Diversity Comprises an Ethical Dilemma - Essay Example

British companies, in concession to both legislature and societal realities, are increasingly working towards the diversification of their workforce. Realising that societal heterogeneity must translate into employee diversity, Morrison (1992) states that there is an observable trend among British companies to adopt diversity programmes and create a diversified workforce. Not withstanding the fact that legislature effectively compels them to do so, several researchers have questioned the ethics of achieving workforce diversity (Gilligan, 1982; Ramsey and Calvert, 1994). Some have argued that the achievement of workforce diversity is an ethical duty while others have argued not. Both of the mentioned positions, largely due to the fact that they are predicated on inarguably ethical considerations, lead one towards the realisation of the degree to which the question raised constitutes an ethical dilemma. While this paper shall tend towards a support of the ethics of achieving workforce diversity, it will only do so following the identification of the issue as an ethical dilemma. The most straightforward definition of an ethical dilemma is a clash between two goods. If we accept the notion that ethical teaching directs one’s actions towards doing that which benefits the good of the majority, rather than that of the minority, then we will begin to comprehend the concept of ethical dilemma as referring to instances wherein two alternate, and even conflicting, decisions may lead to equally good consequences (Crane and Matten, 2003; Lovell and Fisher, 2005; Crane and Matten, 2006). Diversity comprises an ethical dilemma because support for its realisation implies support for and the empowerment of marginalised groups. Objection to it, as in arguments disputing its ethical base, are equally ethical because of their predication on the concept of merit, or the hiring of employees based on theory qualifications, irrespective of ethnicity, race, religion, gender or age (Lovell and Fisher, 2005; Chouinard, 2006). As either of the two positions is, arguably, ethical, a final determination of which of the two is more ethical rests upon the analytical assessment of both perspectives from within the framework of ethics theory. A review of the literature on workplace diversity reveals that numerous scholars dispute the argument regarding a direct relationship between ethics and the attainment of employee diversity. Referring to these scholars, Mollica (2003) explains that their objections are founded upon commitment to merit and its recognition. Within the business setting, the primary determinant of recruitment should not be race, colour, gender, age, religion or ethnicity but the individual attributes and qualifications of candidates. Should recruitment on the basis of the aforementioned be eschewed in favour of recruitment on the basis of minority group affiliation, not only will firms be ignoring their ethical responsibilities towards their customers and employees but they would be actively engaging in discriminatory practices (Mollica, 2003). In further explication of the ethical foundations upon which objection to the identification of workforce diversity as an organisational goal is based, Shepard (1993), Swantson (1995) and Nemetz and Christensen (1996) insist that this position is inherently racist. It is racist because it centralises minority group affiliation as a key determinant of employee promotion and candidate selection decisions. By doing so, this position assumes that members of minority groups cannot progress on their own merit and consequent to their own qualifications and potentials. This assumption, needless to say, is inherently racist. Added to that, when the achievement of workforce diversity is defined as an organisational objective, this means that more qualified job or promotion candidates are deliberately overlooked and passed over because of their age, race, ethnicity, religion or gender (Shepard, 1993; Swantson, 1995; Nemetz and Christensen, 1996). Again, this is racist and accordingly, unethical. Even though some of the literature on the ethics of workforce diversity very effectively argues against it as an ethical obligation, it is ultimately limited by the fact that it does not consider the circumstances which motivated the identification of diversity as an ethical obligation. McMillan (2003) and Kirby and Harter (2003) argue that Western societies, including Britain and the United States, are highly diverse and moving towards increased diversity. These societies are exceedingly heterogeneous but the workforce, especially top level management and business leaders, remains largely homogenous. In other words, business leadership and top management positions are dominated by white Anglo-Saxon, Christian males with it being exceedingly rare to find minority group members in these positions (McMillan, 2003; Kirby and Harter, 2003). To assume that the referred to domination of white Anglo-Saxon, Christian males in top management and leadership positions is a consequence of qualifications is erroneous. Members of minority groups are just as qualified but, even despite anti-racist and anti-discriminatory legislature, are rarely given the opportunities for career advancement as are members of the dominant societal group (Crane and Matten, 2006). This, as Crane and Matten (2006) quite rightly emphasise, means that racist assumptions regarding the capacities of the dominant group versus those of the minority groups, have functioned to limit the advancement of members of the latter group. Furthermore, the mentioned attitude has also ensured that members of the minority groups remain marginalised and socially and economically disadvantaged relative to members of the dominant societal group (Crane and Matter, 2006). What this means is that even within the framework of Equal Opportunities and Anti-Discrimination legislature, minority group members have not been given the opportunities available to members of the majority group and, as a matter of fact, have not been given the requisite chance to express and realise their potential. When