Theatrical model of Organizations

The Impact of Anti-DEI Legislation on Organizational Culture and Institutional Responses

The Metaphor ''Carnival and theatre are two metaphors that portray the cultural perspective on organizations. Because both images imply performance, the dynamics and ever-changing nature of organizations are captured in these images. Carnivals and theatres have actors and audiences, performers, and observers who exercise vital roles in culture building. With so many players, actors, and constituents composing, arranging, and living within organizations'' (Manning, 2013,p. 93)

The Theatrical Model of Organizations

The Theatrical Model of Organizational Response

The Stage

Organizational Setting: Represents higher education institution's environment, shaped by external pressures like anti-DEI legislation and internal dynamics.

The script

Legislative and Institutional Policies: symbolizes the laws, institutional policies, and values guiding the organization’s actions.

The Cast (Key Stakeholders)

Actors: University leaders, faculty, staff, and students, each playing roles influenced by their positions and beliefs about DEI. Supporting Roles: External stakeholders such as policymakers, alumni, and advocacy groups.

The Performance (Organizational Responses)

Acts of resistance (e.g., covert DEI initiatives). Acts of adaptation (e.g., modifying DEI practices to comply).

The Audience

External observers influencing the play

The organizational culture: inclusivity, resistance, and tensions (Cultural and Operational Shifts)

The Atmosphere

Action one: Initial Situation "The storm, mandates arrive and Leadership’s Dilemma"

Action ONE

Description

Main Actions

Outcome

Action Two: Rising Action: "The Leadership Debate"

Action TWO

Description

Main Actions

Outcome

Action Three: Climax: "Cultural Fragmentation and silos "

Action Three

Description

Main Actions

Outcome

Action Four: falling action: ‘’Navigating Dual pressures’’

Action four

Description

Main Actions

Outcome

Action Five: Resolution: ‘’Taking care of what matters’’

Action Five

Description

Main Actions

Outcome

• Initial incongruence emerges between leadership’s focus on compliance and the faculty’s commitment to DEI principles. The stage is set for internal tensions

Examples from the Literature Review Institutional Mission and Identity: Universities with longstanding DEI commitments face tensions between external compliance and internal values (Doane & Unda, 2023).Organizational policies shaped by external mandates guide actions (Marris, 2024). DEI advocates argue that DEI initiatives are pivotal in creating an equitable and inclusive environment (Abrica & Andrew, 2024). (the beginning of the cultural war) This limitation on knowledge sharing can influence the organization’s learning culture, leading the institutions to alter their values toward teaching complex social issues (Follmer et al., 2024). Anti-DEI laws can jeopardize the overall progress made through DEI efforts, impacting organizational morale and productivity (Cherident & Gremillion, 2024)

Fragmentation became visible. Faculty and staff decided to take the initiative to fix that fragmentation. Leadership is supportive of finding a middle ground to find a strategic solution.

Examples from the Literature ReviewExternal forces (e.g., anti-DEI legislation) create the environment where the organization operates (Feder, 2024; Kamola, 2024) Inputs (External Pressures) • Anti-DEI Legislation: Mandates like Texas’s SB 17 restrict DEI funding, programs, and practices, creating a hostile environment that threatens inclusivity (Feder, 2024). Policies banning DEI statements and limiting hiring practices (Feder, 2024) • Cultural Backlash: Ideological opposition against DEI aligns with conservative agendas, portraying DEI initiatives as divisive or unnecessary (Kamola, 2024). • Uncertainty and Apprehension: Legislative vagueness fosters self-censorship among faculty, disrupting organizational clarity (Marris, 2024).

• Adaptation Advocated: Some leaders propose reframing DEI efforts under neutral labels to comply with legislation• Resistance Emerges: Others argue for openly opposing the mandates, emphasizing DEI as central to the institution’s identity. • Staff Concerns: Staff working in DEI offices express frustration, feeling unsupported in the face of leadership’s indecision.

Stakeholder Involvement: Proactive engagement with internal and external stakeholders ensures broader support and shared responsibilityUnified Strategy: Leaders and faculty co-create a strategic plan incorporating DEI efforts into broader institutional goals. Cultural Rebuilding: The institution reaffirms its commitment to inclusivity while navigating legislative pressures.

