Asset, liability, possibility. Metaphors of human difference and the business case for diversity

• Published date: 18 September 2018
• Pages: 664-682
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-05-2017-0114
• Date: 18 September 2018
• Author: Jennifer J. Mease,Brittany L. Collins
• Subject Matter: HR & organizational behaviour,Employment law,Diversity, equality, inclusion

Asset, liability, possibility

Metaphors of human difference and the

business case for diversity

Jennifer J. Mease

School of Communication Studies, James Madison University, Harrisonburg,

Virginia, USA, and

Brittany L. Collins

Department of Communication, Saginaw Valley State University,

University Center, Michigan, USA

Abstract

Purpose –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 shouldattend

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.

Design/methodology/approach –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.

Findings –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.

Research limitations/implications –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.

Practical implications –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.

Social implications –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.

Originality/value –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.

Keywords Business case for diversity, Corporate diversity initiative, Diversity c onsulting, Metaphor analysis

Paper type Research paper

While traditional managerial approaches to diversity work have effectively modeled key

features of diversity work (Mor Barak, 1999), and focused on measuring the effects of

diversity work (Roberson, 2016), discursive approaches to organization bring a different

Equality, Diversity and Inclusion:

An International Journal

Vol. 37 No. 7, 2018

pp. 664-682

© Emerald PublishingLimited

2040-7149

DOI 10.1108/EDI-05-2017-0114

Received 16 May 2017

Revised 9 October 2017

23 January 2018

Accepted 18 March 2018

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-7149.htm

664

EDI

37,7

epistemological approach to diversity. Among these are analyses that expand beyond

questions of how organizations address existing identities, to instead consider how

organizational practices actively constitute gender, race, sexuality and class, as meaningful

identity categories (Acker, 1990; Essers and Benschop, 2009; Janssens and Zanoni, 2005).

This growing body of scholarship offers theoretical tools for analyzing the complex ways

discourses of diversity constitute what diversity means and the corollary possibilities

for meaningful social change in organizational contexts (e.g. Janssens and Zanoni, 2005;

Litvin, 2006; Oseen, 1997; Prasad et al., 2010; Swan, 2010). In particular, critical diversity

studies –which critically analyze power, social and organizational context, and essentialist

concepts of identity (Zanoni et al., 2010) –highlight how diversity strategies unintentionally

reinforce problematic concepts of human difference and corollary problems of inequality.

This critique is especially strong when addressing the business case for diversity –the

connection of human differences to organizational performance and financial success. Many

scholars have concluded that business case arguments exacerbate rather than challenge

inequality (Kirby and Harter, 2001; Kossek et al., 2006; Litvin, 2006; Martin, 2000; Oseen,

1997; Perriton, 2009; Prasad et al., 2006).

Our analysis challenges this conclusion using a close reading of assumptions about

human difference embedded in business case arguments espoused by US-based diversity

consultants and in corporate diversity statements. We identify three metaphorical systems

(Lakoff and Johnson, 2003) for thinking and speaking about human differences: difference

as liability, as asset, and as possibility. Although these systems seamlessly merge in

everyday language, each one subtly constructs human difference in unique ways.

Our analysis of these metaphorical assumptions challenges characterizations of the

business case as a singular discursive tool with predetermined outcomes. Instead, we offer

diversity professionals and scholars a more complex understanding of the business case as

a diverse set of tools; each tool with its own constrained capacity offering unique risks,

possibilities, and limitations.

We begin by reviewing current trends in the literature addressing the business case for

diversity. Our analysis of business case arguments from 19 US based diversity consultants

and 94 diversity statements taken from the top 100 companies listed in the 2010 Fortune 500

list (http://money.cnn.com) follows and establishes the three metaphorical systems: asset,

liability, and possibility. The discussion offers insights into the possibilities and limitations

of each discourse and illustrates how these metaphorical systems can mobilize concepts and

problems of human difference across socio-historical contexts. Ultimately, we argue against

a monolithic critique of the business case and instead offer a complex interpretation that

encourages diversity practitioners and scholars to acknowledge the constrained capacity of

three different metaphorical systems the underlay business case arguments.

What is the business case for diversity?

The business case for diversity is a discursive strategy that connects human differences to

an organization’s bottom line. While this most often reflects financial gain, the business case

may also connect with other primary organizational objectives. For example, non-profits

might focus on the number of clients served or a sustainability organization might measure

reduction of waste. Business case arguments generally make three types of claims about the

value of diversity: improved relationships between organization and external constituents

(e.g. improved public relations or access to demographic markets), improved employee

participation (e.g. improved engagement and productivity or decreased turnover or

lawsuits), and improved products and services (e.g. improved innovation or creativity, or

demographically specific products). Regardless of the claims, both scholars and

practitioners heavily debate the truth of the business case and diversity’s impact on the

bottom line. Research offers inconclusive and contradictory findings regarding the financial

665

Asset, liability,

possibility