Although a widespread management approach, diversity management is far from being a well-defined and unambiguous one. This article outlines how this management practice emerged, and how it is enacted, and it identifies and critically discusses the two crucial areas of dissent or ambivalence within the diversity management discourse: first, the dimensionality of diversity management, and second, its legitimacy. The first issue addresses the prioritization of certain dimensions, the difficulty of clearly demarcating one dimension from another, and the unequal consideration of specific manifestations of each dimension. Taking into account the fact that everyone embodies at least one manifestation of every dimension of diversity, the aspect of intersectionality also belongs to the dimensionality of diversity. The legitimacy issue includes legitimate starting points, operating ranges, and desired outcomes of diversity management practices. The article concludes by looking toward possible future directions in diversity management research and diversity management practice.
Within both the scientific discourse on workforce diversity, and diversity management practice, intersexuality and transgender issues have hitherto remained marginalized topics. This chapter gives an overview of the discourses on both phenomena, and proposes starting points for more inclusive organizational diversity management initiatives. It is shown that both topics represent different aspects of the category of "gender". The common practice of conceptually lumping together intersexuality, transgenderism, and sexual orientation can be seen as one important reason that intersexuality and transgenderism are rarely considered in organizational diversity management programs in terms of concrete action. Against this background, a modified, and more integrated approach to structuring the workforce alongside the different dimensions of diversity is proposed. It is shown that the categories of "biological sex and gender", "gender identity", and "sexual orientation" cannot be regarded as being separate from each other. They represent, rather, an interrelated organizational field of action that should be considered as being one interrelated topic for organizational diversity practices. This chapter derives this claim theoretically and discusses the consequences for organizational diversity management practices. For most organizations, this would mean a fundamental rethinking of their goals, in terms of workforce diversity, and the shaping of their diversity management programs.
In both their external and internal communications, organizations tend to present diversity management (DM) approaches and corporate social responsibility initiatives as a kind of morally 'good' organizational practice. With regard to the treatment of employees, both concepts largely assume equality to be an indicator (as well as a goal) of organizational 'goodness', e.g. in terms of equal treatment, or affording equal opportunities. Additionally, research on this issue predominantly refers to prescriptive and imperative moralities that address the initiatives themselves, and values them morally. Schopenhauer opposes these moralities by conceptualizing morality as exclusively being based on the incentives of acting instead of the actions themselves. He identifies egoism, compassion, and malice as the sole incentives for every human action, whereby only those actions solely motivated by compassion can be ascribed genuine moral worth. In this context, this article shows that from a Schopenhauerian perspective, CSR and DM initiatives only have a genuine moral worth in so far as the individuals who have initiated or supported their implementation were exclusively motivated by compassion. Stressing the narrative of a business case, if utilized as a façade for true compassion that attaches economic legitimacy to these initiatives, does not necessarily harm their moral worth. The approach and the findings developed in this paper contribute to the discourse on the ethical behavior of organizations, as well as to the discourse on CSR and DM.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.