Spike Lee’s suggestion in his 1989 classic film Do the Right Thing that we “do the
right thing” on the issue of diversity seems a reasonable one to most people, on the
face of it. But when we ask, “Why?” in a business environment, we are likely to
hear that we should do the right thing because such actions are good for business
results. That may be fine, but is it enough? Is there more than a pragmatic
justification for diversity in the workplace? Is there an ethical justifica- tion for
valuing diversity (the right thing) in the workplace?
We begin with a review of the pragmatic business arguments that are used to
suggest that diversity is desirable in business. 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 valuing diversity in the workplace. Our
conclusion then moves to an attempt to bridge between the prac- tical (business)
and the good (ethics).
By valuing diversity we mean valuing, respecting and appreciating the differences
(such as age, culture, education, ethnicity, experience, gender, race, religion,
sexual orientation, among others) that make people unique. Note that our
definition has to do with valuing differences, so it is a frame of mind, a way of
thinking, rather than a result. This is an important distinction because if we were to
think of diversity as only a result and not a way of thinking, such an approach
might lead to false conclusions. For example, we might observe that a workforce
is diverse and then be tempted to infer that a valuing of diversity has led to the
workforce composition. Yet we all recog- nize that a diverse workforce could be
explained by many other factors, such as, poor work condi- tions, and business
location. This workforce could be connected to diversity only by coincidence.
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 business outcomes.
Most compelling is the connection made between a workforce that brings valuable
and different perspectives and abilities to connect with a wide spectrum of
customers. This market-driven argument for diversity becomes increas- ingly
important because globalization has strengthened the role that relationships play in
business transactions. Globalization has led managers to realize that business 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, longlasting
relationships. An additional economic argument for diversity is that when
the firm is recruiting from a larger, more diverse labor pool, the likelihood of
hiring capable managers increases (Schraeder, Blackburn, and Iles, 1997).
261
262 Section 5 • Managing Diversity in Terms of the Ethical, Legal, Media, and
Marketing Issues
There is also the argument that a diverse workforce is nontraditional, and therefore
likely to be more creative and more capable of instituting and accepting change
because diverse work- groups tend to be more accepting of ambiguity (Rosener,
1995). Research suggests that the Western assumption that innovation comes from
the center of the firm (which traditionally is the less diverse part) may be seen as a
dying vestige of essentially an imperialist way of thinking. Prahalad and
Lieberthal conclude that “over time…as multinationals develop products better
suited to the emerging markets, they are finding that those markets are becoming
an important source of innovation.” That is a good explanation of how diversity
may increase the potential for creativity (Prahalad, 1998).
These arguments for diversity rest on a way of thinking about business known as
the resource-based theory of the firm (Barney, 1991). According to this theory, the
firm is concep- tualized as a bundle of resources that are poised, ready to take
advantage of opportunities in the external environment. The more distinctive 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 his comments to the Women in
Leadership Conference (2002, Berlin, Germany).
For BP the issue is no longer about whether diversity is a good thing…the issue is
how to deliver strategy. How to take immediate, real actions…We’re competing
for resources…And we’re competing for markets…And therefore we’re competing
for talent. If we can get a disproportionate share of the most talented people in the
world, we have a chance of holding a competitive edge. That is the simple
strategic logic behind our commitment to diversity and to the inclusion of
individuals—men and women regardless of background, religion, ethnic origin,
nationality or sexual orientation. We want to employ the best people, everywhere,
on the single criterion of merit. And the importance of that goal as a part of our
overall business strategy has grown as competition has intensified.
BP is an energy company that needs to establish relationships that will allow it to
extract oil and gas in Mexico, Indonesia, West Africa and Russia, while it
competes for markets in America, China, 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 business is to increase profits, not to do good. The fundamental argument
of this under- standing is best articulated by the economist Milton Friedman in his
oft cited essay, “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Its Profits.”
There is one and only one social responsibility of business—to use its resources
and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within
the rules of the game, which is to say, engages 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 our world, definition 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 business
arguments, the criteria go to the business results. Making a decision about
diversity is, at a superficial level, pretty easy: we look
The Ethics of Workplace Diversity 263
at the economic business results of a decision. In contrast, ethically-based
decisions are judged sometimes by the reasoning 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 examination of the
decision’s outcomes.
cAtEgoriEs of EthicAl thEoriEs
So what might an ethical justification for valuing 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 looking at likely
outcomes or consequences of a decision. Third is a set of theories that looks at the
caring aspects of decisions. These three categories remind us that the assumptions
upon which ethical claims can be made may vary widely.
