Diversity: Business or Ethics?

Perspective 1 - Michal Fineman

Unlike many of my colleagues in the diversity field, I am not a spiritual person. I do not, as many do, speak of organizational diversity efforts as a “journey” of personal and collective growth, and I have few expectations of changing the world through our work.

My goals are more modest—though ambitious enough even so: only to create organizations in which people treat each other with respect and succeed not in spite of their differences but, in part, because of them. But despite my practical orientation to our work, I find myself increasingly impatient with the emphasis on “building the business case” for diversity.

Basing decisions about how to run the business solely on what’s good for the bottom line has gotten the world economy in a world of trouble. And using the bottom line as a gauge for how to treat “human resources” will not in itself change behavior in a large scale, permanent way because what’s good for the organization short term (which is the only term in which most stockholders and business leaders seem to be able to think) is not always good for employees. Paradoxically, however, if we base our treatment of employees on ethical considerations, we probably have a better chance of reaching our financial goals long term. The first step is recognizing that people are not “human resources” or “talent.” People are not means to an end; they are, as philosopher Felix Adler put it, ends per se.

They—we—are ends in ourselves and for that reason above all others are worthy of respect. What would be different about a company whose policies and practices were grounded in ethical considerations—that is, were based on the assumption that people have worth as ends per se, not simply as resources? For one thing, diversity-friendly behaviors would almost have to increase, because, by definition, they are behaviors that recognize the value of individuals. Second, organizational life might take on more of the aspects of a community where individuals are known and recognized.

People who don’t necessarily like each other would nevertheless work together for the common good. Decisions would be based on their impact on all stakeholders, not just those receiving quarterly dividends. And because they addressed needs of customers, communities, employees, suppliers and other stakeholders, organizations would in the long run be more successful in the market place. Dare we even talk about ethics to business leaders and their bosses, the stockholders? Dare we suggest that they should “do diversity” because it is the right thing to do? Well, now might be the time to try. With our economy in upheaval following years of unchecked grasping for quick returns, maybe business people are ready to think about another approach. After all, most are decent human beings who love their families and give to charity and do volunteer work in their spare time. They are moral beings.

Maybe the real contribution of diversity efforts could/should be an acceptance of the idea that not just should people be able to bring their differences to work, but that every person should be able to bring his whole self to work—including his moral self.

Perspective 2 - Patrice Hall

I have a friend who, when he disagrees with some, but not all, of a particular perspective will quip, “Right answer, wrong question.” I am inclined to believe that this is the case with my esteemed colleague’s perspective on the tension between the Business vs. the Ethical case for Diversity.

I wholly applaud the suggestion that we would all be better off if organizations could and did recognize the true value of their “human resources” – and responded accordingly. How much more engaged and productive employees would be if they felt truly valued – and we know that discretionary effort (the kind of passion and commitment that results in individuals giving 200% without being asked) cannot be mandated, but only inspired.

So, as my associate so compellingly points out, organizations would do well to embrace diversity & inclusion for the powerful framework it is to create organizational cultures that motivate and inspire the individuals who work within them. That, in my opinion, is the ‘right answer’ part of the equation. But the ‘wrong question’ part of the discussion has to do with why we have all, seemingly, bought into the notion that the dilemma is either/or – that the rationale for diversity & inclusion efforts should be based EITHER on morals and ethics OR on contribution to the bottom line. When (perhaps how) did we get so jaded that these two things became mutually exclusive? And as D&I practitioners, especially, have we given up on the notion that ‘happy people are productive people – and productive people make organizations profitable’? Are we so caught up in the “ROI” of This and That that if we can’t assign a financial measure to a particular activity, we believe the activity has no value? I think the answer is both yes and no.

Yes, as D&I leaders we - like all business leaders - are constantly called upon to justify our use of corporate resources, and in an effort to make D&I equivalent to other “strategic business priorities” we seek data that shows our work contributes to increased revenue or decreased expenses. But the harder it is to make the connection, the less comfortable we feel in using the measure. In other words, marketing to various ‘diverse’ populations (e.g. women, GLBT, ethnic minorities, etc.) and calculating the resulting revenue is a heck of a lot easier than proving that Affinity Groups have lowered absenteeism through their creation of community and engagement for front-line customer service staff. Yet, we know in our heart of hearts that in the end, so much of the benefit of our efforts is really measured by how our organizations “feel” to the people in them and, therefore, how likely they are to come, to stay, and to contribute beyond the basics.

But proving this is an entirely different animal. One framework that attempts to bridge the gap between ethics and business is Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)– the notion that corporations must, ethically, act as responsible stewards of the resources (human, environmental and otherwise) with which they are entrusted, and that the ability or failure to do so has quantifiable impact on the organization. Interestingly, we see more and more D&I initiatives – especially those with a global scope – being managed under the CSR mandate.

This may be the best way to reduce the tensions between the ethical vs. the business case for D&I. But meanwhile, as our internal clients are challenging us - yet again - with a need for a “Business Case” and the voices inside our heads are screaming, “ ’cause it’s the right thing to do!” we might do well to remind them (and ourselves) of the immortal words of Albert Einstein; “Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.”