The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-7149.htm
EDI
37,5
Justice and fairness in the
workplace: a trajectory for
managing diversity
470
Received 29 November 2016
Revised 5 June 2017
Accepted 17 July 2017
Pradeepa Dahanayake
Swinburne Business School, Swinburne University of Technology,
Melbourne, Australia
Diana Rajendran
Department of Management, Swinburne University of Technology,
Melbourne, Australia
Christopher Selvarajah
Swinburne Business School, Swinburne University of Technology,
Melbourne, Australia, and
Glenda Ballantyne
Department of Sociology, Swinburne University of Technology,
Melbourne, Australia
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to argue that diversity management (DM) interventions, underpinned
by principles of justice and fairness, create a powerful force that drives sustainable outcomes. Further, the
authors argue that justice and fairness should be embedded at the core of DM.
Design/methodology/approach – A qualitative case study methodology was used to ascertain how four
organizations approached critical issues regarding diversity. Justice and fairness principles were used as a
framework to evaluate each organization’s DM interventions. Different approaches adopted by the case study
organizations were compared using a cross-case analysis.
Findings – Justice and fairness principles provide a useful framework to evaluate DM interventions.
The findings show that justice and fairness principles have an effect across the continuum of DM, including
identifying dimensions of diversity, executing DM programs and realizing outcomes of DM.
Research limitations/implications – The current study is limited to four case studies using
qualitative methods.
Practical implications – The findings demonstrate the importance of integrating justice and fairness
benchmarks when implementing DM programs.
Originality/value – The findings shed light on the link between DM and justice and fairness, an area
lacking empirical studies. It also presents a new area for empirical enquiry—the application of social justice
principles in evaluating organizational interventions in DM.
Keywords Social justice, Diversity management, Organizational justice, Equality, Business case,
Moral case
Paper type Research paper
Equality, Diversity and Inclusion:
An International Journal
Vol. 37 No. 5, 2018
pp. 470-490
© Emerald Publishing Limited
2040-7149
DOI 10.1108/EDI-11-2016-0105
Introduction
Organizational justice research has proliferated during the past several decades (Greenberg
and Colquitt, 2013). Similarly, given the heterogeneity of the contemporary workforce, there
is a rich body of research in diversity management (DM). However, while each of the two
streams of research has continued to grow, there seems little interconnectedness between
the two (Choi and Rainey, 2014). In the absence of empirical research, examining
organizational interventions aimed at managing workforce diversity within a justice and
fairness framework, the integration of justice and fairness and DM remains a matter of
conjecture. Our research aims to help address this gap by investigating the association
between DM practices and principles of justice and fairness in four Australian
organizations. In this context, we pose the question:
RQ1. How does justice and fairness integrate with the phenomenon of DM in
organizations?
The research is guided by a conceptual framework derived from justice and fairness
literature, which suggests that justice and fairness should be integral determinants of DM.
In line with Choi and Rainey (2014), we argue that a managerial approach embedding justice
and fairness would enable organizations to build the required culture and climate to
effectively manage workforce diversity.
We begin with an overview of the organizational justice literature, followed by a review
of justice and fairness and DM literature. The research methodology is then articulated,
followed by the findings. Finally, we present the conclusion and implications of our study.
Justice and fairness in the workplace
The term “organizational justice” was coined by Greenberg (1987) (Colquitt, 2001; Tan,
2014), who considered theories of justice through which organizational phenomena could be
examined. Organizational justice is a strong enabler, motivating employees to achieve
organizational goals, through the establishment of conducive employee-employer
relationships (Greenberg and Colquitt, 2013). According to Greenberg (1987),
organizational justice is the employee’s perception of being treated fairly. Such
perceptions impact employee attitudes and behaviors and are manifested through
organizational commitment, trust and satisfaction (Tan, 2014). Tan (2014) argued that
fairness in organizational policies, payments and benefits is relevant to organizational
justice. For Al-Zu’bi (2010), organizational justice is a term relevant to the work environment
where the role of justice in the workplace is upheld. Cugueró-Escofet and Fortin (2014) noted
that the terms justice and fairness are used interchangeably in most organizational justice
research. Four categories of workplace justice and fairness exist under the umbrella term
“organizational justice”: fairness of outcomes (distributive justice); procedures (procedural
justice); interpersonal treatment (interpersonal justice); and information (informational
justice) (Cugueró-Escofet and Fortin, 2014).
Distributive justice (the fair distribution of outcomes) is consistent with the principles of
equity or equality (Colquitt, 2001; Rifai, 2005). For Tan (2014), distributive justice concerns
perceptions of fair distribution of gains in accordance with the value of the contribution made
by employees. For Al-Zu’bi (2010), it is the perceived fairness of the outcome an employee gets
from the organization. Procedural justice, however, concerns the justice or fairness of the
processes that lead to outcomes (Leventhal, 1980), and how employees perceive the fairness of
rules and procedures used in a process (Nabatchi et al., 2007). Here, the emphasis is on process
rather than outcome, informed by the procedural emphasis in the legal system (Colquitt, 2001).
Consequently, the term “interactional justice” arose, with fairness defined by the quality of
interpersonal treatment in implementing organizational procedures (Bies and Moag, 1986).
Interactional justice emphasizes treating employees with dignity, sensitivity and respect
(Al-Zu’bi, 2010), with clear rationales for decisions (Colquitt, 2001). Mikula et al. (1990)
suggested that perceived injustices are not restricted to distributional or procedural issues, but
are largely impacted by the way employees are treated during interactions and encounters.
Interactional justice was subsequently divided into two categories: the respect and sensitivity
aspects of interactional justice comprise the interpersonal facet of distributive justice
(Greenberg, 1993); the explanation of the rationale of interactional justice comprises the
interpersonal facet of procedural justice (Colquitt, 2001). Despite lack of consensus regarding
that division (Al-Zu’bi, 2010), researchers including Colquitt (2001) recognize it and adopt a
four-structure approach to organizational justice.
Justice and
fairness in the
workplace
471
EDI
37,5
472
A conceptual framework for applying justice and fairness principles in the
workplace
Cohen (2010) argued that principles of justice are germane to economic activity, imposing
obligations upon managers, and reiterated that “if citizens’ interests aren’t protected, then
society—not just business but society as a whole—can’t be fair” (2010, p. 563). Newbert and
Stouder (2011) advocated for the creative application of theories of justice, including those
based on contemporary political philosophy, to assess organizational practices. This section
outlines three theories of justice linked to organizational justice—equity theory, social
exchange theory and Sen’s idea of justice, which form the conceptual framework of our study.
Equity theory
Existing research links Adams’ (1965) equity theory and distributive justice (Bonache, 2004;
Tan, 2014). Cugueró-Escofet and Fortin (2014) argued that equity theory is founded on
Aristotle’s principle of merit, where proportionate equality of distribution of goods is said to be
just (Greenberg and Cohen, 1982). People compare the ratios of their contribution and the output
they receive against others, to determine whether inequality exists between what they have
gained (output) through their contribution (input) (Adams, 1965), in terms of a fair distribution
of rewards. Organizationally, distributive justice applies to various payments—rewards,
bonuses, premiums and benefits (Beugr, 2002; Folger and Konovsky, 1989).
Social exchange theory
Social exchange theory has also been linked to organizational justice (Ko and Hur, 2014;
Rahman et al., 2016). This theory posits that individuals evaluate the justice of what they
receive through social exchange and tend to reciprocate it (Gould-Williams and Davies,
2005). Linking organizational justice with social exchange positions workplace justice as a
predictor of behaviors driven by feelings of sentiment toward the organization, where
employees react through reciprocal behaviors that positively affect the organization
(Barclay et al., 2005; Masterson et al., 2000). For Ko and Hur (2014), social exchange theory
comprises two types of exchange: perceived organizational support (the exchange
relationship between employee and workplace); and leader-member exchange. Further,
Ko and Hur (2014) examined the importance of procedural justice in social exchange theory.
