Reframing the Business Case for Diversity: A Values and Virtues Perspective

Abstract

We provide an ethical evaluation of the debate on managing diversity within teams and organizations between equality and business case scholars. Our core assertion is that equality and business case perspectives on diversity from an ethical reading appear stuck as they are based on two different moral perspectives that are difficult to reconcile with each other. More specifically, we point out how the arguments of equality scholars correspond with moral reasoning grounded in deontology, whereas the foundations of the business case perspective are crafted by utilitarian arguments. We show that the problems associated with each diversity perspective correspond with the traditional concerns with the two moral perspectives. To resolve this stalemate position, we argue that the equality versus business case debate needs to be approached from a third, less well-known moral perspective (i.e. virtue ethics). We posit that a focus on virtues can enhance equality by reducing prejudice and illustrate this by applying it to the HRM domains of recruitment and selection and of performance management. Subsequently, we argue that values are key to aligning virtues with each other and with corporate strategy, delineate our values and virtues perspective on diversity, and argue why and how it can enhance organizational performance.

Microdynamics in Diverse Teams: A Review and Integration of the Diversity and Stereotyping Literatures

“…Challenging existing beliefs about tasks and occupational roles therefore may help to disconnect social from task stereotypes (see also van Dijk, van Engen, & Paauwe, 2012).…”

Diversity as Polyphony: Reconceptualizing Diversity Management from a Communication-Centered Perspective

“…On the one hand, diversity management research in the 'instrumental' tradition (e.g., Cox and Blake, 1991;Robinson and Dechant, 1997;Scott et al, 2011) is concerned with how organizations can manage the diversity of organizational members along sociodemographic criteria (e.g., gender, age, or ethnicity) in order to gain competitive advantage and enhance team performance (an approach that the KPN example renders questionable). On the other hand, diversity management research in the 'critical' tradition draws on normative arguments to stress the importance of workforce diversity, for instance, based on ideals of social justice and social representation (e.g., Van Dijk et al, 2012). At the same time, works in the critical tradition also highlight the challenges, tensions, and contradictions of realizing those ideals in organizational practice (e.g., Bissett, 2004;Kalonaityte, 2009;Kirton and Greene, 2009;Riach, 2009).…”

Theoretical Perspectives to Diversity in Management Research

“…Tatli, 2008;Chevrier, 2003;Williams and O'Reilly, 1998;Milliken and Martins, 1996;Nemetz and Christensen, 1996;Cox, 1991. The main reason for the business case for diversity is the surface-level perspective of managing diversity. This perspective postulates that diversity is an asset and that, therefore, organisations should have a diverse workforce (Dijk et al, 2012). DM and the business case approach to diversity are not as basic as discussed here.…”

“…The main points related to this argument are that it: creates a competitive advantage by creating an appropriate corporate image (Nyambegera, 2002); improves group performance at the organisational level (Benschop, 2001;Williams and O'Reilly, 1998); appeals to high quality personnel (Cox and Blake, 1991;Ng and Burke, 2005); increases organisational flexibility by developing problem-solving capabilities at the group level; and encourages creativity and innovation (Cox and Blake, 1991;Milliken and Martins, 1996;Heres and Benschop, 2010). These perspectives of the business case for diversity provides cost reduction, high organisational effectiveness, and increasing business growth and profits (Singh and Point, 2004;Robinson and Dechant, 1997;Heres and Benschop, 2010;Dijk et al, 2012;Thomas and Ely, 1996;O'Leary and Weathington, 2006;Singal, 2014;Ozbilgin, 2008).…”