Diversity as an Ethical Imperative

Originally posted on June 6, 2013 as “Creating and Maintaining a Culture of Diversity” and was selected and edited for this series because it touches on so many of the factors that people use as a basis for morality and ethical behavior. A quote from Theodore Roosevelt: “Wide differences of opinion in matters of religious, political, and social belief must exist if conscience and intellect alike are not to be stunted, if there is to be room for healthy growth.”

The human resources professional is in the cross-hairs of Neutrality. Everything that is balance in the universe seems to fall apart at our doors. When we take sides on issues because of personal preferences rather than professional objectivity, then Neutrality pulls the trigger and we fail. We seem to live in a judgmental culture that is constantly bombarded with contrasts regarding the positives and negatives of the ethical side of any idea. That is why people seem to be disgusted when a priest is guilty of doing something un-priestly, become disillusioned when a powerful politician abuses his authority, or get angry when corporate executives act out of greed rather than for the common good. We walk a tightrope between the Yin and the Yang and maintaining balance requires that we not be seduced by polarized thinking. There are many such issues to tempt our view of ethical behavior, but here are a few.

• Religious Polarization – We not only live in an environment of believers and non-believers, we have to deal with a complex three-dimensional matrix composed of opposing thoughts and beliefs. Since we cannot ask people to simply consider ideas from the perspective of another person’s faith, we are usually forced to somehow insist on tolerance. We can choose to mandate understanding… which always seems to fail… or promote a deeper understanding of other people’s beliefs through education.  The tightrope walk often becomes an issue of celebrating all faiths or none of them which is in itself offensive to many. A diverse culture celebrates the individuality of employee beliefs without taking sides. Religion as a basis of ethical thinking is usually not an option.
• Political Polarization – Opposing political rhetoric is not just a factor during election cycles but does see peak interest when sound bites from the media creep into the workplace. Most slogans and catch phrases are simply parroted words from campaign spin doctors rather than the result of intelligent thought or research. Nevertheless, there are those who are firmly planted in their politics and will not be swayed. Encouraging open mindedness only works when the mind can be opened. While everyone has the right to vote or express political opinions privately, it can be disruptive in the workplace and needs to be squelched before it causes non-productive behavior. Stopping the proactive campaigning at the door can be enforced, but water cooler conversation cannot and it may even be ethically wrong to do so.
• Economic Polarization – You may think that the global pressures that force discussions and even wars between the haves and the have-nots are outside of our realm. No item is a more powerful target for criticism than money and perks. Through transference it is aimed at those who are in a position to draw the lines between jobs and entitlements: company management or HR. Protests from the streets can impact thinking inside the walls of a company. Perceptions about unfair compensation practices need to be addressed openly and honestly without sacrificing privacy. There are no class warfare lines drawn on an organization chart, but to disallow questioning of authority is to stifle innovation. A culture of “fair but firm” means that we must promote a productive dialog for change based on common ethics and stop it short of anarchy.
• Environmental Pervasiveness – Daily we are blasted from the guns of intolerance that surround us. Racial issues loom, sexual discrimination and repercussions happen, ethnic issues abound, and misplaced morality finds its way into our conversations. Is there a need for us to take sides? We should act only if we can do so impartially to restore balance. Is it important to let our own opinions be known? Anything we express openly needs to be understood to be a mirror into our ability to make decisions to lead and to be a competent referee in interpersonal squabbles. In this environment, an accidentally misplaced or misunderstood phrase can trigger a no-tolerance response that costs lives and livelihoods. The culture of diversity is often somewhat less than diverse when opinions are punished without review.

Graduate level business theory includes the category of human beings in the essential group which also includes financial, physical and intangible “resources” as pillars of a company. These all need to be managed for profitable performance. None of these are a walk in the park, but the manager of the human resource deals with probably the most volatile of the four because money doesn’t think, buildings don’t talk and intellectual property has no feelings. Managing human resources is often done badly because it is hard to do and is performed by humans. Other aspects of the business are easier to control and the very thought of “controlling” people is in its nature not productive. The human resources practitioner is, among other thing, also human with opinions, desires, wants and needs. Finding a common basis for ethical behavior is essential… but hard to do.

Image credit: marish / 123RF Stock Photo