They considered procedural justice as perceived organizational support (see also Parzefall
and Salin (2010) and Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002). Accordingly, Ko and Hur (2014)
argued that procedural justice, an element of perceived organizational support, is positively
related to desired work attitudes in employees, such as increased job satisfaction and
decreased turnover intentions.
Otto and Mamatoglu (2015) suggested a connection between social exchange theory and
interactional justice, concluding that perceived organizational support mediates the
relationship between interactional justice and organizational loyalty, and that bullying
mediated the relationship between interactional justice and mental impairment. Employees
consider organizations as human characters, developing a set of beliefs that the
organization cares about employee well-being ( perceived organizational support) (Otto and
Mamatoglu, 2015). In social exchange theory, if employees are treated by the organization in
the manner they expect, they reciprocate favorably (Otto and Mamatoglu, 2015).
Amartya Sen’s idea of justice
Amartya Sen developed his theory of justice based on reason through critically evaluating
and challenging the hitherto existing frontiers of social justice (Osmani, 2010; Wiener, 2013).
In focusing on Rawls theory of justice and fairness, Sen extended the theory by deviating
from and challenging key elements (Marin and Quintana, 2012; Osmani, 2010).
Rawls, through his seminal work A Theory of Justice, developed one of the most influential
philosophical views of justice (Bonache, 2004). Whereas theories of organizational justice
address the fairness of specific practices, Rawls considered the justice of the social system
(Bonache, 2004). Bonache (2004) demonstrated that Rawlsian concepts are applicable to
organizations, assessing “fairness” of organizational practices through social legitimization.
One of Sen’s main criticisms of Rawls’s theory is its supposition of a perfectly just
society, governed by a single set of just rules; Sen considered it unfeasible (Newbert and
Stouder, 2011; Osmani, 2010), asserting it is difficult to conceptualize a “perfectly just
society” in an imperfect world with plurality of perspectives regarding what is “just” due to
the existence of different social conditions (Osmani, 2010). Sen argued that defining an ideal
society is futile, as it will not help society become less unjust (Osmani, 2010). Sen criticized
Rawls’s notion that equality in social primary goods leads to the achievement of justice and
fairness, as this conception disregards human diversity, such as physical characteristics,
opportunities, working conditions and temperament (Marin and Quintana, 2012; Robeyns
and Brighouse, 2010). Sen argued that under Rawls’s theory, a severely disabled person will
not be entitled to additional resources, as Rawls’s differentiation principle does not provide
special consideration based on impairment (Robeyns and Brighouse, 2010).
Contrary to Rawls, Sen approached justice from a capability approach (Robeyns and
Brighouse, 2010), advocating the exploration of characteristics that enable the conversion of
primary goods into outcomes a person values. For Sen, individuals should have substantive
freedoms, namely, the capability to choose a life that one values (Robeyns and Brighouse,
2010). Each society must then decide on their specific capability requirements through a
process of democratic social dialogue (Routh, 2014).
Sen (2009) contended that the Rawlsian “original position,” a hypothetical status where
individuals are ignorant of their attributes, such as social class, gender and disability
(Waldman and Ojelabi, 2016), may entail “exclusionary neglect,” as that approach neglects
issues of equal access to participation (Wiener, 2013). Whilst Rawls emphasized just
institutions and the distribution of resources as enablers to achieve social justice,
Sen focused on ends rather than means (Osmani, 2010; Thomas, 2014), on the justice of the
outcome—the actual realization of justice in the societies involved, rather than merely the
“institutions and rules” (Sen, 2009, p. 9). Sen suggested the Rawlsian approach of
emphasizing justice within social institutions disregards the need to consider justice at the
level of individual conduct (Thomas, 2014). Sen advocated a “comparative view of justice,”
focusing on the “the advancement and or retreat of justice” (Sen, 2009, p. 8) instead of
concentrating on a “just society” (Wiener, 2013). Thus, Sen’s approach assesses justice from
an inclusive and comparative perspective where pluralistic views are considered, as
opposed to the narrow and exclusionary perspective which underpins the Rawlsian
“original position,” behind “a veil of ignorance” (Wiener, 2013). Sen proposed augmenting
justice and fairness that are actually experienced by people, rather than an illusionary
utopian construct of universal justice (Sondak, 2010).
Sondak (2010) argued that Sen’s approach provides a useful platform to study
organizational justice and fairness. This consideration of behaviors and reactions of
individuals in assessing procedures and outcomes, along with the pragmatic approach
embedded in Sen’s notion of justice, makes it a plausible option in any organization (Sondak,
2010). Influenced by the importance placed on employee voice by psychologists studying
fairness, Sondak (2010) highlighted Sen’s acknowledgment of a person’s voice: “A person’s
voice may count either because her interests are involved or because her reasoning and
judgment can enlighten a discussion” (Sen, 2009, p. 108 cited in Sondak, 2010, p. 353). Thus,
employee voice would evoke diverse perspectives, being an impetus for just and fair
outcomes through considering alternatives. The flexibility and pragmatism of Sen’s view of
justice, where individuals are directly involved in determining their own capability
Justice and
fairness in the
workplace
473
EDI
37,5
474
enhancing factors, is evidenced through Rouths’ (2014) research. Routh claimed that this
participatory process of developing capabilities through social dialogue combats inequality.
More recently, Shrivastava et al. (2016) asserted that Sen’s version of social justice is a
useful framework that can be used in an organization to achieve outcomes valued by
employees. They maintained that Sen’s approach helps identify unjust outcomes by
enabling the achievement of both procedural and distributive justice, compared with other
theories of justice focusing either on procedural or distributive justice. Shrivastava et al.
(2016) affirmed that the Rawlsian view on justice and Sen’s approach to justice could lead to
very different outcomes, with the Rawlsian approach condoning individuals acting in their
self-interest and potentially promoting inequity, disregarding people and alienating external
stakeholders from the ambit of justice, because they are external to a given society.
Shrivastava et al. (2016) emphasized that the Rawlsian approach allows for differentiation,
or inequities in the distribution of primary resources, only if it is beneficial to everyone.
Justice and fairness within the realm of DM
In this section, we examine literature relevant to the linkage between DM and organizational
justice and fairness. Roberson and Stevens (2006) suggested that justice is central to
workforce diversity. Choi and Rainey (2014) examined whether DM, implemented in an
environment of perceived organizational fairness and fair treatment, enhances job
satisfaction. They found when employees perceive a higher level of organizational fairness,
diversity efforts become more effective through enabling higher levels of job satisfaction.
Roberson and Stevens (2006), studying justice and DM, established that justice concerns are
raised by employees regarding DM incidents; employee concerns about fair outcomes and
fair processes were significant in relation to discrimination, management treatment (such as
equal treatment) and relationships (such as cohesiveness between diverse employees).
Spaaij et al. (2014) argued that DM emphasizes power and separation, which can lead to
stigmatization, because a clear demarcation is created between those who manage and the
managed (Zanoni and Janssens, 2004). Diversity is inherent in those who are “managed”
when judged against the referent group, those who “manage” (Lorbiecki and Jack, 2000).
According to Mamman et al. (2012), whilst all employees react to incidents of injustice,
minority employees interpret and experience injustice in a unique way, leading to different
outcomes to those of the dominant group. These reflections on power differences and
divergent reactions to injustice between the dominant group and the less privileged, we
believe calls for justice and fairness to be central to DM. Further, literature on the rationale
and outcomes of DM show justice and fairness as integral.
The moral case and the business case rationale for DM
The fundamental question, “what motivates an organization to focus on diversity?,”
uncovers two streams of anticipated outcomes: the classical approach of the moral case for
diversity and the pragmatic approach of the business case (Kramar, 2012; Van Ewijk, 2011).
Underlying both these approaches is a DM rationale, one based on moral justification, where
the well-being of “people” is fundamental, and the other on economic legitimization, focusing
on the organization’s bottom line (Köllen, 2015).
The business case argument for diversity proposes that diversity engenders competitive
advantage and leads to positive outcomes (Kramar, 2012), such as a better corporate image,
increased performance and the ability to attract and retain human capital (Bleijenbergh
et al., 2010). The social justice approach requires organizations to act morally to achieve
equality and fairness, addressing unequal regimes that reflect power differences within the
workforce (Noon, 2007; Spaaij et al., 2014).
The dominance of the business case approach to DM has been criticized for valuing
diversity provided it benefits organizations financially (O’Leary and Weathington, 2006)
and for undermining the achievement of social justice and equality (Greene and Kirton, 2011;
Noon, 2007). Lorbiecki and Jack (2000) asserted that the business case approach could
perpetuate inequalities and maintain the privileged position of the mainstream employee.
The business case approach would defeat the basis for DM, namely, to create a just and
equitable workplace (Noon, 2007; O’Leary and Weathington, 2006; Syed and Kramar, 2009).
Drawing on ethical perspectives, O’Leary and Weathington (2006) questioned the diversity
for profit approach, given that interventions supporting marginalized groups, such as
employees with disabilities, may not necessarily deliver significant economic benefits to
organizations that managers are able to quantify through a cost benefit approach which
leads to a compelling business justification. Questioning the narrow view advocated by the
business case rationale for diversity, the authors highlight potentially catastrophic
outcomes if organizations are to abandon diversity programs due to a lack of bottom line
benefits. Thus, they argue that the business case approach is too narrow to be of value to
managers in achieving fair and equitable outcomes for minority groups as enshrined in
anti-discrimination legislation. In a similar vein, Gotsis and Kortezi (2013) argued that
valuing diversity for tangible benefits may replicate and perpetuate social inequalities and,
in the absence of tangible gains, DM may recede from the management agenda. To this end,
the authors make a convincing case for an ethical framework for DM.
For Bleijenbergh et al. (2010), concentrating exclusively on the business case for diversity
places organizations at a risk. They proposed incorporating social justice and sustainability
elements, cautioning that attempting to implement DM initiatives devoid of equality and
equity principles may spark resistance and hinder its implementation. Furthermore,
ambiguities exist regarding a straightforward link between diversity and performance
(Pitts and Wise, 2010). These, coupled with a lack of short-term performance enhancements
(Bleijenbergh et al., 2010), may invoke doubts regarding the legitimacy of diversity initiatives
if an organization relies exclusively on a business case rationale. Jones et al. (2013), challenging
the rigid application of the business case in failing to deliver desirable outcomes for minority
groups, advocated for a DM founded on ethics of care. Wallace et al. (2014) found that such an
approach is evident in the majority of organizations rated as best places to work.
According to Tomlinson and Schwabenland (2010), considering employees merely as
instrumental in achieving profits in line with the rigid application of the business case is
unacceptable. Similarly, the authors highlight that it is difficult to justify the persistence of an
approach in which the welfare of disadvantaged employees takes precedence over serving the
organizational customers. Thus, the authors argue that business and the social justice mission
should co-exist. Van Dijk et al. (2012) argued that the equality and the business case
perspectives diverge because they emanate from opposing moral perspectives—the first from
the utilitarian conviction that diversity produces better business outcomes, the latter from a
deontology suggesting that it is wrong to discriminate. The authors propose that a virtue
ethics perspective to DM (where individual attributes are disregarded unless they are pivotal
for job function) is a more sustainable DM approach, enhancing both equality and business
outcomes. While advocating a business case for diversity as a compelling motivator to
embark on DM, Mor Barak (2011) also proposed that, based on moral and ethical
considerations, organizations should break down socio-economic disparities within the
workforce. Accordingly, we argue that DM should be implemented within the parameters of a
justice and fairness framework, irrespective of whether organizations are driven by economic
motives or a moral rationale for DM.
Enablers of positive outcomes through DM
The organizational approach to DM is vital to the outcomes of workforce diversity
(Kossek et al., 2005; Roberson et al., 2003). Thus, elements of the required organizational
approach need to be addressed. Therefore, diversity research must investigate how
Justice and
fairness in the
workplace
475
EDI
37,5
476
diversity programs are managed, and the overall organizational environment required for
diversity to thrive (Choi and Rainey, 2014).
Research demonstrates that a deep organizational commitment to diversity is necessary
for it to be a source of competitive advantage (Slater et al., 2008). Strategies enabling a
sustainable and genuine commitment include addressing potential negative reactions to
diversity by ensuring that all employees consider organizational diversity programs as fair
(Slater et al., 2008). Fujimoto et al. (2013) considered organizational justice as integral to the
process and outcomes of DM and argued that integrating organizational justice principles
leads to implementation of DM in a just and socially responsible manner. Ashikali and
Groeneveld (2015) argued that DM involves changing organizational climate and practices
to effectively manage a diverse workforce. Gonzalez and Denisi (2009, p. 24) defined the
diversity climate as the “aggregate perceptions about the organization’s diversity-related
formal structure characteristics and informal values.” Chrobot-Mason and Aramovich (2013)
argued that there has been a trend to adopt a more theoretically based approach to
conceptualize a positive diversity climate, rather than the traditional more pragmatic and
organizational-specific conceptualization. They argued that the diversity climate is
multidimensional and often defined by encompassing the two concepts of fair or equal
treatment and integration of shared employee perceptions. Spataro (2005) suggested the
organizational shared beliefs and expectations regarding their preferred employee “type,”
based on demographic characteristics, could potentially lead to latent discrimination.
Similarly, Findler et al. (2007) argued that demographic characteristics of employees
influence their organizational treatment, in turn, influencing the way they perceive fairness,
inclusion and social support. Kim and Park (2017) suggested that when employees
acknowledge that the organization promotes diversity, they form perceptions of fairness.
Therefore, DM can be a managerial tool organizations can utilize to create perceptions of fair
treatment amongst minority employees enhancing their sense of justice (Kim and Park,
2016; Otaye-Ebede, 2016). Perceptions of fair treatment in the context of DM lead, in turn, to
positive outcomes such as organizational commitment and lower turnover intentions
(Buttner et al., 2010), interpersonal trust (Kim and Park, 2017), organizational attachment
(Otaye-Ebede, 2016), organizational citizenship behavior (Mamman et al., 2012) and
enhanced team performance (Buengeler and Den Hartog, 2015).
In the light of this research suggesting that justice and fairness are integral as
determinants and outcomes of DM, we argue, in line with Choi and Rainey (2014), that a
managerial approach embedding justice and fairness could enable organizations to build the
required culture and climate to effectively manage workforce diversity. On the basis on this
nexus between DM and justice and fairness, our aim is to elucidate the impact of justice and
fairness principles on DM interventions in contemporary organizations. In particular, we
investigate DM practice in four Australian organizations through the lens of justice and
fairness using organizational justice, equity theory, social exchange theory and social justice
theory. Our conceptual framework is presented in Figure 1.
Methodology
A qualitative case study approach was used to identify how organizations managed
workforce diversity. Case studies are suitable to explore contemporary phenomena that are
fluid and complex (Yin, 2003), by examining processes, real-life experiences of such processes,
interventions and outcomes within an organizational context (Tharenou et al., 2007; Yin, 2003).
We identified several priority areas when examining DM in the selected organizations.
Gender pay inequity and cultural diversity were selected as contemporary workplace
diversity issues in Australia. Our study identified the interaction between DM
and the concept of justice and fairness in organizational responses to contemporary
diversity issues.
Equity theory
Social exchange theory
Social justice theory
Identification of unequal
distribution of
rewards/resources between
employees
Identification of issues of
unequal exchange between
the organization and
employee
Organizations as social
institutions
Human capability
development approach to
resolve inequities
Justice and
fairness in the
workplace
477
Diversity Management Interventions
Justice and Fairness in the Workplace
Equity theory outcomes
Equal distribution of
rewards/resources
Perception of equal
treatment
Increased level of
employee motivation
Social exchange theory
outcomes
Social justice theory
outcomes
Perceived organizational
support
Capability development
Stakeholder involvement
Employee reciprocity
Increased level of
employee motivation
Sustainable outcomes to
employees, organization
and society
As multiple case studies are considered more robust and reliable than single case studies
(Yin, 2012), and facilitate intra- and cross-case analysis enabling deeper understanding of
phenomena (Baxter and Jack, 2008; Cooper and Schindler, 2006; Yin, 2012), two case studies
were used to investigate each diversity issue. In order to empirically illuminate the
theoretical perspectives relevant to the phenomena investigated (Yin, 2012) and select cases
where the phenomenon under investigation is “intense and visible” (Buchanan, 2012, p. 361),
we selected organizations in which key DM issues were salient. We selected Organizations
A and B to examine issues surrounding the gender pay gap, as both organizations
evidenced distinctive approaches to resolve gender pay inequity that existed in the two
organizations. Similarly, we selected Organizations C and D to investigate cultural diversity,
as cultural diversity was prominent in the diversity space of the organizations.
Case studies often involve multi-methods where data come from a variety of sources
(Buchanan, 2012; Yin, 2012). In the current study, data collection included the in-depth semistructured open-ended interviews and organizational documents. The two sources provided
rich data and enabled triangulation by using multiple sources of evidence which Yin (2012)
advocated to increase construct validity in case studies. The convergence of data that came
from these multiple sources provided an accurate and holistic understanding of the phenomena
under study, as anticipated by Baxter and Jack (2008). The interview participants were
senior executives accountable for DM in their organizations (experts in the domain of DM), with
Figure 1.
Conceptual framework
of the study
EDI
37,5
478
lived experiences of the operational and strategic organizational issues relevant to this study.
In addition to their direct involvement in the data collection process, the interviewees provided
relevant organizational documents, ensuring both the accuracy and authenticity of
documentation data. The documents examined included diversity, inclusion and equal
opportunity policies, diversity plans, annul reports, sustainability reports, codes of ethics and
business conduct, employee surveys and employee demographic reports.
As the first process of data analysis, we developed detailed case notes using the data as
recommended by Buchanan (2012). We then used the conceptual framework developed in this
study to guide the process of analysis. Researchers such as Yin (2012) and Eisenhardt (1989)
advocated the use of priori constructs in case studies to guide the analysis process as a
theoretical orientation provides a coherent frame for the study, illuminates relevant contextual
conditions, provides accurate measures for constructs and helps emergence of new empirically
grounded theory. Our conceptual framework consisted of the following constructs:
•
organizational justice—employee perception of being treated fairly, including
distributive justice, procedural justice, interpersonal justice and informational justice;
•
organizational equity—concerned with the fair distribution of rewards when
employees make comparisons with one another and comparable with distributive
justice in an organizational setting;
•
social exchange—perceptions of equity and reciprocity in social exchange processes
within the workplace; and
•
social justice—achieved through building capabilities of individuals identified
through a process of democratic social dialogue.
The case study organizations were four large-scale organizations in Australia, representing
diverse industries. Organization A (approximately 900 employees) was in the
manufacturing sector and a subsidiary of a US-owned multinational. The human
resource manager participated in the interview. Organization B (approximately 32,000
employees) was a public information media and telecommunications company. The head of
diversity participated in the interview. Organization C (approximately 1,300 employees) was
a local government public-sector organization. Interview participants were the people and
culture manager, the diversity and inclusion team leader and the language aid expert.
Organization D (approximately 8,300 employees) was in the public sector (higher education).
The senior officer of equity and diversity participated.
Analysis and findings
The analysis and findings illustrating the justice and fairness perspectives of diversity
initiatives are presented in two sections. The first examines gender pay equity, and the
second examines how organizations manage cultural diversity.
The gender pay gap
The gender pay gap is a striking diversity-related issue prevalent in many Australian
workplaces. The Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA) (2016) reported that
Australia’s gender pay gap at present is 16.2 percent. Further, gender pay gaps exist across
every industry and occupational group, with male fulltime average earnings higher than
that of women (WGEA, 2016). Addressing inequity in pay is a critical issue that
organizations strive to address through DM.
The disparity in rewards relates directly to issues concerning fair distribution of rewards,
and could be informed through distributive justice and equity theories. Distributive justice
addresses issues such as whether the reward reflects the effort one has made, and whether it
reflects what an individual contributes to the organization (Colquitt, 2001). When gender pay
inequity exists, women who receive lower levels of remuneration than men are likely to switch
into a comparison mode, as explained by equity theory (Adams, 1965), and are likely to feel
that there is a lack of fair and just distribution in rewards. People compare the ratios of their
contribution and output with others to determine whether there is inequality regarding what
they have gained through their contribution (Adams, 1965). In addition to distributive justice,
we argue that gender pay inequity has elements compromising procedural justice (Colquitt,
2001). For example, are procedures determining reward decisions applied consistently? Are
they free of bias? Are ethical and moral standards embedded in procedures? Are these
procedures transparent? These are issues that female employees may contemplate when they
experience pay inequity.
We examined how two organizations responded to gender pay inequity. Organization A
considered achieving gender pay equity as an initiative that supported the organization’s
efforts to increase female participation in the industry that was perceived as male
dominated. The key occupational group where gender balance was to be established was
engineering, a male-dominated occupation. According to the human resources manager, the
caring roles of female employees preventing them from having uninterrupted careers are a
key cause of gender pay inequity. The human resources manager explained:
You know, it’s widely known that females take maternity leave […] it is one of the big contributors
to causing them to have a reduced pay against male counterparts […] we’ve got some really good
data that backs us up.
To address the gender pay gap, the organization introduced changes to the annul increment
process where female employees on maternity leave were given a merit increment based on
their performance during the year prior to maternity leave. This process was explained by
the human resources manager:
This year for the first time, we provided a merit increase to females who were on maternity leave.
So they were renumerated based on their past twelve months […] it [the increment] was reflective of
their performance […] even though they weren’t given any amounts of money […] they were
informed, of their new salary package based on their previous twelve months’ performance, when
they will be on that package when they return to work.
The organization provided a further increment if employees took maternity leave for an
additional year, giving an average merit increment, to take effect once the employee returns
to work. The human resources manager stated:
Now if they go on 2 years leave they get another letter in twelve months’ time […] because they
weren’t here for twelve months, here is their average merit amount, and will give them 3%
straight away.
These interventions adopted by the organization to address gender pay inequity can be
explained through the principles of distributive and procedural justice, as it involves the fair
distribution of rewards through an appropriate procedure. The data did not indicate
whether information regarding the gender pay gap was communicated to all employees or
stakeholders, other than informing the employees who were on maternity leave. Further, the
organization focused on addressing possible future disparities rather than eliminating
existing disparities.
A primary reason prompting this organization to address the gender pay gap was the
need to retain female engineers currently on maternity leave. According to social
exchange theory, organizational actions may support individuals’ motives to evaluate the
justice of what they receive and react through reciprocal behavior. This organization
would expect employees to respond by returning to work post-maternity leave as a
gesture of reciprocity.
Justice and
fairness in the
workplace
479
EDI
37,5
480
Organization B addresses gender pay inequity as a strategic priority to create a culture
promoting gender equality. This organization has been recognized for its efforts in addressing
gender pay inequity and continues to be vigilant to ensure there is no gender bias in
recruitment and selection, performance management and remuneration decisions. It has
adopted a strong governance approach in remuneration decisions, including top management
involvement, and reporting on adherence to policies. The diversity council of the organization,
comprising senior leaders, is responsible for ensuring gender pay equity.
Remuneration data are rigorously analyzed to identify possible pay disparities that
cannot be explained through performance issues, seniority or the value attached to the job.
They claim to consider remuneration at the individual level to ensure pay inequities are
addressed to help reduce pay gaps significantly. A separate budget is allocated to adjust
remuneration where disparity exists between male and female employees. Further, there is
acknowledgment, both to external stakeholders as well as internal employees, of the
existence of a gender pay gap and the commitment to achieve gender pay equity. The CEO
of the organization is an equal pay ambassador supporting Workplace Gender Equality
Agency’s national pay equity campaign. The organization also considers addressing
gender pay inequity in ways beyond addressing salary disparities. Not only the career
breaks that women take to fulfill their caring roles, but issues such as bias in the
recruitment process, performance management and the promotional process are
recognized as possible causes of the gender pay gap. Awareness raising and education
across all organizational levels, working closely with recruiters to ensure the selection
process is bias-free, introducing job flexibility and promoting non-traditional technical
and engineering careers to schoolgirls and female university students are part of the
organization’s strategy to address the gender pay gap in both the short and long term.
Addressing the gender pay gap is, therefore, more than a gender-related issue; it is about
creating an inclusive and fair workplace. They claim that a culture of fairness helps
attract, retain and engage best-in-class talent, regardless of gender.
In comparing how Organizations A and B dealt with gender pay inequity, Organization
B took a more holistic view and was willing to consider issues such as recruitment and
selection bias, performance management and career progression decisions, whereas
Organization A appeared to exercise caution and attribute inequity to career breaks taken
by women. Organization A implemented changes to the remuneration mechanism to
prevent future pay disparities between genders. Thus, current and future female staff on
career breaks due to maternity leave became entitled to salary adjustments. However,
women who are already facing pay inequity due to career breaks in the past will continue to
face injustice, resulting in the “exclusionary neglect,” which for Sen is a major flaw of the
Rawlsian approach of justice. Further, Organization A tends to take a narrow approach and
attribute gender pay inequity solely to career breaks due to maternity leave and fails to
ascertain if there are other underlying factors contributing to pay inequity. How the affected
individuals experience justice and fairness is of less importance to Organization A, which
tends to look at the issue at an organizational level, by attempting to create a just institution
in line with the Rawlsian principles, via adjusting the organization’s reward strategy as
opposed to an individual-centered approach.
Organization B involves a wide group of stakeholders openly discussing gender pay
inequity, affording a voice for employees and other stakeholders. Information regarding
gender pay inequity is more widely shared by Organization B, which takes a more
sustainable approach to resolving gender pay inequity. It endeavors to eliminate existing
inequities as well as minimizing future inequities. It also attempts to build capabilities
across the organization through awareness and education to eliminate gender pay
inequity. We consider that Organization B’s approach is consistent with Sen’s principles
of justice. Organization A’s approach, however, is narrow, considering the benefit of
retention of female employees for the benefit of the organization, thus fitting into the
Rawlsian model of justice. Organization A’s approach falls short of meeting Sen’s justice
and fairness approach involving stakeholders and building capabilities to address issues
more sustainably.
Cultural diversity in the workplace
“Multiculturalism” is used to describe Australia as a nation (D’Netto et al., 2014).
Whilst multiculturalism is considered a source of social and economic wealth (Department
of Social Services, 2014), cultural differences can result in challenges impeding the
performance of teams (Fujimoto and Härtel, 2004). Therefore, given the cultural mosaic of
the Australian population, we examine how two organizations responded to workplace
cultural diversity.
Organization C, a municipal council, services an area where 33.7 percent of residents are
born overseas, various languages are spoken and approximately 7.8 percent of the
population do not speak English well or at all. The mission of the organization is
underpinned by the objective of creating an “accountable democracy” through active
community engagement. The organization’s workforce is highly diverse and, over the last
five years, the proportion of employees from non-English speaking backgrounds has
increased. Comprehensive data on employee demographics are available in the organization.
Of the total workforce, 20 percent were born overseas. The workforce represents 46 different
non-English speaking countries, with 12 percent of the permanent workforce speaking a
language other than English at home.
The organization was conscious that a national study revealed the area serviced by the
organization had a higher than average rate of racism, including racism in the workplace
though, paradoxically, multiculturalism was valued in the area. Consequently, the
organization launched a local racism inquiry to further understand the research findings
and to investigate race-based discrimination, aiming to develop a strategy to address these
issues. An anti-racism strategy, underpinned by the value of “a fair go for all,” was
developed to address issues at three different levels in the community, including within the
organization. At an organizational level, the council was eager “to build an organization that
promotes freedom from racism and race-based discrimination” and to be “inclusive and
reflective of the community.” The anti-racism strategy encouraged employment of
individuals from culturally diverse backgrounds, provided training to employees on racism
and discrimination, and the use of an audit tool to assess organizational policies, practices
and services to ensure that these are free from possible race-based discrimination or
inhibition to cultural diversity. Undoubtedly, the organization placed a high value on
cultural diversity. The diversity team leader of the organization stated:
We are probably a very informed council in terms of the importance of diversity both internally and
externally. We have many processes in place that many local governments don’t have.
Consistent with this, the organization had several polices and action plans. However, most
were aimed ultimately at achieving outcomes for the community serviced by the
organization. The organization seemed to focus heavily on achieving social justice
outcomes for the culturally diverse community. Though employee cultural diversity was
acknowledged and valued in the organization, it was viewed as a vehicle to deliver a better
service to the community and to enable the organization achieve its business outcomes.
This took precedence over the potential issues and needs of a culturally diverse workforce.
The organization considered community views regarding experiences of racism and
community ideas when implementing the anti-racism strategy. However, there was no
evidence of attempts to gain employee insights of their experiences of racism or threats to
cultural safety (Williams, 2008). The census survey captured data on employee
Justice and
fairness in the
workplace
481
EDI
37,5
482
demographics, including information on ethnicity, religion and languages spoken, which
are attributes of cultural diversity. It did not capture any information on issues faced by
culturally diverse employees nor of their general well-being in the workplace. Other than
portraying the diversity profile of the organization, the census survey seemed to serve
little purpose. The organization has committees that consider cultural diversity—the
Anti-Racism Strategy Steering Committee, the Interfaith Council and the Intercultural
Centre. The role of these committees is to address culture- and race-related issues
prevalent in the community. The Intercultural Centre supports the development of
English language skills, the learning of a second language and aims to facilitate
intercultural engagement and anti-racism initiatives within the community. The ambit of
the committees did not extend to employees.
Workforce cultural diversity was relied upon by the organization for organizational
outcomes and service quality, through a language aide system where employees, who could
converse in different languages spoken in the community, functioned as language aides.
The organization leveraged its workforce’s cultural and language diversity, deploying
employees as language aides to assist customers and staff in communicating in languages
other than English. Thus, cultural diversity was regarded as a resource enabling the
organization to provide better client services. The human resources manager, referring to
the personal care and assistance service provided to the community, commented:
So sometimes there are language barriers, for example where English is the second language, and
there are cultural barriers […] we try to cater to these. For example, there has been an increase in
Muslim employees who are being sent out [for services] because we have a large proportion of
Muslim clients.
The organization’s cultural diversity initiatives focused on delivering an inclusive service to
the community. Nevertheless, mechanisms to address racism, unconscious bias and equal
employment opportunity were integrated into the human resource processes. However,
valuing cultural diversity in the workforce as an integral resource to deliver organizational
objectives was an overriding factor.
When applying justice principles to Organization C’s management of workplace cultural
diversity, we consider that the interventions are more in line with the Rawlsian principles of
justice; the organization stresses principles of equal employment opportunity and fair
treatment without distinction. Differentiation was made taking into consideration culturally
diverse employees only when there was an advantage that benefitted the overall
organization. For example, cultural diversity in the organization was valued from the
perspective of its contribution in enhancing the services provided by the organization.
The organization pays a language allowance to employees conversant in a language other
than English. The services of these individuals can be obtained under the language
aide system if a client from a non-English speaking background needs assistance.
The organization considers that this mechanism not only enhances service quality, but also
brings about cost savings, thus benefitting the organization. Further, the recent increase in
the employment of individuals of the Muslim faith reflects Rawlsian principles, where
employing minority employees is justified as advantageous to the overall organization in
terms of upholding its service philosophy.
Organization D is a university focusing on cultural diversity. The organization has a
comprehensive cultural diversity action plan with the aim of developing cultural
competency and removing barriers, such as unconscious bias, so that culturally diverse
staff can achieve their full potential. The scope of the cultural diversity action plan
addressed dimensions such as first-generation migrants, accents, visible minorities and
religious diversity. The organization aspires to be an employer of choice that has inclusive
employment practices for culturally diverse individuals.
The organization used an innovative mechanism to recruit culturally diverse individuals.
A “diversity job bank,” requiring certain jobs to be filled by culturally diverse individuals, was
established. It was linked to a network of employment service providers to assist managers to
source suitable candidates from within the identified groups. This practice was adopted to
promote the recruitment of individuals from culturally diverse backgrounds considered as
underrepresented and disadvantaged in employment outcomes. Religious differences
were also considered, with the organization attempting to support the careers of Islamic
employees by providing them a safe environment to practice their religion. Further, the
organization had a cultural calendar depicting important religious and cultural days
across a diverse range of cultures and religions. One of the core elements of promoting
and upholding diversity in the workplace was prioritizing capability building across the
organization, the hallmark of the organization’s diversity agenda. The diversity manager of
the organization stated:
So how do you build a culture of diversity in a workplace where staff come from diverse
backgrounds, migrants, aboriginal people […] gay and lesbian people, women, people with
disabilities etc.? So we have done a lot of work in raising consciousness and capacity building.
One striking factor is that in the arena of raising consciousness and capacity building
relevant to a culturally diverse workforce, the organization involved culturally diverse
employees as well as the general employee population and leadership. In facilitating
workplace integration of employees from non-English speaking backgrounds, English
language training was provided. Equity and diversity training and anti-racism workshops
were in place to build cultural awareness of all employees. Further, the organization used a
“cultural diversity and inclusive practice toolkit” to enhance cultural competence of staff to
deal with culturally diverse colleagues as well as clients in a respectful and culturally
sensitive manner. One key initiative under the cultural diversity action plan was workshops
conducted under the banner “courageous conversations about race.” The workshops
provided an open forum for culturally diverse staff to discuss race and privilege and voice
their concerns and issues including any experiences of discrimination or threat to cultural
safety. Further, ideas are sought at the workshops regarding how to resolve issues and
make the culture more inclusive. The organization is mindful that the ambience is safe and
welcoming for individuals to talk about their personal experiences and concerns, including
workplace racism. The diversity manager explained:
So we have an affinity model for migrants. So they gather and talk freely about racial issues,
discrimination and how we can make things better, and we talk about what issues they want me to
take to the executive.
Critical issues in the workplace concerning culturally diverse employees are escalated to the
level of the executive, to be addressed by the leadership. The organization also employs
employee surveys to ascertain concerns regarding diversity and inclusion. Hence, various
opportunities exist for employees to voice their opinions; not only culturally diverse
employees but also other employees. Diversity and equity advisors support and
assist employees regarding diversity and inclusion. The organization’s diversity agenda,
as enumerated in its diversity policy, aims to build “a workplace and a learning environment
founded on inclusivity, respect, fairness and dignity.”
When considering principles of organizational justice, it could be argued that
Organization D is committed to establishing equal opportunity in employment outcomes.
It also emphasized following the right procedures. It was compulsory for members of
recruitment panels to have diversity-related training and a code of ethics established ethical
principles and legal obligations required when implementing equal opportunity policies
and practices, affirmative action, anti-discrimination and harassment. In comparing the
Justice and
fairness in the
workplace
483
EDI
37,5
484
approaches of Organizations C and D, the latter upholds interactional justice, in both
informational justice and interpersonal justice (Colquitt, 2001). Employee voice is
emphasized in Organization D’s approach. Employees are encouraged to raise issues,
express their ideas and suggest solutions. The organization is committed to capacity
building, enabling disadvantaged employees to build capacity and competence to enjoy
positive workplace experiences similar to those in privileged positions. Organization D’s
approach is consistent with Sen’s justice and fairness model, unlike Organization C’s, which
emphasizes leveraging business benefits through minority employees. Organization D,
through its cultural diversity strategy, undertook to create fair and just employment
outcomes for culturally diverse employees through capability building.
Discussion, conclusion and implications
Summary of findings
This study aimed to gain a better understanding of the association between DM practices
and justice and fairness, and how they might be integrated. We demonstrated in the case of
DM, the Rawlsian perspective of justice represents a narrow application of justice and
fairness, more in line with the business case rationale for DM, as it allows for differential
treatment of minorities, providing benefits to the organization. In contrast, we found that
that an integrated approach drawing on Sen’s notion of justice provides a framework for a
sustainable and more comprehensive approach to DM. What is deemed just and fair under
the Rawlsian view of justice may not be seen in the same way when using Sen’s framework.
Furthermore, we found that DM aligned with Sen’s notion of justice, though well-grounded
in the tradition of social justice, is not incompatible with the business case. In fact, this
approach can enhance business outcomes through positive employee outcomes in its
capacity, as evident from our findings, concerning attempts to meet distributive, procedural,
interpersonal and informational justice. Additionally, DM interventions following Sen’s
approach to justice seem consistent with the Integration and Learning paradigm
(Dass and Parker, 1999; Podsiadlowski et al., 2013; Thomas and Ely, 1996) which is
considered to be a superior state of diversity along a continuum of DM approaches.
The Integration and Learning paradigm proposes managing workforce diversity not merely
to meet organizational goals, but to cater to individual well-being, and to address social
inequities, whilst focusing on change and learning (Podsiadlowski et al., 2013). Thus, the
Integration and Learning paradigm and DM based on the Senian notion of justice are
comparable, as both approaches are individual centered, and consider achieving
change through developing individuals and organizations important. Moreover, both
approaches tend to view individuals who belong to minority groups as having innate
strengths to be sharpened—for Podsiadlowski et al., through mutual adaptation
underpinned by learning, and for Sen, through capability development.
In focusing on the link between DM and justice and fairness, we consider organizations
should be concerned not only with a moral outcome, but also with embedding justice and
fairness across all DM elements. We argue that justice and fairness principles should be
applied in identifying relevant dimensions of diversity that warrant focus, in managing
diversity through organizational interventions and in determining outcomes from DM.
Implications for theory
Our study demonstrated that principles of organizational justice, equity theory, theory of
social exchange and the social justice theories of Rawls and Sen were suitable frameworks
to examine organizational DM approaches. Overall, “fairness” and “justice” have received
less emphasis in research on workforce diversity, perhaps due to the overemphasis on the
business case rationale for DM. The business case approach focuses on economic benefits,
rather than the potential contribution of individuals, obscuring issues of social injustice and
structural discrimination faced by certain groups (Squires, 2008). Thus, it is imperative that
diversity scholars strive to explore DM as a phenomenon endowed with the pursuit of
justice and fairness.
Implications for organizations
Associating DM with justice and fairness has implications for organizations that employ
and engage with communities of diverse backgrounds. We consider that Sen’s justice
framework provides a powerful and pragmatic approach that can be adopted when
implementing diversity interventions through a moral evaluation of DM. The framework
proposes a holistic approach supporting human resource capacity building, involving
stakeholders rather than unequal or preferential treatment of minority employees, which
could potentially create resentment and backlash, similar to the fate of affirmative action
in the USA (Lorbiecki and Jack, 2000). When employees perceive that organizational
practices are favorable to some groups over others, demographic differences become
salient, posing threats to cohesiveness, resulting in negative performance outcomes
( Jehn and Bezrukova, 2010). Thus, we believe that integrating justice and fairness
principles, underpinned by Sen’s notion of justice, would address issues of fairness arising
from perceived notions of favored treatment of certain groups. Furthermore, considering
the ambiguity regarding the economic outcomes of DM, organizations should be cautious
and avoid overemphasizing the economic benefits of workforce diversity, an inconclusive
area of research due to the complexities associated with the nexus between diversity and
performance (Pitts and Wise, 2010). At the same time, DM based on Senian principles is
not opposed to the business case, and thus may offer an alternative that meet equality as
well as economic outcomes expected from DM.
Limitations and directions for future research
Our study was limited to organizational responses to two contemporary diversity issues in
Australia. We anticipate that there will be future research in this area, where DM
approaches aimed at addressing critical diversity issues are compared and contrasted to
enrich our understanding of the value of justice and fairness in a diverse workplace.
Further, quantitative research in this area is necessary to ascertain a coherent link
between DM and justice and fairness. The data for this study were obtained by
interviewing diversity experts with managerial accountability for the implementation of
DM interventions and by examining organizational documents. In future research, we
recommend that employees’ perspectives be obtained, to establish a pragmatic link
between the Senian approach to DM and perceived organizational justice and a richer set
of measurements and data be used.
References
Adams, J.S. (1965), “Inequity in social exchange”, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 2,
pp. 267-299.
Al-Zu’bi, H.A. (2010), “A study of relationship between organizational justice and job satisfaction”,
International Journal of Business Management, Vol. 5 No. 12, pp. 102-109.
Ashikali, T. and Groeneveld, S. (2015), “Diversity management in public organizations and its effect on
employees’ affective commitment: the role of transformational leadership and the inclusiveness
of the organizational culture”, Review of Public Personnel Administration, Vol. 35 No. 2,
pp. 146-168.
Barclay, L.J., Skarlicki, D.P. and Pugh, S.D. (2005), “Exploring the role of emotions in injustice
perceptions and retaliation”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 4, pp. 629-643.
Justice and
fairness in the
workplace
485
EDI
37,5
486
Baxter, P. and Jack, S. (2008), “Qualitative case study methodology: study design and implementation
for novice researchers”, The Qualitative Report, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 544-559.
Beugr, C.D. (2002), “Understanding organizational justice and its impact on managing employees:
an African perspective”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 13 No. 7,
pp. 1091-1104.
Bies, R.J. and Moag, J.S. (1986), “Interactional justice: communication criteria of fairness”, Research on
Negotiation in Organizations, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 43-55.
Bleijenbergh, I., Peters, P. and Poutsma, E. (2010), “Diversity management beyond the business case”,
Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 413-421.
Bonache, J. (2004), “Towards a re-examination of work arrangements: an analysis from Rawls’ theory
of justice”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 395-408.
Buchanan, D.A. (2012), “Case studies in organizational research”, in Symon, G. and Cassell, C. (Eds),
Qualitative Organizational Research: Core Methods and Current Challenges, Sage, London,
pp. 373-392.
Buengeler, C. and Den Hartog, D.N. (2015), “National diversity and team performance: the moderating
role of interactional justice climate”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 831-855.
Buttner, E.H., Lowe, K.B. and Billings-Harris, L. (2010), “Diversity climate impact on employee of
color outcomes: does justice matter?”, Career Development International, Vol. 15 No. 3,
pp. 239-258.
Choi, S. and Rainey, H.G. (2014), “Organizational fairness and diversity management in public
organizations: does fairness matter in managing diversity”, Review of Public Personnel
Administration, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 307-331.
Chrobot-Mason, D. and Aramovich, N.P. (2013), “The psychological benefits of creating an
affirming climate for workplace diversity”, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 38 No. 6,
pp. 659-689.
Cohen, M.A. (2010), “The narrow application of Rawls in business ethics: a political conception of both
stakeholder theory and the morality of markets”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 97 No. 4,
pp. 563-579.
Colquitt, J.A. (2001), “On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a
measure”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 3, pp. 386-400.
Cooper, D.R. and Schindler, P.S. (2006), Business Research Methods, 9th ed., McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
Cugueró-Escofet, N. and Fortin, M. (2014), “One justice or two? A model of reconciliation of normative
justice theories and empirical research on organizational justice”, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 124 No. 3, pp. 435-451.
Dass, P. and Parker, B. (1999), “Strategies for managing human resource diversity: from resistance to
learning”, The Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 68-80.
Department of Social Services (2014), “The people of Australia—Australia’s multicultural policy”,
available at: www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/settlement-and-multicultural-affairs/publications/
the-people-of-australia-australias-multicultural-policy (accessed November 1, 2016).
D’Netto, B., Shen, J., Chelliah, J. and Monga, M. (2014), “Human resource diversity management
practices in the Australian manufacturing sector”, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 25 No. 9, pp. 1243-1266.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), “Building theories from case study research”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-550.
Findler, L., Wind, L.H. and Mor Barak, M.E.M. (2007), “The challenge of workforce management in a
global society: modeling the relationship between diversity, inclusion, organizational culture,
and employee well-being, job satisfaction and organizational commitment”, Administration in
Social Work, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 63-94.
Folger, R. and Konovsky, M.A. (1989), “Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to
pay raise decisions”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 115-130.
Fujimoto, Y. and Härtel, C.E. (2004), “Culturally specific prejudices: interpersonal prejudices of
individualists and intergroup prejudices of collectivists”, Cross Cultural Management:
An International Journal, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 54-69.
Fujimoto, Y., Härtel, C.E. and Azmat, F. (2013), “Towards a diversity justice management model:
integrating organizational justice and diversity management”, Social Responsibility Journal,
Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 148-166.
Gonzalez, J.A. and Denisi, A.S. (2009), “Cross-level effects of demography and diversity climate on
organizational attachment and firm effectiveness”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 30
No. 1, pp. 21-40.
Gotsis, G. and Kortezi, Z. (2013), “Ethical paradigms as potential foundations of diversity management
initiatives in business organizations”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 26
No. 6, pp. 948-976.
Gould-Williams, J. and Davies, F. (2005), “Using social exchange theory to predict the effects of HRM
practice on employee outcomes: an analysis of public sector workers”, Public Management
Review, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 1-24.
Greenberg, J. (1987), “A taxonomy of organizational justice theories”, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 9-22.
Greenberg, J. (1993), “Stealing in the name of justice: informational and interpersonal moderators of
theft reactions to underpayment inequity”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 81-103.
Greenberg, J. and Cohen, R.L. (1982), “The justice concept in social psychology”, in Greenberg, J. and
Cohen, R.L. (Eds), Equity and Justice in Social Behavior, Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 1-47.
Greenberg, J. and Colquitt, J.A. (2013), Handbook of Organizational Justice, Taylor & Francis,
New York, NY, London.
Greene, A. and Kirton, G. (2011), “Diversity management meets downsizing: the case of a government
department”, Employee Relations, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 22-39.
Jehn, K.A. and Bezrukova, K. (2010), “The faultline activation process and the effects of activated
faultlines on coalition formation, conflict, and group outcomes”, Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, Vol. 112 No. 1, pp. 24-42.
Jones, K.P., King, E.B., Nelson, J., Geller, D.S. and Bowes-Sperry, L. (2013), “Beyond the business case:
an ethical perspective of diversity training”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 52 No. 1,
pp. 55-74.
Kim, S. and Park, S. (2016), “Organizational justice as an outcome of diversity management for female
employees: evidence from US federal agencies”, Transylvanian Review of Administrative
Sciences, Vol. 12 No. 49, pp. 41-59.
Kim, S. and Park, S. (2017), “Diversity management and fairness in public organizations”,
Public Organization Review, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 179-193.
Ko, J. and Hur, S. (2014), “The impacts of employee benefits, procedural justice, and managerial
trustworthiness on work attitudes: integrated understanding based on social exchange theory”,
Public Administration Review, Vol. 74 No. 2, pp. 176-187.
Köllen, T. (2015), “Acting out of compassion, egoism, and malice: a Schopenhauerian view on the moral
worth of CSR and diversity management practices”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 138 No. 2,
pp. 1-15.
Kossek, E.E., Lobel, S.A. and Brown, A.J. (2005), “Human resource strategies to manage workforce
diversity”, in Konrad, A.M., Prasad, P. and Pringle, J.M. (Eds), Handbook of Workplace Diversity,
Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 54-74.
Kramar, R. (2012), “Diversity management in Australia: a mosaic of concepts, practice and rhetoric”,
Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 50, pp. 245-261.
Justice and
fairness in the
workplace
487
EDI
37,5
488
Leventhal, G. (1980), “What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of
fairness in social relationships”, in Gergen, K.J., Greenberg, M.S. and Willis, R.H. (Eds), Social
Exchange, Springer, Massachusetts, pp. 27-55.
Lorbiecki, A. and Jack, G. (2000), “Critical turns in the evolution of diversity management”,
British Journal of Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 17-31.
Mamman, A., Kamoche, K. and Bakuwa, R. (2012), “Diversity, organizational commitment and
organizational citizenship behavior: an organizing framework”, Human Resource Management
Review, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 285-302.
Marin, S.R. and Quintana, A.M. (2012), “Amartya Sen and the social choice: is it an extension
of John Rawls’s theory of justice?”, Revista de Economia Contemporânea, Vol. 16 No. 3,
pp. 509-532.
Masterson, S.S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B.M. and Taylor, M.S. (2000), “Integrating justice and social
exchange: the differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 738-748.
Mikula, G., Petri, B. and Tanzer, N. (1990), “What people regard as unjust: types and structures of
everyday experiences of injustice”, European Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 133-149.
Mor Barak, M.E. (2011), Managing Diversity: Toward a Globally Inclusive Workplace, Sage,
Los Angeles, CA.
Nabatchi, T., Bingham, L.B. and Good, D.H. (2007), “Organizational justice and workplace
mediation: a six factor model”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 18 No. 2,
pp. 148-176.
Newbert, S.L. and Stouder, M.D. (2011), “Justice in entrepreneurial organizations”, International Journal
of Social Economics, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 453-465.
Noon, M. (2007), “The fatal flaws of diversity and the business case for ethnic minorities”,
Work, Employment & Society, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 773-784.
O’Leary, B. and Weathington, B. (2006), “Beyond the business case for diversity in organizations”,
Employee Responsibilities & Rights Journal, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 283-292.
Osmani, S.R. (2010), “Theory of justice for an imperfect world: exploring Amartya Sen’s idea of justice”,
Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 599-607.
Otaye-Ebede, L. (2016), “Antecedents and outcomes of managing diversity in a UK context:
test of a mediation model”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, pp. 1-23,
doi: 10.1080/09585192.2016.1253031.
Otto, K. and Mamatoglu, N. (2015), “Why does interactional justice promote organizational loyalty, job
performance, and prevent mental impairment? The role of social support and social stressors”,
The Journal of Psychology, Vol. 149 No. 2, pp. 193-218.
Parzefall, M.R. and Salin, D.M. (2010), “Perceptions of and reactions to workplace bullying: a social
exchange perspective”, Human Relations, Vol. 63 No. 6, pp. 761-780.
Pitts, D.W. and Wise, L.R. (2010), “Workforce diversity in the new millennium: prospects for research”,
Review of Public Personnel Administration, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 44-69.
Podsiadlowski, A., Gröschke, D., Kogler, M., Springer, C. and Van Der Zee, K. (2013), “Managing a
culturally diverse workforce: diversity perspectives in organizations”, International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 159-175.
Rahman, A., Shahzad, N., Mustafa, K., Khan, M.F. and Qurashi, F. (2016), “Effects of organizational
justice on organizational commitment”, International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues,
Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 188-196.
Rhoades, L. and Eisenberger, R. (2002), “Perceived organizational support: a review of the literature”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 4, pp. 698-714.
Rifai, H.A. (2005), “A test of the relationships among perceptions of justice, job satisfaction, affective
commitment and organizational citizenship behaviour”, Gadjah Mada International Journal of
Business, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 131-154.
Roberson, L., Kulik, C.T. and Pepper, M.B. (2003), “Using needs assessment to resolve
controversies in diversity training design”, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 28
No. 1, pp. 148-174.
Roberson, Q.M. and Stevens, C.K. (2006), “Making sense of diversity in the workplace: organizational
justice and language abstraction in employees’ accounts of diversity-related incidents”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 2, pp. 379-391.
Robeyns, I. and Brighouse, H. (2010), Measuring Justice: Primary Goods and Capabilities, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Routh, S. (2014), Enhancing Capabilities through Labour Law, Taylor & Francis, London, New York, NY.
Sen, A. (2009), The Idea of Justice, Belknap, Harvard, IL and Cambridge, MA.
Shrivastava, S., Jones, R., Selvarajah, C. and Van Gramberg, B. (2016), “Organisational justice: a Senian
perspective”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 135 No. 1, pp. 99-116.
Slater, S.F., Weigand, R.A. and Zwirlein, T.J. (2008), “The business case for commitment to diversity”,
Business Horizons, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 201-209.
Sondak, H. (2010), “Groups, fairness, and an idea of justice”, in Mannix, E.A., Neale, M.A. and Mullen, E.
(Eds), Fairness and Groups: Research on Managing Groups and Teams, Vol. 13, Emerald Group
Publishing, pp. 349-376, doi: 10.1080/09585192.2016.1253031.
Spaaij, R., Farquharson, K., Magee, J., Jeanes, R., Lusher, D. and Gorman, S. (2014), “A fair game for all?
How community sports clubs in Australia deal with diversity”, Journal of Sport and Social
Issues, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 346-365.
Spataro, S.E. (2005), “Diversity in context: how organizational culture shapes reactions to workers with
disabilities and others who are demographically different”, Behavioral Sciences & the Law,
Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 21-38.
Squires, J. (2008), “Intersecting inequalities: reflecting on the subjects and objects of equality”,
The Political Quarterly, Vol. 79 No. 1, pp. 53-61.
Syed, J. and Kramar, R. (2009), “Socially responsible diversity management”, Journal of Management
and Organization, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 639-651.
Tan, C. (2014), “Organizational justice as a predictor of organizational silence”, Educational Research
and Reviews, Vol. 9 No. 21, pp. 1190-1202.
Tharenou, P., Donohue, R. and Cooper, B. (2007), Management Research Methods, Cambridge
University Press, New York, NY.
Thomas, A. (2014), “Sen on Rawls’s ‘transcendental institutionalism’: an analysis and critique”,
European Journal of Political Theory, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 241-263.
Thomas, D.A. and Ely, R.J. (1996), “Making differences matter”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 74 No. 5,
pp. 79-90.
Tomlinson, F. and Schwabenland, C. (2010), “Reconciling competing discourses of diversity? The UK
non-profit sector between social justice and the business case”, Organization, Vol. 17 No. 1,
pp. 101-121.
Van Dijk, H., Van Engen, M. and Paauwe, J. (2012), “Reframing the business case for diversity: a values
and virtues perspective”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 111 No. 1, pp. 111-173.
Van Ewijk, A.R. (2011), “Diversity and diversity policy: diving into fundamental differences”, Journal of
Organisational Change Management, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 680-694.
Waldman, E. and Ojelabi, L.A. (2016), “Mediators and substantive justice: a view from Rawls’ original
position”, Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 391-430.
Wallace, H.M.L., Hoover, H.F. and Pepper, M.B. (2014), “Multicultural ethics and diversity discourse”,
Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 318-333.
Wiener, A. (2013), “Tackling invisible frontiers of global justice: an extension of Sen’s ‘Comparison
View of Justice’ into IR”, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, Vol. 16
No. 2, pp. 249-265.
Justice and
fairness in the
workplace
489
EDI
37,5
490
Williams, R. (2008), “Cultural safety; what does it mean for our work practice?”, Australian and New
Zealand Journal of Public Health, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 213-214.
Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA) (2016), “What is gender pay gap?”, available at:
www.wgea.gov.au/ (accessed October 10, 2016).
Yin, R.K. (2003), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Yin, R.K. (2012), Application of Case Study Research, 3rd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Zanoni, P. and Janssens, M. (2004), “Deconstructing difference: the rhetoric of human resource
managers diversity discourses”, Organization Studies, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 55-74.
Further reading
D’Netto, B., Smith, D. and Pinto, C. (2000), Diversity Management: Benefits, Challenges and Strategies,
Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Canberra, available at: www.voced.edu.
au/content/ngv:33255 (accessed October 15, 2016).
Thomas, D.A. and Ely, R.J. (2001), “Cultural diversity at work: the effects of diversity perspectives
on work group processes and outcomes”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 46 No. 2,
pp. 229-273.
Corresponding author
Pradeepa Dahanayake can be contacted at: pdahanayake@swin.edu.au
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment