Workforce Diversity as an Ethical Responsibility - Literature review Example

1 Introduction Within the context of business ethics, the responsibility of corporations to embrace workforce diversity has long been recognized. Over the past thirty years, national laws and legislature have effectively defined workforce diversity as a legal obligation.. From 2003 to 2006, Employment Equality regulations addressed the issues of all of age, religion/belief and sexual orientation, effectively establishing the legal and regulatory framework for both the prevention of direct and indirect discrimination against minority group employees while, at the same time, outlining the imperatives of equity. Prior to that, all of the Equal Pay Act (1970), the Sex Discrimination Act (1975), the Race Relations Act (1976) and the Race Relations Amendment Act (2000), sought to ensure against both direct and indirect discrimination in the provision of goods and services and within the workplace. From the legal standpoint, therefore, diversity is obligatory. Legislature and regulations aside, the question is whether or not firms have an ethical duty to embrace workforce diversity and to ensure that they have a diverse workforce. While some scholars have argued that workforce diversity cannot be defined as an ethical obligation insofar as it could lead to the hiring of less qualified candidates simply because of their race, religion, or ethnicity, among others (Darr, 2002), other scholars maintain that it is an ethical obligation (Ludlum and Mascaloinov, 2004). Pending the presentation of a brief understanding of the implications of diversity and a review of the argument against it as an ethical obligation, the present research will argue in favour of workforce diversity as an ethical responsibility towards which all firms must aspire. 2 An Ethics Definition of Diversity The concept of diversity is an all-inclusive one and, refers to the collectivity of human differences and similarities along a given dimension (Cox, 1993). As pertains to a workforce, Caudron and Hayes (1997) maintain that both dimensions and measures of diversity include socioeconomic and psychographic characteristics, race, cultural and ethnic heritage, religion and belief systems, gender and sexual preferences and, age. Other significant dimensions and measures of diversity, although lesser appreciated and researched in relation to intra-organisational relations and dynamics, are political affiliations and socioeconomic and functional backgrounds (Gordon, 1995; Caudron and Hayes, 1997; Stockdale and Crosby, 2003; Gardenswartz , 2003; Barak, 2005). Arguing the above definition to be unjustifiably expansive, some researchers have called for a more precise focus on a particular set of diversity dimensions and measures. These are race, culture, gender, religion, and ethnicity. Indeed, by expanding the parameters of diversity to include age and sexual preferences, attention has been deflected from the more seminal of the diversity categories, chief amongst which are race and ethnicity (Cox, Lobel and McLeod, 1991; Polzer, Milton and Swann, 2002; Arrendondo, 2004; Squires, 2005; Ocon, 2006). It is in relation to the more seminal of these differences that scholars have argued the ethics of their implementation. 3 Suspect Ethics As earlier noted some scholars have disputed the ethics of workforce diversity and contend that its identification as an objective contradicts a firm's ethical obligation to hire employees on the basis of merit, qualifications and potential. The aforementioned criteria for candidate selection is nothing short of an ethical obligation which firms owe their stakeholders, job candidates, society and the economy at large (Mujtaba, 2006). As per the stated argument, firms owe their stakeholders, not to mention the economies within which they operate, a duty to perform in accordance with best practices guidelines. It further owes job candidates an ethical duty to acknowledge the more meritorious and qualified among them. When diversity becomes the objective, candidates are not selected according to merit and, as such, firms limit their own ability to realise their economic potential, insofar as both of the stated outcomes undermine a firm's ability to satisfy its ethical obligations towards its stakeholders. 4 Demographic Realities Despite arguments questioning the ethics of realising workforce diversity, a review of current demographic realities indicates that forms do, indeed, have an ethical obligation to achieve diversity. Facts indicate that the British labour market is a highly diverse one. According to 2005 data, 5.4% of the current labour force is foreign, with EU and former Commonwealth migration statistics, among other non-British sources of labour inflow, indicating a continual increase. The previous year, 2006, was witness to the largest ever influx of foreign workers to Britain, totalling approximately 400,000 (Salt and Miller, 2006). In addition to that, diversity statistics indicate that ethnic minority groups comprise approximately 8% of the current workforce; 25% are non-Christian; and around 12% are disabled. Statistics pertaining to gays and lesbians are indeterminate, largely because of a lack of national surveys but, are estimated to stand between 5-7% (Salt and Miller, 2006). To the extent that a firm should be a microcosmic reflection of its immediate macrocosm, this means that a company's workforce should be as diverse as the society within which they operate. The implication here is that demographic realities affirm the ethical imperatives of workforce diversity. 