<i>Both</i> Diversity <i>and</i> Meritocracy: Managing the Diversity‐Meritocracy Paradox with Organizational Ambidexterity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This conceptual paper addresses the diversity challenge organizations face as they seek to enhance opportunities for marginalized groups without damaging fairness perceptions for advantaged groups. This challenge stems from societal‐level conflicts between advantaged and marginalized groups which generate a paradoxical tension between the values of diversity and meritocracy. The diversity‐meritocracy paradox manifests in interaction as an identity validation‐threat system so that events benefitting marginalized groups threaten advantaged groups and vice versa. However, diversity and meritocracy are also interrelated, and fulfilling each of these values supports the other through their beneficial effects on organizational justice. Managing the paradox entails supporting perceptions of process integrity with diversity practices while supporting perceptions of individual competence with meritocracy practices. Balanced combinations of practices create organizational ambidexterity to fulfil diversity and meritocracy pressures simultaneously. Research is needed examining how organizations leverage the interrelatedness of diversity and meritocracy to achieve diversity, inclusion, and justice among employees.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".