Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Diversity for Justice vs. Diversity for Performance: Philosophical and Empirical Tensions

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

Abstract

Many business ethicists, activists, analysts, and corporate leaders claim that businesses are obligated to promote diversity for the sake of justice. Many also say—good news!—that diversity promotes the bottom line. We do need not choose between social justice and profits. This paper splashes some cold water on the attempt to mate these two claims. On the contrary, I argue, there is philosophical tension between arguments which say diversity is a matter of justice and (empirically sound) arguments which say diversity promotes performance. Further, the kinds of interventions these distinct arguments suggest are different. Things get worse when we examine the theory and empirical evidence about how diversity affects group performance. The kind of diversity which promotes justice and the kind which promotes the bottom line are distinct—and the two can be at odds.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See Brennan et al. ( 2021) for an overview.

  2. McBrayer (2022).

  3. McKinney (2022).

  4. Democratic Party (2020).

  5. Interestingly, few people complain about, say, black overrepresention and Jewish underrepresentation in professional sports. But this may simply show people are ideologically inconsistent.

  6. See Griggs vs. Duke Power Co., 401 US 424 (1971). Adverse impact here means that there is a selection rate for a protected group that is 80% or lower than what would be expected from the applicant pool.

  7. Statistica (2021).

  8. I paint with broad strokes here because there are many different background philosophies which support variations on this conclusion for different reasons. For instance, Rawls (1971) defends a liberal philosophy which holds that all people of equal talent, regardless of their demographic backgrounds, should have an equal chance of getting any office or position. Critical race theorists also endorse justice-based grounds for promoting diversity but generally reject the liberal framework. These differences are important, but I gloss over them here because they are not the focus of this paper.

  9. Landemore (2012), Brennan and Landemore (2021).

  10. See Davis and Huttenback (1987) for empirical validation of Smith’s claims.

  11. E.g., Van der Vossen and Brennan (2018).

  12. Davis and Huttenback (1987), Van der Vossen and Brennan (2018).

  13. Caplan (2007).

  14. Hunt et al. (2018), p. 1.

  15. Prichard (1912).

  16. Even Freidman (1970) agrees.

  17. Ely and Thomas (2020).

  18. Farrell and Hersch (2005) find that adding women to boards does not increase corporate performance, but instead that women self-select to join better-performing boards.

  19. Hunt et al. (2015).

  20. Hunt et al. (2018).

  21. Hunt et al. (2018), p. 2.

  22. Hunt et al. (2015), p. 2.

  23. E.g., Landemore (2012) argues that in democracy, more heads always outperform fewer, but the Hong-Page theorem does not support this claim. The Hong-Page theorem says adding more heads can help only under very specific circumstances.

  24. The distinction Hong and Page have in mind between cognitive and demographic diversity is related, if not the same, to the what is often called surface- versus deep-level diversity. Surface-level diversity concerns “visible” distinctions, such as differences in race or sex. Deep-diversity concerns differences in attitudes, beliefs, values, or knowledge. https://opentextbc.ca/principlesofmanagementopenstax/chapter/an-introduction-to-workplace-diversity/.

  25. Page (2007), p. 7.

  26. Page (2007), p. 7.

  27. Desmet et al. (2017).

  28. As an illustration: Imagine a committee trying to hire the best finance professor. If the committee agrees publications count more than teaching, they might work together well. If they dispute entirely what counts as “the best,” they might not.

  29. Hong and Page (2004).

  30. Page (2007), p. 160.

  31. Somin (2013), p. 114; Hong and Page (2004).

  32. Page (2007), p. 335.

  33. Page (2007), p. 325.

  34. Page (2007), p. 325.

  35. Guest (2019), p. 53.

  36. Richard (2000), p. 171.

  37. Carter et al. (2010).

  38. Morrone et al. (2022).

  39. Gallego-Alvarez et al. (2010).

  40. Fernandez-Temprano and Tejerina-Gaite (2021).

  41. Cox and Blake (1991), Richard et al. (2013), Estelyi and Nisar (2016), Bernile et al. (2018), Guest (2019), Katmon et al. (2019).

  42. Pletzer et al. (2015).

  43. Rose (2007).

  44. Jackson et al. (2003), Miller and Triana (2009), Carter et al. (2010), Mahadeo et al. (2011), Pathan and Faff (2013), Chapple and Humphrey (2014), Strøm et al. (2014), Terjesen et al. (2016), Jeong and Harrison (2017), Bennouri et al. (2018), Scholtz and Kieviet (2018), Buchwald and Hottenrott (2019).

  45. Lindsay et al. (2018).

  46. Williams and O’Reilly (1998), pp. 99–100.

  47. Williams and O’Reilly (1998), p. 104.

  48. Williams and O’Reilly (1998), p. 108.

  49. Williams and O’Reilly (1998), p. 115.

  50. Ely and Thomas (2020).

  51. Ely and Thomas (2020).

  52. Ely and Thomas (2020).

  53. Ely and Thomas (2020).

  54. Bantel and Jackson (1989).

  55. Smith et al. (1994).

  56. Carter et al. (2010), Miller and del Carmen Triana (2009), Estelyi and Nisar (2016), Adams and Baker (2021).

  57. Yang et al. (2019) notes this point. In contrast, they use more sophisticated statistical techniques and find a negative result.

  58. Page (2007), p. 323. Among others, Page cites Williams and Oreilly (1998), Laursen et al. (2005), Hoffman (1959), Finkelstein and Hambrick (1990), Bantel and Jackson (1989), Blinder and Morgan (2005).

  59. Blinder and John Morgan (2005), Kugler et al. (2012), Rockenbach et al. (2007), Milliken and Martins (1996), Pelled et al. (1999), Crossan and Apaydin (2010), van Knippenberg et al. (2004), Guzzo and Dickson (1996), Van Knippenberg and Schippers (2007), Ostrom (2009), Lakhani et al. (2007), Baranchuk and Dybvig (2009), van den Bergh and Jereon (2008).

  60. Glaeser et al. (1992), Glaeser (1999), Glaeser (1994).

  61. Kasperson et al. (1992), p. 169.

  62. Ortiz-Ospina and Roser (2016).

  63. Alesina et al. (2001).

  64. Covey and Conant (2016).

  65. Alesina and La Ferrara (2002), Bjørnskov (2006), Hero (2003), Alesina and La Ferrara (2000), Costa and Kahn (2003), Putnam (2007).

  66. Abrams, Hogg, and Marques (2005), Uslaner (2002), Messick and Kramer (2001), Dinesen et al. (2020).

  67. Dinesen et al. (2020), p. 441.

  68. Dinesen et al. (2020), p. 461.

References

  • Abrams, D., Hogg, M. A., Hinkle, S., Often, S., & S. (2005). ?The Social Identity Perspective on Small Groups”. In M. S. Poole & A. B. Hollingshead (Eds.), Theories of Small Groups: Interdisciplinary Perspectives (pp. 99–137). Sage Publications Inc.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Adams, M., & Baker, P. L. (2021). Does boardroom nationality affect the performance of UK insurers? The British Accounting Review, 53, 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alesina, A. F., Glaeser, E. L, & Bruce S. (2001). "Why Doesn't the US Have a European-Style Welfare System?” Brookings Institute. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2001/06/2001b_bpea_alesina.pdf

  • Alesina, A., & La Ferrara, E. (2000). Participation in heterogeneous communities. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115, 847–904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alesina, A., & La Ferrara, E. (2002). Who trusts others? Journal of Public Economics, 85, 207–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bantel, K., & Jackson, S. (1989). Top management and innovations in banking: Does the composition of the top team make a difference? Strategic Management Journal, 10, 107–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baranchuk, N., & Dybvig, P. H. (2009). Consensus in diverse corporate boards. The Review of Financial Studies, 22, 715–747.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennouri, M., Chtioui, T., Nagati, H., & Nekhili, M. (2018). Female board directorship and firm performance: What really matters? Journal of Banking and Finance, 88, 267–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernile, G., Bhagwat, V., & Yonker, S. (2018). Board diversity, firm risk, and corporate policies. Journal of Financial Economics, 127, 588–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjørnskov, C. (2006). The multiple facets of social capital. European Journal of Political Economy, 22, 22–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blinder, A. S., & Morgan, J. (2005). Are two heads better than one? Monetary policy by committee. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 37, 789–811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, J., English, W., Hasnas, J., & Peter, J. (2021). Business ethics for better behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, J., & Landemore, H. (2021). Debating democracy. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Buchwald, A., & Hottenrott, H. (2019). Women on the goard and executive tenure. Managerial and Decision Economics, 40, 741–760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caplan, B. (2007). The myth of the rational voter. Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, D., D’Souza, F., Simkins, B., & Gary Simpson, W. (2010). The gender and ethnic diversity of US boards and board committees and firm financial performance. Corporate Governance, 18, 396–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapple, L., & Humphrey, J. (2014). Does board gender diversity have a financial impact? Evidence using stock portfolio performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 122, 709–723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa, D., & Khan, M. (2003). Civic engagement and community heterogeneity: An economist’s oerspective. Perspectives on Politics, 1, 103–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Covey, S., & Conant, D. (2016). The connection between employee trust and financial performance. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2016/07/the-connection-between-employee-trust-and-financial-performance;%20https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/https://doi.org/10.1080/13571516.2020.1802213

  • Cox, T. H., & Blake, S. (1991). Managing cultural diversity: Implications for organizational competitiveness. Academy of Management Perspectives, 5, 45–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crossan, M. M., & Apaydin, M. (2010). A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Management Studies, 47, 1154–1191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, L., & Huttenback, R. (1987). Mammon and the pursuit of empire. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Democratic Party. (2020). Party Platform. https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/

  • den Bergh, V., & Jeroen, C. J. M. (2008). Optimal diversity: Increasing returns versus recombinant innovation. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 68, 565–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desmet, K., Ignacio, O. O., & Romain, W. (2017). Culture, ethnicity, and diversity. American Economic Review, 107(9), 2479–2513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dinesen, P. T., Schaeffer, M., & Sønderskov, K. M. (2020). Ethnic diversity and social trust: A narrative and meta-analytical review. Annual Review of Political Science, 23, 441–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ely, R., & Thomas, D. (2020). “Getting Serious about Diversity.” Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2020/11/getting-serious-about-diversity-enough-already-with-the-business-case

  • Estelyi, K. S., & Nisar, T. M. (2016). Diverse boards: Why do firms get foreign nationals on their boards? Journal of Corporate Finance, 39, 174–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, K., & Hersch, P. (2005). Additions to corporate boards: The effect of gender. Journal of Corporate Finance, 11, 85–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez-Temprano, M., & Tejerina-Gaite, F. (2021). Types of director, board diversity, and firm performance. Corporate Governance, 20, 324–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. C. (1990). Top-management-team tenure and organizational outcomes: The moderating role of managerial discretion. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 484–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M. (1970). “The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Profits.” New York Times, Sep. 13, Section SM, 17.

  • Gallego-Alvarez, I., Garcia-Sanchez, I. M., & Rodriguez-Dominguez, L. (2010). The influence of gender diversity on corporate performance. Revista De Contabilidad, 13, 53–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaeser, E. (1994). Cities, information, and economic growth. Cityscape, 1, 9–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaeser, E. (1999). Learning in cities. Journal of Urban Economics, 46, 254–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaeser, E., Kallal, H., Scheinkman, J., & Schleifer, A. (1992). Growth in cities. Journal of Political Economy, 100, 126–1152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guest, P. (2019). Does board ethnic diversity impact board monitoring outcomes? British Journal of Management, 30, 53–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guzzo, R. A., & Dickson, M. W. (1996). Teams in organizations: Recent research on performance and effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 307–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hero, R. (2003). Social capital and racial inequality in America. Perspectives on Politics, 1, 113–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, L. R. (1959). Homogeneity of member personality and its effect on group problem-solving. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hong, L., & Page, S. E. (2004). Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101, 16385–16389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, V., Layton, D., & Sara, P. (2015). “Why Diversity Matters.” McKinsey and Co. https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/business%20functions/people%20and%20organizational%20performance/our%20insights/why%20diversity%20matters/why%20diversity%20matters.pdf

  • Hunt, V., Prince, S., Dixon-Fyle, S., & Lariena, Y. (2018). “Delivering through Diversity.” McKinsey and Co. https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/business%20functions/people%20and%20organizational%20performance/our%20insights/delivering%20through%20diversity/delivering-through-diversity_full-report.pdf

  • Jackson, S. E., Joshi, A., & Erhardt, N. L. (2003). Recent research on team and organizational diversity: SWOT analysis and implications. Journal of Management, 29, 801–830.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeong, S. H., & Harrison, D. A. (2017). Glass breaking, strategy making, and value creating: meta-analytic outcomes of women as CEOs and TMT members. Academy of Management Journal, 60, 1219–1252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kasperson, R. E., Golding, D., & Tuler, S. (1992). Social distrust as a factor in siting hazardous facilities and communicating risks. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 161–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katmon, N., Mohamad, Z. Z., Norwani, N. M., & Al Farooque, O. (2019). Comprehensive board diversity and quality of corporate social responsibility disclosure: evidence from an emerging market. Journal of Business Ethics, 157, 447–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knippenberg, V., Daan, C. K. W., Dreu, De., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kugler, T., Kausel, E. E., & Kocher, M. G. (2012). Are groups more rational than individuals? A review of interactive decision making in groups. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 3, 471–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakhani, K.R., et al. (2007). The value of openness in scientific problem solving. Boston: Division of Research, Harvard Business School. https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/the-value-of-openness-in-scientific-problem-solving

  • Landemore, H. (2012). Democratic reason. Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Laursen, K., Volker, M., & Per V. H. (2005). Do differences make a difference? The impact of human capital diversity, experience and compensation on firm performance in engineering consulting. Danish Research Unit for Industrial Dynamics.

