One Minute HR Consultant

If you are confused about the business case and justification for workplace diversity don’t worry; you are not alone.  The fact of the matter is that workplace diversity when viewed from an ethical-moral “lens” has pros and cons.  Furthermore, when workplace diversity viewed from an empirical basis to justify the business case, there again is both pro and con. 

To put it straight-forward: Workplace diversity is a complex, contemporary organizational challenge that continues to be the source of misinformation, misguided perception, and uneven research findings (Van De Ven, Rogers, Bechara, Kangyong, 2007; Jayne & Dipboye, 2004). Business leaders, government employees, mid-level practitioners, non-profit members, and even the business start-up owner all have justified questions concerning the morale value, and business utility of workplace diversity. The question no matter how stated, simply boils down to “What is the business value and potential benefit of workplace diversity?”   

Six key points of consideration are hereby presented:   

Point 1 – There is a tendency to equate demographic diversity with federal equal opportunity and affirmative action laws.  This is done in error because of research and organizational initiatives that link the concept of diversity with federal equal opportunity and affirmative action laws.  This error leads to resistance and reinforcement of stereotypes, having a reverse, unintended consequence on justifying the business need for diversity.  

Point 2 – Most workplace diversity initiatives consider only demographic components of diversity.  In considering only the demographic aspects of diversity, organizations do not go far enough.  As a matter of fact, organizations have in many cases only increased the likelihood that any diversity business case and subsequent initiative will be met with resistance.

Point 3 – Cognitive Diversity along with the business need is the root starting point when exploring the organizational benefit of diversity.  Cognitive Diversity, as I define it, is the observed and unobserved attributes that distinguish individuals and their accompanying value and belief system.  Of course there are varying views of Cognitive Diversity; yet, the properties of this definition allow us to include both the demographic components, and beliefs and attitudes components of diversity.    

Point 4: Workplace diversity must be centered on a business need (perceived threat, rare opportunity, or a combination of the two).  The moral case as unfortunate as it may sound is not enough.  Research shows that organizations that succeed at diversity base it on sound business considerations such as entrance or expansion within a market segment, product and services aimed toward diverse segments of the marketplace, exploitation of unexpected demand (or potential for demand) in an untapped or under-performing market (Note: Under-performing in the sense that demand for product or service was not foreseen; yet is empirically proven to show consideration for increase “presence”).

Point 5: Not all organizations should pursue diversity, especially based upon demographic consideration.  Diversity should not be pursued (despite what many tell you) to correct moral wrongs or to “reflect society.”   There are laws (both passed and under consideration) and other causes that serve such purposes.  As for “reflecting society;” your market may only represent a unique, defined niche of our collective society and any efforts to “represent society” will be viewed as insincere or not justifiable if your products and services appeal only to specific segments of the marketplace. 

Point 6:  If organizational diversity initiatives are pursued, it is essential to focus more on cognitive diversity vice the demographic components of diversity.  Highlighting differences, based on research and experience of organizations that pursue diversity (successful and otherwise), show that when demographic understanding is sought, the inverse happens – more confusion and increased hostility often results (Van de Ven, Rogers, & Kangyong, 2008; Jayne & Dipboye, 2004).  Furthermore, appreciation of demographic diversity naturally results when diversity is pursued at the deeper, cognitive level.   

 So what are the benefits of diversity if the business case warrants worthy of pursuit?  There is no shortage of benefits, if your organizational business case (considering the above) is conducted with rigor.  Some of the benefits of workplace diversity may include:

Goodwill of the Community. If diverse segments of your customer base are diverse and your organization reflects this diversity, your efforts will not go unnoticed. 

Potential increase in earnings and profitability.  Directly related to the above benefit, customers show appreciation represented via “buying power” and increased sales.  Quite simply: They buy more from you and less from your competitors. 

Increase readiness.  If you are a government organization, diversity efforts are appreciated through increased contribution or increased willingness to join your organization or cause. 

Outreach into potential talent pools.  With increased outreach and appreciation of diversity, you have increased individuals looking to contribute their talents to your organization.  If competitive advantage is embedded within human capital, which I argue this is so, than deeper, richer pools of talent with unique ideas and perspectives will enable you to leverage this diversity – resulting in, ideally, innovative products and services delivered faster and better than your competitors – for the foreseeable future. 

References/Further Reading

Jayne, M., & Dipboye, R. (2004). Leveraging diversity to improve business performance: Research findings and recommendations for organizations. Human Resource Management, 43(4), 409-424.

Van de Ven, A., Rogers, R., Bechara, J., & Kangyong, S. (2008). Organizational diversity, integration and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29 (3), 335-354. doi:10.1002/job.511.

One of the most persistent mistakes made by consultants and mid-level to senior leadership professionals is an inability to link abstract theoretical organizational interventions to concrete business activity and functions.  In working as a leadership and organizational development consultant and business practitioner for six years, and an HR professional for nearly 20 years, I have witnessed this first hand on more occasion than I care to admit. 

Allow me to present a story:  Once in a history not to distant, I was a supporting initiative project team leader and change management team member working on a fairly complex change management initiative.  This robust and aggressive inititiative involved the entire organization, its business units, core business functions, staff support functions,  and information systems.  Thus, in the organizational textbook sense of change management, it met the criteria of being both complex and essential to maintaining the advantage in the industry of which it was a part. 

The concept was Appreciative Inquiry (AI) and my core role during the exploration stages was to unearth practical utility prior to  implementation stages of supporting initiative projects.  The organizational leadership, rightfully, in my opinion, did not believe in abstract concepts unless empirical evidence supported cost and effort; in other words, could a quantitative and qualatative business case be built around workforce actions built into the operational and functional actions of employees.  Continue reading »