Examples from the Literature Review Cultural Fragmentation: Anti-DEI laws erode psychological safety, particularly for marginalized groups, and reduce faculty morale and engagement (Carpenter et al., 2024). Reduced Inclusivity: Declining support for underrepresented students impacts graduation and retention rates (Doane & Unda, 2023). Psychological safety decline (Carpenter et al., 2024) The Interplay between Organizational Culture and DEI Efforts and the Role of Leadership:

• Alignment vs. Misalignment
• Congruence vs. Incpngruence
• Centralized leadership vs. Distributed leadership

Anti-DEI legislation (e.g., Texas SB 17) disrupts the institution, limiting the use of diversity statements in hiring processes, banning diversity training, and restricting the teaching of critical topics. These mandates demand an immediate response. Leadership faces external pressures to align with legislative mandates, creating uncertainty and apprehension among faculty and staff.

• Leadership calls a meeting to discuss compliance strategies. • Faculty express concerns about maintaining the institution’s inclusivity values while complying with ambiguous mandates. • Anti-DEI mandates disrupt the university’s foundational DEI practices, especially in institutions with established robust DEI programs. • Leadership faces dual pressures from external policymakers and internal advocates. • These mandates pose a dilemma as leadership debates whether to adapt or resist, they fear potential risks to funding.

Examples from the Literature Review Leadership, faculty, staff, and students; each group’s role affects organizational culture (Cherident & Gremillion, 2024) This limitation on knowledge sharing can influence the organization’s learning culture, leading the institutions to alter their values toward teaching complex social issues (Follmer et al., 2024).

Examples from the Literature Review faculty members adopted strategic compliance to implement diversity-related projects without drawing excessive public scrutiny (Breen et. Al., 2024) Adaptation: The University of Florida restructured DEI training while maintaining some initiatives under different guises (Castillo et al., 2022). Resistance: Examples like the University of California illustrate defiance against anti-DEI legislation by emphasizing diversity as part of their identity (Nadiv & Kuna, 2020). Leadership decisions to resist or adapt represent the organization’s "act" (Gündemir et al., 2024; Castillo et al., 2022).

University leadership grapples with adaptation versus resistance, creating misalignments between leaders and faculty.

Examples from the Literature Review Stakeholders (e.g., alumni, policymakers) influence and evaluate the performance (Taylor, 2024).

• Silos were created portraying those who support DEI efforts and those who cherish anti-DEI laws.• Fragmentation deepens, and the disconnect between leaders and faculty results in reduced morale and engagement.

Incongruence/misalignment between leadership’s compliance-focused strategy and faculty’s DEI commitment begins to fracture organizational cohesion.

The alignment between external anti-DEI pressures and internal resistance to DEI exacerbates the tensions and culminates in cultural fragmentation.

• Covert Efforts: Faculty discreetly incorporate DEI values into broader programs to sustain initiatives under the radar.• Psychological Decline: Marginalized groups feel the institution’s inclusivity is weakening, leading to a loss of trust and psychological safety. • Institutional Resistance: Internal cultural resistance becomes entrenched, impeding collaboration and reinforcing silos .

• Strategic adaptation: The university rebrands DEI initiatives as "Community Engagement Programs" or ''Student Success'' to align with legislative mandates while marinating their commitment to DEI programs and initiatives• In private, faculty continue research and teaching on equity under the guise of broader academic freedom initiatives • Empathy and Action: Leaders actively communicate the human-centric value of DEI, emphasizing inclusivity as critical to institutional success

• Leaders regain some trust, and the institution takes initial steps toward healing and cohesion, though tensions linger.

•The institutions' leadership demonstrated a collaborative and resilient approach, which aided in fostering a more inclusive culture. They remained steadfast in upholding their core commitment to serving students, faculty, and staff, while also promoting the values of inclusive excellence to drive success. Although a looming DEI ban persists, the organization's culture appears poised to navigate the impending changes.

Leaders adopt the paradox organizational theory, balancing competing powers inside the organization. They start working with the different actors to restore alignment and foster an inclusive culture.