effort to increase the
diversity of their own teams could signal to employees that their organization really values
diversity (e.g., Ely, 1994) and that senior leaders are “walking the talk” when it comes to
diversity and inclusion. In contrast, senior leaders exhorting supervisory leaders to increase
diversity while their own teams remain relatively homogenous are likely to breed cynicism
and undercut the likelihood of increased diversity in teams within the organization.
Even when there is diversity within an organization’s leadership ranks, senior leaders may
signal a lack of inclusion that reinforces the social subjugation of women and minority lead-
ers in the organization’s hierarchy, in various ways. For instance, women and racial minori-
ties may be placed in senior leadership roles that have little influence over operations (e.g.,
HR, Chief Diversity Officer), leading to optical rather than participatory diversity. Similarly,
Asian employees may be told that they are valued for their hard work but excluded from
important decisions and promotions—the so-called “high-tech coolie” phenomenon that has
been documented within IT companies (e.g., Varma, 2002: 337), leading to their exclusion
from power and status within the organization. In addition, senior leaders may indirectly
reinforce a White patriarchy in the organization when they go around a minority-race super-
visor to a White male subordinate or when important decisions affecting that supervisor’s
unit are made in informal groups that exclude the supervisor. Whereas such actions may be
comfortable or even natural in a diverse workplace due to homophily (Milliken & Martins,
1996), they nonetheless symbolize the exclusion of demographic minorities from the formal
and informal power structure of the organization, and the lack of mindfulness to their
homophily biases can result in actions by senior leaders that undercut inclusion.
Furthermore, the actions of senior leaders toward supervisory leaders may also affect the
latter’s power and status within the organization. For example, when a White male senior
manager talks down to women and minority supervisors (sometimes in the presence of sub-
ordinates), they are likely to sabotage the demographically different managers’ power and
status as the leader of their group or department. This is particularly problematic as research
(Anicich, Fast, Halevy, & Galinsky, 2016) indicates that when an individual from a racial
1200   Journal of Management / September 2020

minority (who is ascribed lower status based on their demographic) is placed in a managerial
position (which carries higher status), there is often greater conflict between the leader and
their subordinates because the manager may not be seen as legitimate by virtue of their
demographic characteristics. In such situations, the actions of senior leaders, for example,
support or lack thereof for a minority supervisor’s decisions, can make the difference between
success and failure for the supervisor, with consequences for their advancement, power, and
status within the organization.

Discussion
A diversity dividend delivered or denied? In this paper, I have argued that the answer to
that question depends on SDL by the senior leaders of an organization. Grounded in the view
of strategic leadership as the management of meaning (Pfeffer, 1981; Rindova & Srinivas,
2017; Shamir, 2007; Smircich & Stubbart, 1985) and building on theoretical insights from
the literature on strategic leadership, I propose a theoretical framework of SDL that includes
framing a vision for diversity and symbolizing the value of diversity in words and actions.
While not intended to be an exhaustive theory of SDL, the framework developed in this paper
seeks to stimulate future research on the role of SDL in delivering the diversity dividend. In
addition to articulating how an examination of strategic leadership can provide novel insights
into diversity and inclusion within organizations, the framework adds to prior applications of
strategy theories to understand the performance effects of diversity, including the resource-
based (Cox & Blake, 1991; Richard, 2000) and dynamic capabilities (Roberson et al., 2017)
views. Much of the above discussion of SDL and its effects is derived from prior research on
strategic leadership and needs to be tested in future research. In addition, there is a need for
research on the drivers of SDL. In this section, I discuss how individual differences and
senior leaders’ strategic agency may influence SDL.

Individual Differences and SDL

A wide range of individual factors likely affect how senior leaders conceptualize diver-
sity and its role within the organization. Cannella and Monroe (1997: 220) stated that “at the
most basic level, strategic leadership theory contends that top managers’ values, cognitions,
and personalities affect their field of vision, their selective perception of information, and
their interpretation of information.” Prior research (Groysberg & Connolly, 2013; Homan
et al., 2020; Randel et al., 2018) suggests a range of individual characteristics and experi-
ences that may affect senior leaders’ development of a nuanced approach to SDL. For exam-
ple, Olsen and Martins (2016) found that Whites who had grown up in predominantly
minority areas support diversity programs more than those who grew up in predominantly
White areas; extending such findings to examine how the backgrounds of senior leaders
affect their SDL could lead to interesting new research insights. Beyond personal experi-
ences, researchers could examine how personality characteristics, values, beliefs, political
ideologies, religious orientations, and cultural backgrounds, as well as other-centric skills,
such as emotional intelligence, empathy, and perspective taking may shape strategic lead-
ers’ demonstration of effective SDL.
As suggested by strategic leadership theory, individual cognitions are likely to shape a
senior leader’s fostering of diversity and inclusion to produce a diversity dividend.
 Martins / Strategic Diversity Leadership   1201

For example, prior research on individual reactions to programs and practices that foster
diversity and inclusion (Leslie, 2019; Martins & Parsons, 2007; Olsen & Martins, 2016) sug-
gests that individual diversity-related cognitions, such as attitudes toward affirmative action,
perceived subgroup discrimination, and demographic identity centrality, are likely to influ-
ence senior leaders’ visions for diversity and inclusion and their communications and actions
to foster them. Additionally, the need for a nuanced approach to managing the double-edged
sword of diversity suggests that in order to be effective in SDL, senior leaders must educate
themselves about the complexities of diversity and inclusion. It would be safe to say that
most Fortune 500 CEOs have educated themselves much more about strategy, a functional
area, or operations than they have about diversity. Indeed, many relegate it to an “HR issue”
that is only loosely coupled with the core strategy and operations of their organizations.
However, we can expect that senior leaders who educate themselves about what it takes to
derive performance benefits from diversity will be more likely to frame diversity visions, and
symbolize the value of diversity, in compelling ways.

Strategic Agency and SDL

A focus on SDL suggests a need for senior leaders to be agentic and mindful in how they
envision and symbolize the value of diversity to their internal and external stakeholders. A
core predicate within strategic leadership theory is that the vision and actions of senior lead-
ers are constrained by cognitive and power constraints (Cannella & Monroe, 1997). However,
the fact remains that within an organization, senior leaders have the highest amount of power
to make systemic changes in accordance with their wishes (Hambrick, 1989) and as such
have the most agency in realizing the benefits of diversity. Exercising this agency might
require breaking out of conceptualizations of diversity that fail to account for changing
demographic realities. When organizations increase diversity within structural arrangements
or cultural and mental models of dominance by White males, their structures and cultures
replicate the dominant group’s worldview and do not foster diversity and inclusion (Nkomo
et al., 2019). In a truly diverse organization, diversity is not attributed to any particular racio-
ethnicity or sex but is a characteristic of the group. Research finds that in such organizations
there may be greater individuation rather than stereotyping (Martins, Milliken, Wiesenfeld,
& Salgado, 2003). However, a model of the organization as truly diverse is not the current
template; rather, in the current conception, diversity is added to a predominantly White and
male organization by racial minorities and women. An examination of the effects of strategic
leaders’ perceived agency in defining diversity and inclusion on their own terms rather than
using old templates would provide interesting insights into differences in their ability to pro-
duce a diversity dividend.
Behavioral strategy research suggests that senior leaders can also proactively increase
their strategic agency to engage in organizational actions that are in accordance with their
values, ideals, aspirations, and imagination (Rindova & Martins, 2018b). Research is needed
on the factors that motivate and facilitate the exercise of such agency by senior leaders, and
the subjective beliefs and mental models that may facilitate or constrain it, in their SDL.
Importantly, there is a need to develop an understanding of senior leaders as designers of the
future diverse organization—rather than focusing only on reactively increasing diversity and
creating a level playing field, leaders could use tools of imagination, design, and inspiration
to proactively articulate and create futures that, through their vividness and attractiveness,
1202   Journal of Management / September 2020

enact a workforce, organization, and processes that are based on incorporating the perfor-
mance benefits of diversity into the DNA of the organization. Senior leaders could also alter
their perspective on diversity from one that involves working from what is required (laws,
policies) forward, to one that involves working from what is possible (an idealized state)
backward, and the effects of this change in perspective on SDL effectiveness would be inter-
esting to examine in future research.

Conclusion
Diversity and inclusion do not just happen in the natural order of organizations; they must
be consciously fostered and nurtured as critical influences on organizational performance.
Given that senior leaders shape the dynamics of diversity in their organizations (Groysberg
& Connolly, 2013; Thomas & Ely, 1996), in this paper, I place the responsibility for produc-
ing a diversity dividend through fostering diversity and inclusion on an organization’s senior
leaders. The SDL framework proposed in this paper suggests several avenues along which
research on strategic leadership as a source of the diversity dividend could be developed.
Given that there is less that we know about SDL than we know about other aspects of the role
of strategic leaders, including about diversity management and supervisory diversity leader-
ship, there is tremendous potential for advancing theory and research on diversity and inclu-
sion by focusing on SDL. Indeed, there is a need for the development of an elaborated theory
of SDL that builds on research on strategic leadership, diversity, and inclusion. Developing a
SDL Theory is particularly important in the face of demographic shifts and forces shaping the
conversation on diversity within the macrocontext of organizations (Nishii et al., 2018;
Nkomo et al., 2019). Whereas demonstrating effective SDL might appear to present a chal-
lenge for leaders within organizations, and indeed it does, it also presents the opportunity,
and arguably the imperative, for senior leaders to actively own and shape the meaning of
diversity within their organizations. For researchers, it presents a great opportunity to lead
the way by developing sophisticated understandings of the role of senior leaders in producing
a diversity dividend.

ORCID iD
Luis L. Martins https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4136-181X

References
Anicich, E., Fast, N. J., Halevy, N., & Galinsky, A. D. 2016. When the bases of social hierarchy collide: Power
without status drives interpersonal conflict. Organization Science, 27: 123-140.
Austin, J. L. 1962. How to do things with words. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Barnard, C. 1938. The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Boal, K. B., & Hooijberg, R. 2000. Strategic leadership research: Moving on. Leadership Quarterly, 11: 515-549.
Boal, K. B., & Schultz, P. L. 2007. Storytelling, time, and evolution: The role of strategic leadership in complex
adaptive systems. Leadership Quarterly, 18: 411-428.
Bowen, D. E., & Ostroff, C. 2004. Understanding HRM-firm performance linkages: The role of the “strength” of the
HRM system. Academy of Management Review, 29: 203-221.
Bunderson, J. S., & Van der Vegt, G. S. 2018. Diversity and inequality in management teams: A review and integra-
tion of research on vertical and horizontal member differences. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology
and Organizational Behavior, 5: 47-73.
 Martins / Strategic Diversity Leadership   1203

Cannella, A. A., Jr., & Monroe, M. J. 1997. Contrasting perspectives on strategic leaders: Toward a more realistic
view of top managers. Journal of Management, 23: 213-237.
Cox, T. H., Jr., & Blake, S. 1991. Managing cultural diversity: Implications for organizational competitiveness.
Academy of Management Executive, 5: 45-56.
Ely, R. J. 1994. The effects of organizational demographics and social identity on relationships among professional
women. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39: 203-238.
Ely, R. J., & Thomas, D. A. 2001. Cultural diversity at work: The moderating effects of work group perspectives on
diversity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46: 229-273.
Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. 1991. Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic
Management Journal, 12: 433-448.
Groysberg, B., & Connolly, K. 2013. Great leaders who make the mix work. Harvard Business Review, 91: 68-76.
Hambrick, D. C. 1989. Guest editor’s introduction: Putting top managers back in the strategy picture. Strategic
Management Journal, 10: 5-15.
Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. 1984. Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers.
Academy of Management Review, 9: 193-206.
Hatch, M. J. 1993. The dynamics of organizational culture. Academy of Management Review, 18: 657-693.
Homan, A. C., Gündemir, S., Buengeler, C., & van Kleef, G. A. 2020. Leading diversity: Towards a theory of func-
tional leadership in diverse teams. Journal of Applied Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/
apl0000482
Hoobler, J. M., Masterson, C. R., Nkomo, S. M., & Michel, E. J. 2018. The business case for women leaders: Meta-
analysis, research critique, and path forward. Journal of Management, 44: 2473-2499.
House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. 1997. The social scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis? Journal of Management,
23: 409-473.
Joshi, A., & Roh, H. 2009. The role of context in work team diversity research: A meta-analytic review. Academy
of Management Journal, 52: 599-627.
Kornberger, M., & Clegg, S. 2011. Strategy as performative practice: The case of Sydney 2030. Strategic
Organization, 9: 136-162.
Leigh, A., & Melwani, S. 2019. #BlackEmployeesMatter: Mega-threats, identity fusion, and enacting positive devi-
ance in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 44: 564-591.
Leslie, L. M. 2019. Diversity initiative effectiveness: A typological theory of unintended consequences. Academy
of Management Review, 44: 538-563.
Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. 2008. The psychology of transcending the here and now. Science, 322: 1201-1205.
Martins, L. L., Milliken, F. J., Wiesenfeld, B. M., & Salgado, S. R. 2003. Racioethnic diversity and group mem-
bers’ experiences: The role of the racioethnic diversity of the organizational context. Group & Organization
Management, 28: 75-106.
Martins, L. L., & Parsons, C. K. 2007. Effects of gender diversity management on perceptions of organizational
attractiveness: The role of individual differences in attitudes and beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92:
865-875.
Milliken, F. J., & Martins, L. L. 1996. Searching for common threads: Understanding the multiple effects of diver-
sity in organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 21: 402-433.
Mor Barak, M. E. 2014. Managing diversity: Toward a globally inclusive workplace (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Mor Barak, M. E., Lizano, E. L., Kim, A., Duan, L., Rhee, M. K., Hsiao, H. Y., & Brimhall, K. C. 2016. The promise
of diversity management for climate of inclusion: A state-of-the-art review and meta-analysis. Human Service
Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 40: 305-333.
Nishii, L. H. 2013. The benefits of climate for inclusion for gender-diverse groups. Academy of Management
Journal, 56: 1754-1774.
Nishii, L. H., Khattab, J., Shemla, M., & Paluch, R. M. 2018. A multi-level process model for understanding diver-
sity practice effectiveness. Academy of Management Annals, 12: 37-82.
Nkomo, S. M., Bell, M. P., Roberts, L. M., Joshi, A., & Thatcher, S. M. 2019. Diversity at a critical juncture: New
theories for a complex phenomenon. Academy of Management Review, 44: 498-517.
Olsen, J. E., & Martins, L. L. 2012. Understanding organizational diversity management programs: A theoretical
framework and directions for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33: 1168-1187.
Olsen, J. E., & Martins, L. L. 2016. How will I fit in? Racioethnicity and potential employees’ reactions to organi-
zational diversity management approaches. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101: 657-672.
1204   Journal of Management / September 2020

Pfeffer, J. 1981. Management as symbolic action: The creation and maintenance of organizational paradigm.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 3: 1-52.
Randel, A. E., Galvin, B. M., Shore, L. M., Ehrhart, K. H., Chung, B., Dean, M., & Kedharnath, U. 2018. Inclusive
leadership: Realizing positive outcomes through belongingness and being valued for uniqueness. Human
Resource Management Review, 28: 190-203.
Richard, O. C. 2000. Racial diversity, business strategy, and firm performance: A resource-based view. Academy of
Management Journal, 34: 164-177.
Rindova, V. P., & Martins, L. L. 2018a. From values to value: Value rationality and the creation of great strategies.
Strategy Science, 3: 323-334.
Rindova, V. P., & Martins, L. L. 2018b. The three minds of the strategist: Toward an agentic perspective in behav-
ioral strategy. Advances in Strategic Management: Behavioral Strategy in Perspective, 39: 167-179.
Rindova, V. P., & Srinivas, S. B. 2017. Managing meaning—culture. In A. Wilkinson, S. J. Armstrong, & M.
Lounsbury (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of management: 256-275. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Roberson, Q., Holmes, O., & Perry, J. L. 2017. Transforming research on diversity and firm performance: A
dynamic capabilities perspective. Academy of Management Annals, 11: 189-216.
Shamir, B. 2007. Strategic leadership as management of meanings. In R. Hooijberg, J. G Hunt, J. Antonakis, K. B.
Boal, & N. Lane (Eds.), Being there even when you are not (monographs in leadership and management), Vol.
4: 105-125. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.
Shore, L. M., Cleveland, J. N., & Sanchez, D. 2018. Inclusive workplaces: A review and model. Human Resource
Management Review, 28: 176-189.
Smircich, L., & Stubbart, C. 1985. Strategic management in an enacted world. Academy of Management Review,
10: 724-736.
Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. 2005. Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing
innovation streams. Organization Science, 16: 522-536.
Thomas, D. A., & Ely, R. J. 1996. Making differences matter. Harvard Business Review, 74: 79-90.
van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K., & Homan, A. C. 2004. Work group diversity and group performance: An
integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89: 1008-1022.
van Knippenberg, D., & Mell, J. N. 2016. Past, present, and potential future of team diversity research: From
compositional diversity to emergent diversity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 136:
135-145.
Varma, R. 2002. High-tech coolies: Asian immigrants in the US science and engineering workforce. Science as
Culture, 11: 337-361.
Vera, D., & Crossan, M. 2004. Strategic leadership and organizational learning. Academy of Management Review,
29: 222-240.
Walsh, J. P. 1995. Managerial and organizational cognition: Notes from a trip down memory lane. Organization
Science, 6: 280-321.
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. 2005. Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization
Science, 16: 409-421.
Winters, M. F. 2014. From diversity to inclusion: An inclusion equation. In B. M. Ferdman & B. R. Deane (Eds.),
Diversity at work: The practice of inclusion: 205-228. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.