5 The Theoretical Position Theory draws a clear distinction between companies which pay lip services to the ethical imperatives of adopting workplace diversity and those which embrace diversity as an organisational objective. Gilligan (1982) maintains the first to belong to the separatist moral judgement ethical model, and the second to the connectivist model. The former refers to firms which acknowledged the morality of diversity and strive to attain it but which, nevertheless, do not adopt a supportive diversity management paradigm and culture as which would ensure the integration of its ethnic minorities into the organisation. The second refers to the acknowledgement, not just of the ethical imperatives of diversity, but of supportive organisational management and cultural models. Jensen and Huisken (1993) only partially support Gilligan's (1982) theory. The separatist model, they contend, is not ethical insofar as it is ultimately informed by an unshakeable belief that ethnic/gender/etc. groups are different and, a probable belief in the superiority of the one versus the other. Within the context of such organisations, one may find a diverse workforce but the progression of the minorities within is ultimately challenged and constrained by an overriding, although unspoken, belief in the superiority of the majority. It is in these firms that one does not just find a glass ceiling but a very low one at that (Jensen and Huisken, 1993). Attanucci (1998) tends towards a support of the position expressed by Jensen and Huisken (1993). The satisfaction of the ethical duty owed towards society's various minority groups cannot be realised through the employment of minority groups alone but, can only be fully attained through their concomitant empowerment (Arranucci, 1998). The implication here is that the achievement of diversity is an ethical responsibility but is not, in itself, an ethical precept. Companies should hire minority groups and, indeed, are legally obligated to do so but, ethics directives maintain that companies must empower these groups through the adoption of diversity management, as would ensure the acceptance of minority individuals on the basis of their merits and their integration into the organisation's culture. On the basis of the foregoing theoretical discussion, therefore, it is apparent that a company's ethical obligation dies not end with the realisation of a diverse workforce but with the adoption of a diversity management model as would ensure the empowerment of minorities within and the objective evaluation of their performance. 6 Diversity Management Carrell and Mann (1995) define diversity management as a holistic management approach which incorporates diversity into the organisational culture and structure as a strategy for the promotion of workforce to organisation affinity and loyalty, on the one hand, and intra-workforce cooperation and harmony, on the other. Several scholars further define diversity management as the ethical option for firms which operate within a multicultural, multi-ethnic society. According to this perspective, the extent to which firms commit to diversity management is a measure of a firm's ethics (Cox, Lobel and Mcleod, 1991; Cox, 1993; Carrel and Mann, 1995; Blanks and Slipp, 1994; Mujtaba, 2006; Zahlan, 2006). The ethics of diversity management stem from the fact that it empowers minority groups. Rather than simply promote an organisational culture which is tolerant of differences, diversity management aids in the formulation of one which embraces and positively exploits differences (Kossek and Zonia, 1993; Khalaf and Alkobaisi, 1999; Gardenswartz et al., 2003; Barak, 2005;). It is inherently ethical insofar as it is founded upon a form of justice which takes nothing other than an employee's performance into account when judging and evaluating him/her (Polzer, Milton and Swann, 2002; Stockdale and Crosby, 2003; Barak, 2005; Ocon, 2006). It is within the context of the stated that a firm's ethical obligations do not simply lie in the realisation of workforce diversity but in the embrace of the means by which that workforce would be able to realise its potential. Ethical obligations do not, however, function as the primary motivator for the adoption of diversity. Instead, and as several scholars have pointed out, businesses which have adopted workforce diversity and a supportive diversity management paradigm, believe that doing so will endow them with a competitive advantage which, in turn, will substantially enhance their bottom-line performance. This group of organisations, as empirical studies indicate, tend to connect diversity management with contemporary management practices, emphasising both team and group-based work (Kabanoff, 1991; Pepper; 1991;). The underlying assumption here is that workforce diversity and diversity management when integrated with those paradigms which highlight group and team work, tend to produce positive results. Among these results, whether assumed or proven through empirical studies, are increased creativity and enhanced cross-organisational collaboration and inter-departmental cooperation (Kabanoff, 1991; Pepper; 1991; (Ely and Thomas, 2001; Polzer, Milton and Swann, 2002). In other words, as they satisfy their ethical commitment to diversity, firms simultaneously satisfy their ethical obligations to their stakeholders and towards the economies within which they operate. 7 Conclusion Based upon the foregoing, it is evident that despite arguments to the contrary, firms do have an ethical obligation towards the achievement of workforce diversity. In order to satisfy this ethical obligation without undermining that owed to stakeholders, alongside workforce diversity, however, firms must adopt management paradigms and cultures which are founded upon the embrace of differences and their positive exploitation. Accordingly, organisations must invest the requisite time, effort and resources into the design and implementation of diversity management paradigms which reflect the nature of the organisation's workforce, and empower them. Only by doing so can a firm realise its ethical obligations towards the achievement and embrace of diversity, without undermining its ethical responsibilities towards stakeholders. 8 Bibliography Arredondo, P. M. (2004) Successful Diversity Management Initiatives: A Blueprint for Planning and Implementation. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Barak, M.M. (2005) Managing Diversity: Towards A Globally Inclusive Workplace. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Blank, R. and Slipp, S. (1994) Voices of Diversity: Real People Talk About Problems and Solutions In A Workplace Where Everyone Is Not Alike. New York: American Management Association. Carrell, M., and Mann, E. (1995). Defining workforce. diversity in public-sector organizations.' Public Personnel Management 24(1): 99-111. Caudron, S. and Hayes, C. (1997) Are diversity programs benefiting African Americans' Black Enterprise, 27(7), 121-127. Cox, T.H., Lobel, S.A., and McLeod, P.L. (1991) Effects of ethnic group cultural differences on cooperative and competitive behaviour on a group task.' Academy of Management Journal, 34, pp. 827-847. Cox, T.H. (1993) Cultural Diversity in Organisations: Theory, Research and Practice. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Darr, K. (2002) Cultural, ethnic, and religious diversity in service delivery.' Hospital Topics, 80(1), 29-34. Ely, R.J. and Thomas, D.A. (2001) Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity perspectives on work group processes and outcomes.' Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2), pp. 229-273. Gardenswartz, L. et al. (2003) The Global Diversity Desk Reference: Managing An International Workforce. London: Pfeiffer. Gordon, A. (1995) The work of corporate culture: Diversity management.' Social Text, 44, pp. 3-30. Kabanoff, B. (1991) Equity, equality, power and conflict.' The Academy of Management Review, 16(2), pp. 416-441. Khalaf, S. and Alkobaisi , S. (1999) Strategies of coping and patterns of accommodation in the oil-rich Gulf societies: Evidence from the UAE.' British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 26(2), pp. 271-298. Kossek, E.E. and Zonia, S.C. (1993) Assessing diversity climate: A field study of reactions to employer efforts to promote diversity.' Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 14(1), pp. 61-81. Ludlum, M. and Mascaloinov, S. (2004) Right and wrong and cultural diversity: Replication of the 2002 NAS/Zogby Poll on business ethics.' Journal of Education for Business, 79(5), 294-298. Pepper, W.F. (1992) Foreign capital investment in member states of the gulf Cooperation Council: Considerations, issues and concerns for investors.' Journal of Arab Law Quarterly, 7(1), pp. 33-63. Mujtaba, B. (2006) Workforce Diversity Management: Challenges, Competencies and Strategies. NJ; Lumina press. Ocon, R. (2006) Issues of Gender and Diversity. NY: University Press of America. Polzer, J.T., Milton, L.P. and Swann, W.B. (2002) Capitalising on diversity: Interpersonal congruence in small work groups.' Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(2), 296-324. Squires, J. (2005) Is mainstreaming transformative Theorising mainstreaming in the context of diversity and deliberation.' Social Politics: International Studies in Gender in State and Society, 12(3), pp. 366-388. Stockdale, M.S. and Crosby, F.J. (2003) The Psychology and Management of Workplace Diversity. London: Blackwell. Zahlan, A.B. (2006) Labour migration and economic integration in the Middle East.' In Middle East Dilemma, Henderson, M.C. (ed). London: Tauris and Co. Ltd. Read More