Workplace diversity that thrives.

“Diversity is being invited to the party, inclusion is being asked to dance.”

This article hopes to provide an ethical framework for diversity that supports a thriving, networked workplace of diversity, as opposed to ‘islands of diversity’, and that framework is called the capability approach.

Workplace diversity and inclusion is the catch-cry of many Fortune 500 people programmes. From Unilever’s recent announcement of 50/50 gender split in management roles, to Wharton School of Economics first female dean, these kinds of broadcasts beg the question: how much are these merely for sounding the PR horn, and how much are D&I programmes pursuing meaningful social ethics? Even in this introduction, the above two examples only mention gender diversity, whereas diversity is much more, well, diverse.

This concern grounds itself in the idea that, while there is a great deal of strategic effort siphoned into workplace diversity policies and processes, much less attention is given to its normative aspects. This is counter-intuitive given that diversity is essentially about cultural norms and values (Pless & Maak 2004, 129). Therefore, focused reflection work is needed to establish a sincerely diverse and inclusive work environment, where people from diverse backgrounds feel respected and recognized in their workplace, developed upon stable moral grounds.

This paper does not intend to argue for diversity — it already appreciates its value — instead it focuses on the aforementioned moral groundwork needed to found ethical diversity practices. The moral groundwork in this paper borrows from a relatively new ethical framework, the capabilities approach, developed predominantly by economist Amartya Sen and philosopher Martha Nussbaum. This as the moral grounding for workplace diversity ethics is born from the idea that a deep acknowledgement of human diversity is one of the key theoretical characteristics of the capability approach (Robeyns 2004, 6). This is mostly communicated on the macro-society level, and so it’s application on the meso-organizational level is of normative interest, as some of the most topical normative explorations into workplace diversity debate other theories of difference, such as affirmative action (Gamson & Modigliani 1994) intersectionality (Hearn & Louvrier 2015) or labelling theory, which can fuel a sense of color-blindness or tokenism.

Diversity management is a process aimed to establish and maintain a supportive work environment where the sameness and differences of persons are valued, in order for all to fulfill their potential (Patrick & Kumar 2012, 1). So, in light of the lack of frameworks that support such fulfillment, this article demonstrates how the capabilities approach can provide clear direction for developing corporate diversity programmes that do not just act as meaningless decoration, but as meaningful deliberation. In this sense, moving towards a healthy workplace diversity and inclusion strategy, the capability approach can fulfill the eloquent mantra: “diversity is being invited to the party, inclusion is being asked to dance.”

1. Current dominant approaches to diversity & inclusion

1.1 The problem with current diversity policies

In terms of current diversity approaches, the typical strategies orbit target-based approaches, such as human resourcing policies, promoting, auditing and diversity ‘quotas’ (Dass & Parker 1999, 71). These approaches instigate higher density of representation of various groups, however, when a team or work culture does not nurture connections among each other but instead perpetuates siloing, meaningful diversity outcomes suffer, such as de-biasing or effective coordination (Reagans & Zuckerman 2001; Patrick & Kumar 2012). Some key issues in current diversity practices continue to stifle collaboration, such as the ‘yawning gap’, diversity quotas, weighting and affirmative action policies, of which we will briefly illuminate below.

1.1 The problem of the diversity quota

Quotas can be effective to some extent, but at the same time, act only as a diversity ‘quick-fix’ (Choudhury 2014, 4), and can soon falter. Quotas cannot support meaningful social diversity for four key reasons: firstly, because quotas pay little attention to differences within groups (also known as serialism, as per the work of philosopher Marion Young); secondly, because quotas create the double-edged sword of weighting problems, called ‘numerical parity’; thirdly, quotas can ignore deeper systemic issues, such as company culture deficiencies; and finally, the problem of the yawning gap.

In regards to the first point — although recognising groups can indeed help identify injustices — chronic serialism can cause a concern of which Marion Young articulates well, in that pooling social categories can deny the vast array of differences within the marginalised group itself. For example, the experience of white, middle-class heterosexual women becomes representative and dominant experience for all women, therefore excluding less privileged perspectives within that group.

Similarly, building upon the problems of serialism, quotas create the double-edged aspects of moving towards ‘numerical parity’ (Gagnon & Cornelius 2001, 85). For example, demographically women are, generally, half of any population and eventually half of the labourforce, therefore it is not strange to posit equal numbers of women and men at various levels in an organisation. A plus is that the weight of numbers behind women’s voices will mean they are more likely to be heard, however, demographics do not give space for those from other smaller, disadvantaged groups, such as ethnic and religious minorities, the disabled or differing sexual backgrounds. Even groups that are represented within a company, demographically they will not hold the ‘critical mass’ women hold (Ibid). If weight of numbers becomes a primary indicator of the need of companies to act, then some groups may be lost within a well-intentioned diversity process.

Thirdly, quotas cannot solve company culture deficiencies and inclusion issues. If diverse hires do not feel like they’re part of the company culture, and an individual is not able to flourish within his or her work culture, then diverse hiring is a moot point (Dahl 2019). Cultures are one of the most difficult things to get right in any organization, however it’s virtually impossible to achieve greater diversity without working on its culture (Cantor, 2020). For example, some trust-building activities such as happy-hour networking, can alienate those who have domestic parenting responsibilities, which can inadvertently silo out parents of both genders who need to be home for care-taking. A supportive corporate culture will account for the differences of individual employees, ensuring that everyone has the potential to flourish, collaborate and contribute.

Finally, companies may achieve their quotas, but another problem germinates: that of perceived and actual change, known as the yawning gap. According to a survey of FTSE-100 companies, ethnic minority groups remain critically under-represented at senior management positions in private UK companies (Sanglin-Grant & Schneider 2000, 69). Yet, nearly all companies part-taking in the survey expressed that their human resources policies do not discriminate against ethnic minorities (Ibid). Here, there proved to be a ‘yawning gap’ between companies’ judgment about their diversity and equality policies and the actual circumstances, potentially feeding systemic discrimination.

1.2 The problem of affirmative action

One of the key frameworks heard in diversity debates has been that of affirmative action. “Affirmative action” means positive steps taken to increase the representation of minorities in areas of employment, education, and culture from which they have been traditionally excluded. Those steps can involve preferential selection — selection on the basis of race, gender, or ethnicity, and can generate heated controversy (SEP, 2018). Affirmative action has come under fire for many reasons. It has been touted as a type of institutionalized racism, where the way to end discrimination is by discriminating. Another criticism is that preferences often place students in environments where they can neither learn nor compete effectively (Sander & Taylor, 2012). Next to this, one of the aspects that was initially not given as much attention was the inevitable tokenism that would arise through affirmative action practices (Nayar 2019).

Given these criticisms regarding not only tactical diversity approaches today, such as quotas, but also larger diversity policies and debates such as affirmative action, there appears to be a need for a more appropriate method of diversity management that stimulates the flourishing of difference, not its singling out.

1. Enter, the capability approach

In its most general description, the capability approach is an elastic normative framework, rather than a precise theory of well-being [and] freedom (Robeyns 2014, 1). The capability approach recognizes (a selection of) peoples’ ‘beings and doings’ and the opportunities to materialize those beings and doings. These beings and doings include the various states of human beings and activities that a person can undertake, namely aspects or states of the human being that we are (the ‘beings’, ie. in that we can be nourished), and the various things we can do as humans (the ‘doings’ ie., in that we can do eating, in order to be nourished). Martha Nussbaum generally has favoured the term ‘opportunities’ when describing capabilities, of which I subscribe to. In this sense, a more simplified articulation of the capability approach is that it hopes to foster the opportunities people have to realise their full capacity and potential as a human being.

To briefly broaden the above notion, the opportunities to realise ‘capabilities’ encompasses a combination of both external and internal conditions of being. Take for example the opportunities needed for the capability to read, as explicated by Ingrid Robeyns:

The internal conditions for that capability would entail having adequate reading skills, as well as not suffering from debilitating conditions that prevent a person from reading (e.g. severe concentration issues or visual health problems). The external conditions for that capability are, for example, having access to a text that is written in a language one has mastered, as well as being in the right environment and conditions which allow one the time and space to read (e.g. not being in a situation of acute physical danger).

— Robeyns 2012, 2

So far, where the capability approach has been mostly applied include: the analysis of human development at national or regional level (Sen, 1985a; Comin et al., 2008); to the analysing of public policies (Schokkaert and Van Ootegem, 1990). However, since the focus of the capability approach for opportunities is to realise a person’s capabilities, it is not a large leap to imagine how this notion of fostering capability opportunities can also be applied to shape workplace diversity practices, of which we will outline below.

2.2 So, what capabilities are important exactly?

The capabilities in question, as proposed by its proponent Martha Nussbaum, include three fundamental types of capabilities: basic capabilities, internal capabilities and combined capabilities (Nussbaum 1999). In the following section, I will translate the macro-societal description of the capability to the meso-level of the workplace.

In Nussbaum’s account, basic capabilities are cited as the freedom to do some basic things considered necessary for survival and to avoid or escape serious deprivations such as poverty (Robeyns 2016). In the workplace, it is perhaps not as dire as poverty avoidance, but it could be translated to those basic things necessary for a free, safe and psychological social space in an organisation.

Internal capabilities, as previously outlined, refer to ‘internal’ or personal modes necessary for readiness to act (Cornelius 2002, 44). These include things like “… intellectual and emotional capacities, states of bodily fitness and health, internalized learning and skills of perception and movement” (Nussbaum 2011a: 21). In the workplace, this could translate to health and social wellbeing activities, as well as education or training that enables the individuals, and colleagues (such as cognitive bias training), to support individuals to realise an array of roles or decision-making.

Combined capabilities include the opportunities necessary to realise ‘capabilities’ as a combination of both external and internal conditions of being. For example, on a societal level, external laws within a society can hamper an individual’s ability to flourish, which can translate to the quality of the policies set up within a workplace.

If we go a bit deeper past these three foundational descriptions, and also refer to Sen’s ideas on capability, we can see more specific capabilities emerge. I will lay out two schools of specific capabilities from both Nussbaum and Sen. The first set is born from the above three fundamental types of capabilities, of which Nussbaum has further refined to a list of ten general brackets of ‘central human capabilities’; and in the second set, Sen has developed five ‘instrumental freedoms’, all of which can be translated to diversity practices in the workplace. Nussbaum’s ten capabilities include life; bodily health; bodily integrity; senses, imagination and thought; emotions; practical reason; affiliation; other species; play; and control over one’s environment (Nussbaum 2006, 76–78). Nussbaum argues that people across cultures and circumstances would subscribe to these ten brackets of capabilities. Next to this, Sen’s five capabilities include political freedoms, economic facilities, social opportunities, transparency guarantees and protective security. As with Nussbaum, these instrumental freedoms, Sen argues, are universal in nature and conscious of cross-culturality. I propose that these granulated capabilities can also be applied for a flourishing diverse workplace on the meso-level. Below is a table demonstrating this translation.

Sen and Nussbaum’s capabilities translated to the workplace.

To sum up, for an individual of any background to be able to realise their potential in the workplace, they would need to be supplied with basic opportunities and enabling conditions, such as a physically and psychologically safe, accepting and supportive environment, genuine opportunities to be trained or educated in various disciplines, the ability to freely affiliate; and to be able to enjoy supportive social relationships.

2.3 Why does the capability approach supports diversity in the workplace?

As previously described, a deep acknowledgement of human diversity is one of the chief theoretical features of the capability approach. But, where does this concern for human diversity manifest itself?

The first aspect of the capability approach subscribing to human diversity is that it generally focuses on all functionings that are relevant and of value to the individual — and that generally tends to encompass a wide range of features. Secondly, human diversity plays an important role in the reason why the capability approach focuses on capabilities rather than the more typically cited equality of opportunity theories, or to welfare theories that focus on resources. The capability approach is more effective than these two approaches, because, firstly, an equality approach does not recognise differences but equalises everything to ‘the same’; and in regards to the resources approach, people differ widely in their capability to convert resources into valuable outcomes, in that you can give someone five dollars, but they may not be able to spend it wisely without the right capabilities, such as financial literacy.

It then follows that, as a matter of social ethics, creating opportunities that support capabilities will define different actions for different groups of people. People are unique in their personal attributes, and in how they advance in the environment in which they are located (Robeyns 2002, 7). Therefore, as capability scholars argue, we must attune to those differences. For example, if we want to give a person with autism the opportunity to achieve a set of capabilities in the workplace, then she may need different tools and spaces in the workspace when compared with a neuro-typical person (Ibid). Simply embedding a person with autism a job in an environment made for neurotypical persons will not be enough in order to secure potential capabilities.

1. Arguments against the capability approach for diversity in the workplace

3.1 It jumps over the deeper societal structural inequalities

The problem of structural inequalities within society that a workplace exists, can result in a David and Goliath situation. Different social norms are likely to be a dominant source of perpetuated differential treatment, and therefore, a type of institutional discrimination occurs that an organisation must battle. This is in part, because the discrimination may not easily be noticed by those in the organisation afflicted by it or indeed, perpetuating it. Therefore, organisations must work harder to overcome the discrimination, by applying proactive efforts born by the capabilities approach, before, during and after a hire.

3.2 It does not clearly define what diversity is, as it is relative

Expanding on diversity, Sen (2009) articulates at least five examples of diversity ranging from individual to contextual features. These range from heterogeneity amongst people, for instance, in terms of characteristics and personal circumstances including age, gender, disability or illness, material resources amongst other things, to variations in the context, such as policies, the physical environment, social relationships, socio-cultural norms, discourses and beliefs which could affect and/or shape a person’s opportunities for improved capabilities (Gopinath, 2018). However, these characteristics can extend so far, that it encompasses everything, and therefore, could also define nothing. In response to this, diversity can be defined once relative to its location. For example, in a societal sense, what is considered poor in the first world could conflict with that notion of what is poor in the third world, and hence, different perspectives on what is under-represented and how to respond, ensue. In the same vein, in an organisational sense, what characteristics are under-represented in one company to achieve diversity, differ to another.

3.3 It does not solve the issue of tracking diversity

Some of the diversity areas are also very hard to track because of restrictions when it comes to employers asking about or monitoring their employees religion, sexual preference or other characteristics. The capability approach indeed does not solve identifying the diverse variables, but it does support the welcoming of any individual, regardless of their background, in which the variables, hopefully, become less relevant, as a natural diversity grows through valuing the differences and capabilities among all individuals. However, it is difficult to ascertain how to stimulate the presence of deficient characteristics within an organisation using the capability approach, as it seems to already assume their presence.

1. Recommendations for diversity practices in the workplace based on the capability approach

Capabilities-based diversity forces a focus on the whole, and the individual, as well as the enabling of the environment for those individuals within it. I have split the recommendations into two parts: Environment and Education that support employee’s basic capabilities, internal capabilities and combined capabilities (Nussbaum 1999). Some of these re-cite and expand on the table in Section 2.2.

An enabling organisational environment

• Create the environment and culture for inclusion, where individuals can thrive, without perpetuating siloing. Consider an environment that suits all physical and neuro abilities relevant to your industry.
• In line with the cited capabilities by Nussbaum — control over one’s environment — this suggests employees should have opportunities for inclusion in company decisions.
• In line with this survey, among the strategies for minimizing miscommunication with diverse others, communicating effectively by listening attentively and asking questions was considered the most effective in minimizing miscommunication (Patrick & Kumar 2012).
• In line with the cited capabilities by Nussbaum — other species — employees should have opportunities for time in nature.
• In line with the cited capabilities by Nussbaum — bodily integrity — employees should have opportunities for health & wellbeing.
• Due to societal barriers for minorities to thrive, implementing reach-out programmes for under-represented perspectives in order to support capabilities, rather than wait and hope for diverse hires to apply.
• In the above sense, consider recognising capabilities that might not be tied to educational achievements, but to potential.
• Among approaches for building relationships with colleagues, working with diverse others to achieve mutual goals was considered the most effective strategy (Patrick & Kumar 2012).

Enabling organisational education

• Education is one of the core tools of the capability approach in supporting the capabilities of an employee. Awareness based training programs should be organized to help employees to reflect on stereotypes. This can be achieved through educational programmes for all employees around bias, difference and diversity.
• Building on the educational aspect, human resource management needs to develop policies that encourage employees’ career and emotional development, to create a wide pool of knowledge within the workplace.
• According to a survey of workplace diversity strategies, among the strategies for reducing prejudices and use of stereotypes, admitting to biases and prejudices was considered the most effective strategy, followed by recognizing that diversity exists and learning to value and respect fundamental differences (Patrick & Kumar 2012). So, rather than practice colour blindness, celebrate differences.

Literature

Dahl, C. (2019). Token hires don’t help diversity, making core changes does. Retrieved March 8, 2020, from

https://thenextweb.com/podium/2019/06/25/token-hires-dont-help-diversity-making-core-changes-does/

Nayar, G. (April 21, 2019). Race Based Affirmative Action Has Run Its Course. Retrieved March 8, 2020, from

https://bpr.berkeley.edu/2019/04/21/race-based-affirmative-action-has-run-its-course/

Gagnon, S., & Cornelius, N. (2000). Re‐examining workplace equality: the capabilities approach. Human Resource Management Journal, 10(4), 68–87.

Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1994). The changing culture of affirmative action. Equal employment opportunity: labor market discrimination and public policy, 3, 373–394.

Gopinath, M. (2018). Thinking about later life: insights from the capability approach. Ageing international, 43(2), 254–264.

Hearn, J., & Louvrier, J. (2015). Theories of difference, diversity, and intersectionality. The Oxford handbook of diversity in organizations, 62.

Menand, L. (2020, January 13). The Changing Meaning of Affirmative Action. Retrieved March 8, 2020, from https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/01/20/have-we-outgrown-the-need-for-affirmative-action

Patrick, H. A., & Kumar, V. R. (2012). Managing workplace diversity: Issues and challenges. Sage Open, 2(2), 2158244012444615.

Pless, N., & Maak, T. (2004). Building an inclusive diversity culture: Principles, processes and practice. Journal of business ethics, 54(2), 129–147.

Robeyns, I. “The Capability Approach”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/capability-approach/

Robeyns, I. (2012). Capability ethics.