F. Neil Brady developed a matrix for these distinctive 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 think about the possible ethical
bases for workplace diversity. The three columns on the right describe the three
main theoretical bases for ethical judgment, with Brady’s suggested equivalents in
parentheses. We discuss each of them and their likely application to a diversity
claim: that a valuing of differences—our definition of diversity—is good or
produces the quality of goodness either by process (deontological) or outcomes
(teleological), or through caring for others. We also consider whether the theory is
universal in nature, for all times and all places, or particular, depending on the
context.
The reason to consider universal or particular applications of an ethical theory has
to do with culture. The cultural context in which a diversity decision is made may
well affect the shared understanding of what ethical actually means. A short
example of the results of different assumptions about what is ethical may be found
in the consideration of the quality of difference in Japan. The Japanese culture is
homogeneous, and the introduction of differ- ence is generally not seen as good. In
fact, families and the individual’s company will conduct a background
investigation of an engaged employee’s potential spouse to make certain he or she
is pure Japanese and not from an outcast group such as the borakumin. Such
activity
Universal Application (all times, all places)
Particular Application (depends on context)
Deontology (Faith)
Universal duty: universal principles, The Way
Particular duties: situation ethic, case by case approach
Teleology (Hope)
Universal ends: Character ethic, utilitarianism, other -isms
Particular ends: self-actualization
Caring (Charity)
Universal care: love for humanity
Particular care: personal relationships
Source: Adapted from F. Neil Brady. With kind permission of Springer Science+Business Media
Exhibit 5-1 Three Categories of Ethical Theories
264 Section 5 • Managing Diversity in Terms of the Ethical, Legal, Media, and
Marketing Issues
is seen as fulfilling an ethical responsibility. In North America, especially on the
part of the employer, such an 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
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 distinction is help- ful as we consider the ethical bases for
diversity because it incorporates the idea of the decision’s context. This distinction
also corresponds in interesting 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 China, Japan, Venezuela, Greece, and
India, rules are seen as more variable, depending on the context and the actors.
The implications of these assumptions in the area of diversity are significant,
especially if we consider the effects of a diverse workgroup on an organization’s
ethics. For example, Chinese assumptions about ethical decisions tend to be
particularist and relationship-based. Awareness that American business ethics
decisions, in contrast, tend to be universalistic and rule-based would help an
international partner from a particularist culture such as China understand the
assumptions that underpin Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This act as
amended prohibits “discrimination in hiring, promotion, discharge, pay, fringe
benefits, job training, classification, referral, and other aspects of employment on
the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.”
We now look at how each of these ethical theories might be applied to diversity 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 caring for others (care, love, charity).
DEontologicAl cAtEgory of EthicAl thEoriEs
The first category of ethical theories 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 think 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 a convincing 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, having differ- ences is a duty that is a good in itself.
The Ethics of Workplace Diversity 265
To explore our sense of duty in this regard, let us go to an example of which we all
are a part, the U.S. housing market. We all live somewhere. Consideration of the
nature of the U.S. housing market, segregated as it is by race and economic class,
might suggest that there is no widely accepted duty to incorporate or tolerate
difference, at least in this narrow but universally inhabited sector, despite federal
law prohibiting discrimination. At the particularist level though, we can recognize
that we might have specific duties we hold to one another with regard to diversity,
depending on the context. For example, when we find 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 including various constituencies or stakeholders and their varied points
of view in the search process, and so on. Yet we can see that in some situations,
diversity may be understood to be a duty, a good in and of itself. On balance
though, deontological approaches to diversity are probably few in the work
situation.
This observation is in accord with sociologist William Julius Wilson’s application
of Blalock’s theory of social power, which suggests that when majority or
minority members change their beliefs about minority or majority members, these
changes are initially a result of power shifts (in this case, Civil Rights legislation),
and only secondarily, value shifts. Diversity in our workplaces developed 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 Discrimination 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 individuals as
the loca- tion of ethical decisions. This approach is justified because decisions are
made in the minds of individual managers. Yet we may think of organizations
themselves as having a limited kind of personhood, at least in a legal sense.
Considered from the perspective of an organization capable of ethical decisionmaking,
we find another example of deontological ethics 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, addressing 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). So teleological approaches are action- based, connected with
implementation, while the deontological approaches concern the process (Hopkins,
1997). Utilitarianism, the greatest good for the greatest number, illustrates such an
action-based, results-oriented approach. A business example is found in costbenefit
analysis, through which the benefit is weighed against its cost. The
decision is then made to follow the path that provides the greatest overall gain for
the least cost. In fact, research suggests that many American managers hold to
utilitarian principles in their decision-making (Fritzsche, 1984). For example, a
manager might structure a lay-off list with the least trained and newest members
of the organization as the first to face cuts, on the basis that keeping people with
seniority will lead to the retention of higher levels of knowledge, which in turn
may lead to better results for a larger number of people.
266 Section 5 • Managing Diversity in Terms of the Ethical, Legal, Media, and
Marketing Issues
Distributive justice, concerned with fair and equitable outcomes, is another ethical
theory within 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 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-interest’s playing a role in decisions on distribution of goods.
Laura Hartman describes how Rawls sees the veil of ignorance working 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 which the benefits would be distrib- uted unequally only when doing 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 its assertion that a good or ethical decision is one that produces
the greatest good for the greatest number, seems on first examination to be
business-friendly. As a justification for diversity, a utilitarian approach might
argue that valuing 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-making, that possesses increased
creativity, better knowledge of markets, and 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
valuing of diversity in the workplace to be frequent since 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 line good.
An example of the distributive justice theory applied to diversity is found in
human resource processes that rest on principles of fairness and justice: all
employees regardless of level and type of contract (part time/temporary) would
receive medical and other benefits, profit shar- ing, retirement contributions and
bonuses. Selection, compensation and promotion systems might also offer
examples of distributive justice in the area of diversity. The ethical rationale
would be that we take this decision because it is the right thing to do in order to
produce equity, not that we take this decision because it will be good for business.
These are all examples of uni- versal application.
Teleological theories in a particularist context would be theories that apply to
differences among people and also consider the ends or outcomes 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 that direction (support for education,
training programs, mentoring systems) are ethical ones. This approach, on a caseby-case
basis, would have powerful application to diversity, since it would support
individual learning and development within the company. Note that the increased
learn- 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 a particularist context can be found in the justification (or failure of
justification) of Affirmative Action legislation. The desired outcome (an increase
in social equity universally) was thought to outweigh what some understood to be
unfair processes (individual, particular decisions).
cAring EthicAl thEoriEs
The final category of our ethical framework addresses caring, 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 nature, “from an 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
mind readily: belief systems that value a love for humanity, for exam- ple, and a
love for individuals because they are a part of that humanity. On the particular side,
someone who joins the Peace Corps to do volunteer work in a specific setting or
who does community volunteer work in a specific effort might offer us examples
of particularized car- ing ethics. The layoff situation we discussed as an example
of teleological ethics (the greatest good is achieved by keeping those who have the
most seniority and knowledge) may also rest on an ethics of caring (the manager
keeps the people about whom he/she cares most, those with the most seniority).
cAring thEoriEs AnD DivErsity
We can find a caring ethics basis for diversity in the workplace in Pope John
Paul’s belief that “the evil of our times consists in the first place in a kind of
degradation, indeed 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 something less than they are, as did the Nazis (racial
makeup) and the Marxists (class status) (Brooks, 2003). Pope John Paul’s argument
is caring-based. David Brooks points out that when Pope John Paul told his
audiences 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 our person- hoods. This uniqueness should be recognized.
Such ethical arguments for diversity would be strong in the workplace because
they would offer the individual liberation from the crushing anonymity of a
cubicle existence, for example. The ethics of caring leads to powerful emotional
connections among people. Although we may not find it often at an official,
articulated level (How does a CEO convincingly claim to care about 25,000
employees personally?), it may be more common, unarticulated, yet in the minds
of organization members, than we realize. The college at which I teach is infused
with the ethics of caring, caring about each other and about our students. Yet, as is
frequently the case with ethics of caring, 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 caring might be stated as follows: we
value diversity in our organization because we value every individual and his/her
dignity and right to contribute and be a part of our organization. This particularist
approach in a business setting seems more likely than does its universal aspect: we
value individual, diverse members of our organizational community because we
have come to respect, care for and perhaps love them.
businEss PrAgmAtism AnD An EthicAl APProAch
The economic business 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 that they are concerned with what works best to meet business
objectives. The American William James
The Ethics of Workplace Diversity 267
268 Section 5 • Managing Diversity in Terms of the Ethical, Legal, Media, and
Marketing Issues (1842–1910), whose work bridges psychology and philosophy,
captured pragmatism’s essence
in slightly different words:
Pragmatism asks its usual question. Grant an idea or belief to be true, it says,
“what concrete difference will its being true make in anyone’s actual life? How
will the truth be realized? What experiences will be different from those which
would obtain if the belief were false? What, in short, is the truth’s cash-value in
experiential terms?” (James, 1911)
We examine pragmatism here because it may offer us a way to better understand
and pin down the ethical claims for workplace diversity. Such an approach to
decision-making, including that about diversity, is the cornerstone of business
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 representing Ethics (highly ethical to
unethical), and the vertical axis representing 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 business at the same time.
This matrix (figure 5-1) is a useful way to think about the possible relationships
between pragmatism and ethical choices (Henderson, 1982; Lane, DiStephano, &
Maznevski, 2000). Quadrant I is where most business 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 considering Quadrant I
is that an argument for diversity in the workplace can be pragmatic (good for
business) 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 innova-
tive within the organization because we are always trying to question our
unarticulated assump- tions. Such an environment is good for its participants and
for business results.
The argument for a diverse workplace because it is simply beneficial for business
(the bottom line) 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 ethical terms; humans are inputs, parallel to
semi conductors and motherboards. This brings to mind that horrible phrase,
Human Resources.
Note that the arguments 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 imagine a woman
engineer being assigned to a project in the mainly male profession of construction
engineering because the company wants to qualify to compete on projects that
require a diverse workforce. In such a case, the woman engineer is there on the
project for the business ends, almost as a token, but the company does nothing to
support her integration into the work team. The hostile work environment that
might result from the company’s unconsidered approach to building a diverse
workforce would be a harm.
In passing, we note that Quadrant III is where we would locate non-pragmatic,
non-ethical efforts, a combination difficult about which to think. Perhaps some
business decisions with regard to diversity are the result of personal prejudice or
blindness that considers neither the practical aspects of the market nor the
decision’s ethical content. Consider a family consumer business in a geographic
area that attracts many gays and a decision-maker who has unexam- ined
homophobic values 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
business has to take care of the bottom line, has to show that outputs have added
value over inputs, such approaches to ethics would be unusual, but they exist. Ben
and Jerry’s Ice Cream sources ingre- dients for their product from worker
collaboratives in impoverished areas in the U.S., Africa and Latin America. This
commitment to the support of businesses owned by minority groups may increase
the production costs, but it appears to be a cost the consumer is willing 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 the world. In contrast to the for-profit sector, in the
non-profit sector, ethical non-pragmatic approaches would be abundant. Think 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 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 missing in the economic
approach. It does seem that with some ethical analysis in the decision-making
stage, business can do well and do good.
270 Section 5 • Managing Diversity in Terms of the Ethical, Legal, Media, and
Marketing Issues Doing WEll AnD Doing gooD
As a final step as we move towards our conclusion, we need to consider how the
process of workplace decision-making about diversity might maintain a practical
focus and at the same time, be encour- aged to incorporate an ethical one. One key
point we can draw from our earlier discussion is that if there is an ethical
consideration present in a diversity-related decision, it is usually tacit, unarticulated,
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 revealing of hidden assumptions in
diversity-related decisions. The twelve questions to open such a discussion are:
1.Have you defined the problem accurately? A moral decision cannot be built
on blind or convenient ignorance. Convenient ignorance is frequently a
part of diversity-related issues.
2.How would you define the problem if you were to stand on the other side of
the fence? There is a power in self-examination that may lead both to
an awareness of the role of self-interest in a decision and to a tendency
to dampen the expedient over the respon- sible action.
3.How did this situation occur in the first place? This course of questioning
helps to dis- tinguish the symptoms from the disease and helps to work
against 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 the
diversity area. The first steps to addressing such issues are to articulate
them and then examine them. a. What is your intention in making this
decision?B. How does this intention compare with the likely results?
Intentions do matter. They can have effects on attitudes inside and
outside the organization. Thus, their communi- cation is important.c.
Whom could your decision or action injure? This question helps to
discover whether any resulting injury would be intentional. D. Can you
engage the affected parties in a discussion of the problem before you
make your decision? Participation of all or many stakeholders insures
that affected parties can discuss what among the action alternatives
may be in their best interests. At the same time, they learn of possible
decisions that may cause them difficulties, and have the opportunity to
see these issues 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 time frame can make a huge impact on the problem’s
meaning. 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 intention of
your action if understood? If misunderstood? How the symbol is
perceived or misperceived is what matters. Getting 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 to do the right thing as
we implement diversity in the workplace, to
make good and pragmatic business decisions.