  • Lindsay, S., Cagliostro, E., Albarico, M., Mortaji, N., & Karon, L. (2018). A systematic review of the benefits of hiring people with disabilities. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 28, 634–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahadeo, J. D., Soobaroyen, T., & Hanuman, V. O. (2011). Board composition and financial performance: uncovering the effects of diversity in an emerging economy. Journal of Business Ethics, 105, 375–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McBrayer, J. P. (2022). Diversity statements are the new faith statements. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2022/05/23/diversity-statements-are-new-faith-statements-opinion

  • McKinney, J. (2022). How American express is leveraging corporate dei for business and career advancement. Black Enterprise. https://www.blackenterprise.com/how-american-express-is-leveraging-corporate-dei-for-business-and-career-advancement/

  • Messick, D. M., & Kramer, R. M. (2001). Trust as a form of shallow morality. In K. S. Cook (Ed.), Trust in society (pp. 89–117). Russell Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, T., del Triana, M., & C. (2009). Demographic diversity in the boardroom: Mediators of the board diversity-firm performance relationship. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 755–786.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrone, C., Bianchi, M. T., Marsocci, V., & Faioli, D. (2022). Board diversity and performance: An empirical analysis of italian small-medium enterprises. Corporate Ownership and Control, 19, 8–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ortiz-Ospina, E., & Roser, M. (2016). Trust. Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/trust.

  • Ostrom, E. (2009). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Page, S. (2007). The difference. Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pathan, S., & Faff, R. (2013). Does board structure in banks really affect their performance? Journal of Banking & Finance, 37, 1573–1589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pletzer, J., Nikolova, R., Kedzior, K. K., & Voelpel, S. C. (2015). Does gender matter? Female representation on corporate boards and firm financial performance—A meta-analysis. PLoS ONE, 10, e0130005. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0130005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prichard, H. A. (1912). Does moral philosophy rest on a mistake? Mind, 21, 21–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. D. (2007). E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-first century. The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30, 137–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Richard, O. C. (2000). Racial diversity, business strategy, and firm performance: A resource-based view. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 164–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richard, O. C., Kirby, S. L., & Chadwick, K. (2013). The impact of racial and gender diversity in management on financial performance. International Journal of Humane Resource Management, 24, 2571–2581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rockenbach, B., Sadrieh, A., & Mathauschek, B. (2007). Teams take the better risks. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 63, 412–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, C. (2007). Does female board representation influence firm performance? The danish evidence. Corporate Governance, 15, 404–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. G., Smith Ken, A., Olian, J., Sims, H., O’Bannon, D., & Skully, J. (1994). Top management team demography and process. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 412–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Somin, I. (2013). Democracy and Political Ignorance. Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Statistica. (2021). Percentage Distribution of Household Income in the United States in 2020, by Ethnic Group. https://www.statista.com/statistics/203207/percentage-distribution-of-household-income-in-the-us-by-ethnic-group/

  • Strøm, R. Ø., D’Espallier, B., & Mersland, R. (2014). Female leadership, performance, and governance in microfinance institutions. Journal of Banking & Finance, 42, 60–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terjeren, S., Couto, E. B., & Francisco, P. M. (2016). Does the presence of independent and female directors impact firm performance? Journal of Management and Governance, 20, 447–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uslaner, E. (2002). The Moral Foundations of Trust. Available at SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=824504.

  • van der Vossen, B., & Jason, B. (2018). In defense of openness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. (2007). Work group diversity. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 515–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, P., Riepe, I., Moser, K., Pull, K., & Terjesen, S. (2019). Women directors, firm performance, and firm risk: A causal perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 30, 101297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jason Brennan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declares that this paper involves no conflict of interests, does not involve research with human or animal subjects, and does not involve research with requires informed consent.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Brennan, J. Diversity for Justice vs. Diversity for Performance: Philosophical and Empirical Tensions. J Bus Ethics 187, 433–447 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05278-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05278-9

Keywords

Navigation