Ethics and intercultural communication in diversity management

• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-01-2017-0019
• Date: 18 June 2018
• Published date: 18 June 2018
• Pages: 450-469
• Author: Eila Isotalus,Marja-Liisa Kakkuri-Knuuttila
• Subject Matter: HR & organizational behaviour,Employment law,Diversity, equality, inclusion

Ethics and intercultural

communication in diversity

management

Eila Isotalus

Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland, and

Marja-Liisa Kakkuri-Knuuttila

Department of Management Studies, Aalto University School of Business,

Helsinki, Finland

Abstract

Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that creating shared meanings in dialogical

communication is a “must”for diversity management if it wants to fulfill the double promise of promoting

both business and ethical goals. By way of meeting this challenge, the authors introduce the negotiating

reality theory and education program developed by Victor Friedman and Ariane BerthoinAntal, and examine

its ethical underpinnings.

Design/methodology/approach –The paper is a theoretical exploration which combines ethical and

intercultural communication perspectives in the context of diversity management. Excerpts from

ethnographic research data are used to illustrate the deficiency of intuitive processes in negotiating reality

in practice.

Findings –The negotiating reality program, originally developed for international business, is equally relevant

to diversitymanagement,as it serves to deconstruct valuehierarchiesembedded in diversitycategorizations,and

hence enhances seamless and productive cooperation. Learning such communication skills involves personal

emotional-cognitive growth, which can be analyzed in terms of Aristotle’s notion of virtue. The authors also

argue for theinterconnected natureof performance and ethicalgoals in diversity management.

Research limitations/implications –Since this is a theoretical paper, empirical research is needed to

investigate the pedagogical and rhetorical means which inspire people to develop their intercultural

communication skills in various diversity contexts.

Practical implications –This paper challenges managers to introduce means to develop negotiating

reality skills and practices for the benefit of the staff and the whole organization.

Originality/value –This paper suggests that the focus of diversity management should shift to meanings

and intercultural communication, and that ethical considerations are an important part of that.

Keywords Ethics, Diversity management, Dialogue, Business performance, Intercultural communication,

Negotiating reality

Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction

Interviewer: So, are you happy about the way that this firm addresses diversity among employees?

IT worker interviewee: It doesn’t address it in any way.

Interviewer: Are you happy about that?

IT worker interviewee: Yeah, I mean because I don’t feel that I’m diverse. (Mutsaers and

Trux, 2015, p. 333).

The above example is a fragment of a discussion in an ethnographic study between a

researcher and an IT worker interviewee belonging to an ethnic minority in an F-secure

Equality, Diversity and Inclusion:

An International Journal

Vol. 37 No. 5, 2018

pp. 450-469

© Emerald PublishingLimited

2040-7149

DOI 10.1108/EDI-01-2017-0019

Received 22 January 2017

Revised 29 November 2017

14 December 2017

Accepted 15 December 2017

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

www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-7149.htm

The authors would like to thank for valuable comments and support to Kai Alhanen, Regine Bendl,

Sara Heinämaa,Elina Henttonen, ThomasKöllen, Leena Lahti, LindaL. Putnam, Pirkko Pohjoisaho-Aarti

and an anonymous referee.

450

EDI

37,5

company unit in Helsinki, Finland. According to the authors, no diversity measures are

needed because of the democratic organizational culture, characterized by “community

solidarity, control over tasks, involvement in decision-making processes, access to

information, a sense of meaningful work, multiple skills, a concern for equality, task variety,

tolerance, and respect”(Mutsaers and Trux, 2015, p. 330). This description indicates a

healthy work community in which possible oppositions and emergent conflicts can be

discussed in open dialogue, various voices are heard, and conflicts solved to leave room for

both viewpoints (Baxter and Montgomery, 1996, pp. 6, 46, 66; see Kellett, 1999, pp. 213, 227).

Unfortunately, such a dialogical organizational culture is not the standard today.

It may, however, arise spontaneously in some cases, such as here, among IT workers who

share their own professional small culture which helps to avoid the possible negative

effects of diversity[1]. The democratic communication practices allow the IT workers

to develop mutual understanding, thus leaving less room for the harmful influence of

stereotypical categorizations of the “other.”How to develop such dialogical skills to

promote healthy communication practices in multicultural organizations is the problem of

this paper. As a solution, we shall introduce the negotiating reality dialogue, originally

developed for international business by Victor J. Friedman and Ariane Berthoin Antal, as

a preeminent tool for purposes of diversity management (Friedman and Berthoin Antal,

2005; Berthoin Antal and Friedman, 2008).

The benefits of open communication in multicultural organizations become more obvious

from a case which illustrates what may happen when communication fails. The case is from

the Dutch police forces in the same article as the first example, and highlights the complex

challenges diversity management has to face in practice (Mutsaers and Trux, 2015,

pp. 322-324). As often happens, we meet with an obvious discrepancy between the official

statements by the organization and its actual practices. In the official statements, diversity

and authenticity are presented as closely connected. As a leadership quality, “authenticity”

is characterized such that “managers are a reflection of themselves and are in contact with

all dimensions of their self”(Mutsaers and Trux, 2015, p. 323). The study shows, however,

how in practical decision-making “authenticity”underwent several shifts of meaning. In the

situation where a Surinam-born applicant was rejected for a deputy team leader position,

one of two decision makers, the district commander, explained that “authenticity”for him

means “being assertive and daring to stand up against superiors”(Mutsaers and Trux,

2015, p. 323). This hardly cohered with the understanding of the rejected police officer, who

told the researcher:

I am not willing to change my whole personality […] And I said that to the committee. If you’re

looking for someone who bangs his fist on the table, that’s fine. But that’s not who I am (Mutsaers

and Trux, 2015, p. 324).

As an explanation, the district commander revealed that the Turkish team leader, whose

deputy the selected person was to become, was known for her record of ethnic conflicts.

The understanding was that “a team leader and deputy both having a migration history

would not bring the desired harmony in the (predominantly white) team”(Mutsaers and

Trux, 2015, p. 324). Such an arbitrary twist of promotion criteria for tactical purposes

exhibits a clear conflict between the diversity management ideal and its implementation.

This hardly promotes motivation of the workforce, and may be detrimental to their

interaction, hence offending both the ethical and prudential (performance) goals of diversity

management. Obviously, there would be much less room for such wanton use of language

had the organization open communication practices designed to create shared meanings

about the promotion criteria and other crucial notions. This also concerns the white male

staff who may not be so anxious to accept the values of equal opportunity, diversity

and inclusion, but “are likely to cling to a vision that leaves them in the driver’s seat”

451

Ethics and

intercultural

communication