Business Finance
BTT College Diversity Management Business Case and Moral Case Discussion

Business and Technical Training College

Question Description

Can you help me understand this Business question?

I have an assignments that is due in tow parts.

the total assignment word count is 2000. About Business and diversity

500 words should be answers to a certain article I'll prove you with.

The other 1500 words should in an essay format on a different topic

The delivery date for the 500 should be in 2 days.

But the 1500 you have 5 days to finish it

This is the instructions for the 500 words assignment A

Tasks: Read the article attached carefully, titled "Justice and fairness in the workplace: a trajectory for managing diversity" and answer these 4 questions in bullet point format. Word count in included.

  1. Using not more than 75 words, write a brief summary of the article, highlighting the key points that you have identified.
  2. Explain why the authors are critical of a pure business case approach to managing diversity? (Approximately 100 words Maximum)
  3. What is meant by gender pay inequity? What are some key strategies organisations implement in order to address gender pay inequity? (100 words maximum)
  4. What are some of the key strategies used by the two case study organisations to address the needs and challenges of culturally diverse employees? (200-300 words)

This is the instructions for the 1500 words- Assignment B

Topic: Diversity Management: The business case and the moral case

Tasks: Explain the linkages between the business case and moral case for managing diversity in organisations. Support your key arguments by sourcing ‘diversity statements disseminated/ publicised by an organisation (preferably a large Australian or a multi-national organisation) to justify their claims for managing diversity.

Assessment criteria:

  • Ability to draw extensively on theories and conceptual frameworks in your analysis;
  • Ability to translate learning to an organisational setting while drawing on examples from an organisation and integrate them to justify your arguments;
  • Use of at least 5 relevant refereed/peer-reviewed journal articles and related texts;
  • Appropriate presentation, including essay format, clear writing style and accurate use of the Harvard referencing system.
  • Maximum words 1500.

For now, start with assignment A don't start with assignment B until You finish A. Then send it to me when you finish it within 48 hours. Then you can start with B. I'll provide you with more details about B after you finish. I opened a 7 days window for this question so we have time. Hopefully we get it done before


Unformatted Attachment Preview

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: 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 criticiz ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment
Student has agreed that all tutoring, explanations, and answers provided by the tutor will be used to help in the learning process and in accordance with Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Final Answer

Here's Part A along with its outline😉



Justice and fairness in the workplace
Course Code:

Question 1
This article seeks to prove that diversity management (DM) interventions, through
justice and fairness, result in sustainable outcomes. The authors of the article argue that DM
should revolve around justice and fairness. The authors study 4 organizations, in terms of how
they approach the issue of diversity. The framework used in this investigation was based on
justice and fairness. The study showed that justice and fairness affect the scale of DM.
Question 2
The authors are critical of a sole business approach to DM because organizations
may throw away the aspect of diversity if it does not benefit them in any way. Furthermore, a
pure business case approach would propel inequalities and preserve the top position for the
conventional employee, thus defeating the purpose of having DM. If an organization’s approach
to diversity is solely driven by the business case, there are high chances that it will abandon
diversity programs due to the lack of bottom-line benefits. There should be a mutual existence
between the interest of a business and social justice mission.
Question 3
Gender pay inequity is the average difference between the payment of salaries for
working women and men. Organization A tries to achieve gender pay equity by increasing the
participation of female employees in an industry believed to be male-dominated. It seeks to
accomplish this by retaining female engineers who are on maternity leave. Organization B states
that it prioritizes on creating a culture that promotes gender equality. It focuses on eliminating
gender bias in the areas of hiring personnel, performance management, and payment decisions.
There is a diversity council meant to ensure adherence to the policies of gender pay equity.


Question 4
Organization C operates in an area where 33.7% of its residents are immigrants,
and nearly 7.8% of them either do not speak good English or do not speak it at all. The
organization has resolved to create a system of an “accountable democracy,” where the
community is allowed to participate. It developed an anti-racism strategy which is supported by
the value of fairness for everyone. This strategy encouraged more individuals from various
cultural backgrounds, offered training to employees concerning discrimination and racism, and
facilitated the use of an audit tool to evaluate the policies, practices, and services of an
organization. Much focus was on achieving the positive outcomes of social justice. The aspect of
cultural diversity was perceived as a means of delivering better services to the community.
Organization D, a university, developed an innovative strategy called a diversity
job bank, which requires specific job positions to be occupied by culturally diverse people. It
was interlinked to a network service providers dealing with the issue of employment. This
strategy helps managers to acquire suitable candidates from the selected groups. This practice
was implemented to help recruit individuals who come from backgrounds believed to be
underrepresented or disadvantaged based on employment outcomes. The issue of religion was
also conside...

DrHill (7404)
UC Berkeley

I was on a very tight deadline but thanks to Studypool I was able to deliver my assignment on time.

The tutor was pretty knowledgeable, efficient and polite. Great service!

I did not know how to approach this question, Studypool helped me a lot.