considering the situation as summarised in the preceding paragraph, the rationale behind the argument that the achievement of workforce diversity is an ethical obligation becomes clear. As may be deduced from the literature on the topic, firms have an ethical duty towards their societies, with hat duty dictating the imperatives of corporate social responsibility. Among the various ethical duties associated with the concept of corporate social responsibility is that which dictates the imperatives of functioning to resolve societal problems. The social and economic marginalisation of minority groups is one such societal problem and, importantly, it is rooted in prejudicial perceptions regarding the limited potentials and capacities of members of these groups. Following up on this argument, therefore, researchers such as Kirby and Harter (2003), Lovell and Fisher (2005) and Chouinard (2006) argue that the attainment of workforce diversity is an ethical duty whose ultimate goal is not just the correction of an existing societal injustice but the extension of equal employment and advancement opportunities to all societal groups, regardless of group affiliation. Within the matrix of a heterogeneous and diverse society, the extension of such opportunities naturally leads to the evolution of a workforce which is as diverse and as heterogeneous as the society itself (Kirby and Harter, 2003; Lovell and Fisher, 2005; Chouinard, 2006). Although the argument, as presented, leads to the conclusion that the achievement of workforce diversity is an ethical duty, as earlier stated, the question represents an ethical dilemma. This argument is further clarified when one looks at the question from within the matrix of the existent ethical frameworks/schools. When assessed from the perspective of consequentialism, or the teleological moral philosophical stance, one finds that the question is indeterminate. On the one hand, the consequences of workforce diversity as a goal may mean overlooking more suitable candidates for a position, simply because they are affiliated to the dominant societal group. On the other hand, workforce diversity as an objective means extending marginalised groups the opportunity to realise their economic and social potential. Given that the ethics of an action are, according to Crane and Matten (2006), determined by its consequences, the fact that the consequences here are variable solidly affirms the nature of this question as a dilemma. From the utilitarian perspective, however, workplace diversity is an ethical duty. Certainly, and as noted in the above, individual members of the dominant group may be treated unjustly and unfairly because they could very well be denied the opportunities which their qualifications should have ensured them. The majority, however, as n society itself, will benefit. This is because its economically and socially marginalised members will be given the opportunity for inclusion and integration. As Kirby and Harter (2003) argue, such a development can only benefit society, in which instance workforce diversity is ethical because it serves the interest of the majority – society itself. When one turns to the relativist school one finds that at the present moment circumstances determine the ethics of workplace diversity. This is because, as McMillan (2003) emphasises, at the present time society is diverse but the workplace is not and at the present time, the economic and social marginalisation of minority group members means that they need additional help in advancing as a strategy for overcoming their marginalisation. Accordingly, even though majority group members may be denied the opportunities which their qualification should ensure them, this act of injustice s ethical relative to the circumstances surrounding the question of societal diversity and marginalisation. The question of whether or not firms have an ethical duty to ensure workplace diversity is, as the essay has argued, an ethical dilemma. There are equally strong arguments on either position and, the analysis of the question from within the perspective of various schools of ethics only confirms the extent to which it is a dilemma. Nevertheless, should one look towards the rationale behind the identification of workplace diversity as an organisational ethical goal and its probable consequences, one would conclude with a statement of support for the ethics of establishing workplace diversity as an organisational goal. Bibliography Chouinard, Y. (2006) Let my people go surfing. London: Penguin. Crane, A. and Matten, D. (2003) Business ethics. Oxford: Oxford UP. Crane, A. and Matten, D. (2006) Business ethics: Managing corporate citizenship and sustainability in an age of globalisation. Oxford: Oxford UP. Gilligan, C. (1982) In a different voice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Kirby, E. L., & Harter, L. M. (2003). Speaking the language of the bottom line: The metaphor of managing diversity. The Journal of Business Communication, 40(1), 28-50. Lovell, A. and Fisher, C. (2005) Business ethics and values. London: Prentice-Hall. McMillan, A., C. (2003). Cultural diversity impact in firm performance: The moderating of diversity initiatives and socializations tactics. Louisiana Tech University: Louisiana UP. Mollica, K. L. (2003). The influence of diversity context on White men and racial minorities’ reactions to disproportionate group harm. The Journal of Social Psychology, 143, 415-432. Morrison, A.M. (1992). The new leaders: Guidelines in leadership diversity in America. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Nemetz, P. L., & Christensen, S. L (1996). The challenge of cultural diversity: Harnessing a diversity of views to understand multiculturalism. Academy of Management Review, 21(2), 434-463. Ramsey. V. J.. & and Calvert, L. M. (1994) A feminist critique of organizational humanism. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 30(1), 83-97. Shepard, A. (1993). High anxiety: The call for diversity in the newsroom has White men running scared. American Journalism Review, 15(9), 18-25. Swanston, W. (1995). Angry White men. American Journalism Review, 17(7), 42. Read More