Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This is under the assumption that such discrimination leads to ingroup favoritism and thus advantages for majority group members. Equality scholars differ in the extent to which they would favor affirmative action or positive discrimination policies (cf. Liff 1997; Liff and Dickens 2000). Equality scholars who emphasize ‘difference’ generally favor such policies because they compensate minority group members for (structural) inequalities (i.e. emphasizing colourful approaches). In contrast, equality scholars who emphasize ‘sameness’ generally reject such policies based on the argument that all people are essentially the same and hence should be treated the same (i.e. emphasizing colour-blind approaches).

References

  • Agars, M. (2004). Reconsidering the impact of gender stereotypes on the advancement of women in organizations. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 103–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agle, B. R., & Caldwell, C. B. (1999). Understanding research on values in business: A level of analysis framework. Business and Society, 38, 326–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albert, S., Asforth, B. E., & Dutton, J. E. (2000). Organizational identity and identification: Charting new waters and building new bridges. Academy of Management Review, 25, 13–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Demography and design: Predictors of new product team performance. Organization Science, 3, 321–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, A. E. (2006). Towards a strong virtue ethics for nursing practice. Nursing Philosophy, 7, 110–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, M., & Baron, A. (2005). Handbook of strategic HRM. Mumbai: Jaico Publishing House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. B. (1986). Organizational culture: Can it be a source of sustained competitive advantage? Academy of Management Review, 11, 656–665.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, B. E., Huselid, M. A., & Ulrich, D. (2001). The HR scorecard. Linking people, strategy, and performance. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, S. T., Villado, A. J., Lukasik, M., Belau, L., & Briggs, A. (2011). Getting specific: A meta-analysis of the team demographic diversity and performance relationships. Journal of Management, 37, 709–743.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biddle, B. J. (1986). Recent developments in role theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 12, 67–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgess, D., & Borgida, E. (1999). Who women are, who women should be: Descriptive and prescriptive gender stereotyping in sex discrimination. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5, 665–692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butera, F., Darnon, C., & Mugny, G. (2011). Learning from conflict. In J. Jetten & M. J. Hornsey (Eds.), Rebels in groups: Dissent, deviance, difference and defiance (pp. 36–53). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Catalyst. (2004). The bottom line: Connecting corporate performance and gender diversity. New York: Catalyst.

  • Clegg, S., Kornberger, M., & Rhodes, C. (2007). Business ethics as practice. British Journal of Management, 18, 107–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, J. C. (2009). How the mighty fall. New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, J. C., & Porras, J. I. (1997). Built to last. New York: Harper Business.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, J. (2010). Never, ever, give up. The Global Leadership Summit 2010 Team Edition DVD. Willow Creek Association.

  • Cox, T. (1991). The multicultural organization. The Academy of Management Executive, 5, 34–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crosby, F. J., Iyer, A., & Sincharoen, S. (2006). Understanding affirmative action. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 585–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davison, H. K., & Burke, M. J. (2000). Sex discrimination in simulated employment contexts: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 225–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Woot, P. (2005). Should Prometheus be bound? Global corporate responsibility. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Den Hartog, D. N., Boselie, P., & Paauwe, J. (2004). Performance management: A model and research agenda. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53, 556–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Derry, R. (1996). Toward a feminist firm: Comments on John Dobson and Judith White. Business Ethics Quarterly, 6, 101–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewettinck, K. (2008). Employee performance management systems in Belgian organisations: Purpose, contextual dependence and effectiveness. European Journal of International Management, 2, 192–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickens, L. (1999). Beyond the business case: A three-pronged approach to equality action. Human Resource Management Journal, 15, 33–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dortants, M. (2010). Everyone can become a ‘real’ boxer in this gym: Identity regulation in relation to inclusion and exclusion in boxing. Presentation at the Equal is not Enough Conference, Antwerp.

  • Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., Makhijani, M. G., & Klonsky, B. G. (1992). Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 3–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edelman, L. B., Fuller, S. R., & Mara-Drita, I. (2001). Diversity rhetoric and the managerialization of law. The American Journal of Sociology, 106, 1589–1641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ely, R. J., & Thomas, D. A. (2001). Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity perspectives on work group processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 229–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferner, A., Almond, P., & Colling, T. (2005). US multinationals, competitive advantage and the diffusion of HR policy: The case of workforce diversity. Journal of International Business Studies, 36, 304–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gagnon, S., & Cornelius, N. (2000). Re-examining workplace equality: The capabilities approach. Human Resource Management Journal, 10, 68–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher, A. (2004). Dignity and respect for dignity—two key health professional values: Implications for nursing practice. Nursing Ethics, 11, 587–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. A., Stead, B. A., & Ivancevich, J. M. (1999). Diversity management: A new organizational paradigm. Journal of Business Ethics, 21, 61–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • González, A. M. (2003). Ethics in global business and in a plural society. Journal of Business Ethics, 44, 23–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, H. D. (1998). Unintended consequences: The convergence of affirmative action and immigration. American Behavioral Scientist, 41, 898–912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, M. R. (2002). Ethics and HRM: A review and conceptual analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 36, 261–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, F. (2003). Diversity’s business case doesn’t add up. Workforce, 82, 28–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, C. E. (2008). The good engineer: Giving virtues its due in engineering ethics. Science Engineering Ethics, 14, 153–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, D., & Klein, K. J. (2007). What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32, 1199–1228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 657–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heilman, M. E., Wallen, A. S., Fuchs, D., & Tamkins, M. M. (2004). Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 416–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hekman, D. R., Aquino, K., Owens, B. P., Mitchell, T. R., Schilpzand, T. R., & Leavitt, K. (2010). An examination of whether and how racial and gender biases influence customer satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 238–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heres, L., & Benschop, Y. (2010). Taming diversity: An exploratory study on the travel of a management fashion. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, 29, 436–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huselid, M. A., Beatty, R. W., & Becker, B. E. (2005, December). “A players” or “A positions”? The strategic logic of workforce management. Harvard Business Review, 1–9.

  • Ibarra-Colado, E., Clegg, S., Rhodes, R., & Kornberger, M. (2006). The ethics of managerial subjectivity. Journal of Business Ethics, 64, 45–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jawahar, I. M., & Williams, C. R. (1997). Where all the children are above average: The performance appraisal purpose effect. Personnel Psychology, 50, 905–925.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jehn, K. A., & Bezrukova, K. (2004). A field study of group diversity, workgroup context, and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 703–729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, D., & Stablein, R. (2006). Diversity as resistance and recuperation: Critical theory, post-structuralist perspectives and workplace diversity. In A. M. Konrad, P. Prasad, & J. K. Pringle (Eds.), Handbook of workplace diversity (pp. 145–166). London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joshi, A., & Roh, H. (2007). Context matters: Multilevel considerations diversity research. In J. Martocchio (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resource management (Vol. 26, pp. 1–48). Oxford: Elsevier, JAI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joshi, A., & Roh, H. (2009). The role of context in work team diversity research: A meta-analytic review. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 599–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. (2006). Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies. American Sociological Review, 71, 589–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, E., & Dobbin, F. (1998). How affirmative action became diversity management: Employer response to antidiscrimination law, 1961 to 1996. American Behavioral Scientist, 41, 960–984.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirby, J. (2005, July–August). Toward a theory of high performance. Harvard Business Review, 30–39.

  • Kirton, G., Greene, A., & Dean, D. (2007). British diversity professionals as change agents—radicals, tempered radicals or liberal reformers? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18, 1979–1994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirton, G., & Healy, G. (2009). Using competency-based assessment centres to select judges—implications for equality and diversity. Human Resource Management Journal, 19, 302–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kochan, T., Bezrukova, K., Ely, R., Jackson, S., Joshi, A., Jehn, K., et al. (2003). The effects of diversity on business performance: Report of the diversity research network. Human Resource Management, 42, 3–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraiger, K., & Ford, J. K. (1985). A meta-analysis of ratee race effects in performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 56–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ladkin, D. (2006). When deontology and utilitarianism are not enough: How Heidegger’s notion of “dwelling” might help organisational leaders resolve ethical issues. Journal of Business Ethics, 65, 87–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. (1996). The human resource architecture: Toward a theory of human capital allocation and development. Academy of Management Review, 24, 31–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liff, S. (1997). Two routes to managing diversity: Individual differences or social group characteristics. Employee Relations, 19, 11–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liff, S., & Dickens, L. (2000). Ethics and equality: Reconciling false dilemmas. In D. Winstanley & J. Woodall (Eds.), Ethical issues in contemporary human resource management (pp. 85–101). London: Macmillan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Litvin, D. R. (2006). Diversity: Making space for a better case. In A. M. Konrad, P. Prasad, & J. K. Pringle (Eds.), Handbook of workplace diversity (pp. 75–94). London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorbiecki, A., & Jack, G. (2000). Critical turns in the evolution of diversity management. British Journal of Management, 11, 17–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald, J. E., & Beck-Dudley, C. L. (1999). Are deontology and teleology mutually exclusive? Journal of Business Ethics, 13, 615–623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacIntyre, A. (1981). After virtue. London: Duckworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacIntyre, A. (2007). After virtue, 3rd edn. London: Duckworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meglino, B. M., Ravlin, E. C., & Adkins, C. L. (1989). A work values approach to corporate culture: A field test of the value congruence process and its relationship to individual outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 424–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milliken, F. J., & Martins, L. L. (1996). Searching for common threads: Understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 21, 402–433.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mor Barak, M. E. (2011). Managing diversity: Toward a globally inclusive workplace. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noon, M. (2007). The fatal flaws of diversity and the business case for ethnic minorities. Work, Employment & Society, 21, 773–784.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noon, M. (2012). Simply the best? The case for using threshold selection in hiring decisions. Human Resource Management Journal, 22, 76–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paauwe, J. (2004). HRM and performance: Achieving long term viability. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pendry, L. F., Driscoll, D. M., & Field, C. T. (2007). Diversity training: Putting theory into practice. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 27–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plaut, V. C. (2010). Diversity science: Why and how differences makes a difference. Psychological Inquiry, 21, 77–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pless, M. M., & Maak, T. (2004). Building an inclusive diversity culture: Principles, processes and practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 54, 129–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberson, L., Kulik, C. T., & Pepper, M. B. (2003). Using needs assessment to resolve controversies in diversity training design. Group and Organization Management, 36, 6–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 743–762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20, 571–610.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Towards a universal psychological structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 550–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stauffer, J. M., & Buckley, M. R. (2005). The existence and nature of racial bias in supervisory ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 586–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Syed, J., & Kramar, R. (2009). Socially responsible diversity management. Journal of Management and Organization, 15, 639–651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, R. R. (1991). Beyond race and gender: Unleashing the power of your total work force by managing diversity. New York: AMACOM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomlinson, F., & Schwabenland, C. (2010). Reconciling competing discourses of diversity? The UK non-profit sector between social justice and the business case. Organization, 17, 101–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Wal, Z., de Graaf, G., & Lawton, A. (2011). Competing values in public management. Public Management Review, 13, 331–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Dijk, H., van Engen, M. L., & van Knippenberg, D. (2012). Defying conventional wisdom: A meta-analytical examination of the differences between demographic and job-related diversity relationships with performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 119, 38–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vinkenburg, C. J., van Engen, M. L., Eagly, A. H., & Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C. (2011). An exploration of stereotypical beliefs about leadership styles: Is transformational leadership a route to women’s promotion? The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 10–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Bergen, C. W., Soper, B., & Foster, T. (2002). Unintended negative effects of diversity management. Public Personnel Management, 31, 239–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, K. Y., & O’Reilly, C. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. Research in Organizational Behaviour, 20, 77–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zanoni, P., & Janssens, M. (2004). Deconstructing difference: The rhetoric of human resource managers diversity discourses. Organization Studies, 25, 55–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zanoni, P., Janssens, M., Benschop, Y., & Nkomo, S. (2010). Unpacking diversity, grasping inequality: Rethinking difference through critical perspectives. Organization, 17, 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Human Resource Studies, Tilburg University, Warandelaan 2, 5037 AB, Tilburg, The Netherlands

    Hans van Dijk, Marloes van Engen & Jaap Paauwe

Authors
  1. Hans van Dijk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marloes van Engen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jaap Paauwe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hans van Dijk.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

van Dijk, H., van Engen, M. & Paauwe, J. Reframing the Business Case for Diversity: A Values and Virtues Perspective. J Bus Ethics 111, 73–84 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1434-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1434-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation