The ethics of Workplace Diversity

Spike Lee’s suggestion in" rel="nofollow">in his 1989 classic film Do the Right Thin" rel="nofollow">ing that we “do the right thin" rel="nofollow">ing” on the issue of diversity seems a reasonable one to most people, on the face of it. But when we ask, “Why?” in" rel="nofollow">in a busin" rel="nofollow">iness environment, we are likely to hear that we should do the right thin" rel="nofollow">ing because such actions are good for busin" rel="nofollow">iness results. That may be fin" rel="nofollow">ine, but is it enough? Is there more than a pragmatic justification for diversity in" rel="nofollow">in the workplace? Is there an ethical justifica- tion for valuin" rel="nofollow">ing diversity (the right thin" rel="nofollow">ing) in" rel="nofollow">in the workplace? We begin" rel="nofollow">in with a review of the pragmatic busin" rel="nofollow">iness arguments that are used to suggest that diversity is desirable in" rel="nofollow">in busin" rel="nofollow">iness. These arguments are not, though, based on an ethical analysis, but rather, on an economic one. We then explore what ethical theories tell us about valuin" rel="nofollow">ing diversity in" rel="nofollow">in the workplace. Our conclusion then moves to an attempt to bridge between the prac- tical (busin" rel="nofollow">iness) and the good (ethics). By valuin" rel="nofollow">ing diversity we mean valuin" rel="nofollow">ing, respectin" rel="nofollow">ing and appreciatin" rel="nofollow">ing the differences (such as age, culture, education, ethnicity, experience, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, among others) that make people unique. Note that our defin" rel="nofollow">inition has to do with valuin" rel="nofollow">ing differences, so it is a frame of min" rel="nofollow">ind, a way of thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing, rather than a result. This is an important distin" rel="nofollow">inction because if we were to thin" rel="nofollow">ink of diversity as only a result and not a way of thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing, such an approach might lead to false conclusions. For example, we might observe that a workforce is diverse and then be tempted to in" rel="nofollow">infer that a valuin" rel="nofollow">ing of diversity has led to the workforce composition. Yet we all recog- nize that a diverse workforce could be explain" rel="nofollow">ined by many other factors, such as, poor work condi- tions, and busin" rel="nofollow">iness location. This workforce could be connected to diversity only by coin" rel="nofollow">incidence. Economic ArgumEnts for DivErsity Most of the economic arguments for the desirability of a diverse workforce are based on a connec- tion made between diversity and desired busin" rel="nofollow">iness outcomes. Most compellin" rel="nofollow">ing is the connection made between a workforce that brin" rel="nofollow">ings valuable and different perspectives and abilities to connect with a wide spectrum of customers. This market-driven argument for diversity becomes in" rel="nofollow">increas- in" rel="nofollow">ingly important because globalization has strengthened the role that relationships play in" rel="nofollow">in busin" rel="nofollow">iness transactions. Globalization has led managers to realize that busin" rel="nofollow">iness is all about relationships. The more diverse the workforce, the wider and deeper is the ability to communicate across cultures, and the greater the potential for deep, longlastin" rel="nofollow">ing relationships. An additional economic argument for diversity is that when the firm is recruitin" rel="nofollow">ing from a larger, more diverse labor pool, the likelihood of hirin" rel="nofollow">ing capable managers in" rel="nofollow">increases (Schraeder, Blackburn, and Iles, 1997). 261 262 Section 5 • Managin" rel="nofollow">ing Diversity in" rel="nofollow">in Terms of the Ethical, Legal, Media, and Marketin" rel="nofollow">ing Issues There is also the argument that a diverse workforce is nontraditional, and therefore likely to be more creative and more capable of in" rel="nofollow">institutin" rel="nofollow">ing and acceptin" rel="nofollow">ing change because diverse work- groups tend to be more acceptin" rel="nofollow">ing of ambiguity (Rosener, 1995). Research suggests that the Western assumption that in" rel="nofollow">innovation comes from the center of the firm (which traditionally is the less diverse part) may be seen as a dyin" rel="nofollow">ing vestige of essentially an imperialist way of thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing. Prahalad and Lieberthal conclude that “over time...as multin" rel="nofollow">inationals develop products better suited to the emergin" rel="nofollow">ing markets, they are fin" rel="nofollow">indin" rel="nofollow">ing that those markets are becomin" rel="nofollow">ing an important source of in" rel="nofollow">innovation.” That is a good explanation of how diversity may in" rel="nofollow">increase the potential for creativity (Prahalad, 1998). These arguments for diversity rest on a way of thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing about busin" rel="nofollow">iness known as the resource-based theory of the firm (Barney, 1991). Accordin" rel="nofollow">ing to this theory, the firm is concep- tualized as a bundle of resources that are poised, ready to take advantage of opportunities in" rel="nofollow">in the external environment. The more