INCLUSION AND DIVERSITY IN MANAGEMENT: A MANIFESTA FOR THE FUTURE-NOW

In marking the anniversary of RAE-Revista de Administração de Empresas, the purpose of this article, which can be interpreted as a manifesta, is to discuss the role of academic journals in Management with regard to inclusion and diversity. We understand that when we talk about the role of journals in processes for repairing historical inequalities we are also talking about reconnecting with criticisms of the concept and practice of diversity that are found in the field of Management, and it is precisely with this debate that we begin to build our argument right after the introduction. Based on theoretical references that are systematized by the practices and knowledge of social movements (intersectionality, mainstreaming and “decoloniality”), we present our manifesta for an agenda of transformations for practices relating to diversity in the field.


INTRODUCTION
Resorting to the use of Ebonics [Pretuguês 1 - Gonzalez, 1984], "how about y'all start this text with a reflection exercise?" Let us look at a hypothetical situation in which we consider the barriers to promoting inclusion and diversity in Management. One of the stages in this process involves writing, publishing and fostering the development of works on the topic in order to construct an agenda of debates in the field. Imagine, then, that you are a researcher in Organization Studies and you received an invitation to compose a group of scholars to guestedit a special issue on diversity and inclusion in a journal that tops the Qualis Capes Academic Journals ranking: 1. Who would you invite to be in your group? 2. Imagine this group needs to comprise 50% men and 50% women. Would your initial composition serve?
How would you adjust it? How would you tell those who would need to leave the group? How would you invite new people in order to achieve this distribution requirement?
3. The group also needs to comprise 50% non-white people and 50% white. Was that what the group was originally like? If not, would it be easy to adjust it?
4. In addition to the above requirements, the group needs to be equally divided between heterosexuals and non-heterosexuals. What would you do? 5. What if, in addition to what has been said, the group needed to be comprised also of cisgender people, transvestites, and transgender and transsexual people? Would you be able to put together a group like this in your research area? 6. What if you also needed to have at least one representative from indigenous groups, or from former slave communities? What now?
7. Finally, what if it were necessary to include people from regions other than the Southeast or South of Brazil? Was your group like hat? 8. The exercise has not finished yet; there is a little more to do. Go back over this whole exercise and imagine that this group has to be comprised of male and female researchers from other areas in Management, such as Finance, Logistics, or others; what would it be like then? "Tell us, did y'all manage to compose the groups mentally?" We imagine not, because even we, the writers of this article, who have political and academic backgrounds in these topics, find it difficult to diversify our group.
We are four heterosexual cisgender women, two black and two white, all born in the Southeast and South of Brazil, although two of us work in institutions outside this area.
Our careers so far include the joint coordination of the topic of inequalities and differences in the Organization Studies division of National Association of Postgraduation and Research in Administration (Associação Nacional de [1] Pretuguês is the name suggested by Lélia Gonzalez (1984) for the Portuguese that is spoken in Brazil, which has been heavily influenced by the way the black people who came to Brazil to be enslaved in the forced diaspora from the African continent. This influence explains the ways of speaking that transform você (you) into cê (y'all), that drop the final "R" from the infinitive form of verbs (escrevê, fazê instead of escrever, fazer), and who exchange e L sound for R (Creusa instead of Cleusa)). Lélia points out that these marks were ignored by racism, when they incorporated an idea that black people are intellectually inferior, which is why they are disconnected from the cultured norms of the Portuguese language.

Pós-Graduação e Pesquisa em Administração [ANPAD])
, and academic and professional activities in this area and/ or in the field of Public Administration. Our areas are marked by epistemological, theoretical and methodological plurality. This plurality is lost, however, when the subject is the adequate representativity of the diversity that goes to make up our country in terms of the faculty members and students in this field.
On this anniversary of RAE-Revista de Administração de Empresas, the initial objective of this text, which can also be understood to be a manifesta, was to discuss the role of academic journals in Management in relation to inclusion and diversity. It would be like thinking about an agenda for the future. The structure of our argument, however, goes beyond the sphere of academic journals, although it also refers to them.
We propose expanding the discussion to incorporate the field of Management. This proposal is based on: (1) our experiences in articulating debate on topics in the field, which also includes political and academic activities behind the scenes of its institutionalized practices; (2) a theoretical contribution that is connected with the educational experiences of social movements: intersectionality, decoloniality and mainstreaming; and (3) the intrinsic character of academic debate with its more structural social transformation.
In this sense, we believe that expressing ourselves on the role of journals in processes for repairing historical inequalities is also about reconnecting with the main critiques of the concept and practice of diversity in the field; it is with this debate that we begin to construct our argument, right after this introduction. We then discuss the theoretical foundation of our agenda, while in the fourth part we present our manifesta for a transformation agenda in Management.
In practical terms we believe that inviting a black person and a woman onto a panel on diversity, for example, is not practicing diversity. We operate in contexts in which superficial actions have helped de-politicize the agenda. When we move from this uncritical view to another that is critical and transformative with regard to inequalities, we recognize that we need to act in a more profound way, at the very roots of the field. We argue that superficial actions are merely steps, because the insurgencies in our area depend on breaking with the pattern of episodic moments for structural transformations towards diversity. Our argument develops an understanding of the implications of this debate for the different areas, and connecting with the field of Management as a whole.

DIVERSITY IN MANAGEMENT
The debate about diversity in Management has gained in strength in the United States since the 1990s (Cox & Blake, 1991;Fleury, 2000). Better structured initiatives for dealing with the issue, however, date back to the 1960s, when the first affirmative public policies were developed in the country in response to demands from the Civil Rights Movement (Moehlecke, 2002;Pate, 2000). The legal foundations of these initiatives refer, in turn, to the broader international context, as recommended in United Nations' treaties and conventions, as well as in national legislation (Hodges-Aeberhard, 1999), such as in Brazil (Bandeira, 2005;Jaccoud & Beghin, 2002).
Since 1960, affirmative action has spread throughout the world, but this has not happened without dispute (Moehlecke, 2002;Pate, 2000). The questions raised emphasize that this type of policy is a form of "reverse discrimination", a means of devaluing the achievements of the beneficiary groups or, even, of reinforcing a kind of "tribalism" between groups (Piovesan, 2008;Scott, 2005). Such criticisms formed the basis of a wave of lawsuits against affirmative policies in the US in the 1990s, which were brought mainly by workers and students who felt they had been wronged in selection and professional advancement processes (Hodges-Aeberhard, 1999).
It is in this context that a managerial alternative emerges for dealing with diversity at work (Alves & Galeão-Silva, 2004). Diversity management is a set of practices that aim both to increase the participation of excluded groups in organizations and to add value to companies (Fleury, 2000). In this process, diversity is often understood as a mix of people with different individual and group attributes (Alves & Galeão-Silva, 2004). This would include not only differences that have been historically dealt with as sources of inequality, such as gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity and class, but multiple differences between people (Hanashiro & Carvalho, 2005). According to this perspective, the identities and skills that result from this plurality must be managed as strategic resources for increasing organizational performance (Thomas, 1990).
The defense of diversity management is based on two main points (Alves & Galeão-Silva, 2004). First, this proposal would allow for the construction of fairer programs that are based on "meritocracy". Alignment with the business logic would also make these initiatives more "organic" and effective in creating an organizational environment that is favorable to difference (Hanashiro & Carvalho, 2005). Second, diversity management would make it possible to mitigate the disadvantages and expand the advantages of different teams (Conceição & Spink, 2013;Prügl, 2011), which becomes even more crucial in a globalized and competitive context in which homogeneity between male and female workers would no longer be an option for companies. There came a turning point, therefore, in discourses about diversity and management: it was no longer a question of social justice, but of business survival (Thomas, 1990).
Diversity management was incorporated in Brazil in the 1990s, brought in mainly by the subsidiaries of North American multinationals (Fleury, 2000;Hanashiro & Carvalho, 2005), but the proposal never took off in the country (Conceição & Spink, 2013;Santos, Rodrigues, Dutra, & Costa, 2008). A survey by the Ethos Institute (2016) shows that in the 500 largest companies in Brazil only 28% adopt initiatives for encouraging the participation of women, 12% for black people and 9% for those over 45 years old, and most of these initiatives are one-off actions. Even programs for people with disabilities are not widespread, despite the existing legal provisions for encouraging the insertion of this group. Studies (e.g., by Diniz, Carrieri, Gandra, & Bicalho, 2013;Saraiva & Irigaray, 2009) have also pointed to the ineffectiveness of the programs that have been implemented, since they do not include an ethical-moral reflection that supports the practices that are developed, there is a lack of managerial commitment and prejudice is deep-rooted in organizational dynamics.
Barriers are also observed in the advancement of research on the topic. Maria Tereza Leme Fleury's (2000) article in RAE, which initiated debate about diversity in the field, was followed by a substantial increase in publications, many of them debating the limits of the practice and the possibilities for improvement. These works have been expanded upon by studies that are not always supported by the theoretical key of diversity, but that offer reflections on, among other things, the generational and regional inequalities in gender, sexuality, race and ethnicity, and those faced by people with disabilities. A similar movement in the area can be seen in congresses, such as EnANPAD, which include topics dedicated to diversity and differences, and meetings, such as EnEO, EnAPG and EnGPR. But this debate, which is fundamental for Management, follows a resistance front that is marginalized by the hegemony of the field and "ghettoized" in specific areas, such as Organization Studies and Public Management.
Limits can also be observed when it comes to promoting a more forceful reflection-action for transforming the teachers in graduate programs in the area are women. Female participation is even lower in programs rated Level 5 and 6 [very good/excellent]. A regional disparity is also evident, with 45% of the programs concentrated in the Southeast and 25% in the South. Data that might allow us to reflect on the racial, ethnic and economic disparities and those related to sexual and gender identities are not even collected, revealing how far away we are from having a coherent policy that favors the inclusion of black, poor, trans and non-heterosexual people in graduate program faculty in Brazil.
A look at the student body, however, indicates possibilities for change. Women make up 46% of the students in graduate programs in Public and Business Management, Accounting and Tourism. There is a greater female participation on academic courses; 48% compared with 43% of female students studying for a professional Master's or PhD. As with teachers, there are fewer female students on Level 5 and 6 programs and in private university programs. The largest female participation is headed by young women who already exceed 50% of all students up to 29 years old (CAPES, 2021). Women also account for 54.9% of the students in undergraduate courses in Business, Management and Law. Black people, however, are still underrepresented in higher education courses, generally, despite the relevant progress made as a result of quota policies (Semesp, 2020).
The limits for the advancement of diversity refer to the way in which the debate on differences and inequalities has been hegemonically incorporated into Management. In a work on black executives, Jaime (2016) discusses how diversity management was adopted as a language for mediating the conflict between organizations, government agents and civil society. This "translation", however, led to a depoliticization of the historical agendas of social movements. As Alves and Galeão-Silva (2004) show, managerial proposals shift the issue of differences from a political, uncontrollable and corporate conflict to an apolitical and functional variable, thereby submitting the demand for inclusion to a market logic, a logic that is not only male, but white and colonial (Gonzalez, 1984).
In the following section, we suggest an alternative approach that seeks to re-politicize and increase reflectionaction for achieving diversity and inclusion in the field.

INTERSECTIONALITY, DECOLONIALITY AND MAINSTREAMING
In order to re-politicize the theories and practices of Management in relation to inclusion and diversity, we need to move beyond individual solutions in order to get to the roots of this problem, and this requires understanding the institutional and structural dimensions that shape the field as it is permeated by the historical and political relations that provide social reality as a whole with its materiality (Ramos, 1981). In order to do so we can draw a parallel with theoretical-political discussions about racism.
In the words of Joel Rufino dos Santos (1999), racism is not a set of episodic phenomena for countering our understanding of it as a "'minority' problem" (p. 120). Racism is an oppression system based on a notion of race as an ideology (Munanga, 2015) that acts as a psychic organizer of individuals and groups (Santos, 1983). Based on an ideology that is interspersed with the effects of capitalism and sexism (Gonzalez, 1984), racism promotes ways of structuring society at its various levels, including at the institutional level.
In the formation of modern organizations, however, mimicry promoted the appearance that "black is race", remembering Santos's (1999) criticism of how black people are seen in Brazil. The author points out that "black" is a social place that is maintained by an unequal and excluding structure (Santos, 1999), which must also be understood as relational in the place of whiteness, which reverberates as a power standard in these organizations (Gouvêa & Oliveira, 2020).
In a parallel with the theory of organizations, Peci (2006) draws attention to the way in which organizational mimicry is overestimated as a phenomenon for understanding the formation and regulation of institutions in institutional theories, which are classic in the field of Management. Returning to the racial discussion, racism also tends to be treated as just individual or group mimicry, and not as something structural that is sustained by the historical power relations in our society (Almeida, 2018).
Based on these reflections, we understand that the construction of a field that is committed to tackling inequalities and promoting inclusion and diversity involves forging instruments that allow us to operate within this structural complexity. In this manifesta, we examine the knowledge and transformative practices that have been developed by social movements, especially the feminist (and) black movements, when proposing a transformative agenda for Management. To do so we are supported by three concepts (which are also three practices) for setting out a path of reflection-action with regard to concrete proposals for the field. They are: intersectionality, decoloniality and mainstreaming.
Intersectionality was systematized by Kimberlé Crenshaw in 1989(Teixeira, 2020. The history of intersectionality, however, permeates the actions of black women for politicizing race, gender and class relations in an articulated way. During women's rights conventions in the United States in 1851, Sojourner Truth, an enslaved black woman, asked: "Has anybody ever helped me get into a carriage ... or jump over muddy puddles ... And am I not a woman?" (Truth, 1851). In asking this question, she pointed out that the construction of a universal female was, in fact, a generalization of the experiences of middle-and upper-class white women.
The contributions of black American intellectuals, such as Angela Davis (2016), Audre Lorde (1984) and bell hooks (2000), were fundamental to the development of intersectional theories and practices over time. But it is also essential to highlight the contributions of the Global South, such as those developed by Brazilians, Lélia Gonzalez (1984), Beatriz Nascimento (1990) and Sueli Carneiro (2003), and even reflect on the fact that these authors are not included when the concept is systematized.
Based on Crenshaw (2002), we understand intersectionality to be the linking of the axes of power and discrimination that structurally produce oppression. This is the case with social race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality and class relations. We need, therefore, to think and act in a connected and integrated way if we wish to produce equality and inclusion with respect to diversity.
Coloniality refers to the project of colonial modernity that separates and hierarchizes races, peoples, genders, sexualities, cultures, languages and knowledge, as a way of establishing and legitimizing Eurocentric hegemony. It goes beyond the historical process by which European countries colonized America, Africa and Asia, and which integrated (and structured) the contemporary capitalist way of production. Its effects are not limited to the geopolitical organization of the economy by the international division of labor (center/periphery), but encompass the construction of hegemonic forms of rationality and epistemes, including language (like the use of English as a universal language). It is a monoculture of knowledge (Santos, Araújo, & Baumgarten, 2016).
Decoloniality, on the other hand, is a theoretical and practical proposal for politically repositioning marginalized subjects and peoples as the origin and source of knowledge and practices (Lugones, 2014).

Constructing mediation between decoloniality and intersectionality offers us a solid basis for reflection.
Decolonizing is, to a large extent, recognizing the intersection that relates to forms of inequality, and building paths so that those subjects and communities that live on the margins become the center of an emancipatory project, while intersectionality becomes more powerful as it decolonizes.
Finally, we turn to gender mainstreaming, which is translated into Portuguese as transversalidade de gênero (Farah, 2004;Papa, 2012;Reinach, 2013). Mainstreaming refers to the efforts of feminist movements to forge strategies for ensuring that public action is committed to gender equality. This strategy was disseminated following the IV World Conference on Women, which was held in Beijing, in 1995, and supports the development of public policies in various countries (Guzmán, 2001;Walby, 2005). In Brazil, it was the basis of initiatives for institutionalizing policies for women (Bandeira, 2005;Marcondes, 2019;Papa, 2012), and for equality in terms of race, youth and human rights (Marcondes, Sandim, & Diniz, 2018;Reinach, 2013), especially when PT [Workers Party] was in power in the federal government.
Based on feminist literature on the subject (Bandeira, 2005;Farah, 2004;Marcondes, 2019), we understand mainstreaming to be a process that seeks to reorient reflection-action through the introduction of perspectives (of gender, race, ethnicity, etc.) that commit it to promoting equality and the inclusion of historically discriminatedagainst subjects. This is an essentially conflicting and contradictory dynamic, and its results are permeated by nuances and even discontinuities.
Mainstreaming involves a dispute with regard to the ideologies and discourses that structure the problems and the action alternatives for responding to them. Reorientation from the perspective of gender equality, for example, presupposes recognizing that, historically, thought and action were committed to producing and legitimizing gender inequality. Mainstreaming should also encompass making material and institutional conditions feasible so that it can be managed effectively. This is the case with the creation of coordinating bodies and the development of plans and indicators, among other instruments.
Mainstreaming, therefore, seeks to reorient reflection-action in a different direction from the one it has historically followed, which will bring marginalized perspectives to the center. In this process mainstreaming can be based on intersectionality and decoloniality in order to boost its effects, and although it has been used mainly at the state level, it offers instruments for disputing and transforming other spaces, such as the Management field itself.
Based on these references, we introduce the following proposals.

FOR A TRANSFORMATIVE AGENDA
In order to expand the topics and the participation of groups that have been historically confined to the margins of the field, we need to change the logic of a field that turns these groups into objects in the world and not subjects.
This transformation agenda must consider several fronts.
Initially, we need to consider that who creates the idea of what we know about diversity is the one who occupies the place of the norm. From an intersectional perspective, therefore, those elements that we were told are the norm and that result from the way in which life, in terms of gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, class and disability, for example, is socio-economically produced and organized, need to be denaturalized. has been called diversity needs to stop reaffirming the norm, and start being constituted by its own processes.
This implies a second front for this agenda, which has to do with the composition rules of the institutions that articulate these debates, which can be thought of in a critical and purposeful way, and from an intersectional perspective. This is important because, without the material conditions necessary for this diversity agenda to take effect, it will once again become a proposal for a future that will never arrive, that remains on the sidelines.
Here, we turn to the question of resource distribution, including financial resources, the occupation of spaces on the editorial bodies of journals and class associations, and the recognition of technologies and management processes that break with the logic of preserving processes that are, whether explicitly or not, excluding.
One of the ways in which these technologies are manifested is through language (Gonzalez, 1984). The international integration of our work processes is important, but this does not necessarily mean the hegemony of the English language. For instance, the Spanish language continues to be neglected by the Brazilian editorial management.
This questioning also applies to the adoption of English as the official language for teaching classes in the Management area. This use of English in Brazil, a part of Latin America and the Global South, points to one of the mechanisms that show for whom these spaces are destined and how they are reproduced, which prevents diversity. Another example of this mechanism is the business journals silence about the promotion of accessibility of studies in the Brazilian sign language to nationalize the research in the field. Adopting a research agenda that talks about diversity while suppressing this diversity in daily life turns these discussions into an object and not a project to be carried out in a scientific area.
We need to consider that it is not only the presence of trans and black people, women, and those with disabilities or who come from developing countries, for example, that will ensure that an institution becomes effectively engaged with this agenda. The issue is rather the effectiveness of another operating logic for overcoming inequalities, one that permeates the actual occupation of these spaces (or suppression of them) by these social groups. This occupation cannot be treated superficially as the co-option of difference, which is observed both in the dynamics of internal survival in the scientific field and in its internationalization agendas. In this sense, we need to discuss to what extent the vision of internationalization can be configured as the co-option of difference and "hegemonization" by the Global North. We can (and should) ask ourselves: Why does internationalization not come from the Global South, or via other languages, such as Spanish?
The third front proposed for a diversity agenda concerns research topics. The theme of inequalities and diversities is mainstream and a constituent part of the field of Management. There are financial implications, but also implications for the formation of supply and logistics chains, for our modes of production and consumption, and for the information technologies that structure and organize all these debates and that may present us with other reflections and proposals for intervention over and above public policies and people management or organization policies. In order to constitute a mainstreaming process, which is understood as a reorientation of the course of Management theories and practices in favor of equality and inclusion, material and institutional conditions need to be created so that this dispute can be repositioned, and shift from the margin to the center.
In this same sense, it is important to create mechanisms for managing this mainstreaming, such as action plans that have goals and indicators, and bodies that allow this process to be managed, and that can be adopted in a wide variety of academic organizations (universities, research associations, editorial boards) and involve social participation.
Going further, it is necessary to move forward with an agenda of topics that includes a debate on deconstructing silences, and also encompasses "who invented" what is called diversity. In discussions about gender, different