Search results

Using intersectionality and introducing newer developments from critical cross-cultural management studies, this paper aims to discuss how diversity is applicable to changing cultural contexts.

The paper is a conceptual paper built upon relevant empirical research findings from critical cross-cultural management studies.

By applying intersectionality as a conceptual lens, this paper underscores the practical and conceptual limitations of the business case for diversity, in particular in a culturally diverse international business (IB) setting. Introducing newer developments from critical cross-cultural management studies, the authors identify the need to investigate and manage diversity across distinct categories, and as intersecting with culture, context and power.

This paper builds on previous empirical research in critical cross-cultural management studies using intersectionality as a conceptual lens and draws implications for diversity management in an IB setting from there. The authors add to the critique of the business case by showing its failures of identifying and, consequently, managing diversity, equality/equity and inclusion (DEI) in IB settings.

Organizations (e.g. MNEs) are enabled to clearly see the limitations of the business case and provided with a conceptual lens for addressing DEI issues in a more contextualized and intersectional manner.

This paper introduces intersectionality, as discussed and applied in critical cross-cultural management studies, as a conceptual lens for outlining the limitations of the business case for diversity and for promoting DEI in an IB setting in more complicated, realistic and relevant ways.

This analysis draws on interviews with 19 self-identified US diversity consultants and 94 diversity statements posted on corporate websites. The findings challenge existing literature that characterizes the business case for diversity as monolithic and wholly problematic for the way it constructs understandings of human difference. The authors accomplish this using metaphor analysis to demonstrate how business case arguments incorporate three metaphorical systems for thinking and speaking about human differences – as asset, as liability and as possibility. Given this diversity of metaphors, the business case does not construct human difference in a monolithic way, but in a variety of ways that both challenge and sustain problematic treatments of difference. The authors argue scholars and practitioners should attend to these nuanced difference within the discourse of the business case, and more carefully consider how these metaphorical systems both enable and constrain the design and execution of diversity work in organizations. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

The analysis draws on two data sets: initial interviews with 19 self-identified US diversity consultants analyzed using metaphor analysis. To triangulate findings, the metaphorical framework was applied to 94 diversity statements posted on corporate websites.

Business case arguments operate according to three root metaphors of human difference: human difference as asset, human difference as liability and human difference as possibility. This challenges existing literature that treats the business case as a monolithic discourse.

This analysis offers the three metaphorical system and highlights the “constrained capacity” of each. This framework offers an analytical and practical tool for scholars and practitioners, enabling them to more thoroughly understand and respond to their unique organizational and socio-historical context. It also provides a way to analyze how concepts of difference are mobilized across social and historical contexts.

The findings offer the “constrained capacity” that is, the strategic limitations and possibilities for practitioners who use the business case in their diversity work. This enables more skilled and ethically informed diversity initiatives.

The findings offer insight into the subtle ways that hierarchies of human difference embedded in US history are subtly reinforced and made present through language. This enables social justice workers to better challenge problematic constructions of human difference and create new understandings when needed.

This piece makes two significant original contributions to existing literature. It offers more nuance to both critical and uncritical analyses of the business case by showing the diversity of business case assumptions about human difference as demonstrated in three different metaphorical systems and highlighting the constrained capacity of three different metaphorical systems. It offers unique analysis grounded in contemporary discourses, but correlated to historical systems of thought. This enables empirical identification of how certain types of thinking about human difference move across socio-historical contexts.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the rationale for supplier diversity, constituent elements of each case study programme, actual performance of the initiatives and key challenges involved in implementing supplier diversity programmes.

This paper goes beyond armchair accounts of the “American experience”, and presents evidence from three exemplars of supplier diversity in the USA – Ford Motor Company, JPMorgan Chase, and Unisys. Semi‐structured interviews with supplier diversity teams within these three case study firms were conducted to understand the rationale, drivers and challenges to implementing supplier diversity programmes.

The case studies highlight the importance of the “business case” in explaining corporate receptiveness to supplier diversity. This has particular force in light of the progressive “browning” of the USA. However, the role of the government as catalyst is not to be understated; a number of respondents identified governmental pressure as an important influence on the approach to supplier diversity. Sophisticated monitoring of supply chains and intense out‐reach activities with minority business enterprises were important features of the case study firm and provide a sharp contrast with the position in the UK.

The paper concludes by assessing the key elements of successful supplier diversity initiatives, and reflecting on the lessons that could be learned for the UK.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the business case for ethnic diversity in the British National Health Service (NHS). It seeks to contextualise issues around diversity within the current political environment, and identify the barriers to diversity in the NHS. The business case has been very strongly argued as justification for introducing both managing diversity and equal opportunity initiatives – here the paper examines the inconsistencies of using that argument, and maintains that the only justification worth presenting is that based on (deontological) moral arguments.

The paper is conceptual in nature exploring the respective cases for diversity using a broad range of the available literature brought together as part of a rapid evidence assessment. It does so in order to make some far‐reaching claims about the future justifications for active diversification of senior management in key public sector institutions.

The distinctions between the business and moral cases are false, in that both have ethical reference points. However, the business case is not only difficult to translate to public sector institutions; there are also evidential problems with its adoption. In light of this the conclusion here is that the moral (deontological) case is the only one that has any long term value for proponents of diversity.

The value of this paper is that it examines the confusion that surrounds different cases for advancing diversity as a policy aim and presents a clear delineation of them. It also draws out some of the – perhaps deliberate – blurring of the cases and underlines the huge problems with this all too common approach. Ultimately, it suggests that morality (deontological) arguments have most purchase in public sector organisations.

To show how companies that address gender diversity issues as business issues, not just as human resources issues, will reap rewards both inside and outside the company. Also, to show how business schools can make a significant contribution toward the understanding of diversity as a business issue.

First, women's corporate managerial roles are examined: the economic and social reasons to focus on gender diversity and the costs of companies’ failure to address diversity issues, specifically, turnover and retention. Next, women's roles as consumers are studied. Finally, women's roles as business students are looked at, specifically, the negative stereotypes reinforced in business school and carried into the workplace. The study concludes with examples of programs developed by Avon Products and Deloitte and Touche, LLP, to address diversity issues.

Provides statistics on women's workforce participation, costs of corporate turnover, women's earned college and graduate degrees. Identifies the key barriers to female career advancement; discusses the role of female consumers and business owners; provides company examples and case studies that illustrate the successful integration of women into academic and corporate life.

Only Stanford and Harvard Business school cases are looked at, although the latter is the largest producer of case studies used in business schools. One of the two longer corporate examples discusses diversity strategies in Avon Mexico which may limit its relevance to other US companies.

Good source for bibliography on corporate and academic diversity. Particularly useful for corporate human resources professionals and women about to enter business school or start their first corporate job. Also useful for researchers/academics writing business school case studies.

Presents a strong case for the retention and development of corporate women as well as the need for business school cases to model behavior and modify negative attitudes toward women in business.

The typical “business case” for workforce diversity management in the USA implies that matching the demographic characteristics of sellers to buyers increases firms' productivity and profitability. This paper aims to explore the consequences for both employers and employees of following that guidance.

The paper statistically analyzes employment data on African Americans from one large US retailer and from the US advertising industry.

In both cases analyzed, a badly conceived business case for diversity perversely translated into discriminatory employment practices, starting with stereotype‐based segregation in work assignments and spreading to consequent inequality in other employment outcomes such as earnings and promotions. Such patterns illegally limit employment opportunities for women and race/ethnic minorities. Simultaneously, they fail to promote customer relationships and sales.

To avoid negative effects on both business and societal objectives, employers need to be guided by a business case promoting workplace inclusion, not “diversity without inclusion”, which buyer‐seller matching represents.

The business case for diversity is often considered unimportant “boilerplate”. This paper alerts employers to the importance of articulating, and then following, a correct business case.

The article aims to investigate how washing practices focused on appeasing sceptics of diversity work in for-profit organizations play out in corporate online communication of diversity and inclusion efforts, and how these enable communication to a wide audience that includes social equity advocates.

Online corporate communication data of diversity and inclusion themes were compiled from the websites of eight Swedish-based multinational corporations. The data included content from the companies’ official websites and annual reports and sustainability reports as well as diversity and inclusion-themed blog posts. A thematic analysis was conducted on the website content.

The study showcases how tensions between conflicting external demands are navigated by keeping the communication open to several interpretations and thereby achieving multivocality. In the studied corporate texts on diversity and inclusion, this is achieved by alternating between elements catering to a business case audience and those that appeal to a social justice audience, with some procedures managing to appease both audiences at the same time.

The article complements previously described forms of washing by introducing an additional type of washing – business case washing – an articulation of the business case rhetoric that characterizes the diversity management discourse. While much has been written about washing to satisfy advocates of social change and equity, washing to appease shareholders and boardroom members, who are focused on profit and economic growth, has received less attention. The article suggests that online corporate communication on diversity and inclusion, by appeasing diverse audiences, can be seen as aspirational talk.

Building on recent theoretical insights from the institutional logics perspective, we examine organizational dynamics in the loosely coupled field of corporate diversity management to develop a theory of the process of logic instantiation. We consider a case in which firms subscribed to the same institutional logic, the business performance logic for diversity management, but varied in adoption of diversity mentoring practices. Employing an inductive and iterative approach to analyze over 50 interviews with diversity managers at large U.S. corporations, we explain how four organizational factors mediated the process of logic instantiation in these firms: (1) the diversity manager’s interpretation and framing of the business performance logic, (2) the formal diversity goals of the firm, (3) the relative organizational power of the diversity manager, and (4) the accepted definition of “diversity.” We discuss implications for theories of social action and diversity management.

Building on recent theoretical insights from the institutional logics perspective, we examine organizational dynamics in the loosely coupled field of corporate diversity management to develop a theory of the process of logic instantiation. We consider a case in which firms subscribed to the same institutional logic, the business performance logic for diversity management, but varied in adoption of diversity mentoring practices. Employing an inductive and iterative approach to analyze over 50 interviews with diversity managers at large U.S. corporations, we explain how four organizational factors mediated the process of logic instantiation in these firms: (1) the diversity manager’s interpretation and framing of the business performance logic, (2) the formal diversity goals of the firm, (3) the relative organizational power of the diversity manager, and (4) the accepted definition of “diversity.” We discuss implications for theories of social action and diversity management.

Do women contribute to performance of companies on which they serve as board of directors? Many prior studies examine this issue, but no consensus is reached on the benefits of women taking on leadership positions. The present study considers this thorny issue from a slightly different perspective. Does the association between gender diversity and business performance vary across sectors and economic cycles?

The sample for this study was derived from the firms included in the S&P Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) 300 Index, and the study period of 2004–2016 allowed authors to consider the effects of different sectors as well as different economic cycles on the relationship between gender diversity of boards and business performance. The authors consider the Australian context, which is somewhat unique from the other Western countries, as quotas on boards of directors are not made mandatory and the corporate governance practices are principle-based rather than rule-based.

Employing panel data models, at the aggregate level, the authors find no evidence of board gender diversity impacting business performance. Consideration of sectoral differences and economic cycles in the empirical analyses yielded additional insights. In particular, gender diversity has a beneficial association with performance for businesses in the services and financial sectors after the changes to corporate governance guidelines relating to diversity in 2010. These economic benefits, however, are not evidenced in the resources sector.

These findings offer support for critical mass and resource dependence theories.

The findings of this study have implications for inclusion and diversity policies of businesses and the society. Specifically, the findings offer support for gender diversity of corporate boards of directors.

This study highlights that women bring their unique skills and experiences to create economic value in sectors where they traditionally have more experience and opportunities.