distin" rel="nofollow">inctive these resources are, the more difficult would be their imitation by a competitor. A diverse workforce with established customer relationships is an example of such a difficult-to-imitate resource. Lord Browne, former Group Chief Executive (CEO) of British Petroleum, offers an example of this economic rationale for diversity and its primacy over an ethical justification in" rel="nofollow">in his comments to the Women in" rel="nofollow">in Leadership Conference (2002, Berlin" rel="nofollow">in, Germany). For BP the issue is no longer about whether diversity is a good thin" rel="nofollow">ing...the issue is how to deliver strategy. How to take immediate, real actions...We’re competin" rel="nofollow">ing for resources...And we’re competin" rel="nofollow">ing for markets...And therefore we’re competin" rel="nofollow">ing for talent. If we can get a disproportionate share of the most talented people in" rel="nofollow">in the world, we have a chance of holdin" rel="nofollow">ing a competitive edge. That is the simple strategic logic behin" rel="nofollow">ind our commitment to diversity and to the in" rel="nofollow">inclusion of in" rel="nofollow">individuals—men and women regardless of background, religion, ethnic origin" rel="nofollow">in, nationality or sexual orientation. We want to employ the best people, everywhere, on the sin" rel="nofollow">ingle criterion of merit. And the importance of that goal as a part of our overall busin" rel="nofollow">iness strategy has grown as competition has in" rel="nofollow">intensified. BP is an energy company that needs to establish relationships that will allow it to extract oil and gas in" rel="nofollow">in Mexico, Indonesia, West Africa and Russia, while it competes for markets in" rel="nofollow">in America, Chin" rel="nofollow">ina, South Africa and Europe. BP’s approach to diversity, based on market economic argu- ments, makes a lot of sense. The rationale is not ethics, but rather, the strategic outcomes BP seeks. Such motivations, regardless of their impact on diversity, go to an assertion that the purpose of busin" rel="nofollow">iness is to in" rel="nofollow">increase profits, not to do good. The fundamental argument of this under- standin" rel="nofollow">ing is best articulated by the economist Milton Friedman in" rel="nofollow">in his oft cited essay, “The Social Responsibility of Busin" rel="nofollow">iness is to Increase Its Profits.” There is one and only one social responsibility of busin" rel="nofollow">iness—to use its resources and engage in" rel="nofollow">in activities designed to in" rel="nofollow">increase its profits so long as it stays within" rel="nofollow">in the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in" rel="nofollow">in open and free competition without deception or fraud. (http://ca.geocities.com/busa2100/miltonfriedman.htm/) In contrast, an ethical approach would consider judgments about right and wrong, good and bad, what ought to be in" rel="nofollow">in our world, defin" rel="nofollow">inition criteria suggested by Laura Hartman (2002). Another difference between a pragmatic, economic justification for diversity and an ethical one has to do with the judgment criteria. In economic busin" rel="nofollow">iness arguments, the criteria go to the busin" rel="nofollow">iness results. Makin" rel="nofollow">ing a decision about diversity is, at a superficial level, pretty easy: we look The Ethics of Workplace Diversity 263 at the economic busin" rel="nofollow">iness results of a decision. In contrast, ethically-based decisions are judged sometimes by the reasonin" rel="nofollow">ing that leads to the decision, not the decision’s outcomes. The ethical dimension of a decision may not always be obvious from a surface consideration of that decision or an examin" rel="nofollow">ination of the decision’s outcomes. cAtEgoriEs of EthicAl thEoriEs So what might an ethical justification for valuin" rel="nofollow">ing diversity be? In order to move toward that question’s answer, let’s first look at the three categories that are often used to describe Western ethical theory. First is the set of theories that looks at the process or the means of a decision; that is, how do we arrive at the decision? Second are the theories that address what is good and bad by lookin" rel="nofollow">ing at likely outcomes or consequences of a decision. Third is a set of theories that looks at the carin" rel="nofollow">ing aspects of decisions. These three categories remin" rel="nofollow">ind us that the assumptions upon which ethical claims can be made may vary widely. F. Neil Brady developed a matrix for these distin" rel="nofollow">inctive categories of ethical theories that offers a helpful summary (Brady, 1996). Exhibit 5-1 is a modification of Brady’s chart. His cor- relation of these approaches with the three virtues of faith, hope and charity is an added ben- efit as we thin" rel="nofollow">ink about the possible ethical bases for workplace diversity. The three columns on the right describe the three main" rel="nofollow">in theoretical bases for ethical judgment, with Brady’s suggested equivalents in" rel="nofollow">in parentheses. We discuss each of them and their likely application to a diversity claim: that a valuin" rel="nofollow">ing of differences—our defin" rel="nofollow">inition of diversity—is good or produces the quality of goodness either by process (deontological) or outcomes (teleological), or through carin" rel="nofollow">ing for others. We also consider whether the theory is universal in" rel="nofollow">in nature, for all times and all places, or particular, dependin" rel="nofollow">ing on the context. The reason to consider universal or particular applications of an ethical theory has to do with culture. The cultural context in" rel="nofollow">in which a diversity decision is made may well affect the shared understandin" rel="nofollow">ing of what ethical actually means. A short example of the results of different assumptions about what is ethical may be found in" rel="nofollow">in the consideration of the quality of difference in" rel="nofollow">in Japan. The Japanese culture is homogeneous, and the in" rel="nofollow">introduction of differ- ence is generally not seen as good. In fact, families and the in" rel="nofollow">individual’s company will conduct a background in" rel="nofollow">investigation of an engaged employee’s potential spouse to make certain" rel="nofollow">in he or she is pure Japanese and not from an outcast group such as the borakumin" rel="nofollow">in. Such activity Universal Application (all times, all places) Particular Application (depends on context) Deontology (Faith) Universal duty: universal prin" rel="nofollow">inciples, The Way Particular duties: situation ethic, case by case approach Teleology (Hope) Universal ends: Character ethic, utilitarianism, other -isms Particular ends: self-actualization Carin" rel="nofollow">ing (Charity) Universal care: love for humanity Particular care: personal relationships Source: Adapted from F. Neil Brady. With kin" rel="nofollow">ind permission of Sprin" rel="nofollow">inger Science+Busin" rel="nofollow">iness Media Exhibit 5-1 Three Categories of Ethical Theories 264 Section 5 • Managin" rel="nofollow">ing Diversity in" rel="nofollow">in Terms of the Ethical, Legal, Media, and Marketin" rel="nofollow">ing Issues is seen as fulfillin" rel="nofollow">ing an ethical responsibility. In North America, especially on the part of the employer, such an in" rel="nofollow">investigation would likely be regarded not as a moral duty but as an immoral action, on the grounds of both privacy and what we in" rel="nofollow">in North America would con- sider racial prejudice. Brady’s categorization describes various ethical theories based on the claims that their application makes: is the theory universally applicable (the rule, built on understood similarities) or does it claim a situational focus (it all depends, built on differences)? This distin" rel="nofollow">inction is help- ful as we consider the ethical bases for diversity because it in" rel="nofollow">incorporates the idea of the decision’s context. This distin" rel="nofollow">inction also corresponds in" rel="nofollow">in in" rel="nofollow">interestin" rel="nofollow">ing ways to the Universalism-Particularism dimension used to describe culture differences by Fons Trompenaars (Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars, 2000). In cultures that measure high on the universalism dimension, such as the U.S., Switzerland, Australia, and Canada, rules are seen to apply to all equally. In particularist cultures such as Chin" rel="nofollow">ina, Japan, Venezuela, Greece, and India, rules are seen as more variable, dependin" rel="nofollow">ing on the context and the actors. The implications of these assumptions in" rel="nofollow">in the area of diversity are significant, especially if we consider the effects of a diverse workgroup on an organization’s ethics. For example, Chin" rel="nofollow">inese assumptions about ethical decisions tend to be particularist and relationship-based. Awareness that American busin" rel="nofollow">iness ethics decisions, in" rel="nofollow">in contrast, tend to be universalistic and rule-based would help an in" rel="nofollow">international partner from a particularist culture such as Chin" rel="nofollow">ina understand the assumptions that underpin" rel="nofollow">in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This act as amended prohibits “discrimin" rel="nofollow">ination in" rel="nofollow">in hirin" rel="nofollow">ing, promotion, discharge, pay, frin" rel="nofollow">inge benefits, job train" rel="nofollow">inin" rel="nofollow">ing, classification, referral, and other aspects of employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin" rel="nofollow">in.” We now look at how each of these ethical theories might be applied to diversity in" rel="nofollow">in the workplace. The ethical argument would be that these differences are good or produce the quality of goodness either by process (deontological, faith) or outcomes (teleological, hope), or by carin" rel="nofollow">ing for others (care, love, charity). DEontologicAl cAtEgory of EthicAl thEoriEs The first category of ethical theories in" rel="nofollow">in our framework is deontological, and it stems from duties and moral obligations (the Greek deont means duty). Probably the most well-known deontological theory is Emmanuel Kant’s categorical imperative, which dictates that one has a duty to “act only on that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (Kant, 1785). We all know the popular paraphrase of Kant’s cat- egorical imperative, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Deontological theories are based on duties, rules, and obligations that lie outside the person. Religious practice tends to rest on a deontological approach to ethics. For example, we can thin" rel="nofollow">ink of the Ten Commandments as a series of duties. Brady uses the term faith to capture this characteristic. DEontologicAl EthicAl systEms AnD DivErsity Can a claim that workplace diversity rests on duty be made in" rel="nofollow">in a convin" rel="nofollow">incin" rel="nofollow">ing way? Such a claim would establish that we have a duty to at least tolerate differences. This tolerance would be not because of the results of these differences, but simply because, for some reason, havin" rel="nofollow">ing differ- ences is a duty that is a good in" rel="nofollow">in itself. The Ethics of Workplace Diversity 265 To explore our sense of duty in" rel="nofollow">in this regard, let us go to an example of which we all are a part, the U.S. housin" rel="nofollow">ing market. We all live somewhere. Consideration of the nature of the U.S. housin" rel="nofollow">ing market, segregated as it is by race and economic class, might suggest that there is no widely accepted duty to in" rel="nofollow">incorporate or tolerate difference, at least in" rel="nofollow">in this narrow but universally in" rel="nofollow">inhabited sector, despite federal law prohibitin" rel="nofollow">ing discrimin" rel="nofollow">ination. At the particularist level though, we can recognize that we might have specific duties we hold to one another with regard to diversity, dependin" rel="nofollow">ing on the context. For example, when we fin" rel="nofollow">ind ourselves part of a public group, say, a search committee, we may well accept that there is a duty to diversify the committee member- ship, simply for the sake of diversity and not for a pragmatic reason. Of course, we may well want to diversify for reasons other than duty, for example, to meet legal obligations, ensure compli- ance with the choice by in" rel="nofollow">includin" rel="nofollow">ing various constituencies or stakeholders and their varied poin" rel="nofollow">ints of view in" rel="nofollow">in the search process, and so on. Yet we can see that in" rel="nofollow">in some situations, diversity may be understood to be a duty, a good in" rel="nofollow">in and of itself. On balance though, deontological approaches to diversity are probably few in" rel="nofollow">in the work situation. This observation is in" rel="nofollow">in accord with sociologist William Julius Wilson’s application of Blalock’s theory of social power, which suggests that when majority or min" rel="nofollow">inority members change their beliefs about min" rel="nofollow">inority or majority members, these changes are in" rel="nofollow">initially a result of power shifts (in" rel="nofollow">in this case, Civil Rights legislation), and only secondarily, value shifts. Diversity in" rel="nofollow">in our workplaces developed in" rel="nofollow">initially as a response to a power shift, federal legislation (e.g., Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the Age Discrimin" rel="nofollow">ination in" rel="nofollow">in Employment Act of 1967) rather than as a response to a changed belief system about what is right. In our discussion of deontological approaches, we have considered in" rel="nofollow">individuals as the loca- tion of ethical decisions. This approach is justified because decisions are made in" rel="nofollow">in the min" rel="nofollow">inds of in" rel="nofollow">individual managers. Yet we may thin" rel="nofollow">ink of organizations themselves as havin" rel="nofollow">ing a limited kin" rel="nofollow">ind of personhood, at least in" rel="nofollow">in a legal sense. Considered from the perspective of an organization capable of ethical decisionmakin" rel="nofollow">ing, we fin" rel="nofollow">ind another example of deontological ethics in" rel="nofollow">in the workplace when we consider the ethics codes of these organizations. Ethical codes are rule-based and sug- gest that the corporate citizen is bound by duty to follow the rules, some of which may address respect for diversity. tElEologicAl cAtEgory of EthicAl thEoriEs The second category of ethical approaches is teleological, addressin" rel="nofollow">ing the good that comes from a focus on the ends achieved by a contemplated action (Greek telos, end). The teleological approach holds that decisions are right or good if they produce a desired goodness and bad if they produce some undesirable state (badness or pain" rel="nofollow">in). So teleological approaches are action- based, connected with implementation, while the deontological approaches concern the process (Hopkin" rel="nofollow">ins, 1997). Utilitarianism, the greatest good for the greatest number, illustrates such an action-based, results-oriented approach. A busin" rel="nofollow">iness example is found in" rel="nofollow">in costbenefit analysis, through which the benefit is weighed again" rel="nofollow">inst its cost. The decision is then made to follow the path that provides the greatest overall gain" rel="nofollow">in for the least cost. In fact, research suggests that many American managers hold to utilitarian prin" rel="nofollow">inciples in" rel="nofollow">in their decision-makin" rel="nofollow">ing (Fritzsche, 1984). For example, a manager might structure a lay-off list with the least train" rel="nofollow">ined and newest members of the organization as the first to face cuts, on the basis that keepin" rel="nofollow">ing people with seniority will lead to the retention of higher levels of knowledge, which in" rel="nofollow">in turn may lead to better results for a larger number of people. 266 Section 5 • Managin" rel="nofollow">ing Diversity in" rel="nofollow">in Terms of the Ethical, Legal, Media, and Marketin" rel="nofollow">ing Issues Distributive justice, concerned with fair and equitable outcomes, is another ethical theory within" rel="nofollow">in the teleological category. Distributive justice suggests that ethical decisions are those that lead to a fair distribution of goods. John Rawls has developed a test for distributive justice: is the decision the one that we would make if we were cloaked in" rel="nofollow">in a veil of ignorance? (Rawls, 1971). This veil of ignorance would not allow us to know our status and position, so it protects us from our own self-in" rel="nofollow">interest’s playin" rel="nofollow">ing a role in" rel="nofollow">in decisions on distribution of goods. Laura Hartman describes how Rawls sees the veil of ignorance workin" rel="nofollow">ing and the ends it would achieve (2002). First of all, we would make decisions unaware of their immediate consequences to ourselves. We would develop a cooperative system in" rel="nofollow">in which the benefits would be distrib- uted unequally only when doin" rel="nofollow">ing so would benefit all, especially those who were least advan- taged. Ethical justice would be measured by the capacity of the decision to enhance cooperation among all, by its fairness. Because these theories rely on outcomes that depend on actions, but we don’t know the outcomes of an action often until well after it is completed, Brady connects these approaches to hope. tElEologicAl EthicAl systEms AnD DivErsity Utilitarianism, in" rel="nofollow">in its assertion that a good or ethical decision is one that produces the greatest good for the greatest number, seems on first examin" rel="nofollow">ination to be busin" rel="nofollow">iness-friendly. As a justification for diversity, a utilitarian approach might argue that valuin" rel="nofollow">ing differences would lead to behaviors which themselves would be likely to lead to better results for the company’s stakeholders, through a diverse workforce that is, perhaps, better at decision-makin" rel="nofollow">ing, that possesses in" rel="nofollow">increased creativity, better knowledge of markets, and in" rel="nofollow">increased communication abilities. Such a work team would be likely to produce better results for a broader array of people, the various stakeholders. We would expect utilitarian approaches to the valuin" rel="nofollow">ing of diversity in" rel="nofollow">in the workplace to be frequent sin" rel="nofollow">ince both the management environment and utilitarianism share a focus on results. Note, though, that for an ethical decision, results have to show greater good, not simply bottom lin" rel="nofollow">ine good. An example of the distributive justice theory applied to diversity is found in" rel="nofollow">in human resource processes that rest on prin" rel="nofollow">inciples of fairness and justice: all employees regardless of level and type of contract (part time/temporary) would receive medical and other benefits, profit shar- in" rel="nofollow">ing, retirement contributions and bonuses. Selection, compensation and promotion systems might also offer examples of distributive justice in" rel="nofollow">in the area of diversity. The ethical rationale would be that we take this decision because it is the right thin" rel="nofollow">ing to do in" rel="nofollow">in order to produce equity, not that we take this decision because it will be good for busin" rel="nofollow">iness. These are all examples of uni- versal application. Teleological theories in" rel="nofollow">in a particularist context would be theories that apply to differences among people and also consider the ends or outcomes in" rel="nofollow">in order to judge the ethical nature of a decision. Self-actualization might be considered to be an example here, that we have a moral duty to fully develop our skills and talents, and that organizational decisions that lead in" rel="nofollow">in that direction (support for education, train" rel="nofollow">inin" rel="nofollow">ing programs, mentorin" rel="nofollow">ing systems) are ethical ones. This approach, on a caseby-case basis, would have powerful application to diversity, sin" rel="nofollow">ince it would support in" rel="nofollow">individual learnin" rel="nofollow">ing and development within" rel="nofollow">in the company. Note that the in" rel="nofollow">increased learn- in" rel="nofollow">ing could be thought to lead to improved results for the company, too, and this would be a utili- tarian justification. Another application of distributive justice theories in" rel="nofollow">in a particularist context can be found in" rel="nofollow">in the justification (or failure of justification) of Affirmative Action legislation. The desired outcome (an in" rel="nofollow">increase in" rel="nofollow">in social equity universally) was thought to outweigh what some understood to be unfair processes (in" rel="nofollow">individual, particular decisions). cArin" rel="nofollow">ing EthicAl thEoriEs The fin" rel="nofollow">inal category of our ethical framework addresses carin" rel="nofollow">ing, which is, unlike deontology and teleology, a non-rational, emotional claim. These are the theories that come, not from a reasoned sense of duty nor from desired outcomes, but, because they are psychological and emotional in" rel="nofollow">in nature, “from an in" rel="nofollow">interpersonal connectedness”—an ethic of charity, as Brady suggests. On the universal side of this theory, examples drawn from religious situations and philanthropy come to min" rel="nofollow">ind readily: belief systems that value a love for humanity, for exam- ple, and a love for in" rel="nofollow">individuals because they are a part of that humanity. On the particular side, someone who join" rel="nofollow">ins the Peace Corps to do volunteer work in" rel="nofollow">in a specific settin" rel="nofollow">ing or who does community volunteer work in" rel="nofollow">in a specific effort might offer us examples of particularized car- in" rel="nofollow">ing ethics. The layoff situation we discussed as an example of teleological ethics (the greatest good is achieved by keepin" rel="nofollow">ing those who have the most seniority and knowledge) may also rest on an ethics of carin" rel="nofollow">ing (the manager keeps the people about whom he/she cares most, those with the most seniority). cArin" rel="nofollow">ing thEoriEs AnD DivErsity We can fin" rel="nofollow">ind a carin" rel="nofollow">ing ethics basis for diversity in" rel="nofollow">in the workplace in" rel="nofollow">in Pope John Paul’s belief that “the evil of our times consists in" rel="nofollow">in the first place in" rel="nofollow">in a kin" rel="nofollow">ind of degradation, in" rel="nofollow">indeed in" rel="nofollow">in a pulveriza- tion, of the fundamental uniqueness of each person.” He argues that the “fundamental error of socialism is anthropological.” It tries to reduce humans to somethin" rel="nofollow">ing less than they are, as did the Nazis (racial makeup) and the Marxists (class status) (Brooks, 2003). Pope John Paul’s argument is carin" rel="nofollow">ing-based. David Brooks poin" rel="nofollow">ints out that when Pope John Paul told his audiences in" rel="nofollow">in Poland and Cuba, “You are not what they say you are,” the result was a revolution. The Pope’s claim is that our human diversity is good and that we are fundamentally unique in" rel="nofollow">in our person- hoods. This uniqueness should be recognized. Such ethical arguments for diversity would be strong in" rel="nofollow">in the workplace because they would offer the in" rel="nofollow">individual liberation from the crushin" rel="nofollow">ing anonymity of a cubicle existence, for example. The ethics of carin" rel="nofollow">ing leads to powerful emotional connections among people. Although we may not fin" rel="nofollow">ind it often at an official, articulated level (How does a CEO convin" rel="nofollow">incin" rel="nofollow">ingly claim to care about 25,000 employees personally?), it may be more common, unarticulated, yet in" rel="nofollow">in the min" rel="nofollow">inds of organization members, than we realize. The college at which I teach is in" rel="nofollow">infused with the ethics of carin" rel="nofollow">ing, carin" rel="nofollow">ing about each other and about our students. Yet, as is frequently the case with ethics of carin" rel="nofollow">ing, we don’t know how to talk about it. When students come on campus, they feel this emotional connection and are often drawn to the school for this reason. The diversity claim offered by ethics of carin" rel="nofollow">ing might be stated as follows: we value diversity in" rel="nofollow">in our organization because we value every in" rel="nofollow">individual and his/her dignity and right to contribute and be a part of our organization. This particularist approach in" rel="nofollow">in a busin" rel="nofollow">iness settin" rel="nofollow">ing seems more likely than does its universal aspect: we value in" rel="nofollow">individual, diverse members of our organizational community because we have come to respect, care for and perhaps love them. busin" rel="nofollow">inEss PrAgmAtism AnD An EthicAl APProAch The economic busin" rel="nofollow">iness arguments for diversity with whose review we began our exploration are each premised on the resource-based view of the firm and are all pragmatic in" rel="nofollow">in that they are concerned with what works best to meet busin" rel="nofollow">iness objectives. The American William James The Ethics of Workplace Diversity 267 268 Section 5 • Managin" rel="nofollow">ing Diversity in" rel="nofollow">in Terms of the Ethical, Legal, Media, and Marketin" rel="nofollow">ing Issues (1842–1910), whose work bridges psychology and philosophy, captured pragmatism’s essence in" rel="nofollow">in slightly different words: Pragmatism asks its usual question. Grant an idea or belief to be true, it says, “what concrete difference will its bein" rel="nofollow">ing true make in" rel="nofollow">in anyone’s actual life? How will the truth be realized? What experiences will be different from those which would obtain" rel="nofollow">in if the belief were false? What, in" rel="nofollow">in short, is the truth’s cash-value in" rel="nofollow">in experiential terms?” (James, 1911) We examin" rel="nofollow">ine pragmatism here because it may offer us a way to better understand and pin" rel="nofollow">in down the ethical claims for workplace diversity. Such an approach to decision-makin" rel="nofollow">ing, in" rel="nofollow">includin" rel="nofollow">ing that about diversity, is the cornerstone of busin" rel="nofollow">iness practice: if it works, do it, or as James sug- gested, if it works, it is true. The question that now faces us is, how do these pragmatic approaches square with the ethical options we have just reviewed? In order to summarize this issue, we use a four-cell grid with the horizontal axis representin" rel="nofollow">ing Ethics (highly ethical to unethical), and the vertical axis representin" rel="nofollow">ing the level of pragmatism, (fully pragmatic to non-pragmatic). We now have a way to categorize our theoretical justifications of workplace diversity that makes sense and is useful because it considers the practical aspect, “the cash value.” We will see if any of our ethical theories can offer what is good and good for busin" rel="nofollow">iness at the same time. This matrix (figure 5-1) is a useful way to thin" rel="nofollow">ink about the possible relationships between pragmatism and ethical choices (Henderson, 1982; Lane, DiStephano, & Maznevski, 2000). Quadrant I is where most busin" rel="nofollow">iness people would like to be, pragmatic (good numbers) and ethi- cal (good results). Quadrant I is also where the teleological ethical theories we have reviewed Non-ethical Ethical Pragmatic Quadrant III Quadrant I figurE 5-1 The Pragmatic and the Ethical with Regard to Diversity Quadrant IV Quadrant II Non-pragmatic The Ethics of Workplace Diversity 269 would be, utilitarianism and distributive justice. They are judged by outcomes and the good that constitutes those outcomes. What we see by considerin" rel="nofollow">ing Quadrant I is that an argument for diversity in" rel="nofollow">in the workplace can be pragmatic (good for busin" rel="nofollow">iness) and also ethical. Such an argu- ment might be, for example, that diversity is good, the right way to select personnel, because when we have a diverse team, we communicate better with diverse markets and are more in" rel="nofollow">innova- tive within" rel="nofollow">in the organization because we are always tryin" rel="nofollow">ing to question our unarticulated assump- tions. Such an environment is good for its participants and for busin" rel="nofollow">iness results. The argument for a diverse workplace because it is simply beneficial for busin" rel="nofollow">iness (the bottom lin" rel="nofollow">ine) is an example of a pragmatic and non-ethical argument, which is where the economic arguments for diversity that we reviewed earlier are located, Quadrant IV. Such an argument would be non-ethical often because it does not consider the treatment of humans in" rel="nofollow">in ethical terms; humans are in" rel="nofollow">inputs, parallel to semi conductors and motherboards. This brin" rel="nofollow">ings to min" rel="nofollow">ind that horrible phrase, Human Resources. Note that the arguments in" rel="nofollow">in Quadrant I (teleological) and IV (pragmatic without an ethical base) are close, and yet a world apart. The danger of the pragmatic nonethical approach is that it might do harm to people. One can imagin" rel="nofollow">ine a woman engin" rel="nofollow">ineer bein" rel="nofollow">ing assigned to a project in" rel="nofollow">in the main" rel="nofollow">inly male profession of construction engin" rel="nofollow">ineerin" rel="nofollow">ing because the company wants to qualify to compete on projects that require a diverse workforce. In such a case, the woman engin" rel="nofollow">ineer is there on the project for the busin" rel="nofollow">iness ends, almost as a token, but the company does nothin" rel="nofollow">ing to support her in" rel="nofollow">integration in" rel="nofollow">into the work team. The hostile work environment that might result from the company’s unconsidered approach to buildin" rel="nofollow">ing a diverse workforce would be a harm. In passin" rel="nofollow">ing, we note that Quadrant III is where we would locate non-pragmatic, non-ethical efforts, a combin" rel="nofollow">ination difficult about which to thin" rel="nofollow">ink. Perhaps some busin" rel="nofollow">iness decisions with regard to diversity are the result of personal prejudice or blin" rel="nofollow">indness that considers neither the practical aspects of the market nor the decision’s ethical content. Consider a family consumer busin" rel="nofollow">iness in" rel="nofollow">in a geographic area that attracts many gays and a decision-maker who has unexam- in" rel="nofollow">ined homophobic values in" rel="nofollow">in the personnel selection process. Such an example would be non- pragmatic and non-ethical. Quadrant II represents ethical, non-pragmatic approaches. Because for-profit busin" rel="nofollow">iness has to take care of the bottom lin" rel="nofollow">ine, has to show that outputs have added value over in" rel="nofollow">inputs, such approaches to ethics would be unusual, but they exist. Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream sources in" rel="nofollow">ingre- dients for their product from worker collaboratives in" rel="nofollow">in impoverished areas in" rel="nofollow">in the U.S., Africa and Latin" rel="nofollow">in America. This commitment to the support of busin" rel="nofollow">inesses owned by min" rel="nofollow">inority groups may in" rel="nofollow">increase the production costs, but it appears to be a cost the consumer is willin" rel="nofollow">ing to pay. The consumer subsidizes the ethical non-pragmatic approach Ben and Jerry’s takes. One could argue that Ben and Jerry’s has changed the nature of the product; it is not premium ice cream that the consumer purchases, but premium ice cream and a contribution to greater good in" rel="nofollow">in the world. In contrast to the for-profit sector, in" rel="nofollow">in the non-profit sector, ethical non-pragmatic approaches would be abundant. Thin" rel="nofollow">ink of the local art museum, symphony, opera and other community efforts that by their very natures are non-pragmatic. Our analysis illustrates that Quadrant I is where most of the ethical arguments for diver- sity in" rel="nofollow">in the workplace are likely to be located. These teleological ethical arguments, because they focus on outcomes, are similar on the surface to the pragmatic economic justifications for diver- sity. They add an important dimension, though, an ethical consideration that is missin" rel="nofollow">ing in" rel="nofollow">in the economic approach. It does seem that with some ethical analysis in" rel="nofollow">in the decision-makin" rel="nofollow">ing stage, busin" rel="nofollow">iness can do well and do good. 270 Section 5 • Managin" rel="nofollow">ing Diversity in" rel="nofollow">in Terms of the Ethical, Legal, Media, and Marketin" rel="nofollow">ing Issues Doin" rel="nofollow">ing WEll AnD Doin" rel="nofollow">ing gooD As a fin" rel="nofollow">inal step as we move towards our conclusion, we need to consider how the process of workplace decision-makin" rel="nofollow">ing about diversity might main" rel="nofollow">intain" rel="nofollow">in a practical focus and at the same time, be encour- aged to in" rel="nofollow">incorporate an ethical one. One key poin" rel="nofollow">int we can draw from our earlier discussion is that if there is an ethical consideration present in" rel="nofollow">in a diversity-related decision, it is usually tacit, unarticulated, in" rel="nofollow">in the decision-maker’s private thoughts. Laura Nash calls for discussionbased ethical analy- sis to become part of any organizational decision (Nash, 1981) and she offers a process to encourage discussion around these usually tacit elements. This review would be especially revealin" rel="nofollow">ing of hidden assumptions in" rel="nofollow">in diversity-related decisions. The twelve questions to open such a discussion are: 1.Have you defin" rel="nofollow">ined the problem accurately? A moral decision cannot be built on blin" rel="nofollow">ind or convenient ignorance. Convenient ignorance is frequently a part of diversity-related issues. 2.How would you defin" rel="nofollow">ine the problem if you were to stand on the other side of the fence? There is a power in" rel="nofollow">in self-examin" rel="nofollow">ination that may lead both to an awareness of the role of self-in" rel="nofollow">interest in" rel="nofollow">in a decision and to a tendency to dampen the expedient over the respon- sible action. 3.How did this situation occur in" rel="nofollow">in the first place? This course of questionin" rel="nofollow">ing helps to dis- tin" rel="nofollow">inguish the symptoms from the disease and helps to work again" rel="nofollow">inst the tendency to ignore problems until they become crises. 4.To whom and what do you give your loyalties as a person and as a member of the corpora- tion? The area of divided loyalties is a difficult one in" rel="nofollow">in the diversity area. The first steps to addressin" rel="nofollow">ing such issues are to articulate them and then examin" rel="nofollow">ine them. a. What is your in" rel="nofollow">intention in" rel="nofollow">in makin" rel="nofollow">ing this decision?B. How does this in" rel="nofollow">intention compare with the likely results? Intentions do matter. They can have effects on attitudes in" rel="nofollow">inside and outside the organization. Thus, their communi- cation is important.c. Whom could your decision or action in" rel="nofollow">injure? This question helps to discover whether any resultin" rel="nofollow">ing in" rel="nofollow">injury would be in" rel="nofollow">intentional. D. Can you engage the affected parties in" rel="nofollow">in a discussion of the problem before you make your decision? Participation of all or many stakeholders in" rel="nofollow">insures that affected parties can discuss what among the action alternatives may be in" rel="nofollow">in their best in" rel="nofollow">interests. At the same time, they learn of possible decisions that may cause them difficulties, and have the opportunity to see these issues in" rel="nofollow">in a larger context. e. Are you confident that your position will be as valid over a long period of time as it seems now? Articulation of values should anticipate good and bad times. A difference in" rel="nofollow">in time frame can make a huge impact on the problem’s meanin" rel="nofollow">ing. f. Could you disclose without a qualm your decision or action to your boss, your CEO, the board of directors, your family, or society as a whole? This test, referred to by some as the billboard test, helps to uncover conscience and loyalties. g. What is the symbolic in" rel="nofollow">intention of your action if understood? If misunderstood? How the symbol is perceived or misperceived is what matters. Gettin" rel="nofollow">ing in" rel="nofollow">intent out there early (see A and B) helps to frame how the symbolic aspect of an action is understood. H. Under what conditions would you allow exceptions to your stand? It is important to discuss under what conditions the rules of the game may be changed. Now we can begin" rel="nofollow">in to do the right thin" rel="nofollow">ing as we implement diversity in" rel="nofollow">in the workplace, to make good and pragmatic busin" rel="nofollow">iness decisions.